Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Prior Approval application for a mobile phone mast. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Miss X, complains the Council allowed a mobile phone mast and telecommunications equipment to be erected too close to her fence without notification.
2. She wants the mast and equipment moved away from her fence.

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:

• 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a Prior Approval application for a mobile phone mast and equipment in the verge next to Miss X’s home. The plan showed the location to be a few metres from her boundary fence.
7. The Planning Officer’s report on the scheme notes the Council received objections to the proposal. However, as the applicant had provided the relevant documents, the Council was only able to consider ‘siting’ and ‘appearance’ when determining the application. It could not consider health impacts, the impact on the character of the area or the potential for devaluation of property.
8. The Council decided the proposal would not result in an unacceptably harmful impact in terms of siting and appearance. Prior approval was granted.
9. Miss X complained to the Council about a breach of planning control. This is because the mast and equipment has been installed close to her fence instead of towards the centre of the verge according to the map submitted with the application.
10. An Officer advised Miss X the Council would open a planning enforcement investigation. However, the following day, the Council confirmed the telecommunication company may make minor amendments to the development. The Planning Officer reviewed the matter and concluded the new location is no more harmful than the original location. The Planning Team Leader agreed with the Officer.
11. The Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision on the application. Rather, our role is to review the process by which the decision was made. If the Council has followed the correct process and had regard to the relevant planning issues, we cannot question its judgement on the proposal.
12. The Council confirms:
• it considered the objections received before granting Prior Approval;
• it considered the objections before deciding the relocation of the mast close to Miss X’s fence is acceptable; and
• it has no power to require the mast and equipment to be moved away from Miss X’s fence.
13. I do not consider that we can add to the investigation carried out by the Council. Nor can the Ombudsman require the telecommunication company to move the mast and equipment.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X ’s complaint because we cannot add to the investigation carried out by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman