BOROUGH OF POOLE

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP – 20 JANUARY 2005

REPORT OF HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

ON CHANNEL OBSTRUCTIONS

1.Matter for Consideration

1.1To review the current procedure in respect of the practice of materials being placed in channels by residents in order to gain access to their driveways.

2.Recommendations

2.1It is recommended that Members approve the policy as described in item 4.11

3.Background

3.1The Highways Act 1980 states, under the heading ‘Protection of Public Rights’:

‘ Section 130 (3) … it is the duty of a Council who are a Highway Authority to prevent, as far as possible, the obstruction of the highways …. for which they are the Highway Authority.’

3.2The Councils as Highway Authority has a duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act to maintain highways maintainable at public expense. As part of this duty, the authority undertakes a regime of regular highway inspections as explained in the Highway Maintenance Policy.

These inspections are undertaken at a frequency dependent on the status of the road but is generally every 6 months for a typical residential road. The response to defects identified is dependent on the severity and likely danger to the public.

3.3The inspections are intended to reasonably identify and remove potential dangers to the public. These typically include :

  • Footway and carriageway potholes
  • Broken kerbs
  • Defective or missing service box covers, manholes, gully gratings etc.
  • Overhanging vegetation
  • Unauthorised obstructions

3.4While the duty stated in item 3.1 appears clear, there may be other considerations to temper this with a degree of reasonableness. For example,

any ‘A’ board placed onto the paved highway area of the High Street technically causes an obstruction. However, previous blanket demands for removal impacted on the traders to the extent that enforcement was scaled down to target only the worst offences. This approach of reasonableness has legal backing where there is a reluctance to pursue minor infringements through the Courts.

3.5It has to be recognised that additional areas of work must be properly resourced to be effective. Currently there are three Highways Inspectors carrying out inspections supplemented by one Enforcement Officer, undertaking this as part of a whole range of duties including signs, lines, street furniture, flooding, winter maintenance, etc

4.Channel Obstructions

4.1A ‘custom and practice’ which has developed over the years is for some residents to place ramped materials in the channel outside their property in order to be able to drive over a full face kerb to access their driveway.

4.2The approach to this has been to take no action in these circumstances unless, in the opinion of the Highways Inspector, the channel obstruction presents an obviously dangerous situation to road users. This would include:

  • Loose or unfixed light pieces of timber which could easily become dislodged.
  • Channel obstructions which extend so far out into the road such that they present a potential significant danger to cyclists/motorcyclists travelling along the road.

4.3A measure of the Council’s performance in respect of keeping the road safe is the number of successful claims against the Council’s insurers where it is proven that the Council has been negligent in undertaking its duties. With regard to this particular aspect of enforcement duty, this has never been a concern raised by the insurers.

4.4However a recent accident where a cyclist was injured having come off his bike driving across one of these obstructions has prompted a review of our current approach. The view of the Council’s insurers is that as a result of this incident we need adopt a proactive policy for managing this problem. The policy needs to be proportionate to the likelihood of future incidents occurring and the cost of tackling the problem.

4.5This Council’s policy in respect of channel obstructions was last examined in 1992 when there were calls for all obstructions to be removed. The approach approved at that time was:

(a)A letter be sent to all properties where obstructions have been placed, requiring them to be removed, failing which the Council would remove it. The resident should then apply to have a properly constructed dropped crossing.

(b)A letter be sent to all properties where vehicular access is being gained across a full height kerb, again asking them to apply for a properly formed dropped crossing

(c)Following this action then any continued access driving across a full kerb where damage can be seen to be being caused, the resident will be required to provide a properly formed dropped crossing. If the resident fails to respond then the Council would do this work and recharge the cost. In reality the number of times where damage could be directly attributable to the residents’ vehicles was so small that in fact this ultimate sanction never took place.

4.6Properly formed dropped crossings involve:

  • Replacement of existing full faced ( 100mm ) kerbs with 2 No. tapered kerbs and (normally) 3 No. lowered ( 25mm ) kerbs.
  • Providing a strengthened sub-base to take the additional vehicular loading.
  • Remarking of adjacent parking bays, if appropriate.
  • Adjustments to utility company equipment – boxes, moving of telegraph poles etc.

The cost of these works is typically £500, in addition to the Council’s cost of £35 to cover administration, contacting utility companies and inspection of works for adoption.

Dropped crossings for properties on Principal and Classified Roads would in addition need Planning Permission.

4.7Dropped crossings can also be provided on unclassified roads if the property falls within one of the Council’s structural maintenance schemes. In this situation:

(a)If all of the footways and kerbs are being replaced as part of the

scheme, there are negligible extra costs incurred and the crossings are provided free of charge as part of the works.

(b)If the kerbs are not being replaced as part of a footway resurfacing scheme, the additional cost of providing such crossings is charged on to the resident at £36 per kerb, i.e. typically £180.

Alternatively if the property falls just outside but nearby to the structural maintenance scheme, a charge of £70 per kerb, i.e. £350, is made.

4.8A survey has recently been undertaken to determine the number of existing channel obstructions across the borough, shown as Appendix A.

The number of properties where vehicles are being driven across a full kerb to driveways is not recorded – proving regular/irregular usage would require a significant commitment of resources.

4.9The Highways Act 1980 gives the Highway Authority the following power:

Section 184 (1) Where the occupier of any premises … having access to a highway maintainable at public expense habitually takes a vehicle across a kerbed footway or verge, the Highway Authority may… serve a notice on the owner and occupier of the premises…. stating that they propose to execute such works for the construction of a vehicle crossing …… and may recover the expenses recently incurred by them in so doing from the owner or occupier of the premises in question.

4.10In broad terms alternative options are shown in tabulated form as Appendix B.

4.11There is clearly a need to adopt a policy on this issue, as stated in item 4.4. However it has to be recognised that this needs to be proportionate to the problem and sustainable alongside all of the other duties that are placed upon the Council as Highway Authority. In this respect the following procedure is proposed :

All households which have an obstruction placed in the channel outside their property be written to advising:

(a)These obstructions are unauthorised and can be potentially dangerous to other road users.

(b)The obstruction must be removed by the householder within 28 days.

(c)If during the course of any subsequent inspections the obstruction still exists, then this will be removed by the Council.

(d)Households be urged to consider applying for a properly formed dropped crossing.

(e)The situation will be reviewed after twelve to eighteen months, following which appropriate action in respect of those who continue to drive across full face kerbs will be considered.

JAMES T BRIGHT

Head of Transportation Services

Appendix A - Channel obstruction survey data.

Appendix B - Broad Options

Name and Telephone Number of Officer Contact:

Steve Tite (01202) 262020

TAG200105T3C

APPENDIX A

No. of Roads / No. of Obstructions
1. / Alderney(E) / 11 / 56
2. / Branksome / 2 / 3
3. / Turlin Moor / 4 / 4
4. / Hamworthy / 11 / 18
5. / Creekmoor / 5 / 11
6. / Alderney(W) / 5 / 12
7. / Hillbourne / 5 / 11
8. / Broadstone / 1 / 2
9. / Merley / 1 / 2
10. / Bearwood / 2 / 3
11. / Rossmore / 8 / 13
12. / Oakdale / 11 / 19
13. / Wallisdown / 5
____ / 23
____
69 / 176

Of the 176 obstructions:-

91 wood

75 concrete/tarmac

10 metal

Channel Obstructions – individual roads

Road / Wood / Concrete / Metal / Road Total / Cumulative
Total
ALDERNEY(E)
Corbiere Avenue / 1 / 1
Guernsey Road / 5 / 2 / 1 / 8
St. Helier Road / 8 / 1 / 1 / 10
Jersey Road / 1 / 1
Turbary Road/Close / 8 / 8
Millborne Crescent / 1 / 1
Solly Close / 4 / 4
Melbury Avenue / 3 / 6 / 9
Arne Crescent / 4 / 4
Arne Avenue / 2 / 7 / 1 / 10
56 / 56
BRANKSOME
Guest Avenue / 2 / 2
Holt Road / 1 / 1
3 / 59
TURLIN MOOR
Patchins Road / 1 / 1
Egmont Road / 1 / 1
Shipstal Close / 1 / 1
Midlebere Road / 1 / 1
4 / 63
HAMWORTHY
Hewitt Road / 2 / 2
Harkwood Drive / 2 / 2
Freshwater Drive / 1 / 1
Ivor Road / 3 / 1 / 4
Rigler Road / 1 / 1
Hounslow Close / 1 / 1
Rockley Road / 1 / 1
Lake Road / 1 / 1
Branksea Road / 1 / 1
Coles Avenue / 1 / 1 / 2
Hercules Road / 2 / 2
18 / 81
Road / Wood / Concrete / Metal / Road Total / Cumulative
Total
CREEKMOOR
Millfield / 4 / 1 / 5
Millstream Close / 1 / 1
Oakmead Road / 1 / 1
Benmoor Road / 3 / 3
Apsley Road / 1 / 1
11 / 92
ALDERNEY(W)
Bremble Close / 1 / 1 / 2
Farwell Road / 2 / 2
Belben Road / 1 / 2 / 1 / 4
Cleeves Close / 1 / 2 / 3
Bedford Road South / 1 / 1
12 / 104
HILLLBOURNE
Methuen Road / 3 / 3
Wavell Avenue / 1 / 1
Roberts Road / 1 / 1 / 2 / 4
Gort Road / 2 / 2
10 / 114
BROADSTONE
Holland Way / 2 / 2
2 / 116
MERLEY
Rempstone Road / 2 / 2
2 / 118
BEARWOOD
Viscount Walk / 2 / 2
King John Avenue / 1 / 1
3 / 121
Road / Wood / Concrete / Metal / Road Total / Cumulative
Total
ROSSMORE
Hobbs Road / 1 / 1
Worrell Drive / 1 / 1
Harford Road / 2 / 2
Grove Road / 1 / 1
Hillcrest Road / 1 / 1 / 2
Jackson Road / 2 / 2
Lucas Road / 1 / 1
Connaught Crescent / 3 / 3
13 / 134
OAKDALE
Dale Road / 1 / 1
Kenyon Road / 2 / 2
Kenyon Close / 1 / 2 / 3
Greenfield Road / 3 / 3
Old Farm Road / 1 / 1
Brampton Road / 2 / 2
Curlieu Road / 1 / 1
Johnston Road / 1 / 1
Hiley Road / 1 / 1
Benbow Crescent / 1 / 1
Raleigh Road / 1 / 2 / 3
19 / 153
WALISDOWN
Wallisdown Road / 2 / 5 / 7
Hawkins Road / 1 / 5 / 6
Scott Road / 1 / 6 / 7
Mossley Avenue / 2 / 2
Astbury Avenue / 1 / 1
23 / 176
TOTALS / 91 / 75 / 10 / 176

APPENDIX B

Advantages / Disadvantages
1. Maintain the current position. / 1. Provides for generally safe highway conditions with minimum investment of time and resources.
2. Accepted by the majority of the public. / 1. Leaves the onus on Highway Inspectors to make subjective assessment as to whether an unauthorised obstruction is safe or not.
2. Obstructions can present danger
3. Channel obstructions give appearance of rundown and uncared for environment.
2. Remove all obstructions. / 1. The Highway Authority is clearly discharging its duties under Section 130 Highway Act.
2. Obstruction free environment for all road users. / 1. Confrontational to residents, removing materials which have been in place often over several years.
2. Residents who cannot afford dropped crossings will be forced to park on-street.
3. Incur costs in terms of staff time for enforcement and works costs in removing obstructions which remain following letter. (Recovery of works costs would be difficult as it would need to be proven that the current resident was the person who put the material down in the first place. Also issue with tenants).
3. Letter to all properties asking them to provide dropped crossings. / 1. Highway Authority seen to be promoting residents to do the right thing.
2. Fairness to those who have already paid for dropped crossings. / 1. Confrontational to some residents.
2. Could be considered unfair to those residents who pay for a dropped crossing as a result of this letter yet see others nearby ignoring the request and continue to drive across a full kerb unlawfully.
3. Additional enforcement duties
4. Require all households which are regularly driving across footpath to provide dropped crossings; Council to undertake works and recover costs where this is not done voluntarily. / 1. Highway Authority is clearly undertaking action in line with Section 184 of Highway Act.
2. Streets will be cleared of all obstructions, improving appearance and safety. / 1. Extremely confrontational to residents.
2. Must take legal action against all who do not pay to be fair to those who have paid. This action will invariably be against the poorer section of the community, often with genuine inability to pay.
5. Achieve gradual change by directing an element of the structural maintenance programme towards roads with high number of channel obstructions. / 1. Provides much welcomed uplift to often socially deprived areas.
2. Borough of Poole’s contribution to structural maintenance programme can be seen to be working towards dealing with social deprivation. / 1. Does not address overall pavement condition as measured by Best Value Performance Indicators. Current priorities based on highway condition.
2. Would take many years to deal with remaining isolated obstructions throughout the borough.

1