• You are here:
• Home /
• Publications /
• Annual Reports /
• Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2003

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2003

Chapter 3 - Carlow County Council - Administrative Error in Planning Process

Carlow County Council

Administrative Error in Planning Process

Local Authorities have many complex and varied functions and sometimes they can make mistakes or errors in administering them. When I receive a complaint about such an error, as well as examining the original action, I also examine how the local authority deals with the aftermath once it realises its mistake. In some cases, where the local authority fails to act or apologise, the lack of any follow-up exacerbates the situation. In other cases, increasingly, local authorities are proactively seeking to mitigate the adverse effects of their own actions and this is a development which I have encouraged and am very happy to see now gaining a foothold.

One example of this involved Carlow County Council and its wrongful acceptance of an objection to a planning application outside of the time limit. I received a complaint from a man whose grant of planning permission was delayed because the Council accepted an invalid objection to his application for planning permission. The planning application was received on 16 January 2003. The statutory period for receipt of objections expired on 19 February 2003 (5 weeks later). The Council accepted an objection to the development on 19 February 2003 but there was no fee enclosed, rendering it invalid. However, the Council wrote to the objector requesting the fee which was subsequently paid on 27 February 2003. The decision to grant permission was issued to the applicant on 11 March 2003 and the objector was notified the same day. The objector subsequently appealed to An Bord Pleanála.

Once it was pointed out to the Council that it had accepted an invalid objection, it contacted An Bord Pleanála to ascertain the legal position. An Bord Pleanála pointed out to the Council that because the Council had accepted the objection it was now bound to deal with the appeal. The Council explained the position to the Bord and asked informally that it deal with the case as quickly as possible. An Bord Pleanála subsequently made its decision on 16 May 2003. Overall, the Council's error in accepting an objection that was invalid, and retaining and facilitating it by the subsequent request for the fee, caused the applicant a delay of only one month. The Council apologised to the complainant and endeavoured to minimise the delay caused by its error. It was very heartening to see the speedy acceptance of its mistake by the Council and the genuine and effective way it subsequently sought to mitigate its impact.

Back to contents