Local residents are unhappy with a housing project in our area: can we argue that an inconsistency in the planning application makes it INVALID?
- Is the building permit invalid if there are inconsistencies in the applications?
- To what extent should full titles match when it comes to scheduling requests?
- We speak to a legal expert for his opinion on the validity of a building permit
Plans for a new local housing project near me have been approved on appeal, but they fail to address the many concerns of local residents.
The planning application was submitted on behalf of Wiltshire Police by the Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon.
Some of us took a closer look at the application and found an inconsistency with the names used throughout the process.
Is a building application and objection valid if the names do not match?
We find out if the building permit is invalid if there are inconsistencies in the applications
MailOnline Real estate expert Myra Butterworth replies: The country urgently needs more housing, but it is important that this does not happen at all costs.
This also means that we should not squeeze as many homes as possible into a location as quickly as possible without taking into account the local environment and the existing pressure under which it stands.
Britain needs more well-built houses that last for generations and improve the lives of its residents. This can only be achieved if applications are carefully considered and not rushed.
There seems to be some suggestion that this has not been done here as there seem to be inconsistencies in the applications. But is a slightly different name really enough to torpedo a development?
We will speak to a lawyer to determine whether your findings invalidate the building permit granted.
Stephen Gold, ex-judge and author, explains: The person who was looking for planning permission is called The Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon, which must be irritating when he’s applying for credit cards or signing Christmas cards and running out of space.
As Swindon is in Wiltshire, you might wonder why both the county and town should play a role. The reason is that they have separate centralized authorities.
The full title is inserted in the original schedule request form.
When Wiltshire Council announced its rejection of the application, it omitted the reference to Swindon from the description of the applicant.
Given that the site for which planning permission was sought was outside the Swindon borough, I am sure the Commissioner would not have sent the Chief Constable to complain about the omission, although he would have been saddened by the refusal.
Wiltshire Council had all the other details correct, including the application number and the site for which planning permission was requested.
The precise description of the rejected applicant was not an essential part of the document. It would have been obvious to a visitor to Mars that this refusal related to the Commissioner’s application.
I am convinced that the notice of refusal was valid and that the Commissioner could appeal on that basis.
And that’s exactly what he did, through his chief executive officer. The same abbreviated description of the commissioner was used on the appeal application form as Wiltshire Council used in the notice of refusal: no reference to poor Swindon.
The appeal was accepted by the Planning Inspectorate and indeed led to a victory for the Commissioner with the granting of a building permit.
Only the person who applied for the planning permission can appeal against the refusal of the application. Their identities must be identical, and it is clear that the Planning Inspectorate was convinced that the Police and Crime Commissioner for Wilshire was one and the same person as the Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire and Salisbury.
To the extent that he could have believed that the abbreviated description was irregular, it must be assumed that he waived the irregularity and treated the original applicant as the appellant, since the appeal decision states that the appeal was filed by the police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire and Salisbury.
In my opinion, the abbreviated description was immaterial, has not led to any justifiable confusion or prejudice, and does not invalidate the building permit granted.
Stephen Gold is an ex-judge and author of ‘The Return of Breaking Law’ published by Bath Publishing. For more information about service charges, visit breaking law.nl