Tweet
Hi,
I'm aware that Highway Act says council has to maintain the roads. And that Kind v Newcastle established that that was just for the normal traffic (Kind in effect wanted the road widened). So I can see that if you apply for a new entrance, drop kerb etc. you have to pay for the cost of building it as that is an improvement of the road, not a repair. But when it is an existing access tarmac over a verge say then who is responsible for the maintenance? If it is over highway land and it is an existing bit of tarmac would it not fall under highway maintenance? If not then why not? What is the precedent for this? Kind v Newcastle talks about the normal traffic but most journeys start and end on a access (private means of access as Highway Act puts it) so isn't the normal traffic using private means of access?
Thanks
PS or should I put this question in a different forum?
I'm aware that Highway Act says council has to maintain the roads. And that Kind v Newcastle established that that was just for the normal traffic (Kind in effect wanted the road widened). So I can see that if you apply for a new entrance, drop kerb etc. you have to pay for the cost of building it as that is an improvement of the road, not a repair. But when it is an existing access tarmac over a verge say then who is responsible for the maintenance? If it is over highway land and it is an existing bit of tarmac would it not fall under highway maintenance? If not then why not? What is the precedent for this? Kind v Newcastle talks about the normal traffic but most journeys start and end on a access (private means of access as Highway Act puts it) so isn't the normal traffic using private means of access?
Thanks
PS or should I put this question in a different forum?
