Summary: Mr D complained the Council wrongly approved two street works permits with traffic management systems in the same street. He said because of the proximity, the electrical contractor had to postpone its works. As a result, Mr D says this caused distress due to a delay in the electrical upgrade within his home and delayed his renovation works. We found no fault in how the Council considered the applications, we cannot therefore criticise its decision to grant the permits. Also, the Council was not at fault for the electrical contractors’ delays. This is because it was not aware of its concerns at the time.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr D, complained the Council wrongly issued permits to two contractors to do works in the street outside his house at the same time. He said one of the contractors therefore had to cancel its electrical works.
2. As result, Mr D said he could not complete his planned refurbishment works until the electrical contractor had upgraded his electrical supply. He says he therefore experienced financial loss, distress and inconvenience due to the delays the Council’s fault caused.

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. 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)
4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as Works Promoters and Contractors. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
6. 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

7. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr D’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mr D;
• considered the information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries;
• considered the relevant Law, Guidance and Council Policy; and
• given Mr D and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision and considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Law, Guidance and Policy

8. The New Roads and Street Works Act (1991) (the Act) imposes a general duty on street authorities to coordinate work in streets in the interest of safety, to minimise inconvenience to persons using the street, and to protect the street and apparatus in it.
9. The Act says it is the responsibility of the undertaker (Promoter) of street works to ensure safety. This includes placing traffic signs and lights as are reasonably required for the guidance or direction of persons using the street.
10. The Department for Transport issued statutory guidance for co-ordinating street works (the Code of Practice). This sets out how local authorities and promotors should work together to co-ordinate street works, which includes:
• local authorities must consider all aspects of the proposed works and other influences that may affect traffic;
• Appendix G sets out how a local authority should calculate a disruption effect score before deciding if works should be approved;
• local authorities must keep a register of its streets and the planned works within them; and
• works promotors are responsible for notifying a local authority of interrupted or delayed works.
11. The Council has a Policy, the Suffolk Permit Scheme. This sets out how it expects works promotors to act when applying for permits or undertaking works in its streets. It also explains how the Council will consider street works applications and the circumstances for when a permit may be changed.

What happened

12. Mr D’s home is next to one of the Council’s streets. In 2020, he had started renovation works to his property, but to complete the works he needed an upgrade to the electrical supply to the property.
13. An electrical contractor (Promoter X) applied to the Council for a permit to undertake the work needed to upgrade Mr D’s electrical supply.
14. The Council considered the application. It decided to grant the permit, but it included a condition for Promoter X to arrange for a manual traffic management system in the interest of safety and minimising the impact on traffic. It also put restrictions on when the work could take place.
15. Shortly after, another contractor, Promoter Y, applied to do works in the same street 800 meters away. The proposed works would take place on some of the same days as Promoter X, but it would start works sooner.
16. The Council approved Promoter Y’s application. However, it also added conditions for manual traffic management system and the hours works could take place.
17. In late 2020, Promoter Y started works in the street and set up its manual traffic management system.
18. The Council inspected Promotor Y’s works in the street on several occasions. It found Promoter Y had failed to place enough signage and on occasions its manual traffic management system was unattended. This caused traffic to build up in the street. It told Promoter Y about its Breach of Condition’s and a Fixed Penalty Charge was issued.
19. During this time, Promoter X applied to the Council to change the dates of its works to later the same month. The Council says it was not told why the date of the scheduled works changed.
20. Mr D said he was told by Promoter X this was because it could not do its works at the same time as Promoter Y. He was also told his electrical upgrade could not happen until early 2021. This was because the Council would not grant a street works permit for December 2020 due to the expected increase in Christmas related traffic.
21. In early 2021 Mr D complained to the Council about the delay caused to his electrical upgrade and home renovations. He said this had happened because it had wrongly approved works of both Promoters for the same time period and within close proximity. He said this was the reason Promoter X had decided to reschedule its works.
22. In response the Council apologised to Mr D for the inconvenience he had experienced, but it did not find it was at fault. It told Mr D it had considered the works proposed by both Promoters. It found it was acceptable for these to take place at the same time and within a two-kilometre distance because:
• the Government had issued guidance for essential travel only during the COVID-19 lockdown which covered the period of both Promoter’s works. It therefore expected reduced traffic;
• Promoter Y had set up its traffic management system closer than planned to Promoter X’s proposed site;
• Promoter X had applied for its works to be rescheduled which is common practice; and
• it had not been told by either Promoter about any issues on the sites. It could therefore not take any action to resolve any issues.
23. Mr D told the Council the works was not two kilometres apart as he could see both works from his home. He asked the Council to reconsider its view and asked for the required distance between street works with traffic management systems.
24. The Council told Mr D there are no set minimum distance between street works and the distance between the approved works were 845 metres. It again explained its reasons for approving both works and said neither Promoter had raised any issues with the Council afterwards. It was therefore unable to help resolve any issues as it was unaware if there were any issues at the time.
25. Mr D asked the Council to consider his complaint under its stage two complaints process. He said:
• its responses were inconsistent in relation to the distances given between the works;
• he disagreed with its view the traffic levels during the COVID-19 lockdown would reduce and asked how it had assessed the Promoters applications for the works;
• Promoter X told him it had told the Council about its issue with the proximity of Promoter Y’s works. It also told him the Council said this was due to Promoter Y’s overrunning works;
• the Council had told Promoter X it would not grant a permit in December 2020 due to the increase in Christmas traffic. He said this was also contradictory as the COVID-19 lockdown would still be in place; and
• he acknowledged Promoter Y may have made matters worse by working outside the proposed area. However, he felt the Council had failed to take ownership and put enough monitoring of the works in place.
26. In response the Council did not agree with Mr D’s view. It told Mr D it had properly assessed the proposed works and added suitable conditions to limit the impact on traffic. It said the Promoters were responsible for setting up their traffic management systems in accordance with the Code of Practice. However, Promoter X had decided to postpone its works due to Promoter Y setting up its traffic management system close to its site, and issues with its own traffic management assessment. The Council told Mr D it could not take any action for non-compliance, as it was not aware of the issues at the time.
27. Mr D remains unhappy with the Council’s decision and asked the Ombudsman to consider the matter.

Analysis

28. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess if the Council has properly considered the Act, the Code of Practice, and its own Policy before it reached its decisions to grant the street works permits. If it has followed this process, I cannot criticise the decisions it made, regardless of whether Mr D agrees with it.

Was there fault in how the Council assessed the applications?

29. The Council first received Promoter X’s Street Works application. It decided to grant a permit with conditions, which required a manual street management system to be put in place and limitations on the working hours for the works.
30. The Council then receive the second application for works in the same street from Promoter Y. The Code of Practice and the Council’s Policy says in such circumstances it should consider both works and ensure they are properly co-ordinated to limit the impact on safety and traffic.
31. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the two proposed street works before it granted Promoter Y its permit. In reaching my view, I am conscious it:
• assessed the expected traffic flow through online tools;
• considered the traffic flow it expected during the COVID-19 lockdown in which both works were planned for;
• identified works were taking place within the same area;
• put in place conditions on the Promoters to set up and manage manual traffic management systems in line with the Code of Practice, and limits to their working hours; and
• ensured its street register set out both Promoter’s planned street works.
32. I acknowledge Mr D disagrees with the Council’s assessment of traffic and its decisions to grant the permits. However, as the Council properly assessed the applications before it granted the permits, I cannot criticise its decisions.

Was the Council at fault for the delay in Promoter X’s works?

33. Mr D said the Council did not do enough to ensure Promoter Y acted as set out in its permit. He said because of this Promoter X had to delay its planned works, which impacted on the renovation of his home.
34. The Council said Promotor X asked it to change the dates of its proposed works to a later time. It said, at the time it was not told this was due to Promoter Y’s traffic management system being placed closer than planned to Promoter X’s site. It believed this was due to issues with Promoter X’s own traffic management assessment and scheduling of its works. The Council said it was therefore not aware of any issues for Promoter X until Mr D made his complaint in early 2021 when both works had been completed.
35. I am not satisfied the Council was at fault for delays in Promoter X’s electrical works. This is because it inspected Promoter Y’s site and found issues with its signage and its handling of its manual traffic management system. It found the Promoter’s Breach of Conditions had impacted on traffic and took action for non-compliance. However, it was not aware Promoter X may have rescheduled due to concerns about the proximity of Promoter Y’s site until the works had already been completed.
36. In addition, Mr D said he was told by Promoter X that it informed the Council that it could not do its scheduled works because of Promoter Y’s traffic management system. Event if this was the case, Promoter X did not ask the Council to take any action against Promoter Y to enable it to do its works. Instead, it applied to the Council to reschedule the dates for its works, which the Council approved. I have therefore found the Council did not fail to consider enforcement action. Nor, did it cause the delay to Promoter X’s works.

Complaint’s handling

37. I have not found fault in the Council’s handling if Mr D’s complaint. However, the Council’s stage one response incorrectly said the two planned works were two kilometres apart. This was corrected in its stage two response. I therefore do not consider this error caused any injustice to Mr D.

Back to top

Final decision

38. There was no fault by the Council. For this reason, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman