Planning Innacuarcy

kormak

I just had my application returned as incomplete.
I phoned the Planning Office to inquire why it was returned and the girl advised me due to inaccuracy in the newspaper ad.
I checked my site notices that evening and they appear to be okay and word perfect to my first application notices.
I phoned back the planning office to find out more info as to the inaccuracy and found that the reason they sent it back is that is was missing the word "five" in the final paragraph ??!!!!!
what a ****ing load of bull****!
I understand that everything has to be accurate especially with public notices...
a missing paragraph I would have understood...
but a typo! one word and now I have a delay of anything up to 3/4 weeks to have it resubmitted.
It was my eng. that made the submission on my behalf and he's on leave for a week or so.
Not sure if it was him or the paper that made the mistake.. it's irrelevant at this stage.
Just REALLY grinds my gears the total pettiness of these people!!! :mad:
they're a f*cking law to themselves.

sinnerboy

i hear you my friend , i hear you

muffler

kormak wrote: »

Just REALLY grinds my gears the total pettiness of these people!!! :mad:
they're a f*cking law to themselves.

No they are not a law on to themselves. You or your engineer or the newspaper made a mistake and they are only enforcing the law but its you thats paying the price for that mistake.

I know its frustrating but the planners dont have options or discretions when it comes to these matters.

kormak

muffler wrote: »

No they are not a law on to themselves. You or your engineer or the newspaper made a mistake and they are only enforcing the law but its you thats paying the price for that mistake.

I know its frustrating but the planners dont have options or discretions when it comes to these matters.

I know all this muffler, like I said in my post
"I understand that everything has to be accurate especially with public notices..."
But come on!!! a missing word???!

+ the site notices are accurate.

kormak

muffler wrote: »

No they are not a law on to themselves. You or your engineer or the newspaper made a mistake and they are only enforcing the law but its you thats paying the price for that mistake.

I know its frustrating but the planners dont have options or discretions when it comes to these matters.

also you saying they are not a law on to themselves is insulting.
when they already fail me for certain features in my original design and then I drive down my road and see some other joe soap (who funny enough is minted) building a new house with all these so called disallowed features???!

sydthebeat

welcome to my world.....

muffler

kormak wrote: »

also you saying they are not a law on to themselves is insulting.

Just be careful with your choice of words mate.

And this is a mod post

kormak

muffler wrote: »

Just be careful with your choice of words mate.

And this is a mod post

I'm sorry but I am entitled to my opinion?!
I've had enough pain and hardship over the past 2 years for both myself and my family to know how I feel about certain elements of the planning authority.
It wasn't made as a stab at you, but rather at your definite comment.

Slig

kormak wrote: »

I'm sorry but I am entitled to my opinion?!
I've had enough pain and hardship over the past 2 years for both myself and my family to know how I feel about certain elements of the planning authority.
It wasn't made as a stab at you, but rather at your definite comment.

Like Muffler and sinnerboy we deal with this every day, there is no point getting frustrated, just find out if the newspaper was at fault and if so they will probably put the add back in for free. As for the design aspect that really frustrates me when you try and convince a client that they probably wont be allowed put a red brick 2 storey house on top of a hill because it contravines the development plans or design guidelines. and then the council grant it because the application was dropped in by a local TD or they play golf with a senior executive

sydthebeat

Slig wrote: »

Like Muffler and sinnerboy we deal with this every day, there is no point getting frustrated, just find out if the newspaper was at fault and if so they will probably put the add back in for free. As for the design aspect that really frustrates me when you try and convince a client that they probably wont be allowed put a red brick 2 storey house on top of a hill because it contravines the development plans or design guidelines. and then the council grant it because the application was dropped in by a local TD or they play golf with a senior executive

While i agree with the premise of your argument, i think you example is a wild exaggeration

Im my experience, when a co co becomes involved, the planner wants a huge amount of information submitted so that its easier for them to say yes.... they cannot be seen to be swayed by a councillor...

kormak

I take all your points onboard lads... i'm sorry if I appear like an angry ****!
Just well pissed off with this.
In fairness I have friends at home who've gone through worse.
It's simply frustration at it's highest.... :mad::mad::mad:

Slig

Try working in Leitrim, its already happened to me once this year, the conditions stipulated that the FFL of the house had to be lowered by 1M, so they just dug down 1M into the top of the hill instead of bring ing it down the slope to give a backdrop to the house

kormak

sydthebeat wrote: »

While i agree with the premise of your argument, i think you example is a wild exaggeration

Im my experience, when a co co becomes involved, the planner wants a huge amount of information submitted so that its easier for them to say yes.... they cannot be seen to be swayed by a councillor...

but you do agree that the inconsistency and obvious corruption that exists in certain coco's in this country is rife and bloody sick if you ask me! ?

Slig

kormak wrote: »

but you do agree that the inconsistency and obvious corruption that exists in certain coco's in this country is rife and bloody sick if you ask me! ?

I said nothing about corruption:mad:. It is enivetable that there will be opinions expressed, judgements made and human error especially when 1 person has to make the decision at the end of the day and this decision can also be influenced by their superiors and outside factors.

PS: Validation is a seperate dept. from planning

Slates

kormak wrote: »

I just had my application returned as incomplete.
I phoned the Planning Office to inquire why it was returned and the girl advised me due to inaccuracy in the newspaper ad.
I checked my site notices that evening and they appear to be okay and word perfect to my first application notices.
I phoned back the planning office to find out more info as to the inaccuracy and found that the reason they sent it back is that is was missing the word "five" in the final paragraph ??!!!!!
what a ****ing load of bull****!
I understand that everything has to be accurate especially with public notices...
a missing paragraph I would have understood...
but a typo! one word and now I have a delay of anything up to 3/4 weeks to have it resubmitted.
It was my eng. that made the submission on my behalf and he's on leave for a week or so.
Not sure if it was him or the paper that made the mistake.. it's irrelevant at this stage.
Just REALLY grinds my gears the total pettiness of these people!!! :mad:
they're a f*cking law to themselves.

What sentence was the word "five" left out of ???

kormak

Slates wrote: »

What sentence was the word "five" left out of ???

The last paragraph in relation to a period of weeks where a submission or observation can me made to the planning authority five weeks after the submission date, etc....

sydthebeat

it must have been the ... "WITHIN THE PERIOD OF FIVE WEEKS BEGINNING ON THE DATE OF RECEIPT BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE APPLICATION".... bit, which is a very important part.

As someone above says.. if its the newspapers fault they should reprint it again without charge, if its your agents fault then he should organise it...

kormak

I don't have a copy of the newspaper.
To be honest I can't see the engineer owning up to it even if it was his fault.
Would the paper have records kept of this?

sydthebeat

just tell the engineer to resubmit it.... either he or the newspaper will pick up the tab.

I realise your frustration but its commonplace that applications are invalidated for such errors. Even if it was an error on your engineers behalf, its simply human error, no one is infalliable... it could have been a simple unknowing click of a key on a keyboard.....

Mellor

That bit is quite important.
A missing word would have huge impact on an application depending on the word.
For example, imagine if you read that a house was being built next door, and you were ok with it and didn't object, planning granted, and you see it was actually 5 houses and now its too late to object.
I know its an extreme example, its just an example.

That said, the paper should of goten the words right, even if it was error in submission. I once sent the my ad to the paper without the correct in a section and they changed it as they were used to it.

sinnerboy

as soon a poss... get as many prints back off the council .

if you've been invalidated early in the process the various copies may not be "doing the rounds" with the LA and you may get the entire set back .

Supertech

Surprised the paper didn't pick it up. If it was an error on their behalf were there others in the paper that week with the same error and therefore were other applications affected ?

On a similar note, I had one invalidated a couple of years ago because of a missing 'n' ..... a tad miffed when that came back needless to say. To the OP - I know its frustrating at present, but you'll actually see the funny side of this by the time your house is built .... As sinnerboy says get the prints back if you can - it'll save a bit of time when relodging.

muffler

Supertech wrote: »

Surprised the paper didn't pick it up. If it was an error on their behalf were there others in the paper that week with the same error and therefore were other applications affected ?

I cant speak for anyone else but what I do is email the planning notices in a word document to the local newspaper office. When they receive it the simply cut and paste the content of that word doc to their own system which in turns is sent to the printers.

If theres a fault then its mine.

However if the notice is faxed or posted or hand delivered then it has to be typed up again by a staff member so there is a chance that it could be their fault. Again our local papers will probably hold the received documents for a few weeks so there may be a chance of them checking it and see where the problem lay.

smashey

kormak wrote: »

but you do agree that the inconsistency and obvious corruption that exists in certain coco's in this country is rife and bloody sick if you ask me! ?

Read the charter. We don't like comments like this.

Jimbo

It's tough OP, but that's the system.
I once got a planning sent back 2 weeks later because I forgot to tick a box. I nearly quit my job that day.

RKQ

Council is required to take a "common sense" approarch!

3.10 Validation
Where the requirements of Article 18 (newspaper notice), Article 19(1)(a) (site
notice) and Article 22 (application form and required accompanying
documentation) are complied with the application is then deemed to be valid.
As set out in the preceding paragraphs, planning authorities should adopt a
reasonable approach towards validation. While compliance with the Planning
Regulations is essential, particularly to protect the interests and participation
rights of third parties who may be affected by the proposed development,
planning authorities should take a common sense approach and should avoid
invalidating applications on very minor points such as a mis-spelling or an
illegible signature, particularly if third party rights are not prejudiced. While it
is of course the responsibility of applicants and agents to submit applications
which comply with the Regulations, planning authorities might consider an
approach whereby (as recommended in the case of a small underpayment of
a fee) in a case where an application contains just one minor defect, the
applicant would be contacted and offered the opportunity, within a very tight
time-frame, to correct the defect (the application would be regarded as valid in
the interim period).

Jimbo

RKQ wrote: »

Council is required to take a "common sense" approarch!

3.10 Validation
Where the requirements of Article 18 (newspaper notice), Article 19(1)(a) (site
notice) and Article 22 (application form and required accompanying
documentation) are complied with the application is then deemed to be valid.
As set out in the preceding paragraphs, planning authorities should adopt a
reasonable approach towards validation. While compliance with the Planning
Regulations is essential, particularly to protect the interests and participation
rights of third parties who may be affected by the proposed development,
planning authorities should take a common sense approach and should avoid
invalidating applications on very minor points such as a mis-spelling or an
illegible signature, particularly if third party rights are not prejudiced. While it
is of course the responsibility of applicants and agents to submit applications
which comply with the Regulations, planning authorities might consider an
approach whereby (as recommended in the case of a small underpayment of
a fee) in a case where an application contains just one minor defect, the
applicant would be contacted and offered the opportunity, within a very tight
time-frame, to correct the defect (the application would be regarded as valid in
the interim period).

That's gold.
I might just use this

kormak

I contacted the paper in question this evening and turns out that it was not my engineer's fault but the paper themselves.
The girl apologised profusely and offered to resubmit for free in next weeks addition.
She also advised they can make a notice beside advising that they were in the wrong with this original advertisement!

It's just a bit unlucky really...

I understand where the planning authorities are coming from, but I would have thought a reasonable or common sense approach might have been taken.
That said, missing the word "five" in this case is quite important.

sinnerboy

I think that the LA could have taken a more pragmatic approach in the case of the OP

A planning advert usually has plenty more adverts located all around it on the newspaper page . Very hard to argue , i think , that a motivated 3rd party was not made aware of the FIVE week period . Especially true if the site notice is entirely intact and correct.

However as those of us who deal day in and day out with LA's ..... pragmatism is not always the order of the day .

kormak

sinnerboy wrote: »

as soon a poss... get as many prints back off the council .

if you've been invalidated early in the process the various copies may not be "doing the rounds" with the LA and you may get the entire set back .

sorry sinnerboy... i don't really understand what your saying here ^
It has already been officially invalidated and sent back to my engineer via registered post.
what do you mean by prints??

also will I have pay another €65 to the coco or will original chq do??

sinnerboy

kormak wrote: »

sorry sinnerboy... i don't really understand what your saying here ^
It has already been officially invalidated and sent back to my engineer via registered post.
what do you mean by prints??

also will I have pay another €65 to the coco or will original chq do??

in this case - so be it , your engineer already has all documents back .

prints = copies of drawings

the fee - the LA may have returned the cheque .

if they have cashed it ...... ( you will like this , not a lot , but you will like it )
you will have to write another cheque . Your first payment will be refunded ....... in due course . Could be weeks and weeks .

RKQ

Download the full document from Dept. of Environment:-
Planning Guidelines - Development Management, Guidelines for Planning Authorities, June, 2007.

Section 3.10 is well worth keeping on record. Stops silly, petty and unfair invalidations,
which saves Council time, Architects time, Clients time etc.

Mellor

Bear in mind, that it says Guidlines, its best practice. But its by no means what they have to do.

sydthebeat

sinnerboy wrote: »

if they have cashed it ...... ( you will like this , not a lot , but you will like it )
you will have to write another cheque . Your first payment will be refunded ....... in due course . Could be weeks and weeks .

in the la's around where i work, they wont validate till the fess paid.... if its invalidated the they simply return the cash office receipt.... saves any second payment... i cant understand why they wouldnt do this everywhere??

and to RKQ, as mellor states, these are guidelines, and guidelines are not law... its still down to the invalidators opinion... which is a different topic altogether...

RKQ

Guidelines for Planning Authorities June, 2007
These Guidelines are not Law, but they were issued by the Minister of the Envirnoment, to prevent Silly invalidation. Why not forward all non-compliance of the ethos of these Guidelines to him and see the result!

S.R6:1991 Guidelines, were not law but try lodging an application that did not comply with these Guidelines and you were refused automatically.

Use the Guidelines, if you want them enforced. Why ignore them? The Minister is quite clear with regard to spelling mistakes and validation.:)

muffler

RKQ wrote: »

Guidelines for Planning Authorities June, 2007
These Guidelines are not Law, but they were issued by the Minister of the Envirnoment, to prevent Silly invalidation. Why not forward all non-compliance of the ethos of these Guidelines to him and see the result!

S.R6:1991 Guidelines, were not law but try lodging an application that did not comply with these Guidelines and you were refused automatically.

Use the Guidelines, if you want them enforced. Why ignore them? The Minister is quite clear with regard to spelling mistakes and validation.:)

I can see where you are coming from with your couple of posts regarding the guidelines but as has been previously pointed out they are guidelines only and the validation procedure will vary from county to county.

But please remember one very important part in all of this the planning guidelines issued in relation the validation of applications clearly states that applications should not be invalidated because of "very minor points".

Giving notice to the public of the legal timescale they have in which to make comments/submissions/objections is far from minor.

However the guidelines are a useful enough tool to have but I cant see you ever winning any argument with the planners if using it as the sole basis of your argument.

muffler

kormak wrote: »

I contacted the paper in question this evening and turns out that it was not my engineer's fault but the paper themselves.
The girl apologised profusely and offered to resubmit for free in next weeks addition.
She also advised they can make a notice beside advising that they were in the wrong with this original advertisement!

It's just a bit unlucky really...

I understand where the planning authorities are coming from, but I would have thought a reasonable or common sense approach might have been taken.
That said, missing the word "five" in this case is quite important.

Im glad to see that you are understanding the importance of having that part of the wording correct. Nice touch too from the paper.

kormak

muffler wrote: »

Im glad to see that you are understanding the importance of having that part of the wording correct. Nice touch too from the paper.

I am... even if I feel like smashing my head clean of a brick wall because it would be less painful.

Mellor

kormak wrote: »

I am... even if I feel like smashing my head clean of a brick wall because it would be less painful.

Its unlucky, really is, but it could of been much worse.
Hopefully you have no more hiccups, and your next thread starts with, "so, im on site next week and"

Slig

....my builders just gone bankrupt:D