Driveway with no dropped kerb..

[MadgeHarvyy]

Does this mean it is not legally a driveway..?

I had my driveway redone and removed part of a wall so I could pull in and out (the 'in' side was already a dropped curb). It was double yellow lines and i thought it would be safer than backing out. Anyway I fully intended to get the dropped curb done but the guy was doing the drive anyway and I the gap was only there a week before I got a letter from the council about it, telling me I needed to apply for a dropped curb. However my neighbours have concreted their whole front garden and park several cars on it - and have not done anything about getting a dropped curb. The road people don't inspect every year so the timing is just lucky for them.

One of our neighbours built a patio with aspirations, it was really expensive as their house is higher than the road and they had to dig it all out and build retaining walls. The council took legal action against them and refused planning for a dropped kerb, they were made to build a brick wall across it to prevent it being used as a driveway. It probably cost them about 10k in the end and they still have no driveway.

I'm too lazy to Google but if I recall correctly, a driveway can add 5-10% to the value of a house, at least in areas where parking is something that can be problematic and I bet it would add more in London than it would in the midlands. Therefore it's not just something some of us are "lucky enough" to have, we paid a fair amount for it.

I'm more "deserving"( hmm ) of a large garden because I paid for it. The neighbours can't move their fence back a bit onto the green behind the houses because "why are they any less deserving of a big garden". It's not about being deserving of anything. You get what you pay for. If you haven't paid for a house with a driveway or paid to have the kerb dropped, you don't have a drive and can't demand people don't "block" the front of your house.

Outside of cities, it's certainly not that simple. I had cause to spend a day in one of the much less salubrious areas of our small-ish town last week and I couldn't help noticing that all the houses (most of them HA or ex-HA) had much bigger (proper, legal) drives than most of the houses in my more middling area.

Also, you paid that extra money to the previous owner to get a better/bigger private property. The garden is your property and can't be taken away (save for very unusual situations such as compulsory purchase). The money you paid for it doesn't go to the government or buy you more rights to public space than anybody else. If you pay a lot more money to a car dealer, you can enjoy a much more enjoyable car for yourself and family than can somebody with a £500 old banger from Gumtree; but if you insisted that that would also buy you parking preferences if you both wanted to use the same space, you'd just be shouting into the wind like some Dickensian workhouse owner if they got there before you.

However much you pay for your house, you don't get the right to a bigger wheelie bin or more collections, brighter street lighting, block-paved roads instead of tarmac, to jump the queues at your local NHS hospital or anything like that. You can, of course, obtain many of these things privately if you want to pay for them, but unless you manage to build yourself a private road network 12 feet above the one that all the rest of us use, you have no more rights than anybody else to use the existing one.

You could own Highclere Castle, but you still aren't allowed to park on double yellow lines once you leave your grounds and enter the public road (and pavement) network, just because you're privately rich.

Also, dare I say that, genuinely funny as 'patio with aspirations' was when it was first freshly coined, it's really starting to lose its hilarious lustre now.

@Changingwiththetimes

I had my driveway redone and removed part of a wall so I could pull in and out (the 'in' side was already a dropped curb). It was double yellow lines and i thought it would be safer than backing out. Anyway I fully intended to get the dropped curb done but the guy was doing the drive anyway and I the gap was only there a week before I got a letter from the council about it, telling me I needed to apply for a dropped curb. However my neighbours have concreted their whole front garden and park several cars on it - and have not done anything about getting a dropped curb. The road people don't inspect every year so the timing is just lucky for them.

It might seem lucky for them but this is the whole problem with a lot of this thread - as usual, folk frothing over what they think is someone else's perceived advantage (they get to park but didn't have to pay for a dropped kerb)

Do it properly or don't do it is my view. I have parked across a full (not dropped) kerb where someone had a paved patio and the patches of rain indicated they might park there. Why, why on earth should I make accommodations for someone who is too tight or too disorganised to follow the rules? I couldn't give a monkeys how it might be thought of as inconveniencing them. They are selfish for making deliberate little land grabs like this, instead of doing the civic minded thing and paying to get it done.

Plus it's interesting how on other road topics the disabled are respected, but on here the fact that a lack of dropped kerb would impact on blind and disabled people's understanding of the road, is completely bypassed.

If you don't drop your kerb but want to park on your front garden and expect "understanding" from others? You are a gold plated CF.

Cyclingmad the council isn't there to uphold the law though is it? Councils work with the budget they have, and prioritise what is most important. I don't think (and knowing the massive cuts my own council have had to deal with) prioritising putting bollards in front of people's houses is value for money.

Our council has chosen to prioritise endless bollarding of cycle lanes, which you might appreciate more given your username!

I do get the bit about the utilities underneath though.

Why, why on earth should I make accommodations for someone who is too tight or too disorganised to follow the rules? I couldn't give a monkeys how it might be thought of as inconveniencing them. They are selfish for making deliberate little land grabs like this, instead of doing the civic minded thing and paying to get it done.

Somebody mentioned a cost of £10K upthread for dropping a kerb; most of the amounts mentioned have been in the thousands. Do you think that people only ever end up not buying something because they're too tight and disorganised to do so? There's no possible way we could afford that if our house didn't already have a dropped kerb when we bought it.

Also, how on earth is it a 'land grab' when it's their own property?! Do those of us with (dropped-kerb) drives make a selfish land grab every time we spend a few seconds crossing the pavement? If not, what's the difference?

I think some people just can't get over the idea that poorer people should have the same opportunity to use public services - even when it doesn't impact on them in the least. I can imagine some of them seeing a family with a HA home using a bench in the park and harrumphing that 'people like that' should be sitting on the ground and be grateful for it - even though there are plenty of benches for everybody.

I had my driveway redone and removed part of a wall so I could pull in and out (the 'in' side was already a dropped curb). It was double yellow lines and i thought it would be safer than backing out.

Slightly off-topic, but you could always reverse in and then drive out. Isn't that actually what the law stipulates? It's much easier, safer and better for visibility to drive forwards, so I never understand why 95% of drivers find it easier to have any quantity of unknown traffic and pedestrians behind them on the public road/pavement rather than the very much known quantity of their own private drive.

I do agree, though, that, if you can work it, being able to drive on and off again without ever reversing at all is even better!

@Mistressinthetulips

I do get the bit about the utilities underneath though.

Do we have any examples of this actually happening? I’ve tried google but all I can find is drivers wanting to report council for unfixed potholes. If it’s such an issue you’d think there would be tales of burst water pipes and other damage

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

Why, why on earth should I make accommodations for someone who is too tight or too disorganised to follow the rules? I couldn't give a monkeys how it might be thought of as inconveniencing them. They are selfish for making deliberate little land grabs like this, instead of doing the civic minded thing and paying to get it done.

Somebody mentioned a cost of £10K upthread for dropping a kerb; most of the amounts mentioned have been in the thousands. Do you think that people only ever end up not buying something because they're too tight and disorganised to do so? There's no possible way we could afford that if our house didn't already have a dropped kerb when we bought it.

Also, how on earth is it a 'land grab' when it's their own property?! Do those of us with (dropped-kerb) drives make a selfish land grab every time we spend a few seconds crossing the pavement? If not, what's the difference?

I think some people just can't get over the idea that poorer people should have the same opportunity to use public services - even when it doesn't impact on them in the least. I can imagine some of them seeing a family with a HA home using a bench in the park and harrumphing that 'people like that' should be sitting on the ground and be grateful for it - even though there are plenty of benches for everybody.

You don't own the pavement when you buy your property you are given your title deeds and with that comes a map showing you very clearly what land you are buying and your boundaries.

The council owns the pavement and roads and pays for its construction and maintenance for the public to use for specific purposes unless where signs indicate otherwise.

So yes, effectively it is a land grab. Infsct your lucky councils dont expect you to maintain the part you crossover for the rest of your time in thag House. They charge you once to reinforce the pavement and if any damage happens later on you are not liable for it.

When you buy a house you should do so looking into all these matters. If you need a driveway and csn see there is potential to have one but need a dropped kerb why wouldn't you do your research and check the council site for costs or speak to them and find out before you spend that much money buying.

Your problem is with councils charging too much, its not my problem or anyone else's.

@Mistressinthetulips

Cyclingmad the council isn't there to uphold the law though is it? Councils work with the budget they have, and prioritise what is most important. I don't think (and knowing the massive cuts my own council have had to deal with) prioritising putting bollards in front of people's houses is value for money.

Our council has chosen to prioritise endless bollarding of cycle lanes, which you might appreciate more given your username!

Wow are you for real! They own the pavement and roads and you can go on any council website and find out their policies on dropped kerbs. So yes infsct they do. The highways act governs all roads in the country but there is no one single owner of all roads. Its split by councils or other bodies like TfL (specific to london).

🤦‍♀️

£2-3k to drop the curb.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

Why, why on earth should I make accommodations for someone who is too tight or too disorganised to follow the rules? I couldn't give a monkeys how it might be thought of as inconveniencing them. They are selfish for making deliberate little land grabs like this, instead of doing the civic minded thing and paying to get it done.

Somebody mentioned a cost of £10K upthread for dropping a kerb; most of the amounts mentioned have been in the thousands. Do you think that people only ever end up not buying something because they're too tight and disorganised to do so? There's no possible way we could afford that if our house didn't already have a dropped kerb when we bought it.

Also, how on earth is it a 'land grab' when it's their own property?! Do those of us with (dropped-kerb) drives make a selfish land grab every time we spend a few seconds crossing the pavement? If not, what's the difference?

I think some people just can't get over the idea that poorer people should have the same opportunity to use public services - even when it doesn't impact on them in the least. I can imagine some of them seeing a family with a HA home using a bench in the park and harrumphing that 'people like that' should be sitting on the ground and be grateful for it - even though there are plenty of benches for everybody.

Don't project some class nonsense onto me when it suits your (lack of) argument to try and ridicule me instead. My family grew up in council housing. I don't sneer at anyone.

You clearly don't understand property law though. No one however has ownership of the pavement other than the council. You aren't doing a "land grab" every time you cross the pavement on your dropped kerb. The council has given you right of way over THEIR property (the pavement) and dropped the kerb by way of indication of permission.

Once you're on dry land so to speak and your property, then you are within your boundaries as per your deeds.

It's wilful lack of understanding like this that leads to people making genuine land grabs and trying to "defend" a section of kerb that was never theirs despite their front garden layout.

As for the 10k nonsense - why should people have something for free that others have had to pay for? If it costs too much to make a driveway, get a permit. If the street doesn't need a permit, then park for free where there's space. No one has the divine right to off street parking just because they bought a house that indicates it could be possible as long as they bully enough neighbours into steering clear of their section of kerb.

That's not how it's done.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

If my previous post was TL:DR for you, then let me ask a question:

Your bench example is completely wrong - because everyone pays taxes for benches to be placed in parks. Do you therefore think everyone who has a house, with the potential for off street parking, should automatically have an exemption from the council and the kerb lowered, no payment, it comes out of Council taxes? Despite the fact they will almost certainly gain as a private individual upon sale?

If you have a paved front garden with no dropped kerb then you don’t have a driveway. You should park on the road like other other residents of your street with no driveway.

I had my kerb dropped (in a big city) in December for £1200. Some of these prices are ridiculous, unless you’re having a driveway done at the same time.

Don't project some class nonsense onto me when it suits your (lack of) argument to try and ridicule me instead. My family grew up in council housing. I don't sneer at anyone.

I'm genuinely not trying to ridicule you at all. Sorry if it came across that way, but this thread has, on the whole, been a hotbed of ridiculing those who can't afford to get dropped kerbs (as well as, of course, those who simply can't be bothered to apply). I'm just trying to redress the balance a little.

You clearly don't understand property law though. No one however has ownership of the pavement other than the council. You aren't doing a "land grab" every time you cross the pavement on your dropped kerb. The council has given you right of way over THEIR property (the pavement) and dropped the kerb by way of indication of permission.

But you also aren't 'grabbing' land if you drive over an undropped kerb to your own property. If that were the case, half of the pavements with vehicles permanently parked with two wheels on them would pass into the ownership of the regular parkers there.

Once you're on dry land so to speak and your property, then you are within your boundaries as per your deeds.

Which is exactly what those with unofficially converted front gardens would not incorrectly state.

It's wilful lack of understanding like this that leads to people making genuine land grabs and trying to "defend" a section of kerb that was never theirs despite their front garden layout.

I'm not denying that the law is the law and that you legally should not drive across an undropped kerb. I'm just trying to counter certain elements on this thread who sneer at the people who have room on their property for parking but can't afford to get the kerb dropped and then, on occasions, go on to state that they specifically park across it instead of any other empty space on the road, just to thwart the aspiring poor person. Who is suggesting that anybody is trying to 'grab' the land that they want to drive over for three seconds, anyway - whether they have a legal drive or not?

As for the 10k nonsense - why should people have something for free that others have had to pay for? If it costs too much to make a driveway, get a permit. If the street doesn't need a permit, then park for free where there's space. No one has the divine right to off street parking just because they bought a house that indicates it could be possible as long as they bully enough neighbours into steering clear of their section of kerb.

I'm not defending people who try to bully others into allowing them undisputed access to their unofficial driveway; but for those of us who do have an official driveway, we don't need to 'bully' anybody as the law will do it on our behalf if we complain that somebody has parked across our drive.

I'm still not seeing why paying a suspiciously large amount of money to the council should buy you extra access rights over public property - it's supposed to represent the cost of providing the adaptation, it's not meant to be a back-pocket bung to some corrupt councillor to get your way.

Your bench example is completely wrong - because everyone pays taxes for benches to be placed in parks. Do you therefore think everyone who has a house, with the potential for off street parking, should automatically have an exemption from the council and the kerb lowered, no payment, it comes out of Council taxes? Despite the fact they will almost certainly gain as a private individual upon sale?

I never said that the taxpayer should be expected to pay for lowering kerbs for private parking - just that I don't share the derision for those who can't afford it for their house, and so leave out unobtrusive little DIY blocks to enable them to park on their property.

Incidentally, I'd be interested to know what proportion of older houses that now have dropped kerbs had to, at one time, apply and pay for them on an individual case-by-case basis. I genuinely don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if, at some point when major local paving projects were undertaken, dropped kerbs for every house who appeared to be using their frontage as a drive or just requested one would have been included in the overall plans, paid for centrally, ultimately by the taxpayer.

The point about it improving the value of your private property is irrelevant - although, if it makes a significant difference, I suppose any council tax revaluations would see you paying more every month. The council is there to provide services for those who need them or have a reasonable cause to benefit from them, whether it's the infrastructure between your house and the public road/gas/water/whatever network or making adaptations for disabled residents, providing extra/special bins for those with very large families or special medical needs etc.

So as not to lose sight of what this discussion is (to me) mainly about, I don't think very many people are angrily complaining to the council and demanding that they drop the kerb, completely free of charge on demand, when they re-designate some of their property for parking; all they're wanting is to be able to access their own parking area, the same as people with dropped kerbs can. Yes, they're technically not legally allowed to do this, but I don't think it makes them bad or disgusting people for wanting it.

@cyclingmad nothing you have said in your response to me explains why it would be a good use of extremely limited council funds to spend them erecting bollards on the pavement outside people's houses.
It sounds more like spite on their behalf than anything else if they do. (How long do some primary schools have to wait to get a crossing out in place, or even have their lines repainted??)

A council I know was prone to plant bollards blocking patios with aspirations. Shame more councils don’t do the same.

I know a council who did this and bollarded in cars if they were parked on the “patios”.

I admired them for their balls and expected others to follow suit.

[quote Mistressinthetulips]@cyclingmad nothing you have said in your response to me explains why it would be a good use of extremely limited council funds to spend them erecting bollards on the pavement outside people's houses.
It sounds more like spite on their behalf than anything else if they do. (How long do some primary schools have to wait to get a crossing out in place, or even have their lines repainted??)[/quote]
If you cannot see that driving over pavement is illegal for reasons such as safety, preventing damage that I give up.

If you do not enforce laws then you simply have people doing what they want with no consequences.

End of the day if people did the right thing and saved up to pay for a dropped kerb then your taxes wouldn't be spent on having to put bollards in.

But rather than tackle the actual problem you'd rather attack the response. If you don't want council to spend money on erecting bollards to enforce their laws then you should be aiming your irk at the people who break it in the first place.

And noone here is sneering at poor people or saying they aren't allowed driveways.

End of the day this is what the laws are.

And if you cannot afford a dropped kerb then you csn still park outside your house along the kerb. Your not losing anything other than the fact that a driveway means you can park on your property all the time.

Again if parking is so important you will save up the money to have it or you find a house that has it and compromise on other things.

We had ours done a few years back. Goes right the way across the front (3 car width) and cost £600. The council arranged for it to be done. There is probably 3ft of curb left between us and next door which people still ipark on so we’ve just applied for that to be done too.
If your dropped kerb is already 3 car widths why would you begrudge someone parking along the 3' bit that's left and hanging over the end - you can still get your cars out surely?

Fortunately my taxes are not being spent on bollards as I have never seen such a thing happen here. In the neighbouring estate every other house does this so they would be needing a large supply! I have a dropped kerb but I still don't want it happening to other people. And I would still want the bollard-money to go into schools, youth clubs and libraries long before dealing with this non-existent problem.

So as not to lose sight of what this discussion is (to me) mainly about, I don't think very many people are angrily complaining to the council and demanding that they drop the kerb, completely free of charge on demand, when they re-designate some of their property for parking; all they're wanting is to be able to access their own parking area, the same as people with dropped kerbs can. Yes, they're technically not legally allowed to do this, but I don't think it makes them bad or disgusting people for wanting it

But it's not their parking area! You don't get to just decide to snag a secure spot on the street!

As I said previously, on-street parking is so tight in many areas, no one gets their application to put a dropped kerb in granted anymore. There needs to be some on-street parking left for people dropping their children off at school, going to the nearby shops, visiting friends and family etc, so why on earth should Susan at no. 54 get to claim one of those elusive spots as hers when she bought a house without off-street parking and either didn't bother saving up for a drive or didn't check beforehand if she would be able to get the application granted.
Susan doesn't have a bloody drive and Susan either needs to suck it up or buy a house with a driveway or at least one where she can put a dropped kerb in. For fucks sake Susan.

As I said previously, on-street parking is so tight in many areas, no one gets their application to put a dropped kerb in granted anymore. There needs to be some on-street parking left for people dropping their children off at school, going to the nearby shops, visiting friends and family etc, so why on earth should Susan at no. 54 get to claim one of those elusive spots as hers when she bought a house without off-street parking and either didn't bother saving up for a drive or didn't check beforehand if she would be able to get the application granted.
Susan doesn't have a bloody drive and Susan either needs to suck it up or buy a house with a driveway or at least one where she can put a dropped kerb in. For fucks sake Susan.

It just sounds very convenient - and not unlike my earlier university fees analogy - that a certain amount of people get to deprive others from a potential parking space outside their home, but then the drawbridge is pulled right up and others are told No, because there isn't enough to go around any more. Somebody could have a triple-width dropped kerb, six-vehicle drive and decide not to use it for parking for whatever reason, and instead park their six vehicles on the road. Then, if their neighbour applied for a single dropped kerb for just one car, their neighbour's regular domination of the available parking spaces could mean that they're refused, because on-street parking is already oversubscribed!

This line of thinking would make a lot more sense to me if houses with driveways carried an additional driveway tax on top of their regular council tax, which went towards the maintenance of the local road infrastructure - not that I'm clamouring to pay an extra tax myself, of course! That way, anybody not wanting to use their drive could pay to have the dropped kerb removed, not be subject to the extra tax and then free up a kerb-drop allowance for another resident on the street.

I don't see it as the council's job/right to help you increase the value of your house, just by virtue of restricting other people's connection to a public facility whilst considering your existing one sacrosanct.