Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to consider if a telecommunication monopole needed prior approval. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered the application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council has granted planning permission for a 5G telecommunication mast and cabinets to be erected on the pavement adjacent to his home.
2. Mr X wants the Council to reconsider the site of the mast.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 Mr X and on the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received an application to see if installing an 18-metre telecommunications mast and cabinet next to Mr X’s house needed prior approval.
7. Mobile telephone masts are known as “Permitted Development”. They require prior approval from local planning authorities (LPAs). This means the principle of development is not an issue, and the Council can only reject an application because of siting and appearance.
8. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant the application for prior approval.
9. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says:

“…for a new mast or base station, evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure and a statement that self-certifies that, when operational, International Commission guidelines will be met.”

And

“Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.”

10. 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 on 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.
11. The Council received an application for prior approval for a telecommunications monopole and cabinets. It erected a site notice on a lamppost at the site.
12. Mr X objected on the following grounds:
• health concerns for his family and school children who walk past
• safety concerns as cabinets have danger signs on them
• safety concerns as proposal will block the view at a road junction
• maintenance issues for Mr X and impact on the structural stability of the same
• the mast and cabinet will attract rubbish and cause grass cutting problems
• the mast and cabinets will blight the area
• the mast and cabinets will devalue his property; and
• no other mast is so close to a home.
13. The Case Officer wrote a report on the proposal. The report sets out the relevant legislation, local and national policies, and the objections. It included reference to the applicant’s consideration of alternative sites and the reasons these were uncceptable.
14. The Case Officer concluded that:

“The proposal will provide communication infrastructure and is considered to comprise permitted development. The siting and appearance of the development would not be significantly harmful and would be outweighed by the economic and social benefits of enhancing digital infrastructure in the area. It is considered that prior approval should be granted.”

A senior officer agreed with the recommendation and the permission for prior approval was granted under the Council’s scheme of delegation.

15. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are not an appeal body and we have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the Prior Notification application for a 5G mast.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman