WIREDGOV

Complaints about Leicestershire County Council’s grant of planning permission for a new waste-processing facility have been investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin.

The Ombudsman conducts impartial and independent investigations into allegations of administrative fault by councils. In this case she did not uphold the complaints but, because of the considerable local interest and concern about the development, she has taken the very unusual step of issuing a public report even though she found no injustice and only one minor point of fault by the Council.

She says: “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.”

Two residents complained separately about the way the Council handled planning applications for an anaerobic digestion facility that would process animal manure and food production waste. They made a number of detailed allegations.

The matter giving rise to the complaints began when the Council sought applications from Leicestershire-based organisations for an anaerobic digestion business plan grant and, subsequently, an environmental impact assessment grant. The successful grant applicant identified two large organisations with head offices outside Leicestershire as joint supporters of the project. Subsequently the Council granted planning permission for the facility.

The complainants consider that the Council’s processing and consideration of the planning application was faulty. They believe that the Council’s relationship with the grant applicants damaged its objectivity when it came to considering the planning application. They were also dissatisfied with the Council’s response to their complaints.

The Ombudsman did not support these complaints. She said: “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.”