Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for mobile phone mast. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to properly consult residents about a planning application for a mobile phone mast. Mr X says the mast impacts on wildlife, is a health risk for residents, and looks vulgar and out of place. He thinks the mast should be removed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can investigate 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We can 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code, and information on the Council’s website about the planning application and its Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy that a mobile phone mast has been erected close to where he lives. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision on the planning application. Rather, our role is to review the process by which the planning decision was made, and to consider if any fault is likely to have affected the planning outcome.
7. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled this application to warrant the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The Council has provided Mr X with evidence that it sent notification letters to nearby residents and erected a site notice. This level of notification is in accordance with national requirements and the Council’s SCI. We cannot hold the Council responsible for any errors by Royal Mail in delivering the notification letters, or if a member of the public removed the site notice.
• Government advice is that the health impact of a proposed mobile phone mast cannot be taken into account where the applicant has demonstrated conformity with the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection guidelines.
• The delegated report demonstrates the Council had regard to the relevant material planning considerations when determining the application.
• The Council was entitled to place significant weight on the fact that the Planning Inspectorate had previously approved an almost identical proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman