As you have read, The City of York adopted my drive using s.228 (7) of the Highways Act in 2021.  A few days after the adoption, the council sent me a letter telling me I had to remove the gate that was across my drive (the gate was a temporary building fence in place where a wooden one was going to go - I had electrics already installed for automation).  Of course they had no right to insist this, as the road was adopted with the gate already in place; an adoption that legally required the council to be satisfied ALL street works were indeed completed.  It doesn't seem like the council was satisfied if the highways authority required me to remove my gate, now does it?  Our Monitoring Officer recently admitted that the cul-de-sac and drive were functionally impaired prior to the adoption, but claim this in itself does not mean the council wasn't satisfied.  I don't think he knows the judge in our judicial review asked if the road had any defects, to which the council said no.  Functionally impaired sounds like it's riddled with defects.   There is more juicy misinformation the council supplied to the courts during this process and I'll be sharing that soon.  If you're ever in a JR with a council fighting a s.228 (7) adoption, you'll want to know all the tricks the council may use.

I'm currently working on obtaining permission to reinstate my gate and stop up the adoption of my drive only by using s.247 of the Town and Country Planning Act.  The council has claimed that my drive was adopted by default, that it was merely caught up in the adoption of the cul-de-sac, which doesn't seem to be the case when they are going outside their planning powers to block my ability to install a gate, insisting I cannot erect a gate because my neighbours have car rights to their unlawfully erected shed (Yes, my neighbour erected a shed and then claimed rights over my private land to get to this shed, and before you ask, they have access to this shed from their own property).  The reason my neighbours can't use a car to drive over my land is purely down to law.  The council did not adopt my cul-de-sac, nor my drive, with rights for the public to use mechanically propelled vehicles (cars to you and me) according to s.66 NERCA 2006.  Therefore, the council is blocking my lawful development to protect car rights that don't exist.  They also don't want me to stop up my drive when they just spent public money defending their decision to adopt my drive. Did I mention that I offered the council a deal to remake the decision of road adoption by excluding my land in order to avoid a judicial review?  They ignored this, but why?  THEY WANTED MY DRIVE SPECIFICALLY.  

The reason why this is so interesting is because The City of York Council has just suspended their Highways Design Guide and ALL associated documents. They've admitted their own policies are very outdated, even going against current legislation, like the Equality Act.  So when they adopt private roads claiming they were satisfied all street works were up to standard, they weren't using policy/new legislation to support their discretionary decisions.  The CYC recently installed a timber gate on their own land (see photo), blocking pedestrians from accessing the highway while at the same time over reaching their powers to impede a similar development for my dead end drive where you won't find the public.  They are abusing decretionary powers all the time, now finally evidenced by their latest decision to suspend their own bank of outdated policy.  Another example of this can be seen at the end of Jubilee Terrace in York.  The council, without any planning decisions, changed the use of land that was created for the public.  It was a raised pavement to walk alongside a cycle path where now the public are forced to mingle with cyclists (click to see how pretty and functional it was).  They seem to have also created a road in 2000-2003 alongside the bike path (Getmapping). What money did the council use to systematically deteriorate this tree lined pedestrian pavement area and why now do they want it adopted?  If the pavement was a highway created for the public to use with public money, was it not already adopted as per section 36 of the Highways Act 1980? This is again, the problem with the same council adopting foot paths and cycle paths they created on the Hull Road open private gardens (previous update).  They thought the problem was the lack of formal adoption of this infrastructure.  Nope, it was the fact they built them on private land without agreements.

The council has admitted their Design Guide and all associated documents are TWENTY YEARS out of date.  That means all decisions applied not just to highway design, but road adoption and planning applications have also been dually affected by this choice to commit ongoing professional negligence and failing to meet the law.  During our judicial review against the council's decision to adopt our drive, the council stated in their response that we did not specifically site which policy of theirs failed to support their decision to adopt our drive.  Well, now they've gone and suspended their dusty policy so yeah, which policy indeed?

Sidebar note: the neighbours of my cul-de-sac recently petitioned for a residents parking scheme because after they petitioned to have the private cul-de-sac adopted, they decided they didn't like the public parking in front of their houses.  The neighbours never included me in the discussion for the adoption of the cul-de-sac, so I don't feel badly that public cars are using the road - they are afterall now paying to maintain it.  Wait, the neighbours requested residents parking before the road was adopted you say?  Yes, because the council, the shits, stole the "Private Road - No Trespassers" sign at the entrance in August 2020 during lock down and the neighbours requested parking restrictions a month later.  Even though it was a PRIVATE ROAD.  But listen, messy decision making aside, if the council would just do their job now, they could invest in the correct signage at the entrance clarifying that the road is actually a public foot path and car rights are reserved for residents only.  Instead, the council is going through the motions of "respark", again wasting public money not to benefit the public but to satisfy, what appears to be, uppity neighbours who can't say they struggle to find a place to park.  

So, as you can see, the council's use of s.228 (7) of the Highways Act is still costing the taxpayers money, even if indirectly.  Tackling dissatisfied residents with "respark" and fighting me as they bypass law to thwart my renovation.  It's also costing them tons to rectify the professional negligence within the CYC that seems to be more invasive than Japanese knotweed.  There seems to be enough people who are happy to expose and fight the professional negligence, at least.

Section 228 (7) of the Highways Act can be weaponised if used the way The City of York has used it, and the City of York is not even the most incompetent, or vindictive in the spectrum of wasteful councils out there.  It's just that with my local council it's not enough to point out the law - you have to beg for them to follow it, or snooker them into following.  In its current form, it's a totally and utterly self negating governance system.

Please sign this petition and or share it to get some attention to this injustice.  Reach out if you are having issues with road adoption in your area. THANK YOU!!