Service strip

user1977

Johnnyh123 said:

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.

Obviously, dropped kerbs are generally just for the benefit of the adjoining property. And councils invariably want (a) control of any works done to "their" pavements and (b) will only do the work if they've been paid by the owner.

Cakeguts

I am assuming that the council has allowed a dropped kerb on land that they don't own but they can't grant permission for someone to drive over that land.   It looked to me as if something peculiar has gone on because there appears to be a dropped kerb to a pathway that now doesn't go anywhere because there is a bit of gate in front of it.

Section62

Johnnyh123 said:

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.

You misunderstand. The highway authority has a legal obligation (with limitations) to provide a dropped crossing where requested by the occupier of land adjoining a highway maintainable at public expense. (S184 Highways Act 1980)

If we assume (because the OP didn't say otherwise) that the road is adopted and therefore maintainable at public expense, then the person benefiting from the new dropped kerb is paying for the upkeep of the road through general taxation.

The issue is then about the status of the 'service strip'. The OP doesn't explain the status of this land clearly, but it can be surmised from the information given that there are likely to be highway rights associated with the service strip.

Therefore, unless the OP is also claiming that the driveway has been built on his land, the provisions of S184 come into effect and the highway authority is obligated to provide the dropped crossing unless other factors (such as safety) give grounds for refusal.

Making moral judgements isn't a good idea when you don't have the full facts.

How the other person came to own a strip of land sufficient to be used as a driveway is another question the OP could usefully clarify. If the OP is also claiming that land as his the situation might be different.

Johnnyh123

Section62 said:

Johnnyh123 said:

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.

You misunderstand. The highway authority has a legal obligation (with limitations) to provide a dropped crossing where requested by the occupier of land adjoining a highway maintainable at public expense. (S184 Highways Act 1980)

If we assume (because the OP didn't say otherwise) that the road is adopted and therefore maintainable at public expense, then the person benefiting from the new dropped kerb is paying for the upkeep of the road through general taxation.

The issue is then about the status of the 'service strip'. The OP doesn't explain the status of this land clearly, but it can be surmised from the information given that there are likely to be highway rights associated with the service strip.

Therefore, unless the OP is also claiming that the driveway has been built on his land, the provisions of S184 come into effect and the highway authority is obligated to provide the dropped crossing unless other factors (such as safety) give grounds for refusal.

Making moral judgements isn't a good idea when you don't have the full facts.

How the other person came to own a strip of land sufficient to be used as a driveway is another question the OP could usefully clarify. If the OP is also claiming that land as his the situation might be different.

Nope I didn’t misunderstand anything.  I think you need a lesson in reading.  I responded to comment about where I make the moral judgement and stated the set of circumstances where I think it would be morally wrong and even stated that this may not be the case for this dispute.  I did that because I knew this type of comment would follow.  It has anyway cutting out the paragraph I wrote to qualify it.  I can and have made a moral judgement when I’m setting out a theoretical situation that this dispute may turn out to be.  I find it very odd that you’re continuing this without adding anything worthwhile other than stroking your own apparent fragile ego.

Section62

Johnnyh123 said:

Nope I didn’t misunderstand anything. I think you need a lesson in reading. I responded to comment about where I make the moral judgement and stated the set of circumstances where I think it would be morally wrong and even stated that this may not be the case for this dispute. I did that because I knew this type of comment would follow. It has anyway cutting out the paragraph I wrote to qualify it. I can and have made a moral judgement when I’m setting out a theoretical situation that this dispute may turn out to be. I find it very odd that you’re continuing this without adding anything worthwhile other than stroking your own apparent fragile ego.

You actually 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.

- and -

Johnnyh123 said:

...but dropping a kerb on land it doesn’t own no matter what the law says is morally wrong in my opinion.

The reason I was "continuing this" is because this forum is a place for people to get help and advice, and it doesn't help people like the OP if other people make comments which are inaccurate or misleading.  Opinions on the morals are irrelevant to the OP's situation, and as you don't appear to understand that highway authorities routinely do work on land which they do not own then you aren't helping the OP by giving your opinion, hypothetical or not.

The OP is dealing with a legal situation ("what the law says") and not a moral one.

If you think my post didn't add "anything worthwhile" then perhaps you should take your own advice regarding 'reading' and have another look at the final paragraph?

Titus_Wadd

I hope the OP comes back to explain the situation.  I can't offer any legal advice I'm afraid, but as I live on a private road that leads on to a never-going-to-be adopted country lane I read any threads on similar topics that might possibly be helpful in the future.  We have been left with little alternative than to take legal action against our NFH.  In the months leading us to this point we have had so many well meaning folk telling us "That's not right" and "He can't treat you like that" including the Police, Council leader and head of the planning department, who then backed out of taking any action to help us.

Please keep discussing and OP please come back to help us fully understand the situation because the discussion helps more than just the person who started the thread in the first place.  It might provide a useful nugget for someone reading with a related issue.

verytired11

For goodness' sake, will someone PLEASE just tell me what is going on??!!

Ivorbiggun1

Looking at this pictureI would say there is nothing wrong with the gates,you may own the land,but the highways agency own the road plus the service strip and can do with it what they will,looking down the road there may not be a service strip if the house is the only one on that side,the services will run up the other side of the road and cross to that side if there are more properties on the other side.