Rough quote for new driveway

Albermarle

I do not know the asking price for the house, but I would guess you would never recoup the sort of costs mentioned, when you sold the house later.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81952976#Comment_81952976

Completely agree. Unless I'm very wrong about costs, this is a case where you'd really need to be desperate for the off-street parking and be willing to write off much of the cost, rather than being able to recoup it in increased future sale value.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81952969#Comment_81952969

Many create parking areas then drive, illegally, over the pavement to access them.

In most cases it isn't illegal to do this.

But in the OP's case, creating off street parking without first having all the permissions (including a dropped kerb) would be really unwise, given the costs involved.

TELLIT01

My understanding is that it is illegal to drive over a footpath unless there is drop kerb access. It seems to be rarely enforced.

Gonk1967

My next door neighbour recently obtained permission to install a drop kerb for a front driveway, however there was a kerb gully outside which eventually restricted the width of his dropped kerbs.

As an aside, we had some dropped kerbs outside our house for donkey's years but there was no driveway so the council came along and replaced them with full height kerbs!

soolin

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81953329#Comment_81953329

That’s my understanding as well and most sites online seem to agree. Perhaps it varies by council?

https://www.directlinegroup.co.uk/en/news/brand-news/2024/20240215.html

https://www.timms-law.com/do-i-really-need-a-dropped-kerb/

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81953534#Comment_81953534

It is largely an urban myth, which is repeated so often people start believing it. Or cut-and-pasting someone else who has said it.

The Highways Act 1980 - the usually quoted source - makes it an offence not to comply with a notice issued under S184(1)(b) of that Act, but it doesn't make driving across a footway an offence in general. A S184(1)(b) notice has to be issued, and not complied with, before an offence is committed. And the offence committed is non-compliance with the notice, not the act of driving across the footway.

Another possible offence would be failing to comply with a planning enforcement notice, if the parking area required planning consent and an enforcement notice has been issued by the local planning authority. Again, this isn't a generally applicable offence of "driving across a footway", it relates to specific circumstances and the offence is failing to comply with the notice.

With regard to your second link, IANAL, but I know enough about this area of the law to know that it won't be an "offense" in the UK to drive across a footway (in most circumstances), even though doing so may offend some people.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81953329#Comment_81953329

The lack of enforcement is likely due to councils not having the power to enforce an offence which doesn't really exist in the form many claim.

Excluding London, if someone is driving across a non-dropped footway to park on a driveway then the legal enforcement power the council has is to serve a notice under S184(1)(a) or (b).

A notice under subsection (1)(a) means the council can construct a crossover and "recover the expenses reasonably incurred by them" in doing so. Which is probably what the property owner wanted anyway, with the possible advantage the "expenses reasonably incurred by them" may be less than what the council normally charges for a crossover.

A notice under subsection (1)(b) can contain "reasonable conditions on the use of the footway or verge". "You can't drive across the footway ever" is unlikely to be a reasonable condition. A person receiving a subsection (1)(b) notice can object, and might find it an advantage to then require the council to justify the use of a subsection (1)(b) notice, rather than (1)(a).

So councils cannot enforce the "driving across the footway is illegal" non-law by simply issuing a PCN or FPN. They would have to serve notice on the person doing it, and would have to justify the "reasonable conditions" they are attempting to impose. Or they can agree to provide a crossover.

S184 doesn't do what it is often claimed to do, which is why it is rather difficult to enforce.

This is why the London Boroughs went to Parliament to get London-specific legislation which allows them to block driveways (but not in all circumstances) to stop them being used if there isn't a properly constructed crossover.

TELLIT01

This is from the Highway Code so not urban myth

Rule 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.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81954286#Comment_81954286

The Highway Code isn't law itself.

However, Rule 145 states "…except to gain lawful access to property…"

The legislation behind Rule 145 is Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. This doesn't make it illegal to drive across a footway to gain access to land adjoining the highway (which is a common law right). If it did, then it would also be illegal to drive over a dropped-kerb crossover, because in law the crossover remains "footway", its status is not changed by the kerb height being altered. Hence the words "except to gain lawful access to property" in the Highway Code Rule.

If you don't believe me, have a read of page 68 of Michael Orlik's excellent "An Introduction to Highway Law" (4th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell) which deals with the rights of adjoining landowners, and the regulatory (not prohibitory) nature of S184.

I would not call it an urban myth if it wasn't true.