Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to properly consult residents before introducing temporary waiting restrictions, incorrectly worded the published order, wrongly said the restrictions would last for 18 months, unreasonably extended the temporary waiting restrictions to his road when it is not on the construction traffic route and erected signage on his road which refers to the wrong time restrictions. There is no fault in how the Council handled this case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
• failed to carry out satisfactory consultation with residents before introducing temporary waiting restrictions;
• wrongly worded the published order which means it is invalid;
• should not have referred to the restrictions as lasting for 18 months when it knows the restrictions will last for three years;
• unreasonably extended the temporary waiting restrictions to his road when it is not on the construction traffic route; and
• erected signage on his road which refers to the wrong time restrictions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered Mr B’s comments on my draft decision; and
• gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. The Planning Inspectorate granted planning permission for a housing development which is likely to take three years to complete. One condition the Planning Inspectorate imposed on the planning permission required the developer to put in place a traffic management plan/construction method statement which the local planning authority had to approve.
6. The Council is responsible for highways and advertised the proposed temporary traffic restrictions in the Lichfield Mercury. The Council advertised in the newspaper after consulting an external agency which identified the Lichfield Mercury as distributed in the area affected. The advertisement referred to an order to introduce temporary no waiting restrictions on roads affected by the development, including Mr B’s road. The advertisement said the order would remain in force for 18 months or until the construction of a vehicle access route works completed, whichever is earlier.
7. The developer erected signage on Mr B’s road which used the wrong times. The Council liaised with the developer about that and the developer has changed the signage.

Legal and administrative background

8. Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 says a traffic authority can temporarily restrict or prohibit traffic on a road when works are proposed to be executed on or near the road.
9. Section 15 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 says the duration of such an order shall not exceed 18 months, other than for certain works. The Act goes on to say the time limit of 18 months shall not apply to an order under section 14 for works executed on or near a road if the authority making it are satisfied, and it is stated in the order they are satisfied, execution of the works will take longer. The Act says the authority shall revoke the order as soon as the works are completed.
10. The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1992 sets out the procedure for making a temporary order. This says ‘not less than 7 days before making an order, the traffic authority shall publish notice of their intention to make the order in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which any road to which the order relates is situated.’
11. The 1992 Act goes on to say the notice shall state:
• (a)the reason or purpose mentioned in section 14(1) of the 1984 Act for the making of the order;
• (b)the effect of the order and, where applicable, the alternative route or routes available for traffic; and
• (c)the date on which the order would come into force and its maximum duration.
12. The 1992 Act says the traffic authority shall, on or before the day on which the order is made, give notice of the order:
• (a)to the chief officer of police of any police area in which any road to which the order relates is situated;
• (b)where the traffic authority is not the fire authority for the area in which any road to which the order relates is situated, to the chief officer of the fire authority for that area;
• (c)where the order would be likely to have direct effect on traffic or any class of traffic on any road for the maintenance of which another traffic authority is responsible, to that other traffic authority.
13. The 1992 Act says within 14 days of making the order the traffic authority shall publish a notice in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which any road to which the order relates is situated. The requirements for that notice are as set out in paragraph 11 of this statement.

Analysis

14. I am satisfied the Council carried out the necessary publicity for the proposed temporary traffic management order as it is required to do under the terms of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1992. That Act requires the Council to place a notice of its proposals in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which any road to which the order relates is situated. I am satisfied the Council met that for Mr B’s area by placing an advert in the Lichfield Mercury. I am also satisfied in deciding which newspaper to advertise in the Council consulted the external agency it uses. That agency confirmed the Lichfield Mercury is available in Mr B’s area. Although Mr B says the Lichfield Mercury is not delivered to residents in his area that is not what the Act requires. Rather, the Act says the notice should appear in a newspaper which circulates in the area. Mr B confirms the local public house received copies of the Lichfield Mercury and residents can collect it from there. I am therefore satisfied the Council complied with the publicity requirements in this case by placing an advert in a newspaper which is circulated in Mr B’s area.
15. In reaching that view I am aware Mr B would have preferred the Council to engage with local residents about the suitable traffic restrictions. I understand why Mr B would have wanted some input into the traffic management plan. However, there is no requirement for the Council to consult with residents. As part of the planning permission the developer had to produce a traffic management plan and the Council’s role is then to decide whether that proposed plan is acceptable. As there is no requirement for the Council to consult local residents before approving the proposed traffic management arrangements, other than advertising the proposed restrictions in the manner I refer to in the previous paragraph, I have no grounds to criticise it.
16. Mr B says the Council wrongly worded the published order which makes it invalid. Mr B says the published order inaccurately refers to ‘works in connection with’ rather than construction of a vehicle access route. Mr B says the application used the latter wording and therefore the order is invalid. Whether the order is invalid is not a matter the Ombudsman can determine. That is a matter of legal interpretation which only a court can comment on. I am, however, satisfied both public notices (the one before the order was made and the one after the order was made) refer to the order as relating to temporary no waiting restrictions along three roads. Both orders also make clear the order will remain in place until the construction of a vehicle access route works have completed.
17. Mr B says the Council should not have referred to the restrictions being for 18 months when it knew the restrictions would last for three years. While I understand Mr B’s concern I refer to the content of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in paragraph 9. As the Act makes clear, an 18 month temporary traffic regulation order can be extended beyond that period. I therefore do not consider the Council at fault for advertising the restrictions as being for an 18 month period when it knows the works will take three years. In any event, I am satisfied the advertisement for the restrictions made clear the order would remain in force beyond that date if works had not completed. That is in accordance with the requirements of the Act. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.
18. Mr B says the Council unreasonably extended the temporary waiting restrictions to his road when his road is not on the construction traffic route. Having considered the proposed construction traffic route though I note it uses a small part of Mr B’s road. As I understand it, the Council has not introduced waiting restrictions down the entire length of Mr B’s road but rather in relation to the sections of the road which are close to the junction to another road which is part of the construction traffic route. As far as I can see the Council has only restricted parking on Mr B’s road for that small section to prevent any difficulties with construction traffic and other road users using the junction. I do not consider it fault for the Council to do that, particularly as the Highway Code advises against parking within 10 metres of a junction. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.
19. Mr B says the Council erected signage on his road which refers to the wrong times for the waiting restrictions. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me it was the developer, rather than the Council, that erected the signs. I am satisfied when the Council became aware of the issue with the wrong times on the signs it communicated with the developer to have that corrected. I understand the developer has now corrected the signs. As the Council was not responsible for erecting the wrong signs and took appropriate action when it became aware of the issue I have no grounds to criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman