Summary: The complainant says the Council did not properly notify her, as a local resident, about a planning application for a phone mast. And by granting permission, the Council did not follow its own planning policy. The Ombudsman’s decision is there is no evidence of fault by the Council, so we cannot question the merits of its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I shall refer to as Ms X) complains:
• the Council did not notify her of a planning application for a telephone mast. The Council says it put up a site notice, but neither she nor her neighbour saw it;
• in its decision making, the Council ignored its own planning policy. This said it should not approve applications that have a harmful effect on the locality and residential amenity.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. 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)
3. The planning application was made in January 2020. Ms X complained about the matter to the Council in November 2020. The Council delayed replying until December 2022. Ms X explains she gave the Council a long time to respond, as it advised it might delay its response because of the COVID-19 pandemic. She then had health problems which affected her ability to progress the complaint. I have considered these to be good reasons why Ms X could not complain to the Ombudsman within 12 months. So I have investigated the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. In investigating the complaint, I have:
• considered Ms X’s complaint and the information she provided;
• considered the Council’s responses through its complaints procedure;
• spoken to Ms X;
• considered local and national planning policies; and
• sent my draft decision to Ms X and the Council and considered the response I received.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Permitted development

7. Parliament has given blanket planning permission (‘permitted development’) for many minor works. Subject to the specific nature of the works, local planning authorities have no control over these matters.
8. Some works to electronic communications networks are permitted development. This means they are only subject to ‘prior approval’ from councils. The prior approval procedure does not question the principle of development. The council can only consider a proposal’s siting and appearance.

The Council’s planning policy

9. The Council’s policy says that whenever it considered prior approval applications for telecommunications masts, one of the issues it would ‘have regard to’ included:

“d) the impact of the development on its surroundings with particular regard to the following criteria:

i. the visual amenity, character or appearance of the surrounding area.

ii. apparatus and associated structures sited on a building should be sited and designed in order to seek to minimise impact to the external appearance of the host building.

iii. development should not have an unacceptable effect on conservation areas or buildings of architectural or historic interest or areas of ecological interest or areas of landscape value or sites of archaeological importance.

iv. the proposed provision of landscaping.”

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

10. In relation to electronic communications networks, the NPPF says:

“high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being. Planning policies and decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology (such as 5G) and full fibre broadband connections.”

A local planning authority’s record of its decision making

11. The purpose of a case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to show the process the officer followed in making a decision. But the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:

• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues;
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.

What happened

12. In January 2020, the agents for a telecommunications company submitted an application to the Council for a telephone mast. The Council advertised the application with a site notice. The Council has a copy of the notification on its website, although Ms X says neither she nor her neighbour saw the notice.
13. The Planning Officer’s report that considered the application:
• cited relevant local and national policy and guidance;
• correctly identified the mast’s position. The associated documents show the position of the local residential properties (including Ms X’s home);
• noted the Council had balanced the visual impact of the mast against the aims of the NPPF;
• noted, as the mast would be higher than the neighbouring trees and street furniture, the Officer had given careful consideration of the impact on visual amenity;
• noted a few houses were near to the proposed site. But it expected minimal impact on residential amenity. It noted there were already nearby towers;
• said the mast should be colour coated to match the existing street furniture, which would make it “…an acceptable addition within the street scene”.

Analysis

14. Ms X says she did not see the site notice the Council says it put up. But the Council has a copy of it on its website. So, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely the Council posted the notice.
15. The Planning Officer’s report identifies the mast’s position and also residential properties nearby, including Ms X’s home. The Officer considered the application and the relevant policies. The Officer balanced the Council’s own policy against what the NPPF says and reached a decision. I see no administrative fault in the report.
16. Without fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the merits of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I do not uphold the complaint and have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman