Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council. It has investigated Mr X’s complaints about flood lights and as there is no statutory nuisance, has not served an abatement notice. The Council has investigated complaints about development without planning and listed building consent. It has spoken to the neighbour and invited the submission of applications to decide if the developments are acceptable. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains a Council officer decided that light from neighbours floodlights was not a statutory nuisance without seeing all the lights illuminated, as only one light was on.
2. Mr X also complains the planning enforcement officer has not adequately explained why planning permission is not required for a structure in the middle of a neighbours garden. And, that the Council has not responded to his complaints that unauthorised floodlights and CCTV cameras have been placed on a listed building without consent.
3. Mr X says the lights shine into his bedroom, even if he closes the blinds.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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 read the papers put in by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
7. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
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

Investigation of light nuisance

9. Mr X explains that the houses that back onto his have security lights which shine straight into his bedroom. Mr X says that sometimes the lights are on from dusk to dawn. Mr X made a complaint to the Council about the lights.
10. The Environmental Health officer visited Mr X’s house on January 2021. The officers’ notes say ‘went into Mr X’s back bedroom and Mr X went outside to activate the lights via a motion sensor. Light does illuminate bedroom to a fair degree with blinds shut. Advised will contact neighbour’.
11. The Environmental Health officer visited twice in March 2021. His notes record that he had not established a statutory nuisance so would not serve an abatement notice. On the second visit the officer asked the neighbour to turn on a light. The officer also contacted the neighbour to ask if he could voluntarily reduce the brightness and time on.
12. Mr X complains the Council officer made a decision on whether there was a nuisance when one floodlight was on, rather than four.
13. The Council says ‘the officer made several visits to both the complainant’s property and those of the two subject properties. Having seen the lights that were on during these visits he formed the view that they did not amount to a nuisance, although he did persuade the light owners to adjust their lights downwards. Not all the lights were on during each visit, as these lights are on motion sensors and therefore not on all the time. We have had some cooperation from the neighbours to activate the lights. On one occasion the neighbour activated the light(s) and on another, Mr X activated the light(s). We have had the neighbour’s cooperation in angling all the lights downwards that were felt to cause some disturbance, which is the usual solution to light problems. The officer did not feel the illumination amounted to a statutory nuisance but felt it reasonable to seek cooperation informally, which he received’.
14. The Council has said ‘as with any nuisance investigation we would reassess the issue if things have changed. We could not guarantee the lights will all be on during any visit and could not require the neighbours to activate them if they did not want to’.
15. I understand Mr X’s dissatisfaction that the Council has said that his neighbours lights are not a statutory nuisance. However, the Officer has visited on at least three occasions, seen the location and position of the lights, seen several of the lights working and spoken to the neighbour to try to reduce the impact on Mr X. I cannot find any fault in the Council’s investigation of the complaint and as the officer did not witness a statutory nuisance, there is no fault in the Council’s decision not to serve an abatement notice.
16. I understand Mr X’s view that the officer may not have seen every single light on when making an assessment of the lights. However, I can see the officer has seen the location of all the lights and has seen several of the lights on, activated by either Mr X or the neighbour. So, I think the officer would have had enough information to decide whether further investigation was needed or not. I do not consider there is fault on this point.

Planning permission

17. Mr X says the planning enforcement officer has not adequately explained why planning permission is not required for a three metre high structure in the middle of a neighbours garden. Mr X’s neighbour has put a floodlights on the top of the structure.
18. The Council has said ‘Mr X has also raised an issue with the erection of fencing within the garden of a neighbour. This consists of about six metres of fencing, free standing in the centre of the garden some distance from boundaries. The owner says the fencing is for privacy purposes. A security light has been erected on the fencing’. The Council has said the fencing needs planning permission, however being a relatively short stretch of free-standing fencing in the centre of the garden, it is not considered to be harmful. The Council has said the owner has been asked to remove the security lighting and the Council will review the need for enforcement action if the lighting is not removed.
19. I can find no evidence of fault by the Council on this part of the complaint. The Council has investigated Mr X’s complaint, determined that planning permission is needed for the fencing and has asked the owner to remove the security light. The Council has said that if the light is not removed, the Council will consider whether or not to take enforcement action.

Listed building consent

20. Mr X says the Council has not responded to his complaints that unauthorised floodlights and CCTV cameras have been placed on a listed building without consent.
21. The Council has said the fixing of the CCTV and the lighting on the listed building requires listed building consent and it has told Mr X’s neighbour this.
22. Mr X’s neighbour put in an application for listed building consent in June 2020 for a number of works and the Council asked the owner to add the CCTV and security lighting to this application. This application was withdrawn in March 2021 and a new agent has confirmed that he is instructed to submit applications to keep the lighting and CCTV structures. The Council has said the CCTV and lights are small fixtures, not prominent, readily removable and not harmful to the building. So, the Council does not consider it expedient to take enforcement action to require their removal. The Council says that ‘any enforcement regarding the need for Listed Building consent for the lights can only consider their impact on the character and appearance of the listed building’. 
23. I can find no evidence of fault by the Council on this point. It has investigated the complaint and asked the neighbour to put in an application to decide if the CCTV and lights are acceptable. Mr X will be able to object to the applications during the normal planning process.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is not upheld as there is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman