Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to consider if a telecommunication monopole required prior approval. This is because we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation, could not achieve the outcome the complainant seeks and because any fault has not caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Ms X, complains about how the Council dealt with an application for a telecommunications monopole. Ms X says the Council says the Council failed to properly consult with residents, inaccurate information was included in the application and that the Council has failed to deal with a breach of planning regulations on the site.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Government regulations have made some telecommunications masts ‘permitted development’ providing the mast and equipment is below a specified size. This restricts a council’s ability to refuse an application. Developers however must ask the council if prior approval is required regarding the siting and appearance of the development. The main considerations for councils are the visual impact of the proposal, highway safety and access to utilities.
6. The Council received an application for prior approval for a telecommunications monopole. The Council considered the application but concluded that prior approval was not needed for the development.
7. I will not investigate Ms X complaint about how the Council consulted with residents, because there is insufficient evidence of fault. 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, providing a list of residents consulted.
8. Whilst it is unfortunate that some residents did not receive the consultation letter, the Council cannot be held responsible for any failure by Royal Mail to deliver letters.
9. I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about inaccuracies in the application, site notices and in the officer’s report. This is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation into this matter. The Council has accepted that there were errors made and explained to Ms X what service improvements it is carrying out in order to ensure the same errors do not reoccur. Ms X wants the Council to revoke its decision. However, we do not have the power to order councils to revoke planning decisions so this is not an outcome we can achieve.
10. I will also not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the developer has breached planning controls on the site. The Council has opened a planning enforcement and is considering what, if any, action it will take against the developer. Further investigation could not add to the Council’s response regarding this matter.
11. Even if there were to be fault or more, we could achieve I would still not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because the issues she raised have not caused her a significant personal injustice. Ms X’s home is around six miles away from the site in question and she is therefore not directly affected by the development. Whilst the issues raised may cause her a certain level of frustration with the Council this does not amount to an injustice significant enough to warrant our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation, cannot achieve the outcome she seeks and because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing her a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman