The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making process for a telecommunications cabinet installation in his area, and how it dealt with his complaint. Even if there was fault by the Council, the cabinets do not cause sufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint‑handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.
The complaint
Mr X lives in an area where an operator installed above‑ground telecommunications equipment. He complains the Council: did not apply or have in place an appropriate process to properly consider the installation of the equipment and cabinets; failed to properly deal with his complaint about it.
Mr X says the cabinets have a visual impact on the area where he lives. He says other residents also dislike the installation, and the parish council and the MP have supported their concerns.
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: 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
‘Permitted development’ rights are a national grant of planning permission which allows certain development 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. Each type has certain conditions. If a development does not meet the relevant criteria a planning application should be made. ‘Permitted development’ rights apply to some development done by electronic communications code operators for their networks. Subordinate to this legislation is the 2016 ‘Cabinet and Pole Siting Code of Practice’ (‘the Code’). The Code gives guidance to relevant parties, including telecommunications operators and planning authorities, on the siting, keeping, maintenance and use of above-ground communications equipment.
The telecommunication operator’s cabinets in Mr X’s area had permitted development rights under national government laws. The operator had to apply for a ‘street permit’ from the Council for the cabinets as they would be street furniture on highway land. The Council determined the works required no other kind of permission. The Council says its role in assessing the development was to consider any highway impacts of the cabinets or other health and safety risks.
The operator installed the cabinets in a different location from that in the original proposal. Officers were satisfied the cabinets complied with the Code as far as was reasonably practicable, even in their different location. They determined that if the final location had been the original one proposed, they would have accepted it as suitable. Mr X considers the Council did not properly consider the cabinets, including their visual impact on the area, in line with the Code.
Even if there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process here, we will not investigate. There are no immediate views of the cabinets from Mr X’s property, which is over 100 metres from their location. The cabinets’ appearance and siting have no impact on Mr X’s property’s amenity. We recognise Mr X may find them unsightly and he could see them whenever he travels to and from his house. But that is an insufficiently significant injustice to him to warrant us investigating. We also note other residents, the parish council and MP have expressed dissatisfaction with the cabinets’ location and look. But Mr X has brought his complaint on his own behalf, and others’ claimed injustice is not his injustice.
Mr X says the Council did not properly respond to his complaint. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: even if there has been fault, there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to warrant an investigation; and we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman