Curtilages, boundaries & vehicle access: 169-265 Bromley Rd, SE6
Request ID: FOI-1277-1920
Date published: 06 January 2020
You asked
I would therefore like to clarify some points and re-focus parts of the FOI as follows:
1) For clarification: the FOI interest does not concern what landowners own/use or how the land is being utilised. Its principal purpose is only to establish the facts of the case with respect to:
(a) illegal footway-crossing by motorists accessing adjacent land, causing inconvenience and/or obstruction to pedestrians or potential danger - and with direct relevance to this -
(b) the precise dimensions and positions of footways (as components of the overall highway) and
(c) any action that TfL may have taken to hinder (a) above.
NB
i. Referenced illegal crossers are not necessarily by landowners, this could include visitors or clients for example;
ii. importance is also attached to determining parties currently responsible for enforcement.
iii. By ‘landowners’ is meant to include leaseholders, occupiers, users and custodians etc.).
iv. Note that interest involves only the footway adjacent to properties on the eastern side of Bromley Rd SE6 and therefore it is believed applies only to the odd numbers 169-265.
2) Boundaries/curtilages: - the interest relates not actually to private, residential or commercial land outside TfL's control or concern but specifically to the footways themselves, which are within its remit and responsibility. Essentially, one defines the other. Perhaps the overall question should then have been best tackled in terms of only identifying footways.
REFRAMED REQUEST: Please provide accurate records of the whole highway dimensions that the current footways are officially recorded to occupy* - as previously over the whole extent between Bromley Road SE6 with the junctions of Callander Rd and Orford Rd (i.e. opposite No.s 169-265). As a locater, it can be seen that part of the extent runs outside Catford Bus Garage.
[*Note: TfL would need to know its own boundaries since this would be necessary when carrying out &/or subcontracting highway works from time to time and will be necessary for planning the proposed new cycle ‘superhighway’ along Bromley Rd and this information would be a necessary part of the highway development.]
3) Communications with interested parties: I had imagined that there might have been previous complaints raised about the matter of illegal crossing of footways. There is certainly evidence, as mentioned before, of attempts to physically hinder illegal crossing in some positions with bollards and this would be have most likely been based on prior correspondence. On reflection, it is entirely possible that most or all of the information that may exist resides with the local authority (pre-TfL). The original net was cast wide because of not knowing where the fish might be. In order to narrow the net as far as possible, it would appear that only one key TfL section needs to be asked – legal. I will now pursue the borough for information separately.
REFRAMED REQUEST: Kindly request copies of any correspondence that might possibly exist and is held between the landowners (as referred to in 1.(iii) & (iv) above) and the TfL legal department.
4) You mentioned that “TfL has a number of forecourts along the section of road in question, some are private and some public”. This property your refer to must relate to the western side of the road (even numbers) which includes a main TfL bus garage. This FOI only concerns the eastern side (odd numbers) and there is no evidence of likelihood that any of this is likely to be TfL property. Thank you for the Asset Register link and the Land Registry – although these will not help with this particular case.
5) You stated that “TfL does not have the power to enforce vehicles driving over footways and does monitor this behaviour.”. Unfortunately, this is direct contradiction to what the local authorities state which is that TfL routes do not fall within their remits with respect to any aspects.
TfL itself states in this overview document: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/myths-and-complaints-about-red-route-enforcement.pdf and I quote from the first sentence of paragraph 4:
“The red route comprises the whole width of public highway, from building line to building line, which in most cases includes footways, verges and crossovers.”
‘Red’ (TRLN) routes are entirely under the control of TfL. For example - construction companies who wish to put up hoardings that extend beyond their building line, must also apply to TfL for a hoarding licence (and not the local authority). Even a hanging flower basket needs a TfL licence. See http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-highways-license-fees-2018-2019.pdf
Additionally, driving on the footway is a specified offence under s,72 of the Highways Act 1835 and is also prohibited by r.145 of the Highway Code.
You also mentioned that "Note that it is Lewisham, as the planning authority, that determines applications for crossovers.." But
this is not direct evidence that LB Lewisham are then therefore responsible for enforcement, only that LB Lewisham are the channel
through which applications are made. Your note that "TfL has no choice in the matter other than to install works once planning is
agreed and money paid" is interesting in that it suggests the possibility that LB Lewisham could impose a crossing facility
that TfL believed to be unsafe - even as a possibility. This is interesting and perhaps worth separate research into the relationship between TRLNs and local boroughs at a later date.
It therefore seems somewhat unlikely that local authorities would have the power to be involved in enforcement of this offence on that part of the public highway which is specifically not under their control and yet TfL not although the latter apparently have total control.
CLARIFICATION REQUEST: If you is pass on the request to Planning under (3) above, would you also kindly pass on a request for a legal explanation to support the contention that TfL are not solely responsible for illegal footway crossing enforcement?
We answered
TfL Ref: 1277-1920
Thank you for your email received by us on 29 July 2019 asking for information about curtilages, boundaries and vehicle access in Bromley Road, south east London following your previous request for information (reference: 0454-1920).
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and our information access policy. You asked for:
accurate records of the whole highway dimensions that the current footways are officially recorded to occupy* - as previously over the whole extent between Bromley Road SE6 with the junctions of Callander Rd and Orford Rd (i.e. opposite No.s 169-265). As a locater, it can be seen that part of the extent runs outside Catford Bus Garage.
[*Note: TfL would need to know its own boundaries since this would be necessary when carrying out &/or subcontracting highway works from time to time and will be necessary for planning the proposed new cycle ‘superhighway’ along Bromley Rd and this information would be a necessary part of the highway development.]
This information is available on our website using the following link to the Property Asset Register at: https://tfl.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5129c766255941d3be16a6828faa8f18
In accordance with section 21 of the FOI Act, we are not obliged to supply you with a copy of the requested information as it is already accessible to you elsewhere.
Please also find attached a copy of the GLA Roads (No.3) Designation Order 2008, which is the legal instrument defining the extent of the highway for which TfL is the highway authority.
Unfortunately, to provide the remainder of information you have requested would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ of £450 set by the Freedom of Information (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 given the considerable volume of records that would need to be located and reviewed to determine whether this information is held, which would then need to be collated for the purposes of your request.
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, locating and retrieving it and 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.
To help bring the cost of responding to your request within the £450 limit, you may wish to consider narrowing its scope so that we can more easily locate, retrieve and extract the information you are seeking. If you want to refine your request or make a Freedom of Information Act request in future, please bear in mind that the Freedom of Information Act allows you to request recorded information held by us. You should identify the information that you want as clearly and concisely as you can, specifying the types of document that you are looking for. You might also consider limiting your request to a particular period of time, geographical area or specific departments of the organisation.
Although your request can take the form of a question, rather than a request for specific documents, we do not have to answer your question if it would require the creation of new information or the provision of a judgement, explanation, advice or opinion that was not already recorded at the time of your request.
Please note that we will not be taking further action until we receive your revised request.
In the meantime, if you have any queries or would like to discuss your request, please do not hesitate to contact me.
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
Jasmine Howard
FOI Case Officer
Information Governance
Transport For London
Back to top
