narrowing the road

ootbitb

Anyone know if a owner of a new house can block the area between his wall/hedge/fence and the tarred road to prevent vehicles pulling in to take calls or let a wide vehicle pass, etc.

Toyotafanboi

depending on the location of the house. if its in the countryside and effects visibility lines, no. in a housing estate probably also no because you dont own it.

have you a google maps link to the area in question? might help give a better answer

recyclebin

they should not block it up. I think there is something in the planning permission laws about leaving it clear.

Toyotafanboi

recyclebin wrote: »

they should not block it up. I think there is something in the planning permission laws about leaving it clear.

there is, but it varies a lot between different kinds of roads. but its somewhat flexible in that you can fill it certain ways to certain heights in some circumstance.

Supergurrier

Flowerpots along the area.

Im serious btw

ootbitb

In Donegal this practise is widespread and done with impunity.

Must take some pics:D

MugMugs

ootbitb wrote: »

In Donegal this practise is widespread and done with impunity.

Must take some pics:D

In Donegal, Donkeys carved the roads and councils subsequently tarmaced them.

ootbitb

Supergurrier wrote: »

Flowerpots along the area.

Im serious btw

surely not.

galwaytt

Supergurrier wrote: »

Flowerpots along the area.

Im serious btw

Illegal. Phone the council.

Also a traffic hazard, so I hope they have good insurance. ....

Supergurrier

Lots of my neighbours do it, some bave them a good 3/4 foot out on the road, boils my blood when you actually have to stop to let someone by on a road with room for the 2 cars to pass

Toyotafanboi

galwaytt wrote: »

Illegal. Phone the council.

Also a traffic hazard, so I hope they have good insurance. ....

i dont think it is illegal? AFAIK, the cleared area (like in the picture above) is only to provide a line of sight down the road for people exiting the house and not to be driven on anyway.

coolisin

Would they not be blocking up some of their property not public property and once they are not obstructing sight lines then everything is ok?


What would have being there before the house was built a ditch?

Toyotafanboi

coolisin wrote: »

Would they not be blocking up some of their property not public property and once they are not obstructing sight lines then everything is ok?


What would have being there before the house was built a ditch?

exactly, a ditch that would not have been driven upon anyway. a flat grass verge is acceptable in place of asphalt or whatever. they could also have brought a wall right to the roadsedge not higher than 900mm i think.

kirving

Someone near me places (rockery) rocks out on the grass verge, and then parks their car on the road, right at a corner. I really should dispose of them, since I child could trip over one of them. Maybe use them as wheel chocks so that the driver gets the message?!

Del2005

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

i dont think it is illegal? AFAIK, the cleared area (like in the picture above) is only to provide a line of sight down the road for people exiting the house and not to be driven on anyway.

They've put a hazard on the road. If someone crashes into them the owner is liable for the damage to the vehicle. If the person crashes into the wall the owner is entitled to compensation, AFAIK.

Toyotafanboi

Del2005 wrote: »

They've put a hazard on the road. If someone crashes into them the owner is liable for the damage to the vehicle. If the person crashes into the wall the owner is entitled to compensation, AFAIK.

i see your point. but surely they aren't on the road, they are on the personals land, which just joins the road? and the driver should watch his way. as an above poster said, if the plant pots weren't there then it would just be ditch anyway?

solas111

I can see the solicitors and barristers rubbing their hands gleefully.

Voodoomelon

My thought would be if you don't own it, you have no right to put anything permanent there.

However if some kind stranger were to buy some large potted plants and place them along the road side, who are you to remove them?

corktina

generally though you do own the road, or half of it, you just have given the Council the right of way over it.

visual

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

exactly, a ditch that would not have been driven upon anyway. a flat grass verge is acceptable in place of asphalt or whatever. they could also have brought a wall right to the roadsedge not higher than 900mm i think.

That land between wall and road is the
Local council land. Its a condition of planning that the house owner had to agree to and has been in place for many many years.

ootbitb

visual wrote: »

That land between wall and road is the
Local council land. Its a condition of planning that the house owner had to agree to and has been in place for many many years.

I thought the reason the council acquired this land was to facilitate possible road widening in future years. Am I wrong?

kneemos

If the area is grassed it's normal for people to put something there to prevent people driving on it,tarmac is often protected by something as well I've noticed.I think if the housholder is making an effort to keep it tidy they are going to protect it from vehicles.A lot of posters here seem to be obsessed with getting sued I have neve heard of such a thing happening.

coolisin

Going by memory of looking at sites you still own the land and the only reason you put the wall back 2 meters is for safe exit and entrance to the site by vechiles nothing to do with giving the council any space to widen the road.
The person still owns the land and have tarred it themselves.

Toyotafanboi

coolisin wrote: »

Going by memory of looking at sites you still own the land and the only reason you put the wall back 2 meters is for safe exit and entrance to the site by vechiles nothing to do with giving the council any space to widen the road.
The person still owns the land and have tarred it themselves.

yes, to the best of my knowledge the person still owns the land.

it was a condition attached to the planning permission grant that an area had to be leveled to allow for better visibility when joining the road from the house.

there are different options as to how to level it. seemingly tarring it is the most low maintenance option but leaves you open to people driving up on it, like in the OP. where as if it was grass or a low wall this obviously wouldn't happen.

but it is the home owners land, not handed over to the council.

mickdw

Imo and from dealing with land mapping and planning etc, the set back is created in the majority of cases to serve one or both of these reason. Sightlines and parking area associated with the development. Certainly in mayo, your typically planning condition requires that this area be filled and finished with material suitable for parking motor vehicles with a setback of 4.5m common.
Ive seen all sorts of items placed by homeowners to block this area. I think they are leaving themselves open to a claim. Say for example a truck or a tractor kicked one of these bollards out into the road and is not spotted. The next car coming along hits it and gets destroyed. Home owner is liable imo

galwaytt

...that strip is not owned or taken in charge by the council - it remains in the ownership of the homeowner.

However, the strip is required to be provided as a condition of the planning permission for the house, and is required to facilitate (as mentioned above), sightlines, traffic and parking. This means it must be accessible to traffic and ergo, NOT blocked off with anything.

Definately a CoCo enforcement issue and maybe a road safety issue too. Either way, the pots have got to go !

For Paws

galwaytt wrote: »

...that strip is not owned or taken in charge by the council - it remains in the ownership of the homeowner.

However, the strip is required to be provided as a condition of the planning permission for the house, and is required to facilitate (as mentioned above), sightlines, traffic and parking. This means it must be accessible to traffic and ergo, NOT blocked off with anything.

Definately a CoCo enforcement issue and maybe a road safety issue too. Either way, the pots have got to go !

See Road Act 1993, Part 4, Section 70.1 (a)

70.—(1) (a) The owner or occupier of any structure and the owner or occupier of any land on which a structure is situated shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the structure or the use of the structure is not a hazard or potential hazard to persons using a public road and that it does not obstruct or interfere with the safe use of a public road or the maintenance of a public road.

This applies to anything which is placed, built or which grows onto, the public road. The verge is not part of the public road, except where the Local Authority has powers. Eg; the placing of signage in the verge is covered under the Roads Act.

Basically, unless the Local Authority deem a 'structure' to be a obstruction and remove it, or otherwise agree to its alteration or removal,
then it's grand.

The individual landowner is not responsible for providing or maintaining areas where the roadway is widened to allow traffic to pass safely.

The matter of where it is legal to 'pull in' and make or take a mobile 'phone call is problematic. The 'hard shoulder' on a motorway remains an area where traffic are specifically prohibited to stop & park, yet it seems that the Gardai see this as the lesser of two evils, and ignore it.
No driver has a right or obligation to answer or make a mobile 'phone call while driving & there is no obligation on Local Authorities or landowners to facilitate them by providing 'lay bys'.

sogood

I live on a fairly narrow, rural road, with not a lot of room or opportunities for turning. People regularly drive into my driveway to turn around, having discovered that they were going the wrong way or missed a turn. I have no problem with it whatsoever, though I can understand someone objecting to having their grass verge churned up, outside their house. If its gravel or tar, whats the problem? Better than having to go out to attend to victims of a road crash!

kneemos

sogood wrote: »

I live on a fairly narrow, rural road, with not a lot of room or opportunities for turning. People regularly drive into my driveway to turn around, having discovered that they were going the wrong way or missed a turn. I have no problem with it whatsoever, though I can understand someone objecting to having their grass verge churned up, outside their house. If its gravel or tar, whats the problem? Better than having to go out to attend to victims of a road crash!

People don't want their gravel scattered or their tarmac cracked by heavy vehicles.

pa990

galwaytt wrote: »

Illegal. Phone the council.

Also a traffic hazard, so I hope they have good insurance. ....

Not necessarily, the house owner may own that piece of land, and only constructed the wall further back to comply with planning permission, as to allow better visibility when exiting.

If it is the homeowners property they would also be permitted to set grass there is they so wish.

Toyotafanboi

kneemos wrote: »

People don't want their gravel scattered or their tarmac cracked by heavy vehicles.

it's specified at the time of planning, that its ashphalt or similar to withstand the weight of a "countryside vehicle" tractor etc.

gravel would just be a poor choice of material for that area, i doubt many go with that.

Del2005

For Paws wrote: »

See Road Act 1993, Part 4, Section 70.1 (a)

70.—(1) (a) The owner or occupier of any structure and the owner or occupier of any land on which a structure is situated shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the structure or the use of the structure is not a hazard or potential hazard to persons using a public road and that it does not obstruct or interfere with the safe use of a public road or the maintenance of a public road.

This applies to anything which is placed, built or which grows onto, the public road. The verge is not part of the public road, except where the Local Authority has powers. Eg; the placing of signage in the verge is covered under the Roads Act.

Basically, unless the Local Authority deem a 'structure' to be a obstruction and remove it, or otherwise agree to its alteration or removal,
then it's grand.

The individual landowner is not responsible for providing or maintaining areas where the roadway is widened to allow traffic to pass safely.

By placing objects on the road, even the bit they own, the owner is creating a hazard. Anything on the side of the road is a hazard that someone could hit or catch if they crash, which is why racing circuits now use tarred run off instead of gravel traps, even signs used by councils are a hazard if a motorcyclists hits them.

For Paws wrote: »

The matter of where it is legal to 'pull in' and make or take a mobile 'phone call is problematic. The 'hard shoulder' on a main road remains an area where traffic are specifically prohibited to stop & park, yet it seems that the Gardai see this as the lesser of two evils, and ignore it.
No driver has a right or obligation to answer or make a mobile 'phone call while driving & there is no obligation on Local Authorities or landowners to facilitate them by providing 'lay bys'.

The only place where it's illegal to stop on a hard shoulder is a motorway. On all other roads it's perfectly fine to stop on the hard shoulder, technically it's not even part of the road as the yellow line indicates the limit of the road. The only consideration when pulling over, to take a phone call, on non motorways is general parking restrictions(clearway/double or single yellow lines) and if your creating an obstruction. Once the car is taxed it can park/stop where it likes unless other restrictions are in place.

kneemos

The above act only applies to anything that encroaches onto the road,hitting a flower pot is no more damaging than hitting a tree in a ditch.

Toyotafanboi

Del2005 wrote: »

For Paws wrote: »

See Road Act 1993, Part 4, Section 70.1 (a)

70.—(1) (a) The owner or occupier of any structure and the owner or occupier of any land on which a structure is situated shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the structure or the use of the structure is not a hazard or potential hazard to persons using a public road and that it does not obstruct or interfere with the safe use of a public road or the maintenance of a public road.

This applies to anything which is placed, built or which grows onto, the public road. The verge is not part of the public road, except where the Local Authority has powers. Eg; the placing of signage in the verge is covered under the Roads Act.

Basically, unless the Local Authority deem a 'structure' to be a obstruction and remove it, or otherwise agree to its alteration or removal,
then it's grand.

The individual landowner is not responsible for providing or maintaining areas where the roadway is widened to allow traffic to pass safely.

The matter of where it is legal to 'pull in' and make or take a mobile 'phone call is problematic. The 'hard shoulder' on a main road remains an area where traffic are specifically prohibited to stop & park, yet it seems that the Gardai see this as the lesser of two evils, and ignore it.
No driver has a right or obligation to answer or make a mobile 'phone call while driving & there is no obligation on Local Authorities or landowners to facilitate them by providing 'lay bys'.

By placing objects on the road, even the bit they own, the owner is creating a hazard. Anything on the side of the road is a hazard that someone could hit or catch if they crash, which is why racing circuits now use tarred run off instead of gravel traps, even signs used by councils are a hazard if a motorcyclists hits them.

the part of the act you highlighted in bold i feel you have mis interpreted.

it refers to the building (structure) on the site off the road and it asks that if you have a structure on site that the use of that building (structure) will not interfere with the carriageway passing outside your land or make it any more hazardous than it was before the structure was there.

i don't see how a row of flowerpots on some level tarred surface could be any more dangerous than a ditch tbh.

visual

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

yes, to the best of my knowledge the person still owns the land.

it was a condition attached to the planning permission grant that an area had to be leveled to allow for better visibility when joining the road from the house.

there are different options as to how to level it. seemingly tarring it is the most low maintenance option but leaves you open to people driving up on it, like in the OP. where as if it was grass or a low wall this obviously wouldn't happen.

but it is the home owners land, not handed over to the council.

The boundary wall is where it ends.
The strip of groung is used for road drainage
Where there is no house there is a ditch again owned by council

Selfish greed is idiots trying to claim it as their garden. Same happens in housing estates the patch of grass at foot path. Outside their garden
By planting flowers placing rocks to stop someone parking on it. Human nature I guess

Toyotafanboi

visual wrote: »

The boundary wall is where it ends.
The strip of groung is used for road drainage
Where there is no house there is a ditch again owned by council

Selfish greed is idiots trying to claim it as their garden. Same happens in housing estates the patch of grass at foot path. Outside their garden
By planting flowers placing rocks to stop someone parking on it. Human nature I guess

i disagree.

you will initially purchase a field, which ends in a ditch at the roads edge you own that piece of ground. ownership isn't removed when the land becomes developed. and even if you didn't develop the land, the ditch belongs to you and is your responsibility.

when you develop the land, one of the clauses set by the council that approves planning permission is that you modify the entrance appropriately so you can safely enter and exit the land off the road. there are many many criteria to be met.

the last meter or two may be leveled and joined to the councils road, but the person who owns it is you. if there is a maintenance issue with the area in question it is up to you to look after it, not the council because you paid for it and you own it.

eddieham

While I dont obstruct or place any obstacles in peoples way, I can understand why people do this.
In our case the council own and sometimes maintain the tarmac road, my neighbours and I are responsible for the gravel areas as it is our property and planning insists on a 3 metre verge between wall and road
Before and after our houses the road narrows back to single car width on both sides.
Obviously when cars meet oncoming cars within this section they move onto our gravel and either stop or continue to use the gravel section as roadway.
Ultimately this is costing us (neighbour and I) aprox €500 per year in gravel, to keep this area maintained.
If I wanted to be a Victor Meldrew I could always stick out a few flower pots , but its a small community and I like getting on with everyone.




https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-ScKGXMvE2XWkxVUWN4TURfd0k/edit?usp=sharing

dgt

OP we suffer the same problem, inconsiderate numptys used to pull in the whole time, the worst were the ones who parked and pissed off. They fail to see it as someones house :mad:

Just do what I do: keep cars at the front as much as possible. That stops that in no time




The larger the better


Image388_zps3ef47111.jpg

eddieham

visual wrote: »

The boundary wall is where it ends.
The strip of groung is used for road drainage
Where there is no house there is a ditch again owned by council

Selfish greed is idiots trying to claim it as their garden. Same happens in housing estates the patch of grass at foot path. Outside their garden
By planting flowers placing rocks to stop someone parking on it. Human nature I guess

Sorry you are wrong on all counts, see above

kneemos

visual wrote: »

The boundary wall is where it ends.
The strip of groung is used for road drainage
Where there is no house there is a ditch again owned by council

Selfish greed is idiots trying to claim it as their garden. Same happens in housing estates the patch of grass at foot path. Outside their garden
By planting flowers placing rocks to stop someone parking on it. Human nature I guess

As statee in the above act "the verge is not part of the public road"the property belongs to the housholder until it meets the road I'd imagine.

Del2005

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

i don't see how a row of flowerpots on some level tarred surface could be any more dangerous than a ditch tbh.

The ditch is dangerous, but it's required for drainage, placing flower pots on the road places an unnecessary danger for other road users.

slimjimmc

kneemos wrote: »

As statee in the above act "the verge is not part of the public road"the property belongs to the housholder until it meets the road I'd imagine.

I've read Sect 70 quoted, and nowhere does it mention "the verge is not part of the public road". That appears to be the poster's opinion, not a legal definition.

The legal definition of a road includes the "margin" e.g the grass margin at the edge of the roadway.

Sect 2 definitions

“road” includes—

(a) any street, lane, footpath, square, court, alley or passage,

(b) any bridge, viaduct, underpass, subway, tunnel, overpass, overbridge, flyover, carriageway (whether single or multiple), pavement or footway,

(c) any weighbridge or other facility for the weighing or inspection of vehicles, toll plaza or other facility for the collection of tolls, service area, emergency telephone, first aid post, culvert, arch, gulley, railing, fence, wall, barrier, guardrail, margin, kerb, lay-by, hard shoulder, island, pedestrian refuge, median, central reserve, channelliser, roundabout, gantry, pole, ramp, bollard, pipe, wire, cable, sign, signal or lighting forming part of the road, and

(d) any other structure or thing forming part of the road and—

(i) necessary for the safety, convenience or amenity of road users or for the construction, maintenance, operation or management of the road or for the protection of the environment, or

(ii) prescribed by the Minister;

This HSE safety document ( pdf ) has some photographs giving clear examples of what constitutes a road.

ootbitb

Do the people who adopt this practice not own cars ?


If they do I suspect they sometimes avail of the extra space afforded to them by better citizens.

John_Rambo

dgt wrote: »

OP we suffer the same problem, inconsiderate numptys used to pull in the whole time, the worst were the ones who parked and pissed off. They fail to see it as someones house :mad:

Just do what I do: keep cars at the front as much as possible. That stops that in no time




The larger the better


Image388_zps3ef47111.jpg

That's an amazing result for someone who doesn't want cars parked outside the house.

dgt

John_Rambo wrote: »

That's an amazing result for someone who doesn't want cars parked outside the house.

It works! it stops the arsewipes parking up and people driving there to let other people by. We don't want people driving there, that stops it no problem

I can move them when I want, not at someone elses mercy

kneemos

slimjimmc wrote: »

I've read Sect 70 quoted, and nowhere does it mention "the verge is not part of the public road". That appears to be the poster's opinion, not a legal definition.

The legal definition of a road includes the "margin" e.g the grass margin at the edge of the roadway.

Sect 2 definitions


This HSE safety document ( pdf ) has some photographs giving clear examples of what constitutes a road.

Does the margin include outside peoples houses.The driveway is the owners responsibility as far as the road so presumably the rest of it is.

eddieham

In the cases given so far, including my own, the sections of land belong to the householders and are not part of the public roadway.
In the link I attached, beyond the houses you see the public road shrink back to its original size.
My folio with the Land registry is to the edge of the public road, ie where tarmac and gravel meet.
It was a condition of planning that I leave this 3 metre verge for line of sight, in the interests of traffic safety.
Prior to this it was part of a field and agricultural land.
To date Kilkenny Co Co have not issued a CPO to purchase this from me and until they do this is my property.

It would suit me if the council did own it as it would the be their responsibility to maintain it

The roads act does not apply, as the piece in front of the house is not part of the public roadway.
Definition taken from roads act;
“public road” means a road over which a public right of way exists and the responsibility for the maintenance of which lies on a road authority"

creedp

kneemos wrote: »

Does the margin include outside peoples houses.The driveway is the owners responsibility as far as the road so presumably the rest of it is.

If the landowner owns the ground between the outside of a fence/ditch (whatever you want to call it) and the edge of the tarmac why do the council maintain these areas, e.g. cut back the vegetation, maintain drains, etc? I konw some householders maintain these verges for aesthetic reasons but I wonder what is the legal position for the area outside the boundary fence? If the landowner owns it could he be liable for any damage/injury caused by it not being appropriately maintained?

Toyotafanboi

creedp wrote: »

If the landowner owns the ground between the outside of a fence/ditch (whatever you want to call it) and the edge of the tarmac why do the council maintain these areas, e.g. cut back the vegetation, maintain drains, etc? I konw some householders maintain these verges for aesthetic reasons but I wonder what is the legal position for the area outside the boundary fence? If the landowner owns it could he be liable for any damage/injury caused by it not being appropriately maintained?

the council dont maintain it. if you own a piece of ditch in the countryside its your duty to maintain it, keep it trimmed back etc.