Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council misled the complainant over a dropped kerb application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says councillors told him to build hardstanding before applying for a dropped kerb. Mr X wants the Council to approve the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, images of the site and information on the Council’s website about the application process. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X emailed the Council to ask about a dropped kerb. He said he wanted to find out before building hardstanding. In response, the Council said he should apply for planning permission and, if approved, apply for permission for a dropped kerb. The email did not say he should build the hardstanding first.
5. Mr X built the hardstanding. He then applied for retrospective planning consent which was given. Mr X then contacted the Council regarding the dropped kerb. The Council refused consent for a dropped kerb due to road safety issues and the loss of amenity.
6. I have seen images of Mr X’s property. These show that a vehicle crossover would go over two footpaths and a large area of grass verge. The policy says the Council can refuse an application on road safety issues or where there would be a loss of amenity. The policy also advises people not to build hardstanding until they have consent for the dropped kerb. The website explains that a dropped kerb needs hardstanding but it also asks people to read the application pack. The application pack advises people not to do any work until they have planning consent and approval in principle for a dropped kerb.
7. Mr X says councillors told him to build the crossover first. The information I seen says that councillors passed his query to council officers.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X asked Council officers for information and the response did not say he should build the hardstanding first. Instead, the Council told him to apply for planning consent first and it directed him to the website for information. Having sought advice from officers, it is reasonable to expect he would follow their advice, rather than any comments he may have received from councillors. In addition, the application pack states people should not do any work until they have planning and dropped kerb consent.
9. The policy says the Council will refuse an application if it would impact on highway safety. Officers refused the application for that reason. We are not an appeal body and cannot question the professional judgement of qualified highway officers. Given the layout of the site, I can see why the Council decided a crossover could raise safety concerns and it would result in the loss of a large area of grass.
10. Mr X says there are other properties in the area which have crossovers but do not satisfy the rules. I can only consider how the Council assessed Mr X’s application. It may be that other crossovers were built when different rules applied. In any case, the presence of other crossovers does not have any bearing on Mr X’s application because the Council must asses each application in relation to the current rules.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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