http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7251333.stm

Brutal but effective. If Brent and Harrow council really did attempt
to contact the offending residents - and did so at least more than
once - then I approve! Cars driving over pavements, in particular
paving slabs, really do mash them up.

Whether the councils are charging too much for installing the proper
ramp access across the pavement does come into this whole issue, but
if they are just passing on the legitimate costs of so doing then
that's fair enough.

The article says Brent has done this in 33 locations, whilst no
figures are provided for Harrow. I expect the counter argument to
anyone suggesting that this action has further damaged the pavement is
that the pavement was so damaged in the first place it makes little
difference, as the council were going to have to fix it up anyway. It
will certainly make for an effective deterrent.

I have to say that, in some streets, it does sadden me to see so many
driveways in place of front gardens (i.e. places were a conversion has
been done). Of course this really does depend upon the context - size
of the front garden/driveway area, how busy the street is, indeed
whether the house/street was designed like this in the first place.
However I think at some locations introduction of a controlled parking
zone (CPZ), so residents could have a fair degree of certainty they
could park nearby, would have been (indeed could still be) a
preferable solution.

I am however very much aware that in Harrow and Brent, much of the
(often interwar) housing was built with a driveway in the first place,
so even though the properties targeted by the councils' actions might
originally have had gardens and only recently had driveway
conversions, they could well simply be changing to fit in with the
surrounding/nearby housing. Nonetheless if you want to have a driveway
you need to pay up for the appropriate access to get across the
pavement.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7251333.stm

Brutal but effective. If Brent and Harrow council really did attempt
to contact the offending residents - and did so at least more than
once - then I approve! Cars driving over pavements, in particular
paving slabs, really do mash them up.

Whether the councils are charging too much for installing the proper
ramp access across the pavement does come into this whole issue, but
if they are just passing on the legitimate costs of so doing then
that's fair enough.

As they say "hundreds of pounds". People really have no idea of the real
cost of things if they think that this is excessive.

tim

On Feb 18, 7:08*pm, Mizter T wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7251333.stm

Interesting - I thought the problem du jour was that asphalting your
front garden to park the car was causing much faster run-off of heavy
rain, contributing to increased flooding - and that therefore councils
were thinking of requiring planning permission. This business of
providing access is news to me.
Tim

On 18 Feb, 19:17, TimB wrote:
On Feb 18, 7:08 pm, Mizter T wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7251333.stm

Interesting - I thought the problem du jour was that asphalting your
front garden to park the car was causing much faster run-off of heavy
rain, contributing to increased flooding - and that therefore councils
were thinking of requiring planning permission. This business of
providing access is news to me.
Tim


That's a separate, albeit connected issue. Take a look at the access
to driveways across pavements - so called "dropped kerbs" - they will
generally have a lowered curb to match the level of the road and a
purpose built non-paved (concrete or asphalt) surface across the
pavement, so that cars don't have to mount the curb and then drive
over paving stones, breaking them as they go.

However you will see some that don't have this - these are the
illegitimate ones, and in such instances people often just use a big
length of chunky timber shoved in the crevice of the kerb so as to
allow vehicles to mount the kerb more easily. If the pavement is made
from paving stones then they'll often be cracked and uneven - if
however it is an asphalt surface then it obviously won't be thus
damaged. I don't know the details but it may well be the case that
asphalt pavements can get damaged by prolonged abuse in this manner.

Seems relevant.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....html?t=669655
Though ISTR the figure round here (Cambs) is closer to £1000.

On Feb 18, 9:15 pm, Mark W wrote:
Seems relevant.http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....html?t=669655
Though ISTR the figure round here (Cambs) is closer to £1000.

I am pretty sure that near me, on Lavender Avenue, Mitcham, the
council altered the pavement of every house to a slipway, so that cars
could be parked in peoples' front gardens rather than on the pavement.
I'm a pedestrian and I thought that was a good idea - and the pavement
does seem a lot clearer now than a year ago, although I suppose some
people have simply taken the opportunity to buy a second car.

One thing that really bugs me, especially if I'm pushing a pushchair,
is when I have to use the road because cars are using the pavements.
Where can I get those "Pavements are for people" stickers?

On 18 Feb, 19:08, Mizter T wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7251333.stm

Brutal but effective. If Brent and Harrow council really did attempt
to contact the offending residents - and did so at least more than

Another small minded petty victory for a bunch of little hitlers. Why
shouldn't people park in on their own property if they want to or is
that a priviledge reserved for the middle classes with proper drives?
If it was my car I'd be off down the plant hire shop for an angle
grinder and dump the bollards in front of the councils offices along
with an invoice for the grinder hire plus any lost income from not
having a car available and lost working hours.

once - then I approve! Cars driving over pavements, in particular
paving slabs, really do mash them up.

Only if they're badly made in the first place. Also some suburban
roads are so narrow that if people don't park in their drives or on
the pavements the road would be effectively blocked to anything on 4
wheels larger than a go kart.
..
B2003

Boltar wrote:

If it was my car I'd be off down the plant hire shop for an angle
grinder and dump the bollards in front of the councils offices along
with an invoice for the grinder hire plus any lost income from not
having a car available and lost working hours.

Oooh, an invoice, they must be shaking in their boots.
--
Michael Hoffman

Boltar (Boltar ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Brutal but effective. If Brent and Harrow council really did attempt to
contact the offending residents - and did so at least more than

Another small minded petty victory for a bunch of little hitlers. Why
shouldn't people park in on their own property if they want to or is
that a priviledge reserved for the middle classes with proper drives?

It's a right reserved for those with vehicular access to their drives.
Which is signified, legally, by a drop kerb. Which must be installed by
the council.

If it was my car I'd be off down the plant hire shop for an angle
grinder and dump the bollards in front of the councils offices along
with an invoice for the grinder hire plus any lost income from not
having a car available and lost working hours.

Cool. They'll have plenty of evidence for the criminal damage case
against you.

Only if they're badly made in the first place. Also some suburban roads
are so narrow that if people don't park in their drives or on the
pavements the road would be effectively blocked to anything on 4 wheels
larger than a go kart.

Then parking in the road is illegal, as it would cause an obstruction.

Adrian (Adrian ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Another small minded petty victory for a bunch of little hitlers. Why
shouldn't people park in on their own property if they want to or is
that a priviledge reserved for the middle classes with proper drives?

It's a right reserved for those with vehicular access to their drives.
Which is signified, legally, by a drop kerb. Which must be installed by
the council.

Bad form etc, yeh, I know. Sue me...

But I should add that there may well be planning implications in the
installation of additional vehicular accesses - some neighbours wanted an
in-and-out drive as part of a house refurb. Planning permission was
specifically refused for the second vehicular access on "road safety"
grounds. God knows why, but there y'go.