Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint about the Council’s temporary closure of a bridleway. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs C, complained that the Council shut a key bridleway for six months without consultation and notification, other than an advertisement in a local newspaper. Mrs C told us the closure causes her daily inconvenience.

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’. 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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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

4. I have considered the information Mrs C provided and her comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Closure of public bridleways may well cause inconvenience to people who use them. In its response to Mrs C’s complaint the Council said its Public Rights of Way (PROW) team had worked with developers from the planning application stage to minimise the effect of the development on the bridleway. 
6. Using its powers under section 14 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 the Council has closed the bridleway for six months. There was no legal requirement on the Council to consult Mrs C before doing so. But the Council had to publish the Traffic Regulation Order in a newspaper which circulates in the area. The Council has done this. The Council also has to display the Order when it is made in places which are affected by it.
7. The Council has explained to Mrs C that it restricted the use of the bridleway because of the likelihood of danger to the public from the work on the development site and for resurfacing work. 
8. To put things right Mrs C wants the Council to either insist the developer makes provision for alternative bridleway access around the periphery of the development site or to ensure the developer completes activities in a much shorter period. That would mean the bridleway re-opening in under six months.
9. The Council says its PROW team looked at when closure of the bridleway would be least disruptive to people using it. Their judgement was it would be least disruptive if works to the bridleway started at the beginning of the development construction period. The developer’s construction schedule includes resurfacing of the bridleway within the first six months of the works. The Council said it had previously explored the option of an alternative route along the periphery of the development. But it found there was not enough space within the development site to provide a safe alternative route of adequate width. The Council told Mrs C it reconsidered the matter after her enquiries. But it again found alternative routes around the periphery of the site were too narrow and were not suitable for safety reasons.
10. Our role is to look at the way the Council has reached its decisions. In this case the Council has consider the matters we would expect. There is no evidence of fault in the way it has considered and dealt with the bridleway closure. It is therefore unlikely we would achieve a different outcome for Mrs C by investigating her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman