What do people make of this overhanging [public] building?

Sorry OP, but I'm going to have to say that I'd place the blame on you for this one.

Single lane one way street in a built up area with double yellow lines on both sides and a vehicular entrance immediately opposite to the curb you mounted.

1. Correct lane positioning in the center of the road would have seen you sail past the kerb with no need to swerve, you were a bit too far left.
2. Due care and attention with regard to the entrance on the right should have made you slow down and be prepared to stop anyway, at an appropriate speed you would have observed the obstacle.
3. in the photographs you posted, here and elsewhere of the aftermath it is clear that the sun is behind, therefore viability due to sun glare from ahead is not an issue.

The road was clear, it was sunny, dry, pretty much perfect conditions and there is no real excuse for not seeing or avoiding the edge of the road, the only way that happened was driving without due care and attention, **** as it might seem, you assumed the road was straight, didn't pay attention, the rest is history.

I can understand how you might puncture one tyre if you didn't see it, but puncturing two suggests that you were driving too fast for that location.

The fact you hit a stationary object and did the level of damage you did would suggest that you are not a decent enough driver.

It's a wide one way road , I've no idea why you'd drive so close to the left especially when there's a boundary wall.

Paying any attention to road markings you would see the double yellow lines moving out even if you didn't notice the kerb.

What's the speed limit on that road? I'd be surprised in a built up area if it's over 50km/h. I'd also be surprised if you could do that damage if driving under 50km/h.

I suspect you were driving too fast and not paying enough attention. You are now looking to blame anyone but yourself.

There is plenty of room to allow a high sided vehicle to avoid the building. hitting the kerb is bad enough but hitting a building should result in a driving ban.

Here's my thoughts on it:

1. You absolutely should have noticed the kerbing and should have been far enough out from it not to hit it

2. It's a shite design from the council that the useless f*ckers wouldn't let anyone else away with, typical incompetence

3. The only way I'd see you maybe having a case would be if the planning documents stated that there should be hazard warning signage at that point which is now missing. I'm not sure how would you bring such a case and whether it would be worth it. Your best bet might be to simply notify them of the missing signage so that it gets replaced

Should be consequences for not looking where you are going and driving into a stationary object.

The thing is though a pothole can be very hard to notice as it's flush with the road. A kerb with double yellow lines around it shouldn't be that difficult to notice.

If you go back in the street view the road is actually very narrow. The entrance is more a lane than anything.

It then opens up with on street parking on either side so the road is still fairly narrow.

It then opens up to the wider road that the OP has photographed.

Personally if I was driving on that road I'd be hard-pressed to go above 30/40 km/h especially beside parked cars as there's always the fear someone will open the passenger door or a child stepping out. Etc.

I suspect the OP saw the road opening up and put their foot down as I can't see how you'd do the level of damage if speed wasn't involved. Especially to both wheels.

Whatever about getting compensation from hitting a pothole I can't see you getting compensation from hitting a kerb, especially one that has yellow hatching before it and double yellow lines around it.

It might be badly planned but you're supposed to drive at a speed you can recognize stationary objects at.

There are signs on slip roads off motorways to warn someone if they try to enter via the exit, still happens, claims like this are why coffee cups warn of the potential of hot contents.

Don't all footpaths protrude into the road? Not sure I get that part.

I also don't understand how the OP didn't see that kerb, and how they damaged two tyres rather than just one? Did the incident take place on a rainy night? If it was on a clear day like in the photos then how can you not see it?

Maybe there is some legal loophole to do with signage that gets the OP the result he wants, but there are a few awkward questions there that he would want to be prepared to answer if he pursues this.

The OP isn't exactly being 100% sincere I don't think anyway.

This thread surely belongs in the motors forum as it's a motors issue.

He's trying to throw some secondary argument that the building shouldn't overhang in case a truck hits it. On the little research I've done, basically trying to find the speed limit on the road, but it looks like trucks are banned from the majority of the roads so it's a moot point.

Also the entrance to this particular road is extremely narrow in my opinion you'd be hard pressed to get anything larger than a "white goods delivery van" through it. So again reinforcing the moot point.

He made a mistake he hit a footpath, own it and move on.

The OP needs to pay better attention to their driving, saying they did not see the footpath / kerb is just not good enough, they didn't see it because they weren't looking.

Don't know you'd get two punctured tyres hitting that kerb?

Very poor building design there. Look back at the old Google Maps images from 2009. Clean run up that road.

How did they get away with cantilevering that over the wall.

what bearing does the overhang have on the OP hitting the kerb?