Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a traffic management issue. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take account of recent road changes when deciding to proceed with a new traffic management scheme near his home. He says the recent changes have removed the need for the new scheme and questions the Council’s decision to make the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and begin work to deliver the new scheme. He also complains the Council failed to respond to his request to revoke the certificate of lawful development (CLD) and has conflated the TRO and CLD issues in responding to his complaint.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

7. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) allows certain development without the need for planning permission. This is known as ‘permitted development’. Permitted development rights are subject to limitations and exclusions, but when a proposal falls within the parameters of development allowed by the Order it will not require planning permission.
8. An application for a CLD looks at whether a proposal is permitted development but it is not the same as a grant of planning permission. Approval for works which are permitted development stems from the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and not a decision by a council acting as the local planning authority to grant a CLD.

The certificate of lawful development

9. Mr X wants the Council to revoke the CLD as a way to stop the new scheme from being carried out, but the CLD is not relevant to the issues Mr X has raised.
10. The Council granted the CLD in 2024 because it decided the works for the new scheme did not require planning permission. There is no evidence of fault in this decision and Mr X’s arguments about the Council’s justification for the scheme are not relevant to the CLD process.
11. The Council’s decision to grant the CLD did not look at whether the new scheme was justified and revocation of the CLD would not mean the work to deliver it has to stop. Due to the nature of the works involved they do not require planning permission so there would be no basis to stop it, from a planning perspective, even if the Council revoked the CLD.
12. The main issue in this case concerns the Council’s decision to proceed with the TRO, which is an entirely separate process.

The Traffic Regulation Order

13. Mr X considers the new scheme is not necessary and he believes the Council should not therefore have proceeded with the TRO needed to deliver it. He says the Council used false and misleading data to justify its decision and he wants it to re-evaluate the scheme and put a stop to the work, which is already underway.
14. The TRO was subject to a formal process which included consultation with members of the public. The documents available online show the Council considered the results of the consultation, including over 100 objections to the new scheme, but decided these objections did not outweigh its advantages. This was a decision the Council was entitled to reach.
15. I appreciate Mr X’s concerns about the data used by the Council to justify its decision but we could achieve no meaningful outcome for him by investigating this point further.
16. Work is already underway to deliver the new scheme and has been for some time. We can neither revoke the TRO nor say the Council must stop the work.
17. Had Mr X wished to challenge the Council’s decision prior to work starting, it would have been reasonable for him to apply to the High Court to quash the TRO itself. He could have done this on the basis of alleged flaws in the consultation process; specifically, not properly considering objections concerning the alleged false and misleading data used the justify the new scheme. The High Court has powers we do not and they alone could have achieved the outcome Mr X wants, which is ultimately (and for any reason that may apply) to stop the new scheme from going ahead.

Other matters

18. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman