Halton Borough Council (20 001 020)
Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management
Decision : Not upheld
Decision date : 25 Jun 2021
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr J complained regarding the Council’s response to his request for traffic calming measures. We find no fault by the Council causing injustice.
The complaint
- The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr J, complains the Council has failed to properly consider concerns regarding speeding and overweight HGVs on a road near Mr J’s home. He says the Council used out of date speed records and traffic counts, and did not consider the impact of new housing developments and traffic restrictions on other roads. He says this is affecting his health. He does not feel safe walking along the road and fears for other residents’ safety. He wants the Council to install physical traffic calming measures.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- 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).
How I considered this complaint
- I have discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr J and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
- Mr J complained in August 2019 that the Council refused to address his and other residents’ concerns about dangers on his road due to excessive speeding. He said there was a risk of accidents or fatalities from vehicles driving at speed. There were two primary schools on the road, so children’s lives were at risk. He stated the Council ignored requests for information and gave incorrect information. In his view the Council should respond and should install speed cameras and some physical traffic calming measures. Mr J chased a response several times in September. The Council provided updates on progress. It says it also received complaints from other residents and campaign group members at the same time.
- The Council responded on 4 October 2019. This was not within the complaint response timescales, as it should have responded to him by 13 September within 10 working days. The Council apologised for its delay in responding. It said that over the previous 20 years it had taken highly effective action in the borough which reduced road traffic casualties by 72%. It had carried out 18 road safety engineering schemes on Mr J’s road and adjacent roads. The Council noted that its Speed Indicator Devices (SiD) on the road recorded that 42% of drivers were over the 30mph limit. But it said that this did not mean drivers were driving 10 miles over the limit as Mr J assumed. The Council said it had recently checked the SiD and they were recording correctly.
- The Council said that at a councillor’s request, it asked the Cheshire Road Safety Group (CRSG), a partnership of Councils and emergency services, to consider installing a static speed camera. However, it did not meet the criteria as there were no recorded slight or serious speed related injuries in the past 12 years. The Council explained it had instead carried out road safety awareness education campaigns.
- The Council said that in addition, it had discussed matters further with the Police. It confirmed it had agreed Mr J’s road would be included as a site the Police mobile safety camera van would visit. The Council would install signage and road markings for this. With regard to physical traffic calming measures, the Council said it had considered table humps and chicanes or build outs. However, due to the number of private driveways this would not be feasible. Other types of speed humps could not be installed the recommended distances apart. In addition the Council must consider its resources, directing its spending to roads with a collision history. In this case while there had been two recorded collisions in the road in the previous 6 years, neither of these were caused by speeding.
- Mr J complained further in October 2019 at stage two of the Council’s procedure. He said the Council’s response was late and it did not check current traffic levels, speed data in both directions or visit the site to consider traffic calming measures. Mr J said the Council’s response was not fair or balanced, and was based on old data from 2014. In his view the Council had only used data from a south bound SiD, but traffic was slower in that direction. Mr J was aware the Council’s leader had requested a review of the viability of traffic calming measures. But the Council had not completed a review. In his opinion the Council should have used pneumatic traffic counters to check the number and speed of vehicles instead of using five year old data. Mr J went on to say the volume and speed of traffic had increased. There were several new housing developments in the area. Mr J felt the views of the Police and local residents were not taken into account. He said that at a recent meeting, a Police Chief Inspector requested a sustainable solution to the dangerous road. But the Council had not agreed.
- Mr J noted there was some progress, because the Council had finally admitted there was a serious problem with speeding, but it was trying to downplay this. He noted the Council justified not installing static speed cameras or physical traffic calming measures because it said there were two non speed related collisions. But he said the Police had confirmed a number of serious accidents on the road. He asked what data the Council considered. Mr J also said the Council had not addressed his complaint that officers and councillors had refused to answer questions and had given false information such as stating his road and another nearby were red routes.
- Mr J did not receive a reply within the Council’s complaint response procedure of a response within 28 working days. He chased a response twice and also sent a copy of another resident’s email complaining about the Council’s response to speeding on the road. Mr J said that the SiD was either not recording speeds or underestimating speeds.
- The Council replied to Mr J’s complaint on 2 December 2019. This was 36 working days after the Council received Mr J’s complaint. The Council said it considered whether there was procedural fault in its decision. It noted Mr J’s points that it used 2014 traffic count data and officers did not carry out a site visit. But it said it did not consider this necessary as there were no developments nearby that would have affected traffic flows. There were no changes in the road infrastructure, that would require a visit. The Council considered it could use information it already held. In addition, it said that traffic flow was not the only reason for introducing physical interventions.
- However, following Mr J’s earlier complaint, his road was identified as a priority location for Police mobile speed camera enforcement. The Council said it would provide a marked bay for the enforcement vehicle, and further signage would be installed to highlight the camera enforcement. The Council said it had explained why it would not install a permanent static speed camera as it had considered existing speed related collision data. The Council, and the CRSG, did not consider this was appropriate.
- The Council noted Mr J’s comments about the SiD camera but did not agree its direction should be changed. Another SiD camera measured vehicle speed in the other direction. However, the Council did accept the SID camera was malfunctioning as it was not picking up the speed of passing cars. But the Council had remedied this.
- The Council noted Mr J said the Police records of accidents appeared to be different to the Council’s. The Council said it would investigate this.
- The Council replied regarding Mr J’s complaint that councillors and officers gave the wrong information. It said it was not possible for the Council to determine the exactly what information individuals may have given during the extensive number of conversations Mr J and other residents had over a significant period of time. The Council apologised for any misinformation or misunderstandings that may have previously occurred, but it did not consider this would have any material impact on the implementation of further road safety measures.
- In its response to my enquiries the Council provided further details in response to key issues Mr J had raised.
- Regarding Mr J’s complaint the Council used out of date speed data from 2014, the Council said it also used data from the SiD records of 2016 and 2020 which showed there had been no increase in the traffic levels.
- Regarding Mr J’s complaint the Council should have visited the site again, the Council said it had visited the site as it had completed a number of traffic management and road safety works since 2003. It stated it collected data from the SiD at least once a month. It also visited the school crossing patrol officer three times a year, to discuss safety issues and carry out observations.
- Mr J complained the Council had not taken into account new housing developments. However, the Council said that the three new housing developments were over a mile away from Mr J’s road. It did not consider that any traffic generated used Mr J’s road.
- Mr J complained Police collision data differed from the Council’s data. The Council says it is not clear what data Mr J says is different, and he has not provided any evidence to support his point. The Council explained it uses STATS 19 data which the Police provide to Local Authorities. This database is a collection of all road traffic accidents that resulted in a personal injury and were reported to the Police within 30 days. Whilst some collisions causing damage to property are reported to the Police, this information is not passed on to Councils. The Council noted that in its stage one response it referred to collisions resulting in injury. However, in later responses the Council referred to speed related collisions rather than those specifically involving injury. The Council apologised if use of these terms caused any confusion.
- Mr J complained that the Council had stated that his road had been identified as a priority area for Police mobile speed camera enforcement. However, he said it was already a Police priority area. Mr J felt that the Council’s statement contradicted its claim that there were no serious road safety issues for residents. In its response to me, the Council said that the road had been on the Police priority list since 2015. The Police used hand held speed enforcement devices. But following increased pressure from the campaign group, the Council raised the issue with the CRSG. The Council agreed to provide a formal camera van bay and the Police agreed to use the site more frequently. The Council said it had not identified speeding during its visits from November 2019, but Police resources were deployed elsewhere during 2020 due to the Covid 19 pandemic.
- Mr J complained the Council did not take account of senior Police officers’ support and requests for the Council to install physical traffic calming measures. In its response to me, the Council confirmed the Police had discussions with it about potential solutions, although one Police officer’s recollections did not entirely agree with Mr J’s.
Analysis
- Based on the evidence and information I have seen there is no apparent fault by the Council in its decision making regarding the traffic calming measures Mr J is seeking. The Council has taken account of relevant information and considered STATS 19 data and its own SiD data. The Council has taken measures previously to respond to the residents’ requests, but it does not consider it should install the speed humps Mr J wants. The Council has explained it must use its limited resources where there is evidence of speed related injury or fatalities. While Mr J questions some of the data and the Council’s responses, I do not see this shows there is evidence of apparent fault. As I explain in paragraph 2, if there is no evidence of fault in the decision making we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.
- The Council accepts that it did not respond to Mr J’s complaints within its complaint procedure timescales. It explained that at the same time as Mr J’s stage two complaint it received a number of other complaints from residents, which added to the time it took to review all the information. In addition, the investigating officer was on leave for two weeks at the time. However, the Council provided updates to Mr J after he chased for a response and apologised for its delay. While there was fault by the Council in not responding within its timescales, I do not consider this caused injustice. The Council has in any case apologised for its delays, which is an appropriate remedy.
Final decision
- I have not found fault causing injustice. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman