Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving planning applications for telecommunications equipment near the complainant’s house. 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 causing injustice in the handling of a recent application, and the Council has apologised for the delay in the complaint process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council has failed to properly consider planning applications for telecommunications equipment at a location near her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• the Council has already taken, or proposes to take, satisfactory action in response to the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & 24A(7))

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. And we cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. Finally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. The Council provided:
• a complete list of addresses it sent neighbour notification letters to for the most recent planning application;
• copies of the supplementary information and ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) certificate submitted by the applicant for the recent application.
7. I also considered our Assessment Code, information about the planning application on the Council’s website (including the Committee report), and the planning policies/guidance relevant to the determination of the most recent application.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The 12-month time restriction (detailed in paragraph 3 above) applies to any parts of Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council handled the determination of planning applications for this location prior to 2019. This is because she was aware of the telecommunications equipment being erected over the years, and I see no reasons why she was prevented from complaining if she was unhappy the Council had granted permission for them.
9. The time restriction also applies to the Council’s late-2019 decision to grant planning permission for new equipment. But I am satisfied there are grounds to exercise discretion to consider Mrs X’s concerns about this application, as her MP was pursuing the matter on her behalf and the Council has accepted it failed to respond to the MP’s enquiry.
10. I appreciate Mrs X has raised several concerns about the Councill’s handling and consideration of the 2019 application. But the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether a complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council. With complaints about planning applications, this means we will particularly consider whether any fault in the way the Council has processed or assessed the application is likely to have affected its decision.
11. I have carefully considered the information Mrs X submitted to the Ombudsman and the various concerns she raised. In my view, there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice to Mrs X to justify the Ombudsman investigating the complaint. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that:
• The Council was entitled to accept the statement in the applicant’s supplementary information that it had sent a pre-application consultation email to the nearby school;
• The Council sent over 40 neighbour notification letters, including to Mrs X and the nearby school and nursery. It also erected a site notice. In response, the Council received objection letters and two petitions, and these are referred to in the report to the Planning Committee;
• The report demonstrates the Council had regard to the relevant material planning considerations and the planning policies/guidance which were in force at the time of the decision. It was for the Council to weigh up these factors and reach its own decision on whether the proposal was acceptable.
• National planning policy states local planning authorities should not consider health matters where an applicant has submitted an ICNIRP certificate;
• Although the Council did not publish the applicant’s supplementary information or ICNIRP certificate on its planning portal, I am not persuaded that any representations residents may have made about these documents are likely to have affected the application outcome.
12. The Council has apologised for the delays in responding to the complaint submitted by Mrs X’s MP on her behalf. With reference to paragraphs 2 and 5 above, the Council’s response is an appropriate and reasonable way to address this part of the complaint, so the Ombudsman will not pursue it further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that any fault in the handling of the 2019 application has caused her an injustice, and the Council has apologised for the delay in responding to the subsequent complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman