West Sussex County Council (19 011 394)

Category : Planning > Other

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 20 Feb 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse a second vehicle crossover to his property. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained the Council should not have refused his application for a second vehicle crossover (VCO) at his home, as this proposal would have improved traffic safety in the area. He also said the Council had given permission for other VCOs in similar circumstances, which suggested it was not applying its policy consistently.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
  2. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance

  1. The Council’s guidance, effective from January 2018, says:

“2. Separate entrance and exit

In order to maintain as much on-street parking as possible, a second access in urban and sub-urban areas (this includes access from an adjacent road at the side or back of the property) is highly likely to be refused unless significant safety or community benefit can be identified (unless existing parking restrictions mean no loss of on street parking will result).

5. Distance from road junctions

If the location of the proposed crossing is closer than 10m to a road junction it would create a serious hazard and the application will be refused. This dimension may be increased to 15m on major roads or near busy junctions.

13. Refusal

The Council’s decision as to whether the application will be approved or refused is final. An appeal will not be considered due to parking conditions in your area or where you feel that an access that has already been built in your road or elsewhere does not comply with the current criteria for approval and should not have been approved. The presence of other historic substandard accesses cannot be accepted as mitigation. “

What happened

  1. Mr X applied for a VCO at the front of his property. The Council refused this because he already had vehicular access from the road that runs down the side of his property. It also said the proposed VCO would have been within 10m of a road junction.
  2. Mr X complained the Council’s decision was unfair because it had allowed VCOs at other properties in similar circumstances. He said the Council:
    • used out of date Google maps and viewed the wrong property when considering his application;
    • had agreed to a second VCO at properties A to D;
    • had agreed a VCO less than 10 metres from a junction at properties E to G; and
    • failed to take into account the number of vehicles at each property.
  3. The Council accepted it had initially confused Mr X’s property with a neighbour’s. It apologised for this in its complaint response in May 2019. As part of its complaints process it carried out a site visit and confirmed Mr X already had a vehicular access. The Council said it would only exercise discretion to allow a second crossing where it identified a “significant safety or community benefit”. It did not consider Mr X’s application met this criteria.
  4. In response to enquiries, the Council confirmed properties A to D did not have pre-existing dropped kerbs accessing the public highway that reduced the available on street parking. Instead they had garages in a compound served by a private access road.
  5. The Council said the crossing at property F was 10.1m from the junction and the crossing at property G was 10.5m from the junction. It said it agreed the VCO for property E in error because this crossing was only 7.2m from the junction. It said that since this requirement relates to highway safety, this case cannot be used as a precedent for future applications. It said Mr X’s proposed VCO would be 6.5m from the junction.

My findings

  1. Mr X applied for a VCO. If agreed, this would have been a second vehicular access. The Council’s policy says it will not agree a second access unless it identified a “significant safety or community benefit”. It considered whether this applied to Mr X’s application and decided it did not. There is no fault in the way it considered this. I cannot comment on a decision that was made without administrative fault.
  2. Mr X complained the Council was applying its policy inconsistently and had discriminated against him. He gave seven examples of cases where the Council had not followed its own policy. The Council has explained that six of these did meet its criteria and one was agreed in error. I do not consider one error is sufficient for me to say the Council has applied its policy inconsistently. I have not seen any evidence the Council has discriminated against Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings