Durham County Council (19 008 565)

Category : Transport and highways > Highway repair and maintenance

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 01 Sep 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider the views of residents, businesses and town councillors when proposing highways works to a junction. The Council has decided to abandon the proposed highway works. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council in how it reached its decision.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained the Council failed to consider the views of residents, businesses and town councillors when proposing highways works to a junction.
  2. Mr X also complained the Council did not full explore the implications of proposed highways works and the layout is not in line with the Council’s statutory duties.
  3. Mr X says the proposed works would be a misuse of public money, would have an impact on parking for residents and make the road junction unsafe.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
  3. If we are satisfied with a council’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

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council including:
    • complaint and consultation correspondence,
    • proposed highway works plans;
    • minutes and reports from meetings to discuss the proposed works; and
    • conservation area documentation.
  2. The Council agreed with the draft decision and Mr X provided comments. I have considered Mr X’s comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

  1. The Council, as the Highways Authority, has a duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain highways. One such duty is to ensure highways are safe and passable. The maintenance of highways comes at the public expense.
  2. Councils have a statutory obligation to consult on various works on a public highway such as Traffic Regulation Orders, traffic calming measures and road humps, pedestrian crossing or when creating cycle paths out of a pavement. There is no statutory obligation to consult on amendments to a pre-existing pavement or road, however the Council can decide to go through a non-statutory consultation.

What happened

  1. The Council put forward a proposal for highway works to a junction near Mr X’s house on 7 February 2019. The works proposed to extend a footpath and put in place parking zones. The Council decided to consult with residents because of the possible loss of unrestricted parking.
  2. The Council received various objections, including from Mr X, to the proposals and at first decided to abandon the plans before sending out a revised proposal on 11 March 2019. Mr X also objected to that proposal.
  3. Councillors met to discuss the proposed works on 25 April 2019 and decided not to complete the proposed works because:
    • There had not been any accidents at the junction in the last five years.
    • Heavy vehicles were prohibited from the town.
    • It was a minor C road with a 30 miles per hour speed limit meaning the Council had minimal safety concerns with its existing layout.
  4. The Council put forward a third proposal in June 2019. Its Highways Committee considered this proposal at a meeting on 5 July 2019. Mr X raised objections at this meeting with other residents. The Committee considered the objections but decided to approve the proposal.
  5. Mr X raised a further objection to the proposed works in September 2019. The Council agreed to meet with Mr X and other residents who objected to the plans. The Council agreed to revise the plans at that meeting and on 16 October 2019 the Council produced a new plan. Mr X says the Council promised to proceed with this plan without further alterations. The Council says it told Mr X and the other objectors that it would be offering a similar meeting to those in favour of the original scheme.
  6. The Council arranged to meet with the supporters of the July 2019 plan to discuss the revised October 2019 plan. This meeting took place on 26 November 2019. The supporters of the July 2019 plan objected to the revised October 2019 plan.
  7. On 9 December 2019, the Council produced a final compromise plan. The Council put this plan out for consultation to all parties on 10 January 2020.
  8. Mr X, ten other residents, one business and the town council objected to the December 2019 plans with three residents confirming they supported the proposal.
  9. The Council decided to abandon the proposed works because:
    • The majority of people consulted opposed the proposal.
    • There was not a safety concern by not proceeding with the plans as there had been no accidents in the past five years.
  10. The Council confirmed its decision to residents on 11 February 2020.

Analysis

  1. Mr X has complained the Council’s decision-making process was undemocratic and the Council did not properly consider the various proposals in line with its statutory duties.
  2. Mr X has highlighted that a change to a Traffic Regulation Order comes with a statutory duty to consult under the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The proposals outlined for this junction in 2019 do not contain any change to a Traffic Regulation Order. The proposed works do not fall under a statutory legal consultation process. However, the Council decided to consult residents due to a possible loss of unrestricted parking.
  3. The Council has demonstrated it consulted with residents by making the proposals publicly available and sending consultation letters to residents affected by the proposed works. The Council also met with residents to consider their views for both those who supported and objected to the works. The Council also put this matter before a Highways Committee and took its advice on the matter. There was no fault in how the Council considered the proposal. The Ombudsman cannot criticise the merits of a council decision which is properly made or intervene to substitute an alternative view.
  4. The Council decided to abandon the scheme based on the opposition to the final proposal. The Council’s decision was not undemocratic, and it considered the objections raised. The Council was not at fault.
  5. Mr X has also complained about the cost of the now-abandoned plans, and the protracted consultation process, was a poor use of public money. Use of public funds is something which affects all or most people living in a council’s area. The Local Government Ombudsman cannot investigate a matter which affects all or most people.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation as there was no fault in the Council’s decision and no injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings