The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to erect telecommunication apparatus near the complainant’s home. The complainant has not suffered enough injustice because of the alleged fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complains about how the Council has dealt with an application for a telecommunications mast near his home. He says the Council: posted a defective site notice which omitted the end date for comment; and approved the application under delegated authority instead of referring it to the planning committee which was suspended because of local elections.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allows certain development (both building works and changes of use) to be completed without making a planning application to the local planning authority. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order sets out the main types of permitted development. Each type has certain conditions. If a development does not meet the relevant criteria a planning application should be made.
Between permitted development and a full planning application, there is prior notification (sometimes called prior approval). This applies where the development is, in principle, permitted development.; But the council needs to approve certain parts of the work.
Permitted development rights apply to certain development conducted by an electronic communications code operator for its communications network. This includes installing electronic communication apparatus. The developer must apply to the Council so it can decide if prior approval is required on the site and appearance of the equipment.
The Council received an application for a 5G telecommunications mast near Mr B’s home. The Council considered the application but decided prior approval was not needed for the development.
Mr B has complained about how the Council has dealt with the application. He says it did not tell him about the development. He also says the expiry date for comments were different on the website, letters, and site notice. He says the development is unsuitable for a residential area and will devalue his home.
I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for telecommunication apparatus. I do not consider Mr B has been caused significant injustice by the alleged fault.
Mr B says the Council posted a defective site notice. Councils are required to give publicity to applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. In this case, the Council needed to tell the residents of the properties adjoining the site or erect a site notice. The Council did both.
I understand Mr B believes the site notice was defective. However, even if I could say there was fault with how the Council publicised the application, I could not say he has suffered significant injustice.
The purpose of publicising the planning applications is to give interested parties the opportunity to make representations. Mr B was aware of the application was able to object to the proposal were did many other residents. Further, I am satisfied the case officer properly considered if certain parts of the proposal required prior approval, as set out in the General Permitted Development Order, before deciding prior approval was not needed. This included the suitability of the location. Therefore, it is unlikely the planning decision would have been different had different dates been stated on the site notices and notification letters.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. Mr B has not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman