Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with changes to a road scheme near to his property. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered a new traffic scheme. We found fault in the way the Council drafted a new Temporary Traffic Regulation Order to reduce the speed limit by Mr X’s property. The Council has apologised and is taking action to reduce the speed limit which is suitable action for it to take. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Mr X. He complains about the way the Council, dealt with changes to a road scheme near to his property. In particular Mr X says:
• The Council failed to tell him it was changing the slip road outside his property by reducing the width and turning it into a cycleway. Mr X says the slip road was part of a planning permission for a commercial building next door to allow him safe access to his property and so it should not be altered.
• A Council officer said the slip road would remain in place and the proposed cycleway begin after his property. But the Council has narrowed the slip road creating a dangerous access to his property.
• The Council wrongly refers to the slip road as an acceleration lane.
• There are now increased levels of traffic using the main road. And he suffers from extreme levels of noise and pollution from the passing vehicles, stationary vehicles waiting at the new junction due to traffic lights. The vehicles then pull away from the traffic lights causing a noise nuisance.
• The Council failed to enforce a temporary speed limit of 30 mph while it was carrying out the road works.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions have led to an increase in noise and air pollution from vehicles near his property and a safety issue for him while trying to enter his property causing distress. Mr X wants the Council to reinstate the slip road and access to his property back to how it was before the new junction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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)
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated events after 2022. I have not investigated any of Mr X’s concerns before then as Mr X’s complaints are late and it was open to Mr X to have brought the issues to us before now. However, I do refer to earlier events to provide background to Mr X’s complaints.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information provided by Mr X. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with the relevant law and guidance.
8. 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

Background to the complaint

9. Mr X’s property is beside a main dual carriageway (main road). The main road was subject to the national speed limit when built but reduced to a 50-mph speed limit in more recent years.
10. The slip road Mr X refers to is a lane running alongside the main road and used to access his property. The slip road was part of a planning permission to redevelop a site next to Mr X’s property into offices in 2001 and was called a deceleration lane in the application.
11. In 2002 the office site was redeveloped for commercial use. This included installing a new left turn only access to the main road with traffic lights by Mr X’s property. The planning permission added an extension to the deceleration lane to include acceleration out of the site for highway safety reasons. The Council considers several accesses to and from businesses on the main road to be substandard according to current design guidance.
12. In 2014 the Council identified land near to Mr X’s property for housing development. The Council says it was generally accepted the nature of the area would change due to the development with an increase in traffic.
13. The Council received an outline planning application for the housing site in 2015 including three new vehicular accesses into the development. One access was to be the left turn junction near Mr X’s property.
14. The Council’s Development Control Committee considered the application and planning officer’s report on the proposal. The report looked at the impact of the proposed development on to the residential amenity of properties along the main road including Mr X’s property. But did not consider it would have a significant impact on residential amenity due to the proximity, position across a main road and distance from the site. The Committee approved the application subject to completing a S106 agreement to secure various benefits. This included two signal-controlled accesses serving the development from the main road to include pedestrian and cycle facilities. The junctions would be close to Mr X’s property.
15. The Council considered an amended planning application in 2016. Mr X sent objections to the proposal referring to noise, pollution, and traffic congestion. Mr X also attended the planning committee meeting and spoke about his objections. The application included an environmental impact assessment on the proposal. The Planning officer’s report on the application considered the environmental impact including noise and air quality but found it did not have a significant impact on the amenity of existing residents.
16. The application included the new road layout to accommodate the new access points for the housing site. The Council confirms it consulted widely with the community about the application. The planning permission required the developer to submit details of accesses before any works began.
17. The Council received a discharge of condition application for the accesses in 2018. Submitted plans showed the details of the junction by Mr X’s property including the cycle way and where the deceleration lane changed in width by Mr X’s property.
18. The Council and developer completed the S106 agreement in January 2021 and the Council issued planning permission. The permission included a condition to ensure a construction management plan to reduce the impact of building works including air quality and dust on residents. The Council used the access plans submitted in 2018 to discharge the condition on the accesses in May 2021. The Council says it did not tell Mr X it had discharged the condition as there was no statutory requirement to do so.
19. The Council entered a highway agreement with the developer in June 2021 to carry out improvement work to the public highway. The Council confirmed any such work goes through a design process to ensure it meets the requirements of the Highway Act 1980. The Council it is not required to consult members of the public on the highway agreements and so would not have consulted Mr X on the details of the proposals.
20. Work started on constructing and delivering the two signalled controlled accesses on to the main road. The Council confirmed the traffic operation on the main road will be very different when the works are completed. The proposals will reduce the speed limit of the main road to 40 mph. They include a new signalled junction immediately next to Mr X’s property and an altered junction slightly further along the main road.
21. The traffic leaving from the southern exit for the commercial business will be via a left only turn and controlled by a signalled junction. So, the road layout now takes the traffic from that site into the inside lane of the main road and not into what was the de/acceleration lane to join the main road.
22. Mr X contacted the Council in July 2021 to complain about narrowing the slip road which would impact on them entering their property and the noise and pollution from traffic. An officer met Mr X at his home in August 2021. The officer gave Mr X a copy of the access plan. This showed the cycle lane would be foreshortened so the slip road would remain although narrower than it had been. The Council says Mr X appeared satisfied with the outcome.

Events in 2022

23. In February 2022 officers met Mr X at his property to discuss noise from traffic and likely noise from traffic using the signalled junction near to his home. Mr X raised concerns about air quality as traffic increased on the road, speed of traffic going through road works, incorrect signs being used, traffic driving off from the commercial business at speed and his property access being changed due to construction of the junction. The officers agreed to investigate the impact of the noise on him from traffic, speeding traffic, and air quality around his property.
24. The Council wrote to Mr X in June 2022 to explain the outcome of officer investigations. It confirmed it assessed any potential pollution through the planning process to ensure the individual and cumulative impacts on local air quality are considered and mitigated as necessary. The applicant submitted an air quality assessment on existing residential properties which included the proposed junction near Mr X’s home. This considered the relevant pollutants and particulate matter and potential impacts on air quality during construction and operational phases. The assessment concluded there was a negligible impact on air quality from additional traffic once operational. The Council said it would continue to monitor as part of its Local Air Quality management duties.
25. The Council offered to do air quality monitoring at Mr X’s property. Although officers considered it would not identify an air quality problem due to assessment conclusions as Mr X’s property was set back from the road. The Council advised that pollutant levels quickly drop off with increased distance from the road. But would be helpful for the Council to check and provide Mr X with some reassurance. The Council confirms Mr X did not take up its offer to monitor. But it is willing to do so if Mr X wishes to do so and contacts its environmental protection team.

Council comments on the complaint

26. The Council has provided evidence to show it has continued to carry out air quality monitoring in the area. The results show the pollutant levels are well below the national mean targets.
27. The Council confirmed it kept nighttime working to a minimum near Mr X’s property as it was aware of his concerns.
28. The Council says it was for the Police to enforce any speed limits on the main road. It acknowledged it had made errors when drafting a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) to lower the speed limit to 30 mph during the construction works. So, despite displaying 30 mph signs on the main road to slow the traffic the Police had been unable to enforce it and the legal speed limit remained at 50 mph.
29. The Council confirmed it was drafting a new permanent TRO to reduce the speed limit to 40 mph on the stretch of the main road by Mr X’s property. The Council considers the reduced speed limit, new arrangements and new set of traffic lights would naturally reduce the speed of vehicles using the road. But it cannot say when the new speed limit will change as it takes several months from publishing the notice to confirming and then implementing it. The Council is however considering whether to impose a temporary order in the meantime if there is sufficient justification.
30. The Council accepts the nature of the traffic Mr X experiences has changed as high-speed vehicles with powerful engines cannot race away from the traffic lights due to the new signalled intersection near his property. And there will be vehicles idling at the signalled junction and then accelerating away.
31. However, the Council states the issue of noise generated by residential development proposal was considered through the planning application assessment in 2015 and by the information submitted in the Environmental Statement. The assessment focused on the noise from the nearby motorway, noise from existing network and how would impact on occupiers of new houses. It did not consider the noise impact of increased traffic use on existing local properties. Although the Council did take account of the impact the proposed new development would have onto existing residential properties in the officer report in 2015.
32. A planning officer visited Mr X in 2022 to discuss the road access. The Council says the officer correctly told Mr X the deceleration/acceleration lane would stay in place which it has. But the lane been reduced by 1m to accommodate a short cycle lane which begins after Mr X’s property. The Council used part of the highway verge to build the cycleway making the road 1.5m closer to the hedge boundary of Mr X’s property. The Council does not consider using highway land for a cycleway creates an adverse impact onto Mr X’s property.
33. The Council considers the design of the new layout of the road is safe in highway terms. And the adjacent signalled junction on the main road and the reduced speed limit will reduce safety hazards for the access to and exit from Mr X’s property. While the slip road was considered appropriate in highway terms for the main road and speed of traffic in 2001, the current proposals with reduced traffic speed limits and signalised junction are different. As such the slip road is no longer need in highway engineering terms although the existing slip road has been retained but with a reduced width.
34. The Council says the need to reduce the width of the access ‘slip road’ comes from the design of the new signalised junction next to Mr X’s property. And for the right turn lane into the new development on the opposite side of the main road.
35. The Council considers it reasonable for a vehicle to indicate, decelerate and turn directly from the nearside lane of the main road into the driveway of Mr X’s property. Or to straddle the nearside lane and slip road before turning should the turning movement within the reduced width of slip road itself be too difficult to manoeuvre.
36. The Council reports traffic on the road has in fact reduced significantly due to the one-way order now in place. The Council says widening a dropped kerb at Mr X’s property may help Mr X access his property by helping vehicles turning left into his driveway. Although it does not consider this is necessary for Mr X to access/egress the public highway. The existing dropped kerb at the property is part of the highway and the Council has not costed any works to widen the dropped kerb as there is no budget available for the works. It may however be an option for Mr X to discuss with the Council as to whether such work could be carried out and the costs involved to Mr X and the Council.
37. The Council confirms it has completed the highway works, and the revised road and new access became operational in November 2022.

My assessment

38. The Council has provided documents to show the slip road has also been called a deceleration and an acceleration lane. So, it is correct to refer to it as either of those as well as the slip lane.
39. Mr X’s concerns about not being told about the junction to turn right into housing development near his property is outside scope of this investigation as it is late. This is because Mr X could have complained to us before now. However, the Council’s documents show the new road layout to accommodate the residential development was approved in 2017. There was wide public consultation over the scheme. Mr X attended the planning meeting and objected which shows he was aware of the proposals.
40. The Council approved the design of junction in 2018 when discharging the planning condition. The design shows the detail of Mr X’s road including the position of the cycle lane and where the slip road changes in width by his property. The Council did not advise Mr X it had discharged the condition as it had no statutory requirement to do so.
41. But an officer visited to discuss the new junction with Mr X and gave him a plan. And correctly advised the slip road would remain but would be altered due to the new design of the signalised junction and right turn lane into the new development on the opposite side of the dual carriageway. The Council considered the proposed design safe in highway terms. And the signalled junction with reduced speed limit will reduce safety hazards for accessing and exiting Mr X’s property.
42. Mr X wants the slip road reinstated for safe access which was part of the planning permission for the commercial site. The Council confirmed it considers the slip road appropriate in highway terms of dual carriage way and speed of traffic in 2001. However, it is not now needed due to reduced traffic speeds and new signalled junction.
43. The Council considers it reasonable for a vehicle to indicate, decelerate and turn directly from the nearside lane of the 40-mph main road into the property driveway. Or to straddle the nearside lane and slip lane before turning should the reduced width if slip road itself be too difficult to manoeuvre. While Mr X may not agree it is for Council as Highway Authority to decide road layouts according to the Highway Act 1980 and highway safety needs.
44. Mr X complains about extreme levels of noise and pollution he has with stationary vehicles and then pulling away from traffic lights. The Council documents show it assessed the issue of pollution as part of the planning process. The Council received an air quality assessment for the housing development and concluded a negligible impact on local air quality. The Council does ongoing local air quality monitoring duties so will continue to monitor to check any changes. Council documents show the recorded levels are below the national average. The Council is willing to carry out air quality monitoring at Mr X’s property. It is for Mr X to take up the Council’s offer if he wishes to do so.
45. In terms of increased levels of traffic, the Council comments it can see no abatement in the level of development pressure in this part of the borough. It will however revisit the issues of development pressure in new Local Plan which will be brought forward over the next 2 years. The process allows for public consultation.
46. The Council says it appreciates there will be an increase in noise with the ongoing infrastructure works, but it cannot control the noise levels that cars make.
47. The Council accepts it made errors when drafting the TTRO so although there were 30 mph signs in place the police cannot enforce the speed limit. I consider this fault by the Council, and it caused an injustice to Mr X though uncertainty about the speed limit. The Council has accepted the fault and apologised to Mr X which is suitable action for it to take. And so, I do not consider there are sufficient grounds to warrant us investigating the matter further. This is because the Council is implementing a TRO for 40 mph and this with new signalised junction should reduce the speed of vehicles using the road.
48. The Council says it will take some time to implement the TRO for 40 mph so it may consider imposing TTRO in the meantime to reduce the speed of vehicles using the main road.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have completed my investigation. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered a new traffic junction near to Mr X’s property. There is fault in the way the Council drafted a new TTRO to reduce the speed limit by Mr X’s property. The Council has apologised and is taking action to reduce the speed limit which is suitable action for it to take.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman