Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council carried out a consultation when deciding whether to put an Experimental Traffic Order where he lives and says it was unfair how votes were counted. This has caused frustration and distress. We did not find fault with the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council's consultation process it carried out when making a decision about whether to put an Experimental Traffic Order on the road he lives in. He says the Council was not transparent and was unfair by including votes from people who do not live at that road. This has caused significant frustration and distress as he says the road is not suitable for the number of vehicles that use it and poses a danger to residents and cyclists.

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)
3. 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

4. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered his views.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
6. 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

Background

7. Mr X lives on “the Street”. He and other residents have raised continual safety concerns about the Street due to high volumes of traffic driving through and lack of dedicated footpaths. A few years ago, a councillor conducted an informal survey just to residents of the Street. The majority voted in favour of putting in trial traffic measures.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

8. In mid-2023, the Council posted a survey to the same residents. It proposed two options to restrict traffic on the Street and a third option that no changes be made. Before it considered implementing a scheme, it wanted to get their views to take into account. The letter said:
• It invited them to vote on a preferred option. It would then assess the responses received and feedback the results;
• It had a copy of the letter on its website; and
• If it proceeded with either option, it would be on a trial basis for six months. During this, residents would be able to provide feedback and if it was not working as intended, the measures could be removed.
9. A different adapted version of the survey was circulated in the local community; this included a copy of the Council’s original letter stating any measures would be on a trial basis. This second survey implied it was a proposed permanent closure of the Street.
10. In its decision report, the Council said:
• A copy of the original survey was placed on the Council’s website to allow for residents outside the Street to express their views.
• It recognised the second version encouraged residents of other local streets to respond but it had misinformation and tried to influence votes for the third option.
• However, in processing the results, the Council decided to accept all responses regardless of whether they were from the official survey, or the second version, and email responses.
• It noted the responses came from a wide area. Nearly 80% of the votes were for option three (no action taken).
• It said while an Experimental Traffic Order (“ETO”) would encourage people to walk and cycle, it did not feature on the Council’s list of proposals for improving the network. It considered this and the results, and it decided not to make an ETO.
11. Mr X formally complained to the Council. He raised a number of concerns about how the process was carried out, including it was unfair to the residents of the Street as they thought only they would be voting. If they had known otherwise, they could have gathered supporting votes elsewhere. He said the actions of individuals strongly against the proposal had lied to encourage votes and were likely those who regularly used the Street as a “rat run”. He said the Council had not considered the impact a proposed housing estate in the area would have on the existing traffic issues.
12. The Council responded through its complaints process. It said the survey was intended to get views from those in the Street. When the Council was aware of the other survey, it sought advice from elected members who said they wanted all survey returns to be included in the final results.
13. Mr X then complained to us. He wanted the Council to discount the votes from outside the Street or re-run the vote for just residents of the Street.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

14. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the survey was not intended to only be for those on the Street as it had put it on the website. The first survey a few years ago was for the residents to get an initial view of whether they supported a change, before a wider consultation on more detailed proposals considered. It said it would not have been appropriate to only survey residents on the Street for this as it would be criticised for not consulting more widely.

Analysis

15. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is our role to look at whether there was fault in how an organisation made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot say it should have made a particular decision or reached a different outcome.
16. Councils will usually carry out some consultation in the area before deciding whether to go through the formal process of making an ETO. However, unless a council specifically indicates otherwise, consultation is not a referendum. The decision to make an ETO ultimately rests with the Council.
17. The survey letter Mr X received did not say either way of who specifically it wanted to get responses from (whether those just in the Street or more widely), nor that it would implement the scheme if there was a majority in favour. It was a survey to inform or guide a decision.
18. I note there is some conflict as to whether the Council’s original intent was just to get views from residents living at the Street, or if it always was to consult other nearby streets and the local area. On balance, I can see the Council included a link to the letter on its website. This leads me to believe it was likely open for others in the public to vote if they wanted. However, it would have been good practice to make this clearer in the original letter for transparency. But even if this had happened, I am unable to say, on balance of probabilities, if it is likely to have made a difference to the outcome.
19. In any event, the Council became aware of the second survey and its intent to influence the vote. While the Council is not responsible for the actions of other individuals and the second survey, in light of this, it took advice from elected members. The decision was made to count all the votes received.
20. The Council explained the above circumstances in its public decision report when setting out the results. It outlined how the vote was carried out and its awareness of how votes were made and where they came from.
21. I recognise Mr X feels strongly there was unfairness with the decision to include votes from those outside of the Street as he says the number of others who use it would inevitably outnumber the residents. He also is dissatisfied with the perceived change with the consultation during the process and with the majority vote likely based on misleading information from other individuals.
22. Ultimately, it is up to the Council how it decides to count, assess and weigh up the responses given. It had view of all the relevant information about the results before coming to its decision and gave reasons for it. The Council is also still entitled to consider the views of others in the area who may regularly use the road and be impacted by any measures, as well as residents of the Street. I do not find fault with the decision making process; it is a decision is entitled to make having view of the circumstances. This was a matter of professional judgement and therefore we cannot question the merits of the decision itself.
23. Mr X also raises concerns about a proposed nearby housing development which he says will make the overall traffic conditions worse in the Street. But we would expect any issues concerning traffic movements and road safety to be considered separately as part of any application for planning permission for any proposed housing development, which is a separate process.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation, and I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman