Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council installing a street light close to her property which affected her residential amenity. We do not find fault with the Council’s decision. However, we find the Council delayed testing the light levels and installing a shield which caused Mrs X inconvenience. The Council should apologise for the delay.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council placing a streetlight closer to her property. She says the Council did not undertake a public consultation or give any prior notice about the change.
2. Mrs X says the new streetlight is too bright, and spills into her bedroom and lounge, which affects her residential amenity and is a security risk. She says the situation has caused her stress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. During my investigation I spoke to Mrs X to discuss her complaint and considered information she provided. I also made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
7. Mrs 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

8. 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.
9. Councils are expected to meet relevant standards when installing new street lighting. British Standard (BS) 5489 is the Code of Practice for road lighting (‘the Code’). The Code states 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.

What happened

10. Mrs X explained there was a streetlight on the public footpath (‘footpath light’) next to her back garden. She said it caused some light spillage, but she managed it using blinds and curtains.
11. Mrs X said at the beginning of February 2023, the Council’s contractors (‘the Contractors’) moved the footpath light closer to her property. Mrs X said the light spillage then increased in her garden, ground floor lounge and first floor bedroom.
12. Mrs X said her screening measures became ineffective. She said she could not relax in her lounge, and it affected her sleep in the bedroom. She was also worried about her property being targeted for crime as it was more visible.

Mrs X’s complaints and the Council’s response

13. Mrs X contacted the Contractors complaints team to request a site visit and for the footpath light be placed back in its original position.
14. In response the Contractors explained:
• The streetlights on Mrs X’s road were due for renewal as they had reached their structural expiration date. The replacement units met the national lighting standard as set out in the Code (paragraph 9).
• The footpath light had to be relocated to ensure the brightness levels met the Code’s requirement. However, it had set the bulb to the lowest possible levels to minimise light intrusion.
• The footpath light was fitted with new technology which would automatically reduce the brightness levels from midnight until dawn but would take six weeks to adjust.
15. Mrs X was not satisfied with the Contractor’s explanation and escalated her complaint with the Council. In its final response in late March, the Council:
• Sympathised with Mrs X but explained the layout of Mrs X’s road did not allow it to move the footpath light further away.
• Confirmed its contractors had acted in line with their duties to ensure the light levels met the specifications for Mrs X’s road and the safety of road users took precedence.
• Accepted there was a high level of light spillage, and it would install a shield to reduce the impact. However, it would need to order the relevant parts before installation.
16. Mrs X said she did not receive any further update from the Council. Unhappy with the Council’s failure to act, Mrs X approached the Ombudsman at the beginning of June.

Our enquiries

17. The Council has provided evidence which confirms:
• The footpath light had to be relocated closer to Mrs X’s property to meet the standards as set out in the Code (paragraph 9).
• It installed the light shield at the end of June. It then conducted tests to confirm the brightness levels had reduced.
• The Council did not have any consultation duties before moving the streetlight, but notification letters were sent to all residents including Mrs X.

Analysis

18. The Council records show it followed the correct procedures in the design and installation of the new streetlighting in Mrs X’s Street. The evidence also shows it acted in accordance with its duties under the Highways Act (paragraph 8) and adopted the guidance set out in paragraph 9 (above). It also explained the reasons why the footpath light affecting Mrs X’s home could not be positioned further away from her property. I do not find any fault in the Council’s decision making in relation to this point and therefore cannot question the merits of its decision.
19. The records show Mrs X reporting the light intrusion and requesting a site visit in February 2023. In late March, the Council also accepted there was light spillage and agreed to install a light shield. However, it did not undertake the installation and testing until the end of June. It also failed to keep Mrs X informed of the reasons for the delay. I find the delay in undertaking the testing and installation and poor communication is fault. Mrs X therefore experienced frustration and inconvenience for longer than necessary and felt the need to approach the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. Within a month of my final decision the Council should:
• Write to Mrs X and apologise for its delay in undertaking a light test and installing a light shield to the footpath light next to Mrs X’s property and any inconvenience caused to her.
21. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision making to install a street light close to Mrs X’s property. However, I find the Council delayed testing the light levels and installing a shield which caused Mrs X inconvenience. The Council should apologise for the delay.
23. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman