Lancashire residents will not be told in real-time whether individual roads have been gritted this winter – in case it raises their expectations or encourages them to sue.

A committee of county councillors suggested earlier this year that live information about gritting routes should be published so that the public knew where salt had been spread.   

Members of Lancashire County Council’s internal scrutiny committee were originally told that the information could not be made available because of new data protection rules – a stance which one councillor branded “odd”.

But legal advice reveals that the refusal was actually the result of concerns that the information could be used to challenge whether the authority had done its duty to keep the roads as clear as could be reasonably expected.

Lancashire County Council does publish the routes which it intends to treat on any given day on its website.   These are presented by sub-region and categorised into what the authority classes as “priority” or “secondary” gritting routes – including a map which shows where they are.

The decision not to publish real-time routes is outlined in a document prepared for committee members – and seen by the local democracy service – by legal representatives including county hall’s senior lawyer from its litigation team.

It explains that the authority is obliged ”to ensure that safe passage along a highway maintainable at public expense is not endangered by snow or ice – but only so far as is reasonably practicable”.

The advice adds that the county council – which is responsible for the majority of non-motorway routes across Lancashire, except in Blackpool and Blackburn – uses details about which roads have been treated as a way of demonstrating that it has met the “reasonably practicable” test.

The document states:  “It is arguable that making this [information] available…enables analysis and potentially increased or fraudulent claims.”

Concern is also raised that the publication of live gritting activity might “raise expectations” or lead to increased demands from the public, potentially requesting that particular roads should be visited by gritting lorries.

Internal scrutiny member Erica Lewis told the latest meeting of the group that the original data protection explanation for why the the routes had to stay secret should act as “a cautionary tale for people providing evidence to the committee not to make up legal positions”.

The county council’s gritting lorries are fitted with tracking technology which enables officers to monitor where they are at any given time.   But the legal advice revealed that no other local authority provides the kind of real-time information which had been requested by councillors.

Some councils do publish the current location of a gritter, but not its total route.   However, this was deemed to be of “limited use” and risked acting as a drain on resources because of the potential to increase enquiries.

A spokesman for the council said: “In July, advice was given that data the council has on tracking gritters cannot be disclosed because of GDPR, as it could be linked to an individual.

“Further legal advice was then given that a live feed produced for operational use should not be disclosed.”

Advance information can be found at:  https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/winter/gritting/