London Borough of Croydon (18 009 754)

Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 29 Mar 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to properly consider all relevant evidence and information when deciding to make a Traffic Management Order leading to an unacceptable increase in traffic on their road. The Council says it followed regulations, consulted residents in the wider area and considered all relevant information before making the Traffic Management Order. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault in making the Traffic Management Order and that the alleged failings did not alter the final decision.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, says when deciding to make a Traffic Management Order the Council failed to:
    • Properly consider all the evidence showing the likelihood of displaced traffic using the road in which she lives increasing traffic causing increased congestion, delay, difficulty in accessing residents’ homes and risk of accidents and environmental consequences for residents;
    • Properly follow statutory regulations in that it did not consult with the local tram operator and seek the operator’s views before making an order that would affect traffic along a tram route;
    • Deposit a plan showing the intended changes when it published the proposals for the Traffic Management Order;
    • Properly consider the results of its consultation including the objections received from residents in one of the roads intended to benefit from the Order;
    • Impartially consider making the Order.
  2. Mrs X and other residents want the Council to learn from this exercise and to reconsider the Traffic Management Order and follow through on promises to adopt a district wide solution to the traffic difficulties in the area. Mrs X believes the Council has displaced traffic onto her road causing environmental and traffic safety risks and making the area less ‘liveable’.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. If 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

  1. In considering this complaint I have:
    • Contacted Mrs X and read the information presented with the complaint;
    • Put enquiries to the Council and a third party and reviewed their responses;
    • Researched the relevant law, guidance and policy;
    • Shared with Mrs X and the Council my draft decision and reflected on comments received.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Councils have a duty to “secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic.” (Section 122, Road Traffic Act 1984, as amended).
  2. Councils also have a duty to carry out a programme of measures designed to promote road safety and carry out studies into accidents arising out of the use of vehicles. Councils must in the light of those studies take such measures as the council considers appropriate to prevent such accidents. (Section 39, Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended).
  3. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 a council may make an order (a Traffic Regulation Order or, in Greater London, an order similar to a traffic regulation order known as a Traffic Management Order - TMO) for controlling or regulating vehicular and other traffic. (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s.6)
  4. The procedure for creating a Traffic Regulations Order (or TMO) are set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
  5. Regulation 6 says a council must consult with various bodies including transport operators, depending on the nature of the proposed TMO. Where the order relates to or appears to the council likely to affect traffic on a road on which a tramcar or trolley vehicle service is provided, the council must consult the operator of the tramcar or trolley vehicle service. In all cases a council must consult with the Freight Transport Association, and Road Haulage Association.
  6. Regulation 7 says councils must publish a notice in a local newspaper and the London Gazette and take such “other steps as it may consider appropriate” to ensure adequate publicity. This may include giving notice of the proposal to people the Council believes may be affected but it does not have to.
  7. Regulation 7 also says councils should deposit the documents set out in Schedule 2 to the Regulations for public inspection. Schedule 2 says the following documents should be available for public inspection:
    • A copy of the notice of proposals;
    • A copy of the order the Council proposes to make;
    • “…a map which clearly shows the location and effect of the order as proposed to be made…and, where appropriate, alternative routes for diverted traffic”;
    • A statement setting out the Council’s reasons for making the proposed order.
  8. Regulation 8 allows anyone to object to the proposal within 21 days of the publication of the proposal with the grounds for the objection.
  9. Regulation 9 gives councils the power to hold a public inquiry in response to objections but it is not compulsory unless the order prohibits the loading or unloading of vehicles or restricts the passage of public service vehicles along a road.
  10. Regulation 13 says a council must consider any objections made under Regulation 8.
  11. Regulation 17 says a council must publish a ‘notice of making’ in a local newspaper or the London Gazette within 14 days giving a brief description of the order. The ‘notice of making’ must state that the validity of the order may be challenged in the High Court. (Road Traffic Act 1984, Schedule 9, Part IV, paragraphs 35 &36)
  12. The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England) Regulations 2012 repeats the regulations set out above but using different numbers and at Regulation 5 says a council making an order may “… prepare a map or plan for the purposes of an order to which the Regulations apply”. Schedule 2 to the Regulations 2012 set out the same terms for deposited documents as the earlier Regulations (see paragraph 13 above).
  13. In the Department for Transport’s “Draft Guidance for New Procedures for Traffic Orders” issued in January 2012 at Paragraph 5.1 it says “…maps should be used to indicate the restrictions throughout the traffic order process and particularly to help improve the consultations process…”
  14. The Council exercises its powers to make a TMO through consideration by councillors at the Traffic Management Advisory Committee (TMAC). That Committee then makes a recommendation for consideration and a final decision to make the TMO by the Cabinet Member for Transport and the Environment.

What happened

  1. The Council recognises the road on which Mrs X lives has experienced increased traffic following its decision to make a TMO. It says however the increased traffic is “nowhere near as great” as the volume of traffic that led to its making the TMO. This, the Council says, reflects the different nature of the roads. Residents strongly dispute this assertion saying one neighbouring road is shown to experience greater traffic numbers than either of the roads the subject of the proposed TMO. Council data residents say support this view.
  2. Transport for London manages the London Road Network or ‘red routes’. The Council has highway authority powers and responsibilities for all other routes in its area. Transport for London also manages the tram network which is operated by a separate company.
  3. The Council says for several years it has received complaints from residents about the large volume of traffic along their roads. In January 2016, following concerns raised by residents living along a highway I shall refer to as Road A, the Council introduced a TMO making Road A one way. This resulted in increased traffic on the neighbouring highways I shall refer to collectively as Roads Y and Z. Residents from Roads Y and Z complained to the Council. The Council introduced another TMO (the Order) re-routing traffic on Roads Y and Z. The Council expected this would encourage most through traffic to use the main road or ‘red route’ network. However, residents in Mrs X’s road complained the Order had now encouraged traffic to use their road resulting in dangerously increased traffic. In comments on my draft decision residents say this is contradicted in the report to the Traffic Management Advisory Committee dated 8 February 2017 where officers say following any Order traffic displacement onto other neighbouring roads is likely. Residents say the increased traffic and new traffic arrangements have made it difficult to drive to and from their homes. They say for some it has added to their journey time to and from work. Some residents say it has also affected their amenity from the noise and traffic fumes and made using the road more dangerous.
  4. When the Council introduced the TMO for Road A it received complaints from residents of neighbouring roads whom it had not consulted. This led it to decide when informally consulting residents about the proposal for a TMO for Roads Y and Z it should consult the wider area and not just the highways the subject of the proposed Order.

Traffic Management Advisory Committee February 2017

  1. At the February 2017 meeting of the Traffic Management Advisory Committee councillors agreed to informally consult residents on the petition from residents of Roads Y and Z asking the Council to introduce traffic restrictions. In the minutes of that meeting, the Committee noted residents’ concerns and the need for full consultation “…to ensure that further displacement [of traffic] did not occur on the surrounding roads. Members further noted that any changes would possibly lead to longer journey times...” Residents say consultation will not necessarily prevent further traffic displacement. They also say the results of the consultation show most residents opposed the proposals including residents in Road Z.
  2. The Committee decided any longer journey times would be offset by the reduction in the risk to public safety. Officers told the Committee they would conduct a consultation in March or April 2017 and bring the results to the Committee’s May or July 2017 meeting. Officers said monitoring would take place before and after any implementation of changes to the traffic flow to gain an understanding of any displacement that occurred.

Traffic Management Advisory Committee July 2017

  1. In April and May 2017, the Council sent residents of the wider area including the road where Mrs X lives questionnaires through which they could express any views on the proposal. As part of this informal consultation the Council is not under a duty to issue a map. However, it did issue a map to show which roads would be included in the consultation. Errors on that map gave the wrong details of the one way working in nearby roads.
  2. The Council’s analysis of the responses showed most received from the roads around Roads Y and Z objected to the proposal. Some residents of Road Z also objected. Several residents’ associations responded to the Council’s consultation. One asked the Council to note the proposed Order would simply displace traffic onto the roads of the residents they represented. A residents’ association asked the Council to ask Transport for London to come up with other measures including improvements to the main road or ‘red route’ network. They wanted the Council to seek a more holistic solution to the problem of heavy traffic than simply, as they saw it, displacing it from two or three other residential streets onto theirs. The Council conducted a traffic survey in June 2017.
  3. In July 2017, the Council presented a report to its Traffic Management Advisory Committee which puts recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment who will approve any Order.
  4. The report to the Committee set out what the Council had done to consult residents. It noted the first round of consultations in April had missed some residents and so a further round of consultations took place in May 2017. The report set out a summary of the results of the consultation and attached reports from residents’ associations. Residents point out in this report officers say residents ‘will’ have to alter their vehicle journeys to and from their homes. The report also says vehicle journey times will increase and traffic will simply displace onto the nearest available north-south route.
  5. The Council’s legal officer says in the report to the Traffic Management Advisory Committee the Council must:
    • Publish notices of its proposal to make the Order;
    • Consider any objections it receives, and;
    • Consider the impact on the amenities of the affected areas.
  6. The report records comments from residents including:
    • The proposal will lead to increased journey times for residents and access more difficult;
    • The Council should keep two-way traffic;
    • Traffic will be forced to used adjoining roads increasing traffic on those roads;
    • Restrictions imposed on the use of the roads may cause problems at the road junction;
    • Increased pollution;
    • The proposal will add to an already confusing road layout.
  7. Seven members of the public including the chairs of two residents’ associations addressed the Committee setting out their views on the proposals. Some speakers said increased development in the area meant increased traffic and the proposed Order did not address the results of several traffic management measures already undertaken. Objectors said the Order could shift high levels of traffic on to nearby roads to the detriment of the safety and living conditions of residents.
  8. In response to councillors concerns about how to conduct an area wide review to take a more holistic approach officers explained that would take longer and they would need to engage consultants. The Council could then consider road widening which may need the Council to exercise its compulsory purchase powers. Councillors decided the residents of Roads Y and Z needed a short-term solution but supported the call for an area wide review.
  9. The Committee decided the Council should make the Order quickly. It recommended the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment consider the responses to the informal consultations. The Committee recommended the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment proceed with the statutory consultation and delegate authority to a chief officer to issue the Order.

Statutory consultation

  1. In line with the regulations the Council issued a notice in the London Gazette and local newspaper on 12 July 2017. The Council wrote to statutory consultees including Transport for London. The publicity given to the proposal to make the Order resulted in the Council receiving objections which officers considered before putting a report to the Traffic Management Advisory Committee.
  2. Under the regulations the Council should deposit with the proposed Order a map (or plan) showing the location and effect of the proposed Order and where appropriate alternative routes for diverted traffic. The deposited documents did not contain a map. The deposited documents included a drawing of the layout of the roads but residents say this did not show the effect of the proposed Order. The plan shows the proposed one-way route, the no entry point and the exemption for pedal cycles on Roads Y and Z. That is in the Council’s view what the Regulations say it must provide. A map indicating the likely impact on the surrounding roads the Council says it not needed. Any wider map could indicate those roads which are subject to TMOs, the effect of those TMOs and indicate which roads remain two-way.
  3. The Council believes that the proposed Order although restricting traffic and making roads ‘one-way’ is not diverting traffic. Therefore, in its view, it did not need to deposit with the documents a map showing alternative routes for diverted traffic. Residents say when commenting on my draft decision, a map showing which neighbouring roads would be available for northbound traffic and the likelihood of which roads that traffic may use was crucial for decision makers. They believe the regulations expect the Council to deposit a map showing the locality i.e. the wider area than just the area the subject of the Order.

Traffic Management Advisory Committee October 2017

  1. In their report to the Committee officers said the proposal arose from the petition signed by residents of Roads Y and Z asking the Council to reduce the additional traffic caused by the order made restricting traffic on Road A. The proposal aimed to “mitigate traffic congestion and road safety concerns in [Roads Y and Z]”. Officers reported on the meetings they had with residents and ward councillors and the results of the formal statutory consultation.
  2. Residents complained that the wording in the report to the October meeting of the Traffic Management Advisory Committee differed from that used in the report to the July meeting. An example is that in the report for the July 2017 meeting officers said “…local residents will need to alter their …journeys to and from their homes…” and that the main road network “…will become more congested… and it is likely that traffic will simply displace onto the nearest available north-south route”. In the report to the October 2017 meeting this became “…local residents may need to alter their…journeys…” and that the main route “…is likely to become more congested…and it is likely that traffic will displace onto the nearest available north-south route or find other routes to complete their journey”. Some residents believe changing the advice from what ‘will’ happen to what ‘may’ happen represents a material change to the advice given at the July meeting. Residents say the changed advice undermined many of their objections.
  3. The report said the Council had received 84 objections to the proposals and 35 emails in support. Officers set out the objections received from residents and residents’ associations. While officers summarised the objections in the report the Council held the original copies for councillors’ inspection should they wish to read them. The report also included the officer’s professional response to the concerns raised. The report says “Discussions are taking place between Council officers and Transport for London regarding improving the capacity of the main road network [‘red routes’] to assist with keeping traffic on the arterial routes. This could result in an improvement for the area in the longer term.”
  4. In the report officers recognise that pollution and noise levels may vary but officers believed “By encouraging traffic to use the main roads (which are wider), impact on residents is reduced, as pollution and noise from vehicles decreases the further away from the traffic lane one is.”
  5. Sixteen speakers addressed the Committee giving reasons for supporting or objecting to the proposed Order. Those objecting pointed out the Council had received 84 objections to the proposed Order which councillors should consider.
  6. Councillors considered the views expressed both in objections made in writing and the views expressed directly at the Committee. The Committee said it noted the divided views on the proposal. The minutes record the decision as “…one of the most difficult decisions the Committee has had to make. The biggest consideration, however, was the safety of residents and the proposals…would improve the situation…” Residents dispute the Committee had enough information to fully consider their safety. The Committee recommended the proposed Order be made. The Committee also noted this may lead to a displacement of traffic resulting in it having to consider further proposals to mitigate any significant impact on residents. Officers advised the Committee the Council’s proposal did not trigger any duty to carry out an environmental impact assessment. In the report officers discuss the various choices proposed as alternatives to the proposed Order.
  7. The minutes of the meeting show councillors heard from many speakers including ward councillors. Officers reported the refuse collection contractors supported the scheme and the Council continued to discuss with Transport for London how the road network could be improved in future. When asked by Councillors if the Council could delay part of the scheme awaiting further assessments of the impact officers advised against that and gave their reasons. The Committee noted the need for a long-term solution and the Council needed to work with Transport for London to achieve that. By a majority vote the Committee recommended the Cabinet Member for Transport and the Environment make the Order.

The Traffic Management Order

  1. The Council issued the Order on 2 January 2018, and advertised that it had made the Order in the Croydon and London Gazettes on 3 January 2018.

The impact of the Order

  1. Once the Council had made the Order several residents complained to the Council about its decision and brought those complaints to the Ombudsman. In their view, the Council failed to properly consider the impact of the Order on their homes, amenity and safety. They say the Council failed in its duty to consider promoting road safety and to “secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic.”
  2. Residents expressed concerns about the impact on refuse collection and highway cleansing. Residents say refuse lorries and other vehicles already violated the existing peak hour restrictions at Road Y where it shares a junction with the tram route. The Council checked with its contractors to ensure contractors can clean the roads surrounding Roads Y and Z and collect refuse without interruption. The Council says since the Order it has not received complaints from its contractors about problems with cleansing the roads or refuse collections. It took up one resident’s concerns about violations of the new traffic controls with the contractor.
  3. The ‘before’ and ‘after’ survey of traffic shows that after the Council made the Order residents correctly asserted traffic along the roads where they live increased. They say this vindicates what they had said in their objections to the proposals in which they anticipated traffic would use their roads rather than those the Council expected to be affected. Residents say that using the Council’s figures one road has experienced an increase of 8000 vehicles travelling along it per week.
  4. In March 2018 in response to a resident’s enquiry, Transport for London said in an email that it was changing the traffic signal controller at the junction of Road Y with the ‘red route’. The signal controller needed replacing. Transport for London says in the email “We have had a number of issues at the junction with vehicles violating the traffic management, hence we’ve asked for police assistance along with TfL compliance staff”. Residents says this is factually incorrect. The junction they say is a key junction the Order has impacted.

Failure to consult the tram operator

  1. Residents believe the Council failed to consult the tram operator as set out in Regulation 6. In responding to my enquiries, the Council said it did not need to consult or write to the tram operator because the Order did not affect any road on which the tram travels. It wrote to Transport for London about the proposed Order because it is a statutory consultee. It did not ask Transport for London to comment on the tram, but as the agency that manages the tram network Transport for London could have commented on any likely impact. It did not. The Council says its officers meet monthly with the tram operator to discuss any concerns and the tram operator has not raised any concerns about the impact of the traffic controls. The Council believes therefore it unlikely the tram operator would have objected.
  2. Residents complain the Council is taking a narrow view of the legal duty to tell tram operators. While the trams may not travel along the roads named in the Order, they travel on neighbouring roads where the traffic has increased because of the Order. In the residents’ view, this has caused dangerous interactions between cars, vans, lorries and trams. Residents say the junction shared with the tram route would be affected by ‘diverted’ traffic which could no longer use a junction for northbound travel. That in their view increased the likelihood of adverse impacts on the tram operation. Residents say this could impact future scheduling of public transport and increasing tram movements. Given the Council says it wants to look at a wider solution to traffic problems the residents believe the Council should include the tram operator in its consultations. The Council says when considering any future changes, it will consult direct with the tram operator even if it believes Regulation 6 does not apply.
  3. When I put enquiries to the tram operator Transport for London responded on its behalf. In that response Transport for London accepts it received a copy of the Order and the Council told it about the proposal. Transport for London says it and the tram operator did not raise any concerns. Since introducing the one-way route created by the Order Transport for London says it has not caused delays to the tram network. It says trams experienced some incidents of drivers stopping in front of trams because road users were not aware of the changes. Residents say the Council should investigate this safety concern. However, Transport for London did not report it to the Council. Transport for London says there have been no concerns raised about the arrangements resulting from the Order. Although one resident who has spoken with tram drivers says the drivers have noted dangerous manoeuvres since the Order, Transport for London and the Council have not been told of any concerns. The tram operator has not raised any concerns in formal liaison meetings with the Council or brought any forward in response to my enquiries. Residents want the Council to investigate their concerns about road safety.
  4. After making the Order in January 2018, the Council conducted a month-long traffic survey starting in May 2018 to gain knowledge on the impact of the changes the Order introduced. It noted some traffic now left the Transport for London road network and used the roads on which Mrs X lives showing an increase in traffic as a result.
  5. Since the Order there have been three significant road traffic accidents which the Council says the Police and Transport for London have investigated. The Council awaits their reports before deciding if it should exercise its powers and introduce further traffic controls. This is it says in line with its duty to study road traffic accidents occurring in the area and deciding if action is needed.
  6. Residents say all the negative impacts they predicted have materialised. They believe had the tram operator been consulted, a map deposited showing the wider area and had councillors not been influenced by elections and bias: a different decision would have been made. The deposited plans only show a very limited area and so residents believe did not show the likely impact on the wider area.

Analysis – was there fault leading to injustice?

  1. Only the courts can decide definitively if a council has met its statutory duty to ensure traffic flows ‘safely and expeditiously’ or met its statutory duty to promote road safety. Councils must judge through consultation with their officers and other agencies when they should act to comply with those duties. My role is to decide if having decided on action in pursuance of those duties the Council has followed the correct procedures, gathered information and considered all relevant issues when deciding on that action. If it has not then I must consider if but for any fault identified its final decision would have been different and whether that has caused an injustice.
  2. One tool available to the Council to control traffic is a TMO. When making a TMO the Council must follow the procedure set out in the Regulations.
  3. When considering whether to make a TMO affecting Roads Y and Z, the Council first undertook informal consultation. Following the results of that and consideration by the Traffic Management Advisory Committee it followed the statutory procedure. The Council published the correct notices in the press, conducted formal consultation by inviting comments from the statutory consultees such as the Road Haulage Association and Transport for London (among others) and wrote to residents.
  4. Before making the Order the Council, through consulting residents of the wider area than Roads Y and Z, considered the likely impact on residents in nearby roads. Having heard their views, the Council decided it should make the Order despite the possible effects elsewhere. Residents say the officers did not present councillors with all relevant evidence in respect of traffic counts and collision data.
  5. Consultation does not mean residents have a right of veto therefore it will not of itself prevent further traffic displacement. Traffic data and residents’ experience may show at least one of the roads affected, but not included in the Order, always had a high volume of traffic. When responding to my enquiries the Council gave its officers’ professional view of the comparison to the impact on residents in Roads Y and Z and the residents affected by the Order. It is not for me to decide between the merits of the proposals or the interpretation of the data; but to be decide if the Council considered the data and opposing views as set out by the residents.
  6. Concerns raised about the changes in wording in the reports to the Traffic Management Advisory Committee in July and October 2017 (see paragraph 40) show distrust of the Council but not fault. I find the officers may amend wording when making further reports to the Council reflecting on the results of consultation. Saying traffic may rather than will increase or that traffic will displace rather than it is likely it will displace onto nearby roads is not such a significant change that it is likely it affected the final decision especially when balanced by representations made by residents.
  7. I must decide if the Council should have consulted the tram operator direct as set out in the Regulations. Regulation 6 says councils should consult the tram operator where an Order is “…likely to affect traffic on a road on which a tramcar service is provided….” The tram does not travel along Roads Y and Z. It travels along the Transport for London ‘red route’ adjoining Roads Y and Z. The Order does not cover the ‘red route’. Therefore, the Council decided it did not have a duty to consult the tram operator direct because the Order does not cover the ‘red route’.
  8. I understand why residents believe this to be a narrow interpretation of the rules. It is for the courts to give a definitive interpretation of the Regulations. However, to see if the consultation might have made a difference I asked the tram operator whether it would have objected to the proposed Order. The tram operator decided to respond though Transport for London its managing agency. Transport for London say the tram operator would not have objected to the proposal. Since the Order came into force the tram operator has not raise any concerns with Transport for London or the Council with whom it has regular liaison meetings. Residents say some tram drivers have told them about incidents caused by the changes to the access to Roads Y and Z but that is not the same as a formal objection. Given the tram operator says it would not have objected to the Order and has since raised no concerns, it is unlikely had the Council consulted the tram operator a different decision would have been made. Consulting the tram operator does not give the tram operator a right of veto only the opportunity to provide information for consideration.
  9. The Council says if it proposes further changes it would consult direct with the tram operator. The Council acted in line with its professional officer’s interpretation of Regulation 6. I find the Council acted without fault in not consulting the tram operator direct and that failing to consult the tram operator did not affect the final decision.
  10. I must now consider if the Council deposited a map with the ‘deposited documents’ in line with Regulation 7 and Schedule 2 of the Regulations. For the formal statutory consultation, the Council deposited two plans showing the proposed changes proposed for Roads Y and Z. The Plan did not show the wider area or show if traffic could use other nearby roads for two-way traffic. Regulation 7 and Schedule 2 of the Regulations say a map showing diverted traffic should be deposited ‘where appropriate’. The Council’s says the Order restricts traffic but does not formally divert it along other named routes. The Council did not intend to divert traffic along a specific route and therefore could not issue a plan showing such a route. Therefore, it says it did not need to deposit such a map or plan.
  11. The 2012 Regulations say the Council may use a map or plan. The Draft Guidance on mapping says maps are preferred. The Council deposited plans showing the effect on the Roads Y and Z by showing the ‘no entry’ points and the parts of the roads affected which is the objective sought by the Regulations.
  12. Following the Order drivers may choose one of several residential roads to link between the two red routes. Residents say any restriction on traffic must divert at least of some of the traffic which previously used Roads Y and Z on to their residential roads. That is true but the Council did not designate any particular road as a diversion.
  13. I find the Council acted without fault in following its officer’s interpretation of Regulation 7 and Schedule 2 and depositing the plans.
  14. However, in considering the residents view I have considered if the lack of a map showing the wider area made any difference to the final decision. Some residents believe the absence of the map led to other residents missing an opportunity to register their concerns and objections. Some also believe some councillors may not have realised the full impact on nearby residential roads.
  15. The Council publicised the proposed Order though direct mailing. I do not consider it likely any failure to publish a map showing nearby roads which may be affected by increased traffic prevented residents from making objections known. The Council received 84 objections. It is not the number of objections that decides the matter but the grounds on which those objections are made such as road safety, living conditions and the longer journey times cited by those who responded.
  16. Residents and residents’ associations spoke at the Transport Management Advisory Committee and presented the concerns raised by residents. Councillors therefore heard the concerns about the likely impact on their residential roads as well as having before them the written objections. Councillors could ask for further maps or plans to assist their understanding had they needed it. I find there is no evidence the use of plans and the absence of the map showing the wider area resulted in a different decision by Transport Management Advisory Committee. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities I find the lack of a deposited map showing roads surrounding those the subject of the Order is unlikely to have resulted in a different decision to one made with such a map being deposited.
  17. I note concerns raised by some residents about what may have influenced councillors in their decision. They are concerned councillors acted due to bias and concerns about local elections. None of the ward councillors had a vote on the Transport Management Advisory Committee. The Cabinet Member for Transport and the Environment does not represent a ward affected by the decision. Therefore, I find the Transport Management Advisory Committee and Cabinet Member made the decision without fault having given due publicity to the proposed Order, and having before them all relevant information including the objections of residents and the professional advice of their officers. If residents believe there has been bias and therefore a failure to comply with the Councillors Code of Conduct that should be referred to the Council’s Monitoring Officer. It is not a matter on which I can adjudicate.
  18. Since the Order there have been three serious road traffic accidents. The Council recognises residents of nearby roads to Roads Y and Z believe this is because of the changes created by the Order. It is waiting for the Police and Transport for London to report on the likely causes of the accidents. The Council will use those reports to decide if it should act alone or with Transport for London commission further studies into the accidents and whether they should propose further changes to minimise the risk. This is taking longer than residents hoped. The Council has no authority over the Police or Transport for London and so must wait for those agencies to complete their reports. The Council says it is committed to undertaking a review of the road traffic issues affecting the complainant’s road. There is no timetable for that review and residents have said it should not be left to them to propose ideas. I cannot direct the Council on what it should do to reduce traffic on these residential roads. However, it should be acting proactively with Transport for London and regularly updating residents on the progress of its review and on any proposals under consideration. Residents may also bring forward a petition for further TMOs to reduce the traffic entering and using their roads.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I find the Council acted without fault in considering making the Order for Roads Y and Z and that none of the alleged faults resulted in a different decision. That completes my investigation into this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings