Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of speed restrictions associated with a new development in its area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council entering into an agreement with a developer about speed restrictions related to the planning approval of a housing estate. He says the Council failed to agree to introduce a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) when the plans were approved in 2022. He says the agreement and a subsequent Road safety Audit did not properly assess the speeds and the risks involved and he was excluded form consultation on the proposals.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to us about the Council’s failure to introduce a TRO in 2022 when plans were approved for a housing development. We investigated this matter as part of complaint reference 22 013 146 and issued our decision in 2023. We will not consider the matters again.
6. The Council made an agreement over the highways speed limits and layouts in 2025 with the developer as part of an agreement under s.278 of the Highways Act 1980. This was following the failure of a proposed TRO in the 2022 planning approval on appeal in which the highway authority (the Council) was not a signatory to the proposal.
7. Mr X says he does not believe the s.278 proposals address his concerns about traffic safety and speed limits. He says his view were not taken into account and that he was excluded from representation in the subsequent Road Safety Audit.
8. The Council says that the s.278 agreement is a matter between its professional highways officer and the developer and there is no right of objection nor comment by the public. The Road safety Audit is carried out by an independent qualified auditor following Highways England’s requirements. The public is not generally involved in the outcome of an audit although local authorities such as parish councils may submit evidence.
9. Mr X clearly has a disagreement with the Council highway authority’s involvement in the development. He has made complaints about both the highway authority and the planning authority in the past. However, although he may hold a different opinion on the traffic arrangements, this is a matter for the highway authority and the Road safety Auditor to decide.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11.  

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of speed restrictions associated with a new development in its area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman