> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map
LGO Advice Team: 0300 061 0614
Quality and efficiency
Click here for speech assisted browser support
Files with this symbol 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
Planning applications Maladministration causing injustice
31 October 2007
Woking Council’s misunderstanding of legal requirements led it to miss the 56-day deadline for refusal of a ‘prior approval’ application for a mobile phone mast. The Ombudsman says “Its initial response … betrays the defects within its procedures: it treated the application as one for planning permission, when this was not the case.” However, he could not say that the phone mast would not have been erected anyway, if there had been no fault by the Council. 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 similar to this one. The Council received an application for prior approval of a mobile phone mast and associated equipment in an area where there were already two other masts. It wrote to the operator, T-Mobile, saying that the application did not comply with legal requirements. T Mobile sent back an amended application as requested, but said its original application did meet legal requirements, as in fact was the case. The Council then mistakenly assumed that the statutory period of 56 days it had to respond ran from the date it received the amended application. Consequently, when it refused the application, it was too late, and T Mobile lawfully erected the mast and equipment. The Ombudsman finds that the Council was at fault as it failed to serve notice of refusal of the prior approval application within the 56 days required by law, and that its procedures on telecommunications development are inadequate. The Ombudsman says that he recognises the complainants’ views on the health effects of the mast and the impact on the value of their homes but, bearing in mind T-Mobile’s policy on appeals, the success rate of such appeals, and the Council’s acceptance that there were no reasonable alternative sites available, he cannot conclude that the mast would not be there but for the Council’s fault. The Council has acknowledged that it was at fault. The Ombudsman recommends that the Council pays £250 to each of the two complainant households in recognition of the uncertainty they have been faced with and the unnecessary time and trouble they have taken in pursuit of the complaints. He also recommends that the Council reviews its procedures in relation to telecommunications development.
Date Updated: 21/11/08
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