Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council did not properly consult about changes to a proposed new road. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complains the Council did not properly consult about changes to a proposed new road because it did not:

• give sufficient notification about consultation meetings in 2019.
• give any notification that her house could be demolished.
• provide personalised letters specific to her address.
• explain why a previously agreed route was changing.
• deal with her compassionately at public meetings.
• properly consider the impact of the change of proposed route

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated that part of Mrs B’s complaint about how the Council dealt with an engagement exercise in 2019 about the route for a proposed new road. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have spoken to Mrs B about her complaint and considered the information she has provided to the Ombudsman. I have also considered the Council’s response to her complaint and its response to my enquiries.
6. I have written to Mrs B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. The Spalding Western Relief Road (SWRR) forms part of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (SELLP). The SWRR is intended to be completed in five stages. The routes for stages one and five are already determined. The route for stages two, three and four has yet to be confirmed. A ‘safeguarded corridor’ has been identified between stages one and five which allows for a number of different route options. During the creation of the SELLP a preferred route was identified for stage 2 only.
8. The Council decided to move forward with the SWRR as a whole rather than in individual sections. To do this it undertook an engagement exercise with people affected in the ‘safeguarded corridor’. As part of this the Council held four drop-in events. Mrs B attended one of the drop-in events. Residents in Mrs B’s road were also invited to one to one meetings with the Council in early April.
9. Mrs B complained about the consultation undertaken to help determine the route for stages two, three and four. Since Mrs B made her complaint the Council has published a route options study report and invited people who may be affected to a meeting in October. The final decision about the SWRR route will be taken by the Council in January 2020.

Analysis

10. The SELLP has been previously consulted on between 2012 and 2017 under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and was formally adopted in March 2019. The engagement exercise about stages two, three and four, does not form part of the SELLP. The engagement exercise is not a formal planning process.
11. The Council says 14,000 leaflets were distributed with a local newspaper to publicise the engagement events. The Council accepts that Mrs B did not receive a leaflet about engagement events concerning the SWRR in February 2019. It has not been possible to determine why. Although Mrs B did not receive a leaflet, she attended one of the drop-in events in February. The Council has provided a copy of materials available at the engagement events as well as a report containing analysis of the feedback it obtained. I am content that the Council intended to conduct the engagement events as it said it did. This is not fault by the Council.
12. When it discovered that residents in Mrs B’s street had not been aware of the engagement events, the Council also arranged one to one meetings with residents in April 2019. The Council took action to ensure that people who may not have been aware of the engagement events at all had the opportunity to contribute to the process. This is not fault by the Council.
13. The Council did not send personally addressed letters because the district council said that resident’s names should not be shared with the Council for inclusion on correspondence with those in the SWRR 'Safeguarded Corridor'. The Council agreed a consistent process for all letters sent for this purpose of addressing them to ‘the resident’ and hand-delivering them. This is not fault by the Council.
14. Mrs B says she was not treated compassionately at the engagement event she attended. The Council disagrees and says on recognising she was upset, it took Mrs B and her husband to another room to discuss their concerns and answer any questions separately one on one privately. Mrs B also says there was a lack of compassion during the meetings in April and the Council refuted what it had told them previously. No notes of the meeting were made. As the Ombudsman was not present and in the absence of other evidence, I am unable to reach a decision as to whether the Council was at fault.
15. The Council has not yet made the decision about what the route of the SWRR will be. The Council has sent Mrs B the route options analysis that it will consider in January. This explains in detail the background to the decision. After the Council makes a decision, there will be formal planning processes which Mrs B will be able to participate in.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Council was not at fault in how it dealt with consultation about changes to the proposed route of a new road. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

17. I have not investigated Mrs B’s complaints about earlier consultation about the SELLP because this is out of time and I do not see a good reason to accept it for investigation now. The SELLP has been subject to significant consultation between 2012 and 2017, Government inspectors concluded that they were satisfied that sufficient opportunity for comment had been provided for those who wished to make representations on the Plan in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
18. I have not investigated Mrs B’s complaint about explaining why a change of route was being considered because since she has complained to the Ombudsman, the Council has provided Mrs B with a copy of its options study report and invited her to a meeting to discuss the study and recommended route. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
19. I have not investigated Mrs B’s complaint about whether the Council properly considered the impact of the proposed route because the Council has not taken this decision yet.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman