Ombudsman tells council to repay planning application fee to developer over “avoidable errors”
- Details
Maidstone Borough Council has been asked to apologise to a local developer and pay him £3,968 by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, who recommended applicant Mr X should apply to the courts if he wanted further compensation for the £12,000 he said he spent on a mishandled planning application.
The Ombudsman said Mr X complained Maidstone failed to process his planning application for a house in multiple occupation properly and so caused delay, distress and financial loss.
“We found the council to be at fault because there were avoidable errors in the planning consent that meant another application had to be made,” the Ombudsman said.
Maidstone then agreed to apologise and refund Mr X £3,468 as the cost of a second application he had to make after the council’s errors with the first one, and £500 as compensation.
The Ombudsman said: “I am unable to consider whether there is merit in Mr X’s submissions about the financial consequences of the council’s fault. His claim for economic losses should be made to the through the courts, not the Ombudsman.”
Mr X was granted planning permission in December 2024 to build the home but when he received the decision notice he saw several errors.
The description was incorrect, a condition had been included that had not been raised by the council previously and would not be possible to satisfy, and drawings were incorrectly labelled.
He was told to submit a section 73 application to explain why the condition could not be met and told the council could issue a ‘comfort letter’.
Mr X accepted this but heard nothing further until the council eventually upheld his complaints about lack of information.
He issued a new planning application the same day and the council said the case officer had expedited it while still following the normal processes.
But Maidstone’s conservation/heritage office then objected despite not having done so with the earlier version of the application.
Mr X was then told his application would have to go to the planning committee rather than be decided under delegated powers. The committee then gave consent.
These various delays and the need to revise the application and appoint consultants cost Mr X some £12,000.
Maidstone has declined to comment.
Mark Smulian
Sponsored articles
Unlocking legal talent
