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 Miss X, complains the Council has granted planning permission for a telecommunication mast and equipment cabinets to be erected on the land close to her business.

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.

(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 Miss X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant the application for prior approval.
7. 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.”

8. 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.
9. The Council received an application to see if installing a telecommunications mast and cabinet close to Miss X’s business near the entrance to an industrial park needed prior approval. It displayed a site notice.
10. The Council received an objection to the application from an agent appointed by the company which owns the site. The objections included but were not limited to:
• A new mast is not required as an existing site is not being removed.
• The mast does not match the character of the surrounding area.
• The reasons for the application for the site is unclear.
• Other sites should be considered as they have a lesser visual impact and impact on future of the business.
• Use of the site for a telecommunication mast may stifle or reduce possible redevelopment of the site.
11. 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 unacceptable.
12. The Case Officer concluded:
• the proposal meets the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework; and
• the visual impact and the impact on the character and appearance of the locality will be negligible.

They recommended that Prior Approval is not required. A senior officer agreed, and the decision was issued under the Council’s scheme of delegation.

13. 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

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are not an appeal body. We have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to decide whether prior approval is necessary to install a telecommunication mast.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman