LGO takes rare step of issuing public report – even though no injustice found

The Local Government Ombudsman has taken the unusual step of issuing a public report even though she found no injustice in the case and only one "minor" point of fault by the council concerned.

The Ombudsman launched an investigation after receiving complaints about Leicestershire County Council’s grant of planning permission for a new waste-processing facility.

Two residents submitted separate complaints about how the authority had handled the planning applications for the anaerobic digestion facility, which was to process animal manure and food production waste.

Leicestershire had sought applications from organisations based in the county for an anaerobic digestion business plan grant and then an environmental impact assessment grant.

The successful grant applicants included two large organisations with head offices outside Leicestershire as joint supporters of the project.

One of the grant applicants invited a council officer to go on a fact-finding trip to Denmark. Shortly before he was due to go, a planning officer was substituted for that officer. There was no entry relating to the trip on Leicestershire’s register of gifts and hospitality.

When one of the grant applicants made a planning application for an anaerobic digestion plant, the officer who went on the fact-finding trip was the case officer.

The county council subsequently granted planning permission for the facility.

The complainants claimed that Leicestershire’s process and consideration of the planning application was faulty.

They also argued that the relationship with the grant applicants damaged the council’s objectivity when it came to considering the planning permission, and were dissatisfied with the authority’s response to their complaints.

The LGO, Dr Jane Martin, found one instance of maladministration – the fact that the registry entry for the fact-finding trip did not exist. But the Ombudsman said accepting the trip was a matter for the professional judgment of the council’s officers.

She added that the maladministration did not call into question the decision on the planning application and had not caused injustice to the complainants.

The Ombudsman said the grants awarded were not a material planning consideration and could not lead to bias in the consideration of the application.

Although she did not uphold the complaints, the LGO, Dr Jane Martin, decided to publish her findings in a report because of the local interest and concern about the development.

The LGO said: “The value of the Ombudsman is to support local people with concerns about matters affecting their community. Sometimes it is as important to demonstrate that the council has handled a matter properly as it is to identify fault.”

She added: “With a complex application like the one in this case, there may well be many contentious issues where the council’s decision makers reach a different view from that of local people who have relevant expertise.

“That does not mean, necessarily, that there has been maladministration. I consider that the written report to the Development Control and Regulatory Board made the policy issues clear. It also set out the scale of the proposed plant and the key issues.”