DPA must re-run complaint investigation with independent lead

Wednesday 30 August 2023

A senior independent person will lead a reinvestigation into how a planning complaint was handled by the States of Guernsey following the unanimous decision of a review board.

James Collings first lodged a complaint with the Development & Planning Authority after he lost out on a tenant for an office space at Bonamy House as the property did not have the correct certificate of lawful use.

He applied for the proper permissions after discovering this in 2019 but felt the DPA handled the request too slowly, causing him to lose out on business. A second complaint was lodged and handled by a different civil servant after he perceived the first to be marred by an internal conflict of interest.

He later elevated the matter to the Administrative Decisions Review Board, which considered it publicly on 15 August, after again being unsatisfied with the conduct of officers in following the complaints procedure. 

The Board, comprising Chair Richard Denton, George Riley, Barry Cash and Martin Ozanne, now expects the States to appoint an “independent and impartial senior person” to lead the investigation to remove any suggestion of conflict of interest into the complaint.

It also said they should have “sufficient power to investigate” through being able to access relevant documents and interview civil servants.

The investigation will consider all relevant matters arising between 28 November 2019 and 11 February 2020.

The DPA are legally required to inform the Board of how it will reinvestigate the matter and the results by 31 October.

Pictured: Civil servants accepted that a fresh review with an independent lead would help to alleviate the complainants' concerns. 

Senior civil servants accepted there were administrative issues within the handling of Mr Collings’ complaint but they firmly rejected accusations of misconduct for lack of evidence.

The Board also accepted this: “Whilst there was no evidence of impropriety, the DPA acknowledged in its verbal and written submission that there was a justifiable perception of a conflict of interest in the selection of the DPA personnel to review the original complaints raised by Mr Collings.

“The DPA acknowledged procedural errors and the need to review all evidence available between the given dates for the complaint.”

The Board noted that “the DPA wishes to address Mr Collings' continuing concerns in a transparent and professional manner and to appoint a suitably independent and senior person to achieve this goal.”

It also said it would be “welcomed” if the DPA includes guidance on how long its general complaint process is expected to take as it reviews its wider complaints procedures.  

If the Board deems that its findings have not been properly complied with then it must refer the case to the States Assembly.