Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to adequately consult with him and other residents around its decision to approve a cycling and walking scheme in his area. The Council failed to deliver consultation leaflets to Mr X and a number of other residents as part of the consultation. However, this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice because he was already aware of the scheme and had the opportunity to provide his comments at the relevant time.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consult with residents about a proposed scheme to extend a walking and cycling route in his area. Mr X says the flawed consultation meant residents including himself who will be most affected by the scheme, were unfairly disadvantaged and therefore the decision to approve the scheme was based on inaccurate consultation results.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
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 spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. In 2020/21 the government awarded the Council funding to create a cycling and walking route (the scheme) in its area. Department for Transport (DfE) guidance required the Council to undertake appropriate consultation with local residents and relevant stakeholders by publishing plans and undertaking appropriate surveys. The guidance specified there is not a ‘veto’ on the scheme. The guidance said the DfT would not scrutinise consultation plans but just needed to know appropriate consultation had happened.
9. The Council proposed a route which would extend an existing cycling route. The proposed route included a new two-lane cycleway highway along a main road, through a park and via a minor road which as part of the plans the Council intended to permanently close to traffic.
10. In early 2021 the Council commissioned a Community Engagement Report and decided to run a consultation on the scheme which was on-line due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and national lockdowns in place at the time. The consultation ran during March 2021 and was publicised on the Council’s website.
11. The Council said anybody could take part in the consultation using a web-based online portal. The Council also publicised the proposed scheme using social media outlets and via media releases such as radio and local newspapers. The Council also surveyed various user groups.
12. Along with the methods outlined above the Council also decided to commission a third party to deliver leaflets to around 4000 residents on 117 streets which are the nearest and most affected by the scheme to alert them to the consultation. The Council said it intended to put the proposal before its committee in October 2021 to decide whether to approve the scheme.
13. Records show the Council received various comments of support and objections. The Council also considered a number of comments after the end of the consultation. Some of the Council’s considerations included:
• Alternative routes were considered but not viable due to funding constraints and issues around land ownership
• Plans on monitoring vehicle speed
• Concerns around the design of the road and the removal of pedestrian crossings
• Road layout and lighting
• Concerns around how residents would access their driveways
• Consultation with the Chamber of Commerce around assertions that the proposal scheme would impact local business.
• The permanent closure of the minor road would make a safer space for pedestrians and cyclists at the expense of a small number of vehicles.
14. In October 2021 the Council’s cabinet considered the scheme. The Community Engagement Report outlined the outcome of the consultation including consideration of objections and concerns. The report stated the Council received 1,182 responses with 71% in favour of the scheme. The committee meeting minutes stated the consultation had demonstrated overall broad support for the proposed route. It therefore decided to approve the scheme.
15. In October 2021 Mr X complained to the Council. Mr X said he is directly affected by the scheme due to its proposed design. Mr X complained about the consultation process which he said he came across by chance in March 2021. He said the Council failed to carry out early consultation which he says it should have done because the proposed scheme is a departure from previous designs. Mr X said the Council then failed to deliver leaflets to a number of households and therefore they were unfairly disadvantaged and were unable to take part in the consultation. Mr X said he believed the Council’s recommendation to approve the scheme was predetermined and represented bias. Mr X also explained some of the other concerns he had with the scheme including:
• The design of the route
• Pedestrian safety
• A failure to properly consider alternative locations
16. The Council responded to Mr X. It said it consulted with stakeholders and various user groups in the early stages. It said once funding was in place it then carried out public engagement. The Council said it had considered alternative locations but said negotiations to obtain the land were unsuccessful.
17. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to us. Mr X said the Council should have consulted with the public earlier. He also said the Council unfairly disadvantaged households most affected by the scheme by failing to deliver leaflets as planned.

The Council’s response to my enquiry letter

18. The Council said it carried out the consultation for the scheme at a time when the country was in a national lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, it was limited in how it could consult with residents. It said it widely publicised the scheme and the letter drop was an additional layer to media releases and its online portal.
19. The Council said it acknowledged that some residents said they did not receive the leaflet but it had considered all additional comments in refining the design of the scheme. The Council said it enquired with the third party who delivered the leaflets who ensured all deliveries were undertaken correctly on the same day. Records show the third party provided partial tracking details of its leaflet delivery, however it could not provide tracking details for Mr X’s road, claiming it only kept the details for seven days. The Council said it will ensure it is written into future contracts that tracking details are shared immediately after delivery.

My findings

20. Records show the Council decided to carry out consultation on the proposed scheme in early 2021 in line with DfT guidance. The consultation was not a referendum and the results were not binding. There was also no obligation for the Council to carry out early consultation with residents. The Council used a number of methods to publicise the scheme and engage the public in the consultation including the leaflet drop. The Council’s consultation was in line with the requirements set out by the DfT.
21. As part of the consultation the Council decided to carry out a leaflet drop. Mr X said he and other residents did not receive the leaflet. The third party commissioned to deliver the leaflets said all the leaflets were delivered on the same day however it was only able to provide partial tracking details which did not include Mr X’s road. On balance, given the lack of tracking evidence and the overall number of residents who claimed not to have received the leaflet it is likely the third party failed to deliver the leaflet to Mr X as planned and agreed. That is fault. However, I do not find this caused Mr X a significant injustice for the following reasons:
• Mr X was aware of the scheme during the consultation period and therefore had the opportunity to submit his representations at the relevant time.
• records show the Council considered the substantive concerns and issues which Mr X raised in his complaint letter following similar objections from residents that did take part in the consultation. I have outlined these considerations above in paragraph 13. Therefore, even though a number of residents were unaware of the scheme or consultation the Council had already considered their concerns. So, but for the fault I cannot say the outcome would have been any different.
22. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of how much a complainant disagrees with the decision. The DfT guidance sets out that any local objection is not a ‘veto’ and therefore the results are not binding. The Council carried out a consultation and considered relevant comments and concerns. I cannot say the consultation process was overall fundamentally flawed and it met the requirements set out in the DfT guidance. It was for the Council to decide how to use the results and it decided to approve the scheme.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I completed my investigation. I found fault but that fault did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman