Dropped kerb help

mobileron

Just take a photo and put on here,

Section62

prowla said:

Your drive is your private property and you can put a post/bush/tree/hedge there if you choose*.

*Subject to there not being planning conditions or covenants restricting the erection/planting of stuff in land at the front of the property.

Very common for LA's to insert all kinds of restrictions when selling under RtB etc.

wilfred30

wilfred30 said:

Paper_hearts_1 said:

Let me know if this isn’t the right section for this.

I recently put a dropped kerb in, spent a substantial money on it, and now the council is asking me to share with my neighbour (he’s a neighbour from hell).

I understand I may have to, but with me being a property owner and he being a council tenant, I want to know where I stand. Can I ask for half the money? I would like boundaries being set, I don’t want an informal agreement becoming a formal one particularly when it comes to selling.

There’s no rules specifying on the “terms” 

cheers. 

Are the Council asking you or telling you?

It would probably help if you answered this question.

Section62

princeofpounds said:

The idea being to preserve a certain amount of on-road parking (I think this is a stupid rationale in most situations myself, but that's another matter).

In the past footway crossing requests were just dealt with as they came, with no strategic thinking about how one might impact on another, or the overall availability of parking in a street.

That led to situations where two footway crossings could be too close to allow a car to park between them, but far enough apart that kerbspace was wasted.

Given that footway crossings are typically requested because there is a shortage of on-street parking, it makes sense to design them to have the least impact on parking availability. Particularly if there is a likelihood of controlled parking being introduced in the future as there is a minimum permitted length for parking bay markings and footway crossings have to be protected by yellow lines to maintain adequate sightlines and turning space. If the distance between two crossings is too short then a bay cannot be provided - even if residents have always managed to squeeze a car in the gap.

There is a very good rationale for the policy, but undoubtedly cases where it gets applied without the use of common sense.

princeofpounds said:

The neighbour points out that they can't access it because they would need to cross neighbouring land, and that's where the request to you comes in.

The OP says the neighbour could drive along the footway - which presumably means the footway crossing is close enough to the neighbour's proposed driveway, and it could be accessed without driving on the OP's land.

That's why I thought it was particularly odd that the council's approach to the OP was framed as a request.  It would make more sense if it was an instruction.

Maybe it is relevant which council department contacted the OP - someone from the housing department might not know highway law, and thinks permission is needed?

Section62

Alan2020 said:

How hard is it to put a picture so people can give useful advice, people want free advice yet so bone idle lazy to upload a picture. People on here give very useful help....

Although pictures often help, to be fair to the OP in this case they have already provided the information needed to give answers to their questions, and pictures won't help with the missing details.

The OP cannot stop a neighbour using the crossover to access their property - they don't own it and cannot expect compensation or a refund having paid to have it put in. No picture is needed for that answer.

If the request is for permission to drive over the OP's land then - as pointed out many posts ago - the answer will be found in the OP's deeds. Again, a picture of the driveway is unlikely to be required to clarify that.

People on here do give very useful help....  but on occasion some of them do tend to post before carefully reading what has already been said. 

ic

Section62 said:

Alan2020 said:

How hard is it to put a picture so people can give useful advice, people want free advice yet so bone idle lazy to upload a picture. People on here give very useful help....

Although pictures often help, to be fair to the OP in this case they have already provided the information needed to give answers to their questions, and pictures won't help with the missing details.

They'd clear up confusion.  Round my way, a pavement is usually only two to four foot wide, a dropped kerb will be installed in line with a driveway.  If two driveways are side by side, then the dropped kerb will be the width of the two driveways.  

Perhaps this particular set up crosses an area of grass, perhaps a couple of metres deep, and the OP has paid (probably a significant amount) for tarmac to be laid across the grass in addition to the dropped kerb.  The neighbour now is being asked to come out of their driveway at an angle and then use the same pathway.  In that case yes it forms a driveway leading to the OP, but it isn't owned by them.

If its just the pavement, and the neighbour is being asked to drive at an angle off their driveway and on to the road, that doesn't sound safe, as they won't have a clear view of approaching traffic or pedestrians on one side.

I'm probably wrong - and that's where a picture tells a thousand words.

davidmcn

Section62 said:

Alan2020 said:

How hard is it to put a picture so people can give useful advice, people want free advice yet so bone idle lazy to upload a picture. People on here give very useful help....

If the request is for permission to drive over the OP's land then - as pointed out many posts ago - the answer will be found in the OP's deeds.

But given the OP (presumably) didn't until now even have their own driveway, it seems immensely unlikely that the neighbour already has a right to drive over the OP's property.

TBagpuss

Section62 said:

prowla said:

Your drive is your private property and you can put a post/bush/tree/hedge there if you choose*.

*Subject to there not being planning conditions or covenants restricting the erection/planting of stuff in land at the front of the property.

Very common for LA's to insert all kinds of restrictions when selling under RtB etc.

If there are restrictions, OP can probably still put a non-fixed (and so techinically non-permanent) but heavy  planter / tree in a pot , or similar!