Am I right that I will never get a dropped kerb approved here?

snowqueen555

I'd be very surprised if it was granted. The rubber ramps aren't allowed. But the reality is that the council has quite low resources to enforce this sort of thing, and it relies on someone reporting it or noticing.

So ignoring all the manhole covers you'd still need to fulfil all the other criteria required, the council webpage will no doubt have a long list of things, and this will differ from council to council.

Bookworm105

user1977 said:

Bookworm105 said:

Albermarle said:

If you do not have a dropped kerb, you must not drive over the pavement. If you do so, you are breaking the law* and enforcement action could be taken to prevent this. Furthermore:   You may become liable for a collision with a pedestrian

Not sure how having a dropped kerb would decrease the chance of hitting a pedestrian. Probably increase it as you may be going faster if there is no kerb to slow you down.

semantics
a pedestrian may expect a car to turn in across a drop kerb and would therefore be "more" aware themselves when walking on the pavement "across" the drop kerb section of the pavement.

a pedestrian would not expect a car to turn in, mount the kerb, and run them over on the pavement

That's not what it says anyway, it says you "may become liable" for hitting a pedestrian. You'd be expected to give priority to pedestrians anyway whether or not there's a drop kerb.

I am not quoting what it says, I am merely illustrating the practical variations of your statement 

sheramber

RHemmings said:

Sapindus said:

RHemmings said:

Sapindus said:

If it's against the law to drive over a pavement without a dropped kerb, surely putting in rubber ramps is just an admission that you are breaking the law.

Which law makes it illegal to drive over a pavement without a dropped kerb. I checked the highway code and found this:

145
You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34

I cannot find any reference to dropped kerbs in either of the laws mentioned above. E.g. from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/34

It is not an offence under this section for a person with an interest in land, or a visitor to any land, to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road if, immediately before the commencement of section 47(2) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the road was—

(a)shown in a definitive map and statement as a road used as a public path, and

(b)in use for obtaining access to the land by the driving of mechanically propelled vehicles by a person with an interest in the land or by visitors to the land.]

Note: I'm not arguing with you or taking the position that it's legal. I'm interested in the true legal situation as around where I live a heck of a lot of people drive over curbs to part on verges and footpaths. 

That's fair enough - maybe it is a grey area or something that is dealt with by council bye-laws, e.g.:

https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/roads-and-pavements/dropped-kerbs#:~:text=Driving over a kerb or,served with a formal notice.

Just always been my "understanding" that lawful access meant having a lawfully constructed dropped kerb

That's interesting. I searched online to see if my council would have anything similar posted online. But, all I found was pages describing the process about applying for a dropped curb. Nothing at all similar to the Waltham Forest example of proscribing driving over a dropped curb. And even if I found such a thing online, huge numbers of people here openly park having driven over curbs and no-one ever seems to do anything about it. 

EDIT: In a rather unrelated search, I then immediately found this from my council. 

Do I need a dropped kerb? If you intend to drive a vehicle over the pavement into your driveway off a highway, then you will need a dropped kerb. If you do not have a dropped kerb, you must not drive over the pavement. If you do so, you are breaking the law* and enforcement action could be taken to prevent this. Furthermore:   You may become liable for a collision with a pedestrian.  You may become liable for damage to the pavement.  You may face considerable costs as a result of damage to any utility apparatus under the pavement. *It is an offence, under the Section 184 of the Highway Act 1980, to cross a kerb, verge or pavement with a mechanically propelled vehicle, except at a crossing point that has been approved by Leicester City Council as the Highway Authority for that purpose.  

Off to have a more careful look at that law. EDIT: It does not look so clear. My reading of the law (I am not a judge) says that there must have been a notice issued under section 1(b) of the law before it becomes illegal to drive over the curb. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/184

artyboy said:

RHemmings said:

artyboy said:

Putting rubber ramps there is just an invitation to the council to put a bollard on the pavement to block any further cars going over it. Why draw attention...?

You must be familiar with councils infinitely more likely to do anything about cars doing whatever they please than any council I'm familiar with. 

There was another thread on here I saw with some quite interesting pictures of councils that had done exactly that. Including one where the car ended up getting blocked in as a result!

Can't say I'm bothered enough to go searching for it, but I'm sure someone else might...

I did a search on 'council curb bollard', and found three threads. 

Here there is a pre-existing bollard and discussion as to whether this means there is no chance of getting permission for a dropped curb. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5306525/dropped-kerb-bollard-outside-would-be-drive/p1

Here a dropped curb already exists, and there seems to be a problem in the council allowing others to use it: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6261598/dropped-kerb-help/p1

This one asks a question as to whether or not the OP should buy a house with problem-looking parking in the street. There is a photo with some bollards and mention of the bollards. But, not specific discussion of the bollards being put in. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6426693/how-much-does-the-street-bother-you/p4

I'm not trying to 'prove you wrong' - but am interested in the situation, so searched. Searching with a wider variety of search terms will find more threads. I'm not saying that the above are the only relevant threads - just the ones that I found. 

All I can say is that I wish my council actually did something about people driving over curbs and parking on verges and pavements. 

Have you lodged a complaint about it?

Many councils noe do action on parking on pavements.  My local one started doing it  from 1 April

No excuses

“Our pavements are for pedestrians, not cars. If you cannot find a parking space other than by parking on a pavement, dropped kerb or double parking, the message is clear – park elsewhere or face a fine of £100.”

daveyjp

BagelLuvver said:

I'm wanting to put a dropped kerb between the massive cherry tree and the start of the neighbour's wall and literally every utility known to man has a box there. 

All those can be moved, but I'd be surprised if anyone would think it good value for what is achieved.  Cost would be into many, many thousands.

35har1old

daveyjp said:

BagelLuvver said:

I'm wanting to put a dropped kerb between the massive cherry tree and the start of the neighbour's wall and literally every utility known to man has a box there. 

All those can be moved, but I'd be surprised if anyone would think it good value for what is achieved.  Cost would be into many, many thousands.

There is difficulty in moving a BT chamber as it usally contains the joints for the adjacent properties and if it contains fibre connections it certainly would increase the cost
BT chambers are usally preformed concrete with lid added you might be lucky if the chamber was set low to finish ground level and required additional brick to bring it up to finish level these could be removed to allow lowering of chamber lid if they are not present it then would involve concrete saw to cut chamber
There appears to be a BT pole adjacent and driveway beyond  the chamber another reason for not moving chamber 

Section62

RHemmings said:

Section62 said:

RHemmings said:

....
Off to have a more careful look at that law. EDIT: It does not look so clear. My reading of the law (I am not a judge) says that there must have been a notice issued under section 1(b) of the law before it becomes illegal to drive over the curb. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/184
....

Correct. Enforcement under S184(17) is limited to contravention of a condition imposed by a notice under S184(1)(b).  It follows that if no valid notice has been served then no offence has occurred.  That doesn't stop some councils frequently claiming otherwise though.

However, it still isn't illegal to drive over the kerb, unless the notice states that as a condition. And the conditions imposed by a notice under S184(1)(b) have to be 'reasonable' - which it could be argued a total ban on vehicles crossing the kerb/footway is not.

For that ris poor on their part, they should be clear about the basis of their powers if they are threatening fines).

There's no general requirement for there to be a "lawfully constructed dropped kerb" for access to be lawful.

If it's correct, and Leicester don't have their own act which it seems they don't as they quote the act above, then why do they say it's illegal? Note: this is a straightforward question not a rhetorical one. This seems rather mysterious to me. 

In general - not necessarily the reason why Leicester have done this - the reasons are typically because:

1) Councils try to explain things in plain language on their websites and the plain language-isation of technical information often comes at the expense of accuracy.

2) Councils don't necessarily employ staff with the technical knowledge and skills to know and understand the law, or the staff have a "that's near enough" attitude to their work. Many have outsourced, and the staff remaining are non-technical contract managers who don't know better.

3) The myth that it is "illegal" to drive across a footway without a dropped kerb is so deeply engrained now that even council highways staff believe it to be true.

4) It is easier to start with what another council has put on their website than employ a technically qualified person to provide accurate text from scratch.

5) The objective of some councils is to make money by getting people to pay for crossovers - it doesn't hurt that objective to misstate the law in a way which encourages people to apply for a crossover.  Less cynically, some councils are concerned about the damage being done to footways and don't mind misstating the law if that encourages people to stop damaging footways.

If members of the public were able to fine councils up to £1000 for each factual error on their websites then councils might take a great deal more care in checking the accuracy of what they publish.  Unfortunately the powers to fine only go in one direction.

Bookworm105

Section62 said:

RHemmings said:

Section62 said:

RHemmings said:

....
Off to have a more careful look at that law. EDIT: It does not look so clear. My reading of the law (I am not a judge) says that there must have been a notice issued under section 1(b) of the law before it becomes illegal to drive over the curb. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/184
....

