re: FOI/EIR Curtilages, boundaries & vehicle access: 169-265 Bromley Rd, SE6 There have been complaints from residents and highway users in the area about drivers of vehicles illegally and dangerously crossing footways over a relatively substantial area (~>400 metres) in the area described below. There are also indications that to an unknown extent, curtilages/boundaries have been illegally crept outwards towards the highway and resulted in loss of public land, most probably, of footways. The area of concern is formed of three sections of frontages between 169-265 Bromley Rd (SE6 2RA&2PG) and applies to the eastern (odd-numbered) side of the highway only. (A) primarily private residences between Callander and Daneby Roads (no drop downs) (B) shopping parade between Daneby and Bellingham Roads (no drop downs) (C) shopping parade between Bellingham and (opposite for ease of reference) Orford Roads (4 No. vehicle drop downs for two motor-based businesses are an exception here). Our current purpose is to ascertain the true positions of the legal boundaries/curtilages of the above properties and to establish any previous/current data or current action(s) relevant to the vehicular crossings of footways (illegal and legal). Use of this information is intended for subsequently engagement with TfL about the abovementioned problems and any other interested organisation. The following is requested, copies of: [I] Any records, maps or other documentation that relate to the above properties indicating property curtilages/boundaries and ownership with respect to the public realm and the highway (footways in particular) that TfL holds. This would include alterations (legal or not) to curtilages/boundaries that appear to have taken place. [II] Any applications for kerb vehicle drop downs received by TfL with notes relevant to any responses given as well as any measures undertaken to amend/reverse kerb vehicle drop downs for any reason. [III] Any physical measures undertaken to prevent or hinder frontage users from illegally crossing footways (e.g. concrete posts). [IV} Any legal measures undertaken to prevent or hinder frontage users from illegally crossing footways. (this would include any prosecutions). [V] Any communications with interested parties - this would include relevant correspondence in any form, emails etc. with e.g. councillors, LB Lewisham, or property owners (e.g. warnings or legal action).

---

TfL Ref: FOI-0454-1920

Thank you for your email of 11^th May 2019 asking for information about “curtilages, boundaries & vehicle access at 169-265 Bromley Rd, SE6”.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.

Unfortunately, to provide the information you have requested would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ of £450 set by the Freedom of Information (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.

Under section 12 of the FOI Act, we are not obliged to comply with a request if we estimate that the cost of determining whether we hold the information, and then locating, retrieving or extracting it from other information, would exceed the appropriate limit. This is calculated at £25 per hour for every hour spent on the activities described.

This is largely (but not wholly) on account of your question asking for “Any communications with interested parties - this would include relevant correspondence in any form, emails etc. with e.g. councillors, LB Lewisham, or property owners (e.g. warnings or legal action).” There is no easy way for TfL to locate such information given how broad the scope is. The question as asked covers any form of correspondence, be it electronic (for which there are various channels of communication) or in hard copy, over the entire period of TfL’s existence. While the actual material held may be relatively limited, trying to locate it all would be a nigh on impossible task, and while it is difficult to attribute an estimated cost to it we believe that it would be well in excess of the £450 limit.

To help bring the cost of responding to your request within the £450 limit, you may wish to consider narrowing or reframing its scope so that we can more easily locate, retrieve and extract the information you are seeking.

That said, I have been in liaison with various teams across TfL in relation to this and your other, related requests (references FOI-0453-1920 and FOI-0459-1920) and can offer the following general advice which I hope will be of use, and which may help you to focus any future requests on the information that is most value to you.

TfL has a number of forecourts along the section of road in question, some are private and some public. You may be interested in the TfL Property Asset Register which can be found online here:

https://tfl.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5129c766255941d3be16a6828faa8f18

However, for definitive information about property ownership it is advised that you undertake a land registry search at your cost:

https://www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-registry

TfL does not have the power to enforce vehicles driving over footways and does monitor this behaviour. Lewisham Council is the planning authority (with responsibility for enforcement action against unauthorised use of forecourts and front gardens) and may have more information that may be of use to you. Note that it is Lewisham, as the planning authority, that determines applications for crossovers and use of gardens/forecourts for parking. When/if permission is granted and the owner has paid for works a TfL contractor installs the crossover (TfL has no choice in the matter other than to install works once planning is agreed and money paid).

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

Yours sincerely,

David Wells

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Back to top

---