Service strip

AdrianC

I'm starting to think it comes down to "I don't like it"... Especially given the comment about devaluing properties.

Why that gate would do that, I have zero idea...

Johnnyh123

I might be completely wrong but it just looks like the OP is annoyed that they can no longer park along this bit of the road where there is the dropped kerb.  Where the fence has been planted isn’t completely irrelevant but surely moving this back 6 inches or whatever it is just leaves the situation the same.  I can’t see how this devalues anything really.  If anything it forces the service strip to be more accessible because nobody can park there.

At the same time it is annoying that the council can drop the kerb on land it doesn’t own.  Right of access is one thing but this is surely a grey area that is probably morally wrong.

Section62

Johnnyh123 said:

At the same time it is annoying that the council can drop the kerb on land it doesn’t own.  Right of access is one thing but this is surely a grey area that is probably morally wrong.

If the road is public highway the local highway authority can install and adjust (e.g. drop) kerbs as they wish. Who owns the land is irrelevant.

If the road isn't public highway, but is on land owned by the council then they can install and adjust kerbs as the landowner.

Nothing grey nor morally wrong.

Johnnyh123

Section62 said:

Johnnyh123 said:

At the same time it is annoying that the council can drop the kerb on land it doesn’t own.  Right of access is one thing but this is surely a grey area that is probably morally wrong.

If the road is public highway the local highway authority can install and adjust (e.g. drop) kerbs as they wish. Who owns the land is irrelevant.

If the road isn't public highway, but is on land owned by the council then they can install and adjust kerbs as the landowner.

Nothing grey nor morally wrong.

Maybe I’m reading it wrong but he’s saying he owns the land.  Is it not possible that it’s not a public highway and also not the councils land.

user1977

Johnnyh123 said:

Section62 said:

Johnnyh123 said:

At the same time it is annoying that the council can drop the kerb on land it doesn’t own.  Right of access is one thing but this is surely a grey area that is probably morally wrong.

If the road is public highway the local highway authority can install and adjust (e.g. drop) kerbs as they wish. Who owns the land is irrelevant.

If the road isn't public highway, but is on land owned by the council then they can install and adjust kerbs as the landowner.

Nothing grey nor morally wrong.

Maybe I’m reading it wrong but he’s saying he owns the land.  Is it not possible that it’s not a public highway and also not the councils land.

Yes. Just about anything is possible based on the lack of information provided. Though if it's neither land owned by the council nor a public highway, I don't know how the council are involved.

Section62

Johnnyh123 said:

Maybe I’m reading it wrong but he’s saying he owns the land.  Is it not possible that it’s not a public highway and also not the councils land.

As user1977 says, the lack of information makes it difficult for anyone to comment.

If the land the dropped kerb is on is neither public highway nor council owned, then the council cannot do work on it unless acting as a contractor to the landowner, or taking action in default.

It still isn't grey or morally wrong. They either have the powers or they don't.

Johnnyh123

Section62 said:

Johnnyh123 said:

Maybe I’m reading it wrong but he’s saying he owns the land.  Is it not possible that it’s not a public highway and also not the councils land.

As user1977 says, the lack of information makes it difficult for anyone to comment.

If the land the dropped kerb is on is neither public highway nor council owned, then the council cannot do work on it unless acting as a contractor to the landowner, or taking action in default.

It still isn't grey or morally wrong. They either have the powers or they don't.

They can have the powers to do it but it be morally wrong in someone’s opinion.  I said it’s morally wrong because I’m not an expert in the laws.  It doesn’t look like you are either considering there’s a third possibility you didn’t include which is that they’ve done this on land they don’t own or have a right to do it on and they’re hoping he just goes away to avoid them incurring costs.  If he owns the land but there’s a right of anyone to access or use it is one thing but dropping a kerb on land it doesn’t own no matter what the law says is morally wrong in my opinion. 

user1977

Johnnyh123 said:

Section62 said:

Johnnyh123 said:

Maybe I’m reading it wrong but he’s saying he owns the land.  Is it not possible that it’s not a public highway and also not the councils land.

As user1977 says, the lack of information makes it difficult for anyone to comment.

If the land the dropped kerb is on is neither public highway nor council owned, then the council cannot do work on it unless acting as a contractor to the landowner, or taking action in default.

It still isn't grey or morally wrong. They either have the powers or they don't.

If he owns the land but there’s a right of anyone to access or use it is one thing but dropping a kerb on land it doesn’t own no matter what the law says is morally wrong in my opinion. 

I'm not quite sure where you're drawing the moral line here, but be aware that the vast majority of public highways are not situated on land which is also owned by the roads authority - so it's perfectly normal for the council to be doing stuff on land they don't own (but where they have a statutory right/obligation to do the work because it's a public highway).

Johnnyh123

user1977 said:

Johnnyh123 said:

Section62 said:

Johnnyh123 said:

Maybe I’m reading it wrong but he’s saying he owns the land.  Is it not possible that it’s not a public highway and also not the councils land.

As user1977 says, the lack of information makes it difficult for anyone to comment.

If the land the dropped kerb is on is neither public highway nor council owned, then the council cannot do work on it unless acting as a contractor to the landowner, or taking action in default.

It still isn't grey or morally wrong. They either have the powers or they don't.

If he owns the land but there’s a right of anyone to access or use it is one thing but dropping a kerb on land it doesn’t own no matter what the law says is morally wrong in my opinion. 

I'm not quite sure where you're drawing the moral line here, but be aware that the vast majority of public highways are not situated on land which is also owned by the roads authority - so it's perfectly normal for the council to be doing stuff on land they don't own (but where they have a statutory right/obligation to do the work because it's a public highway).

I’m drawing it on the council dropping a kerb on land it doesn’t own so that one resident can access and use a road directly from his back garden that he does not have to pay for the upkeep of and that only benefits that specific house owner.  I imagine councils do all sorts of work on roads they don’t own but it’s for the benefit of everyone or at least the local residents as a whole.  This isn’t that though.

As you’ve said we don’t know the facts in this specific case because he’s been quite vague but I think it’s morally wrong in a situation like I’ve suggested above.

Section62

Johnnyh123 said:

They can have the powers to do it but it be morally wrong in someone’s opinion.  I said it’s morally wrong because I’m not an expert in the laws.  It doesn’t look like you are either considering there’s a third possibility you didn’t include which is that they’ve done this on land they don’t own or have a right to do it on and they’re hoping he just goes away to avoid them incurring costs.  If he owns the land but there’s a right of anyone to access or use it is one thing but dropping a kerb on land it doesn’t own no matter what the law says is morally wrong in my opinion. 

Whether or not I'm an expert on highway law isn't really relevant to the thread, but if it wasn't already clear then I gave the two most common reasons why a council can install a dropped kerb. I.e. where they have a positive power.  My follow-up post added another two, but that still isn't an exhaustive list.

To include all the possibilities of where they cannot install a dropped kerb would make for a very long post, and not very helpful to the OP.

The important bit, as user1977 just said, is it is quite normal for councils to install or modify kerbing on land they don't own.