Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a town centre traffic scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the introduction of a new traffic layout in the town where he lives. He says local residents’ views expressed in consultation were ignored and the scheme to alter traffic flow in the town centre has resulted in a decline in businesses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council failed to carry out proper consultation or listen to feedback when it introduced traffic flow changes in his local town centre. He says the scheme which is part of a regeneration scheme funded by the County and District Councils has failed to improve traffic, parking and shopping in the town and has had a negative effect on local business.
6. The Council told him in response to his complaints that the public were informed of the proposals at public presentations and online and were able to make comments on the scheme in 2021. However, the traffic layout proposals were carried out by the highway authority which is Norfolk County Council and were subject to the Traffic Regulation Order procedure. Mr X has previously made a complaint about the involvement of the highway authority in this matter in complaint reference 22 006 591.
7. Following the public consultation the Council approved funding for its share of the development at a Cabinet Meeting in November 2021.
8. Mr X clearly disagrees with the scheme but the public consultation was not a referendum and the Council had the authority to approve the funding for it in the interests of the town and area as a whole.
9. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members when there is no fault. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a town centre traffic scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman