The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with an application to consider whether installing a telecommunication mast near the complainant’s home required prior approval. We have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mrs B complains the Council has allowed a 5G mast to put up close to her home. She says these will damage her health and that of her family, will damage trees and will spoilt the outlook where she lives.
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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice.’ We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs B and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council received an application to see if the installation of a 15 metre telecommunications mast near Mrs B’s house needed prior approval.
Mobile telephone masts are known as “Permitted Development” and are subject to prior approval from councils. This means that the principle of development is not an issue, and the Council can only reject an application on the grounds of siting and appearance. The Council must make a decision within 56 days of the receiving the application or the application is granted.
Mrs B is appealing against the Council’s decision that prior notification is not required.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says: “for a new mast or base station, evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure and a statement that self-certifies that, when operational, International Commission guidelines will be met.”
“Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.”
The planning officer prepared a report on the proposal . This shows the Council received 59 objections from residents stating the mast will cause a negative impact on: the landscape mental health and well-being property values ecology and environment green space Other objections stated the mast will be an eyesore and overshadow gardens.
The Council did not receive any objections from the Highway Authority, the Environmental Health department or the Local Lead Flood Authority.
The report also show the applicant confirmed the proposal conforms to the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation protection (ICNIRP) guidelines and they have received the required certificate.
It is clear from the case report the Council considered the objections received. However, it explained why it considered the proposal was acceptable.
I have not seen any information to suggest this assessment was affected by fault. This means we cannot question the Council’s judgement that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs B ’s complaint because we are not an appeal body and we have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the Prior Notification application for a 5G mast.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman