Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb and says the Council did not fully answer her complaint.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s response. I considered the dropped kerb policy and the parking framework. I considered comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Dropped kerb policy

4. The policy says the parking area must have a minimum depth of 5 metres. The policy stresses the Council will refuse all applications where the parking space is less than 5 metres. The dropped kerb policy is a stand alone discretionary policy; this means the Council is not bound by statute and can decide the terms of the policy.

What happened

5. Ms X applied for a dropped kerb. The Council refused the application because the proposed parking space is 4.8 metres deep. In its appeal response the Council referred to the 2009 parking standards framework. It explained it had decided to impose a 5 metre depth requirement due to poorly parked cars overhanging the driveway and causing obstructions. It said the framework referred to a depth of 5.5 metres but, as space is tighter in front of buildings, it agreed a minimum depth of 5 metres.
6. Ms X complained. She said the minimum depth quoted from the framework referred to car parks. She also said the framework said that a two bedroom dwelling should have two parking spaces. She said the parking standards had been applied too rigidly and out of context. Ms X explained it is very difficult to park. In response the Council repeated that Ms X does not meet the depth requirement for a dropped kerb.
7. Ms X continues to disagree with the Council’s response and says it did not address all the points she made in her complaint. She says that only 11 of the 107 properties in her road do not have a crossover and it is unfair that she cannot have one. Ms X says that some properties have the same size front garden as her house and their cars do not obstruct the path.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says the parking space must have a minimum depth of 5 metres. Ms X’s space is less than 5 metres so the decision to refuse her application is consistent with the policy. Many of the neighbouring properties have dropped kerbs but each application is assessed in accordance with the policy that applies at the time of application. The policy does not say the Council will grant an application if neighbouring properties have a crossover.
9. The Council has used the framework standard to inform the dropped kerb policy, but it is the latter which stands as the policy. The framework document provides guidance for planning applications; it does not form part of the dropped kerb policy.
10. The framework provides guidance for the size of a parking bay and the Council has used this to decide the minimum depth requirement for crossovers. It is not the case that the guidance only refers to car parks; rather the Council has used the recommendations to inform the dropped kerb policy.
11. In addition, the reference to a two bedroom dwelling needing two parking spaces, is a planning consideration for when planning applications are being developed. It does not mean the Council must ensure that every existing two bedroom dwelling has access to a parking space.
12. Ms X has referred to the framework document and says it advocates maximum use of parking areas to minimise the risk of on-street parking. However, this section refers to planning the layout of on-street parking; it does not refer to dropped kerbs.
13. It is correct the Council did not address all of Ms X’s specific points about the framework. But, we do not investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the main issue. I am not investigating the main issue because Ms X’s drive does not meet the minimum depth requirement and I could not ask the Council to accept an application which would be in breach of the policy. In addition, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman