Temp Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 https://news.sky.com/story/your-proposal-is-whack-council-worker-mistakenly-rejects-planning-applications-with-sarcastic-comments-and-decisions-are-legally-binding-12401881 'Your proposal is whack': Council worker mistakenly rejects planning applications with sarcastic comments - but decisions are legally binding Two applications to demolish separate pubs were both approved, with the responses "incy wincy spider" and "why am I doing this am I the chosen one". A junior council worker who thought they were testing a dummy website rejected and approved real planning applications, adding a sarcastic comment to each - with the decisions now legally binding. One applicant, a charity boss, was told by Swale Borough Council her plans were turned down because "Your proposal is whack", with a second comment adding, "No mate, proper whack". Five applications for Swale Borough Council were affected, as well as a sixth from Maidstone which was rejected with the reasons: "Don't even bother re-applying lol" and "not even joking lmao". Continues.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 I don't see why these need a judicial review to be overturned. The one quoted - retrospective for the animal sanctuary - can be Appealed. Or a (slightly different?) further App could, be made, or an Appeal with both submitting new evidence.. If, as alleged by the Council, these are legally binding, then they do not I think have the power to remove the from the website. It is a retrospective, and does include somewhat controversial elements. The problem with this one is what they want to do - or rather have done already. I know the problem about Planning Permissions being difficult - my own Gym change of use had a 3 year limit imposed on the last morning without me knowing about it. The embarrassment of the Council may be to their advantage. Obvs some rather heavy staff education needs to be implemented. Ferdinand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitpipe Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 I think the real problem lies with the ones that were approved, that is legally binding until it goes to judicial review. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToughButterCup Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 Why did the IT Department release access to the Operational (live) url to the Planning Team ? A good few years ago, in developing a web resource for an NHS Drug Abuse and Pain Management Team in Manchester, I made exactly that mistake - luckily noticed the mistake 15 minutes after I'd made it, just before going to bed at 3:00 am. I had been asked to 'do them a favour' and stupidly I agreed to work long long after I should have refused to do so. 'Just -in-Time' development in IT has a lot to answer for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_r_sole Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 makes as much sense as most refusals I've seen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joth Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 6 hours ago, Ferdinand said: If, as alleged by the Council, these are legally binding, then they do not I think have the power to remove the from the website. As well as poor software development and systems operations, it sounds like they suffer very weak legal oversight too. Are they saying that the IT system is itself a legally accountable entity, and if random solar rays, a software bug, or motivated hacker, got into it and set its internal state to "approved" for every current (and future) case, they would have no choice but to stand by and let those decisions stand "because computer says so" ? Or is it that the junior council worker in question does indeed hold the delegated authority to make these decisions without oversight and review, and thus the decision stands? I SMH either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonshine Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 7 minutes ago, joth said: or motivated hacker, got into it and set its internal state to "approved" for every current (and future) case, No this would be funny to see, imagine if there was a away to do a 'select all' / approve, it would cause chaos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, joth said: motivated hacker, got into it and set its internal state to "approved" for every current (and future) case, they would have no choice but to stand by and let those decisions stand Get hacking, I suspect the security is not hard to break on council system. While you are at it, crack into the land Registry, I know a couple of bit of land I would like. And what does 'whack' mean. There is a Rob Stewart song that has the line: "While I'm jackin' off Readin' Playboy on a hot afternoon" https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rodstewart/threetimeloser.html I know what that means. Edited September 9, 2021 by SteamyTea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToughButterCup Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 3 hours ago, SteamyTea said: Get hacking, I suspect the security is not hard to break on council system. ... Unfortunately, correct I suspect. I bet in this case it would be almost impossible to convince the IT team to consider white hacking as part of a countermeasures strategy. I really hope I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onoff Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 5 hours ago, SteamyTea said: And what does 'whack' mean. According to the Urban Dictionary: 1. adj; something in bad taste or is otherwise unappealing. You need to get wiv da yoof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 36 minutes ago, Onoff said: You need to get wiv da yoof I have to work with some, and out of 6 of them, only 1 is pleasant. (expletive deleted)ing shits the lots of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted September 9, 2021 Author Share Posted September 9, 2021 (edited) 16 hours ago, Ferdinand said: I don't see why these need a judicial review to be overturned. A week or two back I read that councils don't have the power to issue a second decision notice even to correct errors.. https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/planning/318-planning-features/22731-the-finality-of-decisions Quote ....in two judgments in 2013 the Courts held that local planning authorities could not withdraw and re-issue decision notices to correct errors. The English decision on the point was R (Holder) v Gedling Borough Council [2013] EWHC 1611 (Admin); [2013] J.P.L. 1426 where a council had issued a planning permission omitting large parts of an approved condition. Following a pre-action letter the Council then issued a second (but only partially) corrected notice. After a deal of resistance, it ultimately accepted at trial that it had not had the power to issue a second decision notice (Holder at para 54). They also only have 6 weeks to fix an error via court action.. https://www.tozers.co.uk/insights/council-seeks-to-overturn-planning-permission-it-issued-in-error Quote South Cambridgeshire District Council is seeking to overturn planning permission for residential development in the green belt issued in error. Snip Normally proceedings have to be brought within 6 weeks of the decision. If the error is not spotted in time the only alternative for a planning authority is to try to revoke the permission, which may entitle the applicant to compensation for the loss of right to carry out the development. Edited September 9, 2021 by Temp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now