Summary: Mr F complained about the Council’s decision not to require a reduction in speed limits around a housing development near to where he lives. We find the Council was at fault for failing to properly consider its traffic policy before agreeing a statement of common ground with the applicant. The Council apologised to Mr F when it responded to his complaint. This is sufficient to remedy Mr F’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained about the Council’s decision not to require a reduction in speed limits around a housing development near to where he lives. He says without the speed limits the roads around the development will be dangerous and it could endanger his life.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. The Planning Inspectorate acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspectorate considers appeals about a decision to refuse planning permission.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. I considered information from Mr F. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
7. Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Traffic regulation order

8. A traffic regulation order (TRO) can be used by a council to restrict or stop the use of the road network. They aim to improve road safety and access to facilities. TROs are issued in line with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the procedures are set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic orders (Procedure) Regulations 1996.

The Council’s traffic policy

9. The Council has a policy which sets out the criteria for introducing speed limits in the local area.
10. The policy says the Council will consider the vulnerability of road users, the frontages within the community and the speed related accident history before deciding whether to introduce new speed limits.

What happened

11. The council (Council X) where Mr F lives received a planning application for a new housing development. Council X rejected the planning application.
12. The applicant appealed Council X’s decision to the planning inspectorate. The planning inspectorate organised a public inquiry to consider the appeal.
13. The Council, who is the local highways authority, signed a statement of common ground with the applicant. This said an extension of the existing 30mph speed limit should be sought around the housing development through a legal agreement.
14. The Council signed a section 106 agreement with Council X, the applicant, and the site owners. This required the site owners to carry out offsite highways works.
15. The applicant also prepared a TRO plan for the proposed extension to the 30mph speed limit. The funding for the TRO proposals was set out in a unilateral undertaking. The applicant, Council X and the site owners signed the undertaking. Council X sent the undertaking to the planning inspectorate. The Council did not sign the undertaking. However, the Council received a copy of it when Council X emailed the planning inspectorate.
16. The planning inspectorate heard the appeal and decided to grant planning permission. It noted the undertaking would secure funding for a TRO and it was necessary to secure the TRO proposals to make the development safe.
17. The Council reviewed matters the following year and decided not to extend the 30mph speed limit. Officers noted the development was not changing the layout of the road and none of the properties would front the road. They said a 30mph speed limit would not comply with its traffic policy.
18. Mr F complained to the Council about its failure to adhere to the agreement to extend the 30mph speed limit.
19. The Council responded to Mr F’s complaint. It said the applicant prepared a TRO plan and a unilateral undertaking providing the mechanism for the contribution towards the costs of the TRO was provided to the inquiry. It said no party involved in the appeal asked it to comment on the undertaking and the planning inspectorate accepted it without seeking its comments on the content. It also said the undertaking did not oblige the Council to make a TRO and the planning inspectorate assumed a TRO would be implemented.
20. The Council said the officer who agreed the statement of common ground with the applicant failed to fully consider its traffic policy. If the officer had, it is likely they would have included a statement to say the Council would consider a speed restriction, but not guarantee it. It apologised for its mistake. It said it had spoken to officers and the extension of the 30mph speed limit was not in line with its policy. The approved development would not change the appearance of the road as there would be no new houses fronting the road. It also explained it was unlikely the introduction of a new junction would result in an increase in the speed of vehicles accessing the site.

Back to top

Analysis

21. The Council has accepted it was at fault for failing to fully consider its traffic policy when it signed the statement of common ground with the applicant. I agree the Council was at fault and I consider it has wrongly raised Mr F’s expectations it would extend the speed limit.
22. The Council apologised to Mr F when it responded to his complaint. I consider this is a suitable way to remedy Mr F’s injustice. The Council has now considered the matter in full in line with its traffic policy and explained why it cannot extend the speed limit. There is no fault in its decision making. If the Council had not been at fault, it would have been clearer from the outset there was no guarantee it would extend the speed limit.
23. Mr F says the Council had an opportunity to comment on the unilateral undertaking and make representations. Council X sent the undertaking to the planning inspectorate and at the same time it also sent a copy to the Council. However, there is no evidence Council X, the applicant, or the planning inspectorate asked for the Council’s comments. The Council did not sign the undertaking, and therefore it is not bound by any obligations in it. It is at the Council’s discretion as to whether to implement a TRO and it has explained why it is not appropriate in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

24. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr F an injustice. The Council has apologised to Mr F for this injustice. This is a suitable remedy for Mr F and so I do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman