Dropped kerb planning rejected due to RPA

[Khriss]

1 hour ago, Will C said:

Tree officer, every council will have one.

Sadly not true in some places. But yes, get a site visit organised, still could  end up taking ages to resolve tho. K

[Gajendra]

Just now, Khriss said:

Sadly not true in some places. But yes, get a site visit organised, still could  end up taking ages to resolve tho. K

Thanks Khriss. Lets see how long it will take 🙄

[Chris at eden]

In response to some of the comments:

• planning is only required on classified roads. Not on residential streets. You do need consent of highways though and they usually fit it (you pay) as you have to strengthen the footpath to protect underground services from passing vehicles.  If you put a drive in and then just drive over the path without a kerb it’s a £1k fine standard.
• if the drive is more than 5 square metres, and it will be it will need to discharge surface water onsite. Porous, soak-away, etc.  Otherwise it will need planning consent.
• as it’s in the RPA it will need to be no dig. The celweb sub base will need to be at least 100mm think on top of which will be the wearing course.  The finished surface will probably be at least 200mm higher than the road and you will need to get it down to meet the road ideally without digging, not possible.  With the level change planning may say it’s an engineering operation but I doubt they will. If they do it will need full planning.
• Highway may have issues with proximity to the function.
• you can’t claim precedence for planning because the neighbour did it. Planning apps are considered on their own merits.  Situation may differ while others may be historic. Not sure about highways. 
• some highway departments may let you pay for an investigation but there are no guarantees that the results will be favourable. 

I’m not saying it can’t be done but you have some hoops to jump through. 
 

Chris 

[John Shutler]

you’ll need to demonstrate that in installing the dropped kerb there will be  no damage to tree roots. solutions like cell web or similar that kevin suggested are all well and good but there is often an issue with build height (as it is a no dig solution) and how the new surfacing will interface with the existing road

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

21 minutes ago, Chris at eden said:

just drive over the path without a kerb it’s a £1k fine standard.

In theory.....  I do chuckle every time I pass the constituency MPs office in Liskeard and there is a car parked out front and which can only have got there by driving up the kerb and across the path. 

[Chris at eden]

1 hour ago, Khriss said:

Speak to yr TO,  is what yr paying yr tax for, Sutton aint short of money. K

Speak with your TO I agree with but don’t go in with the view that this is what you pay your taxes for, it will just alienate them as they have heard it all before.  Your taxes fund the TO to represent the council. They are not required to or even permitted to provide you with technical solutions. That is for the applicant to provide and the a TO to assess. 

[Gajendra]

42 minutes ago, Chris at eden said:

In response to some of the comments:

• planning is only required on classified roads. Not on residential streets. You do need consent of highways though and they usually fit it (you pay) as you have to strengthen the footpath to protect underground services from passing vehicles.  If you put a drive in and then just drive over the path without a kerb it’s a £1k fine standard.
• if the drive is more than 5 square metres, and it will be it will need to discharge surface water onsite. Porous, soak-away, etc.  Otherwise it will need planning consent.
• as it’s in the RPA it will need to be no dig. The celweb sub base will need to be at least 100mm think on top of which will be the wearing course.  The finished surface will probably be at least 200mm higher than the road and you will need to get it down to meet the road ideally without digging, not possible.  With the level change planning may say it’s an engineering operation but I doubt they will. If they do it will need full planning.
• Highway may have issues with proximity to the function.
• you can’t claim precedence for planning because the neighbour did it. Planning apps are considered on their own merits.  Situation may differ while others may be historic. Not sure about highways. 
• some highway departments may let you pay for an investigation but there are no guarantees that the results will be favourable. 

I’m not saying it can’t be done but you have some hoops to jump through. 
 

Chris 

Thanks Chris. I am not seeing any light at the end of the tunnel  Sounds like celweb probably not going to work for me as the kerb is already about 5-6 inches tall. You mentioned "RPA it will need to be no dig" does that mean I can't even dig small root survey trench as some of the other guys here suggested? Thanks

[petercb]

Our parking area was half a metre short of the minimum length requirement, a polite gentle conversation with highways revealed they had discretion to waive policy requirements and we got our licence to install our dropped kerb.

[Gajendra]

8 minutes ago, petercb said:

Our parking area was half a metre short of the minimum length requirement, a polite gentle conversation with highways revealed they had discretion to waive policy requirements and we got our licence to install our dropped kerb.

I am really glad at least there are some real human being making some kind of decisions and not just computer says no. I hope I will find someone over here who would try and help me. 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

12 hours ago, Gajendra said:

Thanks Chris. I am not seeing any light at the end of the tunnel  Sounds like celweb probably not going to work for me as the kerb is already about 5-6 inches tall. You mentioned "RPA it will need to be no dig" does that mean I can't even dig small root survey trench as some of the other guys here suggested? Thanks

The ‘light’ is directly proportional to how much you want / need to find a solution - and most importantly, how much you are willing to invest into it.  It really is a cost / benefit analysis. 
 

It doesn’t “have” to be a no dig (everything goes in layers on top of what is already there) scenario.  To immediately default to that option kind of negates the potential opportunity to improve the rooting environment which would be one of your strongest bargaining chips. 
 

Airspade, hand tool excavation around existing roots (if they are even found to be there) back fill with advantageous materiel + suitable sub and top layers. 
 

Im not suggesting it is an easy (or cheap) path (to do it properly), what I’m saying is - it IS doable and it IS possible to be a win-win (if you put the resources to it.)