Sheffield City Council (19 016 499)

Category : Transport and highways > Street furniture and lighting

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 10 Aug 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr J complains about light intrusion caused by the replacement of the streetlight outside his home with an LED light. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

  1. Mr J complains about light intrusion caused by the replacement of the streetlight outside his home with an LED light. He complains the Council has not properly assessed the impact of the light on the interior of his home.
  2. Mr J says the light is affecting his ability to watch television and is disturbing because he can see the filament. He wants the Council to either replace the streetlight, or to fit a light deflector.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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

  1. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and the Institution for Lighting Professional’s guidance note for the reduction of obtrusive light (“the guidance”).
  2. Mr J 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

  1. Councils are responsible for the erection and maintenance of street lighting. Councils are expected to meet the relevant British and European standards when installing new street lighting. Lux is the standardised measurement of light intensity.
  2. Councils should avoid unacceptable light intrusion from street lights. The Institution of Lighting Professionals guidance recommends light intrusion into windows in a suburban area should not be more than 10 lux before midnight and 2 lux after. The guidance also recommends various other ways of reducing light intrusion such as using shields and baffles. This guidance may be supplemented or replaced by the council's own planning guidance for exterior lighting installations.
  3. The Council says its street lights have been designed and installed in accordance with standards and guidance. It seeks to minimise obtrusive light levels but it also has to consider the safe passage of pedestrians and road users. To ensure consistency when measuring light levels it uses the same instruments throughout its area, which are regularly calibrated with a professional calibration contractor, and it takes measurements at particular times of night and at particular locations, in line with the guidance.
  4. The Council deals with concerns about light intrusion under its complaints' procedure. As part of the complaint investigation, the Council will test the lighting level at the external wall of a customer's property. If the lighting levels are too high, the Council will decide whether to install a light shield. If remedial work does not resolve matters to the customer's satisfaction, the complaint is further considered at the review stage of the complaints' procedure.

What happened

  1. Mr J complained to the Council on 21 October 2019 that a newly installed LED street light was shining into his home affecting his ability to watch television.
  2. The Council said it would test the lighting levels and on 20 November 2019 it tested the lighting levels at three different points along the road, including by the external wall of Mr J’s property. The test found the levels were 0.33 lux before midnight. As this was below the recommended maximum level of 10 lux the Council told Mr J it would take no further action. In response to my enquiries the Council said a test was not carried out after midnight as the lights are dimmed by a further 42% at midnight, so the level would not have been above the recommended range.
  3. Mr J remained dissatisfied and contacted the Council on 22 November 2019. He said it was not sufficient to test the light reflection on the exterior of the wall as it was not the light falling on the wall that was the problem, but the brightness of the LED elements shining through the window. This had lowered his quality of life as he could no longer enjoy natural night fall. Mr J proposed using a photography barn door which he said would resolve the problem and not affect the public highway. He felt the Council’s suggestion he close his curtains was dismissive.
  4. The Council replied on 12 December 2019, it apologised if Mr J had felt the Council had been dismissive but did not uphold his complaint. The Council said it could only take action if light was intruding into a property and it only installed shields where the lighting levels were higher than the recommended range. Light intrusion was measured in line with the guidance and had been found to be within the recommended range. The Council could therefore take no further action.
  5. In response, Mr J noted the glare from the street light lit up the wall inside his property. The brightness reflected off the interior wall was greater than the outside wall, due to the outside wall being much darker in colour. As such, the Council’s reading did not represent the true lighting levels. He asked the Council to test the light levels inside his property. The Council said tests did not need to be carried out within the property as the lighting levels were higher outside.
  6. Mr J complained to the Ombudsman. He was concerned the Council may not be treating him fairly as he had previously dealt with the officer about another complaint. He said the Council should use its discretion to test the light levels inside his property.
  7. After we contacted the Council it carried out a further test on 2 July 2020. The levels were 0.31 lux before midnight and 0.22 lux after midnight.

My findings

  1. It is not the Ombudsman's role to assess lighting levels, that is the Council's role. 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. I have therefore considered whether the Council properly dealt with Mr J's reports of light intrusion.
  2. When Mr J complained the Council carried out a test in line with its policies. It carried out a second test in July 2020. I have seen that the results of the tests show the lux levels are within the recommended levels and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the tests were conducted.
  3. In response to my enquiries the Council said it was not necessary to measure the levels inside Mr J’s property as they would be below those measured outside, which had been found to be below the recommended levels. It followed the guidance and did not investigate concerns beyond light intrusion. The Council said the luminaire and column height were designed to keep glare to a minimum, by ensuring that the main beam angle directed toward the property is not more than 70 degrees, as set out in the guidance.
  4. I find there was no fault by the Council. It dealt with Mr J's complaint in line with its procedure and carried out tests in line with the standards and guidance. These are steps the Ombudsman would expect the Council to take.
  5. The Council is not required by the guidance or its policy to measure the light levels inside Mr J’s home. Mr J asked whether the Council had discretion to do so. Councils should not have blanket policies and the Ombudsman expects councils to use their discretion in exceptional circumstances. However, I have seen no evidence that Mr J’s case is an exceptional circumstance that would require the Council to deviate from its usual policy. In addition, the Council has given rational reasons why it measures light levels in the same way across its area and why it is not necessary to measure the level inside Mr J’s home. I therefore do not find fault in the Council’s decision not to measure the light inside Mr J’s home.
  6. Mr J was concerned the Council had treated him unfairly due to previous matters he had raised. I have seen no evidence of any bias; the Council has followed its policy and procedures properly.
  7. As I have found no fault, I cannot challenge the Council's decision not to take further action in relation to the street light.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was no fault. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings