Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a decision to alter a local bus and highways scheme which was part of a planning process, and the second consultation done before those changes. The Council complained of was not the planning decision‑maker nor the consulting body. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, nor injustice stemming from its involvement in the matter, to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in an area where the Council is the highways authority (HA). He is involved in a local group which supports the interests of pedestrians. The local planning authority (LPA) council granted permission for a development in the area covered by the HA. The plans included proposals for local bus infrastructure, including stops, shelters with electronic displays, highway changes and road markings. Mr X complains the HA Council:
1. has failed to require the developer to implement the bus provisions of the planning permission as initially set out;
2. has not clearly explained its decision;
3. failed to re-consult him and other residents on the changes to the bus scheme.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions have led to poorer bus infrastructure for many residents. Not being included in the consultation on the changed scheme means he could not contribute.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We understand Mr X has sought to make his complaint about both this Council, the HA, and the LPA. But we cannot investigate a complaint about two separate councils at once. Mr X has completed the HA’s complaints process so we can consider the complaint as against the HA only. If Mr X wishes to pursue a complaint about the LPA’s involvement, he would need to go through that Council’s complaints process first before complaining to us.
6. The decision-making body here regarding the bus scheme was the LPA. It was its decision whether the later scheme was acceptable in planning terms and met the requirements of the planning conditions attached to the development’s permission. The HA had a consultee role in the planning process solely in relation to highways matters, including the bus scheme. That role required the HA to give its views to the LPA on whether the scheme was acceptable in highways terms. It was for the LPA to take account of the HA’s views when granting the planning permission or later discharging the relevant planning conditions.
7. There was no duty on the HA to only consider the first bus scheme to be acceptable in highways terms. That the HA took the view the amended bus scheme was also acceptable to its officers was not fault. There is not enough evidence of fault in the HA officers considering the later bus scheme to be acceptable in highways terms to warrant us investigating.
8. Mr X considers the HA’s actions have led to poorer bus infrastructure for residents. The HA giving its views on the changed scheme will have contributed to the LPA’s decision. But the body which has accepted the amended scheme Mr X does not consider should have been adopted was the LPA, not the HA. Any injustice to Mr X and other residents caused by the changed bus scheme stems from the planning decision by the LPA, not the HA Mr X has complained about. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused by the HA’s involvement in this issue to justify us investigating.
9. Mr X says the Council should have consulted him and others on the changes to the bus scheme. The Council says the consultation was on the locations of the bus stops, not the related highways infrastructure. As with the initial planning application, it was the LPA’s role, not the HA’s, to decide whether the changed bus scheme should be accepted. We recognise Mr X felt left out of this process. But even if there was fault by the Council in its HA role here, we will not investigate. We understand Mr X may consider he and others may have influenced the amended scheme. But any consultation comments received by the HA would have gone to the LPA for it to make its decision. The LPA was not bound by the HA’s views nor by the consultee responses when deciding on the acceptability of the bus scheme. We cannot say that the outcome of the matter would have been different had Mr X been involved in a later consultation. That Mr X was not involved in any further consultation on the bus scheme is insufficient significant injustice to him to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its highways authority role to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant injustice stemming from the Council’s involvement in the matter to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman