AN investigation into how a planning application from a relative of two Exmoor National Park members almost failed to come under the scrutiny of the authority's planning committee has concluded it was due to "a succession of errors".

The bid to build a new affordable home on land adjoining the Moorland Hall at Wheddon Cross appeared as having been approved in the list of decisions delegated to officers in January.

But local campaigning group Exmoor Uprising complained to the authority after it emerged that the home would be built on land owned by chairman of the national park's planning committee Roger Webber and and that the applicant - Ricky Atkins - was related to him and to another member, Ian Rigby.

In a report to the authority's planning committee on Tuesday - at which the committee approved the application - solicitor and monitoring officer Tony Sweeney said: "There are those who see conspiracies everywhere, others who see a concatenation of errors.

"Alas for those in the former group there is no evidence in this case of anything other than a succession of errors which, in the end, did not lead in fact to any decision being made under delegated powers.

"The matter has come before the committee for decision as it should have done."

Mr Sweeney said there was no evidence of wrongdoing to achieve advantage on the part of anyone involved with the application.

But he said there were lessons to be learned and he would be issuing new guidance for members in connection with planning applications.

In the meantime, planning officers would now be required to complete a form with relevant details before any decision was delegated.

In his report Mr Sweeney acknowledged that "a measure of disquiet" had been felt about the circumstances in which the application appeared in the list of delegated decisions.

The applicant's agent, Dulverton-based Ross Campbell, had ticked the box on the application form to the effect that neither he nor the applicant was related to any elected member "in error".

Mr Sweeney said no mention had been made at a site visit that the applicant was related to any member of the committee or that the land was owned by Mr Webber.

He said if that part of the application had been correctly completed, internal procedures would have been triggered.

Although the section on land ownership had been completed correctly, the assistant planning officer dealing with the application did not know of the family link and had not referred to the form in detail, as her focus had been on the "planning nitty gritty".

The authority's development manager - responsible for checking the delegation report - had not looked at it in its entirety so had not noticed the land ownership issue.

Mr Sweeney said matters were not helped by the fact that the planning committee agenda showed the delegated decision to approve the application had been made when in fact it was still being processed - due to a data computing error.

Later questioning of Mr Webber revealed that the applicant, his nephew, helped out on his farm and the idea of an affordable house being built on the land had been mooted about a year or two ago.

Mr Sweeney said Mr Webber had confirmed he had not been involved in the preparation of the application in any way, although he was aware it had been made.

It had come before Cutcombe Parish Council - of which Mr Webber is chairman - in November last year and he had declared a prejudicial interest and vacated the chair.

Mr Webber had not spoken on the item but had commented that he would be grateful if the site could be made available for affordable housing.

Mr Webber maintained he never gave any thought as to whether the application would go before the planning committee or whether it would be a decision delegated to officers.

And although it appeared as a delegated decision on the agenda for the January 10 planning meeting, Mr Webber had not read his papers by the time chief executive Dr Nigel Stone contacted him about the issue on January 4.

In his conclusions, Mr Sweeney said the application had been incorrectly completed by Mr Campbell who did not know he was related to two members of the planning committee.

"He did not ask, nor did his client bring that fact to his attention," he said.

"In hindsight, the agent accepts that the question should have been asked and also that the fault in not completing the application rests entirely with him.

"The error however would appear to be an honest mistake with no intention to deceive anyone."

Mr Sweeney said the officer dealing with the administration of the application might have picked up the land ownership issue but it would be unfair to place any blame on her.

The development manager, had he discharged his duties thoroughly, would have noted the identity of the landowner and no doubt would have got the matter back on track.

And Mr Sweeney said the data computing error which resulted in the application appearing on the delegated decisions' list was due to a relatively new and inexperienced administration officer.

He said the issue had been drawn "very helpfully" to Dr Stone's attention by a member of the public and although it was a matter for speculation as to what would have happened, he had no doubt that the head of support to the community David Wyborn would have brought the matter to Dr Stone's attention because of other administrative processes in place before a delegated decision was finally released.

Molly Groves from Exmoor Rising, who flagged up the mistake, told Tuesday's planning committee meeting that she believed it could best be described as "a giant cock-up".

She said the errors could not have been allowed to pass and Mr Sweeney had done an excellent job in investigating the matter.

"As a result the rules have been tightened up to prevent, we sincerely hope, such an appalling series of errors ever happening again."