Dropped kerb - semi-detached house with shared access

LondonChris15

Hi all, 
I believe my situation slightly unique, I moved into a 1930's semi-detached two years ago in the Ealing borough of London. 
I have an existing crossover and shared access driveway to garages at the rear of our property between my neighbour and I. I've recently applied for a dropped kerb, yet to receive the assessment but have had discussions with Ealing council via email. According to the crossover guidelines, the maximum amount of crossover I'm allowed is 2.4m across my property, however as I have an existing shared access, they include half of the existing shared driveway (which is 1.1m) in my 2.4m allowance and say that I have to extend that section, rather than have a crossover in the middle of my house.

Yesterday, the inspector has sprayed on the pavement the new lines, what's troubling me is that I'll be paving my entire drive, lots of space for two cars but not if the dropped kerb is in the position that the council have currently indicated, I'd only be able to drive on diagonally.  Also, I wouldn't be able to park in front of my dropped kerb as 1.1m (of my total 2.4m) is shared access. Finally, it's an old cobble crossover style, and I've asked them if there's an option to change it to the "typical" paved crossovers.

See pic attached, my crossover would end marginally into my house boundaries, thoughts welcome on this, I'm not so sure I want to pay whatever the cost will be (~£1200) in this scenario. The alternative would be to build my drive to access via the existing shared access crossover but we have lots of parked cars on this street and they leave little room for me to drive out from the shared access only.

Apologies, bit of a rant, hope it's clear.

LondonChris15

Just to add, this is the official guidance: 

We only allow one crossover per residential property. A single crossover can be

a maximum width of 2.4m. You may share a crossover with your neighbours, in

which case the crossover can be 4.8m wide. Please note; if your property has

access to a rear garage via an existing access, this will have to be removed (at

your cost) in order to allow the construction of a single crossover at the front.
The Council said (via email) that they will only extend the existing, not remove this crossover, which wouldn't make sense as it's shared. 

Section62

LondonChris15 said:

Yesterday, the inspector has sprayed on the pavement the new lines, what's troubling me is that I'll be paving my entire drive, lots of space for two cars but not if the dropped kerb is in the position that the council have currently indicated, I'd only be able to drive on diagonally.

Have you discussed that with the council?  Many councils, particularly in London, won't provide crossovers without retention of a significant percentage of the front garden as 'soft' landscaping.  You might also need planning consent.

It is also hard to tell from the photo, but it looks like the depth of the front garden isn't that great, and might not be enough to meet the council's minimum requirement. Don't rely on the neighbours having parking in the front garden as evidence you can do the same - the council's policy regarding depth might have changed over time as the average car has increased in size.

LondonChris15 said:

See pic attached, my crossover would end marginally into my house boundaries, thoughts welcome on this, I'm not so sure I want to pay whatever the cost will be (~£1200) in this scenario.

If you can't make sensible use of the front garden for parking then is there an option to use the drive as originally intended and make space for parking at the rear of the property?  That could avoid the need for any changes to the crossover - and the cost savings from that, plus what you'd earmarked for paving the front garden, could possibly give you an economical alternative at the rear.  Whether that makes sense depends on how much land you have at the rear, and whether the remainder would meet modern (minimal) expectations.

LondonChris15 said:

Please note; if your property has access to a rear garage via an existing access, this will have to be removed (at your cost) in order to allow the construction of a single crossover at the front.
The Council said (via email) that they will only extend the existing, not remove this crossover, which wouldn't make sense as it's shared.

The "Please note" doesn't actually mention the situation of shared existing accesses.

But if your neighbour was willing to agree to the shared access crossover being removed then that might be an option, although the council might object that two separate crossovers would mean more loss of kerbspace than the existing shared one.

Also be aware they might have a policy on the minimum distance between adjacent crossovers, which could affect your options/plans.

If you are up for a fight, you might want to ask the council to clarify the legal basis of their rules. If they provide the typical generic reference to the Highways Act 1980 Section 184 then ask them which subsection confers on them the power to impose the limitations they are trying to do.  It won't necessarily get you the crossover you want, but if they feel a legal challenge is a possibility then they may be more flexible in their approach.

If they refer to other legislation then come back and let us know what they say. (there is something, but in just case they are reading this I'm not going to help them out)

LondonChris15

Thanks @Section62 for your reply!

Section62 said:

Have you discussed that with the council?  Many councils, particularly in London, won't provide crossovers without retention of a significant percentage of the front garden as 'soft' landscaping.  You might also need planning consent.

I'm awaiting the assessment back from them, you're correct in that they may ask for 25% garden to remain which I'm fine with if so. Space for two cars would be the ideal, but one with garden is fine too.

Section62 said:

Also be aware they might have a policy on the minimum distance between adjacent crossovers, which could affect your options/plans.

We have the correct depth, just over 6 metres (they ask for 4.2m). 

Section62 said:

Also be aware they might have a policy on the minimum distance between adjacent crossovers, which could affect your options/plans.

The guide doesn't mention anything on distances other than 10m away from a junction, it cover this for alleyways which I would assume relates to public alleyways:
If your property is located adjacent to an alleyway, over which access rights are enjoyed, then we will not allow a new crossover onto the street to be constructed. We will allow an extension to the alleyway dropped kerb to a maximum width of 4.8m which will enable you to access your front garden from the side. This is in the interests of retaining on street parking and pedestrian safety. 

Section62 said:

If you are up for a fight, you might want to ask the council to clarify the legal basis of their rules. If they provide the typical generic reference to the Highways Act 1980 Section 184 then ask them which subsection confers on them the power to impose the limitations they are trying to do.  It won't necessarily get you the crossover you want, but if they feel a legal challenge is a possibility then they may be more flexible in their approach.

If they refer to other legislation then come back and let us know what they say. (there is something, but in just case they are reading this I'm not going to help them out)

Thanks, I'll keep you/forum posted! I'm certainly not going to pay for their current markings/crossover so will push a bit further and see where I get to, of the 2.4m I'm allowed my ideal would be 1.3m centrally (1.1m I "lose" due to the shared access), if not then perhaps as you suggest we can look into parking at the rear.

Section62

LondonChris15 said:

The guide doesn't mention anything on distances other than 10m away from a junction, it cover this for alleyways which I would assume relates to public alleyways:
If your property is located adjacent to an alleyway, over which access rights are enjoyed, then we will not allow a new crossover onto the street to be constructed. We will allow an extension to the alleyway dropped kerb to a maximum width of 4.8m which will enable you to access your front garden from the side. This is in the interests of retaining on street parking and pedestrian safety. 

I would guess "alleyway" is intended to mean the kind of shared driveway you have, rather than a public alleyway.  The cases where a public alleyway also has private vehicular rights are so vanishingly rare that it wouldn't make sense for Ealing to have a specific policy about them.  On the other hand, a shared driveway arrangement like yours is common everywhere there has been 1930's house building.

This policy would also explain the telephone conversations you've had with them about only allowing widening of the existing crossover.

If so, a lawyer might make the point that your property is not "located adjacent to an alleyway", but instead part of  your property is an 'alleyway', and therefore this policy wouldn't apply in your case. (But INAL)

Also worth noting that neither of the reasons "in the interests of retaining on street parking and pedestrian safety" are matters mentioned in S184 subsection 5 that the "authority shall have regard to" according to subsection 11.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/184

Jumblebumble

LondonChris15 said:

Hi all, 
I believe my situation slightly unique, I moved into a 1930's semi-detached two years ago in the Ealing borough of London. 
I have an existing crossover and shared access driveway to garages at the rear of our property between my neighbour and I. I've recently applied for a dropped kerb, yet to receive the assessment but have had discussions with Ealing council via email. According to the crossover guidelines, the maximum amount of crossover I'm allowed is 2.4m across my property, however as I have an existing shared access, they include half of the existing shared driveway (which is 1.1m) in my 2.4m allowance and say that I have to extend that section, rather than have a crossover in the middle of my house.

Yesterday, the inspector has sprayed on the pavement the new lines, what's troubling me is that I'll be paving my entire drive, lots of space for two cars but not if the dropped kerb is in the position that the council have currently indicated, I'd only be able to drive on diagonally.  Also, I wouldn't be able to park in front of my dropped kerb as 1.1m (of my total 2.4m) is shared access. Finally, it's an old cobble crossover style, and I've asked them if there's an option to change it to the "typical" paved crossovers.

See pic attached, my crossover would end marginally into my house boundaries, thoughts welcome on this, I'm not so sure I want to pay whatever the cost will be (~£1200) in this scenario. The alternative would be to build my drive to access via the existing shared access crossover but we have lots of parked cars on this street and they leave little room for me to drive out from the shared access only.

Apologies, bit of a rant, hope it's clear.

I don't think your situation is unique at all and the inspector is likely to have ruled on hundreds of similar requests and so I think You are going to have to live with the situation of either extending 1.3 m or driving out of the side
@section62
  I struggle to see how anyone can argue that the property is not adjacent to an alley way  as this is not mutually exclusive to the alleyway being part of the property if one bears in mind that  50% of said alleyway does not belong to the OP

Section62

Jumblebumble said:

I don't think your situation is unique at all and the inspector is likely to have ruled on hundreds of similar requests...

The number of times the council has 'ruled' on something doesn't change the lawfullness of a decision, if it is ultra vires.

Jumblebumble said:

@section62
  I struggle to see how anyone can argue that the property is not adjacent to an alley way  as this is not mutually exclusive to the alleyway being part of the property if one bears in mind that  50% of said alleyway does not belong to the OP

As I said, INAL. But I have seen legal arguments against local authority policies and decisions being successfully made on the basis of grounds far more tenuous than that.

The policy is poorly drafted and could be vulnerable to legal challenge, if the OP were interested in going down that route. (having regard to the risks and costs etc)

LondonChris15

Just to close this, I didn't get anywhere in my discussions with the Council. Phone calls via multiple avenues didn't connect to the highway services team, email replies from them shrugged off any legal discussions and as I wasn't willing to spend any more time on the matter I stopped chasing them. 

I did however agree a lower fee and they "threw in" additional repairs in addition to the dropped kerb, so wasn't as bad. 

Thanks for input all.