ALLERDALE council’s chief executive will apologise after a watchdog found that the authority was at fault over a planning decision about a wind turbine.

Ian Frost has agreed to write and apologise to every person who lodged a complaint about the way the council granted planning permission for an 113ft turbine at Oughterside Mill, near Aspatria, in November. 

The council will also have to make a public apology and read out a statement at a planning meeting within three months, the Local Government Ombudsman said. 

Councillor Jim Lister was granted planning permission for the turbine at a development panel meeting last November.

The turbine has now been erected but objectors wanted the ombudsman to review the council’s handling of the application.

Objectors were concerned that Coun Lister, a member of the development panel, addressed colleagues about the application.

The panel approved the application but objectors were concerned that the decision disregarded council planning policy.

They claimed that Coun Martin Wood stated there had been no objections from residents within 800 metres of the site and was not corrected, and alleged that Coun Wood was over familiar with Coun Lister during the meeting.

They were also concerned that minutes of the meeting did not detail the panel’s basis for planning approval.

The ombudsman said:

  • The council cannot demonstrate why it made the decision it did as it had no formal record
  • The assertion that there were no objectors within 800m was factually incorrect
  • It was not appropriate for there to be familiarity as it might cause a perception of bias

The report added that although the turbine itself would not cause nearby residents “significant injustice”, the faults in the planning process caused “uncertainty and suspicion”. It added: "This injustice is significant."

It said: "In relation to the way Coun Wood addressed Coun Lister, the ombudsman understands this might well cause a perception of bias.

“It was not good practice to use Coun Lister’s first name in this context, as it could give the impression the decision was influenced by a close relationship.

"It was not appropriate for the councillor to ask Coun Lister if he was satisfied with the members' decision to visit the site.

"This could give the impression a deal had been done.

"I have seen no evidence of dishonest conduct but the council must remember that when making planning decisions it is acting as a quasi judicial body. It should not only ensure its processes are fair, but they are seen as fair." 

The ombudsman was told by Allerdale council that there were no accurate records of the meeting as the note-taker's notebook had been disposed of. 

It said: "Very shortly after the meeting, Allerdale council was challenged about potential abuse of process. Surely it should have made every effort to preserve all records regarding this application."

It said Mr Frost had agreed to write to the complainants and apologise.

The report said: “He accepts that the faults in the process and what happened at the planning meeting caused the perception that the decision was not fair.”

The council must also make a statement at a planning meeting which includes an apology and a formal written statement which should be read out, detailing reasons for the approval of the application and a record should be kept on the planning file.

The authority has already begun to review its working practices and procedures, including how it makes and records decisions, its conduct and appropriate level of formality and how it deals with applications from its members and officers and their families.