Dropped Kerb, Dropped Kerb in front of a wall Options

[Deano.1]

First of all, Hi everyone, I have just joined as there is some fantastic discussion and information on this site...

My situation is that although my neighbour has always had a dropped kerb in front of his driveway and a raised kerb in front of his garden wall. Whilst we have always tried to avoid parking in front of his house we have no control over where visitors to the street park. Although he parks his car in his garage every night and rarely parks his car in front of his house, he doesn't want anyone else to park there as he considers it to be his parking space. He has now had a dropped kerb installed in front of his garden wall so that no-one can park there. My question is: can he stop people parking in front of his wall in this manner, obviously anyone parking across his dropped kerb would not be blocking his drive in any way at all because there is a wall there?

Thanks, in anticipation

[Advertisement]

[DancingDad]

I think we need pictures.
Basic is that a DK is only restricted if it is for pedestrians cycles or vehicles.
Difficult to imagine anything but pedestrians if it simply leads to a wall.

Cannot see a council giving permission for a DK leading to a wall either so there may be more to this.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 - 13:36

[mickR]

Wall built after historical DK maybe? Plenty of them around.

[DancingDad]

Wall built after historical DK maybe? Plenty of them around.

Not what OP said..."He has now had a dropped kerb installed in front of his garden wall …"

[Mad Mick V]

The only reason a new dropped kerb is placed beside a garden wall is for a VAC (Vehicle Access Crossing). The terms of VAC approval could be that the garden wall has to be demolished so a vehicle can cross the pavement.

However if the wall has not been demolished I would say the Council is in abuse of process in trying to enforce a DK because the terms, set by another part of the Council, have not been met and the VAC is not fit for purpose.

This one may help too:-

2180304699

The Appellant, whom I have heard in person in some detail parked in part adjacent to what was physically a lowered footway. The Council is, however, required to prove not only that the footway was lowered but that it was lowered for one of the three purposes set out in s 86 Traffic Management Act 1986. It seems clear that the purpose relied on by the Council in this case is that of facilitating vehicular access to adjoining premises. It seems improbable that such an extensive length of kern would be lowered simply as a pedestrian crossing point and there is no evidence of tactile paving. The Appellant, who is very familiar with the location states that the drop originally gave access to garages and the appearance of the location in the photographs suggests that this is so.

The Appellant, however states that these entrances have been fenced off for at least five years; and this seems consistent with the growth of ivy up the right – hand fence seen in the photographs. The Council submits, with no further argument, that the restriction exists as long as the drop kerb is in existence.

I do not agree that this is so. If that were the case motorists would be prohibited from parking when any traffic management purpose for doing so had long since evaporated, even if, for example, the premises in question had been demolished or re-built. In my view a purposive interpretation must be given to this legislation and in my judgment the statutory purpose must subsist at the time of parking. Certainly some mere temporary absence of use for the intended purpose would not suffice; it would not avail a motorist to say, for example, that the garage owner did not have a car, or that a driveway had not been used for some time. Some degree of permanence would be required, normally in the form of some major physical alteration to the premises and their access. Questions of fact and degree might arise; but on the facts of the present case, substantial fencing of five years standing, I have no hesitation in finding that the statutory purpose had long since ceased to subsist and that therefore no contravention occurred. As it transpires the PCN was incorrectly issued.
-------------------------------------------

Mick

[Incandescent]

A picture is worth a thousand words here, so please provide one.

[Deano.1]

Thanks for the replies, pic:

Attached File(s)

 DK.pdf ( 330.71K ) Number of downloads: 291

 

[Mr Meldrew]

You have the potentially persuasive opinion in post #5 above that one of three statutory purposes why the footway was lowered must subsist at the time of parking. Note also that the adjudicator did not agree with the Council’s submission that the restriction exists simply because the dropped kerb exists. And why wouldn’t any of that be sound? Therefore, facilitating vehicular access to drive into his garden wall would unlikely be persuasive if ever a PCN was challenged before an adjudicator. I’m assuming this is a special enforcement area otherwise I think your neighbour should have a hard time convincing the authorities that his wall was obstructed. So why not ask the Council by way of an email (nothing formal necessary for it to be treated as a FOI request, but keep a copy) for a copy of the recorded reasons for lowering the footway in front of the garden wall in question, and see what makes sense in any response when considering the extent of the lowering. Is it also possible this is the result of haphazard work and not what you think it is?

[hcandersen]

OP, the surface of the road is in a v. poor condition.

Is there more to this than we know? Is it perhaps a private street?

[DancingDad]

To me, if parked in front of the wall the DK cannot be used to enforce.
But I would be wary of where the "access" point would be taken.
For instance end of a parked car inline with the end pillar would still be blocking some access, preventing any swing on a crossing vehicle.
How much could easily come down to adjudicator's opinion.
But I would happily park within the first two thirds of the wall area.

[stamfordman]

Suspect he will demolish the wall. Parking on sloping part is fine regardless and with wall there what DD said.

[cp8759]

Suspect he will demolish the wall. Parking on sloping part is fine regardless and with wall there what DD said.

Maybe lobby for the wall to be listed?

[Redivi]

I would park repeatedly next to the sloping part until the council gets fed up cancelling the PCNs and ignores him when he calls

[cp8759]

I would park repeatedly next to the sloping part until the council gets fed up cancelling the PCNs and ignores him when he calls

+1

[Stedman]

I may have missed something but did the Council definitely install the extended DK?

[DancingDad]

I may have missed something but did the Council definitely install the extended DK?

Which is a good question to ask the council.
They may have only given permission or permission may have been conditional on wall going.
Which is fine as long as contractor who does the job abides by council conditions.
Or council may have had nothing to do with it.

[Ocelot]

I wouldn't park over where he parks his car, but in front of the wall, even on the dropped part seems fine to me, especially as there are no road markings to prohibit this.

In my road there are a number of dropped kerbs in front of walls, and I often park there (markings on the road allow it).

[DancingDad]

I wouldn't park over where he parks his car, but in front of the wall, even on the dropped part seems fine to me, especially as there are no road markings to prohibit this.

In my road there are a number of dropped kerbs in front of walls, and I often park there (markings on the road allow it).

Any markings in particular that you have in mind ?

[notmeatloaf]

The job looks very sloppy. At least here if you want to have a DK you have to pay the council or one of their approved contractors to do it for you.

Might be worth querying it, nothing a council hates more than someone getting around paying for a chargeable service.

[Deano.1]

Thanks for the replies guys, no it's not a private road and I believe that the council did the work but always worth an ask...