Summary: Mr D complains the Council did not properly notify him about the installation of a mobile phone mast and did not consider the impact on his property. We found no fault.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains that the Council did not properly notify him about the installation of a 5G mobile phone mast and did not consider the impact on his property when it approved the development. As a result the mast is close to his front door, visible from his windows and towers above his garden.
2. Mr D says the mast has impacted his family’s mental health, his home has lost value and he is concerned about possible health risks.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mr D about his complaint and considered:
• the information he sent, including photographs
• the Council’s response to my enquiries, and
• the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (“the Regulations”)
7. Mr D and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Planning for mobile phone masts

8. The installation of telecoms infrastructure would normally count as development and require planning permission. However, the Regulations have made some telecommunications masts “permitted development”. This means Parliament has already granted planning permission so the principle of development is not an issue. Mobile masts up to 30 metres tall in non-protected areas are permitted.
9. These permitted development rights restrict a local planning authority’s ability to refuse an application. Although the operator may need to seek “prior approval” from the council, the council can only consider whether the siting and appearance of the proposed mast is such that its visual impact on the surrounding area is minimised. Councils might consider a mast’s height in relation to the surrounding land and buildings, and the materials, design and colours used. Councils will not assess whether a new mast is needed.
10. The Government’s Code of Practice for wireless network development in England provides guidance on the siting and appearance of telecoms infrastructure. The National Planning Policy Framework says councils have to consider:
• Supporting high quality communications which is essential for economic growth and social well-being.
• Having policies which support the expansion of networks including next generation mobile technology (e.g. 5G)
• Keeping the number of masts to a minimum and where new sites are needed, equipment should be sympathetically designed.
• Not imposing blanket bans on new development in certain areas.
11. The Council’s local plan telecommunications policy says that development will be permitted if:
• The siting and appearance of the proposed apparatus and associated structures seek to minimise impact on the visual amenity, character and appearance of the surrounding area; and
• Development should not have an unacceptable effect on areas of ecological interest, areas of landscape importance, archaeological sites, conservation areas or buildings of architectural or historic interest.
12. There is no minimum distance for a mast from a home or a school.
13. Councils must make their decision and inform the applicant of the outcome within 56-days from receiving the application. If the council fails to communicate its decision within the time limit, the proposal becomes lawful despite any concerns the council might have had.

Health considerations

14. Public Health England’s guidance on the potential health impacts of radio waves and electromagnetic frequencies from mobile phone base stations says health effects are unlikely to occur if exposures are below international guideline levels.
15. Operators have to submit a statement that confirms that a mobile mast will adhere to exposure limits on non-ionising radiation set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Health concerns over masts that meet these standards have not been accepted by the courts as a valid reason for a council to refuse prior approval.

Publicising and determining applications

16. Councils must publicise prior approval applications; how they do so depends on the development. In this case, the Regulations say publication may be by site notice near the site or notification to adjoining owners or occupiers. (The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, schedule 2, part 16, para A3(6)(d))
17. The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made. Councils must take responses to its consultation into account insofar as they are relevant to the siting and appearance of a new mast. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as reduction in the value of a property or views.
18. Councils' case officers need to consider the proposed development. The case officer's report should identify the key deciding issues, have accurate descriptions and summarise responses from consultees and notifications. The report should also refer to the development policies, national policies and other material considerations relevant to deciding the application. The case officer should recommend a decision that follows from a reasoned analysis of the relevant issues.
19. A report should help show a council took proper account of key material planning considerations. The courts have held the report does not need to be perfect. Its intended audience is the parties to the application (the council and applicant) who are familiar with the issues. The report does not need to include every possible planning consideration, just the main, controversial issues.

What happened

20. The Council received an application for prior approval for a mobile phone mast in May 2023. It notified the local parish council and local councillor and placed a site notice on a lamppost at the location of the mast. This was outside Mr D’s home, but on a footway next to the road, rather than the footway next to his property.
21. The operator submitted a certificate confirming the proposal conformed to the ICNIRP guidelines and the Council received no objections. The case officer considered the matter in a report. The report sets out the application, history of the site and relevant legislation, local and national policies. The case officer concluded that:

“whilst the proposed development would be visible from public viewing points … it is considered that [the mast] will assimilate well into the immediate street scene and not be detrimental. Whilst it is accepted that there will be a localised visual increase through the installation of additional apparatus, it is considered that this will not overly detract from the character of the existing streetscape where street furniture of similar appearance is present. The height of the proposed pole (15m) has been kept down to the absolute minimum capable of providing the required new 5G coverage; it is not felt that the pole would have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding area. In addition to this consideration, no comments of objection have been received to the proposal. In light of these observations, the proposed development is considered to be compliant with local and national policy and is considered to be acceptable.”

22. The Council approved the application. The mast was erected in November 2023. Mr D contacted the Council as he had been unaware it was to be put up. Mr D complained to the Council that they had not been consulted, the site notice had been poorly located so it could not be seen and the mast was very close to his house. He was also concerned as there were schools close by so children walked along the footpath.
23. The Council replied to Mr F’s complaint on 18 December 2023. It said the public notice was in line with standard practice and was appropriately sited and visible. The case officer’s assessment had considered the relevant issues and any impacts upon property valuations arising from development were not material matters for a planning decision.
24. Mr D came to the Ombudsman. He said the mast was two metres from his boundary, the site notice was not as prominent as others he has seen in the area and had been put in a location that people did not walk past.

My findings

25. Mr D complains he was not consulted on the proposal to install the mast. The Regulations allow councils to either consult with neighbours or put up a site notice. The Council says that it has been its policy for a number of years to put up site notices for these types of application. This is in line with the Regulations so is not fault.
26. I have seen photographs showing the location of the site notice and Mr D’s home. Mr D says they did not see the site notice because it was not on the footway that is most used. Whilst I appreciate Mr D considers it was not sufficiently prominent, the Council has complied with the Regulations and there is no fault.
27. In addition, on the balance of probabilities, I consider it likely that even if Mr D had seen the notice and submitted an objection, the Council would have approved the mast. This is because Mr D’s concerns are about views, property value and health risks but none of these are material planning considerations that the Council could have taken into account.
28. The Council had to consider whether the siting and appearance of the proposed mast was such that its visual impact on the surrounding area was minimised. The case officer’s report considered the mast’s position in relation to nearby residential properties and the relevant policies. It concluded the siting and appearance of the development would not be significantly harmful. There is no administrative fault in the report.
29. Mr D says the decision was wrong and the mast should be moved. I have not found any evidence of procedural fault by the Council. I appreciate Mr D disagrees with the Council’s decision, but if there is no fault in the way a decision was made, the Ombudsman cannot challenge the decision no matter how much a person disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

30. There was no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman