Summary: Mr Y complains about the process followed by the Council when making a Traffic Regulation Order to introduce parking restrictions on local roads. Mr Y says he will be affected because those who parked on the roads previously will now park on his road. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of procedural fault in the process followed by the Council. Consequently, there are no grounds for us to challenge the merits of the decision to introduce the scheme.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will call Mr Y, complains about the process followed by the Council when making a ‘Traffic Regulation Order’ (TRO) for a residential parking-permit scheme on nearby roads.
2. Mr Y says he has suffered injustice because those who used to park on the roads in question will now park on his road as it is not currently subject to parking restrictions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. During my investigation, I have:
• Discussed the complaint with Mr Y and considered any information he has submitted;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• Consulted any relevant law, guidance or policies. Particularly the ‘Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (procedure) England and Wales Regulations’ (1996);
• Issued a draft decision and invited comments from Mr Y and the Council. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. The ‘South Essex Parking Partnership’ (SEPP) is a body which has delegated authority from several local councils to fulfil traffic management schemes requiring ‘Traffic Regulation Orders’ (TROs). SEPP has a policy setting out its approach to the implementation of such schemes. Throughout this statement I will refer to this as ‘the policy’.
7. In July 2017 SEPP received a request from a resident to introduce parking restrictions, via a TRO, on a residential road near to Mr Y. I will call this ‘Road A’. The request included a petition with 39 signatures of support. The reason for the request was to prevent all-day commuter parking. Shortly after receiving the request, SEPP started an informal consultation with the residents of Road A to seek their views.
8. It advertised a proposed TRO for 15 residential roads. In this statement I will concentrate on Road A and Mr Y’s road, which I will call Road B, as Mr Y accepts he is unlikely to suffer any significant injustice from changes to other roads. The proposal sought to introduce the following:
1. Permit only parking in Road A, operating Monday to Friday between 10:00 and 11:00.
2. No waiting at any time in parts of Road B
9. The informal consultation for Road A established significant support for the scheme: 69% of those consulted in Road A responded, and 93% of those favoured a residents’ parking scheme.
10. Mr Y also responded to the informal consultation for Road A. He made the following representations
• he was not directly consulted on proposal b) which affects his road (Road B)
• proposal a) will move the problem to the only two remaining roads without parking controls
• the whole area should be included in the proposal to prevent displaced parking
• parking on Road B is already bad, especially with runs to and from the local school
• a similar scheme was proposed by SEPP in 2013/14 but did not proceed. Mr Y’s original objections should have been retained and considered
• SEPP has not completed any site surveys, and so there is no consideration given to the presence of a school footpath. A serious accident occurred recently. This risk was not properly investigated
• Ward Councillors have not given their support. The Highways Authority did not respond, either.
• the proposal should be modified.
11. The records show that SEPP then formally consulted on the proposals for Roads A and B in late July. In line with the requirements of the regulations, SEPP consulted the emergency services, the ‘Road Haulage Association’, the ‘Freight Transport Association’ and the ‘Chamber of Commerce and Industry’. The records also show that SEPP published the proposal in a local newspaper and displayed public site notices advertising the consultation.
12. Records show that SEPP technicians visited several of the other roads included in the proposal during October 2017. Mr Y says SEPP told him it also visited Road A, but I have not seen any records of these visits.
13. Mr Y’s comments, and any other representations received, were included by SEPP in the report presented to the Council’s ‘Sub-Committee’ in February 2018. The purpose of the Sub-Committee Meeting is to agree funding for any TRO. It considers proposals before deciding whether to make the Order as advertised, make the Order with amendments or refuse the Order. The Council invited Mr Y to attend and present his views at the meeting, but he could not attend.
14. The minutes of the meeting show that, although some residents put forward reasons why the TRO should not proceed, the Lead Councillor, Lead Officer and SEPP Technicians agreed that none of them carried enough weight to warrant refusal. The Sub-Committee agreed to proceed with all proposals, albeit after agreeing some minor amendments.

Mr Y’s complaints

Lack of consultation

15. Mr Y complains about the consultation process carried out for Road B. He says the Council is at fault because it did not carry out an informal consultation and send letters to those potentially affected.
16. The proposal in question was for the painting of double yellow lines on several roads to enforce Rule 243 of the Highway Code which prohibits parking within ten metres of a junction.
17. Mr Y says he will be directly affected by the introduction of a ten-metre length of double yellow lines on his road and as a result he should have received a consultation letter to outline the proposal for Road B and seek his views.
18. SEPP’s policy says: “If SEPP agrees to proceed with the TRO it must be advertised including at least one notice in the local press. The SEPP will usually display notices in any roads that are affected and, if it is deemed appropriate, may deliver notices to key premises likely to be affected.”
19. Informal consultations can be useful in gauging public opinion ahead of any formal consultations. Many councils use this process, as did SEPP with most of the proposals covered by this TRO. SEPP has explained that it chooses not to informally consult and deliver notices in all cases. This depends on the type of scheme being proposed. This approach is in line with its published policy. It is not fault.
20. The Ombudsman must also consider personal injustice. As well as there being no fault in the approach taken for the consultation of proposal b), there is no injustice to Mr Y. Although he complains that he did not receive a letter, evidently he did see the public notice because he responded to the formal consultation before the deadline and offered his representations. Mr Y’s views on proposal b) were considered by the Council’s Sub-Committee before it made its decision. As a result, he was not caused any injustice by the fault claimed.

Lack of consideration about displaced parking

21. Displaced parking occurs when those who previously parked in roads which become subject to parking controls move to park in other nearby roads which are not subject to any controls. Mr Y says he will be affected by displaced parking because those who used to park in Road A will now park in his road. This is because Road B is not currently subject to any controls, other than the planned double-yellow lines on the ten-metre stretch of the junction.
22. The Council has confirmed it will undertake monitoring after introducing the new parking scheme. This is to determine whether surrounding roads have been affected by displaced parking and, if so, to what extent. The Council says it will consider providing parking restrictions for residents living in those surrounding roads, such as Road B, should there be increased parking.
23. Mr Y says this is fault. He says the Council – via SEPP – should have completed surveys of any roads surrounding the proposed parking areas to consider whether there will be unacceptable problems caused by displaced parking.
24. The SEPP policy says it will not introduce a scheme if it is likely to cause “unacceptable problems” in adjacent roads. It is for SEPP and the Council to decide whether a proposed scheme will cause problems to an unacceptable level. Other than for the formal consultation process, the regulations do not prescribe a set process for councils to follow when assessing the potential impact of any scheme.
25. The SEPP policy in place at the time said “When surveying an area, it is essential that the displacement of vehicles does not cause unacceptable problems in adjacent roads. The restriction of vehicles from one location will not necessarily make the perceived problem go away but do no more than move the problem”

26. Since implementation of the TRO, SEPP has amended its policy. It now also includes the following wording, “Should a new scheme be introduced, it can be difficult to fully establish exactly were displacement of vehicles could occur, if any. It is therefore sometimes necessary to introduce a new scheme then monitor any potential displacement over a period of time.”

27. Mr Y says the policy in force at the time of matters complained about does not allow for post-implementation monitoring. He therefore says it was fault for SEPP not to survey Road A and consider the impact of displaced parking.
28. I have reviewed the copy of the policy provided by Mr Y. He says he downloaded this from the Council’s website at the time of the matters complained about. This says, “One of the Team’s Technicians will gather information related to the request for a new restriction. This may include site visits and where appropriate informal consultation with local interest groups such as residents, traders and community groups to gauge opinion on whether or not there is considered to be a parking issue”

“The outcome of a consultation may result in different levels of support in any individual road dependent on the location of the property to the initial parking problem. In this case it may be necessary for the Partnership to implement a scheme in part of the road and monitor the effects of any vehicle displacement”

29. SEPP recognises the scheme “may” displace parking to nearby roads, including Road B. However it did not specifically assess or survey all the potentially affected roads ahead of proposing or implementing the scheme. Instead, SEPP says it will complete monitoring once the parking controls are in place.
30. SEPP says it would take a different approach if there was just one other potentially affected road in the area, because the displacement could be more easily established. Although Mr Y points out that Road B is closest to a local school, and in his opinion will be worst affected, in this case it is possible that a number of local roads will see an increase in on-street parking.
31. Although I appreciate Mr Y disagrees with SEPP’s approach here, as he would have preferred a full survey of the possible displacement ahead of the Order being made, I cannot agree the Council or SEPP is at fault. I agree the wording quoted in paragraph 25, “when surveying an area..” read in isolation could suggest that SEPP conducts surveys in all cases as a matter of course. However, when read context, it is clear the policy in force at the time allows for monitoring to take place after implementation of any scheme. It also says that SEPP technicians ‘may’ conduct site visits, rather than ‘must’. The approach SEPP has taken in this case is therefore in line with the relevant policy, and I do not uphold Mr Y’s complaint.
32. If Mr Y finds that he is caused unacceptable problems because of the new scheme, it is open to him to request parking restrictions on Road B. In line with the policy, SEPP will then consider whether the request is warranted and one which should proceed to a formal TRO.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation and reached a final decision with a finding of no fault for the reasons explained in this statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman