My local council was recently scruntised with an accounts objection with auditors concerning the use of s.228(7) in the adoption of Government House Road.  The council has admitted the road was functionally impaired, but in affect said that this does not mean it's not adoptable.  The Monitoring Officer states "Equally, functional impairment does not necessarily mean the highway is not at an adoptable standard, particularly given that the maintenance responsibility over the previous 50 years had been discharged by the Council."

There are so many things wrong with this sentence, not just using public funds to maintain a private road (50 years is a mistruth because the MoD have records they were taking care of it but anyway...), but mostly this sentence shows a lack of understanding with regards to road adoption, especially the fundamental spirit of s.228(7).  Prior to adoption using s.228(7) all street works must be completed to the satisfaction of the council.  It says ALL, because it proves there is no prospect of financial burden to the public.  However, a few days after adoption, it was noted that Government House Road needed repairs.  Hmmm interesting, because during the judicial review, the judge asked if there were any road defects to which the council stated no.

The white elephant in the room however is fencing and skip in place on my drive (see photo above), which were both in situ when the road was adopted, basically affirms the road was adopted with acceptable standards including placement of the fencing and skip.  Which is weird because the council is trying to block my development to reinstate the fencing in the form of gates.  It was okay then when they adopted the road, but not now?  Does this mean the adoption of my road is a loss to my amenity because I can no longer finish developing my property the way I wanted prior to adoption?  Yes it absolutely is.  And that's just one example.  

Also, the council fails to understand two essential aspects to road adoption. The first is establishing the function how the road is to serve the public (ie is it a footpath, is it a bridleway, it is a road for mechanically propelled vehicles?) which leads to the second aspect: the costs involved for maintaining that road.  You can't understand the costs involved if you don't know the standards to which the road is supposed to function, which is why s.66 of NERCA that clearly affirms road adoption certificates must expressly state if a pubic mechanically propelled vehicle have rights to use the road.  If it doesn't articulate this, the road won't be maintained for public car use.  For example a footpath will be much less to maintain than a road used for cars.  To sum it up, the function of a public road reflects how much tax is invested, all of which is written in the agreement via the adoption certificate.  

My road was not adopted with mechanically propelled vehicle rights, which is something the council has failed to admit.  The eight neighbours who petitioned for the road to be maintained by the public also want to remove public parking by implementing restrictive parking.  It's strange to debate whether my road should have 'res park' when there are no public car rights to use the road whatsoever (public money misuse, again).  The biggest problem I see is that the council is misinforming the public, who have a right to know where they can and cannot drive.  This whole car rights situation is also causing problems for landowners who might be misrepresenting their property in any future sale.

I know I've mention the adoption of private open gardens on Hull Road in York.  There was recently a council meeting about the adoption of what the council claim are "verges" using s.228(1), which Councillor Mark Waters was extremely compelling in his arguments.  He urged the council that they must directly negotiate with the landowners and compensate them for unlawfully building on private land, rather than use s.228(1) to correct the mistake underhandedly.  The council have not discussed a s.228(1) adoption any further, so hopefully they will do the right thing here.

Please please keep sharing this story and THANK YOU SO MUCH for the support.  Our local councils should be following law with an unbiased approached to serving the public for the benefit of the public.  Let's keep pushing for justice!!!!!