Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault in the way it considered a proposed parking scheme to install double yellow lines near to his property causing distress and financial impact on to his business. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Mr X. He complains there were failings in the way the Council installed double yellow lines (DYL) as a parking restriction which do not follow a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). This has led to loss of parking space to Mr X’s property causing distress and a financial impact onto his business.

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 how the organisation made its decision, 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 spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided with his complaint. I made enquiries with the Council and considered its response.
5. Mr X and the Council 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

Highway Authority powers

6. The Council as Highway Authority can make Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) to allow the Police and Civil Parking Enforcement to enforce various regulations. This includes speed limits, on-street parking, one way street and other restrictions.
7. To make the TRO the Council must follow a statutory procedure including consultation with the Police, Emergency Services, local councillors, and sometimes other institutions who represents road haulage and local public transport operators. The Council may also consult residents, traders and community groups who may be affected. The proposal could then be amended following consultation.
8. The Council must then advertise the scheme which includes a notice in a local newspaper and usually displaying notices on the affected roads for at least 21 days. This allows any objections and comments to be made about the proposal. The Council can make the TRO once all objections have been considered. If the proposal requires changes resulting from objections, the Council will consult again on an amended scheme. A TRO can take months to complete.
9. Yellow lines are provided where there is a need to restrict parking to help ease traffic flow and prevent obstructions on the highway. Loading restrictions are shown by yellow markings on the kerb and on any added notices.

Events leading to the complaint

10. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
11. Mr X’s business property has access to main road I will refer to as Willow Road, by a narrow footpath between properties that front on to Willow Road. Visitors using Mr X’s property usually park on Willow Road by the footpath.
12. The Council considered and approved a planning application for a development nearby which included a visitor centre. Part of the planning approval included a legal agreement for the applicant to fund DYL parking restrictions on Willow Road and another nearby road I will refer to as Oak Street. The Council proposed the restrictions to keep the surrounding roads clear of parked cars and encourage visitors to use nearby car parks.
13. The Council consulted on the proposed DYL with statutory consultees and the directly affected properties who had addresses on Willow Road and Oak Street. This is the Council’s usual procedure when considering such parking restrictions. The Council says Mr X’s property address is on another street.
14. The Council received favourable responses to the proposal. The residents on Willow Road asked the Council to extend the DYL further along the road. The Council discussed this with a local ward councillor and agreed to an extended scheme. The Council did not consult further with residents. It says this was because the revised proposal took account of the residents’ comments and supported by the local councillor who had spoken directly to residents.
15. The Council installed the DYL before it completed a TRO, so they were in place before the development opened due to an expected increase in visitor traffic. The Council is carrying out the TRO process to enforce the DYL.

Mr X’s complaints to the Council

16. Mr X complained to the Council as he had not been consulted over the DYL proposals despite his business being affected due to the parking restrictions. Mr X said the consultation period had also not run for the 21 days needed and the Council had installed the DLY beyond the plans it had shown. Mr X said if consulted he would have objected as the extended DYL meant visitors to his business could not park by the gate to the property.
17. The Council confirmed it had carried out consultation with properties fronting Willow Road who supported the proposal. This led the Council to extend the length of DYL proposed to improve sight lines at a one property for highway safety reasons. The Council said as Highway Authority it had no obligation to consult on road safety schemes. But it does do so where possible and considers all comments where it can. But ultimately as Highway Authority it can take the final decision on road safety considerations.
18. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint as the proposed DYL did not extend all the way along Willow Road and there were other places close to Mr X’s property to park. The Council said vehicles can also park for loading and unloading on Willow Road where appropriate.

My assessment

19. The Council confirms the proposed DYL are part of the planning approval for a nearby development. The Council’s documents show it did consult about the DYL with the local ward councillor and residents whose properties front onto the two affected roads. This follows the Council’s usual procedure when considering such parking restrictions. Mr X’s property address was not on either of the two affected roads, so on that basis the Council would not directly contact him about the proposed DYL.
20. The evidence shows the Council took account of residents’ comments and have proposed to extend the DYL for highway safety reasons. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has considered the proposed DYL scheme and decided on the extent of the DYL. This is because it has consulted with residents and taken account of comments. The Council confirms the DYL do not extend all the way along Willow Road and vehicles can park in other nearby places.
21. The Council has installed the DYL before the visitor centre opens. So, to enforce the DYL it needs to make a TRO which it is currently progressing. While I appreciate Mr X’s frustration there may be parking restrictions on the road by his gate there is no statutory right to be able to park on the public highway outside a property you own. And the Council as Highway Authority can consider implementing parking restrictions where it considers necessary for highway safety. As part of making the TRO to enforce the DYL Mr X will be able to make any comments or objections to the order as part of that process.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it considered a proposed parking scheme to install DYL on the road outside Mr X’s property.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman