2. Council fails to consult with the Environment Agency on a barn conversion to 4 residential units and fails to require a structural survey either before or after granting consent. On converting the buildings, part falls down in a storm and it takes three subsequent applications and 18 months to gain a rebuilding consent because the Environment Agency objects, notwithstanding that a permission had previously been given. The applicant had to give up his building business and find another job due to this as this final unit was effectively the profit for the whole scheme and by the time it was completed the unit could only be rented out as the recession prevented its sale. Complaint to Ombudsman submitted with 84 fully valid instances of maladministration. RESULT – Complaint dismissed, in accordance with the LGO Watch figures that maladministration is only held in 2% of all cases.

3. Council fails to adequately take into account medical/health grounds. RESULT - dismissal of planning and enforcement appeals and a full award of costs against the Council in both cases. I have a copy of the DVD recording from the Council (under the Freedom of Information Act) of the Planning Committee meeting when the decision was taken to refuse planning permission for my Clients to retain the mobile home in which they live and to effectively make them homeless whilst laughing and joking as they voted. This case also included the refusal of the Council to accept an application in a certain form. RESULT – Council later proved wrong by the Inspector, forcing them to refund £165 in planning fees and to face a formal complaint to seek reimbursement for the additional work involved in submitting a fresh application that was not actually needed.

4. Planning permission granted for the demolition of one half of a pair of semi-detached houses, replacing the lost symmetry with something that looked like the house from The Amityville Horror, the outcome of which I have yet to find anyone can understand.

5. Approval for single storey, flat roofed, eco-bungalows in the Ramsgate Conservation Area next to three storey Grade II Listed Buildings, the decision for which arose from alleged officer misinformation to the applicant; disagreement between officers; and a decision based upon a Design and Access Statement that was copied and doctored by the applicant from another application (the original of which was my own work) and which bore no reference to the historic location of the actual site.

6. Approval of a single and two storey, contemporary house in a traditional setting, following 4 refusals for a house, during one of which the officers stated that the site was not suitable for any development, and dismissal of a subsequent appeal at which the Inspector said that he did not consider that the site could accommodate a two storey structure. The house was approved for a building company, a Director of which is now Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee and who now lives in the said house.

7. Refusal and enforcement action for the retention of a domestic garage on the incorrect grounds that screening by trees in a neighbouring garden could not be considered. RESULT - The Inspector took the screening into account, quashed the enforcement notice and granted planning consent.

8. Refusal for two houses on the grounds that the making up of an unmade, private road and provision of nearby pram crossings to the pavement could not be controlled by planning condition. RESULT – Appeal allowed and in allowing the appeal the Inspector not only confirmed that the works could be controlled by condition but said that only the pram crossings were justified. If the Council had granted consent in the first place they could have secured between £10K and £20K worth of highway improvements for the residents of the private road, which the applicant had already agreed would be funded by the development, but they missed the chance and the poor condition of the unmade road will remain and, in fact be used by two more dwellings.

9. Failure of a Council to accept that they should only be charging 10p per A4 sheet to provide copies of planning documents to the public. They were charging £1.30 per A4 sheet and £35 for an A1 size plan, which would normally cost £5 if provided by a local agent. The Council tried to argue with me that they wouldn't accept a legal precedent known as the Markinson case. RESULT -The Information Commissioner therefore duly found against them, forcing them to reimburse me over £170 that I had been forced to pay out on behalf of Clients.

10. Finally, although the above are all examples from one Council, in a neighbouring authority, a conversion of a former chapel to residential went through three failed applications, with different reasons for refusal on each, due to misapplication of policy and failing to consult with the Environment Agency. Annoyingly, the third application went to appeal and was dismissed only on a ground attached to the third refusal but by this time the applicant was out of time to appeal against the first two decisions or complain to the Ombudsman.

11. Extension of time application submitted that was accompanied by Certificate B with Notice having been served on the same 3 adjoining landowners at the time of the original application. The extension application was submitted well in time and accordingly validated by the Council. Unbeknown to the applicant one of the landowners had sold part of his interest to another neighbour who, having been notified of the application by the Council, complained to the Council that notice wasn't served and trying to assert that the application was therefore now invalid; it was therefore invalid at the time of submission and as the 3 year period had now expired, the permission had lapsed. The Council simply agreed, on the basis that 'the regulations require that a valid extension application must be submitted before expiration and, as such, notice cannot be served on this new owner, being outside the 3 years. They even had the audacity to threaten that they would be unilaterally returning the application. However, as they hadn't even provided the applicant with the opportunity to respond on any of the relevant issues, they confirmed that they would not be returning the application. Not only did this approach directly conflict with the long established principles stated in the latest 'greater flexibility guidance' but has no regard to whether any prejudice would be caused to the owner in question as a result of the situation, given that he had already written to the Council on the application and had every opportunity to make representations, a fundamental basis upon which all past such cases have been made, going back to the Main v Swansea case of 1984. RESULT – Council accepted arguments and carried on to determine the application.

12. Planning Committee resolution to approve a residential development subject to a legal agreement that an earlier, live consent would not be implemented, as concurrent implementation of both consents would be unacceptable in planning terms. I prepared a Unilateral Undertaking (one that only requires the applicant to sign and not the Council) alongside his solicitor and a fully signed and witnessed undertaking was submitted. The Council said that as they do not have the relevant legal expertise in-house they would have to outsource checking of the document to another Council's legal team and therefore asked the applicant to agree to meet the resultant charges. The Council's last view was that unless such agreement is forthcoming permission will be refused on the grounds that no Undertaking is in place. Arguments ensued with the Council, over a protracted 6 month period that this was unreasonable, given that the applicant's agent for the application had previously been advised to seek advice from the Planning Applications Manager upon the wording to be included in the Undertaking and an Inspector, on appeal, would not seek external legal advice prior to determination of an appeal, upon which the Council would be expected to comment in any event. RESULT – Council finally capitulated and issued the approval, with the signed Undertaking in place and without any legal fees having been paid by the applicant.

Return to contents list.

Copyright © 2011 - Ian Johnston.
All Rights Reserved.
E-mail ijjohnston@totalise.co.uk