Agenda item

Concerns and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:

·        There was a problem regarding Service Road, had written a letter to the MP of the area and Councillor Allan Kaufmann to illustrate the problem they had when it rains.

·        It was an ongoing problem that whenever it rained heavily there would be flooding in the area.

·        There was nothing that got rid of the rain, e.g. a gully.

·        Felt it was a health hazard. The water would settle for a long period of time.

·        Officers came and did a survey.

·        The small soak-away/drain there was inadequate. The water ended up in front of houses.

·        Felt the Council had a duty to help the problem that existed there.

·        Planning permission had to had been given for those properties to be constructed. There should have been amenities put in place for problems such as flooding when these properties were in place.

·        The petitioners were asking for the Council to have a gully constructed for them. There were all rate payers, some residents had been living there 20+ years. They believed the Council should have some responsibility.

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns of the petitioners and responded to the points raised. 

Issues the Cabinet Member had was the Service Road was unadopted, therefore legally under the Highways Act the Council had no liability for it.

It had been recognised that the gully was a substandard gully.

An adopted road was part of the public highway. These were owned by and maintained by the Council. So the Council had responsibility for surrounding roads but not Service Road.

In other areas where there was this problem the residents divided the cost. In some instances house insurance covers this.

Therefore the Cabinet Member cannot legally spend Council money on a road that was not legally theirs.

Officers said petitioners may need to check with the land registry if they owned part the road. Council vehicles may go down the road for access.

Planning Acts were constantly changing. There was also a 20 year rule for these things.

Had to follow the legal route. Legally the Council did not have a responsibility.

Resolved - 

That the Cabinet Member:

1.      Noted that officers had visited the site and concluded that the council had no responsibility to adopt the service road or to carry out any drainage work.

Reasons For Recommendation

The service road provided access to the back gardens of houses and was mainly used for access to private garages owned by households living in Diamond Road and Victoria Road. The service road was not adopted and was unlikely to be brought up to an adoptable standard without significant expenditure. The Council therefore had no responsibility for the service road. There was a low point on the road which is drained by one sub-standard gully. The gully was also not the responsibility of the Council as it was entirely within the unadopted road and did not receive any highway water.

Alternative Options Considered

Adoption of the service road was not up to adoptable standard and would therefore create an unacceptable precedent for numerous other similar service roads in the Borough.

Relevant Ward:

SOUTH RUISLIP