Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided not to progress Mr B’s application for a dropped kerb.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council has unfairly refused his application for a dropped kerb.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

5. In March 2019, Mr B applied to the Council for a dropped kerb so that he could park his car on his property, on the area between his house and the footpath. The area is not large enough to park at a right angle to the road without obstructing the footpath. However, the Council had allowed dropped kerbs at other properties with similar size frontages. They are able to park in front of their properties, parallel to the road.
6. The Council told Mr B that it was in the process of drafting and consulting on a revised dropped kerb policy and it would not be progressing any applications for properties with a frontage depth of less than 4.75 metres. It said that it would refund the £90 he paid when he made his application.
7. The Council explained to Mr B that it had carried out trials in some roads to allow parking parallel to the road where the frontage was less than 4.75 metres. But it decided to suspend the trial following a large number of complaints about vehicles blocking footpaths. It said this decision was backed by the Cabinet Member for Highways.
8. Mr B considers the Council’s decision to not grant permission for his application is unfair because it has previously granted permission to the owners of several other properties in his road which have similar frontages.

Council policy

9. The Council’s policy on footway crossings, which was implemented in 2006 says:

“Right angle parking: For parking at right angles to the property, the depth of the parking space must not be less at any point than 4.75m measured in a straight line from the property boundary at the crossing point, to the nearest building.

Parallel or angled parking: Parallel parking should not be permitted unless the applicant is able to demonstrate that there is parking space within curtilage and that access is available by crossing the footway directly outside the property in question. In these circumstances, the minimum depth of the space may be reduced to 2.5m.”

10. The report recommending the implementation of this policy explains that it would only be possible to comply with the requirement for parallel parking if the width of the frontage is greater than 12 metres.
11. In October 2018, officers put a report to the Cabinet Member for Transport and Roads seeking support to revise the dropped kerb policy. It proposed to only approve applications where the frontage depth was more than 4.75 metres and the frontage width was more than 4.6 metres.
12. The Cabinet Member supported the proposal and a consultation process commenced in early 2019. The Council says that it did not receive any opposing comments. It is in the process of re-writing the policy.

Analysis

13. Given the dimensions of Mr B’s frontage, both the existing and proposed policies would not allow a dropped kerb at Mr B’s property. However, as a result of the trial in Mr B’s road, the Council previously approved applications where the frontage was less than 4.75 metres. In 2018 it approved nine applications. It has not approved any since November 2018.
14. While I understand why Mr B feels this is unfair, he has been treated in the same way as everyone who has applied for a dropped kerb since November 2018. The officer’s report to the Cabinet Member for Transport and Roads clearly explains the Council’s reasons for wanting to change the policy and end the trial. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided that it should not progress Mr B’s application.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman