Summary: Mr B considers that there was fault in the way the County Council approved the installation of a bus shelter across the road from his home. He considers that the County Council failed to take account of residents’ concerns that this will attract anti-social behaviour and vandalism. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the County Council considered this matter, so we cannot question the merits of the decision to approve the bus shelter.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the County Council did not take proper account of residents’ concerns about antisocial behaviour and vandalism when agreeing to install a bus shelter opposite his home.
2. He says that the County Council has also failed to provide any justification as to why a bus shelter rather than a pole is appropriate at that location and has not properly responded to his complaint about this.
3. He says the prospect of a shelter so close to their home has caused distress to him and to his wife in particular, as she has anxiety and mental health problems.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by “maladministration” and “service failure”. I have used the word “fault” to refer to these. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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

6. I have considered Mr B’s written complaint and supporting papers and discussed his complaint with him. I have made enquiries of the County Council and considered its response to my enquiries. I have also sent Mr B and the County Council a draft decision and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Decisions about bus services in the area are made by a Quality Bus Partnership (QBP) which includes the County Council, the District Council and bus operators. Following discussions at the QBP, the local bus company proposed to extend an existing bus route to include the road where Mr B now lives, and roads on a newer estate. This would require new bus stops.
8. The County Council carried out site visits in early 2016 to consider locations for these new stops and identified the footpath across the road from Mr B’s current home as suitable for one of the stops. The County Council then prepared a written assessment of the positions and plans showing three preferred locations. At this stage, the plans did not show shelters, but the assessment discussed the feasibility of installing shelters at each location.
9. In 2017, Mr B and his family moved into their home which is situated opposite a park.
10. The QBP preferred to install shelters at all three locations. The District Council agreed to provide funding and ongoing maintenance for two shelters from a Section 106 agreement (a developer’s financial contribution towards a planning application). The local Town Council also supported the full scheme. The stop opposite Mr B’s home was selected as suitable for a shelter.
11. Although installing bus shelters is usually function of either a district council or parish / town council, the County Council took agreed to co-ordinate the works at all three locations.
12. There is no statutory duty to consult on such proposals, but the County Council consulted with directly affected properties, in accordance with good practice. It wrote to residents in December 2018 explaining that it planned to install three new bus stops (two of which with shelters) and their proposed locations. It invited residents to contact the County Council if they had any concerns about how the works would affect them.
13. Mr B and other residents responded to the consultation. Most opposed the proposals, though some expressed support. Residents’ concerns included the risk of antisocial behaviour and vandalism, the lack of need for the route, the suitability of the roads, and possible congestion and parking problems.
14. In view of residents’ concerns, the County Council agreed to put the proposals to the Joint Transport Board (JTB). The JTB is comprised of members of the relevant district council and the County Council, and makes decisions about policies, plans and strategies related to public transport.
15. A detailed report and a summary of the consultation responses was put to the JTB to consider. The report recommended that the proposals be agreed. The meeting minutes record that the JTB discussed the proposals and objectors’ concerns, including possible congestion and parking issues. Members noted the concerns about antisocial behaviour and vandalism but were told that the District Council’s Locality Officers would deal with such occurrences. The JTB considered that the benefits outweighed the negatives and voted unanimously to proceed.
16. Mr B complained to the County Council through its complaints procedures. He provided evidence of vandalism at other bus shelters nearby. He asked the County Council to justify the basis for its decision. He also asked a series of questions under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act.
17. The County Council responded to Mr B’s complaint through its complaints procedures and to his FoI request in accordance with its duties under that Act.

My assessment

18. Mr B does not agree with the decision to proceed with the bus shelter. He also does not consider that the County Council has explained its decision properly.
19. However, it seems to me that the key issues are as follows:
• the QBP considered that a new bus route would benefit residents of the new estate;
• the QBP’s preference was to install three bus shelters to provide shelter from the elements, though funding was only available for two;
• the County Council’s Highways Team assessed and selected locations;
• the County Council consulted residents;
• there is no existing shelter of any sort opposite Mr B’s home, so the shelter would benefit service users at that location;
• however, given residents’ concerns, the County Council put the matter to the JTB;
• the JTB considered the benefits of the proposals and residents’ concerns;
• the JTB took into account the risk of vandalism and antisocial behaviour, and considered that this could be addressed with local wardens and maintenance;
• on balance, it considered that the benefits outweighed the negatives.
20. It was for the JTB (which includes members of the County Council) to decide what weight to give to the positive and negative aspects of installing a shelter. I consider that the County Council has provided a clear rationale for its decision and I see no fault in the process it followed. So, while Mr B disagrees with that decision, I cannot question its merits.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have closed my investigation into Mr B’s complaint because I have found no fault in the way the County Council considered the installation of a bus shelter opposite his house.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman