Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to allow contractors to breach a weight limit on a street in his village. We do not consider Mr X has suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has no legal basis to allow contractors to breach a weight limit on a street in the village where he lives.
2. He says this sets a precedent for further development in the village. He also says if the Council had not made the decision to allow the developers to breach the weight limit, then he would not have a new housing development being built behind his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council says it considers an exemption in the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) applies to the construction traffic for the site near Mr X’s home. This means vehicles heavier than the prescribed weight limit can pass over the road where the weight restriction applies.
7. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s interpretation of the TRO. However, it is not our role to adjudicate on disputed points of law. Our role is to decide whether administrative fault by the Council has caused significant personal injustice to the complainant.
8. Mr X says he would not have a new housing site near his home were it not for the Council’s decision to allow vehicles which breach the TRO to follow a particular route. However, the Council has confirmed that an alternative route is available to construction traffic. Mr X argues the alternative route would cause more congestion in the village and that the use of the restricted route would “be palatable if the correct processes, procedures, considerations and transparency were in place.”
9. The Council also confirms that whichever route the construction traffic uses, it would still access the site from the road where Mr X lives. Therefore, the use of the restricted route by construction traffic does not cause Mr X any personal injustice.
10. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern, but where they have not suffered injustice.
11. Having reviewed the information provided by Mr X, I do not consider that he has suffered a significant personal injustice because the Council’s decision to interpret the TRO in a way which allows construction traffic to breach the weight restriction. I cannot say that, without the access route which utilises the road with a weight restriction, the Council would not have granted planning permission for the site near his home. This is because there is an alternative route and whichever route is used, construction traffic will use the road where Mr X lives.
12. Also, the Council cannot refuse planning applications because of temporary issues such as the creation of dust and noise during the construction phase. In this case the Council approved the developer’s Construction Environmental Management Plan which requires the developer to (among other things):
• Require the developer to inspect and clear site roads of mud.
• Employ mitigation measures to reduce dust and follow the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidance on the control of dust from construction and demolition sites.
• Employ mitigation measures to reduce noise and vibration from the site and follow the BRE guidance on controlling particulates, vapours and noise pollution from construction sites.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we do not consider the actions he complains of have caused him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman