Driveway

a.turner

Nearly_Old wrote: »

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.

So it's an offence to block a lawful access, ie a dropped kerb?

Nearly_Old

a.turner wrote: »

So it's an offence to block a lawful access, ie a dropped kerb?

It is an offence to block a legal access from say a factory and the like where there is no dropped kerb; i.e. a highway to highway junction access.


It is NOT always an offence to block a dropped kerb access unless certain additional legal orders have been made:


1. The local authority has applied under Schedule 10 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 for a Special Enforcement Area.
2. The application has been approved and the Special Enforcement Area has been established.


Once the Special Enforcement Area has been legally established then the following are the applicable rules:


86 Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.

(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—

(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

(ii) assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or

(iii) assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or

(b) the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.


86 (1) (a) iii) covers private accesses with a dropped kerb to allow access across the footway.


I doubt that the village I live in is a Special Enforcement Area and therefore someone could park across my dropped kerb and they would not be commiting an offence. Also there would not be an offence under RTA 137 as there is room for a vehicle to pass so there is still free passage available.

a.turner

Nearly_Old wrote: »

It is an offence to block a legal access from say a factory and the like where there is no dropped kerb; i.e. a highway to highway junction access.


It is NOT always an offence to block a dropped kerb access unless certain additional legal orders have been made:


1. The local authority has applied under Schedule 10 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 for a Special Enforcement Area.
2. The application has been approved and the Special Enforcement Area has been established.


Once the Special Enforcement Area has been legally established then the following are the applicable rules:


86 Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.

(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—

(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

(ii) assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or

(iii) assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or

(b) the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.


86 (1) (a) iii) covers private accesses with a dropped kerb to allow access across the footway.


I doubt that the village I live in is a Special Enforcement Area and therefore someone could park across my dropped kerb and they would not be commiting an offence. Also there would not be an offence under RTA 137 as there is room for a vehicle to pass so there is still free passage available.

So what about Unnecessary or wilful Obstruction?

Nearly_Old

a.turner wrote: »

So what about Unnecessary or wilful Obstruction?

Its really very simple under current legislation free passage along the highway is under RTA 137 and parking blocking a dropped crossing is under totally separate non-connected legislation. Legally the two are totally separate.

RTA 137 Unnecessary or wilful Obstruction applies ONLY to traffic on the highway and is there to protect the ancient right of free passage ALONG the highway and has no link to access to/from the highway.

a.turner

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Its really very simple under current legislation free passage along the highway is under RTA 137 and parking blocking a dropped crossing is under totally separate non-connected legislation. Legally the two are totally separate.

RTA 137 Unnecessary or wilful Obstruction applies ONLY to traffic on the highway and is there to protect the ancient right of free passage ALONG the highway and has no link to access to/from the highway.

But when pulling off your drive once the wheels touch the footpath the car parked over the dropped kerb is obstructing your free passage along the highway.

Nearly_Old

a.turner wrote: »

But when pulling off your drive once the wheels touch the footpath the car parked over the dropped kerb is obstructing your free passage along the highway.

Good try but sorry its wrong. Once your wheels touch the footpath you are moving TOWARDS the highway and not ALONG the highway. In law words have specific meanings.

Perhaps if you read some case law it might make it clearer.

a.turner

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Good try but sorry its wrong. Once your wheels touch the footpath you are moving TOWARDS the highway and not ALONG the highway. In law words have specific meanings.

Perhaps if you read some case law it might make it clearer.

If you're on the footpath you're on the road. Are highways and roads different for obstruction?

Nearly_Old

a.turner wrote: »

If you're on the footpath you're on the road. Are highways and roads different for obstruction?

Can you please explain the question? For clarity page 10 in the link below shows the standard DMRB highway cross-sections and nowhere is a "road" shown.
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol6/section1/td2705.pdf

a.turner

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Can you please explain the question? For clarity page 10 in the link below shows the standard DMRB highway cross-sections and nowhere is a "road" shown.
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol6/section1/td2705.pdf

When it comes to an obstruction offence are roads and highways one and the same?

Nearly_Old

a.turner wrote: »

When it comes to an obstruction offence are roads and highways one and the same?

Too lazy to follow the link? There are no roads in the cross-section of a highway.