Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action over a tv aerial which was installed without planning approval. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to take enforcement action against his neighbour who installed a 5g aerial mast without planning approval. He says the mast is causing interference with his tv reception and he wants the Council to take action to remove it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says his neighbour installed a 5g receiver aerial on the gable end of his home without seeking planning approval. The aerial is taller than a normal tv mast and requires planning permission. He says that since it was installed the mast has caused interference with his own tv signal. He reported the matter to the Council and asked that it be removed and the neighbour required to apply for planning approval so that he could object on the grounds of interference.
6. The Council told Mr X that it would not use its discretionary powers to require the removal of the aerial. If the neighbour had applied for planning approval it would not have been known that it would be a source of interference until installed after approval. Even if Mr X was able to object to a retrospective application now, the Council could not consider objections about tv reception as valid grounds for refusal because it is not a material planning consideration.
7. The Council concluded that it should not exercise its discretionary enforcement powers because there was insufficient evidence of harm to public amenity to warrant this.
8. The Ombudsman may not question the merits of decisions which have been made in a proper manner without fault. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action over a tv aerial which was installed without planning approval. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman