Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to close a road close to where she lives to traffic. We will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. And we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms X, says the Council closed several roads in the borough without consultation. This included a road close to her home. She says this has forced traffic to use her road which has created ‘mayhem’. And traffic across the borough is gridlocked, making journeys take longer.
2. Ms X says although the Council temporarily reopened the road nearest to her, it will not confirm if it is to remain permanently open.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
4. 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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• the information provided by Mr X and the Council; and
• relevant law and guidance as referred to below.

Back to top

What I found

7. In May 2020, the Department for Transport announced that it had allocated money to councils in response to COVID-19 to fund ‘Emergency Active Travel Measures’. It described these as measures designed “to make it easier for people to choose alternatives to public transport, a series of measures are being rolled out to encourage more people to cycle instead […] to create pop up and permanent cycle lanes and reallocate road space”.
8. The Government issued guidance in traffic management in response to COVID -19. In the foreword to the guidance the Secretary of State for Transport says:

“The government therefore expects local authorities to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians. Such changes will help embed altered behaviours and demonstrate the positive effects of active travel. I’m pleased to see that many authorities have already begun to do this, and I urge you all to consider how you can begin to make use of the tools in this guidance, to make sure you do what is necessary to ensure transport networks support recovery from the COVID-19 emergency and provide a lasting legacy of greener, safer transport.”

9. The Government guidance also includes examples of measures that local authorities can introduce to reallocate road space. These include:

“Introducing pedestrian and cycle zones: restricting access for motor vehicles at certain times (or at all times) to specific streets, or networks of streets, particularly town centres and high streets. This will enable active travel but also social distancing in places where people are likely to gather.”

10. Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (ETROs) are used to trial schemes that may then be made permanent. Authorities must put in place monitoring arrangements and carry out ongoing consultation.
11. A council can make an experimental order using powers under sections 9 and 10 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. To do this, it must comply with the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996).
12. The law does not require councils to consult before making an ETRO. The purpose of such orders is to assess how a scheme will work before making it permanent.
13. An ETRO can only be in force for 18 months. If a council wishes to make it permanent, it must make a new order and consider any objections it received within the first six months of the experimental traffic order.
14. The Council decided to introduce ETRO’s to close several roads in its area to traffic as part of a Low Traffic Neighbourhood Programme in August 2020. It publicised the ETRO’s including details on how to comment via its dedicated website.
15. Following engagement with residents, councillors and others, the council decided to suspend the closure to traffic of the road closest to Ms X’s home. It said this was because of concerns about traffic due to roadworks and the impact on other roads.
16. I understand Ms X wants the council to confirm the suspension will be permanent. However, the Ombudsman cannot require the Council to provide such confirmation.
17. I understand Ms X believes the Council has abandoned democracy and failed to consult residents before introducing the road closures. However, as explained above, the law does not require councils to consult before making an ETRO.
18. Also, while Ms X finds journeys in the area are taking longer, I do not consider it is a significant personal injustice as it is not an issue restricted to Ms X alone.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I will not investigate this complaint because:
• we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council decided to introduce ETRO’s in its area
• we cannot require the Council to confirm the suspension of the road closure nearest to Ms X’s home is permanent; and
• we do not consider that Ms X has suffered a significant injustice which affects her alone, because of the introduction of road closures.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman