Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions not to take formal enforcement action against light pollution and a breach of planning control. We are unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation on these points. Also, it is reasonable to expect the complainant to contact the Information Commissioner’s Officer if he is not satisfied with the Council’s responses to his requests for information.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains that when dealing with his reports of light pollution, breach of planning control and building control issues the Council:
• Claimed to visit the site but did not;
• Changed the definition of light pollution when considering his report;
• Forced case officers to make up false data because it is racist; and
• Failed to respond to his request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
2. Mr X says the light pollution disrupts his and his family’s sleep. The garden building is an eyesore and has windows which overlook his property and there is a cracked wall which is dangerous.
3. Mr X wants the Council to withdraw planning permission for the neighbour’s garden building and investigate the Leader of the Council and a head of department.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Light Pollution

8. Artificial light from a domestic property can be a statutory nuisance. However, there is no fixed point at which it becomes a statutory nuisance. The investigating officer must assess the light level, the timing, frequency, and the nature of the area. It is for the officer witnessing the nuisance to decide whether there is a statutory nuisance.
9. The Council confirms officers visited Mr X’s home more than once, assessing the glare from the lights on the neighbour’s property. It then visited the neighbour who agreed to paint out lights on the boundary wall and re-position the security light in the back garden. Officers revisited the neighbour and confirmed the issue was resolved.
10. The officers also measured the light levels from the lamps on the stone building in the neighbour’s garden. They are satisfied the light level is below that stated in the guidance.
11. The Council confirms it is satisfied that light spill and glare are resolved. It is not prepared to serve an abatement notice against the remaining light which must be defensible in court.
12. The Council completed a home visit and observed the light. It took informal action with Mr X’s neighbour in line with guidance. There is not enough evidence of fault in the steps the Council took to assess the light nuisance to justify our investigating. We have seen nothing to suggest the Council has acted unfairly towards Mr X in how it responded to his light nuisance concerns.

Breaches of Planning Control

13. The Council says an officer measured the neighbour’s garden building and initially advised it was permitted development. However, this decision was reviewed, and it was established that the building needed planning permission.
14. The neighbour put in a retrospective planning application. Mr X objected to the application.
15. The Planning Officer’s report includes a summary of the objections received. It confirms the building is not out of character for the area and is appropriate in size. The windows facing Mr X’s property are sufficiently distanced from Mr X’s home, are on a different ground level and have partial screening.
16. The Council approved the application with conditions to ensure the back and sides of the building are rendered and it must not be used for any purpose other than ancillary accommodation to the main house.
17. I have seen no evidence to show the Council failed to consider the objections received on the planning application. This is because it is the Council’s role, as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable after consideration of:
• local and national planning policies
• comments from statutory consultees; and
• objections/representations from people affected by the decision
18. The evidence strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case and therefore the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find that there had been fault if he investigated.

Safety of a wall

19. Councils can take action to protect the public if it considers a structure to be unsafe. The Council confirms its building control team have assessed the video evidence provided by Mr X about a crack in the neighbour’s wall. It is satisfied that it is not proportionate to take action against the neighbour based on the video evidence and knowledge of the site.
20. The Council is entitled to rely on the professional judgement of its officers who have reviewed the information provided by Mr X.

Freedom of Information Request

21. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the independent body set up to uphold information rights. It is best placed to deal with Mr X’s concern that the Council has failed to provide information he has requested.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely that we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council. Also, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the ICO about his complaint about the Council’s failure to provide information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman