Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not properly deal with a planning application near her home. The Council is at fault because information published about the application was incorrect. This did not cause injustice to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for a telecommunications mast near her home.
2. Mrs X says there has been a big impact on her amenity as the mast is very close to her home. Mrs X also says it has caused her and her husband a lot of stress and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
4. 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

5. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint and considered documents she provided. I considered information about the planning application.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning application publicity

7. 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’.

Permitted development

8. 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’.
9. Permitted development in relation to telecommunications equipment is covered by The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 SCHEDULE 2 PART 16.
10. Telecoms infrastructure that counts as permitted development may still require ‘prior approval’ from the Council. The prior approval process gives Councils the opportunity to assess whether the proposed development meets conditions set out in permitted development rules.
11. For mobile masts under 30 metres, the main condition is that their siting and appearance must be such that their visual impact on the surrounding area is minimised. The Government’s Code of practice for England provides guidance on the siting and appearance of telecoms infrastructure.
12. Factors that the Council might consider include: a mast’s height in relation to the surrounding land and buildings, and the materials, design and colours used.

Prior approval

13. The developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to the siting and appearance of the development.
14. A Council must make a decision within 56 days or the application will be automatically allowed.

What happened?

15. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
16. A permitted development application for a 5G communications mast near Mrs X’s home was submitted to the Council.
17. The Council approved the application.
18. Mrs X complained to the Council. The Council accepted that there had been some errors made but did not fully uphold her complaint because it said the outcome of the planning decision would have been the same.

Analysis

19. The Council placed notices about the application. I have seen a picture of one of the notices on site. Mrs X did not see any notices about the application as she was on holiday during the consultation period. The Council says four notices were displayed.
20. The Council accepts that there were administrative errors in relation to the wrong postcode, the wrong ward and the wrong councillor’s names were published and an email had not been responded to. This is fault by the Council. Mrs X did not suffer any injustice as a result because the information available about the application clearly showed the correct site on a map, she was not prevented from making comments about the application and her comments were considered when the Council made its decision.
21. The Council’s Code of Conduct for Publicity for Planning Applications requires a minimum of one notice to be displayed for 21 days. The Council publicised the application in accordance with its policy. This is not fault by the Council.
22. I have read the officer report concerning the application. The report:
• covered the appropriate legislative background relating to the application;
• considered the siting and appearance of the proposed development;
• considered the proximity of Mrs X’s home; and
• considered Mrs X’s comments in relation to the proposed development.
23. Ther Council took into account the material considerations it needed to when it made a decision about the application. This is not fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have found fault by the Council which did not cause injustice to Mrs X. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman