Open main menu Close main menu

Adequacy of Council's public consultation on traffic plan

Local Government
Legislation:
Ombudsmen Act 1975
Legislation display text:
Ombudsmen Act 1975
Agency:
Local Authority
Ombudsman:
Sir John Robertson
Case number(s):
W25185
Issue date:
Format:
HTML,
PDF,
Word
Language:
English

Changes to traffic markings—detrimental effect on local church—Council’s main duty to enhance road safety

The complainant in this case was a church organisation. The church itself fronted a busy intersection, and in order to deal with increased traffic flows the Council introduced ‘no stopping’ lines on the adjacent street. The church was concerned at the elimination of kerbside parking, and in particular at the loss of the area previously used for setting down or picking up elderly or infirm passengers. The Ombudsman was asked to investigate the issue as the church felt it had been given insufficient notice of the changes, and it did not believe proper consideration had been given to the impact on nearby properties.

The investigation revealed that the Council had expressed concern about traffic patterns and flows in the area some two years earlier. Following a recommendation from the Works Committee, the Council decided to commission a professional traffic engineering report.

The report was received in October 1988, and the Council resolved to implement the new road markings suggested by the consultants. The church, as an affected property owner, was immediately advised, and at its request a special meeting of the Works committee was held in early December. Committee members were not convinced by the church or resident representatives that there was reason to defer the implementation of the plan, but agreed to keep the situation under review. The plan was subsequently adopted by the full Council. The Ombudsman noted that the Chief Traffic Officer for the area fully supported the Council’s actions, and that in a letter to the church the Ministry of Transport stated that the benefit of easier and safer traffic flow allowed by the new markings outweighed the inconvenience caused to churchgoers.

As the final decision on the road markings was taken by the full Council, and full Council decisions are not within an Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, his investigation focused on the advice given to the Council by its officers and subcommittees. The Ombudsman found that advice to be very complete, and the church had every opportunity to make its case. However while its submissions were carefully considered, they were not accepted.

In the Ombudsman’s view the public interest required the Council to make changes designed to prevent accidents and facilitate traffic flows. While one part of the community may be disadvantaged, it is the greater benefit to the public at large which must be the deciding factor. The Ombudsman therefore found the complaint could not be sustained, but noted that as the Council intended to continue monitoring the situation changes could be made if the expected benefits failed to materialize.

Comment

The Ombudsman noted that 12 months later Council officers believed from day to day observations that the road markings were serving their purpose and traffic build-up has been at least partly eliminated. It therefore seemed unlikely that the changes sought by the church would be made in the immediate future.

This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.

Last updated: