vehicle crossover

Section62

TrEvOrTrEvOr said:

Section62 said:

When you submitted your application in 2022 the council should have told you the work described in the application was on public highway and therefore didn't need planning consent.

Moreover, the thing you would need planning consent for (the creation of the access) appears to have been granted as part of the 2001 application - i.e. you already had planning consent for the vehicular access.

I'm not entirely clear what works were completed as part of the 2001 consent, and whether they were completed within the time limit.  But that is largely irrelevant because the access has been in use for over 20 years and therefore no planning enforcement action could be taken.  You could have applied for a lawful development certificate (LDC) instead of making a full planning application if there were any dispute about the validity of the 2001 application.

Thanks again! Actually the LGSCO pointed out to me that the Council have changed their website specifically because of my case, but it does state there:

"..Planning permission 

You don’t usually need planning permission for a dropped kerb. However, it will be needed if your property:

• is in a conservation area

• is on a private road

• is on a classified road 

• is on a Transport for London red route.."

- which is why I applied for planning permission (there were no works completed on a crossover that resulted from the 2001 application, therefore the planning permission had expired).

I do take your point, but if I had applied for an LDC wouldn't the Council (Highways) have raised the same objections? 

It seems highly unlikely, but If an LDC trumps the Council's Highways policy and the Highways Act - why shouldn't it be possible to apply for it now? 

The letter was sent to my father in 2006 I think - as you can see, the Council offered to construct a vehicle crossing at that time.

The council's website is wrong.  Or rather their inaccurate use of the term "dropped kerb" makes that text incorrect.  "Dropped kerb" is is sometimes used inappropriately to refer to a vehicle crossover, in fact the council have got themselves into such a muddle they go as far as stating "A dropped kerb is sometimes called a vehicle crossover" and that is "...installed on the pavement outside your property."

This has probably come about due to their plain language department mangling the correct legal position to make it an easy read.

There are usually four elements involved in creating a new off-steet parking area.  The first is the hardstanding, the area you park on. The second is the "means of access", this is the place (sometimes a line of zero width, but maybe also involving a gate or wall) where the private area abuts the highway. The third is the crossing, the paved surface which is part of the highway across the footway/verge. And then fourth the kerb, which is typically lowered (aka 'dropped') to make use of the access easier and to minimise the risk of damage to both vehicles and the highway.

The third and fourth elements are (at least in your case) wholly within the highway.

The second element ("means of access") is often permitted development (Part 2, Class B  ) meaning no planning application is required, however in your case because the highway is a classified road permitted development doesn't apply. Note that the wording is "...a means of access to a highway..." and not ..."means of access on a highway".  The highway starts at your property boundary.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/2/made?view=plain

Therefore both the first and second elements are on your land. They appear to be 'legal' as a result of the 2001 planning consent - the non-completion of the "dropped kerb" is irrelevant, as is the expiry of the planning consent, assuming the work within your boundary was completed prior to the expiry of the time limit on the 2001 consent.

Thus you don't appear to need to carry out any work on these elements (within your boundary) which would be defined as 'development' by Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  The "means of access" in planning terms already exists (is extant).

The work that does need doing (and only if the council feels it necessary) would be lowering the kerb (element 4) and making whatever changes to the surface of the footway they might want to do (element 3).

Since both of those are wholly within the highway then the council (as highway authority) has permitted development rights to make whatever alterations they feel they need to do. (Part 9 Class A)

Permitted development

A. The carrying out by a highway authority— (a) on land within the boundaries of a road, of any works required for the maintenance or improvement of the road, where such works involve development by virtue of section 55(2)(b) of the Act; or....

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/9

TL;DR - the work on your land didn't need planning consent because you already had it.  The work that needs doing on the highway doesn't need planning consent because it is permitted development.

In terms of the LDC, the point is moot because you now have planning consent (on appeal) on top of the planning consent granted in 2001.  You don't need an LDC and it won't improve your position now.  However, if you didn't have the 2001 consent then the LDC process would have been better than making the full application you did.  The difference betwen the two is complicated, but in simple terms the LDC would merely confirm that what you were already doing was lawful (in planning terms). The highways department and TfL could comment before the LDC was issued but their "concerns" wouldn't carry the same weight as they might in a full application.