Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to build telecommunication apparatus near the complainant’s home. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice by the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with an application for a telecommunications monople near his home. Mr X says the Council did not notify him about the application and says the development is not suitable for a residential area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allows certain development (both building works and changes of use) to be carried out without making a planning application to the local planning authority. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order sets out the main types of permitted development. Each type has certain conditions. If a development does not meet the relevant criteria a planning application will be needed.
5. Between permitted development and a full planning application, there is a third process called prior notification (sometimes referred to as prior approval). This applies where the development is, in principle, permitted development but the council needs to authorise certain elements of the work.
6. Permitted development rights apply to certain development carried out by an electronic communications code operator for the purpose of its communications network. This includes the installation of electronic communication apparatus. The developer must apply to the Council so it can determine if prior approval is required in relation to the sitting and appearance of the development.

What happened

7. The Council received an application for a telecommunications monopole near Mr X’s home. The Council considered the application but decided prior approval was not needed for the development.
8. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with the application. He says he was not notified about the development and therefore lost the opportunity to object to the proposal. He says the development is unsuitable for a residential area and will devalue his home.

Assessment

9. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for telecommunication apparatus. This is because Mr X has not been caused significant injustice by the alleged fault.
10. Mr X says the Council failed to notify him about the application. Councils are required to give publicity to applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. In this case, the Council needed to inform the residents of the properties adjoining the site or erect a site notice. The Council says it did both.
11. I understand Mr X disputes this and says the Council failed to tell the residents of the adjoining properties about the proposed development. However, even if I could say there was fault with how the Council publicised the application, I could not say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice as a result.
12. Mr X does not live in one of the adjoining properties and therefore the Council was not required to write to him to tell him about the application. Furthermore, I am satisfied the case officer properly considered if certain elements of the development required prior approval, as set out in the General Permitted Development Order, before deciding prior approval was not needed. This included the suitability of the location. Therefore, it is unlikely the planning decision would have been different had Mr X known about and commented on the application.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman