council rejected dropped kerb

diystarter7

The best solution is to do noting and use that money to look after existing property/etc or new build.
A letter or an aritcle on their website reminding people to think hard about charging your EV if you don't have a drive may help.

YoungBlueEyes

I can see the point in principle. 

We’ve had an offer accepted on a house, and himself’s car is a wee bit longer than the frontage. I love the house more than he loves his car, so he’s for getting another (shorter!) car. 

What we aren’t doing, and it never occurred to us to do, is consider keeping the car and then wanting the pavement changed to accommodate his chosen car! 

I know this isn’t exactly the same issue (boundaries, land reg etc) but the principle is similar. 

Section62

diystarter7 said:

The best solution is to do noting and use that money to look after existing property/etc or new build.

In what way would that be "best"?

"Look[ing] after existing property" includes updating it to meet modern requirements, one of those is car parking, another is provision of EV charging points.  In time all LA's will need to address this, if they aren't already.

diystarter7 said:

A letter or an aritcle on their website reminding people to think hard about charging your EV if you don't have a drive may help.

Excellent idea.

Then hopefully the council will give a positive answer when one of their tenants reads about this on the website and asks the council to install charging points in the off-street car parks they are responsible for.

Section62

YoungBlueEyes said:

What we aren’t doing, and it never occurred to us to do, is consider keeping the car and then wanting the pavement changed to accommodate his chosen car! 

I know this isn’t exactly the same issue (boundaries, land reg etc) but the principle is similar. 

Your situation is comparable to diystarter7's, but not comparable to the OP's as the principles are very different.

The OP's situation involves the provision of communal off-street parking as part of a 'development'.  The parking provision is inadequate, there is ample land within the development to increase the availability of parking.  All the land is in the ownership of the council in its quasi-private capacity as a housing provider.

The people who rely on the communal car park have reasonable grounds to ask the owner to consider adapting the car park to better meet their needs, although as the owner the council could (if it is reasonable to do so) decline to act on the request.

If you and your neighbours had all approached the council (as highway authority, assuming your road is highway) and pointed out the problems with limited depth frontages, then the council may well have agreed to looking into stopping up part of the highway and transferring the land to you so you could have a longer driveway.

It wouldn't work if it was only you that wanted the change to benefit your privately owned property - but that is a key difference with the OP's situation.  In their case the parking should still be owned and managed by the council and available for all tenants to use.

diystarter7

YoungBlueEyes said:

I can see the point in principle. 

We’ve had an offer accepted on a house, and himself’s car is a wee bit longer than the frontage. I love the house more than he loves his car, so he’s for getting another (shorter!) car. 

What we aren’t doing, and it never occurred to us to do, is consider keeping the car and then wanting the pavement changed to accommodate his chosen car! 

I know this isn’t exactly the same issue (boundaries, land reg etc) but the principle is similar. 

Brill post.
Dad's Merc is massive, he loved it got another one, I loved it but we knew it would overhang and by less than whats in the pic.
We love our place, we loved the car and were going to get it for a good price as good as brand new. However,  we knew that our drive was a bit to short and the council would ticket us etc nor let us take a few inches from the pavement so the next car we got like the one before, we ensured we were able to park it on our drive or be prepared to park it on the road possibly 30 places from our house.

In Japan I think, you can't buy a car in certain places unless you can prove you have OSP of the correction proportions and or EV parking if the car is EV

123imp

Section62 said:

diystarter7 said:

...so why buy something you can't park/charge outside your home?

If the OP had their own private off-street parking they could charge an EV on their property.  The 'developer' of the OP's home chose not to provide private off-street parking, instead opting for a communal car park.  The 'developer' has also chosen not to sell or allocate parking spaces within the communal car park when they have sold properties on the 'development' to private owners.

The 'developer' has thus retained the responsibility and liability to maintain the parking area, and to keep it fit for purpose.  It is Government policy to phase out the use of petrol/diesel cars and to promote the use of EV's.  It is quite likely the 'developer' has similar policies, and has probably declared a "climate emergency".

Therefore the 'developer' needs to start work (if they haven't already) on adapting the car park they have chosen to retain ownership of, such that it continues to be fit for purpose as and when residents switch from petrol/diesel vehicles to EV's.  Just as they have had to do to improve fire safety, and will have to do when gas-fired boilers are phased out.

In this case it is the 'developer' that needs to adapt what it does to suit people living on the 'development', not the other way round.  And yes, what I refer to as the 'development' is what you refer to as "taxpayer-funded property".  I don't see that the source of funding for the development of the properties has any relevance in this thread, and I think you've gone way off-topic with many of your remarks about council/social housing.  It is the ownership of the land which is the relevant matter here.

I'm confused, the OP didn't mention whether the car park has been adopted, you appear to be implying that it has not? In which case, the OP wouldn't be able to apply for a dropped kerb anyway, as it wouldn't be within the highways boundary. If the car park has been adopted as highways land, then the developer would have no responsibility for its maintenance anymore.

Section62

123imp said:

Section62 said:

I'm confused, the OP didn't mention whether the car park has been adopted, you appear to be implying that it has not?

The OP described the area as a "communal car park" and said the rejection had come from the housing department.

As a car park it wouldn't be highway, and a rejection from the housing department (rather than highways) supports the OP's belief, along with the fact the way the car park has been marked wouldn't be lawful if it were (public) highway.  On that basis I'd be fairly certain the car park is owned by the council and managed by the housing department.

123imp said:

In which case, the OP wouldn't be able to apply for a dropped kerb anyway, as it wouldn't be within the highways boundary.

The OP can still ask for a dropped kerb, but the application process, legislation, and people making the decision would be different.  Most councils have 'estate roads' which were built along with the houses/flats and never adopted.  Someone living on an 'estate road' (for example) could ask for a dropped kerb.  The difference in this case is the kerb is in a car park and the OP doesn't have an automatic right to access their property from that area (which they would if it were highway).

123imp said:

If the car park has been adopted as highways land, then the developer would have no responsibility for its maintenance anymore.

Agreed, but car parks aren't adopted.  A layby might be.  And a highway authority may manage car parks, but that doesn't make the car park an adopted highway.

123imp

Section62 said:

123imp said:

Section62 said:

I'm confused, the OP didn't mention whether the car park has been adopted, you appear to be implying that it has not?

The OP described the area as a "communal car park" and said the rejection had come from the housing department.

As a car park it wouldn't be highway, and a rejection from the housing department (rather than highways) supports the OP's belief, along with the fact the way the car park has been marked wouldn't be lawful if it were (public) highway.  On that basis I'd be fairly certain the car park is owned by the council and managed by the housing department.

123imp said:

In which case, the OP wouldn't be able to apply for a dropped kerb anyway, as it wouldn't be within the highways boundary.

The OP can still ask for a dropped kerb, but the application process, legislation, and people making the decision would be different.  Most councils have 'estate roads' which were built along with the houses/flats and never adopted.  Someone living on an 'estate road' (for example) could ask for a dropped kerb.  The difference in this case is the kerb is in a car park and the OP doesn't have an automatic right to access their property from that area (which they would if it were highway).

123imp said:

If the car park has been adopted as highways land, then the developer would have no responsibility for its maintenance anymore.

Agreed, but car parks aren't adopted.  A layby might be.  And a highway authority may manage car parks, but that doesn't make the car park an adopted highway.

When you say housing department, would that be the affordable housing section of the local authority? Where I live it is managed by a private company, but where I work it's a section of the local council. 

I guess looking at the photo I couldn't tell 100% that it was a car park, with the left section missing it does genuinely look like it could be part of highway. Looks more like a large turning head or something. That aside, I 100% agree with everyone who has said there is no way they would ever get permission for an access over the greenspace. I feel sorry for the OP not being able to charge their car at their property, but unfortunately this country is not built for modern day living. EV charging won't be the first logistical nightmare we've encountered due to aging infrastructure.