Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to close a bridge where she lives to traffic. We will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. We cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking. And she has not suffered any significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, complains the Council closed a bridge near her home to traffic.
2. She says the Council’s equality assessment falls short of the detailed scrutiny required by law and there is no evidence the Council considered the adverse impact of closing the bridge on people with protected characteristics.
3. Mrs X wants the bridge reopened immediately.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
5. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• the information provided by Mr X and the Council
• relevant law and guidance as referred to below.
8. I also discussed the complaint with Mrs X.

Back to top

What I found

9. In May 2020, the Department for Transport announced that it had allocated money to councils in response to COVID-19 to fund ‘Emergency Active Travel Measures’. It described these as measures designed “to make it easier for people to choose alternatives to public transport, a series of measures are being rolled out to encourage more people to cycle instead […] to create pop up and permanent cycle lanes and reallocate road space”:
10. The Government issued guidance in traffic management in response to COVID -19. In the foreword to the guidance the Secretary of State for Transport says:

“The government therefore expects local authorities to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians. Such changes will help embed altered behaviours and demonstrate the positive effects of active travel. I’m pleased to see that many authorities have already begun to do this, and I urge you all to consider how you can begin to make use of the tools in this guidance, to make sure you do what is necessary to ensure transport networks support recovery from the COVID-19 emergency and provide a lasting legacy of greener, safer transport.”

11. The Government guidance also includes examples of measures that local authorities can introduce to reallocate road space. These include:

“Introducing pedestrian and cycle zones: restricting access for motor vehicles at certain times (or at all times) to specific streets, or networks of streets, particularly town centres and high streets. This will enable active travel but also social distancing in places where people are likely to gather.”

12. Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (ETROs) are used to trial schemes that may then be made permanent. Authorities must put in place monitoring arrangements and carry out ongoing consultation.
13. A council can make an experimental order using powers under sections 9 and 10 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. To do this, it must comply with the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996).
14. The law does not require councils to consult before making an ETRO. The purpose of such orders is to assess how a scheme will work before making it permanent.
15. An ETRO can only be in force for 18 months. If a council wishes to make it permanent, it must make a new order and consider any objections it received within the first six months of the experimental traffic order.
16. The Council decided to introduce ETRO’s to closed 5 bridges in its area. It publicised the ETRO’s including details on how to comment, providing a website, email address and postal address.
17. It is unlikely that further investigation will find fault in the Council’s introduction of the ETRO to close the bridge close to where Mrs X lives to traffic.
18. Also, we will not normally investigate a complaint unless the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the Council’s actions.
19. We will not normally investigate when the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider political or community campaign. In these cases, it may be more appropriate to discussed their concerns with their local councillor or MP.
20. Mrs X says there is no evidence the Council considered the adverse impact of closing the bridge on people with protected characteristics. However, she has not advised whether she has any of the protected characteristics. The bridge remains open to cyclists and pedestrians and the Council has confirmed alternative routes for traffic exist.
21. I do not consider that Mrs X has suffered any significant personal injustice because of the ETRO.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I will not investigate this complaint because:
• we are unlikely to find fault in making the ETRO
• we cannot make the Council to immediately reopen the bridge; and
• Mrs X has not suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman