Summary: Mr C complains about how the Council introduced a new road layout near to where he lived. However, there is no evidence of fault with how the Council considered the matters raised by Mr C.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about the Council’s decision to introduce a new road layout close to his home. Mr R complains that the Council’s decision to add a cycle lane has caused congestion leading to him having difficulties parking in his driveway.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and information received from Mr C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• spoke with Mr C about his complaint.
5. I also sent a draft version of this document to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

The law

6. To introduce changes to the highway, a council must usually make a Traffic Regulation Order in accordance with the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations).
7. The Regulations set out procedures for consultation and dealing with objections to a proposal before a council makes a Traffic Regulation Order.
8. There is no legal obligation for a council to consult with residents, but councils will generally carry out informal consultation in an area before deciding whether to go through the formal process of creating a Traffic Regulation Order. However, any informal consultation is not binding. It is for councils to decide how to use the results of consultation.
9. If a council decides to go ahead with Traffic Regulation Order, the Regulations set out procedures for consultation. The Council must carry out formal consultation with certain statutory bodies and it must deal with objections received from them or any member of the public before it makes the Traffic Regulation Order.
10. The Council must also publish a notice and “take such other steps as it may consider appropriate for ensuring that adequate publicity about the order is given to persons likely to be affected by its provisions”. The Regulations suggest these steps could include the delivery of letters to households and businesses likely to be affected and the display of notices in roads or “other places affected by the order”.
11. If a cycle lane has a broken white line they are known as advisory cycle lanes. Councils can introduce advisory cycle lane markings, without the need to make a Traffic Regulation Order.

What happened

12. Mr C lives on the side road of a busy main road. I will refer to Mr C’s road as ‘Road A’ and the main road as ‘Road B’. Mr C’s driveway leads onto Road B, has a dropped kerb and white H markings on the road alongside the dropped kerb, indicating people cannot park there.
13. In 2017, after a consultation period, the Council published its local cycling strategy document. The strategy detailed the Councils ten-year plan for cycling in the area and included the implementation and improvements of cycling lanes, including those on Roads A & B.
14. The implementation and improvements consisted of amendments to road markings which included an advisory cycle lane being introduced in the centre of Road B running past Mr C’s drive and to the junction of Road A.
15. Prior to the works starting, a road safety audit was carried out. It identified that cars were parking on Road B, on the side of the road Mr C’s drive leads to. It identified a risk that there may not be enough space for vehicles to pass in both direction, which could result in vehicles making contact. It therefore, recommended that double yellow lines are introduced along Road B, freeing up the road for traffic.
16. However, the designer concluded that it would be reasonable to expect motorists to adjust their speed and give way to oncoming vehicles, when vehicles are parked. Alternatively, when the cycle lane is not in use, motorists would be expected to use it to pass.
17. In May 2018, the changes to the cycle lane on Road B were carried out.
18. In July 2018, after concerns were raised by residents, the Council formally advertised a Traffic Regulation Order for its proposal to implement yellow waiting lines on Road B to stop parking on the road. Public notices were displayed and letters were sent to residents.
19. In January 2019, a Council Officer with delegated decision powers recorded that she had considered objections, including one from Mr C, and read an officer report when reaching a decision on behalf of the Council.
20. The Council Officer also recorded that she had visited the site and concluded that the width of the road allows for cars to be parked along both sides of the road whilst allowing for two-way traffic.
21. The Council found that many of the issues identified in objections arose when the changes to the road layout were first introduced, and that road users were becoming familiar to the changes.
22. The Council concluded that there was no overriding case for or against the introduction of the double yellow lines on Road B and therefore deferred the Council’s decision for a maximum of two years, to allow for a period when road users can become more familiar with the layout.
23. In making its decision, the Council explained that it considered that there was enough room for vehicles to park on the road and still allow two-way traffic. It therefore concluded that road users should be allowed to become familiar with the road before a decision is made.
24. In his complaints Mr C said that there had been no notification or consultation on the changes to the road layout, and the Council had failed to take into consideration the impact the changes would have on residents.
25. Mr C said the implementation of the cycle lane had effectively narrowed Road B, meaning there was not sufficient room for traffic to pass parked vehicles without blocking oncoming traffic, resulting in him having difficulty accessing his drive without further blocking the road further.
26. Mr C said he either wanted the Council to return the road layout to its previous format, or implement yellow lines to stop vehicles parking on the side of the road.
27. In its responses, the Council said that while it did not have a duty to consult residents of the changes to the road layout, it did send letters notifying residents of the upcoming works.
28. The Council said that it had responded to Mr C’s concerns about the road layout, by issuing its proposal to implement yellow lines to stop people parking on the road. The Council said that it considered Mr C’s and other residents objections when making its decision to defer the decision. It acknowledged that it had not sent Mr C a letter notifying him of the deferral, apologised and sent him a copy.

Analysis

29. Mr C disagrees with the Councils decision to introduce a cycle lane on a road which his driveway leads on to. He also says the decision to defer the implementation was based on fault, because if cars park on both side of the road there is insufficient space for two-way traffic.
30. It is not the role of the Ombudsman in a case like this to act as an appeals body against the Council’s decision, nor to decide whether double yellow lines should or should not be installed at a certain location or not. Instead, I must consider whether the Council followed a proper process in reaching the conclusion it did.
31. Having considered the evidence available, I do not consider that there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process.
32. Records show that prior to starting works, the Council carried out a road safety audit, in which it assessed the issue of cars parked on the road and how that would impact the introduction of the cycle lane. The designer considered the option of implementing double yellow lines, but came to the decision road users would be able to pass safely without the need for parking restrictions.
33. Upon concluding the consultation period for the proposed introduction of yellow lines on the road, the Council concluded that there was no overriding case for or against the proposal, and decided to defer the decision to allow road users to become familiar with the new road layout.
34. The Ombudsman cannot question a decision made without fault. When the Council carried out the road safety audit and when it assessed the introduction of yellow lines, a Council Officer considered relevant information, came to a decision and also fully explained why the decision was being made. There was no fault in the way the Council made these decisions. Therefore, I cannot criticise the decision itself.
35. Mr C clearly disagrees that there is sufficient room for cars to park on the road while allowing two-way traffic. However, this was a conclusion the Council came to after assessing appropriate information and visiting the site. I am therefore unable to find fault with how it reached this decision.
36. When introducing advisory cycle lanes there is no statutory requirement for Council’s to consult residents. I therefore do not find fault with the Council for not consulting with Mr C, prior to commencing works.
37. The Council does consider it best practice to notify residents when works are due to commence, and in its response to his complaint it said that it did notify residents prior to starting work on the cycle lane. However, it has since told the Ombudsman that a notification letter was not sent to Mr C and it offered an apology to him for this oversight.
38. I do not consider it appropriate to make a formal finding of fault for this oversight. This is because I do not believe that this error caused Mr C a significant injustice. The notice would have been to inform him of the works, and was not notification of consultation. I therefore do not consider that there would have been a different outcome if he had received the notification.
39. In his correspondence to the Ombudsman, Mr C complained that the Council delayed in providing him with a final response to his complaint. However, we rarely investigate complaints about complaint processes when we have not been able to deal with the substantive issue of the complaint, it is not generally considered a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the matters raised by Mr C.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman