Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s decision to allow a neighbour to create a vehicular crossing was contrary to its policy and impacts on access to his property. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So have completed our investigation

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Mr X. He complains the Council’s decision to allow a neighbour to create a vehicular crossover (dropped kerb) is contrary to policy and impacts on access to his property. Mr X also complains the Council’s decision allows an extension to an existing dropped kerb and has set a precedent which may remove parking from outside his home altogether causing him distress.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 read the papers submitted by Mr X and spoken to him about the complaint. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
5. Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Applying for a vehicular crossing

6. The Council’s website explains a person may apply for permission to have a vehicle crossing (usually a dropped kerb) installed on the road adjacent to their property. They can also apply for an existing vehicular access to be widened. The website provides a drop kerb application checklist to consider before making an application including some core pre-conditions. These are such issues as space and width for an onsite parking space, distance from a junction, traffic signals or roundabout. And being able to see pedestrians and vehicles when using driveway and in an area free of parking restrictions.

What happened in this case

7. Mr X lives on a housing estate with a mix of properties. Some have driveways at the front of the property. Others such as Mr X’s property have garage parking at the rear of the property with space in front of it accessed via a rear access road. Mr X’s property is at the end of a cul de sac and one of three houses accessed by a front pathway. There is a turning area on the road near the pathway.
8. The house belonging to Mr X’s neighbour fronts onto the turning area. The neighbour applied to the Council for permission to extend a dropped kerb already in place at the front of the neighbouring property. The Council considered and approved the application.
9. Mr X complained to the Council about the decision to approve the application. Mr X said the dropped kerb removed space from the road viable for public parking, service access, skips/waste collection access for works on the front of their houses. And running electric vehicle charging cables across it to enable him and other neighbours to charge their cars.
10. Mr X complained the proposed dropped kerb was effectively an extension to an existing dropped kerb serving another house. Mr X alleged this was contrary to the Council’s dropped kerb checklist which said a dropped kerb extension should not cause loss of on-street parking. Mr X sent the Council photographs showing how the area was frequently used for on-street parking. Mr X raised issues of pedestrian and highway safety when a vehicle driver was using the dropped kerb.
11. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaints. It explained it considered the application against the criteria on its website and its experience in dealing with past applications. The Council considered there were no grounds to refuse the application.
12. The Council explained it was because the area outside Mr X’s property was a turning area and not a parking area, so no one had an absolute right to park there. The Council considered the addition of an on-site parking space within the neighbour’s property meant in effect, no overall loss of parking spaces. This meant a second vehicle or visitor to the property could then be parked outside the crossing point without it being considered an obstruction. The Council confirmed there was already a similar crossing point on the other side of the turning area. So, there were no obvious grounds to refuse the application.
13. The Council explained ‘turning area’ is used to define the feature at the end of the cul de sac. And it was in place to allow any vehicles entering the road to be able to turn and exit in a forward direction. Although the turning area had no parking restrictions, if anybody other than someone visiting or delivering parked outside a vehicular access to a property it was classed as an obstruction. This was a matter for the relevant district council to deal with. The district council also dealt with any issues with parking in general.
14. The Council told Mr X there were other dropped kerbs in a similar turning area on the estate. It said it could not do anything about it or alter the design of the road to provide direct access to the front of the three properties including Mr X’s house. This was the original layout and purchasers would have been aware of this when buying the properties.
15. The Council explained to Mr X drivers had a responsibility to ensure they access and exit their properties with due care and attention. It considered footpath users would come across many instances of vehicle accesses on such roads and so should be observant.

The Council’s response to the complaint

16. In responding to my enquiries about the complaint, the Council provided an extract from its Engineer Inspection Guide used when assessing suitability for approval of a vehicle crossing application. This is as well as the pre-core conditions which look at the need for a minimum on-site parking space and width, distance from a main road, junctions, traffic signals or roundabout. It considered the issue of visibility to see pedestrians and other vehicles well enough when leaving the driveway. The Council’s highway engineers considered the application met the core pre-conditions.
17. Under the Engineer Guidance officers then looked at issues such as the access required, whether it affected street furniture or public utilities apparatus. They also look at traffic calming measures in the area, existing crossovers to the property and road width being sufficient to manoeuvre. The application was for an extension of the dropped kerb at the neighbouring property. The Council says the pre application checklist says, ‘a crossing covering the whole frontage of both properties will not be allowed as this will remove opportunities for on-street parking’. But the Council confirms the dropped kerb application as it is an extension will not cover the whole frontage of either property. So, it was acceptable according to the core preconditions and Engineer Guidance. The Council’s highway engineers considered there were no grounds to refuse the application.
18. The Council notes Mr X’s property has a garage and parking space at the rear. The Council refers to the Department for Transport’s Manual for Street on turning heads. This says ‘to be effective and usable, the turning head should be kept clear of parked vehicles. Therefore, it is essential that adequate parking is provided for residents in suitable locations’. The Council considers that to encourage vehicles to park off the turning area the builder provided the facility to park at the rear of some properties including Mr X’s home. And Mr X would have been aware there is only direct access to a footway at the front of the house when he bought the property with parking at the rear.

My assessment

19. The evidence provided shows that the Council considered the application for an extension to a dropped kerb according to its pre application checklist and the Engineer Guidance. The application met the requirements listed out and it is not contrary to policy. Because of this the Council had no grounds to refuse the application. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached its decision to allow the dropped kerb extension. The evidence shows it followed its pre- application check list and Engineer Guidance when considering the application.
20. The documents I have seen show the Council responded to Mr X’s concerns about its decision to grant the dropped kerb application. It has explained its reason for doing so to Mr X. While Mr X may disagree with the decision and consider it restricts the parking space available, the turning area is not a parking area therefore no one has the right to park there. In addition, Mr X has access to a garage and parking at the rear of his property he can use.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I am completing my investigation. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it decided to allow an application for a vehicular crossing at a neighbouring property.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman