Summary: Mr B complained about a Traffic Regulation Order made by the Council in 2023, as it did not include previous plans to install double yellow lines on a section of road near his property to ensure a drain gully was not blocked by parked cars. We have not found fault with actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Gloucestershire County Council (the Council) failed to implement the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) proposed in 2019, and instead implemented an amended version in 2022/23 omitting double yellow lines proposed in the original version. Mr B says his property will continue to be adversely affected by water due to the failure to protect a drainage gully with the double yellow lines.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

5. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Traffic Regulation Orders

6. The process for making a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Order (1984). The regulations require a council to consult with various bodies such as transport operators and to publish a notice in a local newspaper. Councils can also carry out additional consultation with members of the public who may be affected. Any person can object in writing within 21 days of the date the proposals are published. Councils must considered the objections before making the TRO. The TRO cannot be made until after the last day for objections has passed or after two years from when the notice was published.
7. Once the TRO is made councils, within 14 days, must publish a ‘notice of making’ in the local newspaper and notify in writing anyone who objected providing reasons for the decision.

What happened

8. In 2019 the Council drew up proposals for a TRO which included extending double yellow lines on a section of road near to Mr B’s property. The lines would have extended over a drainage gully so cars could not park on it. The Council consulted on these proposals in early 2020. Due to the number and nature of the objections and the lack of available staff resources, the Council did not complete the process within the required two years, so the TRO was not made.
9. The Council reviewed the scheme in 2022 and drew up new proposals, taking into account the objections received to the previous proposals and some new requests. The Council consulted on the new proposals which did not include the extension of the double yellow lines near Mr B’s property.
10. Mr B objected to the proposals requesting the extension to the lines should be included in accordance with the 2019 plans.
11. The Council drew up a report in August 2023 responding to all the objections received. In respect of Mr B’s objection, it said that following a review, it considered the 2019 proposals were overly restrictive: introducing ‘no-waiting at any time’ restrictions in that place would reduce the amount of available parking. It went on to say that it was commonplace to find drain gullies within parking bays across the country in urban areas, so the need for maintenance was not a reason to introduce parking restrictions. It noted that the parking time was limited to one hour so cleaning of the gully would still be possible. It also said a temporary TRO could be applied for in order to suspend the parking bay if routine drain clearance was required.
12. It wrote to Mr B explaining its decision. Mr B replied maintaining his objection. He said the Council had not adequately explained why the changes had been made for the original proposal. He said there was a history of the gully not being cleaned due to parked cars and this caused water to run past his house. Passing cars then push the water onto his property causing erosion.
13. The TRO was confirmed and in October 2023 Mr B complained to the Council. The Council repeated its explanation for not extending the double yellow lines. Mr B complained to us. He has provided an email from a manager at the Council supporting Mr B’s view that the double yellow lines were needed in that location.
14. The Council said that it generally cleans highway gullies annually. If gullies are blocked by cars the cleaning teams will make three further attempts. If this fails further action will be taken such as a temporary TRO. The gullies in the location near Mr B’s house have had a cleaning schedule of twice a year since 2020. Its records show that the gully was cleaned twice in 2021, once in 2022, not at all in 2023 due to parked cars and once so far this year. The Council says it has not received a report of a blocked gully or excessive water flow in that location. If it had it would send out a reactive team to rectify the problem.

Analysis

15. I understand Mr B is aggrieved that the double yellow lines were not included in the revised TRO and believes this adversely affects his house. But the decision on whether to make a TRO is a matter for the Council to decide and I have not identified any fault in the way it made that decision. It reviewed the previous plans, drew up proposals, consulted on them, considered the objections received and responded to them individually with reasons. It has explained to Mr B why it did not include the double yellow lines from the 2019 plans. Mr B clearly disagrees with that decision but as I have not found fault with the process, I am unable to recommend it is changed.
16. I also note the gully has been cleaned several times over the past few years. It is sometimes not cleaned due to parked cars, but no reports of a blocked gully have been received.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr B.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman