Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a prior approval application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a prior approval application for a telecommunication mast in the area where he lives. Mr X says the Council has not addressed the concerns he raised about the proposal.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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 and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received a prior approval application for a telecommunication mast. A prior approval application applies where a development is, in principle, permitted development but the council needs to authorise certain elements of the work. The prior approval process allows councils to assess the impact of the proposed development on various issues, including the sitting and appearance. Councils have 56 days to determine whether prior approval should be granted. If no decision is made within 56 days, prior approval is automatically granted.
6. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with concerns he raised about the application. He says the Council failed to address his concerns and incorrectly suggested the applicant was responsible for the issues he raised.
7. The Council treated the issues raised by Mr X as objections to the application. I understand Mr X believes the Council should have responded to the questions he asked but it is not unusual for comments made about a development during the assessment of a proposal to be treated as a representation to the application.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application, in line with the relevant legislation, before granting prior approval. The case officer’s report also addressed the concerns raised by resident’s, including Mr X, and explained why the proposal was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the application. It is unlikely I would find fault.
9. Mr X has questioned whether disability and equality impact assessments were carried out. The Council explained why there was no requirement for these assessments to be completed. However, the case officer’s report does explain how the Council considered the impact the development would have on residents, including local people with disabilities.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman