The Council does not agree with the petitioners claim that there is no warning of this bus lane.The Council gave advance notice of implementation of camera enforcement through temporary signs on the approaches to the road for many weeks and through press releases to local media. The road has in fact been restricted for many years (Moor End Road - 2008 & Waterhouse Street, One Way traffic & Bus Lane - 1992) but the police have been unable to enforce it as a result of resource constraints and competing priorities. As a result, many motorists were breaching the restriction. In turn, this has led to the objective of the restriction, namely the improved operation of bus services not being achieved. This has had knock on impacts on bus service timetables in the Watford,Hemel Hempstead, Aylesbury corridor. The current restrictions were advertised in the Hemel Hempstead Gazette and Site Notices were displayed in November 2010 for 21 days. In 2008 the Council made and implemented a Prohibition of Driving Motor Vehicles TRO (with an exemption for Authorised Vehicles and Cyclists) quite correctly in accordance with the relevant procedures. Authorised vehicles were required to be fitted with an electronic transponder to activate rising bollards (revoking the 1992 Traffic regulation order). In 2010 a slight relaxation of this Order was made to allow use by Buses and Taxis. This Order was sealed in April 2011 and came into effect on 25 April 2011, revoking the 2008 Order. In both cases there were no challenges or objections lodged during the statutory process. Consultation and publication in both cases was also in compliance with the relevant regulatory requirements. We have also worked closely with the bus operators to get the planned enforcement measures introduced to ensure that all operators’ bus services in and aroundHemel Hempsteadwere not delayed as a result of this link not being controlled properly. Since the introduction of the cameras and enforcement the bus operators have seen a marked improvement in the punctuality of some services. We understand that people who have had access to this road are now restricted but the original intention was not to permit car access. Indeed, that assurance was given to Bus operators when theWaterhouse Streetbus lane was removed. We also believe that the signing for the restriction is clear and that it complies with Department for Transport Guidance. The "No motor vehicles" sign is well established and is widely used to give effect to an order which prohibits the use of a road by motor vehicles. It is covered in the Highway Code. As part of the Traffic Signs Policy Review the DfT completed earlier this year, an In-depth research project was undertaken to test the comprehension of the current signing system directly with road users. The "No motor vehicles" sign was included in this test. The results showed that 88% of the 800 respondents tested correctly understood its meaning. Non-compliance with this prescribed sign is an enforcement matter for highway authorities to address. There is a process of Appeal and ultimately Adjudication that can be followed if, after the HCC response, respondents feel that they wish to pursue that route, The process is explained in the communication received with each PCN and on the Herts direct website http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/transtreets/highways/hhonlineservices/anprenforce/ The sufficiency of the signage can be challenged through the appeal process. Update: see decision of Cabinet at its meeting on 23 April 2012 here http://www.hertsdirect.org/mm/15520666/15744560/cabinetminutes20120423.doc