Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant prior approval for the siting of telecommunications equipment close to Mr X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to grant prior approval for the siting of telecommunications equipment close to his home and contrary to the many objections it received about it. He says the equipment could have been installed further away from his house.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, 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 Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about its prior approval of an application to site telecommunications equipment close to his home.
7. The Council explained that the consent process for telecommunications equipment is not the same as for standard planning applications and that current national procedures mean that for the application in question the Council could only consider the siting and external appearance of the equipment.
8. The Council confirmed a site visit had been undertaken and that it had satisfied itself that alternative locations had been reviewed and discounted and that the siting of the equipment had been acceptable in planning terms. It said it had considered the design and height of the equipment to be appropriate in relation to nearby infrastructure and the surrounding area. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Mr X may not agree with the decision to site the equipment close to his home, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman