I want to widen my drive to a double drive - but I don't see the need to go to the expense of extending the dropped kerb as I will approach the widened section at an angle using the existing dropped kerb (honestly - I will not be bumping up the kerb!)
Can the council insist on my dropped kerb being the same width as my drive?
If you are happy with what you have, and the access arrangement is convenient for you, I would be inclined to leave it at that. If the jobsworths decide to make an issue, you can deal with it if and when that arises. I see no reason to invite their attention.
OTOH, if you are not happy with the arrangement, you can attempt to communicate with them.
Question is would you be damaging their precious pavement when driving in at an angle?
I have parking space on the front of our property and no dropped kerb, as have a few others along our stretch and the council haven't said anything........yet (Been here 5 years)
A properly authorised dropped kerb means that the section of highway between the roadway and your entrance (i.e. the pavement) is no longer 'set aside for the use of pedestrians' under section 72 of the Highways Act of 1835. Without it, you are committing an offence every time you drive across the pavement.
Colin Bignell
Who would take the trouble to enforce that?
"nightjar .uk.com>"
And; making void your insurance policy - particularly against injuries caused to 'third party' pedestrians- that you might encounter while driving on / across the pavement. By and large -insurance companies will find any excuse to avoid paying out 'damages'; they're famous for renting out umbrellas when it's shining and demanding them back when it starts to rain'. The 'dropped curb' - when approved by councils will encompass an 'easement' granting you the right to traverse the pavement.
Brilliant Col>Who would take the trouble to enforce that?
Why nobody of course!! ... until you happen to clip Mrs Bloggs and her shopping trolley with your rear indicator when reversing into your drive ... at which point all hell (or at least the Highways Act of 1835) will break loose!
Thanks Colin for that useful titbit!
John
One of our neighbours was asked to remove her home made kerb edge but one who uses a plank hasn't been.
London Borough of Sutton :-(
Peter
Some bloody jobsworth with nothing better to do ..
That doesn't surprise me, having lived there.
Tim
Hmm...
Blue and orange.
Wouldn't have expect it to be like the People's Republic of Camden Town....
Fair do's: the bloody jobsworth is there to protect all of us. He's really after the person who decided to turn his front garden into a car park, to the detriment and danger of passers-by (among whom we can all count ourselves at one time or another). However your "jobsworth" cannot be selective.
I've a lot of time for "jobsworths", who these days have *much* more to do than ever before thanks to (a) vastly increased legislation and (b) a vastly less responsible public, who adhere to the great modern principle that you have a "right" to do whatever you want to do: "Liberty Without Responsibility".
[Mind: all due respect to you NatPhil: I get a lot out of your posts.]john
=============================== I suspect that your remarks are prompted by an unpleasant personal experience, but the simple fact is that many houses have very limited off-road parking space. Often the only realistic solution is to sacrifice the garden or some part of it. It's surely better to have cars parked off-road rather than losing half the carriageway to a few parked cars.
Cic.
Therein lies the inherent problem with them. Rules is rules. it allows them to abdicate responsibility and replace it with a nebulous something that is more difficult to address.
I see no value in jobsworths at all. Vastly increased legislation is not something to be proud about either.
The jobsworths are largely there because they are unemployable in terms of contributing anything useful and productive. In effect they are a drain on resources, not a creator of them.
The problem is with the creation of an environment where people are not taking responsibility for themselves but relying on the state to do their thinking and moral judgments for them. Of course, that further encourages the state to extend its tentacles into areas and details that should not concern it.
The moral principle is a simple one. Reasonably one should have the right to do whatever one wants provided that that does not interfere with the equivalent rights of others who may be affected by it. Needless to say, the devil is in the detail, but certainly excessive legislation, the jobsworths to enforce it and reverse discrimination are not required. Individual responsibility and self reliance is.
Disagree (assuming that the term is being used to describe all such public servants -- there is a minority who are indeed "Jobsworths" in the classic definition, and I agree that they are a real menace to all that we hold dear).
Agree. (with knobs on)
Agree. And Disagree. People are taking responsibility for themselves _when it suits them_; and also shirking responsibility when it suits them. (i.e. the same individuals will do both).
If I said something about Thatcher at this point, I suspect you and I might find we are in opposite camps (because I blame her for the state we're in now: we're not living in Blair's Britain, we're living in Thatcher's: the legacy of "first to the trough").
However I also suspect that if we argued long enough, we'd find we agreed with each other on many things. But I ain't sayin no more.
Erm - where were we? Oh yes: dropped kerbs so we can park _somewhere_. (Agree.)
john
p.s. The Council recently told me that if I cleaned out the drain outside my house (which they now *never* do because they haven't the money, men or machines), then I'd be breaking the law. That jobsworth is covering his arse, and the Council's, just in case I drop poison down it, or drop myself down it, or break it, or god knows what else. Oh dear! What an Impasse! Fortunately I must have some friendly local pixies, because it's now cleaned.
"nightjar .uk.com>"
Agreed, and yet the section along the road that leads to a private road without an entrance or dropped kerb remains just as accessible and is ignored as well.
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:58:38 GMT someone who may be Cicero wrote this:-
Better to reduce the number of cars to the minimum.
Yes they can if they find out. However, what is more important could be the effect it has on your insurance. If you don't ask, and get, permission then your insurer could refuse any claims because you have not told them a material fact. Also if and when you come to sell you will be obliged to tell a prospective purchaser that you don't have the permission. The bottom line is that you would be wise to do it by the book.
Peter Crosland
I wouldn't use "jobsworth" to describe *all* public servants; just those who use my tax money to fund their existence, don't make decisions for themselves and don't give me a good rate of return. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what proportion that would be.
Of course. Then it is up to their neighbours, not a proxy for them to take issue with what they have done.
I'll give you two amusing but slightly serious anecdotes from friends living in Switzerland.
One is in an apartment building and wanted to hold a party. Most of his neighbours are retired people and he felt it courteous to let them know and make sure that nobody had a problem with it - he also invited them. All were very pleasant and didn't mind but didn't want to attend either. The party was going to be of the cheese, wine and baroque music style, not some outrageous hippy trashing thing, and would be over by about 1130. At 1115, his doorbell rang and their were two policemen on the doorstep who asked him to finish the party. He asked why (as in had their been a complaint) and they told him that his neighbour from across the landing had called them, although it wasn't a complaint as such. The party finished and people left. I should add that my friend speaks Swiss German very well and there was no question of a language issue. He spoke with the neighbour the following day and asked about this. The reply was that he paid his taxes for the police to deliver negative messages and didn't want to do it himself. It was all very friendly, however.
The other one lives is a house in the hills above Lac Leman near to Geneva. He travels out of the country by first taking a train to Zurich and then flying from there. The trip is a few hours. On one occasion, the passport official at Zurich airport stopped him as he was passing through and told him that he had left his kitchen window open. However, he shouldn't worry because the local policeman had been able to get in, lock it for him and let himself out.
While these anecdotes are in a way positive, they illustrate what happens when the state involves itself in the minutiae of peoples' lives where it really has no business to do so.
Oh completely. The moderate success of the economy in the first few years since 1997 is certainly not due to a chancellor who can't even dress himself. The only thing of moderate value that he has achieved is some degree of disconnection of the central bank from political control.
If I did it, I would want to send them an invoice with cc. to my councillor.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.