Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Planning : : Planning archive 2007-08 : : Macclesfield Borough Council (06C01990)

Quality and efficiency

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

Macclesfield Borough Council (06C01990)

Planning applications                 Maladministration causing injustice

30 October 2007

An error over dates meant that Macclesfield Council lost the opportunity to refuse permission for a new telephone mast. The Ombudsman finds that the Council had counted the 56 days it had to refuse the application from the date it was stamped as arriving in the Planning Department, and sent the refusal notice on the last possible date. But the applicant had proof that the Council had received the application on the day before it had arrived in the Planning Department. The refusal notice was therefore ineffective, and the mast was constructed as having ‘deemed consent’.

After criticising a number of councils over similar failures over the past few years, the Local Government Ombudsman issued a special report in June 2007 giving guidance to local authorities in England about problems with ‘prior approval’ applications for telecommunications masts. It includes examples of cases very similar to this one.

‘Mr Firswood’ (not his real name for legal reasons) complained that the Council did not respond to an August 2005 application for a telecommunications mast within the statutory 56-day time limit, so losing its chance to refuse permission close to his home where the Council considered it would cause a traffic hazard.

When the Council realised its mistake over the dates it failed to tell the people who had objected to the mast. They only became aware when the mast was erected.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and the Council has accepted the her recommendations that it should:

  • pay Mr Firswood £300 for his time and trouble in pursuing this complaint and to set against costs needlessly incurred in attempting to remedy the Council’s error;
  • put in place a system to ensure this mistake does not happen again - in particular it should:
    • ensure that post is date-stamped as soon as it is received, whichever part of the Council receives it;
    • log all correspondence with the date received (which may include dates when the Council’s offices are closed);
    • immediately check with the telecommunications company each time an application is received that they have a common understanding of the deadline for response;
    • give a sufficient level of priority to applications at all stages of their consideration;
    • respond in good time before the expiry of the deadline and always check that the decision has been received; and
    • ensure that, if in the future, in spite of all these measures, approval is given by default, this is brought to the attention of senior officers and relevant members immediately, and those who have been consulted or objected are notified.

Date Published: 16/10/08