Dropped kerb query

piperm87

I know. I wouldnt do it because its just my luck that i would be the one to get caught. Its usually the way. I'd rather do it the right way so theres little to no chance of a come back after. . I just dont know if the council would entertain us been as its not been tarmac'd or blocked paved etc yet

unforeseen

An H bar (Access protection marking) is not an enforceable road marking. As such the council has no powers to take action against obstructive parking which may take place once the marking has been installed. 

piperm87

Unfortunately your correct. I just want to get the curb dropped. To make it a legal vehicle passageway where I dont need to worry about kerb damage to the cars and to deter people from parking there

secla

When i looked at dropping a kerb at the front of our property there was no need to have hardstanding at front prior to applying just a certain amount of space. In the end it turned out we needed to apply for full planning as we were on an a road so i never bothered doing it

piperm87

Were on a quiet side road but I'm not sure on whether we'll need planning permission. I'll give them a call again today and ask a few questions. Hopefully I'll get someone who's willing to provide some advice this time.

The neighbour to those who extended the line themselves had theirs droppled last year and it cost around £2000 to be done 

Eldi_Dos

piperm87 said:

Unfortunately your correct. I just want to get the curb dropped. To make it a legal vehicle passageway where I dont need to worry about kerb damage to the cars and to deter people from parking there

"deter"
The image of towels on sunbeds springs to mind.
People pay a lot of money to purchase,tax and insure their cars and are quite within their rights to park on the public highway.

TELLIT01

Section62 said:

TELLIT01 said:

The OP is actually the one acting illegally by driving over a pavement which doesn't have a drop kerb. 

It isn't illegal unless the council have issued a notice to the OP telling them they can't access their property that way and to stop doing it.  The offence is failure to comply with the requirements of the notice.

Sorry but you are wrong on this one. 

Although parking is generally permitted at the side of the road, except where there are restrictions or a specific offence has been committed, driving actually onto the pavement or footway (to park or otherwise) is an offence under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, as amended.19 Nov 2020

Section62

Eldi_Dos said:

piperm87 said:

Unfortunately your correct. I just want to get the curb dropped. To make it a legal vehicle passageway where I dont need to worry about kerb damage to the cars and to deter people from parking there

"deter"
The image of towels on sunbeds springs to mind.
People pay a lot of money to purchase,tax and insure their cars and are quite within their rights to park on the public highway.

There is no right to park on the public highway.  Each time a vehicle is parked on the highway it is causing an obstruction, unless in a marked (legally defined) parking place.

The driver should make an assessment whether their obstruction of the highway is reasonable and justifiable, and whether they could be subject to enforcement action.

In many/most cases the obstruction is not something the authorities would take any enforcement action against, but because it is still technically an obstruction, the authorities have the right to (re)move the vehicle if access is required (e.g. to a manhole).

So someone parking across the raised kerb part of the OP's frontage would be causing an obstruction, but the OP stands almost zero chance of getting the enforcement authority to do anything about it.

unforeseen

Unless it is adversely affecting the flow of the traffic then the chances of any enforcement will be virtually zero. 
Preventing a vehicle accessing a highway when there is no legitimate route for it to get there is not obstruction. 

Section62

TELLIT01 said:

Section62 said:

TELLIT01 said:

The OP is actually the one acting illegally by driving over a pavement which doesn't have a drop kerb. 

It isn't illegal unless the council have issued a notice to the OP telling them they can't access their property that way and to stop doing it.  The offence is failure to comply with the requirements of the notice.

Sorry but you are wrong on this one. 

Although parking is generally permitted at the side of the road, except where there are restrictions or a specific offence has been committed, driving actually onto the pavement or footway (to park or otherwise) is an offence under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, as amended.19 Nov 2020

No need to be sorry:  I'm not wrong.

Although S72 of the 1835 Act is often quoted (particularly by pedestrian lobby groups) as 'proof' it is 'illegal' to drive across a footway, that isn't the case.

There is a common law right of access to land which adjoins a public highway, and this right gives lawful excuse for a driver of a vehicle to cross a footway (or verge) to gain access to that land.

In law there is no distinction between a footway which is kerbed, and a footway which has the kerb lowered.  A footway is a footway.  If the argument that S72 made it illegal to drive across a footway was true, then it would also be illegal to drive across the footway where a dropped kerb has been provided.  Section 72 is not as absolute as some people claim - which is unsurprising given it became legislation decades before cars (as we know them) became commonplace on our roads.

From the context of the text you've quoted (which appears to come from a pedestrian safety organisation), that claim relates to people driving onto the footway in order to park on it (not to cross it to gain access to adjoining land).  Elsewhere it is often claimed that not one wheel must ever touch the footway for whatever reason, but that simply isn't what the law says.

This is something I've been involved in researching to the nth degree as a local highway authority officer seeking to prevent people driving across the footway.  In the end the conclusion was that additional powers were required to achieve this (in effect limiting the common law right) and that involved obtaining an Act of Parliament.