South Staffordshire District Council (21 018 281)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fifth generation (5G) telecommunications masts in the Council’s area. Investigation is unlikely to find any fault by the Council. Also, the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X a significant enough injustice direct injustice to warrant investigation.
The complaint
- Mr X complains the Council has allowed 5G masts in its area. He says these will damage his health so he feels unable to move to the Council’s area as he had previously wanted to do.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- The Council has little control over the installation of telecommunications masts. Most masts do not need planning permission from the Council. The Council can only comment on some aspects of the proposed siting of a mast. The Government has issued guidance saying evidence does not show these masts pose a risk to people’s health. The Council cannot ignore that guidance although Mr X disagrees with the guidance. This means fear about the possible effect on someone’s health would not be a valid reason for the Council to object to installing a mast. So any investigation by us would be unlikely to find the installation of 5G masts in the Council’s area resulted from any fault by the Council.
- Mr X does not live in the Council’s area or in an area directly bordering the Council’s area. So 5G masts in the Council’s area do not directly cause Mr X a significant injustice with any alleged impact on his health.
- Mr X says the masts have prevented him moving to the Council’s area, which he had hoped to do to get away from 5G masts near where he lives now. I understand Mr X’s disappointment but that is not a significant enough or direct enough impact to justify the Ombudsman investigating, especially when, as explained above, the Council has limited power and we are unlikely to find fault.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the installation of 5G masts is unlikely to have resulted from any fault by the Council, nor does Mr X have a significant enough direct injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman