The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a prior approval application for a telecommunications mast. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and Ms X has not suffered significant injustice.
The complaint
Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a prior approval application for a telecommunications mast. She says it did not properly consult or consider the impact on the community when making its decision. Ms X says the mast is a safety hazard and the community have lost trust in the Council. Ms X wants the Council to apologise, remove the mast and make a payment..
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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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.
The prior approval process allows councils to assess the impact of the proposed development on various issues, including siting and appearance.
Ms X said the Council did not consult key stakeholders which meant the decision was flawed. However, the application was publicised as required. I understand Ms X felt the timing of the consultation was unfair. But the Council explained its reasons why it had to consult within that timeframe.
Even if there was fault with how the Council publicised the application, it is unlikely Ms X has suffered significant personal injustice because the Council properly considered the application. It is likely the planning decision would have been the same had the Council received further objections to the proposal.
Ms X also complained about the proposed mast being near protected trees and says the case officer’s report incorrectly said the parish council did not object to the development. The Council explained to Ms X that the mast operator is allowed to undertake works to protected trees without the need for consent from the Council. It has also explained why the report recorded no objections from the parish council.
The case officer’s report explained the process for prior approval applications and how the necessary requirements were met. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
I am satisfied that the Council properly considered the application when it decided to grant prior approval.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has not suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council publicised the application.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman