Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to allow a telecommunications mast to be installed on land near her home. We ended our investigation as it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for Ms X or any other meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to allow a telecommunications mast on land near her home, despite objections from large numbers of local residents. Ms X said the Council failed to properly consider the masts impact in the public realm and how it will affect the character of the area.
2. Ms X is concerned the mast will affect her well-being, and believes it is unfair that it will be close to social housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and discussed it with Ms X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report. I considered details from:
• the Council’s delegation scheme for different types of planning decisions;
• Part 16 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015;
• the guidelines issued by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP); and
• Ofcom’s licence guidance on electromagnetic field exposure.
5. I gave Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

6. Not all development requires planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.
7. Some permitted development proposals require an application so the Council can decide whether it can or should control certain aspects of the development. These applications are referred to as prior approval or prior notification applications.
8. Some telecommunications masts are permitted development but need prior approval. Under the regulations, councils only have power to control the siting and appearance of the equipment and they can only do this if they make their decision and inform the applicant of the outcome within 56 days from receiving the application.
9. The purpose of this power is to protect the visual amenity of the area where the telecommunications equipment is proposed. If the Council fails to communicate its decision within the time limit, the proposal becomes lawful despite any concerns the Council might have had.

What happened

10. The Council received a prior notification application for a telecommunications mast on land that was proposed for a site about 30 to 40 metres from Ms X’s home.
11. The application was publicised, and a planning case officer considered the application and wrote a report. The case officer report included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• comments from the public and other consultees;
• relevant planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the prior approval considerations for this type of development, including the design, impact on visual amenity, heritage assets, highway safety;
• the view of the Council’s public protection officer in relation to concerns about noise;
• details relating to the applicant’s consideration of alternative sites; and
• the officer’s recommendation that prior approval should not be refused.
12. A decision to approve the siting and appearance of the development was made by an officer using delegated powers.

My findings

13. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
14. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice?
15. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide:
• not to investigate; or
• to end an investigation we have already started.
16. Our investigations need to be proportionate. We may consider any fault or injustice to the individual complainant in its wider context, including the significance of any fault we might find and its impact on others, as well as the costs and disruption caused by our investigations.
17. I should not investigate this complaint further, and my reasons are as follows:
• Before it made its decision, the Council considered the plans and other documents submitted by the applicant for the proposed development, the permitted development regulations, and the results of its consultations with the public and others. This is the decision-making process we would expect, and so further investigation is unlikely to result in a finding of fault;
• Many people are very concerned about the health dangers posed by equipment that generate electromagnetic fields. However, for this type of development, the Council’s role as a planning body is limited to control of conditions relating to siting and appearance of equipment. As I understand it, acceptable safety standards and the licencing equipment are matters for other bodies: ICNIRP and Ofcom.
• Even if there was evidence of fault in the decision-making process here, it is unlikely we would be able to recommend a remedy for Ms X. This is because the development itself is a slim pole some 20 metres high. It is unlikely to cause a direct impact or injustice to Ms X that would justify a recommendation under our published guidance on remedies.
• In so far as concerns about noise from the equipment, this would be a matter for public protection officers to enforce under environmental protection legislation. The Council’s planning case officer consulted a public protection officer before a decision was made but they received no objections or concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I ended my investigation as it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for Ms X or any other meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman