PLEASE NOTE: Information in this article is correct at the time of publication, please contact DFA Law for current advice on older articles.
When planning applications are being considered, the difference between what may seem reasonable to do and what strictly should be done was clarified in a recent case in which the court ruled that a decision made by a planning inspector who had failed to make a site visit should be quashed.
Because of an acrimonious dispute between the owners of adjacent properties regarding a planning application, the inspector decided only to view the land in question from outside its boundary before reaching a decision on the application. In the circumstances, the court held that had the plot been viewed from inside the boundary, a different decision would have been reached. Although the planning officer’s decision might at first have looked reasonable, when taking into account all the relevant circumstances, it was clear that it was not.
If you believe that a decision you wish to oppose has been reached by an official body without correct procedures being followed or on the basis of incomplete or erroneous information, contact us for advice.