Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s notification procedure for a highway improvement scheme which he believes was misleading. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to create highway improvements near a traffic roundabout in his area. He says the notices issued by the Council to inform the public were misleading as they did not accurately describe the proposed works. He also says the completed scheme is unsuitable for pedestrians to share space with cyclists due to lack of space.

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, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s responses. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says the Council posted notices for a proposed highway improvement scheme in his area in 2020 which he says were misleading for residents. The notices said that the notice referred to the installation of 3 zebra crossings, but the crossings should have been referred to as Joint use / shared use / parallel / Tiger Crossings. This is because he says they share space with cyclists at certain points which was not mentioned.
5. The Council’s notices referred to the plans being located at the council offices and online at its website. The notices gave a contact address for any comments on the scheme. The notices were issued as part of the notification procedure under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which also requires the highway authority to consult the Chief Officer of the local constabulary.
6. Mr X was able to make his objections to the scheme known and any other member of the public was free to view the proposals and comment. The notification process is not public consultation and does not require the authority to carry out an appreciation of public opinion about the proposed works.
7. The Council told Mr X that it would include more details in its notices in future, but this is not a statutory requirement. There is no specific guidance on the wording of notices, but it is reasonable to expect them to be worded in terms which the general public would be able to understand.
8. Mr X complained about the scheme itself because he says the crossings are unsuitable for shared space between cyclists and pedestrians and that cyclists have been given unreasonable preference over the walking public.
9. We do question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made. In this case I do not consider the Council’s notices were misleading and that the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposals.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman