Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consultation over a proposed Traffic Regulation Order. There is not enough evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. Also, an investigation into the Council’s failure to follow the approved landscaping plans for the roads near Mrs X’s home is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council:
• Failed to follow the correct procedures for consulting and imposing Red Routes near her home.
• Breached its own planning conditions about the green areas approved for a new road layout; and
• Refused to accept her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Consultation with the public on Traffic Regulation Orders is not a referendum and the highway authority must make the decision whether to progress an order regardless of public opposition. In this case the Council has not yet decided whether to make the order to introduce the Red Routes. A new consultation was publicised in June 2026. We have not seen any evidence the Council failed to follow the procedure under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
6. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
7. The consultation is in progress at the time of writing this decision and Mrs X can make her representations.
8. The Council acknowledged it tarmacked areas marked for soft landscaping and decided not to plant trees in the central reservation of a certain road. It has advised a non-material amendment application will be made and a notification will be placed at the site. Once it makes the application it will publicise it and Mrs X will be able to object and the Council will have to consider the objections it receives. I consider that further investigation into this point will not lead to a different outcome.
9. I understand Mrs X is concerned the Council refused to accept her complaint. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council is processing the Traffic Regulation Order. Also investigation into the Council’s failure to follow the approved plans for soft landscaping is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman