'Jobsworth' council chiefs have been accused of 'red tape' after a couple were told it was 'too dangerous' to have their own driveway, despite six neighbours having them.
Paul O'Flynn and wife Lynn have lived in their home for 22 years and have always had to park their vehicles on the public road, taking up space.
The couple sometimes end up having to park as far as a quarter mile away from their home near a sports ground in Morley, near Leeds, as their street becomes "absolutely rammed" on match days.
But when the dad-of-one requested permission for the drive to install a charging point for an electric car, the plans quickly went "pear-shaped".
The 61-year-old professional HGV driver asked Leeds City Council if they could drop the kerb so he could build the drive, but planning bosses refused, claiming it was "40cm too small" and reversing out of the space would be "unsafe".
Paul has accused the council of being "petty" after appealing the decision and met with more reasons why he and Lynn couldn't install the drive, including that a driveway would block an escape in emergencies - despite their front door being to the side.
Adding salt to the wound, Paul says a number of his neighbours have been granted permission to build their own driveways and that they reverse out of them onto the road.
After responding to their last 'pathetic' e-mail three months ago, an 'angry and frustrated' Paul claims he hasn't heard a peep since.
"I can't understand what the problem with health and safety is if I'm going to be reversing in," he said.
"If the other neighbours are reversing out, I don't see what their point is on that.
"I've been frustrated and angry about it.
"When you go along our road towards the rugby club, everybody flies through there and they've granted someone a driveway on that and he reverses out onto it, and that's an absolutely mental road."
Despite the local authority putting a spanner in the works for his plans, the dad is determined to come to a solution - and joked that if he didn't, he'd knock the wall down anyway.
"The council has been a jobsworth. It's very, very annoying, the reasons are very petty," he added.
"With how ridiculous the council have been, it sums up how daft UK planning red tape can be.
"And you do see other places where cars are in like how I want it to be and they've been passed, so it is ridiculous.
"It's really really stupid."
Leeds City Council said they assess each request on a 'location by location basis' and that the 'minimum standards have not been met'.
But Paul says he can't remember anyone from the council coming out to inspect the space, and never even asked what size car he had.
"Because all the points - reversing onto the main road, which is 'dangerous', the fire escape, which is 'dangerous' and the overhang, which could be 'dangerous', those are just pathetic really," he added.
After appealing the decision, Paul was told the decision had to stick as the driveway plans were 40cm short of the 5m requirement for a dropped kerb, and that any "overhang" could be dangerous to pedestrians who are visually impaired.
The authority also said the drive would make it difficult for Paul and others to manoeuvre, risking damage to property and land, risking injury and accident to pedestrians.
Paul now claims he's disputed it once again and also mentioned that he'd always reverse into the space, so would have a clear view when driving out.
"I've e-mailed two different councillors. I'm determined to try and get something sorted," Paul said.
"I probably will have to give up eventually I think. I don't want to do anything illegal so I'll probably just have to give up eventually if nothing happens."
A Leeds City Council spokesman said: "Like many highway authorities, we produce guidance notes for such proposals and generally speaking, will seek to support these requests provided they are safe and appropriate.
"We assess each request on a location by location basis.
"The minimum standards are clearly set out in the guidance note, as is the non-refundable inspection fee.
"In this particular case, the site has been visited, the minimum standards have not been met and the applicant has been informed of this decision on more than one occasion."
