Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had failed to take action to address safety concerns from heavy goods vehicles using roads near his property. It has also made contradictory statements about the safety of the road. We recognise the situation is not ideal, but we have not found fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that North Lincolnshire Council (the Council) failed to take action to address the safety concerns from heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) using a road near his property and made contradictory statements about its view on the safety of the road in January and July 2024. Mr B says it has caused him distress as he is concerned that the Council has not resolved the safety concerns, which are supported by the Police and Crime Commissioner, and is now denying they exist at all.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Mr B wants the Council to revoke the planning permission granted many years ago for the site. I have not investigated this issue as the events are too old to look at now. We are also very unlikely to recommend revocation of a planning application.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr B lives near a road which is used regular by HGVs from a nearby business. The Council granted planning permission many years ago for the site to increase the size of the storage facility. Mr B and other members of the local community have expressed concerns since then over the problems of HGVs using the road and the resulting safety issues.
9. In January 2023 the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) sent a letter to the leader of the Council about safety concerns arising from HGVs passing through the area. They had witnessed HGVs meeting each other head on and having difficulty passing, causing damage to kerbs, walls and verges. They considered the increased usage had made the road unsafe. They recognised the Council had consulted on a one-way system in 2021, but a majority of local residents had rejected the proposals. The PCC said this decision did not take adequate account of those really affected by the HGVs. The PCC accepted that the Council had tried a number of options: residents requested a 7.5 tonne weight limit to send HGVs away from the area, but the Council had rejected this option due to the substantial costs of maintaining the alternative route and other objections from different residents; traffic signals and stop/go boards had also been considered and rejected. The PCC requested the Council investigate the situation further.
10. The Council responded to the PCC in February 2023. It said it was aware of the longstanding issues in the area and had previously consulted on a one-way traffic regulation order. But given the considerable opposition to this from the local community it was not pursued. It also explained that while a weight limit on the route had not been formally proposed, the aim would be the same as the one-way system and was likely to meet the same local opposition. The Council also had to consider the potential effects on other parts of the highway network and other residents. It had also considered road widening and parking restrictions, but these had not been well-received by local residents.
11. In December 2023 the Council said it was working with the police to achieve improvements to the road. It also met with the Parish Council to consult residents on a proposal for a one-way system trial to prevent vehicles over 7.5 tonnes from travelling on part of the route. The Parish Council pointed out that a previous consultation in 2007 had been overwhelmingly against a one-way system for HGVs. It agreed (after a vote of 6 in favour and 3 against) to consult on the proposal for a three month trial and if it was not working after two weeks it would be stopped.
12. The Council held a four hour drop-in consultation in the area in January 2024. Following this it received an overwhelmingly large amount of negative responses including a petition containing 195 signatures of residents against the proposals, saying they would just push the problem to different areas. Given the strength of opposition and the potential for just creating similar problems elsewhere, the Council decided not to go ahead with this.
13. The Council has sent me some signatures related to addressed in the area and a table detailing all the comments both positive and negative captured at the community meeting. The negative comments outweigh the positive.
14. In January 2024 the Council objected to the business’ application for a vehicle operating licence, saying the local highway network to the site was not of a suitable standard to accommodate the existing number of HGV movements, particularly two-way movements at ‘pinchpoints’. It said it was actively looking at ways to manage the situation and mitigate the impact on local residents including a trial one-way system round the village.
15. In July 2024 the Council met with the Police and Safer Roads Humber to discuss the road, particularly tension within the local community following conflicting positions being given by the Police and the Council over the safety of the road. The Police clarified that the view the road was unsafe came from a neighbourhood officer who was not part of the traffic team. Safer Roads Humber explained the decision over whether a road was safe or not was not a binary decision and involved many variables including driver behaviour. The Council’s highways team explained that after multiple surveys, assessments, site visits, traffic counts and community consultations it had concluded the road was sufficient for current users and uses.
16. The meeting produced a route assessment report which concluded that the road was a suitable standard for the vehicles it is currently serving. It noted that road signs and markings were correct and appropriately positioned. Although the road width varied, under average traffic flows it considered vehicles could negotiate past each other when being driven with care and attention to the ongoing situation on the road.
17. In July 2024 the Council held a community feedback session with a power point presentation responding to the points raised in the consultation. The Council also sent a letter to an affected resident saying that while the group of agencies were satisfied the road was safe it acknowledged the worry and risk around some of the traffic activity in this location. It confirmed that the one-way system would not be implemented.
18. In September 2024 Mr B complained to the Council about the apparently contradictory statements it had made in respect of the objection to the vehicle licence application and the route assessment report. The Council responded in October 2024. It said it objected to the vehicle licence application as the local planning authority in its role as a statutory consultee and made representations on behalf of the local community. Whereas the highways department as the local highway authority completed a detailed route assessment in partnership with the Police and Safer Roads Humber concluding that the road network was sufficient for its current users and uses. However, work was ongoing to further improve the situation for local residents.
19. Mr B was unhappy with the response and escalated the complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council responded in December 2024. It said that the different views on the road were a reflection of the differing roles the Council had in the two processes: in responding as the local planning authority to a statutory consultation, it was keen to reflect the community perspective but in assessing the highway route in partnership with other agencies as the highways authority it had a different perspective.
20. In response to my enquiries the Council said that it has undertaken a range of works in the area including installing bollards, new or refreshed signage, drainage, tree and hedge works, temporary traffic management, engagement with local businesses including offers of training and the local community. But since 2023 no further physical improvements had taken place. It had consulted on the one-way system but that had been unanimously rejected by the local community. It also made a request to the Department for Transport for use of a non-standard sign using AI technology to display a ‘please wait’ message to a driver when a vehicle was coming in the opposite direction. The Department had refused this request in November 2024 and March 2025.
21. The Council says it will imminently be commissioning some further highway studies across the entire area to identify any new options, technology or suitable proposals to mitigate the impact of the HGVs.

Analysis

22. I appreciate the situation is very difficult for a number of residents including Mr B and is causing a significant degree of distress and worry. I further understand that the apparently different positions adopted by the Council in 2024 exacerbated that distress. However, I have not identified fault in the way the Council has dealt with the matter.
23. The Council has approached the situation from different perspectives given its differing roles: as the planning authority reflecting community views in responding to the licence application and as the highways authority considering the nature of the road and its current users. The issue has clearly created differing views within the community and this to some extent is reflected in the different views expressed by the Council. It acknowledges that the situation is not ideal when a large number of HGVs use the road, meet and struggle to pass. It has tried to find an alternative solution such as the one-way proposal, but this has been rejected by a majority of other residents. It believes a weight restriction would have the same impact as the one-way system in displacing the problem elsewhere. It has also considered non-standard signage, but the government has not approved this plan.
24. From a highways perspective, the Council in partnership with other agencies has assessed the route by a variety of methods and concluded it is of sufficient standard for its current use; in other words, there are no obvious defects in the highway and there are places where vehicles can pass each other.
25. I realise this will be frustrating, but I have not found fault with the Council’s approach to the situation. It recognises the HGVs using the road impact some residents adversely, but that in trying to mitigate those impacts other residents feel equally strongly about changing the road layout and there are no obvious solutions. It is planning to carry out further studies to explore other options.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman