OP, have we seen your initial challenge?
The meaning of the tortuous layers of group, sub-committee and council reports is virtually impenetrable.
IMO, it is not tenable to argue that the intention of the council was to permit parking on the footway based upon the specific wording of 'footways on both sides of the road for the total length.'
It's not tenable because it wouldn't be lawful IMO because, as only 2-wheel parking on the pavement is permitted, then this would be tantamount to encouraging motorists to:
1. Block your crossover, which would be obstruction as I understand it, and
2. Commit a contravention because the other wheels must necessarily be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a dropped footway!
Indeed, in the narrative of the report with Appendix D it's clear that marked bays are anticipated- the location of which is already delegated to the Chief Engineer- and if you look at the criteria you'll find reference to leaving 1.0m between markings and any crossover.
The placing of marked areas naturally follows from there being so many vehicle crossovers and it's clear that the marked areas are of standard size marked in order to provide the maximum number of spaces between crossovers in a controlled manner.
However, what you did was not contrary to the spirit of the council's decision because you are the occupier of the house which benefits from the crossover. Did you make this point in your initial reps?
If the council still play hard-ball, reject your formal reps and insist that the signs are the signs etc. then if you wanted to take matters further you could return the complement by reference to the precise wording of the Appendix, the recommendation and the council's decision and trust that the adjudicator can make better use of their time than by ferreting through the detail of these reports and would simply take the decision at face value.
There are the other procedural points in play as well.
Wait for others.
