Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve the installation of a new mobile phone mast on land near her home. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants, which is to move the mast.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about the Council’s decision to approve a new mobile phone mast in a location she considers is not suitable. She wants the Council to move the mast.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. We cannot question whether the Council’s decision to approve the new mobile phone mast is right or wrong simply because Miss X disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
5. Miss X is concerned the description of the site used in the application is inaccurate/misleading but I have seen nothing to suggest this was the case. The site description does not need to include details of everything around the site and is used simply as a way to identify the location of the proposed development. It is clear the Council and local residents were aware of the location and commented on the proposal accordingly. The planning officer’s report shows comments from local residents questioning the suitability of the location but explains why, in their view, the proposal is acceptable.
6. Miss X is also concerned about the safety of the equipment, given its proximity to areas lived in and used by local residents including children. But the Council has explained the mast is considered approved equipment and it cannot therefore use residents’ concerns about its safety as reason to refuse the application. It also cannot take into account the possible impact on property prices or other issues which are not material planning considerations or matters which are subject to approval under the process.
7. The planning officer’s report shows the Council properly considered the relevant points in determining the application and I have seen no evidence of fault affecting its decision. While it is clear Miss X disagrees with the decision to approve the mobile phone mast we cannot question its judgement and we cannot now say it must withdraw its approval and require it to relocate the mast to another location.
8. Miss X also complains about the Council’s decision to sell or lease the land on which the mast is located. But the Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint suggests there has been no final decision on this issue. It has invited Miss X to make representations on the proposal before it reaches a final decision and if, once the Council has made its decision Miss X believes it has failed to properly consider her representations she may raise a new complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman