Utilities company works by driveway - notice required?
Discussion
Mrs has been in touch that our water utilities company have rolled up this morning to do some works which involve digging up the pavement on the boundary of the driveway - mother in law was visiting and was initially told it could take a couple of days to complete and refill the hole. Both the missus and I are at work, so no car on the drive presently. In the event, they've finished pretty sharpish, and refilled already (so no drama, one might think?)
We've had no notice of the works at all, and MrsMR2 has been told over the 'phone that they don't have to give notice.
Does anyone know if that's true, or is someone just fobbing the missus off?
Can't believe it's true that works affecting your access to property need no notice given to the homeowner being inconvenienced.
As a potential complication, they have replaced the flush edging stones between the pavement and drive with curved ones, apparently sitting proud of the drive, meaning my car will now likely ground if I try to put it on the drive (drive is angled down from the road).
We've had no notice of the works at all, and MrsMR2 has been told over the 'phone that they don't have to give notice.
Does anyone know if that's true, or is someone just fobbing the missus off?
Can't believe it's true that works affecting your access to property need no notice given to the homeowner being inconvenienced.
As a potential complication, they have replaced the flush edging stones between the pavement and drive with curved ones, apparently sitting proud of the drive, meaning my car will now likely ground if I try to put it on the drive (drive is angled down from the road).
bimsb6 said:
You don't own the pavement ! If the works meant a hole o/s your drive they should have put a driveway plate over the excavation , and no they don't have to tell you .
If the op owns his property he may well do. According to my council, the ownership of the land under their adopted highway is by the owners of the land on either side of the road. It was news to me and came up in a discussion about a culvert bridge adjoining my property.bimsb6 said:
You don't own the pavement ! If the works meant a hole o/s your drive they should have put a driveway plate over the excavation , and no they don't have to tell you .
Standard PH reply.Courtesy and inconvenience be damned, it's not your pavement you know, how dare you wonder about such things as access to your own property, getting to work when there's big corporations out there who can do what they like!
I agree it may have been an emergency but if it's not some kind of notice / warning is surely a courtesy if not a legal requirement?
NB, I know that's not what you said, but "You don't own the pavement!" with added exclamation mark implies the OP has made some ridiculous statement about his property, his pavement and how dare they dig a hole in it!
Whether you own the property or not, isn't relevant. Land within the boundary of the road, including its footways and verges, is vested in the highway authority for the purposes of exercising its function. That means that only the highway authority control what happens within the highway, and not necessarily the owners of the land on which that highway might historically have been built.
Statutory undertakers will normally locate their services in the public highway - that makes access nice and simple, they have to comply with the New Roads and Street Works Act and other legislation, but at least that's all set out.
If their public services (that is to say, services not just serving the land in question) are under private land, they need wayleaves, owners permission etc, and they will normally avoid that if at all possible.
So if the services are located under the carriageway or footway, i.e. with "the highway", they do not need, legally, the permission of the adjacent owner. Although, as some have said, a courtesy call or notice would be nice, eh?
Statutory undertakers will normally locate their services in the public highway - that makes access nice and simple, they have to comply with the New Roads and Street Works Act and other legislation, but at least that's all set out.
If their public services (that is to say, services not just serving the land in question) are under private land, they need wayleaves, owners permission etc, and they will normally avoid that if at all possible.
So if the services are located under the carriageway or footway, i.e. with "the highway", they do not need, legally, the permission of the adjacent owner. Although, as some have said, a courtesy call or notice would be nice, eh?
tvrgit said:
Whether you own the property or not, isn't relevant. Land within the boundary of the road, including its footways and verges, is vested in the highway authority for the purposes of exercising its function. That means that only the highway authority control what happens within the highway, and not necessarily the owners of the land on which that highway might historically have been built.
Statutory undertakers will normally locate their services in the public highway - that makes access nice and simple, they have to comply with the New Roads and Street Works Act and other legislation, but at least that's all set out.
If their public services (that is to say, services not just serving the land in question) are under private land, they need wayleaves, owners permission etc, and they will normally avoid that if at all possible.
So if the services are located under the carriageway or footway, i.e. with "the highway", they do not need, legally, the permission of the adjacent owner. Although, as some have said, a courtesy call or notice would be nice, eh?
Mostly agree, but actually ownership can be relevant. In my case I want a bridging culvert replaced. County Council's initial response was, "it's your land, it's your problem", despite the fact that the culvert bridged the highway with a byway. In the end they conceded that it was classified as a bridge and not a culvert and therefore was their responsibility. Had they stuck to their guns, it would have been my (very expensive) problem.Statutory undertakers will normally locate their services in the public highway - that makes access nice and simple, they have to comply with the New Roads and Street Works Act and other legislation, but at least that's all set out.
If their public services (that is to say, services not just serving the land in question) are under private land, they need wayleaves, owners permission etc, and they will normally avoid that if at all possible.
So if the services are located under the carriageway or footway, i.e. with "the highway", they do not need, legally, the permission of the adjacent owner. Although, as some have said, a courtesy call or notice would be nice, eh?
But yes, a little notice would be polite. I had the water guys re-line a pipe at the end of my access road. They very politely gave us three weeks notice of the necessary detour.
Hackney said:
bimsb6 said:
You don't own the pavement ! If the works meant a hole o/s your drive they should have put a driveway plate over the excavation , and no they don't have to tell you .
Standard PH reply.Courtesy and inconvenience be damned, it's not your pavement you know, how dare you wonder about such things as access to your own property, getting to work when there's big corporations out there who can do what they like!
I agree it may have been an emergency but if it's not some kind of notice / warning is surely a courtesy if not a legal requirement?
NB, I know that's not what you said, but "You don't own the pavement!" with added exclamation mark implies the OP has made some ridiculous statement about his property, his pavement and how dare they dig a hole in it!
In my OP, I never claimed to "own the pavement" (exclamation mark or not).
I appreciate the Utilities Co.s need access to deal with emergencies, I have no problems with that.
This was, apparently, scheduled work; so perhaps a card through the door in advance, or a phone call would, you know, be deemed good customer service. Just courtesy - costs nowt, but means a lot.
Had we had notice, I could have had my car parked elsewhere, rather than a yard from where they're going at the pavement with a mini digger. Also we could have advised them not to put in a raised border, which my car will now ground on.
Thanks to those with the less than sarky responses.
I appreciate the Utilities Co.s need access to deal with emergencies, I have no problems with that.
This was, apparently, scheduled work; so perhaps a card through the door in advance, or a phone call would, you know, be deemed good customer service. Just courtesy - costs nowt, but means a lot.
Had we had notice, I could have had my car parked elsewhere, rather than a yard from where they're going at the pavement with a mini digger. Also we could have advised them not to put in a raised border, which my car will now ground on.
Thanks to those with the less than sarky responses.
The rules differ depending on the utility, but for gas works they definitely are required to give notice, I imagine it is the same for all, but failure to give notice doesn't mean they can't go ahead. As long as the council permits are in place they can go ahead. So for example if they missed your house on the letter drop, doesn't mean you can stop them, just that you have grounds for a complaint against the company responsible, only the regulator ofgen could take action against the company for not meeting thier notice obligations.
When doing the work they will generally knock on doors and try and make sure drive ways and garages are clear of cars before cutting off access to them, it's very rare they will use plates for vehicle access especially crossing pavement because they can be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
When doing the work they will generally knock on doors and try and make sure drive ways and garages are clear of cars before cutting off access to them, it's very rare they will use plates for vehicle access especially crossing pavement because they can be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
IanA2 said:
Mostly agree, but actually ownership can be relevant. In my case I want a bridging culvert replaced. County Council's initial response was, "it's your land, it's your problem", despite the fact that the culvert bridged the highway with a byway. In the end they conceded that it was classified as a bridge and not a culvert and therefore was their responsibility. Had they stuck to their guns, it would have been my (very expensive) problem.
But yes, a little notice would be polite. I had the water guys re-line a pipe at the end of my access road. They very politely gave us three weeks notice of the necessary detour.
I meant its not relevant to the OP's question. There are circumstances such as you describe where ownership of drains, culverts etc within the highway boundary can be very relevant!But yes, a little notice would be polite. I had the water guys re-line a pipe at the end of my access road. They very politely gave us three weeks notice of the necessary detour.
No notice is req but if working on a driveway we will contact the owner, if we block access we carry temporary road ramps ,they are fiberglass and lock together ,if big works they will card ,but not for small jobs, if no utility disruption water off or power off say no card , costs money to card ,the reinstatement should go back as it was or better .
No notice is req but if working on a driveway we will contact the owner, if we block access we carry temporary road ramps ,they are fiberglass and lock together ,if big works they will card ,but not for small jobs, if no utility disruption water off or power off say no card , costs money to card ,the reinstatement should go back as it was or better .
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff