Summary: Mr X complained the Council erected a brighter streetlight, causing light pollution, when it installed a new zebra crossing outside his home, which he said was not in accordance with the agreed plans. The Council was at fault for not positioning the new zebra crossing according to the agreed plans and for how it considered the impact of light falling on Mr X’s property. The Council will apologise to Mr X for his time and trouble and conduct a site visit at night to reassess the light falling on his property.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council erected a brighter streetlight causing light pollution, when it installed a new zebra crossing outside his home. He said the brighter streetlight was not on the original plans and the posts for the crossing had not been positioned according to the agreed plans. Mr X said the light affected his sleep and wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) Mr X objected to the Council’s zebra crossing proposal in June 2020 and in April 2021 the Council installed the crossing which is outside the 12 month period. However the light is having a continuing impact on Mr X and he has continued to raise concerns about the issue so I have used my discretion to investigate this complaint.
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. I spoke to Mr X on the telephone and read Mr X’s complaint and supporting documents.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
7. I considered the Council’s policies, and relevant law and guidance as set out below and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
8. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. We considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

9. The Highways Act 1980 states the highway authority, in this case, the Council, can build and maintain lamps, posts and other works they consider necessary for the highway.
10. The 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 nearby properties. It states the safety of users should take precedence over aesthetics if there is a conflict.
11. The Institute of Lighting Professionals has introduced specific guidance notes for reducing obtrusive light (ILP guidance notes). These recommend light limits dependent on the residential setting but are for guidance only. LUX is the standardised measurement of light level intensity.

Belisha beacon

12. Is an orange ball containing a flashing light, mounted on a striped post on the pavement at each end of a zebra crossing.

What happened

13. Mr X lives at Property A. Property A is a semi-detached house, attached to Property B. Property A and Property B are next to a main road.
14. In early January 2020 the Council produced a scaled plan drawing for a new zebra crossing, which showed:
• the crossing would be built between Property A and Property B; and
• a belisha beacon post would be built outside Property B.
15. In early June 2020 the Council produced a design consideration report for the new zebra crossing. The ‘proposed lighting’ section of the report said:
• the zebra crossing design met the recommendations outlined in the Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) guidance document;
• a six metre high pole with a post top Light Emitting Diode (LED) light with mid post covered belisha beacons was proposed; and
• the road would be lit using the six metre LED light set at the back of the footpath.
16. In early June 2020 the Council produced an outdoor lighting report for the new zebra crossing which included desk-based LUX (light level intensity) readings. It showed light spillage across the front of Property A at one metre, two metres, three metres, four metres and five metres in height for the LED light.
17. In late June 2020 Mr X objected to the Council about the zebra crossing and raised his concerns about the need for a zebra crossing, the flashing light from the belisha beacon and the location of the new zebra crossing.
18. In early August 2020 the Council responded to Mr X and said ‘There will be no need to worry about the flashing belisha beacons as they will be hooded which means the light from the beacons will be directed towards the incoming traffic’. Six days later, Mr X told the Council his objection to the new crossing remained.
19. In early January 2021 the Council approved the new zebra crossing.
20. In mid-February 2021 Mr X emailed the Council and complained it had not considered his concerns about the new crossing. A day later the Council responded to Mr X, it gave him an electronic link to the decision outcome. It also told him his concerns had been considered but if he remained unhappy to raise his concerns with a local councillor or make an application to the high court.
21. The same day Mr X raised his concerns with a local councillor. The local councillor told Mr X to raise his concerns with a senior Council officer which Mr X did in late April 2021. He said the LED light on the belisha beacon post directly shined on the front of his property causing him lack of sleep and increased anxiety.
22. In early May 2021 the Council responded to Mr X, it said:
• there was local support for the crossing;
• the lighting in place for the new crossing was legally required to make the crossing safe for pedestrians in night-time hours;
• it was unfortunate the new LED lights were brighter and had a far greater visual impact than the old style lights;
• it would look at neutralising the light impact on him; and
• gave him the Ombudsman’s contact details.
23. Between May and August 2021 Mr X contacted the Council three times for an update about the light pollution and said the new small shield on the zebra crossing had made no difference. The Council did not respond to Mr X and in mid August 2021 Mr X raised his concerns with a local councillor.
24. In mid-November 2021 the Council responded and said:
• streetlights were directional to shine onto the road and the main role of street lighting was to light the highway network;
• the location of underground services meant the post was at the back of the footpath and moving the post was not a viable option; and
• this was the Council’s final position and if he remained unhappy he should contact us.
25. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council response and he contacted his local councillor four times for an update on the zebra crossing lighting between March 2022 and June 2022.
26. In late July 2022 the Council responded to the local councillor. It said Mr X’s concerns were noted but ‘there were no further measures the Council could implement’.
27. In early August 2022 Mr X emailed the Council and local councillor and asked for:
• a site survey report for the post location;
• a light report; and
• a copy of the streetlight regulations.
28. In mid-October 2022 the Council responded to Mr X and said the Council had considered Mr X’s complaint in November 2021 and that was its final position and to contact us if he remained unhappy, which he did.
29. When Mr X contacted us he provided photographs of the new zebra crossing positioned outside Property A and the belisha beacon post located between Property A and Property B.

Enquiries

30. In response to my enquiries the Council said:
• the new zebra crossing had been installed in line with the drawings;
• the streetlight conformed to the BS5489 standard;
• it had to provide acceptable street lighting for the safe operation of the zebra crossing and in urban areas lights would be installed near properties;
• a streetlight shield, larger than a standard shield, was installed on the streetlight nearest to Property A;
• it could not shield the streetlight opposite Property A and it did not produce any light spillage beyond guidance; and
• the streetlights were dimmed following first installation and dimmed to half normal levels after 10pm.

My findings

31. It is not our role to decide if the light falling onto Mr X’s property is too high; that is the Council’s responsibility. Our role is to assess whether the Council made its decision properly.

New zebra crossing location

32. The Council produced scaled plan drawings for the new zebra crossing. This showed the new zebra crossing would be located between Property A and Property B and the belisha beacon post would be positioned outside Property B.
33. Photographs provided by Mr X show the new zebra crossing has been constructed nearer Property A and the belisha beacon post is between Property A and Property B. The crossing and post were not positioned in accordance with the drawings which is fault. This means the zebra crossing was built closer to Mr X’s property than suggested by the plans. This causes uncertainty over whether the impact of the light from the LED is greater than it would have been if the zebra crossing was located in accordance with the plans.

The LED Street Light

34. Mr X complained the LED streetlight was not on the original plans. The drawings showed an LED light at the top of a six-metre post located at the back of the footpath. The Council was not at fault for installing the light.
35. The Council carried out desk based light readings before installing the zebra crossing and LED light. The drawings showed light spillage on the front of Property A at one metre, two metres, three metres, four metres and five metres in height from the LED light. The Council considered the light was installed in compliance with the regulations. It says it has already added a streetlight shield and dimmed light levels after 10pm following Mr X’s complaints. However, the Council has not assessed the impact the light spillage has on Mr X’s property, whether the obtrusive light levels fall within the recommended limits set out in the ILP guidance and whether its actions have actually made any difference to Mr X’s property. This is fault. The light is causing Mr X lack of sleep and anxiety. Mr X was also put to time and trouble raising his concerns. The Council will carry out a site visit at night and reassess the light levels on Property A.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• apologise to Mr X for his time and trouble contacting the Council;
• measure the LUX levels falling on Property A from the LED streetlight outside Property A at night, and assess whether this is in line with the LUX levels in the ILP guidance;
• if the LUX measurements are not acceptable the Council will consider what additional mitigation measures it can take to reduce the light falling on Property A to within acceptable levels. If the Council considers the light level is acceptable, it will write to Mr X and explain how it has reached its decision; and
• provide evidence of the assessment and any action it has taken to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation finding fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman