This page is for subscribers only.
We are redirecting you to the payment page
Examples of adjudicators ruling that boxes are non compliant
Non compliant location
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220655535
Kate Gardener
London Borough of Croydon
14-Jul-22 12:46:00
15-Oct-22
Carl Teper
Appeal allowed
The Appellant is represented by Mr I Murray-Smith.
I have considered the evidence in this case, and I have allowed this appeal for two reasons:
First, I find that the location of this box junction is not Addiscombe Road near Altyre Road but Addiscombe Road at the junction with Billington Hill. It is a requirement of an Authoity to correctly identify the junction that a box junction is placed. This point has already been made in the case of Brown v Croydon number 2220546879, which was decided by Adjudicator Greenslade. I agree with the findings made in that case.
Second, I find that the box junction in this particular case extends beyond a junction, it appears to extend for some distance in front of the driveway of a private building. Whilst the TSRGD 2016 has relaxed the law in relation to box junctions, such as the need for Departmental approval and to touch the kerb. They did not dispense with the requirement for box junctions to be at junctions (or outside police or fire stations); they cannot be placed anywhere.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed on both points taken separately or together.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2200134664
Andrew Graves
Transport for London
13 Jan 2020 14:05:00
Camberwell New Rd/Warner Rd/Camberwell Psg
01 Jun 2020
Gerald Styles
Appeal allowed
When I spoke with the appellant on 1 June by telephone I had not then had the opportunity to view the CCTV footage. The record appears to have been submitted to this Tribunal by TfL but may have been misfiled (from pandemic disarranged circumstances?) and I do not believe it appropriate to delay the outcome of this appeal for extra searches or resubmission by TfL.
I have decided to allow this appeal.
The appellant is a cab driver and plainly very familiar with the yellow box rules. His argument in this particular case was that the bus lane to his left as shown on the PCN picture was subject to closure due to highway engineering works and there was no practical benefit from the box to bus garage vehicles for which it had he believed been introduced. The appellant highlighted a passage in the TfL case summary about the purposes of box junctions and the flow of traffic but I was not enthusiastic about the motorist feeling free to interpret the box junction regulations according to local circumstances and applying a purposive and personal interpretation effectively overriding general rules, for example on account of lane closure. In passing I said to the appellant that I would research before concluding the case whether the TSRGD regulations over where enforceable box junctions are properly situated covered vehicular entrances to bus garages as well as premises which are fire, police or ambulance stations. I have done that and also looked at Google Streetview. This special category does not include bus stations/garages. In the event I decided against adjourning for fuller argument about whether the particular box junction was one enforceable at the material time under the provisions of TSRGD 2016 Schedule 9. 11 (6) which specifies the types of highway features, entrances and road widths for enforceable yellow boxes.
The appeal is in any event recorded as allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220793550
Sam Ho
London Borough of Barnet
30 Sep 2022 13:29:00
07 Dec 2022
Anju Kaler
Appeal allowed
The appeal was listed for a personal hearing. The Appellant’s representative, Mr Dishman, has asked that it be decided on the papers.
The contravention alleged is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The prohibition is contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, Schedule 9 Part 7 paragraph 11. This provides as follows.
11(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
Mr Dishman refers to decisions made by other adjudicators where appeals were allowed. The council refers to other cases where the appeals were dismissed. No adjudicator can bind another as they are all independent.
The Enforcement Authority says this in the Case Summary about the box junction:
“It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that they are aware of any restrictions on street (road markings) and signage and ensure that they comply with these accordingly. The Council can advise that the box junction is compliant with the Traffic Sign Regulation and General Direction (TSRGD) 2016, schedule 9, as laid by Parliament. This legislation relaxed the requirements for yellow box junctions allowing the overall shape and size of the marking to be varied as appropriate. The box junction is designed to accommodate all types of vehicle (from cars to, buses, coaches and articulated lorries) that proceed from the M25 and A1M (junction 23, Barnet) along St Albans Road EN5 and merges into High Street EN5 (A1000) and proceeds into central London. A yellow box has been present at the junction for over 20 years.”
There is no disputing that the vehicle stopped at the top end of the box behind stationary vehicles. The Appellant’s case is that the marked box extends beyond the confines of the junction.
The relevant part of the Traffic Signs and Regulations and General Directions 2002 provides that ‘“box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is …(a)at a junction between two or more roads;’
I am satisfied that the box is properly marked with yellow criss-crosses. The purpose of the box is to ensure that vehicles do not obstruct traffic flow. The box in this case is situated on Barnet High Street at its junction with St Albans Road. There is a side turning into Bath Place and the box marking extend beyond that turning by the length of a large vehicle. The box extends beyond the junction between two or more roads. The Appellant’s vehicle was stationary at this point.
The authority’s states the box is designed to accommodate all sizes of vehicle but that does not explain why this box extends thus far beyond the junction with Bath Place. There is no obstruction to any vehicle emerging from either St Albans Road, Bath Place or the other end of the High Street if vehicles stop here.
I am not satisfied on the evidence presented to me that this junction is compliant with the legal requirements as it extends beyond the junction between the roads.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2170582946
Martin Forshaw
LB of Richmond Upon Thames
03 Oct 2017 15:48:00
01 May 2018
Monica Hillen
Appeal allowed
This appeal arises from a Penalty Charge Notice issued on 11 October 2017 for a contravention of stopping within a box junction on 3 October 2017 at 15.48 in York Street and Arragon Road.
Mr Forshaw has argued the box junction is invalid for the reasons set out in his representations to the Authority and reiterated for this appeal.
The box junction observed in the CCTV is not standard. The furthest point of the yellow hatching proceeds beyond the junction. The same is not at commencement of the yellow hatchings entry point. The junction protrudes well beyond the junction mouth.
Boxes should not intrude into side roads and should be no bigger than is strictly necessary to protect the junction. The purpose is to prevent obstruction of the junction space not parts of the approaches or exits.
There are three elements to the contravention; firstly causing a vehicle to enter the box junction, secondly stopping within the box junction and finally stopping because of the presence of stationary vehicles. All three elements are present in this case.
The Highway Code specifically states “if the driver enters the box junction while another vehicle ahead of him/her is still in it, the driver takes the risk that the vehicle may stop. The Code succinctly states “you must not enter the box until the exit road or lane is clear”.
In this case had the markings finished at the mouth of the junction Mr Forshaw’s vehicle would not have been stationary in the yellow hatchings but would have cleared the box junction. Motorists are entitled to make the assumption that the yellow box will finish once the junction is cleared. The markings in this box junction went well beyond the junction of the two roads in question.
On the evidence I cannot be satisfied the junction was correctly marked. The junction went beyond the two roads for an necessary length. The Authority has failed to prove their case to the required standard. I cannot be satisfied there was a contravention. The doubts raised must necessarily be resolved in favour of the Appellant.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2170285940
Stephen Thurston
LB of Richmond Upon Thames
24 Apr 2017 18:17:00
20 Jul 2017
Anthony Chan
Appeal allowed
The Appellant attended his personal hearings.
I have heard the Appellant's explanation as to why he had to stop in the junction. I have also noted his evidence3 that the stoppage was brief and no construction was caused. I do not think that these factors offer him a defence.
The Appellant did point out further the length of the junction and I note that the exit of the box junction exceeded the junction by at least one car length.
The prohibition applies to a box junction. A “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is at a junction between two or more roads. Markings which extends beyond the junction of two or more roads do not therefore mark out a box junction covered by the prohibition. I am in no way suggesting that the Authority has to be inch perfect but, in my view, extending the box junction by a car length or more beyond the actual junction is neither compliant nor substantially compliant with requirements.
I allow the appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220817852
Louise Souray
London Borough of Bromley
01 Sep 2022 12:22:00
23 Dec 2022
Anju Kaler
Appeal allowed
The contravention alleged is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The prohibition is contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, Schedule 9 Part 7 paragraph 11.
This is a long yellow box and its size extends beyond the junction with the side road. The Appellant’s vehicle stopped in the box but before the left turn. The council has not provided the Traffic Management Order or any special dispensation given as to its size. The purpose of box junctions is to facilitate the flow of traffic at junctions. There seems to be no purpose in extending the confines of this box so far prior to the junction itself. It is more than twice the appropriate size.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2090257179
Gabriel Samuel Sam-Yorke
London Borough of Camden
16 Jan 2009 12:54:00
Shaftesbury Avenue WC2
20 Jun 2009
Martin Wood
Appeal allowed
There is a Secretary of State's special authorisation purportedly authorising this yellow box. There seems to me, however, to be a difficulty with it. The prohibition that the yellow box is supposed to indicate is that in Part II of Schedule 19 to the Traffic signs Regulations 2002. That prohibition relates to box junctions.
Paragraph 7 of the Schedule states the prohibition. The relevant part for these purposes is as follows.
' … no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.'
Paragraph 6 of the Schedule defines a box junction as follows.
' "box junction" means the area of carriageway marked with yellow cross-hatching at a junction between two or more roads on which there has been placed [a yellow box]' (my emphasis).
The problem with the special authorisation is this. Part of the box that it purportedly authorises is not within the junction of the roads. At its southern side it includes a triangle of road that is not within the junction and is therefore not 'at a junction between two or more roads'. The prohibition, however, relates only to a box junction as defined. The special authorisation therefore purports to extend the prohibition outside the junction. It does not seem to me that the power to authorise signs empowers the Secretary of State to effectively redefine the prohibition prescribed by Schedule 19.
This is not an insignificant matter. The box as purportedly authorised extends for a significant distance beyond the junction itself. This increases the distance the motorist has to traverse without stopping, and therefore makes it more difficult for them to make progress without falling foul of the box. It is also difficult to see what the point of extending the box beyond the junction is, given that the purpose of the prohibition plainly is to stop stationary vehicles blocking the junction to crossing traffic. Clearly, stopping in the area beyond the junction would not block the junction.
I accordingly find that this yellow box is not a lawful road marking. Therefore the contravention did not occur. I allow this appeal.
Review 06 Oct 2009:
This is an application by the local authority for a review of the decision of Adjudicator Mr Wood who allowed the appeal on 20th June 2009. I have heard Mr Mardell for the local authority and I thank him for his assistance.
The power to conduct a peer review under Regulation 11 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993 is a fairly limited and exceptional power since the parties are otherwise made aware that there is no further right of appeal from an adjudicator's decision. The local authority seek a review on the ground that one is required in the interests of justice.
The local authority's justification is that it believes the Adjudicator was wrong to find that this "box junction " at Shaftesbury Avenue was not a lawful signing and that the decision may create a wrong precedent. The signing should not be regarded as unlawful since the Secretary of State may authorise a sign of another character under Section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and therefore may depart from the prescribed Signing Regulations ( the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002).
However it seems to me that these submissions do no more than support the concerns expressed in the Adjudicator's decision. If the authorised sign is a departure from the Signing Regulations then this surely brings into question the definition of the contravention - since that definition is only grounded in Schedule 19 of the Signing Regulations themselves.
Section 64 of the 1984 Act ( and referring also to the definition of "traffic sign" in Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ) does empower the Secretary of State to authorise a sign of another character. With that in mind it could be argued that the finding of unlawfulness in the signing here might be a legal misdirection: since the Secretary of State has wide power to authorise signs.
However I do not think this argument is so persuasive or certain as to render a review appropriate. What is in question here is not the power to authorise a sign of another character but rather that the S.of S. has here specifically purported to authorise a sign
"…conforming as to size ,colour and character with that shown in diagram 1043 of [ the Signing Regulations]." (Italics are mine).
The prohibition in Schedule 19 is specifically interrelated to the road markings of diagram 1043 and that those markings convey the prohibition against entering the box so that the vehicle has to stop due to stationary vehicles. A characteristic of those markings is that they should be
"at a junction between two or more roads.."
In the view of the previous adjudicator the markings were unlawful because they were not within the definition of a box junction as the markings strayed outside the junction: a point of fact which the local authority has conceded in this application.
In my view this was a legal finding at which the Adjudicator was reasonably able to arrive.
In any event even if the markings had been found to have been lawfully authorised and lawfully placed on the road, the Adjudicator would still have been reasonably entitled to find that they were not enforceable under the definition of Schedule 19 for the reason he stated: that the special authorisation to place the sign cannot of itself extend the definition of the prohibition to a part of the road outside the junction - and therefore not "at" the junction.
This is a sustainable view. It is might not be the only view - therefore it would perhaps be unwise for Mr Sam-Yorke to treat the decision as a precedent for future conduct at this junction. Adjudicators are independent of each other; and another Adjudicator might not restrict "at" as meaning "within" the junction , but simply meaning "in the vicinity" of it.
I refuse this application for review and the appeal will therefore stand as allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2230236641
Mary Treacher
London Borough of Redbridge
20 Mar 2023 08:52:00
Chigwell Road
28 Sep 2023
Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal allowed
This is a reserved decision following the reconvened hearing on 6 September 2023. Mr Clive Treacher attended that hearing in person as the authorised representative of Mrs Mary Treacher and as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. Mr Treacher also attended the previous hearings on 31 May and 26 July 2023. Mr Treacher has 31 years of experience as a Traffic Officer with the Met, having been assigned to the NE London Traffic Management Unit and then Central Operations.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The box junction is located in Chigwell Road at the junction with Maybank Road.
Paragraph 11(1) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 states that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. It is an offence to enter the box without a clear exit and to then stop in the box due to stationary vehicles in front.
The CCTV footage shows that Mrs Treacher's car made a right turn out of the minor road and then stopped in the box behind another vehicle which was still partially in the box and stationary in a line of traffic. It is not in dispute that there was no clear exit for Mrs Treacher's car at the point of entry into the box or that the car was caused to stop in the box due to stationary traffic.
Mr Treacher appeals because he says that the box is unlawful. He says that The Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5, paragraph 8.3.2. (Road Markings 2018) makes it clear that only half-boxes are appropriate for use at T-junctions and other junctions where the traffic blocks back from one direction only. Paragraph 8.3.2. reads as below.
“Half‑boxes, in which only half the area of the junction is marked are appropriate at T‑junctions and other junctions where the traffic blocks back from one direction only. Half‑boxes should be used only on the minor road side of the main carriageway to allow emerging traffic to turn right where the queue of traffic in the major road is to the left. A half‑box on the side of the road opposite a T‑junction generally serves no useful purpose. Even though it will create a gap in a queue of traffic, drivers turning right from the minor road will not be able to enter the box as the exit will be obstructed.”
Mr Treacher contended at the hearing on 31 May that the full box at the junction is not the required half-box and that authorisation in writing from the DfT was required for the variation.
I adjourned the hearing on 31 May to provide the Council with an opportunity to respond to Mr Treacher's submissions.
The Council submitted a response on 8 June 2023 in which they stated that a full box was installed at this junction because queueing back did not happen only in one direction on the minor road side of Chigwell Road. The Council also said in this response that they sought advice from the DfT who advised that TSRGD 2016 provides full flexibility for a full box marking to be used here and that no authorisation was required from the DfT. The Council provided a copy of their e-mail enquiry of 7 July 2022 but did not include a copy of the DfT's response to that e-mail.
Mr Treacher's evidence on 26 July was that the traffic no longer blocks back in both directions. He said that there was a block back on the minor road side after the Maybank Road junction due to the left turn into Broad Mead Road but that this ceased with the installation of the ahead only route at the junction with Broad Mead Road. He said that the only block back now is southbound with the lights on the roundabout after the Maybank Road junction. Mr Treacher said that, in any event, only half boxes are to be used at T-junctions regardless of whether there is a block back in both directions.
I further adjourned the hearing on 26 July to give the Council an opportunity to respond to Mr Treacher's evidence and submissions. The Council was also requested to provide a complete copy of the correspondence with the DfT about the use of a full box at this location.
Mr Treacher also provided on 26 July a copy of Sam Wright's review of Councils' plans to enforce yellow box junctions and a copy of the RAC report following that review. The review includes a detailed consideration of boxes covering the far side of T-junctions which I said that I would consider in reviewing the evidence and submissions. I invited the Council to make any further submissions that it wished to concerning the review, the report and any other matter which it considered relevant.
The Council provided further evidence and submissions on 9 August 2023. The Council stated its view that TSRGD 2016 provides full flexibility for a full box marking at this location and that paragraph 8.3.2 of Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual does not preclude the use of a full box at a T-junction. The further evidence included an e-mail from the DfT dated 8 July 2022 in reply to the Council’s enquiry of 7 July. This e-mail confirmed that TSRGD 2016 provided full flexibility for a full box marking, although making it clear that the issue of whether the box in place was compliant was a matter which could only be decided by the courts.
The Council’s further evidence does not address Mr Treacher’s evidence that the block back on the minor road side after the Maybank Road junction due to the left turn into Broad Mead Road ceased with the installation of the ahead only route at the junction with Broad Mead Road.
Mr Treacher’s position at the adjourned hearing on 6 September was that the Council had failed to justify the use of a full box at this location.
Sam Wright’s report provides a very useful commentary on boxes that cover the far side of T-junctions. Under the old TSRGD, boxes that covered the far side of a T-junction were not permitted and required DfT approval. The report refers to FOI requests revealing that, in 2007, the DfT stopped authorising these kinds of boxes, stating: “We were no longer prepared to authorise full box junctions at a T-junction when Transport for London reviewed their box junctions in 2007. Our reasoning was that we saw no traffic management benefit in the use of full box junctions at this type of junction.”
In spite of this clear statement of the DfT’s position in 2007, there is no doubt that the position has been relaxed by TSRGD 2016. I do not, however, agree that TSRGD 2016 provides full flexibility for a full box marking at T-junctions. The change is that DfT approval is no longer required for a full box marking. That does not, however, give Councils carte blanche to introduce full boxes as they wish. If it did, then the statutory guidance in paragraph 8.3.2 would be rendered meaningless. It is abundantly clear from the guidance that a half-box on the side of the road opposite a T-junction generally serves no useful purpose and will cause an unnecessary obstacle for drivers turning right from the minor road. In my judgement, the guidance is clear that the only box marking that will normally be appropriate at a T-junction is a half box on the minor side of the road in a situation where the traffic blocks back from one direction only.
Clearly, there is no longer a requirement for DfT approval for the use of a full box marking at a T-junction but, in my judgement, paragraph 8.3.2 requires that the use of such a marking is justified, especially given the clear impediment resulting for drivers attempting to make the right turn out of the minor road.
If the Council seeks to enforce PCNs against such drivers, then it needs to produce evidence showing the reasons for which it has both introduced and retained the use of the full box marking and, in this case, it has failed to do so. The Council has not addressed Mr Treacher’s evidence that the traffic no longer blocks back in both directions. I allow the appeal for this reason.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2230304887
Nojrul Askaari
London Borough of Redbridge
19 Apr 2023 16:20:00
Cambridge Park
02 Oct 2023
Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal allowed
This is a reserved decision following the reconvened hearing on 29 August 2023. Mr Askaari attended that hearing in person and he also attended the previous hearing on 25 July 2023.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The box junction is located in Cambridge Park Road at the junction with Blake Hall Road.
Paragraph 11(1) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 states that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
The CCTV footage shows that Mr Askaari’s car made a right turn out of the minor road and then stopped in the box behind another vehicle which was still in the box and stationary in a line of traffic. It is not in dispute that there was no clear exit for Mr Askaari’s car at the point of entry into the box or that the car was caused to stop in the box due to stationary traffic.
At the hearing on 25 July, Mr Askaari submitted images of the approach to the box junction where he made the right turn from Blake Hall Road onto Cambridge Park Road. These images show that there is a bend in the road so that the traffic lights and junction are not in view from a distance. Mr Askaari's evidence was that a driver going through the lights on green does not have time to see the box junction until it is too late. He said that only a driver stopping at the lights when they are red will see the box junction markings in time.
I did not have any images showing the driver's view as the corner was turned and what the visibility of the junction then was. I adjourned the hearing on 25 July for the Council to comment on this evidence. I also invited the Council’s comments on the measurements of the box and on Mr Askaari's ground of appeal that the markings of the box extend beyond the junction.
The Council submitted further evidence on 9 August, including three still images showing the approach to the traffic lights in Blake Hall Road. At the reconvened hearing on 29 August, Mr Askaari maintained his position that it is very difficult to see the box markings unless the lights are red and the driver is stopped.
In relation Mr Askaari's ground of appeal that the markings of the box extend beyond the junction, the Council maintains that the box meets the definition of a box junction in Paragraph 11(6)(a) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 as being “an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is at a junction between two or more roads.”
Mr Askaari also says that the Department for Transport states that implementing this type of box junction at a T junction serves no useful purpose so that such boxes should not be used or enforced.
I have considered firstly the evidence as to the visibility of the box markings on the approach to the junction. The aerial view from the camera shows a clear view of the box markings. However, the Council’s still images of the approach to the lights show that there is not a clear view for the driver approaching the lights. I agree with Mr Askaari that a driver going through the lights on green may well not have time to see the markings and safely stop until it is too late.
In my judgement, the box markings do extend beyond the junction and do not meet the definition in Paragraph 11(6)(a) of Part 7 of Schedule 9. The junction is the width of the carriageway of the minor road which meets the major road and these markings extend well beyond that width, to the extent that a driver stopped at the lights has no visibility of the end of the box to the right.
The Council does not address Mr Askaari’s ground of appeal that the use of this type of box junction at a T junction is contrary to DfT guidance.
The Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5, paragraph 8.3.2. (Road Markings 2018) makes it clear that only half-boxes are appropriate for use at T-junctions and other junctions where the traffic blocks back from one direction only. Paragraph 8.3.2. reads as below.
“Half‑boxes, in which only half the area of the junction is marked are appropriate at T‑junctions and other junctions where the traffic blocks back from one direction only. Half‑boxes should be used only on the minor road side of the main carriageway to allow emerging traffic to turn right where the queue of traffic in the major road is to the left. A half‑box on the side of the road opposite a T‑junction generally serves no useful purpose. Even though it will create a gap in a queue of traffic, drivers turning right from the minor road will not be able to enter the box as the exit will be obstructed.”
Mr Askaari has provided a copy of Sam Wright's review of Councils' plans to enforce yellow box junctions, commissioned by the RAC. The review includes a detailed consideration of boxes covering the far side of T-junctions. The Council’s case summary provides no comment on this review.
Sam Wright’s report provides a very useful commentary on boxes that cover the far side of T-junctions. Under the old TSRGD, boxes that covered the far side of a T-junction were not permitted and required DfT approval. The report refers to FOI requests revealing that, in 2007, the DfT stopped authorising these kinds of boxes, stating: “We were no longer prepared to authorise full box junctions at a T-junction when Transport for London reviewed their box junctions in 2007. Our reasoning was that we saw no traffic management benefit in the use of full box junctions at this type of junction.”
In spite of this clear statement of the DfT’s position in 2007, there is no doubt that the position has been relaxed by TSRGD 2016. However, TSRGD 2016 does not, in my judgement, provide full flexibility for a full box marking at T-junctions. The change is that DfT approval is no longer required for a full box marking. That does not, however, give Councils carte blanche to introduce full boxes as they wish. If it did, then the statutory guidance in Paragraph 8.3.2 would be rendered meaningless. It is abundantly clear from the guidance that a half-box on the side of the road opposite a T-junction generally serves no useful purpose and will cause an unnecessary obstacle for drivers turning right from the minor road. In my judgement, the guidance is clear that the only box marking that will normally be appropriate at a T-junction is a half box on the minor side of the road in a situation where the traffic blocks back from one direction only.
Clearly, there is no longer a requirement for DfT approval for the use of a full box marking at a T-junction but, in my judgement, paragraph 8.3.2 requires that the use of such a marking is justified, especially given the clear impediment resulting for drivers attempting to make the right turn out of the minor road.
If the Council seeks to enforce PCNs against such drivers, then it needs to produce evidence showing the reasons for which it has both introduced and retained the use of the full box marking and, in this case, it has not done so. Although the Council refers to this ground of appeal in the case summary, it produces no evidence of why a full box was installed at this junction.
I allow the appeal for all of these reasons.