Summary: Mr X complained the Council allowed a developer to construct new road junctions not suitable and safe for cyclists, and that do not follow relevant design standards. We found the Council followed the correct procedures and was not at fault in considering the safety of the new junctions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council allowed a developer to construct new road junctions not suitable and safe for cyclists, and that do not follow relevant design standards. He also said the developer gave inadequate information to the stage two road safety auditor during the design stage. The junctions sever an existing pedestrian footpath and cycleway to provide access to a new housing estate.
2. Mr X said the new design means vehicles will block the cycle route. And cyclists will not have enough time to react to vehicles turning, as the cycle crossing is too close to the main road. Cyclists do not have priority, which is contrary to the Highway Code, and will now need to check several traffic movements before safely crossing.
3. Mr X considers the cycle crossing point should be set back, as per design standards, to allow more time for cyclists to see vehicles turning and for vehicles to react. It will also mean cyclists can pass behind vehicles waiting at the junctions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr 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

Cycle infrastructure design

9. The Department for Transport (DfT) published the Local Transport Note (LTN) 2/08 in October 2008. I have summarised some of its guidance below.
10. The guidance recommends a minimum of width of 1.5 metres for a one-way cycle track, or 3 metres for a two-way cycle track. Where there is no segregation between pedestrians and cyclists, a route width of 3 metres should usually be the minimum acceptable. Though in areas of few cyclists or pedestrians a narrower route may be enough.
11. Where a cycle track meets a carriageway, visibility splays are needed to ensure cyclists can see and be seen by approaching motorist. Longer distances are preferred at cycle track junctions. Good intervisibility between vehicles and cyclists is essential.
12. Crossings can be modified to mitigate hazards to cyclists and pedestrians, including narrowing the carriageway with tight kerbs. Bent out crossings can be used to deflect the cycle track away from the main road to create a gap of one or two car lengths between the road and the crossing. This gives drivers extra time to notice the crossing and provides somewhere to stop for crossing cyclists without obstructing the main road.
13. Tactile paving surfaces can be used to convey important information. On cycle routes, they are applied where tracks meet footways and at intervals along some shared routes. The corduroy surface is used to warn of the presence of specific hazards.
14. LTN 1/20 was then published by the DfT in July 2020 with updated guidance. Again, I have summarised some of its contents.
15. It is essential the needs of cyclists are considered in the design of all new and improved junctions. Design of cycle facilities should consider the volume and speed of motor traffic and the type and size of junction. Reducing the speed of motor traffic using the carriageway can enable additional options for crossing design.
16. It is important to design priority junctions so wherever possible cyclists can cross in a safe manner without losing priority. This enables cyclists to maintain momentum safely. Options for cycle priority at junctions includes full set back (5m) from the kerb line, partial set back, and no set back.
17. Level differences should be removed at crossing points, either by raising the cycle track or by using dropped kerbs. Tactile paving should also be provided.

What happened

18. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
19. The developer completed a transport assessment in April 2016. Amongst other things, the assessment considered:
• The National Planning Policy Framework, noting the need for minimising vehicle speed to reduce the risk of accidents, particularly involving pedestrians and cyclists.
• The Council’s Local Plan. Which has a specific section relating to the development and states the design should provide safe crossing points with an emphasis on controlling vehicular movements rather than pedestrian and cycles.
• Local cycle facilities. This highlighted several designated cycle routes, and a shared cycle footway on both sides of the road.
• Accidents. Data was collected for a five-year period between 2009 and 2014, showing ten accidents in that time. There was no evidence of clusters of accidents which might indicate a specific safety issue. There were no recorded accidents involving cyclists.
• Access to the development site. The developer intended to maximise opportunities for pedestrian movement, and proposed to reduce the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph for parts of the road to improve safety for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.
• Traffic growth. The developer used projections over a five-year period from 2018 to 2023 to establish future peak traffic flows and assess the impact.
• Junction assessments. The developer undertook junction capacity assessments, as requested by the Council, to determine performance and the ability to accommodate added peak hour traffic.
20. The transport assessment concluded there were no specific highway safety issues in the area, and the proposed development was acceptable in highways and transport terms. And it would not have a detrimental effect on the operation of the local highway or highway safety.
21. An independent firm of traffic and road safety engineers (the auditors) completed a combined stage one and stage two safety audit in January 2022.
22. The auditors highlighted some potential problems of relevance to Mr X’s complaint. First, they said it was not clear how the shared footway/cycleway will link with new junctions accessing the development. They said there are a lack of dropped kerbs, hazard tactile paving, signs, and markings which could lead to collisions. They recommended the developer take account of the current guidance and standards for cyclists and pedestrians.
23. Second, the auditors noted the visibility splays for the junctions may not be enough for the speed limit and questioned whether a new 30mph speed limit would be in place.
24. The developer’s response to the audit agreed to include advanced warning at junctions for pedestrians and cyclists. This would be through tactile hazard warning paving, bollards, and signs. The developer confirmed they had already included dropped kerbs in their plans.
25. The developer also confirmed they had now included junction visibility splays for 40mph, and the 30mph speed limit would be in force before the works come into use.
26. Mr X complained to the Council in February 2024. He said:
• The Council failed to ensure safe cycle provisions at the new junctions accessing the development.
• Junction layout did not follow design guidance LTN2/08, and the road safety audit could not assess cycleway provision due to a lack of information.
• The road safety auditor said junctions should meet current design standards – which is LTN1/20.
• Traffic volumes meant it would be difficult for non-motorised users (NMU) to use the crossing, likely leading to misjudgements and mistakes.
• The developer should widen the cycle path at the junction to 3 metres and set the crossing back slightly.
• The Council failed to ensure the cycle path was properly reinstated after utility works.
27. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in March 2024. It said:
• Schemes designed before publication of LTN1/20 do not need to be redesigned.
• The developer designed junctions to achieve movement by all users and vehicles.
• The issues Mr X raised relate to driver and user behaviour, not inherent design flaws.
• The junctions went through a stage one and two road safety audit which did not raise any safety problems.
• A stage three road safety audit will take place once construction is complete.
• Reinstatement of the cycle path following utility works was being fixed by the utility company.

My investigation

28. Mr X told me the junctions are now substantially complete. Cyclists must now look behind and in front for turning traffic. And the crossing length is too long, meaning cyclists must look a long way up and down the road to make sure it is safe to cross. Mr X considers the junctions will be difficult to navigate once the development is complete and traffic is heavier.
29. Mr X said the junction includes features the design standards identify as dangerous, such as multiple lanes, slack radius encouraging speed, and no set back in the crossing - which blocks NMU. He said the recommended width for cycle crossings was 3 metres when the developer presented plans, but they only achieved 2 to 2.4 metres.
30. Mr X was alarmed the Council accepted a stage two road safety audit that did not consider the safety of NMU due to a lack of information. He believes the auditor had safety concerns about the contact of NMU and vehicles, stating the importance of compliance with current standards, which would include LTN 1/20. He considers the developer did not consider cyclists and pedestrians in the designs, and they did not do a cycle audit. The junctions are designed to maximise vehicle entry and exit speed and capacity.
31. The Council told me the developer presented an outline planning application for the site in 2016, before the DfT published the LTN1/20 guidance in July 2020. LTN1/20 is a guidance document, not prescriptive standards, and it applies to new designs only. Previously approved designs do not have to be redesigned.
32. The Council considered applicable guidance, including Guidance on using Tactile Paving Surfaces, The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Direction 2016, Manual for Streets and LTN 2/08. It also considered the existing shared footway/cycleway and junction links on the northern and southern sides of the road. It said providing continuity in the locality can help consistent road user behaviour.
33. The Council assessed the junction considering all road users, including walking, wheeling and HGV analysis. It kept the junction crossing distance to a minimum while accommodating all road users. It carried out a full technical audit of the design and got an independent road safety audit. The developer’s travel plan predicted minimal queuing, with queues of only one vehicle and delays of 33 seconds or less.
34. The Council also said the developer proposed reducing the speed limit for that section of the road from 40mph to 30mph, but the design is not reliant on a 30mph speed limit.
35. The outline planning permission did not include any need to improve the pedestrian and cyclist facilities. And the planning process does not allow such improvements to be retrospectively required.
36. The Council considers that to set the crossing back, as Mr X suggested, would create tight bends for users, causing their own issues. And a 3-metre-wide cycle crossing would be wider than the existing crossing and would also present its own issues. The junction reflects other junctions on the same road for continuity, and all users are bound by the Highway Code. The Council considers the design allows for drivers to give way to cyclists.
37. The Council said it will complete a stage three road safety audit following substantial completion of the works.

Analysis

38. 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.
39. I found the Council followed the correct procedures and was not at fault for lack of consideration of the safety of the new junctions.
40. The developer in this case carried out a transport assessment after securing outline planning permission. This involved input from officers in the Council’s highways department. I have not seen evidence to suggest the assessment was either unreliable or not sufficiently detailed or robust.
41. There was then a combined stage one and stage two road safety audit, and I saw evidence the developer agreed to incorporate safety features suggested by the auditors.
42. While Mr X is correct the road safety auditors recommended the developer should take account of current guidance, they also made specific suggestions about how the developer could do so. I found the developer agreed to the suggestions and proposed to incorporate safety features in line with what auditors recommended.
43. There will also be a stage three road safety audit, where matters will be checked again.
44. When the development was going through the planning process, the relevant design standards were LTN 2/08. This is design guidance. It gives examples of good practice in general terms and for some specific situations. However, it is not one size fits all, and the guidance itself recognises that designs will depend on the individual circumstances present.
45. Mr X wanted the developer to widen the cycle crossing and set it back to allow more space. These types of features are included in the old guidance. However, they are not compulsory features that must be present at all crossings. And I note the road safety auditors did not make specific recommendations for these features to be included in this case. I therefore do not find the Council at fault for not insisting on their inclusion.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. I found the Council followed the correct procedures and was not at fault in considering the safety of the new junctions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman