crossover in front of a house

[vittoria]

Does anybody have a view on this: some people seem to think that, if they have a crossover done in front of their house (ie. the council lowers the kerb at your expense) they automatically gain two parking spaces: one on their property plus another parallel to the crossover - because nobody else is allowed to park there; I say that you do not have a right to park there as such; this would not normally matter of course, but may become relevant relevant where, let's say two cars are parked right up to the beginning and the end of your crossover, leaving you with enough space to drive into your property, but not enough to park your (second?) car parallel to the crossover; I say that is tough on the house owner because by paying the council to lower the kerb you have gained a right to drive your car over it, into your property, but you have acquired no right in respect of parking on the road which remains a public highway; the fact that nobody else can park parallel to "your" crossover does not mean that you have that right. What do people think?

[incitatus]

You have no rights to any of the queens highway. It belongs to her. Equal access.

[vittoria]

Don't understand your answer Incitatus. What do you mean by Equal Access? I was merely saying that you have a right to access your property (of this I am sure) but not a right to park parallel to the crossover. Friends and acquaintances have claimed that you have the right to park your car parallel to the crossover. You say that you have no right to any of the Queen's highways but that is not quite correct: there is a long established right in England for a member of the public to pass and repass along the public highway. I said pass and repass: not park a vehicle.