A property owner has voiced his anger after municipal officials refused his application to lower the pavement edge, having already spent more than £1,500 on enlarging his private driveway.

Local inhabitant Jonathan Parkin claims Southampton City Council dismissed his scheme because it would remove a roadside parking space, according to our affiliated newspaper, the Daily Echo.

The Carisbrooke Drive resident maintains that without vehicle entry to his expanded hardstanding, his family actually utilises more kerbside parking than a lowered kerb would require.

He spent £1,500 making his driveway wider to fit three cars and at the same time filed a planning submission to the council seeking consent to extend his dropped kerb.

He said he never expected rejection, pointing out that many nearby homeowners and other people in the neighbourhood have already carried out comparable alterations, and he knows individuals locally whose recent submissions were granted.

The application attracted a non-returnable charge of £165, and was turned down entirely with no avenue for appeal.

Mr Parkin, who has lived in Bitterne for over twenty years, said the situation was truly exasperating.

He believed that at the very least, money should be returned to applicants when proposals are turned down.

They simply sent a refusal with no additional dialogue. He was extremely irritated that nobody even inspected the location in person.

Only his family and acquaintances park cars outside the property.

Southampton City Council turned down the kerb alteration proposal.

Mr Parkin runs his own electrical firm and would rather not leave his work van, which holds his professional equipment, parked on the public road.

He added that the van contained his income and tools.

Furthermore, his insurance premiums would drop if he could keep his daughter’s vehicle and his van on the driveway.

Without an accepted dropped kerb, Mr Parkin and his family cannot lawfully use the driveway extension without moving all vehicles every time, as travelling across a pavement without a correctly built kerb is not permitted.

Mr Parkin said his frustration came from believing his submission was judged against a strict policy rather than on its individual circumstances, especially when similar proposals have succeeded.

A spokesperson for Southampton City Council said the council must carefully consider the lasting effects of removing on-street parking spaces when assessing dropped kerb applications, as kerbside parking benefits all inhabitants, visitors, and delivery services.

According to the council’s dropped crossing policy, vehicle crossings must be kept to the smallest possible width.

Applications for new crossings or extensions that would result in losing a full on-street parking space generally will not be approved.

All dropped kerb applications are evaluated on their own merits to ensure fair and reasonable policy application, taking into account local parking conditions and road safety considerations.