Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repair and maintenance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or significant enough injustice to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council is not acting in the public’s best interests in its use of traditional gravel road surfaces which causes more traffic noise than asphalt surfacing. He also complained the Council’s responses to his requests for information about its choice of surfacing material, which he does not find satisfactory.
2. This caused Mr Y frustration and he has spent time in making his complaint repeatedly without getting suitable answers. He feels residents would benefit from less road noise if the quieter asphalt were used.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y contacted the Council about the issue in August 2021 initially. After the Council provided further information about its resurfacing practices, Mr Y complained in September, also asking for details about its decision to use one type of material over another.
6. The Council responded in October 2021, explaining that it did not base its choice of materials on the level of noise, but on engineering requirements and cost. It later gave an estimate of the costs of each type of material per square metre in a further response in January 2022.
7. Mr Y was not satisfied by these responses. The Council wrote to him in February, explaining it had no further comment to make. Mr Y then approached us in June.

Analysis

8. The Council explained in its responses its consideration of different surfacing materials; engineering requirements and costs. It also explained that it does not consider noise within this and its Cabinet Committee agreed this as its policy. This is likely to be due to road noise not being a statutory nuisance, which would mean it would not be a relevant consideration in any consideration of surface material. As the Council has considered its choice considering relevant factors, it is unlikely we would find fault. Consequently, we will not investigate.
9. Mr Y is also not satisfied with the responses the Council has provided and feels these do not answer his questions. However, the Council has responded and given suitable responses where it is able, including information on the general cost of each type of material used and how it generally considers what to use when resurfacing roads. These responses, while they have not satisfied Mr Y, are sufficient that we would be unlikely to find fault. We will therefore not investigate.
10. If Mr Y remains dissatisfied with these responses and wants other information, it would be for him to consider making a Freedom of Information request to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman