Driveway

almillar

But is it wrong?

Are you on this forum to help people, or just to be right?
If it's the former, you should actually provide even the briefest backup for your answer. The person you're replying to is not the only one reading.

Nasqueron

RichardD1970 wrote: »

OK, thanks, but does "DO NOT" carry the same weight and have the same legislative backing of "MUST NOT"?

Rule 243 in the HC isn't backed up by law in the highway code but as ever, the preface of the book advises that breaches of those can still be used as part of a prosecution

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

I have seen anecdotal reports of cars being towed for blocking

The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Section 86) says you cannot block them

(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
...
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge...

This is subject to the following exceptions...

The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.

This exception does not apply in the case of a shared driveway.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86

Pondskater

My next door neighbour, who already has a driveway big enough for four cars, decided to create another one at the other side of his house. So late one Friday a couple of guys turned up and lowered the kerb. Unfortunately, he had not applied for planning permission and it was accessed through a lay-by. A few weeks later, after trying to get retrospective planning permission he was forced to have the pavement reinstated. I have it on good authority that this cost him a pretty penny. He doesn't speak to us now, being under the mistaken impression that it was us that complained. Mind you we knew other neighbours were unhappy at losing the lay-by parking space and had complained, so we didn't bother.

Nearly_Old

Nasqueron wrote: »

The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Section 86) says you cannot block them

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86

I don't think that this applies to the OP for the following reasons:
a) Section 1.5:

(5) In this Part “relevant road” means a road in England for which the Secretary of State [F2or a strategic highways company] is the traffic authority or a road in Wales for which the Assembly is the traffic authority.

The Act is therefore only applicable, in England and Wales to motorways, special roads and major trunk roads maintained by the Secretary of State/the Welsh Assembly. It is the primary legislation defining the role and regulation of Taffic Officers.

b) Section 86.1

1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—

Section 86 therefore does not, in itself automatically apply to all the "relevant roads" defined in Section 1.5. Section 86 is only applicable in areas for which the local highway authority has made an application under Section 10 of this Act.

Nearly_Old

unholyangel wrote: »

However, in this case there is an additional element. That its an offence to obstruct free passage along the road. That includes pavements and verges.

So an offence to block another car in, but not if theres no car there, as its only a criminal offence to obstruct access to the highway, not to private property. If OP's unlucky, his neighbours will know this and know they can safely antagonise him for an extended period of time.

Sorry but this is not the case except where the location is subject to a Section 10 order under the Traffic Management Act 2004 (Section 86). There is free passage along the the road and not across the road/pavement/verge

There were ancient rights applicable to the original turnpikes that allowed a) the right of free passage along the road; and b) the right to stop at any point on the road. There was no right of free access as the term "turnpikes" refers to the toll booths. Following the increase of road vehicles after WW1 the Ministry of Transport was introduced in 1919 the oversee the development of the highway network. As new legislation, design factors, etc were introduced none of these could take away the ancient rights without putting something in their place. In the case of major trunk roads this lead to the legislation for Clearways and the introduction of lay bys to remove the right to stop anywhere.The RTA (Road Traffic Act) makes it an offence to wilfully obstruct the highway and this is to protect the right of free passage along the highway.


Access to the highway is a separate issue and requires approval from the highway authority, it has has to comply with the relevant standards, etc. In some cases existing accesses on to major trunk roads in urban areas have been closed by the highway authority and alternative accesses provided. There was no ancient right of access and such a right has not been included in modern legislation.

unholyangel

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Sorry but this is not the case except where the location is subject to a Section 10 order under the Traffic Management Act 2004 (Section 86). There is free passage along the the road and not across the road/pavement/verge

There were ancient rights applicable to the original turnpikes that allowed a) the right of free passage along the road; and b) the right to stop at any point on the road. There was no right of free access as the term "turnpikes" refers to the toll booths. Following the increase of road vehicles after WW1 the Ministry of Transport was introduced in 1919 the oversee the development of the highway network. As new legislation, design factors, etc were introduced none of these could take away the ancient rights without putting something in their place. In the case of major trunk roads this lead to the legislation for Clearways and the introduction of lay bys to remove the right to stop anywhere.The RTA (Road Traffic Act) makes it an offence to wilfully obstruct the highway and this is to protect the right of free passage along the highway.


Access to the highway is a separate issue and requires approval from the highway authority, it has has to comply with the relevant standards, etc. In some cases existing accesses on to major trunk roads in urban areas have been closed by the highway authority and alternative accesses provided. There was no ancient right of access and such a right has not been included in modern legislation.

You're referencing the wrong acts.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/137

(1)If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale].

It has long been established that it includes footpaths and verges.

Aretnap

Nearly_Old wrote: »

I don't think that this applies to the OP for the following reasons:
a) Section 1.5:
(5) In this Part “relevant road” means a road in England for which the Secretary of State [F2or a strategic highways company] is the traffic authority or a road in Wales for which the Assembly is the traffic authority.

The Act is therefore only applicable, in England and Wales to motorways, special roads and major trunk roads maintained by the Secretary of State/the Welsh Assembly. It is the primary legislation defining the role and regulation of Taffic Officers.

"In this part" meaning Part 1 of the act, which does indeed deal with the powers of Highways Agency Traffic Officers. It is not relevant to Section 86, which comes under Part 6 of the act, which deals with civil enforcement of minor traffic contraventions by local councils.

(As an aside, it would be rather silly to make a law dealing with parking across people's driveways and then have it only apply on motorways and major dual carriageways - roads which are not exactly noted for their number of driveways. So of course it has more widespread applicability).

b)Section 86 is only applicable in areas for which the local highway authority has made an application under Section 10 of this Act.

True. However while it's difficult to find a comprehensive list, my understanding was that most urban councils have made use of the provisions, and that therefore to reasonable approximation "special enforcement area" means "anywhere with civil parking enforcement", ie most large towns and cities.

Nearly_Old

Aretnap wrote: »

"In this part" meaning Part 1 of the act, which does indeed deal with the powers of Highways Agency Traffic Officers. It is not relevant to Section 86, which comes under Part 6 of the act, which deals with civil enforcement of minor traffic contraventions by local councils. My mistake as I was rushing and should of read further.

(As an aside, it would be rather silly to make a law dealing with parking across people's driveways and then have it only apply on motorways and major dual carriageways - roads which are not exactly noted for their number of driveways. So of course it has more widespread applicability). The cases on urban trunk roads, single and dual carriageways have usually been the closing of existing accesses rather new accesses. The point being that there is no right of access to the highway.

True. However while it's difficult to find a comprehensive list, my understanding was that most urban councils have made use of the provisions, and that therefore to reasonable approximation "special enforcement area" means "anywhere with civil parking enforcement", ie most large towns and cities.

Originally Posted by Nearly Old Sorry but this is not the case except where the location is subject to a Section 10 order under the Traffic Management Act 2004 (Section 86). There is free passage along the the road and not across the road/pavement/verge

Rushing again as I should have included reference to 137:

137 Penalty for wilful obstruction.

(1)If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding

The key word is "along" the highway including both made and unmade sections of the highway. There is no right of access to the highway unless the access has been authorised by the relevant highway authority. Merton council has erected bollards where people have converted their front garden to provide a parking space without having a dropped crossing installed.

https://news.merton.gov.uk/2019/01/21/council-installs-bollards-outside-homes-to-stop-illegal-crossover-parking/


As noted in the article although the footway is part of the highway it is illegal to mount a kerb to gain access across the footway. Again back to the Highways Act 137: "free passage along the highway" is nothing to do with access to the highway. So parking across a dropped kerb is only an offence if there has been an application granted under Section 10 otherwise it is very inconsiderate but it is not an offence.

a.turner

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Rushing again as I should have included reference to 137:
The key word is "along" the highway including both made and unmade sections of the highway. There is no right of access to the highway unless the access has been authorised by the relevant highway authority. Merton council has erected bollards where people have converted their front garden to provide a parking space without having a dropped crossing installed.

https://news.merton.gov.uk/2019/01/21/council-installs-bollards-outside-homes-to-stop-illegal-crossover-parking/


As noted in the article although the footway is part of the highway it is illegal to mount a kerb to gain access across the footway. Again back to the Highways Act 137: "free passage along the highway" is nothing to do with access to the highway. So parking across a dropped kerb is only an offence if there has been an application granted under Section 10 otherwise it is very inconsiderate but it is not an offence.

How can you have free passage along the highway in you are prevented from lawfully accessing it?

Nearly_Old

a.turner wrote: »

How can you have free passage along the highway in you are prevented from lawfully accessing it?

Nobody is prevented from using a lawful, compliant, approved access. Legislation makes it an offence to drive up a kerb to gain access so this would be an illegal access.


Access to and free passage along the highway are, under current legislation, etc 2 completely different issues that are not linked:


Free Passage: an ancient right from the original turnpikes granted to the user by the operator of the turnpike. Like all ancient rights these cannot just be deleted so RTA 137 makes wilfull obstruction of the highway an offence and in doing so preserves the ancient right.


Access: for the original turnpikes a toll was paid so there is no ancient right of access that has to be protected. The legal case usually referred to is:


Marshall v Blackpool Corporation:
Quote:
A land-owner having land adjacent to a public highway has, at common law, free access to and from the highway at any point where they abut. Lord Atkin said: ‘The owner of land adjoining a highway has a right of access to the highway from any part of his premises.

The use of the word "free" in the above is not to do with money but the fact the landowner is free to apply for an access. In exercising this right then the landowner has to comply with all current legislation and pay for any works required to the existing highway. At the lower end of the scale a private individual has to pay for a dropped crossing if they wish to use part of their existing land as a driveway.

At the other end of the scale when a developer whose land adjoined an existing roundabout that was also an access to the motorway submitted initial planning permission the Highways Agency lodged an objection. The section was already very congested and based on the projected traffic figures the necessary alterations to the motorway and junctions were designed in draft and costed. The Highways Agency then agreed to withdraw their objection after the developer agreed to pay the sum of £53M for all the works required. In the end the developer reduced the scale of the proposed development and paid a smaller sum to the Highways Agency. Section 184 of the Highways Act places an obligation on the Highway Authority: the need to ensure, so far as practicable, safe access to and egress from premises.


So any landowner is free to ask for an access and in general if the access does not affect safety or congestion the request would be approved and the applicant would pay for any works required.


In Cusack v London Borough of Harrow the highway authority erected new pedestrain fencing that blocked an existing long standing access. The legality of removing the access was not the issue as the pedestrian fencing was a safety requirement, the only issue was whether any compensation was due as nobody has a given right of access.