Vehicle Access (Dropped Kerb) Application refused

Strider590

I'm afraid when it comes to stuff like this, it's down to who you are, how fancy your house is and who you know on the council.

Round here there are some large houses in the middle of nowhere, that get road marking to stop people parking on the road next to them and keep clear boxes at the end of their driveway. There's even one where the council have raised the entire road to meet their new driveway, they closed the damn road for 6 weeks and caused complete havoc! It's on a 60 limit and the raised part is violent enough to send a car airborn.......

Many years ago a local councillor got a mini-roundabout built at the end of his road, so that he could use it to nip into the stationary traffic during rush hour.

I really REALLY hate this sort of corruption......

Furts

I suggest OP is on a lost cause. Fundamentals of building are car spaces were establish at 8 feet, or 2400, decades back. Everybody knows car parking spaces are too small because cars are far bigger than they were in the 1960s. Hence all the new build drives I have ever been involved in have been built at a minimum of 5000. My home comes out at around 5500, which ties in with this. Good practice would be car parking spaces at 5300.

For OP to argue that 4500 is acceptable when this flies in the face of any wisdom, and fails to meet their local authority design guides seems crazy.

But best of luck!

patman99

Depending on the kerb height, the op could always just drive over it into their front garden.

The road my freind lives in had no dropped kerbs, but every house had removed their front fence and was parking off-road by bumping up the kerbs.

After 25 years, the Council turned-up to re-lay the pavement and put drop kerbs in across every 'driveway' without even questioning whether the hoeowners were entitled to them or not.

EachPenny

the_r_sole wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the practicalities for these people, it's down to their regulations. And some officers can be particularly pedantic and awkward when applying them.

'These people' are 'pedantic and awkward' because -

parking_question_chap wrote: »

That said, irrespective of the length required, councils need to be consistent towards all residents.

You cannot be consistent if you make the rules up as you go. Officers making the rules up also creates scope for the kind of corruption allegations Strider590 makes - if an officer turns a blind eye to the OP's missing 500mm then people may turn it into an anecdote about how council officers take bungs to approve things, regardless of whether any brown envelopes were involved.

patman99 wrote: »

Depending on the kerb height, the op could always just drive over it into their front garden.

You'd probably have got away with this 20 years ago, but it is unlikely the OP will do so now, especially if you have made an application for a dropped kerb and had it refused. Councils will inspect sites which had dropped kerb applications refused, and if the driveway has been constructed anyway the normal response is for the Council to install a nice row of concrete bollards stopping use of the drive. There wouldn't be much point in having a policy on dropped kerbs and driveways, and charging people for doing the work, if residents can simply bypass the rule by bumping up the kerb.

T3RRY, your best bet is to work with your local councillor to try to get exemption from the rules in your specific case. The usual reason for the minimum driveway depth is to avoid having vehicles overhanging the footway which (blind) people could walk into. If there is no footway then this is irrelevant. A cul de sac location means the flow of traffic and pedestrians is not a significant factor. The fact other people got a dropped kerb with shorter driveways doesn't set a precedent - it could just be a mistake - and I wouldn't make too much of it in your discussions with the council (people don't like being reminded of their mistakes;))

If you cannot get the council to budge then the next thing to consider is a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. They look into cases of maladministration which is not the same as appealing against a council decision. You'd need to look closely at the council's rules and decision making process (after you've gone as far as you can with the council) and see then if there is anything which looks like maladministration.

Have you consider applying for a 'disabled' parking space to be marked on the road instead?

Jonesya

If the length (4.5m) is the problem, could you get to 5m by having a diagonal drive way across the front?

EachPenny

Jonesya wrote: »

If the length (4.5m) is the problem, could you get to 5m by having a diagonal drive way across the front?

It is worth checking, but usually the policy will say the measurement is taken perpendicular to the kerbline - this is because it is safer to enter/exit the driveway at a 90 degree angle. Many people point out their front garden is big enough to fit a car parked parallel to the road, but get refused a dropped kerb because this kind of parking is considered unsafe.

Strider590

Phone up, ask them who you need to play Golf with.

Cash-Cows

4.5m is too small especially against a wall. The reality is a gap will have to be provided between the wall and car reducing the space still further. I've seen this type of thing many times including a demo of how a car fits. You couldn't get a piece of paper between the wall and car mind. Quite often people will just bump up the kerb but this usually comes to head not from the council enforcing against an illegal access but when a buyer for the house won't proceed until its authorised.

The location of this will make it difficult because it's in a turning head. An overhang of the site could compromise its use by delivery vehicles.

Could the OP confirm if there is section of public highway between the boundary of the property and the carriageway edge. If there is could you confirm the depth of this. Normally if there is no footway there would be a highway verge of somewhere between 0.5m and 1.2m. This is important. Don't guess ownership of the verge. It may look like yours but could be highway.

Cash-Cows

Strider590 wrote: »

I'm afraid when it comes to stuff like this, it's down to who you are, how fancy your house is and who you know on the council.

Round here there are some large houses in the middle of nowhere, that get road marking to stop people parking on the road next to them and keep clear boxes at the end of their driveway. There's even one where the council have raised the entire road to meet their new driveway, they closed the damn road for 6 weeks and caused complete havoc! It's on a 60 limit and the raised part is violent enough to send a car airborn.......

Many years ago a local councillor got a mini-roundabout built at the end of his road, so that he could use it to nip into the stationary traffic during rush hour.

I really REALLY hate this sort of corruption......

Councils take corruption very seriously. In fact my local council has a specific committee that deals with complaints against councillors. If you've got evidence of corruption I suggest you report it after all it's your money.

T3RRY

Cash-Cows wrote: »

The location of this will make it difficult because it's in a turning head. An overhang of the site could compromise its use by delivery vehicles.

Could the OP confirm if there is section of public highway between the boundary of the property and the carriageway edge. If there is could you confirm the depth of this. Normally if there is no footway there would be a highway verge of somewhere between 0.5m and 1.2m. This is important. Don't guess ownership of the verge. It may look like yours but could be highway

No verge, Just 5 kerbs that separate my property and the highway.

Currently we park in the turning head/hummerhead, this means that vehicles have to reverse in or out of the close into a main road. An overhang of 500mm would be much safer. This has been flagged to the council after I got an email stating an overhang would compromise the use of the hammerhead whose primary use is for turning vehicles.

EachPenny wrote: »

' T3RRY, your best bet is to work with your local councillor to try to get exemption from the rules in your specific case. The usual reason for the minimum driveway depth is to avoid having vehicles overhanging the footway which (blind) people could walk into. If there is no footway then this is irrelevant. A cul de sac location means the flow of traffic and pedestrians is not a significant factor. The fact other people got a dropped kerb with shorter driveways doesn't set a precedent - it could just be a mistake - and I wouldn't make too much of it in your discussions with the council (people don't like being reminded of their mistakes;))

If you cannot get the council to budge then the next thing to consider is a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. They look into cases of maladministration which is not the same as appealing against a council decision. You'd need to look closely at the council's rules and decision making process (after you've gone as far as you can with the council) and see then if there is anything which looks like maladministration.

Have you consider applying for a 'disabled' parking space to be marked on the road instead?

I sent an email to our councillor who replied stating he needs to hear from the council (Which is fine), he has not got back to me since, which again I understand as they have other things to do really, But I will try and follow it up with him.

Disabled parking would be more complicated, as it would be in the bays that are further away from the house. The disabled family member is blind, part deaf and had a stroke that left him paralysed and can't walk any long distance. A disabled bay would mean anyone can park in the bay which is a high possibility as we are near a local community hospital and shops.