Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with prior approval applications. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with prior approval applications for a telecommunication mast in the area where she lives. Ms X says the Council failed to consult residents and the proper processes were not followed before the Council approved the applications. Ms X is concerned about the health and safety implications of the development and says the Council is failing in its duty to protect the public.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Between permitted development, which does not require planning permission, and a full planning application, there is a third process called prior approval. This applies where the development is, in principle, permitted development but the council needs to authorise certain elements of the work.
6. The prior approval process allows councils to assess the impact of the proposed development on various issues, including sitting and appearance. Councils have 56 days to determine whether prior approval should be granted. If no decision is made within 56 days, prior approval is automatically granted.
7. Ms X says the Council failed to properly consult residents about the applications. The Council says it erected a site notice and wrote to neighbouring residents. Ms X disputes this. However, even if the Council did not publicise the applications as it should have, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the applications, in line with the relevant legislation, before granting prior approval. I understand Ms X disagrees with the decisions to approve the applications and says there was an error in one of the case officer’s reports. She has also raised concerns about the health implications of the development.
9. The Council has accepted the case officer incorrectly said prior approval was not needed. However, the relevant issues were still properly considered, and it is clear that prior approval was granted. The Council also cannot consider objections relating to potential health impacts from the masts and any injustice claimed in this regard will be speculative.
10. As the Council properly considered the applications, I consider it more likely than not the planning decisions would have been the same had Ms X, and other residents, known about the applications and objected.
11. Ms X has raised concerns about the health and safety certificate submitted with the applications and says it included the details for a company that no longer exists. However, the Council has explained in response to Ms X’s complaint why it considered the information provided with the applications acceptable. It was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman