Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has failed to ensure the width of footpaths on a new estate comply with its footpath diversion order. The Council has agreed to assess the position, consult with Derbyshire County Council highways, and write to Mr X to explain the outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to ensure a developer complies with its footpath diversion order, effective from 2017, requiring footpaths on a new estate are 1.8 metres wide. Mr X says the Council wrongly certified compliance with the order before sections of the footpaths were built. He says some sections are half the required width. Mr X says Derbyshire County Council is involved as the highways authority and the two councils blame each other or suggest the other is responsible.
2. Mr X says the community uses the footpaths to get to the railway station. Sections of the footpaths lack appropriate width especially for those with disabilities or with young children. He says it is not safe for the public to be forced onto the roads. Mr X wants the Council to investigate the matter further and take action to improve the position.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the Council’s actions or proposed actions.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information and comments provided by Mr X and the Council. The information includes the Council’s reply to Mr X’s complaint and photographs of the estate footpaths.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I will not investigate because the Council has accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendation it takes action to assess the position. The reasons for the recommendation follow:
6. The Council passed the footpath diversion order under its powers as the planning authority (Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 257, footpaths affected by development). Mr X’s photographs show there is a section of the footpath which is about half the required width of 1.8 metres. Mr X says there are other sections on the estate in a similar condition.
7. The evidence suggests there are sections where a wheelchair user or person with a children’s buggy could have difficulty using the footpath.
8. The Council says Derbyshire County Council is working with the developer, regarding adoption of the highway, and some work is being done on the paths. It says the two Council’s work together. The County Council has confirmed with this office it will do what it can to assist the situation.

Back to top

Agreed action

9. The Council has agreed to assess the footpath position on the estate and the reported breaches of the width requirement.
10. The Council will consider what action, if any, to take under its powers and in consultation with the County Council which is the highways authority.
11. The Council will write to Mr X and inform him of its assessment and the outcome. If it cannot or will not act the Council will need to explain why.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has failed to ensure the width of footpaths on a new estate comply with its footpath diversion order. The Council has agreed to assess the position, consult with Derbyshire County Council highways, and write to Mr X to explain the outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman