Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a prior approval application as have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, we do not consider the complainant has suffered significant injustice because of the way the Council considered the application and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council dealt with a prior approval application for a telecommunication mast near her home. Ms X says the Council failed to adequately consult residents and follow the proper processes before it approved the application. She says the Council failed to consider:
• health risks, especially to children
• unspecified environmental and legal risks
• unspecified human rights issues
• unspecified increased risks of vandalism and flooding risks
• visual intrusion, loss of property value
• undermining of residential amenity and enjoyment of local green space.
2. Ms X wants:
• The Council to correct factual errors in the planning record.
• The Council to reconsider the application with ‘proper’ consultation and assessment; and
• Unspecified remedial actions to compensate residents for the loss of amenity, stress, and financial harm caused.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X claims injustice has been suffered by residents in the area. However, she has no authority to complain for anyone else. My assessment has therefore considered the injustice to Ms X alone.
7. 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.
8. The prior approval process allows councils to assess the impact of the proposed development on various issues, including sitting and appearance.
9. Ms X says the Council failed to properly consult residents about the applications. The Council says it erected a site notice and wrote to about 70 neighbouring residents. Ms X says the consultation was not adequate. However, the Council is not required to consult. It is required to publicise the application and consider the representations it receives. In this case Ms X was able to object to the application and her relevant objections about material planning considerations were considered by the Council. Therefore, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice because of the way the Council publicised the application.
10. I understand Ms X disagrees with the decision to approve the application and says there were errors in the case officer’s report concerning the number of objections received.
11. The case officer’s report shows the relevant material planning issues were considered, and prior approval was granted. The number of objections received for any application is not itself a material planning consideration. The Council cannot consider objections relating to potential health impacts from the mast. The developer provided a certificate confirming the mast meets the guidelines from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Also, any injustice claimed on this point is speculative.
12. The information I have seen suggests the Council properly publicised the prior approval application. Ms X and others were able to object, and the objections, relating to material planning considerations were considered in the case officer’s report. I have not seen enough evidence to show the Council failed to consider the application in line with current legislation.
13. I do not consider Ms X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the way the Council considered the prior approval application.
14. Ms X wants the Council to reconsider the application. This is not something we can achieve. Therefore we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking from this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the prior approval application.
• We do not consider Ms X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the way the Council dealt the application; and
• We cannot achieve the outcome sought.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman