Lamp post on front garden/driveway, can they legally enforce me to put concrete bollards around it?

Nick_C

si90 said:

 it is a freehold house

Did you mean Freehold?  It sounds more like Leasehold!

AdrianC

Nick_C said:

si90 said:

 it is a freehold house

Did you mean Freehold?  It sounds more like Leasehold!

Standard modern-build estate. Rentcharge to cover maintenance of the common areas, including unadopted roadways, plus covenants to stop you doing anything.

It's something that hundreds of thousands of people just like the OP blithely accepted without thinking about the implications when they bought on this type of development - then they complain when they find out what they should have thought about pre-purchase.

Hasbeen

Quotes are a bit hit or miss for me!!!  Op no one was going to park in your garden to hit the Lamp post. But if you pave over then that risk increases. For £94 delivered:  https://www.barriersdirect.co.uk/barriers-c1157/hoop-barriers-c1012/pole-column-lamp-post-protector-best-seller-p764

si90

General_Grant said:

si90 said:

the kerb is dropped, you can see on the photo, the kerb is the same height as the driveway

I don't see that in the photograph.  What I see is a driveway which is the same height (or has no step up) as the walkway (path) - unless there is no path and the grassed area ends at the road.

Yeah thats correct, there is no path and the grassed area ends to the road. the kerb is dropped along the entire length.

My main issue is, the lamp post is already vulnerable in regards to people parallel parking outside my house. Also the way the parking spot would be situated is it can only be reversed into, in the very unlikely event i did hit it, at such a low speed the only damage would be to my car anyway no?

si90

.

si90

AdrianC

si90 said:

General_Grant said:

si90 said:

the kerb is dropped, you can see on the photo, the kerb is the same height as the driveway

I don't see that in the photograph.  What I see is a driveway which is the same height (or has no step up) as the walkway (path) - unless there is no path and the grassed area ends at the road.

Yeah thats correct, there is no path and the grassed area ends to the road. the kerb is dropped along the entire length.

My main issue is, the lamp post is already vulnerable in regards to people parallel parking outside my house. Also the way the parking spot would be situated is it can only be reversed into, in the very unlikely event i did hit it, at such a low speed the only damage would be to my car anyway no?

It's very simple. The post is currently only vulnerable to people who are already where they shouldn't be.

You want to turn the garden into parking? The post is going to be vulnerable from all sides from people intentionally driving around it.

But, really, there's no more justification needed than "Sure, we're happy for you to do that - but we want you to protect our post."

If you don't agree, leave it as garden. If you want the parking space, do as they ask. If you don't like that, sell the house and buy one that isn't on a modern estate with rentcharges and covenants restricting you. End of.

<£100 for a suitable protector sounds like a no-brainer to me. If scraping it is an issue, then it's done its job and paid for itself...

ciderboy2009

Presumably you've checked whether or not you need planning consent to do this?  Bear in mind that, on a lot of these modern developments, signing away any permitted development rights is part of the original planning consent for the estate.

Also, quite often the limited parking is deliberate in an attempt to get people to use public transport so planning consent might not be easy to obtain.

bucksbloke

You will probably need planning consent to do this. If you check your transfer documentation, you will probably find that you have a requirement to ensure that you keep the frontage the same as other properties, and also that you have signed away permitted development rights and therefore need to seek planning consent for any changes. 

SpiderLegs

AdrianC said...

It's very simple. The post is currently only vulnerable to people who are already where they shouldn't be.

This is the point the OP is missing.

The issue is one of public liability. 

Let’s say someone hits the post today, knocks it down and it hits a nice old lady.
Clearly the post owner cannot be liable because the post is situated where a car shouldn’t hit it.

By allowing the OP to turn the whole area into parking without protection they would then have implicitly accepted the increased risk of the post being knocked down and landing on the old bat.
They may well not be 100% at fault, but they would certainly be more exposed than with the proposed bollards. 

OP needs to understand that the request is not really to do with protecting the post itself, it’s about avoiding risk of the owner ending up in court.