Summary: Mr D complains the Council has failed to properly investigate a possible noise and light nuisance caused to him by a nearby sports pitch. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council and has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council has failed to properly investigate his reports of noise and light nuisance caused by a nearby sports pitch.
2. Mr D also refers to concerns about whether his glazing is in line with planning conditions and whether the Planning Team have investigated if the lights on the sports pitch are acceptable.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated how the Council assessed Mr D’s reports of light and noise nuisance. I explain below why I have not looked at the planning issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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. I have spoken to Mr D and considered the information he provided. I have asked the Council questions and examined its response.
7. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

8. In August 2018 Mr D contacted the Council about possible noise and light nuisance being caused to him by a nearby sports pitch. A Community Safety Officer (Safety Officer) contacted Mr D and he visited the property, with a colleague, on 13 August in the evening. The Safety Officer assessed the noise from Mr D’s bedroom and living room and concluded it was not of a level to be a statutory noise nuisance. The Safety Officer was unable to carry out a light assessment because it was still daylight.
9. On 29 August, the Council advised Mr D about the outcome of the site visit and assessment. On 4 September Mr D told the Council he was unhappy because it had done a “subjective” assessment. On 10 September, the Council sought to arrange a date with Mr D to carry out the light assessment. Mr D was reluctant because he did not want another subjective assessment and asked the Council what the process would entail. On 13 September, the Council set out for Mr D what a light assessment involves. Mr D responded the Council should take account of World Health Organisation guidance. In October, the Council repeated its offer to carry out a light assessment.

What should have happened

10. The Council investigates reports of alleged noise nuisance. When it receives a report, the case is allocated to a Safety Officer to consider. The Safety Officer will contact the complainant and arrange a site visit. The noise assessment is made inside a property from a habitable room (usually a bedroom or living room). The Safety Officer uses their professional judgement to determine if the noise is a statutory noise nuisance. There is no requirement on the Council to measure decibel levels when making an assessment. The Safety Officer will record their decision and notify the complainant. If there is no statutory noise nuisance the Council will end its investigation.
11. The Council can also investigate reports of light nuisance or light pollution. Again, a Safety Officer will visit the property to carry out a light assessment. It needs to be dark outside and the Safety Officer will make an assessment from a habitable room, usually a bedroom, to see if there is an unacceptable level of light pollution coming into the property. There is no requirement on the Council to assess light outside of the property or to use any specialist equipment when assessing if there is a nuisance being caused. If the light assessment does not take place the Council is unable to reach a conclusion on whether there is a light nuisance.

Was there fault by the Council

12. I have not found any evidence of fault by the Council.
13. Mr D is dissatisfied with how the Council assesses noise and light nuisance. He feels it should take account of World Health Organisation guidance which includes measuring decibel levels. I have already explained to Mr D there is no statutory requirement on the Council to take account of this guidance. The Council has to act in line with legislation, primarily the Environmental Protection Act 1990, when deciding if there is a statutory noise nuisance or light pollution.
14. In this case I am satisfied, having considered all the evidence, the Council’s policy is correct and it has acted in line with its procedures. I appreciate Mr D feels Officers should have assessed the noise and light from outside the property but there is no duty on them to do so. In addition, the Council cannot progress the light complaint unless Mr D agrees to a light assessment. The Council has followed procedures and the Ombudsman cannot question the validity of its decisions in the absence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

16. Mr D refers to concerns about the suitability of his glazing. I have already explained to him that I will not be pursuing this because an investigation will not add anything further to what the Council has already set out.
17. In respect of his concerns about the types of lights used at the sports pitch the Planning Team has told me it is currently looking into this and will be in contact with Mr D within six weeks. Once Mr D receives the decision he has a right of complaint to the Council which he can then pursue to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman