Ice cream van blocking Tower Bridge

boroughonian wrote:

Would cones help?

bravo :-)

For anyone 'out there' wanting to make progress on this, it's probably worth noting that if it's happening on the bridge — and or the final part of the bridge approach north and south — it's actually a "City" problem.

The relevant contact at the City of London Corporation is Assistant Director (Environment — Licensing) Steve Blake. But he's a busy man who's got 'bigger peanuts to fry' and barely peanuts in the police budget for this kind of enforcement until The City's Police Committee (elected Members) determine otherwise. [ http://democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=142 ]

Committee member Ian Luder ( ian.luder@cityoflondon.gov.uk )
...is the Alderman of a riverside ward — Castle Baynard — so knows the same issue around Millennium Bridge and St Paul's.

It's also worth copying any correspondence to the Committee Chair:
Douglas Barrow ( douglas.barrow@cityoflondon.gov.uk )

Meanwhile — for a soonest response and action — a logged complaint to the Licensing–Street Trading team at Walbrook Wharf on Upper Thames Street (CoL Environment Department — also the place to take any noise complaints too)

"​Some traders operate illegally in the borough. If you want to report illegal street trading please contact the licensing team by phone on 020 7332 3406 or by email at licensing@cityoflondon.gov.uk " https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/licensing/Pages/street-trading.aspx

Additional weight may be given to any written or verbal complaint that includes a specific request for the City to evoke the powers afforded to them by the City of London (Various Powers) Act 2013 [ i.e. the 1987 Act as amended… ]

" […] (d)at the appropriate places, insert the following definitions—
““ice cream trading” means the selling, exposing or offering for sale of items consisting wholly or mainly of ice cream, frozen confectionery or other ] commodities; […]"

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2013/7/enacted

No license, no leniency...

I actually used this new-ish 'Mr Whippy' legislation, and the circumstances that had prompted two years of lobbying by the City that brought it into being, to request a 'zero maximum' for Sexual Entertainment Venues in the Square Mile :-) Successfully — so please know that policy and a polite, point-by-point request for action (repeated as necessary) does sometimes work!

I suspect the issue here is that the red route lines have been covered up by the newly installed security barriers and hence are unenforceable in that location. I saw a van parked further up the road a few weeks ago, after the security barrier ends and where the lines are visible, and they were being ticketed and moved on.

Isn't Tower Bridge part of the TLRN?

If so then "red route" enforcement is the responsibility of the City of London Police, not the corporation.

Jane B - thanks for those pointers.

But I think Kieran has hit the nail on the head; the red lines are indeed no longer visible. Therefore, for the time being, it's possible that nothing can be done.

Faded/broken lines are no longer automatically accepted as an excuse:

Red Route Enforcement Myths

If there is clear signage, partial lines or other clean indicators it may still be enforceable.

Truthmonkey-home wrote:

If there is clear signage, partial lines or other clean indicators it may still be enforceable.

I believe that the lines were the only sign; there is nothing on poles from what I can remember and the security fencing is so long I imagine that the distance between where the van is parking and where the lines resume is so great that they'd have a significant job enforcing on that basis - the lines are neither broken nor partially obscured - they are completely obscured across most of the length of the entire bridge.

One view might be that the ice cream van is obstructing the highway and could thus be dealt with by the police rather than under the decriminalised parking regime.

I've not seen it since this thread started- has it now gone?

Jane B wrote:

For anyone 'out there' wanting to make progress on this, it's probably worth noting that if it's happening on the bridge — and or the final part of the bridge approach north and south — it's actually a "City" problem.

Tower Bridge is owned by the City Corporation but the northern approach is within Tower Hamlets so presumably it would be their enforcement section? Having been married at the walkways at Tower Bridge, I remember having to rent the space from City Corporation but then choose between Tower Hamlets and Southwark for the registration authority and plant the table either side of the midoiojnt of the river as appropriate.

I should point out that the City Corporation were the worst to deal with - they tried to cancel 10 days in advance for something they'd been aware of for 6 months.