Durham County Council (19 017 126)
Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 03 Mar 2020
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to implement traffic calming measures. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
- Mr B complains the Council has not taken adequate steps to deal with the traffic on a road where he lives. Mr B says the Council are putting the safety of residents at risk.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered Mr B’s complaints to the Council and its responses. I shared a draft version of this statement with Mr B and invited his comments.
What I found
- In November 2013, the Council granted planning permission for a supermarket at the top of a slip road near to Mr B’s home. Mr B says the Council reassured him it would not grant planning permission for a development that would generate traffic which would be detrimental to highway safety.
- Mr B says since the supermarket has been built, the Council has not introduced suitable traffic calming measures. Mr B says there are inadequate road markings and signage to deal with the traffic. He complains the Council has not prevented the increase in traffic on the slip road. Mr B says the Council should introduce parking restrictions to reduce the number of parked cars on the slip road.
- In response to Mr B’s complaint, the Council explained it had followed the correct process for dealing with his requests for traffic calming measures. This included analysing the accident recording database and then conducting either a site visit or a desk top evaluation. The officer evaluated the available information and decided there was not enough evidence to justify traffic calming measures or restrictive entry on the slip road.
- Mr B says the promontory the Council installed does not do enough to discourage traffic from manoeuvring onto the slip road. The Council explained highway officers have completed site visits and considered Mr B’s request to make changes. The officers decided the promontory was acceptable.
- In response to Mr B’s concerns about parked cars on the slip road, the Council say it has considered this and decided that parking restrictions are not required. The Council directed Mr B to the police if he had evidence that motorists were causing an obstruction to other road users.
- Mr B is worried about what might happen, but the Ombudsman would not normally investigate speculative injustice.
- It is not for the Ombudsman to question the merits of properly made decisions. We can only look at whether the Council properly considered Mr B’s concerns and assessed the situation. In this case, the evidence suggests that it did. We cannot therefore question the merits of the decisions themselves.
Final decision
- The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman