Unless I'm misreading your post, you're assuming that planning officers have made the mistake (in misintepreting the council's guidelines, ie planning policies) and not the councillors who made the final decision. In this case, planning officers made a recommendation to grant planning permission based on the council's planning policies. Councillors on the Development Committee took a different position and decided to refuse planning permission.Wareite1969 wrote:I meant the council's planning officers being unable to correctly apply the councils own written guidelines.
Herin lies the crux of the problem. Planning officers make a mistake and leave the council (and us as tax payers) open to a massive legal bill.
I'm not sure what "advice" you're referring to. Do you mean advice to the developer? Planning Officers work for the council, not the developer. They can take part in pre-submission talks and they can advise as to the most appropriate form of development, but they are not in a position to guarantee a decison one way or the other, therefore they cannot be liable to a developer. There is no contract between planning officers and developers and planning officers are answerable to no-one other than their employers, the District Council.Wareite1969 wrote:IThis only ends two ways 1) An inappropriate development goes ahead due to incorrect advice by an officer or 2) The planning refusal is upheld and the developer sues for their costs incurred to due to incorrect advice. In neither scenario is the officer the person that carries the can.
The only way that the District Council would be liable to costs (as opposed to damages, which are unlikely to be imposed by the appeal officer) is was if there was some failure in the planning process on the part of the council. It is up to the appeal officer to determine this.