Correct. Enforcement under S184(17) is limited to contravention of a condition imposed by a notice under S184(1)(b).  It follows that if no valid notice has been served then no offence has occurred.  That doesn't stop some councils frequently claiming otherwise though.

However, it still isn't illegal to drive over the kerb, unless the notice states that as a condition. And the conditions imposed by a notice under S184(1)(b) have to be 'reasonable' - which it could be argued a total ban on vehicles crossing the kerb/footway is not.

For that ris poor on their part, they should be clear about the basis of their powers if they are threatening fines).

There's no general requirement for there to be a "lawfully constructed dropped kerb" for access to be lawful.

If it's correct, and Leicester don't have their own act which it seems they don't as they quote the act above, then why do they say it's illegal? Note: this is a straightforward question not a rhetorical one. This seems rather mysterious to me. 

In general - not necessarily the reason why Leicester have done this - the reasons are typically because:

1) Councils try to explain things in plain language on their websites and the plain language-isation of technical information often comes at the expense of accuracy.

agreed, however, a council does have the law on its side in enforcing a dropped kerb:

Highways Act 1980 section 184 para 1
Highways Act 1980 (legislation.gov.uk)

Section62

Bookworm105 said:

Section62 said:

RHemmings said:

Section62 said:

RHemmings said:

....
Off to have a more careful look at that law. EDIT: It does not look so clear. My reading of the law (I am not a judge) says that there must have been a notice issued under section 1(b) of the law before it becomes illegal to drive over the curb. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/184
....

Correct. Enforcement under S184(17) is limited to contravention of a condition imposed by a notice under S184(1)(b).  It follows that if no valid notice has been served then no offence has occurred.  That doesn't stop some councils frequently claiming otherwise though.

However, it still isn't illegal to drive over the kerb, unless the notice states that as a condition. And the conditions imposed by a notice under S184(1)(b) have to be 'reasonable' - which it could be argued a total ban on vehicles crossing the kerb/footway is not.

For that ris poor on their part, they should be clear about the basis of their powers if they are threatening fines).

There's no general requirement for there to be a "lawfully constructed dropped kerb" for access to be lawful.

If it's correct, and Leicester don't have their own act which it seems they don't as they quote the act above, then why do they say it's illegal? Note: this is a straightforward question not a rhetorical one. This seems rather mysterious to me. 

In general - not necessarily the reason why Leicester have done this - the reasons are typically because:

1) Councils try to explain things in plain language on their websites and the plain language-isation of technical information often comes at the expense of accuracy.

agreed, however, a council does have the law on its side in enforcing a dropped kerb:

Highways Act 1980 section 184 para 1
Highways Act 1980 (legislation.gov.uk)

But as said above, it normally doesn't. That law only applies in very specific circumstances, not in the general case which applies in the vast majority of real-world situations.

It is a bit like them saying "it is illegal to walk on the cracks in the pavement" without the very important rider "on roads where a traffic order prohibits pedestrians". And even then the offence is not to do with walking on the cracks, rather it is the failure to comply with the legal notice/order.

In most cases it is not an offence (or "illegal") to drive over a kerbed footway to gain lawful access to a property. But it may be an offence not to comply with conditions imposed by a notice issued under S184(1).  And the difference is more than just semantics - there is a fundamental point of law involved.

RHemmings

sheramber said:

RHemmings said:

Sapindus said:

RHemmings said:

Sapindus said:

If it's against the law to drive over a pavement without a dropped kerb, surely putting in rubber ramps is just an admission that you are breaking the law.

Which law makes it illegal to drive over a pavement without a dropped kerb. I checked the highway code and found this:

145
You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34

I cannot find any reference to dropped kerbs in either of the laws mentioned above. E.g. from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/34

It is not an offence under this section for a person with an interest in land, or a visitor to any land, to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road if, immediately before the commencement of section 47(2) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the road was—

(a)shown in a definitive map and statement as a road used as a public path, and

(b)in use for obtaining access to the land by the driving of mechanically propelled vehicles by a person with an interest in the land or by visitors to the land.]

Note: I'm not arguing with you or taking the position that it's legal. I'm interested in the true legal situation as around where I live a heck of a lot of people drive over curbs to part on verges and footpaths. 

That's fair enough - maybe it is a grey area or something that is dealt with by council bye-laws, e.g.:

https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/roads-and-pavements/dropped-kerbs#:~:text=Driving over a kerb or,served with a formal notice.

Just always been my "understanding" that lawful access meant having a lawfully constructed dropped kerb

That's interesting. I searched online to see if my council would have anything similar posted online. But, all I found was pages describing the process about applying for a dropped curb. Nothing at all similar to the Waltham Forest example of proscribing driving over a dropped curb. And even if I found such a thing online, huge numbers of people here openly park having driven over curbs and no-one ever seems to do anything about it. 

EDIT: In a rather unrelated search, I then immediately found this from my council. 

Do I need a dropped kerb? If you intend to drive a vehicle over the pavement into your driveway off a highway, then you will need a dropped kerb. If you do not have a dropped kerb, you must not drive over the pavement. If you do so, you are breaking the law* and enforcement action could be taken to prevent this. Furthermore:   You may become liable for a collision with a pedestrian.  You may become liable for damage to the pavement.  You may face considerable costs as a result of damage to any utility apparatus under the pavement. *It is an offence, under the Section 184 of the Highway Act 1980, to cross a kerb, verge or pavement with a mechanically propelled vehicle, except at a crossing point that has been approved by Leicester City Council as the Highway Authority for that purpose.  

Off to have a more careful look at that law. EDIT: It does not look so clear. My reading of the law (I am not a judge) says that there must have been a notice issued under section 1(b) of the law before it becomes illegal to drive over the curb. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/184

artyboy said:

RHemmings said:

artyboy said:

Putting rubber ramps there is just an invitation to the council to put a bollard on the pavement to block any further cars going over it. Why draw attention...?

You must be familiar with councils infinitely more likely to do anything about cars doing whatever they please than any council I'm familiar with. 

There was another thread on here I saw with some quite interesting pictures of councils that had done exactly that. Including one where the car ended up getting blocked in as a result!

Can't say I'm bothered enough to go searching for it, but I'm sure someone else might...

I did a search on 'council curb bollard', and found three threads. 

Here there is a pre-existing bollard and discussion as to whether this means there is no chance of getting permission for a dropped curb. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5306525/dropped-kerb-bollard-outside-would-be-drive/p1

Here a dropped curb already exists, and there seems to be a problem in the council allowing others to use it: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6261598/dropped-kerb-help/p1

This one asks a question as to whether or not the OP should buy a house with problem-looking parking in the street. There is a photo with some bollards and mention of the bollards. But, not specific discussion of the bollards being put in. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6426693/how-much-does-the-street-bother-you/p4

I'm not trying to 'prove you wrong' - but am interested in the situation, so searched. Searching with a wider variety of search terms will find more threads. I'm not saying that the above are the only relevant threads - just the ones that I found. 

All I can say is that I wish my council actually did something about people driving over curbs and parking on verges and pavements. 

Have you lodged a complaint about it?

Many councils noe do action on parking on pavements.  My local one started doing it  from 1 April

No excuses

“Our pavements are for pedestrians, not cars. If you cannot find a parking space other than by parking on a pavement, dropped kerb or double parking, the message is clear – park elsewhere or face a fine of £100.”

I haven't. It takes quite a lot to make me actually complain. And there's a big void between what would make me complain and where I think someone else complaining would be unjustified. 

In another post in this thread, someone mentioned that some roads in their area have had action taking to prevent on-pavement parking, while others haven't. Perhaps it's a matter of where the people are who will actually complain. 

Section62 said:

If members of the public were able to fine councils up to £1000 for each factual error on their websites then councils might take a great deal more care in checking the accuracy of what they publish.  Unfortunately the powers to fine only go in one direction.

I seriously lol'd at this. (With you, not at you). 

Section62

RHemmings said:

...
In another post in this thread, someone mentioned that some roads in their area have had action taking to prevent on-pavement parking, while others haven't. Perhaps it's a matter of where the people are who will actually complain....

For most councils there is an understanding that they have to balance between keeping footways clear of parked cars, and the need of local residents to park somewhere close to their home. If the carriageway is too narrow to allow four-wheel parking on the road then sometimes the pragmatic approach is to allow two-wheel footway parking - either officially or unofficially.

On the other hand, some people and councils have a zero-tolerance approach.

Councils tend to know which streets are problematic, and which ones it is better to keep the enforcement patrols away from.  That probably explains why in some areas/streets you get enforcement, whereas in others nothing seems to be done.

The last council I worked for maintained a list of 'non-enforcement' streets.  The policy was if 'x' letters were sent in asking for enforcement over a given period we would then do a letterdrop to all houses saying we had been asked to enforce and would do so from a certain date.  That typically would generate a deluge of letters asking us not to do enfocement, in which case if a certain threshold was reached the street would go back on the 'non-enforcement' list.