Dropped kerb and paving on a grass verge.

abdiman

Hi all,
I applied for a dropped kerb and paved hardstanding for the area outside my property to have access to my driveway which has more than enough space for 2 cars. The application was rejected for the reasons below:
'It was concluded that the crossing of the verge could not be approved for reasons of pedestrian safety, practicality (the access required for the proposed crossover would reduce the road car parking capacity) and the retention of amenity green spaces.'
The pedestrian safety is a non-issue because we live at the end of a cul-de-sac. The verge is shared with two other neighbors and there is a footpath on the verge. We have their approval and have got them to sign a letter to help our case. However this isn't enough for the council who keep rejecting our repeated appeals despite involving multiple councilors. The grass area is owned by the housing department and the pavement is owned by highways.  
This shows our current road (I live at number 15). House number 9 currently has a paved area for parking on a previously grassed verge area so the grass amenity excuse is rubbish. However, house number 16 put in a complaint because he uses the verge for extra parking spaces (despite him having a paved driveway). They are also hiding behind this complaint. 



Any comments would be very helpful and thank you for reading.

Cash-Cows

Pedestrian safety - only likely to be an issue if there was restricted visibility somehow or perhaps very large pedestrian footfall. 

Parking - this is not a reason to reject. There's no right to park on street and roads are for the pass and re-pass of traffic. Cars shouldn't be parking in or near to turning heads so arguably this would assist. 

Amenity - there's not much amenity value in just a grass verge or is it more than this? Anyway this is not a valid reason to turn down in my view. However you say the verge is owned by the housing dept.  This means that the highways dept do not control the verge. In this case it seems that housing hold the cards because they could legitimately say no on amenity grounds. They might if they were to agree to cross their land also charge you a fee to do so. 

abdiman

Thank you for the reply. We are getting nowhere with the councillor. What would you suggest? Do you think we can manage without a solicitor? 

twopenny

It does appear to go right across the access to number 17. A bit annoying for them.

I had a wierd problem with driveways that I couldn't get them to budge on. Can you work on the angle that the parking in the road is causing problems of access and turning for emergency vehicles and refuse trucks?

It's usually a case of looking at a problem like this from a different perspective rather than butting heads on the same one. Also a way to allow them to back up on a decision without lose of face.

abdiman

Yeah but we do have number 17 and 19 signature and we have consulted them. We have also made the point that the ambulance has to park all the way up the street (number 17 gets regular hospital visits). All of this has fallen on deaf ears. It's like their oblivious to any issues we raise. 

ElephantBoy57

It is quite a large piece of grass, for them to put a access path/road on. Have a look at other cul-de-sacs close to where you live. Have they got access?

unforeseen

abdiman said:

Yeah but we do have number 17 and 19 signature and we have consulted them. We have also made the point that the ambulance has to park all the way up the street (number 17 gets regular hospital visits). All of this has fallen on deaf ears. It's like their oblivious to any issues we raise. 

Unfortunately that is only the current occupiers. What happens if new owners have a problem with it? 
And that is possibly a factor that the council have taken into account when refusing it. Also 17 has only got a small frontage to the street. What happens when vehicles are left parked on that bit of paved area? It will happen and that will be a significant obstruction. 

abdiman

unforeseen said:

abdiman said:

Yeah but we do have number 17 and 19 signature and we have consulted them. We have also made the point that the ambulance has to park all the way up the street (number 17 gets regular hospital visits). All of this has fallen on deaf ears. It's like their oblivious to any issues we raise. 

Unfortunately that is only the current occupiers. What happens if new owners have a problem with it? 
And that is possibly a factor that the council have taken into account when refusing it. Also 17 has only got a small frontage to the street. What happens when vehicles are left parked on that bit of paved area? It will happen and that will be a significant obstruction. 

That's the beauty of this: the grass verge is always occupied with other neighbors cars (mainly house number 16 which is why he complained despite having his own driveway) that park on it everyday! We have sent photos to the neighborhood officer who does nothing apart from tell us to call the police. This causes more of a hazard than if we were to pave it because then there would be a H bar. No one would be allowed to park on the verge in that case because it would block access to my driveway.