Permit Parking Scheme on private land, Council Rights? Landowner Rights?

[Venetianlady]

I am not sure if this query is in the right place, please feel free to move it to a more appropriate forum if needed.

Back Story:

We live on a road which, on our side, is unadopted and owned by the residents of the houses. The other side of the road is adopted and not owned by the frontagers.

20 years ago a portion of the road voted to have a permit parking scheme enacted (even though it did not and still does not, meet the stated council criteria for such a scheme) the other half of the road (still on the unadopted/owner side) decided against it and were never forced into the scheme, as we were, despite personally voting against it.

Fast forward 20 years the council has no documentation regarding the inception of the scheme and cannot explain why half of the road was not forced to have the scheme.

We do not want to be in the scheme as it is of no benefit to us because it is not policed at the required times, (there is a school in our road) but the council are insisting that we be in the scheme and despite our written instructions that we do not agree to them remarking bays on our property, they have remarked the permit bays on our land.

Outside school picking up/dropping off times we do not have and have had never had an issue with non-residents parking.

The council state that the road may be privately owned but it is 'designated highway' and as such because they have a TRO they do not need landowner permission to mark out permit bays. They state (via an FOI) that there is no difference in the designation of the road at the front of our house and the designation of the road at the front of the houses that have never been in the scheme. They cannot explain why our end of the road is being treated differently to the other end.

If anyone can help with information on whether we can force the revocation of a TRO or just insist on being allowed to come out of the scheme then I would be very grateful.

If further information/detail is needed please ask and I will try to provide it.

[Venetianlady]

Can anyone offer any advice, please?

[charitynjw]

Hi & welcome to LB
I must admit to being somewhat surprised by your post.
To have one side of the road 'adopted' & so maintained at the public's expense, & the other side private (maintained by that side's residents?) must be a logistical nightmare.
TRO's are a different matter, but what criteria are they using to impose restrictions?
It all smacks of pettifogging by the LA to me.

[des8]

What do the council mean by "designated highway"?
A private or unadopted road is by definition a highway not maintainable at public expense.

In any case has anyone examined the TRO to ensure all procedures were properly followed/ it was correctly drafted/it has been correctly implemented?
If you intend taking on the Local Traffic Authority it is a hard grind checking all Ts crossed and Is dotted

[Venetianlady]

Hi & welcome to LB
I must admit to being somewhat surprised by your post.
To have one side of the road 'adopted' & so maintained at the public's expense, & the other side private (maintained by that side's residents?) must be a logistical nightmare.
TRO's are a different matter, but what criteria are they using to impose restrictions?
It all smacks of pettifogging by the LA to me.

Thank you for your response. The history of the road ( Lane, actually) is that it is a cul de sac and if you imagine a Y shape, originally the 'road' ran down the right fork of the Y and it is that side which is adopted, the other side (our side) came about because the residents cut a 'road' through their front gardens to allow access for vehicles when they became widely used. Further up the lane the houses still have gardens/land across the road from their houses which they own.

I am not sure what you mean by what criteria, other than it does not meet/has never met their own stated criteria shown on the council website which is:

' To introduce a resident parking permit scheme, more than 80 per cent of available parking spaces must be occupied on the highway throughout the day, with 60 per cent or greater occupied by non-residents.

We have a school in Lane and parents do park in the mornings (before the patrols start work) and in the afternoons but other than that it is only resident parking all day. That was an issue for some residents, but it did not improve under the scheme as it was never policed enough to become a deterrent. Personally, for 15 mins each day I can live with it. Certainly, I don't think it warrants us paying for permits for 5 cars, and visitor permits to park on our own land.

When residents voted on the scheme the council approached us saying that the local Hospital was having parking issues and staff would start to park here. That never happened.

Part of the Lane was allowed to opt out 20 years ago, and part forced to be in it after a majority vote in favour. Now, we want to opt out but we are being told there is no mechanism to leave the scheme. We feel that as all the Lane is 'designated highway' according to an FOI and there is no difference between our frontage and the frontages of those who were allowed to opt out that we are being unfairly treated.

We have been in dispute with the Council since 2016 on this issue and it is going round in circles

Any pointers really appreciated..

[Venetianlady]

What do the council mean by "designated highway"?
A private or unadopted road is by definition a highway not maintainable at public expense.

In any case has anyone examined the TRO to ensure all procedures were properly followed/ it was correctly drafted/it has been correctly implemented?
If you intend taking on the Local Traffic Authority it is a hard grind checking all Ts crossed and Is dotted

We have no idea what they mean. We have no issue with road markings but we do have an issue with permit parking bays and an H bar over our garage. We told them explicitly via their legal rep that we did not give permission for those marking to be remarked but despite that, I came home from work one afternoon and they had bee redone. However, the scheme is not yet back in operation as my neighbour will not allow the signage on his frontage (pavement which we all paid for) and he is in dispute with them over that aspect.

How do we check the TRO? What should we be looking for?

Many thanks for your response.

[des8]

A start would be to obtain copy of the TRO
You might be able to view it here: https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/tro-library/ or on your local authority website.
Ask them for a copy if necessary.

There is a good summary of the legalities surrounding TROs here: https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/r...on-orders.aspx

[Venetianlady]

A start would be to obtain copy of the TRO
You might be able to view it here: https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/tro-library/ or on your local authority website.
Ask them for a copy if necessary.

There is a good summary of the legalities surrounding TROs here: https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/r...on-orders.aspx

Thank you, but the TRO for our Lane is purely for Permit Parking which isn't covered there unless I am not grasping a nuance of the wording?

[des8]

We haven't see a copy of the TRO, nor do we have a plan of the street
We do not know which side is adopted
we do not know where the Permit Parking is sections are.

Without more info can't really comment!

[Venetianlady]

I just wanted general advice about whether a resident and landowner has no means of exiting from a permit parking scheme. I don't have a plan of the street or a copy of the TRO so I can't give you that.

All I can say is that if you imagine a Y the right-hand side leg ( fork) is adopted as is that side of the road on the upright and the left-hand side of the upright and fork is not and we all own our frontages whilst the other side do not.

The permit parking zone is only on the upright of the Y so residents on the left fork are not in the scheme and the right fork has no residents.

Essentially, that means houses 2-16 are in the permit scheme, whilst houses 16-32 are not, yet we are on the same side of the road. All of our frontages are unadopted and we all own the land to the centre of the road.

Houses 1-9 are also in the scheme but are on the adopted side and do not own their frontages.

[des8]

Well basically the authority can impose a permit parking scheme on any highway (including unadopted roads).
They need to follow the regulations.
I know of no way in which frontagers can opt out.

[Venetianlady]

Does that apply even if you own the land?
What if the scheme didn't meet its own stated criteria?
Is there no redress for permit holders who pay for the policing of a scheme which is not happening at the relevant times due to a lack of resources. The council have admitted in writing that they can only police it once every 3 weeks on average and not at all in the mornings.

Also, why is it acceptable for half of the same side of the lane to opt out but not the other half?

Thank you for responding.

[des8]

Does that apply even if you own the land? Yes, if it is a highway i.e. any public or private road or other public way on land.
What if the scheme didn't meet its own stated criteria?You can only complain to the authority or perhaps apply for a judicial review (if you can afford it!)
Is there no redress for permit holders who pay for the policing of a scheme which is not happening at the relevant times due to a lack of resources. The council have admitted in writing that they can only police it once every 3 weeks on average and not at all in the mornings.(as above, perhaps try involving local councillor)

Also, why is it acceptable for half of the same side of the lane to opt out but not the other half? Regret I cannot answer for your local authority, or was that a rhetorical question?

Thank you for responding.

response as above in red.
google "judicial review of permit parking scheme" for more information

[Venetianlady]

response as above in red.
google "judicial review of permit parking scheme" for more information

Thanks, that is interesting reading but doesn't really cover my issue which is wanting to be removed from a scheme that was never needed, didn't fit the criteria nor was equitably enacted.

Reading your answers though it seems to me that my focus should be on why not all residents had the scheme implemented despite all our frontages being designated as a highway. Also, whether the scheme criteria was met then (it wasn't) and if it is met now (it isn't)

However, the council have stated in writing that they have no documentation whatsoever from the inception of the scheme so have no idea why that happened. I know that the residents opposed it as they believed their frontage to be private land and so not subject to any council remits. If you are saying that is not correct then if I push that aspect I know all those residents will be onboard and several of them have legal/planning backgrounds so I will garner some support when it affects them I suspect!

My local councillors are, unfortunately, useless.....

I was also interested to read the RAC report (link contained in the google search you suggested) regarding the surplus monies from a scheme and where they are directed. I think I might explore that avenue via an FOI request.

Do you have an opinion on the worth of submitting a complaint to the Local Govt Ombudsman on this issue?

Thanks again, you have given me food for thought.