Single track dead end - emergency vehicles
Discussion
Looking for some advice on this.
Currently live in a private street lane with a large derelict plot in front of all our houses.
At the moment it is a single track with lots of indents that have allowed the residents to park extra cars/ passing place.
The plot of land has permission to build a large house and the owner of the land owns all of the indents and turning circles and plans to fence to the boundary of his plot.
Is there any rule on allowing a turning circle or turning head for the emergency services?
The local council just pass it back to the residents of the street as a civil matter. Effectively when the boundary fence is placed the street becomes a 1/4mile single track with no turning circles with very tight driveways which wouldn’t allow the turning of anything bigger than a standard transit van. Due to some disputes with the new land owner and the residents of the street prior to myself moving here it seems almost impossible to come to an agreement that suits everyone.
Currently live in a private street lane with a large derelict plot in front of all our houses.
At the moment it is a single track with lots of indents that have allowed the residents to park extra cars/ passing place.
The plot of land has permission to build a large house and the owner of the land owns all of the indents and turning circles and plans to fence to the boundary of his plot.
Is there any rule on allowing a turning circle or turning head for the emergency services?
The local council just pass it back to the residents of the street as a civil matter. Effectively when the boundary fence is placed the street becomes a 1/4mile single track with no turning circles with very tight driveways which wouldn’t allow the turning of anything bigger than a standard transit van. Due to some disputes with the new land owner and the residents of the street prior to myself moving here it seems almost impossible to come to an agreement that suits everyone.
We live on a very narrow mile long lane with no turning spots. Larger vehicles use one or two bigger driveways to turn around. There is no other way, they couldn't reverse back.
It's not fun when you are towing a trailer and you come face to face with someone with no reverse gear, but everyone manages.
It's not fun when you are towing a trailer and you come face to face with someone with no reverse gear, but everyone manages.
I thought that a new development had to pitch it's boundary a certain distance back from the roadside.Even if they own the land right up to the road.
Say about 1.5 meter's?
Maybe I just thought it up.
The alternative choice is that you could get together with all the neighbours on you're side of the road and carve back enough space from the front of all the gardens.
That way you could make it as wide as you all want!
Say about 1.5 meter's?
Maybe I just thought it up.
The alternative choice is that you could get together with all the neighbours on you're side of the road and carve back enough space from the front of all the gardens.
That way you could make it as wide as you all want!
Edited by Patrick magooagain on Sunday 23 February 08:01
Olas said:
If he has planning he can build whatever he likes.
dmc26 said:
Is there any rule on allowing a turning circle or turning head for the emergency services?
Yes (there is guidance under a document called Manual for Streets; see section 6.7, page 75), and if the Planners and statutory consultees had done their job correctly, it should have been assessed at the Planning stage.If they haven't and permission has now been granted, then the developer still has to comply with the Building Regulations (see Approved Document B ; Regulation B5, pages 96 and onwards).
Although the two systems (Planning and Building Regulations) are entirely separate, however, I have know Building Control to be lenient in such cases where Planning has been granted - perhaps to avoid embarrassment to the Authority - and either not enforce the Regulation, or allow a relaxation if the developer installs a sprinkler system as partial mitigation.
once Town planning have granted permission, you have permission.
You should not assume that the labourer you subcontract has intimate knowledge of the law, the more likely scenario is that he asks
‘where do it want your fence, mate?’
You point to a line marked on the floor by a price of string tied between to posts, and he builds the fence.
From the other angle, how would you react if all of those residents that used to park on his land now start parking in your front garden? Would you ignore it or put a fence up?
Further, what justification do you think you have for parking your private car on someone else’s private property? Is there a problem with your own driveway/garage/garden?
You should not assume that the labourer you subcontract has intimate knowledge of the law, the more likely scenario is that he asks
‘where do it want your fence, mate?’
You point to a line marked on the floor by a price of string tied between to posts, and he builds the fence.
From the other angle, how would you react if all of those residents that used to park on his land now start parking in your front garden? Would you ignore it or put a fence up?
Further, what justification do you think you have for parking your private car on someone else’s private property? Is there a problem with your own driveway/garage/garden?
Equus said:
Olas said:
If he has planning he can build whatever he likes.
dmc26 said:
Is there any rule on allowing a turning circle or turning head for the emergency services?
Yes (there is guidance under a document called Manual for Streets; see section 6.7, page 75), and if the Planners and statutory consultees had done their job correctly, it should have been assessed at the Planning stage.If they haven't and permission has now been granted, then the developer still has to comply with the Building Regulations (see Approved Document B ; Regulation B5, pages 96 and onwards).
Although the two systems (Planning and Building Regulations) are entirely separate, however, I have know Building Control to be lenient in such cases where Planning has been granted - perhaps to avoid embarrassment to the Authority - and either not enforce the Regulation, or allow a relaxation if the developer installs a sprinkler system as partial mitigation.
A similar plan will be produced for Building Regulations, but this is likely to be restricted to the are of the plot itself. If so, the building inspector will want to see how the fire brigade would gain access to the new building, but are quite likely to ignore access to buildings outside of the application area.
As Equus has said, this should have been considered as part of the planning process.
I would not expect the Building Regulations process to help. I would take a look at the planning conditions to see if any relate to access and if they have not been discharged try to use those to influence the council. The permission, conditons and associated drawings should be avaiilable online on the local planning portal.
If that fails, I would contact the highways team at the council to request a meeting onsite to look at the problem.
Equus said:
Elysium said:
I would not expect the Building Regulations process to help.
I have known instances where the erection of a house with Planning Permission has been prevented at the B.Regs stage due to non-compliance with Regulation B5.In this case, the issue is access to existing properties. This may never have complied with building regulations. As the regs do not apply retrospectively, the new development would not need to fix the existing problem.
If the developer uses an Approved Inspector, they will ask for a site plan to define the area of the works when submitting their Initial Notice. They will not consider any works outside of that site plan for the purposes of building regulations. If the local authority are used, they may take a different view. They seem to make it up half the time as it stands.
So the building regs process might help here, but there are lots of reasons why it might not and I would not rely on that as a solution.
The application of B5 of the Building Regs can only apply to the boundary of the site and cannot ask for improvements or alterations beyond the site - as has been mentioned. This means a turning circle/hammerhead etc cannot be installed for universal use outside the site boundary to allow for compliance with B5 fire service access.
The LA or AI dealing with the regs may ask for turning within the plot boundary, but the regs only require access to within 45m of any point on a building footprint and for a fire appliance to only have to back up no more than 20m, so it may comply without turning being provided within the site boundary either.
In terms of the road - I presume it’s a private road?
Are there any rights that could be claimed if these spaces have been used unbroken for X years? Outside my knowledge really, but that would be my first port of call.
The LA or AI dealing with the regs may ask for turning within the plot boundary, but the regs only require access to within 45m of any point on a building footprint and for a fire appliance to only have to back up no more than 20m, so it may comply without turning being provided within the site boundary either.
In terms of the road - I presume it’s a private road?
Are there any rights that could be claimed if these spaces have been used unbroken for X years? Outside my knowledge really, but that would be my first port of call.
Edited by Imasurv on Sunday 23 February 09:30
Imasurv said:
The application of B5 of the Building Regs can only apply to the boundary of the site and cannot ask for improvements or alterations beyond the site - as has been mentioned. This means a turning circle/hammerhead etc cannot be installed for universal use outside the site boundary to allow for compliance with B5 fire service access.
That's true, but in this instance (given that it's a private road, as has been confirmed by the OP), the definition of the site boundary becomes important.The instances where I've seen it used to prevent B.Regs approval previously have been on individual plots within a wider development, but as Elysium says, the red line site boundary on the Planning should (if everything has been done correctly) encompass the private road as far as the adoptable highway, and B.Regs could require consistency with this.
As Elysium says, though, first step would be to look at the details of the Planning approval, in particular the Officer's report (to understand their thinking) and any Conditions on the approval notice.
Edited by Equus on Sunday 23 February 09:43
Imasurv said:
In terms of the road - I presume it’s a private road?
Are there any rights that could be claimed if these spaces have been used unbroken for X years? Outside my knowledge really, but that would be my first port of call.
The OP said the road was private. Assuming that is correct it will have been included in the planning application boundary. Clearly works are planned to it to remove the 'indents' and 'turning circles'. Are there any rights that could be claimed if these spaces have been used unbroken for X years? Outside my knowledge really, but that would be my first port of call.
There could be a case for adverse possession if the whole of this road has been occupied and used by residents for 12 years (or 10 years if the title is registered). However, I suspect that would be complex here with multiple residents and areas involved.
The back story is potentially significant. The road may have been built recently with various points of access planned for smaller houses, or the variations in width may be remnants of a past commercial use. Is it maintained by residents informally or through a management company?
That is why I would start by looking through the planning history of the site to see if there are conditions that affect this aspect of the development.
Equus said:
The instances where I've seen it used to prevent B.Regs approval previously have been on individual plots within a wider development, but as Elysium says, the red line site boundary on the Planning should (if everything has been done correctly) encompass the private road as far as the adoptable highway, and B.Regs could require consistency with this.
The building regulations process does not require the site boundary to be consistent with the planning permission red line boundary. When I have come accross issues arising from this in the past, the Approved Inspectors have argued that highways are the enforcing authority outside the building regulations boundary. Where the works affect privately owned roads and infrastructure that becomes a bit of a loophole.
Elysium said:
There could be a case for adverse possession if the whole of this road has been occupied and used by residents for 12 years (or 10 years if the title is registered). However, I suspect that would be complex here with multiple residents and areas involved.
Adverse possession is not relevant in this case, and in any event is much more difficult to claim these days than it used to be. Rights of easement may be applicable, but again can be legally complex to enforce, since they are often not very clearly defined.Elysium said:
When I have come across issues arising from this in the past, the Approved Inspectors have argued that highways are the enforcing authority outside the building regulations boundary. Where the works affect privately owned roads and infrastructure that becomes a bit of a loophole.
I have come across situations where the Approved Inspectors (the NHBC, specifically) have argued the opposite, however, on shared private drives.Elysium said:
The building regulations process does not require the site boundary to be consistent with the planning permission red line boundary.
I used the word 'could' advisedly.On the examples I referred to, they did so where it was necessary to control works that were required to achieve Building Regulations compliance, and which did not fall within the scope of control of other bodies (ie. the Highway Authority).
Edited by Equus on Sunday 23 February 10:01
Equus said:
Elysium said:
When I have come across issues arising from this in the past, the Approved Inspectors have argued that highways are the enforcing authority outside the building regulations boundary. Where the works affect privately owned roads and infrastructure that becomes a bit of a loophole.
I have come across situations where the Approved Inspectors (the NHBC, specifically) have argued the opposite, however, on shared private drives.I suggest that was probably driven by the NHBC's wider role around technical standards. It's not particularly relevant to the Op's problem though is it?
Equus said:
Elysium said:
The building regulations process does not require the site boundary to be consistent with the planning permission red line boundary.
I used the word 'could' advisedly.On the examples I referred to, they did so where it was necessary to control works that were required to achieve Building Regulations compliance, and which did not fall within the scope of control of other bodies (ie. the Highway Authority).
Edited by Elysium on Sunday 23 February 10:33
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff