Recent statements in this category are shown below:
Statement Upheld Highway adoption 25-Nov-2019
Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's handling of the adoption of various stretches of highway on housing estates he has developed. He considers the Council has not kept adequate records and acted unreasonably in refusing to adopt one stretch and in refusing to enter into an agreement to adopt the other part. There was fault in the Council's record keeping and communication with Mr B. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr B.
Statement Upheld Highway adoption 27-Jun-2019
Summary: Mrs X has complained about plans to install a bus stop outside her home. There is no evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with this matter. However, there is fault with how it handled Mrs X's complaint.
Statement Not upheld Highway adoption 11-Jun-2018
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's failure to adopt a road on her housing estate. This affects the value of homes on the estate. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because we cannot investigate late complaints and it is unlikely further investigation will achieve a different outcome.
Statement Not upheld Highway adoption 29-May-2018
Summary: Mr X complained about a footway on his land, which is included in maps the Council holds. The Council was not at fault. It could not take enforcement action 30 years after the development was built and in any event, it was not the relevant planning authority. It has not taken land, as the land is still within Mr X's title's boundary. The Council's maps do not show registered extent of titles, as these are different to rights of way.
Statement Not upheld Highway adoption 26-Mar-2018
Summary: Mr X complains the Council will not adopt the roads on his estate until the breach of planning control is resolved. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached this decision.
Statement Upheld Highway adoption 17-Jul-2017
Summary: Mrs Y asked the Council to maintain trees which ran along her property border. The Council agreed to do so. It later withdrew the agreement saying that the trees were not its responsibility. Mrs Y had the trees felled and sent the Council the bill. The trees formed a border feature running along the edge of her property and were only the Council's responsibility as highways authority. However, a Council officer told her it would prune the trees. She should not have had them felled but the Council should fund a percentage of the cost.
Statement Not upheld Highway adoption 30-Jan-2017
Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has included development sites in its local plan which may allow development on a village green and may not act properly in the future when considering planning applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate as there is no indication that Mr Y is caused a significant personal injustice or that this is a significant public interest matter.
Statement Not upheld Highway adoption 31-Aug-2016
Summary: There is no or insufficient evidence the Council acted with fault in its design or location of a pedestrian footway outside the complainant's home. It has responded suitably to specific concerns raised by the complainant about land ownership, construction of the footway and drainage issues post-construction.
Statement Upheld Highway adoption 29-Mar-2016
Summary: I uphold Mr C's highways complaint as there was fault by the Council. However, I do not consider it caused Mr C an injustice which would need the Council to take further action.
Statement Upheld Highway adoption 05-Feb-2016
Summary: There was fault by the Borough Council in the way it failed to use its powers properly to ensure a new road on a housing estate was built to a standard the Highways Authority requires to adopt and maintain it at public expense. The Borough Council has suggested a possible remedy which is acceptable to the Ombudsman.