Grant help to build a drop kerb at a new property.

kinger101

GDB2222 said:

Section62 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Section62 said:

ButterCheese said:

You may have to clarify this a bit.  Usually if there is no dropped curb then there is no right of access across the pavement to your property.  That's what a raised curb is for.  You can't just clear a space in front of your house (which I assume the previous owners did) and drive up the pavement and call it a driveway. 

In the majority of cases the BiB isn't true.  There is a common law right of access to land adjoining the highway.  The highway and planning acts give highway and planning authorities powers to control how that access is achieved, and in some cases can take action to stop such access taking place.

The purpose of a normal height kerb is to delineate the edge of the carriageway and give structural support to the footway or verge, not to stop people driving over it.

But not a right of vehicular access.

The common law right of access is with or without a vehicle.

I had heard so often the meme that it’s illegal to cross the pavement with a car unless there’s a dropped kerb that I assumed it must be true. People vaguely refer to the Highways Act 1980, but they don’t specify the section.

I did have a look at S184, and that allows the local authority to serve a notice on anyone who habitually crosses the pavement, telling them to stop, because it damages the pavement. I couldn’t find any blanket ban, though.

Given that pretty much every council tells you you must get a dropped kerb to cross the pavement, it's very likely you'll be stopped.  

Practically, you do need to get the kerb dropped, because (a) you don't want to damage your car, (b) the pavement or any services underneath and (c) if you don't, other people can park in front of of the ker  you did not get dropped.

bobster2

Section62 said:

Bookworm105 said:

35har1old said:

theartfullodger said:

Well, I'd like a taxpayer funded helicopter please.... 


 I sincerely hope there's no such grant or bung for homeowners to get dropped  kerb paid for by us lot..

Yes, check one was approved to be installed by council first. 

Possibly if you or family member where disabled

where they are disabled has no relevance

Some councils might classify it as an 'adaptation' and contribute towards the cost, but as the budget for adaptations is so restricted now it is perhaps less likely than it might have been in the past.

Yes - not relevant to OP but a Disabled Facilities Grant can sometimes fund the costs of a dropped kerb.

E.g. a DFG application can be made for "Adding a dropped kerb outside the property to facilitate parking of the disabled occupants principal vehicle.

https://www.theotpractice.co.uk/news/our-experts-blog/charities-major-adaptations-understanding-the-dfg

silvercar

I’ve seen locally people place rubber triangles between the road and the kerb, rather than go to the expense of getting the kerb lowered. 

artyboy

silvercar said:

I’ve seen locally people place rubber triangles between the road and the kerb, rather than go to the expense of getting the kerb lowered. 

Thats the sort of thing that could end up with the council putting a concrete bollard there to block you.

If you're going to take the p!ss then at least do it subtly...

Section62

artyboy said:

silvercar said:

I’ve seen locally people place rubber triangles between the road and the kerb, rather than go to the expense of getting the kerb lowered. 

Thats the sort of thing that could end up with the council putting a concrete bollard there to block you.

If you're going to take the p!ss then at least do it subtly...

Yes, if you just bump up the kerb it is less likely anything will happen unless someone reports you or a particularly zealous highways officer happens to see it.

Placing objects (rubber/wood/concrete) in the channel to make it easier to get up the kerb is a safety issue and can't be ignored so easily.  And if someone has an accident - for example a 'trip' - because of the object you've placed in the road then they may have grounds to come after you for damages, as well as or instead of going after the council for not removing it.

Section62

GDB2222 said:

I had heard so often the meme that it’s illegal to cross the pavement with a car unless there’s a dropped kerb that I assumed it must be true. People vaguely refer to the Highways Act 1980, but they don’t specify the section.

I did have a look at S184, and that allows the local authority to serve a notice on anyone who habitually crosses the pavement, telling them to stop, because it damages the pavement. I couldn’t find any blanket ban, though.

In fact S184 doesn't go that far.  It allows the highway authority to serve a notice "...imposing such reasonable conditions on the use of the footway or verge as a crossing..." - in other words they can apply reasonable conditions on use, but they cannot stop you.

To stop use of an access they would need to apply S124, but they cannot make an order under that section unless "...no access to the premises from the highway in question is reasonably required..." (or that another access exists, or will be provided).

Because highway authorities don't have the powers under S184 that they often claim, the London boroughs obtained that power through a private act which does allow them (in specific circumstances) to stop use of an access which doesn't have a dropped kerb.  AFAIK London is the only place this power currently exists.

kinger101 said:

GDB2222 said:

I had heard so often the meme that it’s illegal to cross the pavement with a car unless there’s a dropped kerb that I assumed it must be true. People vaguely refer to the Highways Act 1980, but they don’t specify the section.

I did have a look at S184, and that allows the local authority to serve a notice on anyone who habitually crosses the pavement, telling them to stop, because it damages the pavement. I couldn’t find any blanket ban, though.

Given that pretty much every council tells you you must get a dropped kerb to cross the pavement, it's very likely you'll be stopped.  

Practically, you do need to get the kerb dropped, because (a) you don't want to damage your car, (b) the pavement or any services underneath and (c) if you don't, other people can park in front of of the ker  you did not get dropped.

Agreed, practically people need to get a dropped kerb because otherwise their use of an off-street parking area may be inconvenient, and there is a risk of the local highway authority misapplying the law.  There are also the cases (on classified roads, conservation areas etc) where planning consent is needed to form a new vehicular access onto to the highway.

But that isn't the same as was posted earlier in the thread that a normal-height kerb equates to not having a right of access.

GDB2222

I was aware that there’s a difference between the London rules and the rest of the country, but I couldn’t find it on any of the London boroughs' websites. Probably just my poor searches but it seems odd that they mention the Highways Act but not their own act. 

Section62

GDB2222 said:

I was aware that there’s a difference between the London rules and the rest of the country, but I couldn’t find it on any of the London boroughs' websites. Probably just my poor searches but it seems odd that they mention the Highways Act but not their own act. 

Probably because S184 is the permissive power which allows them to construct vehicular crossovers (and charge for them) which is the information most residents will be looking for.

I'm not sure if it is still the case, but at one time local authorities were strongly encouraged to use a standard form of wording on their websites using central government written templates.  Unfortunately these templates were not always legally accurate (plain language was often deemed more important than facts) which resulted in many authorities misstating the law.

The London specific legislation is in S16 of London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/16/enacted