Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered a prior approval application and responded to
Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly approved a prior approval application for a telecommunications mast close to his home, by dismissing objections without proper consideration. He also complained the Council mishandled his complaint by altering its complaints policy. He said he felt ignored, frustrated and unable to trust the fairness of the Council’s complaint process. He wanted the Council to suspend the approval of the planning permission and the Council to re-investigate his complaint.

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 Mr 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, including siting and appearance.
7. Mr X raised concerns in relation to a prior approval application for a telecommunications mast near his home. His concerns included highway safety, visual impact, technical need and procedural irregularities within his objection to the application.
8. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
9. In this case, the officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns.
10. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve the application. However, the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was affected by fault. There is insufficient evidence the Council failed to consider the application in line with current legislation.
11. Mr X also complained the Council had not considered his complaint fairly, and changed its complaints policy during its consideration of his complaint. In its complaint response, the Council explained that two separate senior officers had considered Mr X’s complaint independently. It noted that its complaint policy was clarified following feedback from Mr X, but its complaints process remained unchanged.
12. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council provided Mr X with two detailed complaint responses, in line with its complaint policy.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman