Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to adequately respond to his concerns about road safety. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has refused to deal with road safety threats to him and other local road users following the building of new houses in his area. He says the additional traffic generated as a result of the new houses significantly increases the risk of accident and injury at a sub-standard road and junction and that the Council should provide highway mitigation measures.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X. I gave him the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

6. Over the last three years Mr X has been involved in making a series of complaints to both the Council and the County Council about road safety issues caused by the addition of new houses in his area. It is his belief that highway mitigating measures are required to address these issues.
7. Mr X has been particularly concerned with two separate planning applications involving five new properties. The Council refused the first application but the Planning Inspector granted permission in 2018. The Council granted permission for the second application in 2019, subject to various conditions, including those relating to highway matters.
8. In dealing with both applications the Council consulted with the County Council’s Highways Authority. This is a statutory consultee and both councils have explained to Mr X that as such the Authority is required to provide its professional opinion as part of the planning process but that it is for the Council to determine the applications having considered the Authority’s advice.
9. The Council has responded to Mr X’s complaints and provided answers to the large number of queries the matter has generated from Mr X and others. However, it has told Mr X that it would not be a good use of its time to answer further detailed questions relating to planning decisions it has taken.

Assessment

10. I understand Mr X has been pursuing this issue for some time since the applications were first submitted. While I understand he has not agreed with decisions taken in relation to highway safety, it is not our role to review the merits of decisions taken by officers exercising their professional judgement.
11. Moreover, as the restriction highlighted at paragraph 4 explains, we will generally not investigate late complaints and in this case we would not go back to investigate events from three years ago.
12. The planning applications were dealt with in the usual way with the views of objectors and the Highways Authority considered. That action has not been taken to address Mr X’s concerns is not evidence of fault and I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would be likely to find fault.
13. The Council’s position that it will not to answer any further queries relating to planning decisions does not appear unreasonable and if Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response to requests for information he has made under the FOI Act he can contact the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman