Driveway Widening Letter

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Whitey

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
433
Location
Surbiton, Surrey
Car
Seat Arosa 1.4 Auto :-(
Hi guys

Just had a letter from the council regarding getting my drive widened, but I'm having trouble deciphering the following :

"to prevent overrunning and damage to the footway the width of the new or widened crossover cannot be less than the width of the back of footway entrance onto your property"

Any comments ?

I initially thought that meant that my front wall cannot be cut back wider than the crossing, but then I thought that some people don't even have a wall ?!

Cheers

Whitey

Beresford.jpg
 
I would read that, " that the width of the proposed crossover (i.e from your drive to the road), must be equal to or greater than the width of the opening to your property entrance.

If it were less than, there may be a risk of you driving from your property with the wheels of your car running over the pavement.

If I were you, I would phone the local council engineers' office to seek clarification.
 
I think they mean that the width of the tarred/cement runover across the pavement to the road kerb and presumably the width of the kerb dropdown must match the proposed increased width of your drive? I assume if you go ahead with the proposed drive widening the council will modify the runover/pavement/kerbing to match and bill you for same. This could be quite expensive since a surface water runoff drain seems to be involved.
 
Thanks for the comments. The price is relatively high, but for ease of access for reverse parking after a long night shift, I think it is worth it.

That kerbstone and drain cover is a wheel killer !

I will give them a call, if possible, and report back.

Thanks

Chris
 
I would go back to the council and demand that they reissue their letter in PROPER ENGLISH!

There is no excuse for a council to be sending out this sort of rubbish to members of the public and is simply laziness on behalf of the person that wrote the letter
 
^ I am glad I'm not the only one who thinks the statement isn't clear !

Proper English, love it.
 
I have seen driveways with no kerb dropdown on the roadside - on one occasion I even saw the entrance 'blocked' by residents parking bay (though the locals obviously new better than to park there) - I wonder if the council is concerned about home owners saving on costs relating to the council's pavement work ?
 
In some places I have seen 'decorative' bollards placed onto the pavement to prevent access as you describe.

They allow you to pay in 10 instalments to help with the outlay.
 
I initially thought that meant that my front wall cannot be cut back wider than the crossing

I think that's exactly what it means.

The pavement is dug up, strengthened, and re-laid in line with the new dropped kerb - if the actual entrance to your property is wider then you may drive over unstrengthened pavement on the way in or out.
 
I'd just do what you'd like to be done and tell the council you've followed their letter verbatum
 
Yup, new owner.

a) the garden is stripped bare now
b) I wouldn't drive a red Mini !
 
I agree with w124nut's interpretation of the wording. Obviously the drain would need to be changed for a grid type, instead of a kerb type. You may also need planning permission to demolish part of your wall in order to widen the driveway opening. I'm pretty sure that you can't just completely remove a front wall, but not sure on any alterations to it. (Assuming you take the legit route). You say that you've stripped the garden now, be aware of the legislation regarding rainwater drainage/run off of the surface if planning to change it.
 
Thanks for the info.

You are right about the drain, it is going to be changed - the biggest cost.

I am going to create a 'rain garden' to collect water as well as using the existing soak away.
 
I would go back to the council and demand that they reissue their letter in PROPER ENGLISH!

There is no excuse for a council to be sending out this sort of rubbish to members of the public and is simply laziness on behalf of the person that wrote the letter

Bit of an over-reaction? All it's missing is a comma and a couple of hyphens (and perhaps they could have said "pavement" rather than "footway", and "must not" rather than "cannot"):

"to prevent overrunning and damage to the footway, the width of the new or widened crossover cannot be less than the width of the back-of-footway entrance onto your property"
 
"to prevent damage to the pavement, the width of the new or widened crossover cannot be less than the width of the entrance onto your property"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom