Approving repeat applications for development previously refused
20.1 One complaint that frequently arises, and has been investigated by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, is the approval of a planning application where an application for substantially the same development has previously been refused, where there has not been a significant change in circumstances.
20.2 The principles which can be distilled from Ombudsman cases are as follows:
- there is perversity and maladministration, if a Local Planning Authority approves a planning application, which has previously been refused, where there has not been a significant change in the planning circumstances;
- the fact that there has been a significant change in the membership of the Planning Committee does not justify inconsistency between current and previous decisions;
- the perversity of approving a planning application, which has been previously refused, where there has been no significant change in the planning circumstances, is maladministration if:
- insufficient weight has been given to Officers’ recommendations and Central Government guidance; and
- there is a failure to give and record reasons for the authority’s change of mind.
20.3 Elected Members are advised that a serious risk of challenge is posed by a failure to give and record clear and convincing planning reasons for the approval of planning applications for which there is a history of refusals by the Council and Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State where there has been no significant change in the planning circumstances.
20.4 Therefore:
- If a Committee is minded to approve an application for development previously refused, the proposer of the motion for approval or the Chairman should state what the significant change in the planning circumstances justifying approval before a vote is taken.
- If there is a history of refusals by the Council and Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State, the proposer of the motion for approval or the
- Chairman should also state why the Inspector’s decision should no longer be followed before a vote is taken.