Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to install traffic calming measures on a road near his home. Mr X says the restriction causes traffic congestion leading to unacceptable pollution. We will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council narrowed a road near his home following a fatal accident. He says traffic now backs up in both directions causing delays and increased pollution which will affect five schools and nearby residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A (1), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. He had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Following a fatal accident on a road near Mr X’s home, the Council carried out a consultation on implementing traffic calming measures.
6. Mr X says the Council is guilty of a knee-jerk reaction to the accident and it should have installed a pedestrian crossing instead of narrowing the road from 4 to 2 lanes.
7. In its response to his complaint, the Council says traffic signal engineers advise that traffic lights should be no less than 150m apart. This is to ensure approaching drivers are not confused by two sets of signals potentially displaying red and green at the same time, known as a “see-through” problem. In this case traffic signals already in place are only 80 metres away from the potential crossing location, so a new pedestrian crossing is not an option.
8. I understand Mr X does not agree with the Council’s decision which he says is impairing the quality of life for residents.
9. However, based on the information I have seen, I am satisfied the Council carried out a consultation and considered properly the representations made to it.
10. The Council has provided clear reasons for its decision which was one it was entitled to make. I have seen no evidence of fault in the decision-making process which would allow the Ombudsman to question the decision reached.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council came to its decision to install traffic calming measures.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman