Joined: July 2004
||Posted: 19 Mar. 2019,16:51
In practice, we always laid to the bottom of that bull-nose on the crossing kerbs, which left 20mm or so proud to act as a check to surface water.
Then, litigious people unable to pick up their feet when walking, started claiming it was a trip hazard and planning a free holiday to Florida at the taxpayers' expense.
This was further exacerbated by wheelchair users and mams-with-prams claiming it was a but of a nuisance to traverse a 15-25mm 'bump' on the pavement.
And so, in far too many local authorities, we now have a situation where the surfacing is laid to a level that is only 3-8mm below the top of the kerb. No bump, or very little, but also very little check to inundation by surface water!
The legal position is that it is the responsibility of the LA Highways Dept to set their preferred surfacing level. We get variation with "full" kerbs: some LA's prefer 100mm check; others 125mm, and now we are seeing it all to often with crossing kerbs, which used to be fairly standard at 15-25mm.
If you are getting surface water back-washing onto your property, the LA *will* be liable. You need to photo/video the actual inundation and make a nuisance of yourself. Budgets are exceptionally tight at the moment, but if they think you might take legal action to protect *your* property from *their* surface water, they will somehow find the funds to carry out whatever remedials are required, whether that's re-surfacing, lifting the kerb, or installing an interceptor drain.
Site Agent - Pavingexpert