Summary: The Council was at fault for how it consulted residents before introducing a new controlled parking zone in the area around Mr B’s home. This is because its approach was at odds with the language in its policy. Despite this, the Council’s decision to proceed with the parking scheme was reasonable in the circumstances, and therefore Mr B suffered no injustice. Nonetheless, the Council has agreed to review its policy to prevent similar problems in future.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, complains about how the Council consulted residents before introducing a new controlled parking zone (CPZ) in the area around his home.
2. Mr B says the Council failed to follow its own policy. He specifically says the residents’ positive and overall response rates to the consultation survey were lower than the minimum required by the policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 considered information from Mr B and the Council. Both had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. In 2018 Mr B’s local district council asked the [County] Council for permission to extend an existing residents’ parking zone in Mr B’s town. This extension would include the streets around Mr B’s home. The scheme would be administered by the district council.
7. In July 2019 the Council sent out a survey questionnaire, asking local residents (including Mr B) whether they were in favour of the proposed extension to residents’ parking.
8. Twenty four percent of residents responded to the Council’s survey. Out of the respondents, sixty four percent were in favour.
9. In December 2022, after going through the required statutory procedure, the Council put the proposed scheme to its planning committee. It noted that, in line with its policy for parking schemes administered by the district council, a majority of respondents were in favour of the scheme.
10. The Council’s planning committee approved the scheme. It is currently planned to be in place from August 2023.

Policies and procedures

11. The Council’s policy for parking schemes which it administers itself – which is the policy Mr B refers to in his complaint – requires a thirty percent response rate for resident consultation surveys. Two thirds of those who respond must be in favour of the proposed scheme.
12. The Council has a separate policy for parking schemes which are to be administered by the district council. This policy says, “The residents [will] be consulted for their support of the scheme … It would be necessary for a majority of the residents to support the scheme for it to proceed”.
13. This policy does not require a minimum response rate.

My findings

14. There is a formal, statutory procedure councils must follow before introducing a Traffic Regulation Order, or TRO (which is needed to create a CPZ). Any complaints about how a council has followed this procedure can be taken to court.
15. However, councils will usually carry out some informal consultation before deciding whether to go through the formal process of making a TRO. Unless a council specifically indicates otherwise, consultation is not a referendum. The decision to make a TRO ultimately rests with the council.
16. Mr B says the Council failed to follow its own policy. But the policy he refers to is the wrong one. The Council needed neither a thirty percent response rate nor two-thirds’ support.
17. The correct policy says the Council should have the support of a majority of residents. The Council has interpreted this as a majority of respondents. But this is not what the policy says. And, taking into account non-respondents, the proposed CPZ only had confirmed support from around 15% of residents.
18. It is not my role to interpret what the Council’s intent was when writing the policy. I am satisfied, however, that there is a possible conflict between the Council’s own interpretation and how the policy is written.
19. This means there was fault in the consultation process. The Council should review its policy to ensure that it is not at odds with how the Council approaches resident consultations in future.
20. However, this matter did not cause Mr B any injustice. This is because:
• The Council sought to engage all residents in its survey, and it could not control how many people responded.
• Every person who disagreed with the proposed CPZ had an opportunity to provide objections, which were then considered by the Council. If there was, as Mr B believes, a majority of people who disagreed with the scheme but who failed to respond, then his issue is with them, not the Council.
• The evidence from the survey clearly points more towards majority support for the scheme than majority objection. Despite the relatively small sample size, this is the evidence the Council had available when making a decision about resident support.
21. Consequently, the Council’s decision does not seem unreasonable in the circumstances, and I will recommend no further action other than the policy review.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. Within three months, the Council has agreed to review its policy for the introduction of residents’ parking schemes which are to be administered by the district council.
23. The Council has agreed to provide us with evidence that it has done this.

Back to top

Final decision

24. The Council was at fault for how it consulted residents before introducing a new CPZ in the area around Mr B’s home. However, this caused Mr B no injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman