Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assesses applications for vehicle crossovers. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains that the Council has recently approved several applications to widen existing vehicle crossovers on a section of road close to her home. Mrs B’s property cannot be accessed by car and she says the Council’s decisions have significantly reduced the amount of on-street parking available to residents in her situation.
2. Mrs B complains the Council considers each application individually without considering the cumulative loss of parking space which results from successive approvals.
3. Mrs B would like the Council to review its application process so the cumulative loss of on-street parking is considered and to reconsider the impact of recent and future crossover widening on her road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs B and have viewed this location online. I have also considered the Council’s dropped kerb application guidance.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into this complaint.
8. It is for each local highways authority to decide its criteria for assessing applications for vehicle crossovers. The Council is not at fault for deciding each application on its individual merit. This allows for the impact on parking provision to be considered each time an application is received.
9. The Council has explained how it assesses vehicle crossover applications and the factors it takes into account. These include the impact on parking provision.
10. Generally, the impact of a new crossover on on-street parking is offset by the provision of off-street parking at the property accessed by the new crossover.
11. I recognise Mrs B is particularly concerned about the Council approving applications to extend existing crossovers. This is because such applications generally reduce the amount of on-street parking space without creating more space for off street parking. But, the Council has explained that such applications are often approved for highway safety reasons and several of the existing crossovers on Mrs B’s road do not meet the Council’s current requirements.
12. These are relevant factors for the Council to take into account.
13. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman