Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s proposal to introduce a new pedestrian crossing on Mr X’s road. There is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly consider the impact on air quality before proposing to implement a new pedestrian crossing on his road. He wants the Council to either move the proposed location of the crossing or take other action to mitigate the impact of increased pollution on his family’s health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. As part of a wide plan to encourage walking within its area, the Council is proposing to implement a pedestrian crossing on Mr X’s road.
6. Mr X complained a pedestrian crossing would increase stop-start traffic and cause increased air pollution, which would negatively affect his family’s health.
7. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council considered his concerns and completed a site visit. It decided a crossing would be unlikely to significantly reduce air quality, as the location allowed the freeflow of air which allowed pollution to disperse. It also said pedestrian flow at that location was anticipated to be low, so there would not be a significant increase in stopping traffic. It said it would soon be launching a formal consultation as part of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and Mr X would have the opportunity to formally object during this process, if he wished to do so.
8. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council has appropriately considered his concerns and advised him of the upcoming formal consultation. The final decision about whether to implement the crossing has not yet been made and we cannot interfere with this process. It is open to Mr X to submit his objections as part of the TRO consultation. An investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman