Ealing Council has been criticised and found to be “at fault” by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman over its handling of a planning process linked to works at Lammas Park.
In a decision notice, the ombudsman identified a series of administrative failings in how the Labour-run council handled objections and communicated with a resident, saying it failed to properly record representations or ensure those concerns were passed to planning officers or decision-makers.
The report states this failure “led to uncertainty” about whether the objections might have influenced the outcome of the application. The ombudsman also found fault in how the council handled representations and aspects of the process, concluding that key information was not consistently managed or clearly documented.
Further criticism was made of the council’s communication, with the watchdog highlighting “the way the Council dealt with communications”. Responses to the complainant were found to lack clarity and did not fully address the issues raised, contributing to what the report describes as “avoidable frustration”.
The ombudsman also identified fault in Ealing Council’s complaint handling, including delays and weaknesses in how it responded once the concerns had been formally raised.
However, the report did not uphold all aspects of the complaint. The ombudsman found no fault in the council’s decision to determine the planning application itself, concluding there was insufficient evidence to show the outcome would have been different. It also did not find fault in certain procedural steps, including the council’s ability to consider amendments within the application process, indicating these fell within accepted planning practice.
Reacting to the findings, the leader of Ealing Liberal Democrats, Councillor Gary Malcolm, said: “Liberal Democrats think it extraordinary that a resident felt the need to take Ealing’s Labour-run council to the ombudsman over the extremely poor management of the SuDS scheme in Lammas Park. Ealing Council clearly do not do the basics correctly.
“The report is damning in that Ealing Council are at fault for many aspects including not treating the application as major development, allowing unauthorised works, having to reapply for planning application, not consulting the chair of the planning committee and disruption to park users.”
Councillor Malcolm added: “I remain of the view that the portfolio member responsible should resign as residents have lost faith in the leadership and management of the SuDS scheme, which I called for in an open letter last week.
“Furthermore, because the ombudsman case only covered some of the concerns of residents the Liberal Democrats still believe that the council should have a full review of all matters that relate to the SuDS scheme to learn the lessons for future SuDS projects.”
Speaking to EALING.NEWS, Neil Reynolds, chair of Ealing Green Party, said of the ombudsman’s investigation: “The ombudsman’s findings are no surprise to long-suffering residents who have had to deal with Labour’s ineptitude and contempt for their concerns. The failure for anyone to be held to account, just shows how little Labour values basic competence.”
He added: “Residents have a right to expect better and have a choice in May; More of the same with Labour or councillors that really care about the environment from the Ealing Greens.”
Councillor Julian Gallant, leader of Ealing Conservatives expressed his concerns over the ombudsman’s findings. He told EALING.NEWS: “The Suds scheme in Lammas Park has attracted huge attention, for all the wrong reasons. Whatever the technical necessities, and there is argument about the real flooding risk, the council’s management of the works has been nothing short of disastrous. The fact that a second planning application was required to deal with the earth piling that resulted from the primary excavation is just one of many indicators.”
He added: “The portfolio holder’s combative defence of the project in front of West Ealing Neighbours – people who use this park every day – was just embarrassing. Good that the council has been asked to apologise to the complainant; let’s hope lessons are learned before another project capsizes.”
While the final decision was not judged to be flawed, the ombudsman said the process leading up to it was. It recommended that the council apologise to the complainant and review its procedures, particularly around recording representations, ensuring they are properly considered, and improving communication with residents.
Ealing Council has accepted the findings and agreed to implement the recommended improvements.
In a statement to EALING.NEWS, an Ealing Council spokesperson said: “The principle and need for a flood mitigation scheme was supported by all parties at full council in July. We accept that mistakes were made along the way, which are noted in the report and we sincerely apologise for our failings identified in this case. We are committed to learning from this and ensuring our processes are as robust and transparent as residents rightly expect.
“We will address the issues raised with the relevant officers and take steps to prevent similar errors in future. We will also be looking at ways to improve transparency on projects that may significantly affect residents, including clearer communication and earlier engagement. The second planning application responded to concerns raised by residents to local councillors, resulted in a more comprehensive planning application and a better long-term outcome and addressed many of the concerns raised in the report.
“We are committed to rebuilding trust and improving communications with local residents and park users. We are pleased to announce work to remove the temporary fencing from the larger recreational area started yesterday (Tuesday 24 March) which will open up more green space in the park. Temporary fencing will remain around the basins and channels to protect new planting which will be undertaken in April and will see further improvements. We are continuing to carry out inspections to ensure the site remains safe and we are open to feedback from the local community.”
