A new report revealed last night, has criticised council bosses over the issues surrounding the building of Darlington Football Club's new home. Chief reporter Stuart Mackintosh looks at the Local Government Ombudsman's findings.

ON August 16, 2003, thousands of people descended on Darlington to witness the start of a new chapter in the North-East's rich sporting history.

The Reynolds Arena was a spectacular new football venue that was good enough to grace the Premiership.

It was the home of third division Darlington - and was supposed to catapult the team into the big time.

For the then chairman of the Quakers, George Reynolds, the opening represented the realisation of a dream - and a poke in the eye for the "doubting Thomases" he had so often referred to.

Nothing, not even a disappointing 2-0 defeat nor the ugly disputes that had dogged its creation, could take the shine off the day.

Mr Reynolds had faced concerted local opposition to his plans.

Borough councillors, however, backed the proposals in February 2000 - clearing the way for construction to begin on a 23-acre site at the junction of Neasham Road and the A66.

At the time, the local authority said it had placed strict planning conditions on the development as the area was classed as environmentally sensitive.

The local authority said the tough conditions should also reassure opponents of the scheme.

Council leader John Williams said: "A day doesn't seem to go by without opponents of the scheme coming up with new reasons why the stadium shouldn't go ahead.

"With the conditions we have imposed, we have done everything possible to protect the interests of local residents."

But yesterday's report by the local government ombudsman reveals how the interests of local residents came second when the club hit financial problems.

Although the report acknowledges Mr Reynolds made promises he subsequently failed to keep, it adds: "While acknowledging these difficulties, the Ombudsman believes that the council did not do enough to protect local residents."

The council's planning conditions were certainly tough.

In order to allay fears of parking chaos, the authority insisted the club should pay for a subsidised bus service from the town centre.

It also had to provide off-site parking, pay for road improvements, extra signs and advertise ways of reaching the stadium other than by car.

If the club wished to have permission for more than 10,000 fans (the stadium seats 25,000, although it has never reached even half that capacity) it also had to fund a park-and-ride scheme.

But as the official opening approached, planners began to fear the work would not be carried out in time.

The report says the council should have sought an injunction to prevent the stadium opening.

It says: "There were so many breaches of the (planning) agreement unresolved by the August opening that I consider the failure to seek an injunction to be maladministration."

The report reveals a growing sense of unease within Darlington Borough Council that the stadium would prove to be a commercial and public relations disaster.

As work slowed due to growing financial problems, the council's chief executive, Barry Keel, convened a series of meetings with senior officers to see what could be done and whether the authority should take action.

The report says he feared the stadium would never be finished.

It adds: "Even taking into account the financial problems and the difficulties of dealing with the owner at that time, the failure to take a more robust approach had the effect of undermining the confidence of residents in the council's assurances (over the) planning agreement."

Even when the stadium was completed, council chiefs feared the venue would become a white elephant if the club didn't survive.

When Mr Reynolds placed the Quakers in administration, the council's worst nightmare appeared to be coming true. Facing the very real prospect of a club on the brink of extinction, the authority opted to lift its previous objections to holding car boot sales at the site as a way of boosting revenue.

The report says: "The council was dealing with a very different set of circumstances.

"After the football club went into administration, the council had to consider whether it wanted a large white elephant on the edge of the town or whether it could agree something that would work."

Ironically, no car boot sales have been held at the stadium because traffic safety work has still not been carried out.

The local authority had also attached stringent opening hours on the stadium's hospitality suites. These were later scrapped in favour of longer opening hours.

Although the report does not criticise the authority for not enforcing a condition limiting the opening hours, it does say that it had failed to carry out a proper assessment of the likely effect on residents.

The report also acknowledges the tenacity of local residents who refused to give up their fight - and their determination in bringing the council to account when the authority failed to live up to its word.

It concludes that a payment of £250 should be made to each complainant "in recognition of the time and trouble they have taken in pursuing the complaints about planning consents and enforcements"

Findings of the Ombudsman

* Darlington Borough Council "did not do enough to protect local residents". It failed to ensure that Darlington Football Club chairman George Reynolds complied with the conditions attached to planning consent for the new stadium.

* The authority failed to carry out a proper assessment of the likely effect of the stadium on residents.

* The authority made a mistake in allowing the stadium to open in 2003 without a subsidised bus service, a residents' parking scheme, traffic regulations and highway improvements.

* That mistake meant nearby residents suffered "disturbance, inconvenience and traffic problems".

* The council should have sought an injunction to prevent the stadium opening when it became clear there were breaches of the planning agreement.

* There was maladministration in the way the council dealt with applications for public entertainment at the ground. The increase in hours permitted by public entertainment licences meant residents suffered disturbances late at night.

* The council should review its procedures to ensure information on liquor licences is available to the licensing committee when it considers public entertainment licences. It should monitor licences to ensure residents do not suffer because of extended hours.

* The council has already offered to pay £200 to one resident for the time it took her to pursue complaints about licensing matters. The Ombudsman found it should give the same amount to a second resident. In addition, the Ombudsman said both women should receive an additional £250 each in recognition of the time and effort they have taken to pursue their complaints about planning consents and enforcement.