Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 706)
Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 21 Jul 2021
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about how the Council has reached decisions about the road where she lives. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decisions but there is no evidence of fault in the way the decisions were reached. Other parts of Mrs X’s complaint are late and she may complain to the Information Commissioner if she believes the Council has withheld paperwork from her.
The complaint
- Mrs X complains on behalf of local residents about the Council’s actions in relation to the street where she lives. Mrs X says the Council should take action to limit the amount of traffic which accesses the street and to stop poor parking by other residents. She says:
- The Council granted planning permission for a new house on the street without considering the impact on traffic.
- A Council officer told residents their dropped kerbs were unlawful because they were installed on the Council’s land without permission.
- The Council has not provided her with paperwork relating to is decision to issue a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for the street.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
- The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
- The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
- 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 information provided by the complainant.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
- The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
My assessment
Decision to grant planning permission
- The Council granted planning permission for a new property on Mrs X’s street at the end of 2019. Mrs X did not complain to the Ombudsman until the end of May 2021. Therefore, this is a late complaint and we should not investigate. We have discretion to set aside this restriction where we decide there are good reasons. In this case I have decided not to exercise discretion because it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have complained to us about the planning permission sooner.
Actions of Council officer
- The Council officer visited Mrs X’s street in September 2019 and said a parking area outside her property may need planning permission. Mrs X did not complain to the Ombudsman until the end of May 2021. Therefore, this is also a late complaint and we should not investigate. There is no reason why Mrs X could not have raised a complaint with us sooner if she was unhappy with the Council’s actions.
Failure to disclose paperwork
- The restriction outlined in paragraph 3 applies to this complaint.
- If Mrs X believes the Council has withheld paperwork from her she can raise a complaint with the Information Commissioner and it is reasonable to expect her to do so.
Council’s decisions regarding traffic on the street
- Mrs X and other residents clearly disagree with decisions the Council has made about the street where they live. However, there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decisions.
- The Council proposed a TRO for 80 metres of double yellow lines on the street. The Council considered views of people who support and opposed the proposed TRO and amended this to 15 metres. The Council also considered other options for the street at the same time. In its report considering the objections and support the Council said:
“The weight in terms of the number of residents objecting to the proposals is clearly much greater than those supporting them. Much of the concern being that this proposal will create further on-street parking problems for them.
“[The street] is situated at the top of a very steep gradient, well above the centre of [the town]. For many residents… being able to park in the vicinity of their property, is a lifeline, especially as there are no buses serving these residences.
“Although residents with off-street parking have highlighted the problem that drivers of large vehicles have, many residents that only have on-street parking to rely on, are less likely to have sympathy for drivers of oversized vehicles who are ignoring the “unsuitable for HGV’s” warning sign.
“There is an “unsuitable for HGV’s” sign at the bottom of [an adjoining street] and a recent proposal for a Weight Limit for vehicles over 3.5 tonnes (except for access) received no objections after being advertised. This can therefore be implemented within 18 months.
“Some comments opposing the proposals have indicated that a one-way system, rather than parking restrictions, would alleviate the problem. However, one-way systems can see an increase in traffic speeds as drivers are aware that they will not be impeded by opposing traffic and this would represent a danger to pedestrians who often have to walk along this narrow carriageway, especially as the footways are narrow and in cases where vehicles block the pavement.
- “There would also be the problem of divers not realizing where the one-way system becomes open to two way traffic, with signing potentially being difficult to locate in a prominent position.
- “There is also the potential of a one-way system being ignored and this would cause problems on the bend in the road...
“From the above it is clear that there are active divisions within the community. The most appropriate way forward would be to amend the proposal.
- The Council has considered both objections and support for the proposed TRO as well as other options for the street. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
Final decision
- We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
- Her complaints about the planning permission and actions of the officer are late and there are no good reasons why she could not have raised these sooner.
- She may complain to the Information Commissioner if she believes the Council has withheld paperwork from her.
- There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has taken decisions about the road where she lives.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman