Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Prior Approval application for a 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 in the way the Council determined the application, and it has apologised for the delay in responding to the subsequent complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, believes the Council should have refused a Prior Approval application for a mobile phone mast near his home. He says the Council ignored his correspondence detailing his objections to the proposal and is concerned about the impact of the mast on his health.

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
• we are satisfied with the actions a council has already taken in response to the complaint.

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, and information about the application on the Council’s planning website.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is very fearful about the proximity of the mast to his home and has concerns about its impact on his health.
7. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision on the application. Rather, our role is to review the process by which the decision was made. If the Council has followed the correct process and had regard to the relevant planning issues, we cannot question its judgement on the proposal.
8. In my view, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the application, to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that:
• The Council’s notification letter says it does not acknowledge the receipt of comments from interested parties. Furthermore, there is no requirement for Council’s to enter into discussions with objectors during the determination of a planning proposal.
• Mr X’s objections/petition are summarised in the case officer’s report, and I understand the case officer called Mr X in late-July to inform him of the intended application outcome.
• As the applicant had submitted an ICNIRP certificate, the Council was only able to consider ‘siting’ and ‘appearance’ when determining the application. It could not consider health impacts. Nevertheless, the case officer’s report includes a section which seeks to provide reassurance on this issue.
• The Council secured a reduction in height of the mast, and the case officer’s report explains why alternative locations for the equipment were discounted.
• The case officer’s report goes on to explain why the siting and appearance of the equipment is considered to be acceptable.
9. Finally, the Council has apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X’s subsequent complaint letter. I consider this to be a satisfactory way to address this part of the complaint, so the Ombudsman will not pursue it further.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the application, and it has apologised for the delay in responding to the subsequent complaint correspondence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman