Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not properly assess the speed limits in her hamlet nor her request to reduce them. There is no fault in the actions of the Council, and we do not uphold Mrs X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
• did not adequately assess the speed limits in her hamlet;
• did not adequately consider her request to reduce the speed limit and review the road markings on the road outside her house; and
• misled her regarding its powers and responsibilities towards setting speed limits.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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

4. I have considered:
• Mrs X’s complaint and supporting information;
• the Council’s response to Mrs X and to my enquiries; and
• Mrs X’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 01/2013 Setting Local Speed Limits is guidance aimed at traffic authorities responsible for setting local speed limits.
6. The guidance says that ‘it is government policy that a 30mph speed limit should be the norm in villages.’ It goes on to say that for single carriageway rural roads, the traffic authority should consider a range of issues when deciding the suitable limit on single carriageway rural roads. These include collision history, road function, mix of road users including presence of vulnerable road users, road geometry, engineering and environment, and actual traffic speed.
7. The guidance says councils should read it alongside the appropriate Traffic Advisory Leaflets and with the relevant legislation.

Department for Transport Traffic Advisory Leaflet 01/04

8. DfT’s Traffic Advisory Leaflet 01/04 sets out policy on achieving lower speed limits in villages. It suggests minimum criteria for the definition of what makes up a village for the purpose of applying a village speed limit of 30mph. This is 20 or more houses and a minimum length of 600m.
9. The policy says that as a visual message to drivers entering a village, there needs to be a minimum density of houses. This is set out as an average density of at least 3 houses per 100 metres. It says this minimum density should apply for each 100m section but particularly for the first 100 metres.

Traffic Regulation Orders

10. The DfT says councils must make Traffic Orders for speed limits to be legally implemented and enforceable. The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 sets out the procedures for councils to follow when making these orders. Councils will need to comply with the consultation and publicity requirements before making an order, and with the publicity and traffic signing requirements once an order has been made.

What happened

11. In 2013, Mrs X wrote to the Council. She said the Council had resurfaced the road that runs through the hamlet where she lives. She said the Council did not paint white lines along the edge of the road. She said this creates the illusion the road is wider and means that traffic drives faster. She also reported the ‘slow’ markings painted on the road are in the wrong place.
12. She said before the resurfacing there were white lines running along both edges of the road. She said these lines gave pedestrians an escape route from fast traffic and also gave the impression that the road was narrower which discouraged high speeds.
13. Mrs X pointed out the road is unsuitable for speeds higher than 30-40mph yet traffic regularly travels at 60mph or higher. She requested the Council review the speed limits along this stretch of road.
14. The Council responded to Mrs X’s letter. It said that it would not be making any changes to the current speed limit. It explained the reasons for this decision. It referred to the national guidance on setting suitable speed limits and said the Council’s local policy reflected this.
15. The Council also explained why it would not be replacing the white lines at the edges of the road. This was due to Council budget cuts. The Council said it would review the ‘slow’ markings.
16. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision in July 2018. The Council responded in August. It referred to an earlier investigation of the speed on the road. In 2004, over a 24/7 period, the mean speed was 40mph, and 38mph at a nearby second site. The Council agreed to collect new data as Mrs X said the speed had worsened in recent years.
17. It also said the Council carries out annual reviews of all roads in the district about reported collisions. It said over the past 5 years, there had only been one slight injury collision along this stretch of road.
18. The Council went on to say that it recognised the difficulty Mrs X and her neighbours experienced exiting from their driveways. It confirmed that because the driveways are private access on to the highway, the responsibility for its safe operation rests with the owners/users, not the Highway Authority (Council). Mrs X disputes this and says the Council has a duty of care to manage highway risks.
19. The Council collected new speed data between 7 August and 15 August. It recorded the mean speed to be 33.3mph. In addition, in October an officer carried out an onsite survey which recorded the mean speed to be 30mph over an hour period.
20. In its stage 2 response to Mrs X, the Council agreed to review the road at the next speed review forum. The Council and the Police developed this joint forum to allow them to assess concerns in a consistent manner. The forum meeting took place in November.
21. The police, a road safety officer, an area neighbourhood officer, a local highways engineer and highways officers attended the meeting. They discussed the road in Mrs X’s hamlet. They reported the results from the latest speed investigation as was the accident data, volume of traffic and an onsite speed survey.
22. The Forum also discussed the suggestion to reduce the speed of traffic through Mrs X’s village. The group found the characteristics of the road did not meet national guidance for lower speed limit.
23. The Forum acknowledged the difficulty exiting from the private driveways. However, it concluded there was no justification to warrant the Council installing measures using public money as the low traffic flows and mean speed of vehicles using road were within acceptable parameters.

Analysis

24. The Council has thoroughly investigated Mrs X’s concerns about the speed limits and road markings in her hamlet. It collected new speed data and reported the results to the speed review forum. It explained the reasons why reduced speed restrictions along this stretch of road would not be appropriate. This is in line with national and local policy.
25. The Council responded to my enquiries about the Council misleading Mrs X regarding its powers and responsibilities in relation to setting speed limits. The Council clarified that its response did not advise that speed limits on unclassified roads cannot be reduced. It advised that there was no evidence to justify a change at this location and that a lower speed would not be appropriate.
26. In its response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed that it will place an order for new ‘slow’ markings on the road with its contractor. It could not guarantee a timeframe but envisaged it being complete by the end of September 2019.
27. Mrs X commented on my draft decision. She disputed the speed data used by the Council. She said the mean speed does not accurately show the problems of speeding vehicles along the road. She has submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Council to see the raw speed data. I do not need to see this to inform my decision. I have told Mrs X this. I said if new data arises which shows the Council made its decision using inaccurate information, I would consider reopening her case.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I do not uphold Mrs X’s complaint. The Council was not at fault in the way it considered the speed limits in Mrs X’s hamlet.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman