on the lessons that can be learnt from our complaints about end of life care given in care homes and in the home.
Category : Planning > Enforcement Decision : Closed after initial enquiries Decision date : 19 Feb 2026
The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a report of a breach of planning control. Nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.
The complaint
Ms X complains about the Council failing to take enforcement action against antennas installed on the roof of a nearby hotel She says the number of antennas exceeds those allowed by permitted development.
Ms X says the antennas have caused her significant health damage and she wants them removed. She also wants financial compensation and to be exempt from paying council tax.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X reported a breach of planning control with the number of antennas on the roof of a nearby hotel.
The Council investigated her report. It also told Ms X that: “immediate removal of these antennas would be an excess use of powers at this time, where it is very possible, they may be acceptable in planning terms. If a planning application is neither forthcoming, nor is refused following submission – we will then view the expediency of taking enforcement action to have these removed.”
The Council apologised to Ms X for the time taken to investigate. Matters were complicated because the party who installed the antennas no longer have an interest in the building. The hotel operator leases the building. The Council had to obtain details from the managing agents of the property to complete its investigation.
The Council says it has considered: The planning history for the building.
The responses to Planning Contravention Notices served on the antenna operators.
Drawings provided in 2021 and 2023 for upgrades and replacements for the equipment.
Having reviewed the relevant information the Council is satisfied the existing structures have been on site since 2012. They are therefore immune from enforcement actions and there is no breach of planning control on the site.
The Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision of no breach of planning control. Our role is to consider the process by which the Council has reached its decision.
In this case the Council appears to have carried out a detailed investigation, serving Planning Contravention Notices and researching the site history. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the report of a breach of planning control to justify an investigation.
Even if we had found fault with the Council’s actions (which we have not) we cannot require the Council to pay compensation for personal injury as this is a matter which can only be decided by the courts. Nor can we require the Council to exempt Ms X from council tax payments.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the report of breach of planning control. Nor can we achieve the outcome Ms X is seeking.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman