Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to relocate a bus stop near to her property. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to relocate a bus stop on a road near to her property. In particular Ms X says:
• The original bus stop position had been in a safe location for many years.
• The Council moved the bus stop without consulting or considering objections from residents.
• The new location is in a dangerous part of the road on a blind corner near a busy junction to a housing estate causing highway safety concerns.
• The Council has not moved the bus stop to the location originally agreed in the planning permission for the housing estate and paid for by the developer.
• The relocated bus stop has resulted in damage to the road and its drains.
2. Ms X says the bus stop relocation has caused her distress, devalued her property and impacted on highway safety in the road. Ms X wants to the Council to move the stop back to its original location.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated Ms X’s concerns the Council failed to notify or consult about the relocation of the bus stop and its position. And her concerns about the road safety aspect of the new location. I have not considered Ms X’s concerns about whether the bus stop has been moved to a location agreed as part of the planning permission or that it has caused damage to the road. This is because these were not issues Ms X raised as part of her original complaint to us. Ms X needs to raise these concerns with the Council first and complete the Council’s complaints procedure before submitting a complaint to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X 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. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not include all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
9. Ms X complained to the Council it had moved a bus stop on a road near to her property without consulting her.
10. The Council explained it had upgraded the bus stops on the road as part of the planning permission for a new housing estate to meet the standards required by the Equality Act. The standards included installing raised kerbs, highlighted boarding points and bus stop clearway markings. The developer carried out the highways works but the stop still needed a pole and sign.
11. The Council confirmed it needed to move the bus stop nearer to the housing estate as the original location could not meet the requirements for a raised kerb. It considered the new location suitable for a bus stop with clearway markings without affecting on-street parking in front of properties. The Council considered the bus stop did not disrupt access to properties, so no formal consultation was needed before installing it. The Council intended to install the pole and sign to formally designate the bus stop.
12. Ms X made a further complaint to the Council about the bus stop saying it had been moved without any consultation or notification. Ms X said there were no issues with the original location, the relocated bus stop was an eyesore and reduced the value of new homes in the estate. Ms X considered there were health and safety issues with the new location being on a blind spot in the road making it difficult to exit the estate. Ms X said buses at the stop would add to this by blocking the view of drivers even more causing extra problems and danger.
13. Ms X sent a petition signed by residents asking the Council to move the bus stop back to its original location.
14. The Council responded to the petition and arranged for its Road Safety Team to carry out a Stage 3 Road Safety Audit on the location of the new bus stop. The aim of the audit was to assess the overall area including the original and new bus stop locations. The audit did not recommend keeping the original bus stop position.
15. Following the audit the Council said it had formally assessed the new bus stop. It was deemed to be a suitable location so would continue with the plan to relocate the stop and make it operational. The Council acknowledged some residents were opposed to moving the bus stop but considered the new position the most appropriate location impacting the least number of properties. The Council confirmed the boarding point for a bus at the stop was about 20 metres from the road junction’s centreline making it suitable according to standard practice. It said it found no evidence to support claims the new location was unsafe.
16. The Council also considered the costs of moving the bus stop back to original position. But said it would not be the best use of public funds to do so because there were no safety concerns about the new position.
17. The Council confirmed there was no statutory duty for it to consult on bus stop clearways. But its Bus Stop Clearways policy says it will take the seven points into consideration when introducing or removing a Bus Stop Clearway in Lancashire. These include:
• Place a suitable notice onto the highway to enable those likely to be affected to be aware of the proposal and to be able to register any objections.
• consult residents and businesses immediately fronting on to a proposed bus stop over the proposals and provide a copy of the notice to be able to register any representations and objections.
• That such other steps as the local authority may consider appropriate for ensuring that adequate publicity about the proposals is given to persons likely to be affected by its provision are taken.
18. The Council says in this case that it found residents were not informed of the bus stop relocation before the works started. It had assumed the developer of the housing estate had notified residents. The Council did not consider the bus stop was located outside direct frontage properties as all those located nearby were set back from the public highway with a separated access road and highway in between. Therefore, the Council concluded there was no requirement for it to formally consult as they were not classed as direct property frontages.

My analysis

19. The Council has explained it relocated the bus stop as part of a planning permission as the original bus stop could not be altered to comply with the requirements of Equality Act legislation.
20. The Council’s policy is to consider whether to consult residents and businesses immediately fronting onto a proposed bus stop over the proposals. But the Council does not consider Ms X’s property directly fronts onto proposed bus stop due to layout of the housing estate and access road to her property. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in its decision not to consult Ms X. It has provided a clear rationale for not doing so as does not consider her property directly fronts onto the proposed new bus stop.
21. The Council’s policy is also to consider whether to place a notice on the highway to make people aware of the proposal to move a bus stop and make any objections. The Council accepts it did not do so in this case as it thought the developer would do so. This is unfortunate and it would have been best practice for the Council to have confirmed the developer had carried out the consultation if considered necessary. But I do not consider this is sufficient to make a finding of fault by the Council in this case. This is because the Council has taken account of concerns raised by Ms X and residents through the petition and carried out a road safety audit on the location of the bus stop in response.
22. Following the audit the Council concluded the location of the new bus stop near to Ms X’s property was a suitable one and met the required road safety standards. The decision is one the Council as Highway Authority is entitled to make and it has explained its reasons for doing so. There is no evidence of fault as the documents show the Council took account of concerns raised and considered the location. It was satisfied the location was suitable and met the distances required from the junction of the access road to the housing development.
23. I am aware of Ms X’s distress over the location of the bus stop near to her property, but we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking to relocate the stop back to the original location. This is because we would not recommend the Council to take such action as is a decision for the Council as Highway Authority to make. In addition, the Council has established the original location was not suitable or compliant with Equality Act requirements and would not be a good use of public funds to relocate. The most we could achieve if we found fault would be to recommend the Council reviews the decision to relocate the bus stop. But I am satisfied there is no evidence of fault by the Council from the documents I have seen, and it has already reconsidered the location through the safety audit. So, I do not consider any further investigation would lead to a different outcome for Ms X.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman