The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a telecommunications mast near his property. Any fault by the Council in its planning process falls away with the applicant’s appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which looked at the application afresh. We also cannot say the Inspectorate’s decision to grant the permission would have been different if Mr X or others had objected. There is no different outcome our investigation could achieve for Mr X.
The complaint
Mr X lives on a road where a telecommunications mast has received planning permission after an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. He complains the Council: failed to properly deal with a planning application for a telecommunications mast near his property; failed to enable him to make representations against the mast development during the applicant’s Planning Inspectorate appeal.
Mr X believes that if the Council had dealt with the matter differently, the planning outcome may have been different. He says the siting and appearance of the development will be detrimental to his health and wellbeing. He wants the Council to compensate him and other residents directly affected for the injustice caused.
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X, online maps and planning documents, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council accepts officers made some mistakes in the way it dealt with the planning application for the mast, including the date of publication of some online planning documents and some incorrect location information for the new mast. But officers refused the application. So we cannot say any of those Council errors had an impact on its planning decision which resulted in an outcome Mr X did not want, because he wanted the application to be refused.
The decision to grant the permission was made by the Planning Inspectorate in 2021. The Inspectorate looks at appeal applications afresh, as if it has been made directly to them. The Inspector can look at any material planning issues and is not restricted by the refusal reasons given by a council. So any errors by the Council in the way it dealt with the application fall away and are not relevant once the matter goes to the Inspectorate for its independent decision.
Mr X says the planning outcome may have been different if the Council and Inspectorate had received his and others’ objections to it. But that is speculation. We cannot say what impact, if any, those objections would have had on the Inspectorate’s decision. Both councils’ and the Inspectorate’s planning processes do not require objections for them to consider the material planning impacts of an application on existing residents.
The final planning decision here was made by the Planning Inspectorate, not the Council. We cannot investigate or go behind a decision by the Inspectorate. If Mr X wishes to pursue his disagreement with the Inspectorate’s decision because of the impacts he believes will happen because of the mast, he would need to take independent professional advice on how to do so.
For the reasons given above, investigation of Mr X’s complaint would not result in a different outcome, so we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no different outcome we could achieve for Mr X by investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman