Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered traffic calming measures proposed for the road where the complainant lives. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained that traffic calming measures, which were a condition of a planning application, have not been implemented.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. The local planning authority granted planning permission for a residential development on land near Mr X’s home. The planning permission was subject to conditions. One of these conditions required the developer to implement traffic calming measures.
5. The Council was consulted as local highway authority about the proposed measures. However, the Council said the scheme was not acceptable as it would require the removal of mature trees. It also said the zebra crossing planned was not appropriate due to vehicle speeds on the road.
6. The Council met with the developer and the local planning authority and a new scheme was agreed. This has since been implemented and an independent road safety audit has been carried out and no safety concerns were raised.
7. Mr X is unhappy that the original traffic calming measures that were agreed have not been implemented. He disputes the Council’s reasons for deciding the original scheme was inappropriate and says the money the developer saved should be used for additional safety measures for the road.

Assessment

8. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with traffic calming measures proposed for the road where Mr X lives. This is because I am unlikely to find fault by the Council.
9. Mr X is unhappy the scheme originally agreed was not implemented. But issues relating to the planning permission, including compliance and discharge of planning conditions, are the responsibility of the local planning authority not the county council.
10. The local planning authority consulted the Council in its capacity as the highway authority about the acceptability of the traffic calming measures proposed for the site. The Council considered the scheme but decided the proposal was not appropriate. I understand Mr X disagrees, but this was a decision the Council was entitled to make and it has explained why the original scheme could not be delivered. It has also explained why the additional measures requested by Mr X were not necessary. As the Council properly considered the matter before deciding the original scheme was not acceptable, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman