Conclusions from the handling of my complaint.
Background and purpose
Many of you will be familiar with my ongoing correspondence with the Institute about a
complaint (Ref: LIC2025-01ii) that, in my view, has not been appropriately investigated.
In my letter to the President dated 10 October, I set out why I reject the Institute’s
dismissal of my complaint, which was described as “hugely controversial”.
As you are no longer prepared to correspond on this matter, this open letter does not
seek to re-argue the facts. Instead, it sets out the conclusions I have drawn from two
frustrating years of trying to resolve the matter privately.
1. The Institute is not serious in investigating complaints
My complaint has been dismissed more than once at the earliest stage of the Institute’s
complaints process. Only after persistent eƯorts did I receive a stage 1 Technical
Review under your published procedure. I consider that review flawed for the reasons
set out below.
Subsequent subject access disclosures revealed that the Institute regarded my
complaint as “Hugely Controversial” and recorded that “someone should talk to” me.
Despite this, no such contact was made.
The Institute’s published complaints process provides for a stage 2 Investigation and
Screening Panel to consider complaints. The Institute also has a Membership and
Professional Standards Committee.
Why, then, was a complaint described as “hugely controversial” dismissed without
proceeding through the full complaints process? This leaves me concerned that the
decision prevented the complaint from receiving the scrutiny it warranted.
2. The subject of my complaint is probably endemic across the Wind Farm
Industry
The Institute’s description of my complaint as “hugely controversial” raises a question:
Why would an isolated issue involving a single chartered member provoke such a
response? It leads me to question whether the practices underlying my complaint
extend beyond this individual case.
I was offered a statement confirming the Technical Reviewer’s independence. I
accepted the offer and specifically asked whether the reviewer was involved with any
wind industry bodies. I was then told that the reviewer had declined to provide the
statement.
That refusal leaves my questions about the reviewer’s independence unanswered and
gives me further cause for concern.
3. The Technical Review of my complaint was a whitewash
The Technical Review did not address some of the points I raised and misinterpreted the
Institute’s own guidance on others. If the reviewer was appropriately selected from
within the Institute’s leadership, these shortcomings raise concerns about how that
guidance is understood and applied.
This leads me to question whether the practices underlying my complaint are
established across the industry, which might explain why the complaint was described
as “hugely controversial”. If so, upholding it could have wider implications for the wind
farm and renewable energy industry.
4. The Institutes Professional Code of Practice does not require members to
follow Technical Guidance notes
The Institute’s Code of Practice sets out the standards of professional conduct
expected of members. The Institute also publishes technical guidance, including GLVIA
and RVAA. My complaint concerns what I consider to be non-compliance with that
guidance.
I find it difficult to understand why the Code’s 11 rules and 17 pages of explanation do
not expressly require members to follow the technical guidance the Institute takes such
care to produce. This apparent gap raises a fundamental question about how that
guidance supports enforceable professional standards.
5. Landscape professionals are not held accountable for acting independently and
consulting a cross section of the affected community.
My experience over more than two years has left me concerned that the Institute is not
giving practical effect to its governing objective of upholding the competence and
conduct of those who practise landscape architecture as a profession.
Beyond my concerns about what I consider to be a non-compliant RVAA for my home, a
wider issue for the wind farm industry arises from the Guidelines for Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA). Paragraph 2.26 states:
“Landscape professionals are likely to be closely involved in the development of
the scheme and its design……In carrying out an LVIA the Landscape professional
must always take an independent stance…..”.
The Institute’s Code of Practice also emphasises community engagement. Rule R2g(d)
states:
“Landscape professionals should actively seek out a diversity of viewpoints in any
engagement or consultation relating to landscape work. This includes ensuring a cross
section of the affected community is consulted and that representatives of
relevant communities are engaged.”
During more than four years of close involvement with the development, I have seen no
evidence that the Institute member engaged with anyone other than their client and the
client’s advisers. The exhibitions/consultations were staffed by the developer’s
employees and public relations consultants. I question whether feedback relayed
through the developer provides a sufficiently objective basis for an independent
assessment.
This leaves me concerned about whether in this specific case and across the industry
Landscape Institute members meet the community-engagement requirements of Rule
R2g(d).
6. The Institutes published complaints guidance aims to prevent scrutiny of
planning matters
The Institute’s guidance states that it cannot investigate certain matters, including:
an issue which relates to a current planning application or appeal or any matter which took place more than six months ago.
In my experience, the planning process takes longer than six months, particularly for
wind farm developments. Taken together, these restrictions raise an important
question: when can a complaint relating to such a development realistically be
investigated? I find it difficult to see how these conditions provide a reasonable
opportunity for scrutiny.
Both restrictions have been cited at different stages as reasons not to consider my
complaint. Only through persistence and the advice of Counsel have I been able to
continue pursuing it.
Finally
I urge you, as Trustees, to give these observations and conclusions serious
consideration, review your governance procedures urgently, and introduce and
communicate to members appropriate measures to address the issues raised.
Yours Sincerely
Paul Whitfield
9th November 2026
0 Comments