Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr D’s complaint about the Council failing to carry out proper monitoring of high speeds on a stretch of road near his home. It provided evidence showing why it monitored where it did, contact it had with the police, why the police did not deploy officers to carry out enforcement monitoring near his home, and of Mr D making the police aware of his concerns.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains about the Council’s failure to:
1. ensure there is proper and effective traffic control on a busy road near to his home; and
2. properly monitor and assess dangerously high traffic speeds along it.
2. As a result, these failures cause him anxiety and frustration as he feels unable to walk locally as high speeds leave pedestrians and other road users vulnerable to injury.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information provided by Mr D, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr D and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr D is concerned about a stretch of road near his house which leads towards town which has a speed limit of 30 mph (road A). Mr D’s house is located just before the start of it where the national speed limit applies. His home is in the ‘rural’ stretch of the road (road B).
7. Mr D claims traffic leaving town along the 150-metre stretch of road A accelerates before joining road B. As there is no pavement along it, getting in and out of town on foot is difficult and dangerous because of traffic speed. Road A is made more dangerous by a blind bend and the position of the sun.
8. Mr D wants the enforcement of the speed limit on road A towards where it meets road B. While he accepts this is the responsibility of the police, he believes the Council could consider other options to make it safer. He argues when the Council asked the police to monitor speeds, it did so on road A but at a location closer to town, and away from road B. What it failed to do was measure speeds along road A of traffic leaving town towards road B.
9. Mr D argues the Council putting up two pedestrian warning signs on the road is inadequate and notes the irony of one of them getting knocked over by a car. The Council pointed out these signs were erected following Mr D’s request for them.
10. The Council explained an officer spoke to the police after receiving Mr D’s initial email and sent them a copy. Although I have not seen evidence of the call, or of it forwarding the email as claimed, I have seen a copy of an email Mr D sent the Council in June which he copied to the police.
11. The Council carried out speed surveys between 29 September and 6 October 2020. These were done inbound and outbound.
12. It sent a copy of the survey data and details of the location. While it was done on road A, it was not done on the 150-metre stretch Mr D is concerned about. Explaining why it chose this location, the Council said it must attach its monitoring equipment to a lighting column which has a good line of sight, away from vegetation/trees or bends. Usually, it places them away from junctions where vehicles slow and turn as this can give misleading results. For these reasons, it decided to monitor road A but, further towards town as this would give better results. The lighting column used was the only one available which could provide the best results which is why it did not monitor where Mr D wanted.
13. After obtaining the results, the police made 13 deployments and 123 vehicles were caught speeding. The Council denied the police were unaware of the location Mr D is concerned about. It sent copies of email correspondence between it and the police. These show why the police decided to carry out enforcement monitoring where it did.
14. The Council also provided a copy of an email from the police which confirmed they were aware of the location Mr D was concerned about and had been contacted by him directly about it. The police explained given the lack of footway outside his house, they could not deploy safely along this rural stretch of road. The only place it could measure speed and carry out enforcement was at the location it used.
15. The Council said putting up the warning signs was a short-term solution but, there is limited scope to provide pedestrian footways along the full length of road A. To do so would also involve buying some land owned by third parties. It told Mr D if a nearby neighbouring development goes ahead, it will try and get footpath links as part of it of the scheme. These would link the road A stretch Mr D is concerned about, with the section further along which already has footpaths.
16. I have seen the layout plans for the new housing development. These show the building of a new roundabout to the entrance to the development site. This is part way along the stretch of road A he is concerned about. The Council explained this would help reduce speeds along it.
17. In October, the Council raised the possibility of reducing the speed limit on road B just before road A. In response to my enquiries, it explained it would introduce this limit as part of the proposed works to the new roundabout.

Analysis

18. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. The Council erected signs near Mr D’s house. These warned vehicles approaching road A of pedestrians in the road. There is also a traffic calming feature at the start of the 30mph zone. Street lighting starts near the entrance to the zone.
2. While the Council did its own speed survey monitoring, and passed the results to the police, this did not take place on the stretch of road A he is concerned about. I took account of the reasons why the Council carried out monitoring where it did. The Council said it needed an area without a bend. The images I have seen on the internet show there is a bend on road A just before it reaches the end of the 30mph zone. The images also show there is a bend on road B, just a short distance from Mr D’s house.
3. The Council also said it needed a street lighting column free of vegetation. While images I have seen from the internet suggest there is a lighting column near the start of road A on the outbound side, there are trees and shrubs just before it, leading down to the bend already mentioned.
4. Although there is a further street light on the outbound side on road B, this is at the start of the other bend. There is a tree behind it and shrubbery.
5. On balance, I consider there was no fault in the Council’s decision not to carry out the monitoring survey at the location Mr D wanted. This is because of the presence of two bends, limited street lighting available for its equipment to be attached to, lack of clear lines of sight, and the amount of vegetation near the street columns.
6. I am also satisfied the evidence shows the police were aware of Mr D’s concerns about the location on road A closer to his home when it chose to do enforcement monitoring further away.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I found no fault on Mr D’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman