Call to remove parking access
PUBLISHED: 11:26 07 February 2008 | UPDATED: 12:57 06 May 2010
ENFORCEMENT action is being sought to get a man to remove a crossover he installed at his home in St Albans more than two years ago. The ongoing saga began when Siva Rubakumar of Batchwood Drive, St Albans, had a crossover built across the pavement to his
ENFORCEMENT action is being sought to get a man to remove a crossover he installed at his home in St Albans more than two years ago.
The ongoing saga began when Siva Rubakumar of Batchwood Drive, St Albans, had a crossover built across the pavement to his home from a lay-by with parking spaces.
It was installed by Herts Highways which admitted that it should have told St Albana District Council about the crossover in advance because it was on a classified road.
Mr Rubakumar was told he could not use it last year when the district council refused planning permission for the scheme and he had to make a restrospective planning application for the crossover and for the construction of two parking bays in the garden of his house. When his application was dismissed he appealed against the decision but the inspector turned down the appeal mainly on the grounds of road safety. Since then the council has refused two other applications from Batchwood Drive residents seeking crossovers.
Ward councillor Roma Mills said: "We fought to get communal lay-bys for residents in this busy road. If people then construct crossovers running through them, it is unfair to other users of the lay-by who lose the use of a parking space."
In 2006, Herts County Council approved a new procedure which required applicants seeking crossovers on street parking bays to pay for an additional parking space nearby. But Cllr Mills said that while that might work in some areas, in a road like Batchwood Drive it would be unworkable. She now wants enforcement action and added: "Clearly every case is different and what will work in one road will not in another but we could do with some planning policy guidelines to help us decide these issues. It's easy to say everyone has right of access to their property but not when it's at someone else's expense.