So the Council was testing software and inadvertently published outcomes for planning applications based on the input of officers testing the software. Having done user testing in the past where dummy text is required adding gobbledegook or trying to be funny isn't unusual.
The bit that I donr get is the Council's assertion that:
After being alerted to the mistake, the decision notices were swiftly removed from the site, but legal advice has subsequently confirmed they are legally binding and must be overturned before the correct decisions are made.
|
|
Presumably there’s no way of cancelling or correcting a planning decision without going through a judicial process? Which I kind of understand, as people already think the planning process is open to brown envelope type corruption (though there’s little evidence to actually support that view), and if it was possible to simply change a decision then it could be open to potential corruption. However, correcting an obvious mistake should be a little easier!
|
|
Meanwhile, the party who applied for permission to demolish a historic building can just get on with it.
|
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg also wonders why the Council is insisting on judicial review:
rozenberg.substack.com/p/your-proposal-is-whack
|
|
This could have been great fun if one of the permissions related to the demolition and on receiving the OK, a building was knocked down in error.
|
Planning permission - Bromptonaut
