Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council reached decisions about a road closure near Mrs X’s home. The Council was at fault for failing to ensure a developer directly communicated with Mrs X about the road closure. The developer did not send Mrs X or provide the Council with a copy of a letter about works until two months after the works began which was not in line with the Council’s own procedures. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the frustration that caused and carry out a service improvement to prevent the same fault in the future.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure she had pedestrian access past a closure on her road. Mrs X said the lack of access meant a significant detour on foot to access the nearest bus stop.
2. Mrs X said the lack of pedestrian access caused significant stress and disruption while the road remained closed between August and November 2025.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Traffic regulation orders (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 include closing part of a road for works.
9. The Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (‘the Regulations’) sets out the procedure for introducing a TRO or TMO.
10. The authority must publish a notice in a local newspaper. It must also make sure the order is adequately publicised. This might include telling people the authority thinks may be affected, but it does not have to do this (regulation 7).

The Council’s procedures

11. The Council’s website outlines that a TRO (or Temporary Traffic Regulation Order) is required before any work is carried out on the highway which requires a closure. The applicant must inform the Council by sending it
• a traffic management plan which shows a diversion route
• a letter to be sent to all affected residents

What happened

12. Mrs X lives on a quiet rural lane. It is approximately 600 metres left out of her home to the nearest bus stop on a main road. The road immediately outside Mrs X’s home does not have a footway/pavement.
13. A developer started building a new housing estate on land near Mrs X’s home. In mid-2025 the developer applied to the Council for a TRO to close part of Mrs X’s road to build access points to the new housing estate. The closure meant Mrs X would not be able to access the main road via car or foot by turning left from her home. The diversion meant a four mile detour by car to the main road and just over a mile detour by foot however this was across public footpaths and fields.
14. The Council notified the wider public about the road closure using its normal public information channels including public notices and uploading the intended closure on its website and the national online system. The public notice was publicised in local newsletters and the Parish Council website a week before the closure was due to begin.
15. The road closure began at the start of August 2025. Mrs X complained to the Council on the same day. She complained she had not received any letter or notification of the works even though she was heavily affected and inconvenienced with the significant detour.
16. The Council provided a stage one complaint response in mid-August. It said the works and road closure were agreed for an access point to the new housing estate. It said the full closure was required due to safety reasons and once complete there would be no further closures. The Council said the works should be complete by December 2025.
17. Mrs X escalated her complaint in September 2025. She remained unhappy about the full closure stating there was no pedestrian access and concrete barriers were in place to prevent people getting past. She said the detour was nearly four and a half miles and the Council had agreed it with no care for residents.
18. In early October 2025 the developer wrote to Mrs X explaining the road closure and ongoing works. It acknowledged Mrs X’s concerns and offered to speak with her, providing contact details of the site manager. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the closure. It confirmed it could not provide pedestrian access due to health and safety reasons.
19. The Council provided a stage two complaint response in October 2025. It said the law meant it could not refuse permit requests for essential works. It said the developer could not create a pedestrian route safely due to the type of works. The Council referred Mrs X to the alternative route using public footpaths and said it was working with the developer to maintain pedestrian access.
20. Mrs X wrote to the Council again and said the public footpath route was not reasonable especially in the winter months.
21. Records show the works completed in early November 2025 and a pedestrian route through the work zone was installed.
22. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us.

The Council’s response to us

23. The Council said there was no pre-existing footpath outside the section of road by Mrs X’s home and so the only other safe alternative route was via the public footpath. It said the works took place across the full width of the road and included deep excavations, sewage works and the use of heavy machinery. It said it could not require the developer to open a pedestrian route while hazards remained in place.
24. The Council said three residents were directly affected by the road closure which included Mrs X. It said advance communication with the residents did not take place due to a delay in commissioning the contractor to take on the works. The Council said it is the developer who is usually responsible for communicating with residents, but it acknowledged there was a gap in communication and engagement with the affected residents.

My findings

25. The road closure in place was necessary due to health and safety reasons and the type of construction work taking place including use of large works vehicles and deep excavation work. There was no existing footpath outside Mrs X’s home to maintain and therefore it was necessary to put in place a full closure. This was a decision by the developer and there was no reason for the Council to intervene due to the clear health and safety implications explained. There was no fault.
26. Mrs X lives in a rural location and therefore the nearest detour to the main road and bus stop was via public footpaths. While this was inconvenient and lengthy there was no other alternative. There were however gaps in communication with Mrs X which the Council has acknowledged. While the Council ensured statutory notices and wider public notices were in place it failed to ensure direct communication with Mrs X took place in line with its own procedures. As part of the application process the developer should have supplied the Council with a copy of a letter to affected residents. The developer did not send the letter until over two months after works began and the Council missed the opportunity during this period to ensure this took place earlier. The failure to ensure the developer was properly communicating with Mrs X prior to works beginning was fault. While this caused Mrs X frustration it did not impact or affect the lack of pedestrian access.

Back to top

Action

27. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action:
1. Apologise to Mrs X for the frustration caused by the Council’s failure to ensure a developer provided her with a letter telling her about a road closure near her home. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Remind relevant officers by way of a briefing or staff training to ensure developers send letters to all residents directly affected by works carried out on the highway under Traffic Regulation Orders before the works begin. The letters should provide details of the works, information about any alternative routes and timescales for the works. In line with its own procedures the Council should ensure it receives a copy of the letter from the developer prior to works beginning.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman