Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to implement a new parking scheme in the village centre. The Council was not at fault. It considered the results of the informal consultation process and decided to approve the scheme. It commissioned independent road safety audit reports during the process, and properly considered the safety recommendations within them.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to implement a new parking scheme in the village centre. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider the safety aspects of the scheme and did not properly consult with residents. Mr X says it is now unsafe and difficult for him to park and use the facilities in the village centre.

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 spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
5. I considered the information Mr X provided.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Section 62 of the Highways Act empowers councils, as highway authorities, to improve the highways at the public expense.
9. The principle legislation for making a traffic regulation order (TRO) is the Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984). The procedures for creating a TRO are set out in the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
10. Councils will often carry out some initial non-statutory consultation in the area before deciding whether to go through the formal process of making a TRO. Such informal consultation is not a referendum and the decision to make a TRO ultimately rests with the council.

What happened

11. Mr X lives in a village. The busy road runs through the village centre and has shops and restaurants on either side.
12. In 2017, the Council consulted business owners and some residents about a new parking scheme in the village centre. The proposal was for additional parking spaces next to the shops off the road which runs through the village centre. The proposal was to remove a current slip road and create parking bays which vehicles could turn into directly from the road. The proposal also included a raised pedestrian crossing. The Council said it hand delivered letters to the residents and businesses.
13. The consultation letter asked residents and business owners four questions about whether they agreed with the proposal to introduce a raised zebra crossing and the additional parking. It also asked for any additional comments.
14. The Council published the results of the consultation on its website. It said just under 65% did not agree with the proposal to introduce a zebra crossing, but just over 88% agreed with the proposal to construct additional parking. The consultation results showed 491 people responded.
15. Following the consultation, the Council commissioned an external company to carry out a stage one road safety audit report into the proposed scheme. The report considered the Council’s proposals which included the removal of the current slip road and grass verge and replace them with a new parking area for approximately 15 vehicles. The Council also proposed to remove an existing pedestrian refuge island to facilitate the new parking bays. The report made two recommendations in relation to safety issues. It recommended the scheme include an alternative pedestrian crossing facility, and to include a buffer zone between the parking bays and the road to improve visibility for reversing vehicles.
16. The Council formally responded to the stage one report. It said it would consider an alternative pedestrian provision and an increased buffer zone at the design stage.
17. The Council published an update on its website in December 2018. It said the scheme was in its design stage and work was programmed to commence in January 2019. The update said it would ensure the environmental impact was negative and would install planters, a replacement tree and use high quality materials throughout. It said the project would increase the parking from six spaces to 14, including one disabled bay. The Council said the design was subject to an independent road safety audit as it evolved.
18. The stage two road safety audit report was written in December 2018. The report recommended the Council include a controlled pedestrian crossing to mitigate the removal of the existing pedestrian refuge island. The report noted the scheme now included an increased buffer zone but further recommended speed surveys on the approach to the parking bays. It said the Council should consider additional traffic calming measures if it found vehicles travelling at excessive speed.
19. The Council formally responded to the stage two report. The Council said the scheme design proposed increasing the size of the dropped crossing points on each side of the road to allow greater space for pedestrians to cross. It said it would consider the need for a controlled crossing point as part of a future review. The Council said it would carry out speed surveys after completion of the scheme. It said it would consider additional traffic calming as part of the future review.
20. The Council published a further update on its website in January 2019. It gave a date for commencement of construction. It said following the feedback from residents, it proposed to install a speed hump at either end of the new parking area. It said that would address the concerns about vehicle speeds. It said it would shortly publish the formal traffic regulation order to introduce parking restrictions and for the proposed speed humps.
21. Mr X complained to the Council about the parking scheme, in particular the safety aspect of it. Mr X complained the consultation for the scheme was flawed and misleading. He said although 89% were in favour of the scheme, that did not reflect the whole population of the village. Mr X said the road was already dangerous and the new parking bays would make it worse. Mr X said the Council had ignored accident data on other similar schemes he had sent the Council which proved the scheme was unsafe. He said the road was already an accident hotspot due to vehicles ignoring signs and speed limits. Mr X also said it had ignored the safety recommendations from the road safety audit reports. Mr X said the scheme would require additional safety measures such as a pedestrian crossing to improve the safety of it.
22. The Council responded to Mr X. The Council said its traffic and road safety specialists had confirmed current signage on the road was legal and compliant. The Council said the responsibility for traffic enforcement lay with the police.
23. Mr X escalated his complaint. He said the Council had not answered any of his original concerns. He said he has demonstrated the scheme is inherently unsafe, even with speed humps. He said the Council should implement the recommendations of the road safety report.
24. The Council responded to Mr X. It said it had considered the road safety audit reports in relation to safety matters which was independent and carried out at each stage of the development. The Council said those reports focussed on road safety and highlighted any risks or issues. The Council said it consulted residents about the raised zebra crossing and 65% were against it. The Council said therefore it recognised the majority view. The Council said it would carry out a post construction road safety audit together with monitoring of the scheme to identify any risk or issues accordingly.
25. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman. He said the new parking scheme which opened in March 2019 was dangerous for him to use and said the Council should implement a controlled pedestrian crossing. Mr X remained unhappy with how the Council consulted with residents about the scheme.

My findings

26. Mr X has complained about numerous aspects of the parking scheme. However, his main concerns were the consultation process and the Council’s consideration of the safety of the scheme. The records show the Council carried out informal consultation on the scheme. Schemes such as this one are not subject to statutory consultation and it is not a referendum. There is no legal obligation for the Council to consult with residents. The results of an informal consultation are not binding and its for councils to decide how to use the results. Based on those results, the Council decided to approve the scheme. Therefore, although Mr X was unhappy with the process and says the result is misleading, there is no administrative fault in how the Council consulted on the scheme, or how it used the results in its decision to approve the scheme.
27. Mr X says the scheme is unsafe, and the Council ignored road safety audit report recommendations. He thinks the Council should install a controlled pedestrian crossing to make the scheme safer for pedestrians to use. The Council commissioned an independent company to carry out two road safety audit reports during the design of the scheme. The company carried out a stage three report following the opening of the scheme. The Council formally responded to each of the recommendations in the safety report. The recommendations were not compulsory, and the Council made changes to the scheme’s design based on some of those recommendations. The Council considered the recommendation to install a controlled pedestrian crossing but decided it would consider it later as part of a review of the scheme. The Council properly considered the recommendations from the road safety reports, so therefore is not at fault.
28. In response to my enquiry letter, the Council said that as the scheme had been in place for six months it would carry out a pedestrian survey to further ascertain the requirements of pedestrians. It said it would also carry out a speed survey and would compare the results against a previous survey it carried out in August 2017.
29. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made. We cannot criticise a decision that has been made without fault in the process. The Council implemented the scheme under powers of the Highways Act. It considered the results of its informal consultation and considered safety recommendations throughout the process. The Council followed the process we would expect and was entitled to approve and implement the scheme. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman