Good Morning
We are the only house at the end of a track in our tiny commune ( 99 inhabitants ). The track runs from the main road and ends at our house really. It's mud and gravel and is always full of potholes. Years ago the old mayor asked if we wanted it tarmaced but unfortunately we declined as we thought it might lead to people using it as a "rat run" and anyway, we quite liked being able to hear people approaching. Now, several years down the line, we realise we should have said "yes please ! " as after heavy rains the chemin is full of pot holes, the rain washes all the gravel away and the water runs down the track like a river due to the fossés not being correctly cleared. The maire and several council members very kindly come down with a lorry and buckets of gravel every couple of years to fill in the potholes but as soon as it rains heavily.......
Anyway, we have just changed mayor and he has been asked by a farmer who uses the track if it can now be tarmaced. We're a very small commune and we don't have very many resources, so the answer was "no money". The other important problem is that the chemin exits onto a fast road with traffic approaching from the left down a hill. The visibility isn't good at all and it's a bit dangerous pulling out. I have asked for a mirror opposite but I was told we couldn't have one as the track isn't tarmaced - a bit of a Catch 22 !
Am i right in thinking though that by law, the access road to a house has to have a tarmaced surface ? I'd quite like to approach the new mayor again armed with some support !
I do realise my taxes will increase !
Thanks and sorry it was a burbled question
Well, the maire intervened and gave him three choices: 1. Do it yourself, 2. Don't do it, 3. If you choose 2 it will be done and then you will get the bill for our choice of contractor plus admin fees.
In fact, the demolition company they have contracted are the same as the maire would have gone to, after all it is his cousin :-). The neighbour has allowed the barn conversion where he has been a pain in the posterior for almost 20 years, to have the windows the man wants, they are now in. Plus, the piece of land where we have the servitud will be given to us as long as we pay geometre and notaire, which OH will get free through work. All done and dusted, but when things are set in stone I'll put that up on the old post as the conclusion.
Does the demolition mean that you won against your recalcitrant neighbour?
Absolutely so. not comparable as such, but outside our gate and about 12 metres along the road there are two places where water gushes through the surface during and for some time after wet weather. Basically, the tramac has broken and become porous and the pressure of water coming downhill cause the little 'fountains'. The tarmac on a lot of the entire road is very badly damaged or missing anyway. We are almost a 'final outpost' in the commune but it is a through road. The mayor came out with the commune des communes man responsible for roads a couple of months ago. Both oohed and ahhed a bit, but when I was at the mairie about some of our stuff he said the canton had given the extra money on top of our budget to get this road done. There is a demolition pending that will be both sides of the road and will see it closed for a few days, so they have factored that in to do the road ASAP after because of the liability and the fact that, as I understand it, they have already coughed up for wheel damage to the baker's van. So, sure it is a mayoral responsibility and the best thing is to let them do it as and when.
Thanks Alex - that sounds a good starting point
Incidentally, I was asked to be part of a liste which was in opposition to the newly elected mayor this time
Glad I turned it down really, as interesting as it would have been, far rather stay out of all the squabbles !
Best
For those legally inclined and having nothing better to do with themselves, a "brief" read-up of the criminal, or penal, liability of French mayors, available here
The Maire is personally penally liable for damage (material or phyiscal) caused to citizens as a result of negligence (intentional or not) with regard to his actions as mayor which are not specific to that function, or in the exercise of his specific mayoral functions (there is a subtle difference between the two).
In other words, inaction is as bad as positive action, where the lives or physical integrity of the citizens living in or passing through, the commune, is concerned.
You might like to gently remind him of this, e.g. something along the lines of, who would be liable if an accident happened at that particular exit spot due to a vehicle coming from the left at the regulatory speed - that might spur him into action ;-)
This is one reason why I would never stand for mayor in my village - notwithstanding the chances of being elected (slim, I'll warrant) - I would suffer from intense paranoia due to the correspondingly defeated candidate and his cronies out to get me with any spurious chance of legal action that could potentially end up with me in prison, or the (poor) commune having to defend a lawsuit from some disgruntled voter :-)