Dropped kerb planning rejected due to RPA

[openspaceman]

16 minutes ago, john87 said:

That is right, but how is crossing the pavement an illegal act??

 

"Section 34(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) provides that anyone driving a mechanically propelled vehicle, for example a motor car, on a road that is a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway is guilty of an offence unless it can be shown that there is a private right in place for people to use the accessway to gain vehicular access to their property."

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, john87 said:

Ok..

 

First off.. The council might like to think they own the roads and trees, but do they?? Where my house is, was part of a building project thing, and all the purchasers of the houses, so far as i know, owned the road up to the middle of the road. There was an agreement that all concerned would chip in for the cost of putting in a road of a suitable standard that the LA would "adopt" it for the purposes of the RTA. That is not to say they own the land under it, or the trees that the builders planted along the sides of it..

 

The councils can think what they like, but have they got documentary proof of ownership?? Err, that would be a no. A bloke i know owns a farm. The council swore blind that they owned a track up the side of it and the trees etc, and were trying to order my mate about so he told them to prove they owned it. Of course, they could not..

 

As for driving up kerbs to gain access to your house, if you have done it for 21 years you have created and easement and then that is the end of the matter. The council will jump in and say that you could not have created an easement as what you were doing was illegal, which of course is complete nonsense. There is no law that says you cannot drive your own vehicle onto your own property, no matter what the council might lke to think..

 

john..

 

You have only  a partial understanding of the law here. Firstly public adopted porads and footways vest in the Council regardless of who owns the land under them. If the trees are part of the highway, they too vest in the Council. It is stated in statute. They don't need documentary proof.

 

Also you can't create a prescriptive right over a public road.  Nor can you gain the right to drive over a footway, no matter how long you do it for.

 

So there is an important distinction between having a permitted or tolerated access over a footway to a  property and trying to claim a right to one by virtue of underlying titles or prescriptive rights. Generally, the highways legislation trumps common and civil law.

[Khriss]

... So all the marked out kerb parking i will see on my rounds tomorrow is illegal. And all the unmarked kerb parking signed by highways also. K

[Mark J]

Search online for "Fox Valley Systems". I've heard of believable marks being made on roads.  I definitely wouldn't recommend or endorse such a course of action.

Edited December 19, 2021 by Mark J

[openspaceman]

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

You have only  a partial understanding of the law here. Firstly public adopted porads and footways vest in the Council regardless of who owns the land under them. If the trees are part of the highway, they too vest in the Council. It is stated in statute. They don't need documentary proof.

 

I think it's the Highway Authority and that is often delegated to the Local Authority

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

 

Also you can't create a prescriptive right over a public road.  Nor can you gain the right to drive over a footway, no matter how long you do it for.

 

So there is an important distinction between having a permitted or tolerated access over a footway to a  property and trying to claim a right to one by virtue of underlying titles or prescriptive rights. Generally, the highways legislation trumps common and civil law.

This depends on what you mean by "tolerated", the thing is if the entity who was in a position to give permission, or their successors in title, since 1905 has acquiesced in allowing the practise then a prescriptive right may be gained in time "by fiction of lost grant"IIRC. In this case no such chance exists.

[john87]

Got to say, this is the nicest and best forum ever!! And... [yes i know sentences cannot begin with "and"] there are some VERY clever people on here too!!

 

Love this forum!!

 

john..

Edited December 19, 2021 by john87

[Stubby]

10 hours ago, john87 said:

Got to say, this is the nicest and best forum ever!! And... [yes i know sentences cannot begin with "and"] there are some VERY clever people on here too!!

 

Love this forum!!

 

john..

John , you are ptretty cute yourself bud . 😀

[Anno]

11 hours ago, john87 said:

Got to say, this is the nicest and best forum ever!! And... [yes i know sentences cannot begin with "and"] there are some VERY clever people on here too!!

 

Love this forum!!

 

john..

Love the Forum, hate the Council!

[AHPP]

There ya go!
 
Solutions rather than problems [emoji23]
 
Far from being an “anti LA” Arbtalk TO bashing thread (which hasn’t actually happened (bar 1 Alex - shame on you) other than in the minds of those that see it where it doesn’t exist) what the thread has shown is a desperate lack of innovation and radical thinking to arrive at potential SOLUTIONS for the OP rather that simply regurgitating stale old reasons why things “can’t” be done in a fashion which could actually IMPROVE the rooting environment. 
 
Yes, the ground and the tree(s) are ‘owned’ by somebody else....
 
Yes, it would take a refreshingly open minded approach to suggest solutions and provide a sound justification case....
 
Yes, there would be costs involved and only  the OP can do the cost benefit analysis....
 
Potential SOLUTIONS:
 
- Shut up and enjoy your garden 
- Get a bike
- Get a 4x4 and just blast up the kerb
- Prove where / if the roots are, offer an engineering solution which protects roots, improves growing medium and provides bridging IF roots even exist within the existing metalled surface. 
 
 
 
 

He said it.

[nepia]

...with uncanny insight to the Public Sector generally 😔