Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr J’s complaint about the way the Council decided to introduce a controlled parking zone on roads near his hotel. The Council carried out informal and formal consultation, and considered the responses received, before making its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr J complains about the way the Council decided to introduce a resident only parking zone on roads near to his hotel in which he also lives; as a result, this will cause him and his guests inconvenience as it will mean parking further away. In addition, he was caused a great deal of stress and put to time and trouble pursuing this issue.

Back to top

Traffic Regulation Orders

2. An authority (the Council) can make an order where it appears necessary to make it for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs. (paragraph 1 (1) (f) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984)
3. An authority shall carry out consultation before making an order. (Regulation 6, The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996)
4. An authority shall publish at least once, a notice of proposals containing its details in a newspaper circulating in the area in which any road or other place to which the order relates is located. (Regulation 7(1)(a), The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996)
5. An authority shall take such steps as it may consider necessary to ensure adequate publicity about the order is given to those likely affected by its provisions which may include displaying notices in roads or other places affected by the order, or by delivering notices or letters to premises, or premises occupied by those appearing to the authority as likely to be affected by the order. (Regulation 7(1)(c)(ii-iii), The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996)
6. An authority shall deposit documents, so they are available at the times and places set out in the notice of proposals throughout the period starting on the date it was published and ending 6 weeks after the order is made. (Regulation 7(4), The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996)
7. Any person may object to the making of an order by the date set out in the notice of proposals. (Regulation 8(1), The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996)

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

8. 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)
9. 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)
10. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered all the information Mr J sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr J and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

12. Mr J owns and runs a hotel. Car parking locally is restricted as the area is near a popular and busy area. There are no nearby car parks. Following complaints from residents about their difficulties parking on streets near their homes, the Council proposed introducing a controlled parking zone (the zone) which covered Mr J’s road. It would introduce the zone by making a traffic regulation order.
13. Mr J says when the Council first proposed the zone, an officer told him it would include business permits for owners of hotels but changed this when it put the proposal to residents.
14. The Council carried out informal consultation for the proposal by sending residents in affected roads letters about it. Mr J made representations but is unhappy with the consultation process. He claimed the documents the Council sent out were inadequate as they gave little information. He says other roads should have also been consulted. He claims the Council should have done more to publicise the proposal and held a public meeting about it.
15. The Council explained it made the proposal following complaints from residents. The roads are next to large local attractions which draws both visitors and staff who look to surrounding roads for somewhere to park. They park there all day and late in to the evening. It also carried out formal consultation.

Analysis

16. I found no fault on this complaint and in reaching this decision took account of the following:
1. The Council’s website explained the procedure for making a traffic regulation order. Before it can introduce restrictions, or traffic measures, it needs to publish a notice of its proposals. This is advertised on its website and in the Blackpool Gazette. It gives a minimum of 21 days during which time anyone can make written representations on the proposal.
2. The Council provided a copy of the consultation letter it sent to residents in November 2018. This informed them of complaints received about lack of parking for residents along 2 roads. It explained it revised consultation carried out the previous year which omitted resident parking times. It now proposed operating the zone 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It gave details of the roads affected, provided a copy plan, explained the operation of the zone, as well as the introduction of visitor passes for residential properties (including hotels) and self-contained business premises (not hotels or guest houses).
3. I have seen the plan sent with the letter. This shows the roads within the proposed zone and location of zone signage. It also shows 4 roads within the zone.
4. The letter also explained each property, including hotels, can apply for one resident and one visitor permit a year at a cost of £12.50.
5. The Council then published a public notice for the proposed traffic regulation order in December 2018. This was published in a local newspaper which began the statutory process. It was also published on its website. It noted consultation with the Chief Officer of the police. It said anyone wishing to make representations could do so by 14 January 2019. Anyone wishing to inspect the effect of the proposal could do so online through a link it gave.
6. In March 2019, a Council report about the zone proposal was prepared following informal consultation (letters to residents) and formal consultation (the issuing of the notice in the newspaper). The report noted the Council received 51 responses with 82% of them supporting permit parking. It named the roads notified of the proposal, which included a fifth road not highlighted on the plan. The report also noted a representation received against the proposal.
7. I am satisfied the Council complied with the statutory publicity requirements before making this order. It sent affected residents letters. It placed notices on its website and in a local newspaper. It had no obligation to hold a public meeting about it. It had no obligation to put up notices along the streets affected. It also signposted members of the public to where they could view the plans for the proposal.
8. The Council was aware there were many hotels and guest houses in the area who would each attract numerous visitors. The availability of on street parking was limited and sought by visitors to these businesses, visitors to the local entertainment attractions nearby, as well as by staff working at them. The limited available space was unlikely to meet the all the demands from businesses operating there. The number of available parking spaces was finite. If operating at full capacity with guests, Mr J’s property alone would generate the need for 6-7 on street car parking spaces. When considering other businesses in the area, it was clear demand would always outstrip supply and some form of fair rationing was inevitable.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr J’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman