Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to resite a street light outside his home. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the Council’s decision making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to resite a street light outside his home. He said:
• The Council moved the street light to its new position right beside his house without consulting him.
• The street light is attached to the foundations of his house, is almost touching his eaves, and is directly in front of his television aerial.
2. Mr X raised concerns the street light may cause structural damage to his home if it moves or is knocked over. He also experienced interference with his television and telephone signal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an organisation’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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

5. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Highways Act 1980.
• The British Standard 5489 code of practice for the design of road lighting.
• Department for Transport – Manual for the Streets.
6. 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

Legislation and guidance

7. The Highways Act 1980 states the highway authority, in this case, the Council, can construct and maintain lamps, posts and other works they consider necessary for the purpose of the highway.
8. British Standards Institute (BSI) is recognised as the national standard body for the general principles of road lighting. British Standard (BS) 5489 is the code of practice for the design of road lighting. Councils should meet these standards when installing new street lighting. The standards state road lighting equipment should be as unobtrusive as possible, and precautions should be taken to avoid unnecessary light intrusion into adjacent properties. It states the safety of users should take precedence over aesthetics if there is a conflict.
9. BS 5489 states lighting design is a complex task with many parameters to consider. Considerations should include obstructions, views from residential properties, potential for vehicle impacts, and maintenance. The guidance states before finalising lamppost locations a ‘competent person’ should verify the designed location is suitable. It defines a competent person as someone with the relevant training and experience.
10. The guidance also states lighting columns should be sited, where possible, at the rear of the footway, away from the road.
11. This is also confirmed in the Department for Transport’s manual for the streets, which states street furniture, including lighting columns, need to be placed in positions which minimise risk of damage by vehicles.
12. All street lights must meet European Standard EN 55015:2013 on the emission of radiofrequency disturbance.

What happened

13. Recently, the Council started a programme to replace old street lights in the area with new ones.
14. The Council produced a project document which outlines the aims and purpose of the programme. The document explains the typical lifespan of a street light is 40 years, and the Council has over 12,000 which are more than 40 years old.
15. The Council aimed to re-position street lights away from the roadside, to reduce the risk of vehicles hitting them. It also aimed to improve the look of its streets, with modern street lights made from galvanised steel.
16. The Council installed new street lights in Mr X’s neighbourhood on the week ending 9 May 2021.
17. Before the Council started the work, there was a street light sited opposite the gable wall end of Mr X’s home. The light was positioned at the front of the pavement, next to the edge of the road. As part of the work, the Council decided to re-site this street light, moving it to the back of the pavement and positioned directly in front of the gable wall end of Mr X’s home.
18. Mr X contacted the Council on 10 May, raising concerns about the re-siting of the street light directly outside his home.
19. One of the Council’s lighting technicians emailed Mr X on 18 May 2021, responding to his query. The technician said:
• The Council was carrying out a major street light replacement programme. They referred to the Council’s street light design policy. This states the Council should site street lights at the rear of footways where possible and practicable and at least 1.5 metres from the edge of the road. The technician said the Council also considered the needs of all footway users (such as disabled and visually impaired people).
• There are many street lights positioned near the kerb or road in the borough, but they are up to 40 years old and the Council installed before the release of the latest guidelines.
• Vehicles are less likely to hit street lights sited at the back of the footpath. They said, on average, a vehicle strikes a street light once a week. If the Council can avoid this by resiting street lights then this is something it will consider.
• The new street light would not affect Mr X’s foundations and the Council’s operational team work to a professional standard.
• The Council resited the street light to improve lighting levels in the area, as the levels previously did not meet British Standards.
20. Mr X replied the same day. He said he had three concerns:
• The new light is touching or close to his foundations. He said movement of the street light (in wind etc) was inevitable and could damage his foundations.
• The top of the new street light is only six inches from his roof tiles and could cause damage if the light moves.
• Since the Council installed the new street light he has had interference with his television signal.
21. Mr X said the Council had not moved other street lights in the area next to someone’s home and he disagreed it will benefit disabled footpath users. He also disagreed with the risk of vehicles hitting the light.
22. Mr X emailed the Council again on 20 May. He said:
• It must not have been ‘possible and practicable’ to place a street light against his gable wall end when the street light was originally installed.
• Visually impaired people use walls to guide them and they would walk into the street light where it is now.
• Vehicles hitting street lights is not an issue in residential areas.
• The new street lights should correct the issue of lighting standards without having to resite them.
• The Council ignored his complaints about his roof tiles and television interference. He asked the Council to confirm it would accept liability for any damage which occurs to his roof or foundations.
23. The same lighting technician replied to Mr X again on 26 May. The technician said the Council will fit a shield to the street light if Mr X suffers any light intrusion into his home. They also said the Council does not anticipate any damage to Mr X’s foundations or roof. The technician said the operational team install street lights one metre deep, in line with manufacturer and British Standards, and reinforce them with concrete. This will not undermine Mr X’s foundations. The technician also said the Council had sited street lights near gable walls of other homes in the borough without any issues or damage. The technician referred Mr X to the Council’s complaints procedure if he remained unhappy.
24. Mr X emailed the Council again on 2 June. He said the Council failed to give acceptable reasons for re-siting the street light where it had. He said he intended to complain to the Ombudsman and contact the media.
25. Mr X made a formal complaint on 13 June. He said:
• Damage could be caused if the street light moves because it is touching the foundations of his home.
• His roof could be damaged as the new street light is too close to it.
• He has suffered interference with his television signal since the new street light was installed.
26. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 14 July. It apologised for officers being slow to respond to his early enquiries. It said it resited the street light to ensure an even spread of light in the area and to comply with relevant lighting standards. It also said it is Council policy to site street lights at the rear of footpaths, to avoid the risk of vehicle damage. It listed other nearby housing estates where it had resited street lights next to a resident’s home.
27. The Council said it dug a hole one metre deep and 300mm wide to install the new street light, which is shallower than Mr X’s foundations. It said its street light supplier confirmed the lights will not swing. However, it said if this does happen Mr X can claim for damages if the Council or its apparatus is at fault.
28. The Council said its street lights do not use mobile networks and it does not have any 5G technology.
29. The Council ended by saying the street light is within the highway, was correctly installed, and poses no health and safety issues to Mr X or his home. The Council therefore refused to move it.
30. Mr X asked the Council to reconsider his complaint on 25 July. He said:
• Since his first complaint, he now also has interference with telephone calls and messages.
• A new street light located next to the road could achieve the same lighting as one sited next to his home.
• The planner or engineer who installed the previous street light obviously considered it was not ‘possible or practical’ to site it directly outside Mr X’s home.
• He wanted to know the exact location of other street lights the Council resited next to resident’s houses.
• Vehicles parking on the pavement cause more problems for the visually impaired than having street lights next to the road. Moving street lights to the rear of the pavement will mean more vehicles park on the pavement.
• The street light will move in severe weather, posing a risk to his home.
31. The Council sent its final complaint response on 15 September. It said the Council is responsible for installing and maintaining street lights, under British Standard BS 5489. It undertook a major street light replacement programme, resulting in a street light being resited next to Mr X’s house.
32. The Council said it clearly set out its position in its responses to Mr X so far. It resited the street light in line with street light design policy and after considering the needs of footway users. As the street light is on the adopted highway, the Council did not need to consult Mr X. The new light was installed by a trained team and positioned to ensure lighting levels met British Standards. The Council said it had assured Mr X the foundations of his house will not be affected. It also reiterated that it does not use 5G technology. The Council said it is not aware of any instance where a street light has moved in the wind and damaged or undermined the foundations of a house. However, it said it would consider a claim if this happened to Mr X.
33. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 September 2021.
34. In response to my investigation, the Council told me it carried out a site survey before redesigning the lighting scheme in Mr X’s area. This checked whether the Council’s records match what is on site, as well as the location of the street lights, their age, lantern type, and how they are powered.
35. The Council gave me a copy of its design diagram. This shows the location of some old street lights which the Council removed, and the locations of the new replacement street lights.
36. The Council told me there was a large section between Mr X’s home and another house where required lighting levels under British Standard 5489 were not met. By moving the street light next to Mr X’s home, the Council achieved the required lighting levels and removed a dark spot from the street.
37. The Council said it did not consult Mr X about the new street light outside his home because it was installed on the adopted highway, and it does not consult the public about such works. The Council also said most new street lights are sited near the old lights they replaced. The Council therefore did not envisage any objections.
38. The Council gave me a copy of an email from one of its structural engineers. It is the engineer’s opinion there is no added loading imposed on Mr X’s gable wall or foundations. The engineer also did not consider the Council’s contractors had damaged Mr X’s wall foundations when installing the new street light. Last, the engineer described how the street light is designed to resist wind loads.

Analysis

39. The Council is responsible for constructing and maintaining street lights in its area. However, neither the legislation nor the relevant guidance and code of practice say the Council must consult residents on their design or installation. While I appreciate why Mr X thought the Council should have consulted him, I do not find the Council at fault for not doing so.
40. The Council had to consider competing factors when planning street light placement. Its design plans set out where it had to place street lights to achieve an even spread of light with no unlit areas, and also to reduce the risk of vehicles hitting them. I noted that while the Council moved most street lights only slightly, it moved others, including the light outside Mr X’s home, further.
41. I found the Council’s reasons for moving the street light next to Mr X’s home were consistent with the relevant guidance from the BSI and the Department for Transport. It produced a design diagram before the work and the designs were checked by a ‘competent person’.
42. While I do not dismiss Mr X’s concerns about the potential impact on his home, I have not found evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. Mr X’s concerns were considered by a suitably qualified structural engineer, and I have not seen evidence which would call into question the engineer’s view.
43. Mr X said he now has interference with his television and telephone signal. The Council gave me evidence showing the street lights it uses comply with the relevant standards on radio disturbance. The Council is therefore not at fault.
44. I cannot question the Council’s decision simply because Mr X does not agree with it. I found no fault in the way the Council made its decision to site the new street light next to Mr X’s house.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the Council’s decision making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman