Dropped Kerb

Carlisle1967

Hello

I am thinking of applying for an extension to my existing dropped kerb so both our vehicles can be kept off the road.

The road has no parking restrictions but all the cars park on the opposite side of the road to us as there are older houses without driveways so there are no dropped kerbs that side.

I currently have 6 kerbs between me and my neighbor and have been told that that is the minimum amount that you can have.

My question as I have to pay a non refundable £300 fee is.

Do they take into consideration that nobody ever parks on this side of the road as in doing so 3+ spaces opposite would be lost to leave space for vehicles to get around?

I don't want to pay £300 for someone to just come and count the kerbs and then say no you don't meet the criteria.

Section62

Carlisle1967 said:

I currently have 6 kerbs between me and my neighbor and have been told that that is the minimum amount that you can have.

If someone parked on your side of the road at the same time as the parking on the other side, would that block the road?

The '6 kerb' rule is a policy your council has adopted - there is no legislation backing that up.  When councils make decisions they need to be rational (google 'Wednesbury unreasonable').  If they have adopted a policy and apply that without exception - without any regard to the specifics of your case - then they might be acting irrationally.

Proving their decision is irrational is usually done by seeking permission for a judicial review - but that is often ruinously expensive.

Subject to the specifics of your situation, I would probably start by asking them whether they would consider waiving the '6 kerb' rule if you were to make an application.  If they refuse to tell you unless you pay them first then complain to your councillor, then follow the council's formal complaints process, and if that fails, make a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Telling you whether or not the policy has exceptions that could apply in your case could potentially be done just by looking on streetview, they wouldn't need to do a full assessment just to confirm what, if any, flexibility there is in the policy/criteria.

Carlisle1967

Thank you for the reply.

Yes the road would be blocked if 2 cars were parked opposite.

I have called them and they offer no pre application advice at all, they just say you must fit their criteria which they have listed and the only one that I don't meet is

D.       Impact on parking in the area

Applications will only be approved when the distance between the proposed new crossing/extension and any existing accesses, to the left and right, is 5m (approximately 6 full height kerbs) or more. 5m is considered the minimum size needed for a car to park on the road and we are obliged to protect on street parking.

I understand they have to protect parking spaces but as nobody ever parks on this side of the road as you would effectively loose 3 parking spaces opposite (this is would also be the case if cars parked anywhere else on this side of the road) but not sure if they will even take this into consideration.

I could appeal but it states

The original decision will be final if your application still doesn't meet the criteria.

The Dropped Kerbs Team won’t be able to enter into any further correspondence.

From the conversation I had with them earlier they seemed to imply that it wasn't worth applying if all the criteria was not met but I'm not sure how they can apply the same rules to every situation across the county with no regard for other factors.

knightstyle

Our old council let us put in a dropped kerb and join onto our neighbours one so are you sure the 6 kerbs applies?

Carlisle1967

This council changed their rules in the last 2 years.

Our neighbor that's attached to us has had the whole front dropped, this was about 10 years ago now though.

Section62

Carlisle1967 said:

"...we are obliged to protect on street parking."

This is an example of an irrational policy, or rather the irrational application of a policy.

Protecting on-street parking is only necessary if there is on-street parking to protect.  If parking adjacent to a kerb would obstruct the highway then the council's first duty is to try and prevent that happening.  'Protecting' the parking along the 6 kerbs in your case would mean that (if I understand correctly) the road would be obstructed.

It is the equivalent of applying their policy on a road where there is a 'no stopping' restriction in force.  Nobody should be parking there, hence there is no reason for the protection they are claiming they are obliged to give.

That's why councils need to be careful about applying blanket policies like this.

You could ask them to explain what law obliges them to "protect on street parking". (although maybe save that for later)

Carlisle1967 said:

I understand they have to protect parking spaces but as nobody ever parks on this side of the road as you would effectively loose 3 parking spaces opposite (this is would also be the case if cars parked anywhere else on this side of the road) but not sure if they will even take this into consideration.

I could appeal but it states

The original decision will be final if your application still doesn't meet the criteria.

The Dropped Kerbs Team won’t be able to enter into any further correspondence.

I believe this is unlawful.

It purports to deny you your right to complain to the Ombudsman and/or make an application for permission for a judicial review.

The council (although perhaps not the dropped kerbs team specifically) is also not allowed to refuse to enter into any further correspondence on a request for a dropped kerb, which amounts to a request under Subsection 184(11) of the Highways Act 1980.  Their refusal to deal with your request would be a failure to comply with their obligation under Subsection 184(12).

That obligation is a real one which does exist -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/184

Carlisle1967 said:

From the conversation I had with them earlier they seemed to imply that it wasn't worth applying if all the criteria was not met but I'm not sure how they can apply the same rules to every situation across the county with no regard for other factors.

The short answer is 'they can't'.

The factors they should take into account are in Subsection 184(5).  The law is that they "shall have regard to" those ones. That's non-negotiable.*

Any other factors should be treated as guidelines, things that they will consider, but not apply rigidly.  To apply a policy with no regard for other relevant factors would place them in jeopardy of making an irrational decision.

The problem you'll likely have is the people dealing with this won't have the understanding of the law needed to know their decision making is flawed.  So you'll get fobbed off with stock answers which are designed to make people go away.

If you really want to get the crossover you want you are likely to need to spend time reading up on the legislation, and progress the issue until you are corresponding with the county solicitor (or equivalent).  Ultimately you might have to decide whether you are willing to send them a letter before action... but before reaching that point you would need (expensive) legal advice.


So, if they are refusing to enter into any pre-application correspondence with you, I think my next move would be to submit (in writing, to the county solicitor) a request under Subsection 184(11) of the Highways Act 1980 for works to widen the crossover. State clearly that you understand their wish to maintain on-street parking provision, but that vehicles parking in this position would normally be obstructing the highway, so in practice no loss of usable on-street parking will occur in this case.  Include a sketch plan showing what you want done, including an indication of where people currently park on the opposite side of the road.  Also state that you look forward to their response - in accordance with Subsection 184(12) - at their earliest convenience.

Then sit back and see what they say.

(* The situation in London is slightly different, but as you refer to 'county' I won't go into the detail of the differences)


Edit: To add, I'm not a lawyer.

TELLIT01

I'm guessing this is down to individual councils, or has been implemented in recent years.  We were attending an event last Saturday that the street we wanted to park in had extensive areas of drop kerb covering maybe a dozen or more properties before finding a section barely long enough to park the car.  Even that section of raised kerb had a lamp post in the middle of it so I had to let the rear passengers out and move forward to let the front passenger out.

Section62

TELLIT01 said:

I'm guessing this is down to individual councils....

Yes, as I posted above, there are some things the council has a statutory duty to consider, but the rest is left entirely to the discretion of the council.

Councils then implement a policy which they formulate to make it easier for them to make consistent decisions which can be easily understood by the public.  (E.g. a certain minimum distance between adjacent crossovers)

Whereas the correct situation should be an engineer assessing each site and if people could park between crossovers to then apply that minimum distance rule, rather than leaving a short length of kerb which is useless for parking alongside.

The logic is right, but applied in completely the wrong way.