Summary: Ms X complained the Council has failed to risk assess and take enough action against a Port Operator’s shuttle bus service’s use of a mini-roundabout and a local highway as collection point. She said this is causing road safety risks and congestion and impact’s her and other local residents. We found no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its views as a highway’s authority. It therefore made decisions it was entitled to make.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council allowing a mini roundabout in a conservation residential area to be used as a pickup and drop off point for a large number of cruise ship passengers. She said this causes a build-up of traffic, and much disruption to the local area making it unsafe.
2. Ms X wants the Council to properly assess risks and take action against breaches of the Highway Code, stop the Port Operators bus service using double yellow lines, and move it to a different location.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X 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

Relevant law, guidance and policy

Road Traffic Act 1988

7. The Road Traffic Act places a duty on highway authorities to maintain road to a safe standard. This includes keeping roads clear, implementing appropriate signage, assessing hazards, and promote road safety by considering accidents.

Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)

8. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) or Traffic Management Order (TMO) are legal documents, which create a local traffic rule in line with the Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984). These rules could include reducing the speed vehicles can travel and where they can park. This include the use and changes of yellow lines.
9. The Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (‘the Regulations’) sets out the procedure for introducing a TRO.
10. A TRO can be challenged in court. Applications must be made within six weeks of making the TRO.

The Highway Code

11. The Highway Code (the Code) set out rules for waiting and parking on the highway. It is not permitted:
• to wait or park on yellow lines where a prohibition is shown. On double yellow lines such prohibition is in place at any time (Rule 238).
• to stop or park in certain areas including pedestrian crossings, a clearway, taxi bays, a road marked with double white lines, a tram or cycle lane, red lines, near a school entrance, opposite or within 10 metres of a junction, or on a bend. (Rule 240 and 243).
• to leave a vehicle in a dangerous position or where it cause any unnecessary obstruction of the road (Rule 242).
• to load and unload where there are yellow markings on the kerb and upright signs advice restrictions are in place (Rule 247).
12. The Highway Code Road Markings sets out loading and unloading are permitted along a carriageway unless loading restrictions are in place.

The Council’s Policies

13. The Council has a Civil Parking Enforcement Policy (The Policy) which sets out how it enforces contraventions of the Highway code. The Policy also sets out guidelines for:
• when vehicles can load and unload on yellow and double yellow lines. This includes when there are no loading restrictions marked by yellow blips or chevrons on the kerb at the location.
• If no loading or unloading is taking place, its civil enforcement officers will consider an observation period and may issue a penalty charge notice.
14. The Council has a single permit scheme, as provided by Part 3 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, to manage street works and other events to help it control and manage traffic flow more effectively.

What happened

15. This is intended to be a brief summary of what happened.
16. Ms X lives in the Council’s area near to its port. She said before 2022 only few cruise ships arrived at the port. However, following works by the Port Operator it could accommodate larger vessels, which increased passenger numbers.
17. The Port Operator put in place a shuttle bus service which picked up and dropped off passengers from a local highway with double yellow lines in the areas Ms X live.
18. She raised concerns to the Council about the Port Operator’s shuttlebus service was using a mini-roundabout and a local highway as the drop-off and pick-up point for passengers of its cruise ships. A large number of residents and some elected members also raised concerns.
19. Ms X’s key concerns were:
• the mini-roundabout and local highway is not safe as a pick-up and drop-off location due to the impact this had on traffic and how the busses have to manoeuvre the roundabout;
• the area around the mini-roundabout is largely residential with a nursery and school. The increased traffic and congestion impacts the local area and residents, and presents safety risks for road users and pedestrians;
• the Council had failed to comply with the legal requirements under the Traffic Regulation Order process and failed to consult with residents about the changes of use to the highway;
• there has been an increasing number of cruise ships and passengers. The number of busses and traffic therefore continues to worsen. Including the occurrences where more than one shuttle bus was present at the collection point; and
• passengers of the cruise ships were congesting the area, and some anti-social behaviour had taken place.
20. Ms X complained to the Council in 2024. She said it had failed to follow required steps to make proper decisions regarding the concerns about what she considered a dangerous an illegal highways operation by the Port Operator.
21. The Council says it subsequently considered Ms X’s, and many other residents, concerns. It held discussions with the Port Operator, considered alternative options to the existing collection point, and arranged for its Road Safety Team to complete an assessment.
22. In Spring 2024 it told Ms X it would take longer to respond to her complaint, but it was working with the Port Operator regarding another location for the shuttle service. It had proposed a Council owned car park as an alternative, which if agreed would need to be risk assessed.
23. The Port Operator did not agree to use the Council’s proposed car park and said it would continue with its existing collection point.
24. The Council’s Road Safety Team assessment was completed in May 2024. It found the shuttle busses were allowed to drop-off and pick-up passengers at the collection point. It acknowledged there was an impact on traffic and congestion in the area, but found this could be managed and set out recommendations. These included:
• implementing advanced signage near the mini-roundabout to warn motorists of busses turning and additional traffic;
• taxis to use a local car park;
• for marshals to be on site to ensure passengers queued in an orderly way, and a banksman to help manage traffic and busses manoeuvring the mini-roundabout; and
• for shuttle bus arrival times to be managed to have only one bus at a time at the collection point.
25. In May 2024 Ms X told the Council about an accident with a motorcycle and one of the shuttle busses.
26. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint and explained it had found the Port Operator was entitled to use the collection point. However, the Council had made recommendations to mitigate the concerns which the Port Operator had agreed to. However, it would continue to monitor the situation. If it and the Port Operator agreed there was a safety issue as a result of the multiple cruise ships docking, a contingency plan using its proposed car park would again be considered.
27. Ms X asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She said:
• the Port Operator had not met the recommendations several times during the summer, and shared evidence of shuttle busses arriving at the same time causing congestion;
• the shuttle busses were in breach of the Highway Code due to being less than 10 metres from the mini-roundabout when they were stacking, instances of blocking an entrance to homes, and parking on the double yellow lines without dropping off passengers; and
• the Council’s road safety assessment was inadequate. She questioned why no assessment had taken place sooner, and how it would ensure the Port Operator adhered to the Council’s recommendations.
28. In response the Council told Ms X it had considered her concerns, but found it had responded to her complaint. It had an agreed plan with the Port Operator in place to mitigate concerns. It said it would continue to monitor this and its dialogue with the Operator.
29. Ms X asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.
30. In response to our enquiries the Council confirmed its view, which included:
• It was under no obligation to conduct the road safety assessment. however, it did so to consider residents concerns. It is therefore not required to review the assessment or enforce the recommendations in its assessment. However, its civil enforcement officers have patrolled the area and found no contraventions.
• The Port Operator is allowed to use the collection point as its pick-up and drop-off location, but the Council’s offer for the Operator to use its car park remains available. It cannot force the Operator to do so.
• It was satisfied its recommendations set out in its Safety Assessment were appropriate to mitigate concerns, but it would continue to monitor the situation.
• It explained a risk assessment was required for the Council’s car park, if the Port Operator were to agree to this. This is because this is owned by the Council and is not a public highway.

Analysis and findings

31. The role of the Ombudsman is not to make decisions about road safety or reach a view whether the Port Operator’s shuttle bus service to the collection point is acceptable or not. Our role is to consider whether the Council properly considered Ms X’s and the local residents’ concerns and its duties as a Highway’s Authority.

The existing shuttle bus arrangement

32. The Council has consistently been clear it cannot force the Port Operator to stop using the mini-roundabout and the local highway as its pick-up and drop-off point.
33. I have found no fault in the process the Council followed to consider Ms X and local residents concerns, and its view is in line with the Highway Code. It therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make. This is because:
• the private shuttle busses are allowed to load and unload passengers on double yellow lines. There are no other restrictions at the pick-up and drop-off point which renders the arrangement unlawful;
• data available to the Council has not shown evidence the mini-roundabout and local highway was a hazard or concern which required the Council to risk assess the location prior to Ms X and local residents raising their concerns;
• the Council and its Road Safety Team has inspected considered the impact and risks of the operation when cruise ships docked and the service was running. It found the service was causing congestion due to the size of the roads, location, and frequency. However, this could be mitigated through agreement with the Port Operator. Mitigations including signage, staff to manage busses and passengers, and forward planning regarding other events and roadworks was subsequently put in place;
• the Council did not find busses using the mini-roundabout and local highway was causing the level of risk Ms X is concerned about and considered reported injuries at the location. Nor, that any further assessment was necessary as Ms X would like;
• the Council, or the Police, can only take action when contraventions are observed. The Council’s civil enforcement officers have patrolled the area but did not find this had occurred;
• the Council considered alternative options for pick-up and drop-off location of the shuttle busses and offered the use of a Council owned car park to the Port Operator. However, it could not insist or force the Operator to agree to this; and
• the Council has committed to continuing to monitor to situation, and its offer of the alternative location for the pick-up and drop-off remains available.
34. I acknowledge Ms X’s concerns that when more than one bus arrives at the same time, this causes congestion. However, it is not within the Council’s powers to force the operator to run fewer busses or prevent them from arriving at the same time. This is because the Port Operator is entitled to make use of the local highway. All the Council could do was to seek an agreement with the Operator to mitigate the impact and occurrences of such events, which is what it did.
35. I also understand the relevant area is a conservation area. However, the Council has not made any planning or new highway decisions as part of the Port Operators shuttle bus service. Concerns about the impacts on the conservation are therefore not relevant. Any decisions about other nearby planning applications would only be able to consider those individual application’s impact on the conservation area.

Adherence to recommendations

36. Ms X said the Port Operator has failed to adhere to the Council’s recommendations following the Road Safety Team’s assessment. She said some occurrences of breaches of the Highway Code has happened when several busses arrived at the same time.
37. I understand the Port Operator agreed to the Council’s recommendations and put the mitigations in place. However, because a contravention occurs does not mean the shuttle bus service is unlawful. Any individual busses contravening the Highway Code can be issued a penalty charge notice, but only if the Council’s civil enforcement officers observe the breach.
38. I acknowledge Ms X wants the Council to ensure the Operator fully adheres to agreed recommendations. I found it was not fault by the Council for failing to do so. This is because the recommendations are not legally binding. It can only rely on the corporation of the Operator and its bus drivers, and seek to address any concerns through its ongoing dialogue and monitoring.

Cruise ship passengers in the area

39. Ms X said large numbers of passengers congregate in the area when being dropped off or awaiting pick up from the Port Operators shuttle service. This is not contested by the Council.
40. The Council’s Road Safety Team’s assessment considered the passengers impact on the roads and sidewalks in the area. It found the proposed mitigations to have marshals on duty when cruise ships dock to be appropriate to mitigate the impact this would have on the local area. I found this was a decision the Council was entitled to make. I also note it is limited what the Council can do to prevent passengers waiting in the area.
41. I understand the behaviour of some passengers may have amounted to anti-social behaviour which has caused Ms X and local residents’ frustration. The Council told Ms X to report concerns to the Police when incidents occur, which was appropriate.
42. The Council does have some powers under Anti-Social behaviour legislation, such as Public Spaces Protection Orders, to restrict specific activities or groups of people at a specific public location. However, I am not satisfied the Council has been presented with evidence of behaviour which would justify it considering or taking such steps.

Going forward

43. It is clear there has been a significant increase in the number of cruise ships and passengers, and therefore shuttle busses using the pick-up and drop-off location. I understand this may continue or increase further.
44. I acknowledge this concerns Ms X and local residents. The Council has committed to continue to monitor the situation.
45. If the Council changes its view about the impact the shuttle service has, and finds this is causing unacceptable road safety concerns, it can reconsider its approach. This could be to implement a Traffic Regulation Order for the location or the area to prohibit the loading and unloading of goods or passengers in the area. However, this would not prevent the Port Operator to move the pick-up and drop-off location to an alternative double yellow line.

Back to top

Decision

46. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman