Summary: Mr X complains about a non-statutory consultation for a new road and the failure to provide evidence. Mr X responded to the consultation and also submitted a complaint and requested further information. I find no fault in the detail of the Council’s response but there is fault in how it dealt with Mr X’s complaint. The apology already provided to Mr X is a suitable remedy for the extra and time trouble this fault put Mr X to.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s consultation for a new road is not an open and unbiased process. He says the Council has failed to provide evidence to support claims made of the benefits of the new road.
2. Mr X feels his concerns are being ignored and he has been put to extra time and trouble in pursuing information that should be readily available.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Proposals to realign the A29 were included in Arun District Council’s Local Plan. An indicative route was included in the local plan which was examined by a Government appointed Planning Inspector.
7. West Sussex County Council then conducted a non-statutory consultation to get the views of residents and the travelling public. The Council says the views collected would be considered and then reflected in the detailed design stage of the road scheme where appropriate.
8. The consultation included exhibitions in four different locations over four days in February 2019. The Council’s website had detailed information about the proposals and online feedback forms were available for completion. The consultation process ended on 26 April 2019. The Council says this was longer than the 21 days suggested by government guidance on consultations.
9. Mr X is a local resident and was not able to attend any of the exhibition days. He complains about a lack of detailed information to support the Council’s proposals. Mr X does not believe the scheme will provide the improvements claimed by the Council.
10. Mr X contacted the Council by email on 11 March saying he wished to make a formal complaint about the consultation. His email contained a number of questions about the proposal including:
• A request for data regarding the claim journey times to London would reduce;
• An allegation that more information was provided at the exhibitions than on the website and the information was not easily accessible;
• A request for serious accident figures for the last five years;
• An assurance that footpaths would not be disrupted during or after construction of the new road;
• Evidence to show that people prefer to walk along a railway line than across open farmland;
• An assessment of the current local school cycling and walking traffic compared to an assessment of proposed rates;
• Information on the air quality reductions;
• Information to show the road supports the future green infrastructure via the Arun Local Plan;
• Information on the exact facilities for buses;
• Allegation that the consultation is illegal as only one route is being considered.
11. The Council responded to Mr X’s email on 5 April. It said it had recorded his complaint at stage one of the Council’s corporate complaints procedure and this was its formal response. The Council’s responded to each of the points raised by Mr X. I will comment on them in detail later on in this statement. At the end of its response, the Council said Mr X could request a review of the complaint at stage of its procedure if he remained dissatisfied.
12. Mr X submitted a stage two request. The Council responded saying it considered his previous email had been incorrectly logged as a complaint. It said it should have been registered as a representation and not something considered under the corporate complaints’ procedure. It said the appropriate avenue for escalation after consideration of a representation was to contact the Ombudsman.

Analysis

13. Mr X complains about the consultation process for a proposed new road. He feels the consultation is biased and illegal. Mr X says the Council has not provided an adequate response to his enquiries. He believes the consultation should be re-run to ensure an open and unbiased decision is made.
14. I will deal with each of the points raised above in turn.

A request for data regarding the claim journey times to London would reduce

15. Mr X says the Council claimed journey times to London would be reduced but it has failed to provide data to support this. The Council says it has never made specific claims about journey times to London and no such data exists. It says technical data about journey time reductions can be found within the Transport Business Case which is available on its website. In response to his complaint the Council provided a link to the document.

Mr X has not provided evidence which shows the Council claimed a reduced journey time to London. The Council has consistently stated it did not make this claim. On the basis of the information I have seen I cannot find fault. However, if Mr X has evidence which shows the Council made such a claim in its consultation information, I will consider this again.

An allegation that more information was provided at the exhibitions than on the website and the information was not easily accessible

16. Mr X accepts he cannot support the claim that more information was available at the exhibitions as he did not attend. The Council disputes this and says all consultation documents were uploaded onto its website.
17. Mr X also says that some documents could only be accessed when actually completing the consultation response document. The Council also disputes this and says that all consultation documents were uploaded in a pdf format to its initial webpage and so could be viewed independently.
18. On checking the Council’s website today, I am satisfied the consultation page includes links to the documents referred to in the consultation. While I cannot know for certain how accessible the information was when Mr X completed his consultation response, I have not seen anything to suggest any fault by the Council on this point.

A request for serious accident figures for the last five years

19. Mr X says the Council has not provided data on accident figures for a particular part of the route. He believes the accident figures would show no deaths on the part of the existing road the Council describes as dangerous and in fact two deaths on the part of the road its want to put more traffic on.
20. In its response to his complaint the Council explained why it considered the new road would improve road safety. It also attached a summary of police personal injury accident records for the road network surrounding the proposed scheme.
21. I am satisfied the Council provided a response to Mr X on this point. While he may not be satisfied with the response sent or the nature of the information provided, I cannot say there is fault by the Council on this point.

An assurance that footpaths would not be disrupted during or after construction of the new road

22. The road proposal has not yet advanced to the detailed design stage. It is my understanding this will happen soon and a planning application for the road will be submitted. If this shows disruption to existing footpaths it will be open to Mr X to raise this as part of the planning application process.
23. While the Council did not provide a detailed response to Mr X’s question about any disruption to footpaths, I am not persuaded this is fault. Work has not yet started and once a detailed design for the construction work is provided the Council should be able to provide the information Mr X has requested.

Evidence to show that people prefer to walk along a railway line than across open farmland

24. Mr X requested this information and the Council responded saying it did not hold data relating to an individual’s route preference. The Council indicated that and preferences expressed as part of the consultation would be considered.
25. While Mr X may have liked to see more detail on this point, I cannot conclude the Council is at fault for not providing data it does not hold. The purpose of the consultation is to seek views, opinions and preferences from the general public about the proposal. If the consultation shows people are not in favour of new footpaths along a railway line then I would expect the Council to consider this when finalising the design.

An assessment of the current local school cycling and walking traffic compared to an assessment of proposed rates

26. Again the Council responded saying it could not provide the information requested as it was not data it held. I refer to my previous comments where I am not persuaded the Council is at fault for not providing the specific information requested if it does not hold it.

Information on the air quality reductions

27. Mr X says the Council has not provided evidence to back up its claims that the proposed scheme will improve air quality. The Council responded saying air quality and noise monitoring has been carried out by Arun District Council. It says that further modelling will be carried out when the design is finalised and there will be an Environmental Impact Assessment submitted as part of the planning application. It made reference to a specific section of the Transport Business Case document on its website.
28. I appreciate Mr X is seeking detailed information on how air quality will be improved. I am satisfied the Council has provided a response, even if Mr X is not fully satisfied with it. As further details will be provided as part of the planning application, it will be open to Mr X to raise objections at that time if the claimed air quality improvements are not predicted. I therefore find no fault in respect of this point.

Information to show the road supports the future green infrastructure via the Arun Local Plan

29. The Council responded to this question saying that the information could be found within the adopted Arun Local Plan. It provided a link to the information online.
30. I am satisfied the Council responded to this point and so I cannot conclude fault. It may be the case that Mr X did not agree with the information referred to but this it is not the Ombudsman’s role to take a view on such matters.

Information on the exact facilities for buses

31. The Council says that both the existing and proposed infrastructure will be improved as part of the scheme. It said the exact details would be provided at the design stage. It said the comments provided as part of the consultation would be incorporated where practicable.
32. It seems to me the Council provided a response that was appropriate at the time. It could not provide details it did not have. I find no fault on this point.

Allegation that the consultation is illegal as only one route is being considered

33. The Council refutes this allegation. It says there were previously three feasibility studies carried out by Arun District Council. The proposal largely follows a route set out in the Arun Local Plan and that plan was the subject of statutory consultation and consideration by a Planning Inspector.
34. The Ombudsman cannot determine if something is illegal, only a court can do that. This consultation was not a statutory consultation. I have not looked into the previous feasibility studies as part of this complaint. If they occurred more than 12 months ago then they are likely to fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction even if a complaint were now made. It would also appear that the complaint would be against a different Council.
35. Having considered all the points raised by Mr X, I am not persuaded there is any fault in the response provided by the Council. However, there is fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s complaint. Mr X clearly stated he was making a formal complaint and the Council initially responded saying it was considering it as part of its Corporate Complaints Procedure. I find no fault in the information provided and the Council explained how to escalate if Mr X remained dissatisfied. Mr X did escalate his complaint and then the Council took the view it should not have been considered as a complaint but as a representation.
36. The Council was at fault in how it handled your complaint. You were put to some extra time and trouble as a result of the Council’s fault and it has apologised for this. I am not persuaded you are significantly affected by this fault in a way that warrants further action by the Ombudsman. The apology already provided is an appropriate outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I will now complete my investigation as the Council has already provided a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X as a result of its fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman