Dropped kerbs

[speedking31]

A friend is interested in making their drive wider, increasing from 2 - 3 cars width. He understands that normally you have to have the dropped kerb extended, and that can be quite an expensive process. However his kerb is not the usual 3-4" high with vertical face, but more like 2" high at 45° and it is a continuous run of the same kerb whether backed by a grass lawn or the drive. Therefore no kerb adjustment would be necessary to facilitate parking an additional vehicle on his property.

Is it necessary to engage the council / planning etc. to widen his drive?

PS he doesn't want to ask atm because he doesn't want to stick his head above the parapet.

[Biker 1]

I would just go ahead & do it without telling the council.
Worst case, some curtain twitcher in the neighbourhood will grass you up to the the council & you may have to apply for retrospective planning or similar. Highly unlikely there would be a problem, but of course the law of sod may come into play.....

[Adrian E]

From the description it sounds like the space he's looking to use can't be accessed wholly using the existing dropped kerb? If he can access, even if it means moving cars around to get one tucked in the corner off the drive, then I think he's fine. If he's intending to drive over a bit of kerb that doesn't constitute a dropped kerb, potentially damaging a grassed area/pavement etc that belongs to someone else, I suspect there might be objections.

Is on street parking in front of the bit of kerb he'd like to 'pinch' going to block getting a car off? If it is, then going through the formal route would be wise.

Whether the council care will most likely depend on the road layout, existing interpretations of planning applications for dropped kerbs, and any local objections from neighbours if he just starts using it. If it doesn't inconvenience anyone it's doubtful anyone will care enough to report.

[Type R Tom]

Something to consider, depending on the foot way material it is unlikely to be suitable for driving over and could eventually crack. This will then potentially highlight it to a highway inspector doing the rounds.

There are also issue with surface water if you are removing grass to make a drive which the local council may not appreciate.

A car would be entitled to block them in without a permitted drop kerb, which is likely to cause issue. There could be visibility splay issues depending on the house location.

Which council is it? There website will have guidance. If it's a town center environment I would tread carefully

[speedking31]

Adrian E said:

From the description it sounds like the space he's looking to use can't be accessed wholly using the existing dropped kerb? If he can access, even if it means moving cars around to get one tucked in the corner off the drive, then I think he's fine. If he's intending to drive over a bit of kerb that doesn't constitute a dropped kerb, potentially damaging a grassed area/pavement etc that belongs to someone else, I suspect there might be objections.

Is on street parking in front of the bit of kerb he'd like to 'pinch' going to block getting a car off? If it is, then going through the formal route would be wise.

Whether the council care will most likely depend on the road layout, existing interpretations of planning applications for dropped kerbs, and any local objections from neighbours if he just starts using it. If it doesn't inconvenience anyone it's doubtful anyone will care enough to report.

If you read the OP carefully you'll see that there are no existing dropped kerbs, and all frontage, whether drive or lawn has ~2" high kerbs at 45° angle. To extend the drive would not require altering the kerbs. Not much use of on-road parking. No requirement for shunting. He could currently just park on the front lawn, but that looks a bit chavvy.

[speedking31]

Type R Tom said:

Something to consider, depending on the foot way material it is unlikely to be suitable for driving over and could eventually crack. This will then potentially highlight it to a highway inspector doing the rounds.

There are also issue with surface water if you are removing grass to make a drive which the local council may not appreciate.

A car would be entitled to block them in without a permitted drop kerb, which is likely to cause issue. There could be visibility splay issues depending on the house location.

Which council is it? There website will have guidance. If it's a town center environment I would tread carefully

No footway. Surface runoff is a good point.

[speedking31]

This is the guidance, doesn't cover this scenario.

https://www.warrington.gov.uk/download/downloads/i...

[Type R Tom]

I'm guessing you don't want to post a streetview?

[The Surveyor]

One thing to remember is that if you have a drive which is 3 cars wide, but no dropped kerb, or only a narrow dropped kerb there's a risk that somebody may block the cars on the drive.

IIRC, it's an offence to restrict a dropped kerb rather than a driveway so if there's no dropped kerb cars could park along the kerb blocking the drive.

[Adrian E]

speedking31 said:

f you read the OP carefully you'll see that there are no existing dropped kerbs, and all frontage, whether drive or lawn has ~2" high kerbs at 45° angle. To extend the drive would not require altering the kerbs. Not much use of on-road parking. No requirement for shunting. He could currently just park on the front lawn, but that looks a bit chavvy.

It's a bit confusing to be honest - a 'dropped kerb' in planning terms means you have the right to drive over a bit of roadway/footpath that is owned by the county council. In our case that boundary is a continuous row of low level stones, much as you describe, that you could drive straight over. Assuming he has a driveway already, that was there when the house was built, there will be a right of access relating to it. The way it's described it sounds like he has fully legal access via a driveway but just wants to use that access/a bit next to it to park further vehicles on a bit of space he owns?

The usual way the council agrees that access is through the planning application for a new or amending 'dropped kerb'.

Planning consent for creating parking for vehicles on your property is entirely different to the access - most people avoid the need to obtain it it by laying a permeable surface or providing adequate drainage that meets the requirements laid down by the council/law.

A picture would really help, suitably edited to remove identifiable location.

I've been through this recently with Surrey County Council, who rejected my application on the grounds I'd be taking away a communal parking space.....

[speedking31]

This type of thing albeit the kerb detail is slightly different.

[Type R Tom]

speedking31 said:

This type of thing albeit the kerb detail is slightly different.

Are you sure it's public highway? Usual in a housing estate not to have a footway.

[Adrian E]

Type R Tom said:

speedking31 said:

This type of thing albeit the kerb detail is slightly different.

Are you sure it's public highway? Usual in a housing estate not to have a footway.

That's more or less what I expected it to look like - to the poster above the county council will normally 'own' that line of kerbing, so planning is required to grant access across it, irrespective of whether a footpath is part of the equation.

I'd suggest digging out the legal pack from when he bought the house and see what it says about rights of access. There may well be covenants that prevent extending it, or changing the use of the garden. They may well not be worth the paper they're written on in practical terms but it will indicate the thought that might've gone into it when the houses were built.

If in doubt just ring the council highway dept and ask the question in a generic sense for the approx location - they're usually not too bad and if there are restrictions they should know.

[Pica-Pica]

speedking31 said:

A friend is interested in making their drive wider, increasing from 2 - 3 cars width. He understands that normally you have to have the dropped kerb extended, and that can be quite an expensive process. However his kerb is not the usual 3-4" high with vertical face, but more like 2" high at 45° and it is a continuous run of the same kerb whether backed by a grass lawn or the drive. Therefore no kerb adjustment would be necessary to facilitate parking an additional vehicle on his property.

Is it necessary to engage the council / planning etc. to widen his drive?

PS he doesn't want to ask atm because he doesn't want to stick his head above the parapet.

Yes, you do not necessarily know where utilities run. Also pavements designed for foot passengers are easily damaged by cars, vans going over.

[Roofless Toothless]

I have just been through all this at my home. The previous owner was here fifteen years and never bothered with getting a dropped kerb installed, but I bit the bullet and contacted the council. For one thing, I believe it is illegal not to have a dropped kerb where needed, and I was unsure about the insurance implications of that.

Because I live in a conservation area the application had to go to the city council first, and via them the parish council, to check if conservation area rules are being infringed. About £250 for that lot, not to mention the £60 for just asking if it was necessary in the first place.

Then the same or more for the highways department of the county council to get permission to actually do the work. Plus of course architect's fees to draw up the plans that were needed.

However, when I got permission through I did realise that they did have some necessary work to do which justifies the fees. For one thing, they check with all the utility companies what they have under the pavement, and what their plans are for these services in the future. It is not just a matter of cracking a bit of pavement.

This is where you realise that you are not just getting permission for a dropped kerb - it is a 'vehicle crossover' of the whole pavement, and clearly needs to be done right.

There were also stipulations about run off, and a soakaway had to be installed. Also, the city council insisted that there was to be no loose material within a certain distance of the road. This meant I had to install an apron of block paving, which ended up costing more than the crossover itself. I did see the sense in this though. I used to have a couple of Caterhams, the second one without a windscreen, and I know all about gravel up and down the road from peoples' drives.

So what started out seeming like a load of expensive beaurocratic obstacles actually ended up looking like quite reasonable precautions to minimise unforseen impact on others and possibly expensive implications for yourself down the line if something goes wrong. I would strongly recommend you pay no attention to the 'just do it' advice and clear everything with your council first.

[MonkeyBusiness]

Roofless Toothless said:

However, when I got permission through I did realise that they did have some necessary work to do which justifies the fees. For one thing, they check with all the utility companies what they have under the pavement, and what their plans are for these services in the future. It is not just a matter of cracking a bit of pavement.

There is no way any of the utility services know what they are doing in the future. Nor do they confer with each other. "We are digging x road up, if you have any plans shout up"

[Roofless Toothless]

Well, perhaps I might have said 'immediate' future.