Recently moved into house, dropped kerb application refused. What can I do?

AdrianC

Typhoon2000 wrote: »

You could it lifted on to the drive by one of those tow away type trucks

Yes, there is that option...

EachPenny

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Actually - if there is a technicality/law/whatever out there that says "A drive isnt a drive unless it has a dropped kerb to it - otherwise it is just tarmac instead of grass iyswim" I'd be genuinely quite interested to read that personally

AdrianC wrote: »

Like I said - you can call it what you like, but if a "drive" is "somewhere to park a motor vehicle off the public highway", then it simply fails to meet that definition, because you can't get the motor vehicle onto it legally.

Oh, and the legislation that says you can't? Highways Act 1980, section 184.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint) Section 184 doesn't actually have that effect.

Section 184 is a permissive section - it gives powers to HA's to do certain things, and also rights to landowners to ask (require?) the HA to do something. But it doesn't actually make it illegal to drive over a kerbed verge/footway to get onto a 'driveway' except in one specific situation.

And that situation is only where the HA has gone through the process specified in S184(1) and "impos[ed] such reasonable conditions on the use of the footway or verge as a crossing as may be so specified".

The offence under S184(17) only applies in relation to failure to comply with conditions in a S184(1)(b) notice.

Furthermore, since the conditions have to be "reasonable", the HA cannot simply say "because we say so". There is a common law right of access to land adjoining the public highway and the HA can only interfere with that right if there are good grounds for doing so. These might include damage to the kerb or verge, or if use of the access poses a real safety concern. Factors that might be relevant are set out in S184(5) which include "the passage of vehicular traffic in highways" (Note: vehicular, not pedestrian traffic!)

In most* cases if you drive a vehicle over a verge or footway with no dropped kerb and park it wholly on your 'driveway' then you commit no offence. The risk of committing an offence is if part of the vehicle remains overhanging the footway in which case it would be the offence of obstruction, not of driving over the verge/footway. (*But there are special circumstances where it could be an offence, too complex to go into here)

Councils specifying a minimum depth for a driveway aren't doing so because this is a legal requirement, instead it is because they believe the offence of obstruction might result from the use of such a drive. As any good lawyer will tell you, this places the Council in a legally dubious position

In the case of the disabled passenger mentioned above, the car could be driven onto the 'drive' (assuming none of the special circumstances apply) in order to allow the passenger to alight. Although technically an offence of obstruction might be committed if part of the vehicle overhangs the footway, the prospect of successful prosecution is zero as it has been established in law that minor cases of obstruction are permissable. (Technically you 'obstruct' the highway every time you park, other than in a marked bay). To be safe, the car should only be 'parked' for so long as it takes for the passenger to alight (and to be assisted into the house if necessary).

In some places the law is changing and HA's will have the power to stop people driving over a verge or footway without using S184. But the situation is complicated and there are other mechanisms Councils can use to achieve the same effect - so anyone thinking of spending money building a 'drive' without provision of a dropped kerb would be well advised not to do it.

unforeseen

However Southall being in London means that it is an offence to park on the pavement unless signs allow it.

EachPenny

unforeseen wrote: »

However Southall being in London means that it is an offence to park on the pavement unless signs allow it.

London is one of the special cases though. The boroughs have additional powers under Section 16 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 in relation to crossovers and preventing people bumping over a kerb/footway/verge
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/16/enacted

However, the harsher nature of the 2003 Act means that affected people have a statutory right of objection to the Council, and if the objection is overruled they can then appeal to the county court on various grounds including "(c) that the requirement in the notice is unreasonable."

I'm not aware of any cases actually being taken to the county court, but could imagine some difficulties for a council saying they won't provide a crossover because a driveway is 4.6m rather than 4.8m. Given that on appeal "the court shall make such order as it thinks fit", it is plausible that someone might end up with a court order requiring the council to provide a crossover (at the landowners expense) but also requiring the landowner not to use the driveway to park a vehicle which overhangs the footway.

Additionally (although it might appear pedantic) the phrase "offence to park on the pavement" is not strictly accurate. The original legislation required "one or more wheels [to be] resting on" but this has subsequently been amended to an "parked on or over" formulation. This is because the original legislation contained a loophole that if the wheels were on a driveway but the vehicle overhung the footway then it wasn't an offence under this section. Worse - you could park with one set of wheels on a drive and one set on the cariageway (i.e. bridging over the footway, obstructing it completely) and that wouldn't have counted as a footway parking offence.

Because this is one of the offences which in London have been decriminalised and are enforced by the boroughs as parking contraventions, the amendment to "on or over" means that (in London) you can get a parking ticket for having part of your vehicle overhanging the footway.

davemorton

Typhoon2000 wrote: »

You could it lifted on to the drive by one of those tow away type trucks

Wouldnt that make it a 'lift' instead of a 'drive'?

catshark88

Oh for goodness sake. Just keep 12 strong men stationed outside your house at all times, to carry the car onto the not-a-drive as required. Simples.