Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of traffic calming features in the highway in Mr and Mrs X’s village. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council introducing a 20mph speed limit and traffic calming measures in their village in 2025. They say that new speed cushions and a large speed table feature have caused increased traffic noise from HGV’s and farm vehicles passing over it, together with increased light pollution from headlamps.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr and Mrs X say that since the Council introduced traffic calming measures in their village in 2025 they have been disturbed by traffic noise from vehicle passing over the speed reduction features. In particular a large raised table causes excessive noise and they want the Council to remove this.
6. The Council says that the scheme was created with the approval of the local parish council and that local consultation was carried out as part of the traffic order process. The speed cushions are part of the 20mph speed reduction and noise from the features is an accepted trade off for increased road safety. Mr and Mrs X had an opportunity to object to the proposals but there is no obligation for a highway authority to change a scheme because of local objections, even if these represent the majority of residents, which in this case they did not.
7. The Council told Mr and Mrs X that, following their concerns, it would arrange for the raised table to be inspected to ensure that it complies with the specifications set out for its construction.
8. 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. We will not investigate this compalint further because there is no evidence to suggest that the speed reduction measures did not follow the correct procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of traffic calming features in the highway in Mr and Mrs X’s village. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman