Under A. 26(1)(a) of the Regulations, the local authority "shall stamp each document with the date of its receipt". The official stamped date of receipt on P02/591 is 16 April 2002 but someone has changed the date with a pen to make the application date appear as 04 April 2002. The complainant's submission was returned as it was outside the 5 week limit allowed from date of receipt of the application to make submissions (it was received on the 15th May 2002). However, if the original stamped date was allowed to stand, the submission would be within the time limit.
The Council's Response
The Council's position on the issue of date stamping was provided to the complainant's solicitors in a letter of 17 September 2003. In that letter the Council explained that:
- the application was complex in nature, contained numerous documents and drawings and was delivered in a large storage box,
- the application documents were not stamped on the date they were received,
- the unstamped documents were referred to other sections of the Council for technical reports,
- the Fire Section informed the planning staff that it had received undated documents,
- a member of the planning staff then proceeded to date stamp the documents in the box. As it contained a site notice with the date 16 April 2002, the staff member presumed that was the date on which the application was received and stamped the remaining documents with the same date i.e. 16 April 2002,
- it was then noticed, from another document, that the correct date of receipt was 4 April 2002 and the staff member manually altered the date stamp on the documents with a pen to read 4 April 2002.
The Council stated that the application was received on 4 April 2002 and it acknowledged that it erred in not stamping any or all of the application documents on the day it received them.
This Office sought details of the steps taken by the Council to improve its procedure with regard to the stamping of documents. In response the Council stated that it had reviewed its procedures with regard to receipting, stamping and validation of applications for Planning Permission. It now 'date stamps' all applications as soon as possible after receipt. All applications details are then entered on their computerised IPlan system. These applications are then validated/invalidated as soon as possible. The time required to date stamp applications, enter them onto the IPlan system and check for validation/invalidation is dependent on the number of applications received at any one time and the staff resources available to do the work. However, all applications received in a particular week (up to 4.00 PM on a Friday) must be stamped and entered on the IPlan system by 4.00 PM on the following Wednesday in order to facilitate the production of the weekly list, as is required by Regulations. Relevant staff are fully familiar with this procedure and any new staff received appropriate training in this procedure.
Details were also sought of the steps taken by the Council to improve its procedures with regard to the correction of date stamping errors. The Council stated that incorrect date stamping of documentation is a rare occurrence in the Planning Section. If it occurs the following procedure is now in place. The incorrect date stamp has a line drawn through it in pen and the documentation is date stamped with the correct date. The Officer doing this signs his/her own name under the correct date stamp and dates the document as per the date on which the correction is made. A memo is placed on the planning file explaining the basis and need for this correction.
The View of this Office
The manner of the stamping of this particular planning application and accompanying documentation with the date of receipt, was unsatisfactory. Some documentation was stamped 16 April 2002 and then changed to 4 April 2002. Other documentation on file was date stamped with a date which, by deletion of the first digit of the date, altered it to the 4 April 2002. The Fire Section informed the complainant that it received P02/591 on 4 April 2002. On the other hand, the Council stated that it was the Fire Section that alerted the Planning Section that it had received undated documents and this is how the stamping omission came to the attention of the Planning Section. It has not been possible to reconcile these conflicting accounts in relation to the involvement of the Fire Section.
Article 26(1) of the 2001 Regulations states:
"26. (1) Subject to sub-article (3), on receipt of a planning application, a planning authority shall -
(a) stamp each document with the date of its receipt, and ..."
'[O]n receipt of a planning application' implies that the stamping should be done immediately it has been received and it appears that this failed to occur in this case. The Council has acknowledged that it erred by not stamping any or all of the application documents on the day it received them. The Council's practice in this regard was unsatisfactory and resulted in confusion. The Council has carried out a review of its practices in this regard with a view to ensuring that what occurred in this case will not recur.
The complainant rang the Council on the 9th April, 2002 and again on the 12th April, 2002 and was told that no application (concerning Doonbeg golf course) had been received. He phoned a few days after the 12th and was told applications had been received, but was not informed of when the applications had been received.
The complainant made submissions in respect of planning applications P02/590 and P02/591 which submissions the Council received on 15 May 2002, but his submissions were returned by the Council because they were outside the 5-week time frame for making submissions. The complainant had assumed, based on the information given to him on 12 April 2002 that the applications were received shortly after that date. In fact they had been received on 4 April 2002.
The Council's Response
The Council's initial response to these issues, as conveyed to the complainant in a letter dated on 31 May 2002, was that when the complainant phoned on 9 and 12 April 2002, the applications had not been validated and had not been entered on its computer system. Therefore, he was informed that the applications had not been received whereas, in fact, the applications had not been validated. With validation shortly after 12/4/02 the application went 'live' on the computer system in the normal way. However, following a visit from staff of this Office to the Council and discussions with Council staff, the Council revised its response. Of particular importance was a copy of an extract from the Council's Weekly List dated 10 April 2002 showing P02/591 as having been received on 4 April 2002.
The Council provided a further response as follows. In April, 2002 the Council was allocating reference numbers to all files received, including those that were found to be subsequently invalid. The date of commencement of allocating reference numbers to all files (both valid and invalid) cannot be ascertained with certainty but was the established practice at April, 2002 and probably at January, 2000 in anticipation of the commencement of the 2001 Regulations as they relate to Planning Applications. From the evidence of the list of 10/04/02 (the Weekly List referred to above) it is certain that planning applications P02/590 and P02/591 had been entered on the Council's computer system (IPlan) by 10/4/02. Whether they had been validated by this date cannot be ascertained with certainty. With regard to the phone call by the complainant on 09/04/02, it cannot be ascertained with certainty whether or not the applications had been entered on the IPlan system at the time of the phone call but, in relation to the complainant's telephone call on 12/04/02, it is certain that both applications were on the IPlan system by this time. It cannot be ascertained with certainty whether they had been validated at that time.
In response to a further enquiry from this Office for clarification in relation to its procedures on receipt of planning applications, the Council stated that the information given to the complainant on 31 May 2002 was sincerely believed to be the true position at the time. When the enquiries by him on 9 April 2002 and 12 April 2002 elicited a negative response as to the receipt of the application file, it was assumed that it (the file details) had not been entered on the IPlan system. Subsequent production of the extract page no. 6 from the Weekly List demonstrated that the file had been entered on the IPlan system at least prior to 9.28 am on 10 April 2002. With regard to the application file Ref. P02/590 it cannot be stated with certainty why this application did not appear on IPlan screen when the enquiry was made on 9 April 2002 and 12 April 2002. The IPlan system is sensitive to enquiries and requires that the applicant name as inputted by an Officer must be exactly the same as the applicant name as originally entered on the IPlan system. It said that there are devices to overcome the problem such as broader search criteria. A misspelling of an applicant name can result in a negative search result. The Council said that this was not stated by way of explanation for what happened but was merely given as a comment. The Council had outlined the steps taken in the review of the system at the time and the current system now in place. To the knowledge of the Council's Liaison Officer, no similar event to this has occurred since.
The Council also referred to the complainant's call a few days after 12/4/02 which elicited the information that the application had been received together with the application number, but not the date of receipt. The Council commented that this could indicate to Planning Staff that he intended calling to the office, viewing the file and then making a formal submission before the cut off date of 9/5/02. It stated that it is important to note that this would have given him ample time to lodge a formal submission and to seek clarification on any queries that he had in relation to the application. It stated that there is always a chance of lack of clarity where communication is by telephone only. It stated that there is no substitute for calling to the Planning Office to seek inspection of a planning file. It commented that this was not to say that telephone communication in itself is inadequate, but it highlights the information gaps that can result. It acknowledged that it erred in not checking the weekly list.
The View of this Office
It appears that Planning Applications P02/590 and P02/591 were received by the planning authority on 4 April 2002. If a planning authority receives an enquiry regarding a planning application and the authority is aware that an application has been received (but possibly not validated), it would be reasonable to expect that the person enquiring would be given the information that the application had been received. The Council has accepted that any enquirer should be given correct information on all occasions. The Council has accepted, in its letter to the complainant dated 31 May 2002, that the complainant contacted the Council by telephone on 9 April 2002 and 12 April 2002 and was informed on both dates that the applications had not been received. In fact, the applications had been received on 4 April 2002 and certainly were on the Council's computer system by 12 April 2002. Taking everything into account and, in particular, the Council's admission that the complainant contacted the Council on two occasions to enquire about particular planning applications, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the complainant was not properly informed about the status of planning applications P02/590 and P02/591 on two occasions in April 2002.
On the basis that the applications had not been received by 12 April 2002, the complainant assumed he had 5 weeks from that time to submit his objections to the planning applications. His objections were received in the Council on 15 May 2002 but were returned to him as he was out of time. It would appear, therefore, that the failure of the Council to provide him with accurate information in relation to the receipt of the applications, may have contributed to his failure to get his objections to the Council on time and this, in turn, may have led to the denial of his statutory right to appeal the subsequent grant of permission to An Bord Pleanála. (In order to make an appeal to An Bord Pleanála, it is necessary to have made a valid submission/objection to the planning authority in relation to the particular planning application.)
According to Council records, other applications allegedly received after applications P02/590 and P02/591 had lower file numbers (e.g. an application received on the 8th April was given the reference number P02/577).
The Council's Response
In the course of this examination the Council stated that in April 2002 it was allocating reference numbers to all files received, including those found subsequently to be invalid, and this practice was established probably at January 2000. The Council agreed that the numbering system for applications received was inconsistent. It stated that this does not arise now on foot of new procedures put in place. It commented that numbering of applications is an administrative device which does not influence the date of receipt, validity or any other aspect of the application. It stated that inconsistency in numbering would not affect the complainant's rights in this case, as the system is date driven rather than number driven.
The Council further clarified the position with regard to the numbering of planning applications and its procedure in that regard. It stated that the new Regulations came into effect on 11 March 2002 and required revised procedures on all aspects of the processing of planning applications. As part of preparation for implementation of the new Regulations, the current processes were reviewed and arrangements were put in place throughout the planning department to meet the requirements of the new Regulations. As is the case with all processes, they are subject to review in the event of any errors made, lessons learnt from other local authorities, business process reviews carried out by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government / Local Government Computer Services Board etc. During the course of the examination carried out by the Office of the Ombudsman on the files in question, P02/590 and P02/591, the issue of numbering of new applications being slightly out of sequence with applications received after those two applications, the process of receiving new applications and entering them onto the IPlan system (which can generate the number of the next application), was reviewed. The practice as set out under the Council's Response at 2 above, outlines the revised procedures. The Council stated that this has been further improved since August 2005. The planning applications received each day are sorted by date and entered in the IPlan system (and thus given application numbers) according to date received, in date order. All new applications are date stamped by staff in the public office and then delivered to the registrations unit, where they are entered. In order to comply fully with the requirements of the 2001 Regulations as regards the weekly list of applications received, all applications received in a previous week have to be entered by the Tuesday/ Wednesday of the next week.
The View of this Office
As the practice of allocating reference numbers to all applications received, including those found subsequently to be invalid, was established probably at January 2000 and was in place at the time of receipt of applications P02/590 and P02/591, it appears that it was not followed and that the applications were not numbered in accordance with the sequence of applications received at that time. The Council accepts that the numbering system was inconsistent. Based on the revised procedures outlined above, this should not recur.