Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s decision to reject his dropped kerb application was wrong. He also felt the Council’s guidance about dropped kerb applications was flawed. He felt he was put to unnecessary costs because of this. We found there was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s guidance about providing dropped kerbs was unclear. It appeared he met the criteria and he applied for a dropped kerb. The Council turned the application down. Mr X disagreed with the decision to reject the application. He also complained that he relied on the information the Council provided and incurred the costs of the dropped kerb application (which was non-refundable) and the cost of a planning application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
5. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and to the Council to enable both parties to comment. I considered the comments I received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s guidance for dropped kerb applications

6. The application pack on the Council’s website sets out a pre-application checklist. Amongst other criteria, it sets out details of the space required. It states

“The minimum parking space size required is 5.5m long and the access at least 2.5m wide, this is required to prevent vehicles overhanging onto the footway.”

7. The form also states “Accesses should emerge onto the highway at 90 degrees or as close as possible to this angle, not parallel to the property.”
8. Notes on the form state the list of criteria is not exhaustive. The form notes that access requests need to satisfy both planning and highway requirements before they can proceed.

Mr X’s complaint

9. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his application for a dropped kerb. He says he went online and checked the criteria. His property had the required amount of space for parking, so he paid the fee and applied online.
10. The Council turned down Mr X’s application. It stated:

“The proposed parking area does not meet our required specification of 5.5m from the back of the footpath to the front of the property resulting in the car being unable to park at a 90 degree angle to the property.”

11. Mr X asked the Council to reconsider its decision. He stated he had checked the criteria before applying and the area he had in front of his property was big enough. It was parallel to his property. Mr X noted other people in the street parked in front of their houses where they did not have 5.5m between the house and the footpath. He stated there was no mention in the guidance to 90 degree angles from the house to the back of the footpath.
12. In response the Council stated officers had visited the property twice and inspected the site. They concluded it was not possible for Mr X to have a dropped kerb. Their decision was based on the Council’s criteria. It referred Mr X to the note which referred to access having to emerge onto the highway at 90 degrees.
13. In response to a complaint form Mr X, the Council stated its decision stood. It stated:
• There was only 3.4m between Mr X’s house and the footpath and there was no on-site turning area. The road Mr X lived on was a busy A road.
• There were double yellow-line waiting restrictions and these applied to the highway and the footway.
• There would not be the required pedestrian and vehicle visibility splays. As vehicles would leave the drive at awkward angle, the visibility issue would be compounded.
• The Council stated its guidance did say vehicles should leave a drive 90 degrees from the house, not from a parallel position. The Council felt it would not be safe here. It stated the £150 fee was non-refundable.
14. Mr X felt the guidance online was unclear. He noted the Council rejected the application solely on the basis that he did not have sufficient space to park. It had not referred to any other factors. Mr X felt, if the guidance had been clear, he would not have applied and he wouldn’t have incurred the non‑refundable fee. On the basis that he met the space requirements set out on the Council’s guidance, he also incurred the expense of a planning application. He noted Planning permission was approved.

Was there fault by the Council

15. I understand that Mr X has the required amount of space in front of his property as set out within the Council’s guidance. However, its orientation is the key issue. Mr X says that the Council’s guidance is not clear that, in effect, an applicant must have 5.5m from their house to the footway for their application to be successful. Rather, it specifies how long and wide the space should be. While I note what he says, the guidance does also note that access should be at 90 degrees, and “not parallel to the property”. The guidance adequately sets out the space requirements in my view. The wording of the guidance does not constitute fault by the Council.
16. I note the Council’s rejection letter only specified the space standard as a reason for rejection. When responding to the complaint it noted there were, in fact, other reasons why the dropped kerb was unsatisfactory. Arguably, the Council’s letter could and should have set out all of the grounds for the rejection of the application. In any event, I am satisfied there were reasons for refusal which were sound. These were based on the factors set out in the Council’s criteria. The decision to refuse the application did not, therefore, represent fault by the Council.
17. I recognise Mr X points to other properties in his street that have dropped kerbs and park parallel to the road. However, the historic position of other properties and the criteria that existed at the time their accesses were created makes comparison difficult. More importantly, we would expect councils to consider applications against their standards and criteria rather than by comparing one property with one another.
18. I note the District Council approved a separate planning application Mr X submitted for the driveway work. I understand why Mr X questioned the approval of one application and not the other. However, Mr X’s complaint is about the way that the County Council, acting as the Highway Authority, dealt with his dropped kerb application. Regardless of the District Council planning decision, I found no fault in the County Council’s actions.
19. As I found no fault, I have no grounds to seek a refund of any of the fees Mr X paid and I have completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Final decision

20. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman