Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant prior approval for a telecommunications mast near Mr X’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered an application for prior approval for a telecommunications mast near his home. Mr X was not caused an injustice as a result of delays in dealing with an earlier application as the Council was able to secure amendments to the plan through the second application which made the proposal acceptable.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has granted prior approval for a telecommunications mast near his home. Mr X says the Council missed the deadline for rejecting the application and so local people have been left with a large mast at the end of their gardens.

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 or may decide not to continue with 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’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 prior approval applications on the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council failed to refuse permission for a prior approval application for a telecommunications mast near Mr X’s home before the deadline for a decision passed. This meant the mast had “deemed consent” and the Council was not able to stop the mast being put up.
7. However the Council discussed the application with the telecommunications company and a second application for prior approval was submitted. The second application reduced the height of the proposed mast and changed the colour to green to blend in with the surroundings.
8. The Council notified local people of the application and considered comments made. The Council produced an officer report which considered objections and the Council’s planning policies.
9. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for the second prior approval application. The Council considered comments from local people as well as local and national planning policies in reaching its decision. Mr X and other local people may disagree with the Council’s decision but we cannot criticise it in the absence of evidence of fault in the way it was taken.
10. Mr X has not been caused a significant injustice as a result of the way the Council dealt with the first application. This is because the Council negotiated with the telecommunications company to amend plans and submit a further application for prior approval. As set out above there is no fault in the way the Council dealt with the second application.
11. Mr X says he is concerned about noise from the equipment associated with the telecommunications mast. Telecommunications masts are not known sources of nuisance noise. The Council says that the telecommunications company are working on possible noise from fans inside the equipment. However given the distance between Mr X’s home and the mast this is unlikely to have a significant impact on him and so there is no evidence he has been caused an injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered an application for prior approval for a telecommunications mast near his home. Mr X was not caused an injustice as a result of delays in dealing with an earlier application as the Council was able to secure amendments to the plan through the second application which made the proposal acceptable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman