Burn rather than Return

RKQ

Just went to L.A planning department to get spare "Office copies" of an application granted last week.
The Council used to post excess copies with the final grant, now they enclose a piece of paper, stating that office copies will be available for collection for a number of days.

I certify compliance, so its good to have a fully copy of the application, date stamped by the Council - legal reasons. (Originals can't be altered, pdf copies or photocopies might be! Clear original Council "stamp" is proof to any Judge, should it be required)

They gave me back 2 copies, stating that "they are not obliged to return any". As a Profession, fully familiar with Planning Law, I understand "they" are not "obliged" to return any. Why so confrontational?

This attitude annoys me. The o.s maps cost money and can be reused by the client for Land Registry etc. Yet the Council would rather burn them.
(Spare 20 page EPA Test Reports can be handy to have also)

There is no economic or no ecological reason to burn them.

I do think that the Council should be obliged to return at least 2 office copies. We are obliged to submit 6 copies.

Anybody agree or have thoughts / experiences to share?

muffler

It would be "handy" if they were in a position to return copies but there's nothing in the planning regs to cater for this.

Im at a loss really to know why you would want copies of the documents you submitted seeing as in most part you would have the originals in any event and items like original OS maps can either be photocopied (if you have a licenece) or get a couple extra when getting the planning pack. At the nd of the day its the client thats paying for these anyhow.

RKQ

I would have the originals, I keep all original prints and negatives. However, a planning drawing would be stamped by the Council.... third party verification. (Contracts etc)

If you have ever been a Professional Witness in the High Court you will understand the requirement. Sometimes a photocopy just isn't good enough!

The Land Registry will only accept Original O.S maps. One Government Department to another.

A photocopy is not 100% accurate copy. Digital is better that anologue but legally, a copy is just a photocopy. All copies are easily manipulated.
The Land Registry will not accept a photocopy with a licence "stamp"

Extra O.S maps cost money... why burn money?

The other point is they are of no use to the Council, but the L.A would rather burn than return. I'd pay the postage, I'm happy to drive to collect, so why not let me have them.

I valve them, as I certify them. Its good to have a Record Copy stamped by the Council. (Certification, Contracts etc):)

sydthebeat

first of all, they hardly burn them do they? surely in todays day and age they recycle.

Here in Laois they return everything bar 1 copy as part of the final grant package.
If the application was refused you have to go in yourself and pick up the copies.

Offaly co co dont, Kilkenny co co dont.

I still cannot fathom why councils do not accept digital copies these days, even say 1 hardcopy and the rest digitally. The necessity for 6 copies if ludicrous in the extreme, especially when many councils now scan all.
An application could easily be prepared in pdf or doc and either emailed or posted on cd. It would make they transference to the council website eternally easier, inter dept communications would then be all digital.

Regarding the land registry. if you mark your OS maps for planning ie site in red, ownership in blue, position of stenotice etc, then, in my experience, the land registry dont accept these maps for land transference even if they are original.
If a client want me to mark a map i ask them to furnish me with either an original land reg map or an original OS map.

smashey

sydthebeat wrote: »

I still cannot fathom why councils do not accept digital copies these days, even say 1 hardcopy and the rest digitally.

I was at an Ordnance Survey presentation a couple of weeks ago and that is one of the things that is on the way. It may take some time but it's coming.

Now I'll take bets on the likely year.

Supertech

I often think of the complete waste of paper,ink, time and effort involved when preparing a Planning Application. 6 copies of everything submitted in the almost certain knowledge that the bulk of the submission is going to be destroyed (whether it's burnt or recycled doesn't matter). The surplus copies should be made available to the agent / client involved in the application. 6 copies of everything is ridiculous and wasteful in itself. It should be possible to lodge applications electronically at this stage. Alternatively, submit everything in duplicate !!!

Agree with RKQ on the date stamp issue - ALL local authorities should be legally required to issue an approved set of drawings on foot of which permissions are granted in order to ensure compliance is certified correctly.

muffler

RKQ wrote: »

I would have the originals, I keep all original prints and negatives. However, a planning drawing would be stamped by the Council.... third party verification. (Contracts etc)

Of course a drawing that is submitted to the LA is stamped. I am aware of this you know. I have no idea what you mean by "third party verification". Anyone could make up a rubber stamp identical to the LA's so if push came to shove the verification would come from the LA.

RKQ wrote: »

If you have ever been a Professional Witness in the High Court you will understand the requirement. Sometimes a photocopy just isn't good enough!

I have been a witness in quite a few cases so I dont particularly like being talked down to so to speak by statements like that. I am fully aware of what is necessary to present in court and what is not.

RKQ wrote: »

The Land Registry will only accept Original O.S maps. One Government Department to another.

I am also aware of Land Registry requirements and with the fact that they also accept their own certified copies.

RKQ wrote: »

A photocopy is not 100% accurate copy. Digital is better that anologue but legally, a copy is just a photocopy. All copies are easily manipulated.
The Land Registry will not accept a photocopy with a licence "stamp

Again I am fully aware of these points. I never said anything about Land Registry and copies in my last post. I made mention of the fact that extra copies of the OS maps can be got with a planning pack for example and they are less than €3 each for A4 size. The LR haven't accepted photocopies for the last 30 years and the only "copy" they accept is their own copies.

RKQ wrote: »

Extra O.S maps cost money... why burn money?

They aren't burned and its very little extra to get additional copies at the time of buying the original set. As I said earlier its the client who is paying for the maps at the end of the day so I fail to see why you feel put out by having to seek return of maps.

RKQ wrote: »

The other point is they are of no use to the Council, but the L.A would rather burn than return. I'd pay the postage, I'm happy to drive to collect, so why not let me have them.

Again Im aware of what LA's do with these documents and again they do not burn them. There are a lot of times that clients (applicants) look for copies from the planning file so in those situations its very practical and time saving for the LA to have more than the mandatory single copy.

RKQ wrote: »

I valve them, as I certify them. Its good to have a Record Copy stamped by the Council. (Certification, Contracts etc):)

Each to their own. I never felt the need to certify anything that has been "certified" by the LA

RKQ

Thanks Supertech, well said. You understand my point fully. Cheers!

I believe that all planning applications in this Council are incinerated, recycling is not an option, for data protection. Application forms can be shredded but are then no use to recycle.
(Could be given to pet shops but if they can't afford to post them, they will hardly delivery them to a shop!).

I had an application returned due to site notice. (I took photos of perfect Notice for file) I had to call three times to get all six copies back. All six should legally be returned.

How come the Council sends one letter for further information but we send six copies in reply?

I put this up as a "Topic" for debate.
I had no wish to be childish, so to speak.
Legal is not allowed on this forum... don't want to be locked!

I am simply interested in democratic free debate. I never talk down to anyone. You can interpet my words any way you like, but I can not accept responsibility for that.

Kilkenny & Waterford O.S shops supply stickers at €5 each, for you to stick on a photocopy. Original maps are €30 each!
Photocopies are not acceptable to Land Registry. Their maps cost €70.
Why buy more maps when 3 or 4 will be burned by the Council?

I have used original O.S maps, returned by the Council and issued them to Land Registry. Normally only show site in red on 1:2500, landholding shown blue on 1:10,620 scale.

I had a case where a guy ended up in court from something he had retention for. The Council ignored there own records until it was pointed out in court and the Council were forced to pay my fee! The Judge wasn't happy that the Council wasted his time...third party verification......Q.E.D:)

"They aren't burned" Oh! yes they are! They are incinerated.

Had a need to purchase a A2 vector O.S map, to do a land registry map at 1:2500 scale. O.S quoted over €1200-00! Couldn't justify that expense.

Each to their own. I never felt the need to certify anything that has been "certified" by the LA. Thanks! I like to have a "Third Party" stamp, to prove what was on the Planning Drawings. It has nothing to do with the Council certifying anything!

It has everything to do with accurate records, revisions, prices, contracts, charge of detail, change of material, original quotes, variations etc, etc..... Fast track jobs etc.

Supertech

I'd say the whole maps issue could do with a thread of its own

The RIAI consulted on a proposal for 'e-Planning' in February of this year for the DoEHLG.

It's definitely 'do-able'. All the feedback in the consultation paper seemed to focus on Technical issues rather than the principle of the proposal. It would make sense in this 'digital' age ....

sinnerboy

Any one know why 2000 act changed amount from 4 to 6 ? It seems very excessive . As others have said , the LA are pretty up to speed with scanning these days so perhaps a review is overdue . Also , I don't believe all departments need all drawings ( eg drainage dept requiring elevations - doubt it ).

RKQ - It is possible to d/l stamped electronic drawings from LA sites - do you believe that they would not hold weight with with the legals ?

There was a time not too long ago when DLRCC used routinely ask for documents to prove compliance with b regs . Another ( voluminous ) set of working drawings printed off ..... never once heard a dicky bird back .

muffler

RKQ wrote: »

I never talk down to anyone. You can interpet my words any way you like, but I can not accept responsibility for that.

Interpretation doesn't come into it. Its there for all to see and you should take responsibility for what you post. I would strongly advise that you do not get up on this high horse again as it can be a long way down.

I would also suggest that you be more specific in relation to how your local authority operates and what your local OS shop charges are as there appears to be a substantial difference from area to area.

For example I have never come across the practice of putting stickers on copies of OS maps. A planning pack consisting of 6 x A4 original OS maps will cost about €52 here in Donegal. I think that price should be the same throughout the country as it would be based on the OS fixed rate. Additional maps (A4 originals) can be bought for something like €3 each.

Supertech

Last Planning pack I got cost me the guts of €100 (incl VAT) muffler

L.A. in my area insists on A3 maps and 6 overviews (1:10560)

The stickers RKQ refers to are copyright stickers I presume, and are placed on the copies of the 1:10560 maps by the map agent (this means that instead of paying for 6 original plots of the 6'' map you pay for 1plot and 5 copyright stickers)

Any one know why 2000 act changed amount from 4 to 6

I believe that it was to do with the number of statutory bodies who are entitled to copies of the application since the 2000 act came in sinnerboy ...

Local Authorities claimed that it shouldn't be their responsibility to have to copy additional sets of documentation for these bodies, but rather that of the applicant or their agent.

RKQ

Muffler, Ditto as regarding horses... I know you are a Moderator but your tone is quite harsh, aggressive even. See your previous post!:(

Supertech is on the ball again, I was referring to hologram copyright stickers.

I already posted Kilkenny Map Shop and Waterford Map Shop, google same for price list if you can't take my word.

The practice of sticking a "hologram o.s stamp", is quite common in the South-East. Again don't take my word for it. All are visble on various pdf applications, available on line. ( A Council Stamped Copy!..... Q.E.D):D

One would expect prices to be the same all over Ireland. They definately should be but seem to be cheaper in your area.

Again, I stress this is just a debate.

Supertech

I guess we're kind of straying from the original topic, but this whole inconsistency between varying Local Authorities is a huge issue. As far as I can see, the Planning Act is used as a basis for each LA to interpret their own set of regulations from.

As far as the mapping issues are concerned, I guess the Ordnance Survey got robbed for years with 'copies of copies of maps' being lodged with Planning Applications, and in fairness, the latest OS mapping is of a very high standard and reasonably up to date in most areas.

Poor Uncle Tom

Although I have found OS maps to be wrong, on two occasions lately. Once the map showed two buildings out of their location by about 10m. When I questioned the Owner he told the buildings were original and had not been knocked or re-erected in his memory since the 1950's. On the second occasion I found no sign of two very old stone building footprints on the OS map. These buildings had not appeared overnight.

muffler

RKQ wrote: »

Muffler, Ditto as regarding horses... I know you are a Moderator but your tone is quite harsh, aggressive even. See your previous post!

If you are not happy with the moderation here you have options. You can PM me, start a thread in feedback, start a thread in the help desk, report the matter to a Cmod or SMod.

Arguing with a mod in the thread is in breach of the charter. I trust this will be the end of it.

smashey

RKQ wrote: »

I am simply interested in democratic free debate. I never talk down to anyone. You can interpet my words any way you like, but I can not accept responsibility for that.

RKQ,

Maybe you shouldn't leave comments open to interpretation. Recently, I have been taking a back seat due to this real life lark and I just read through everything when I get a chance in then evening. I have to say that I find some of your posts condescending which can lead to the wrong interpretation.

How about calming things down a wee bit please? Look at sinnerboy and Sydthebeat, both very knowledgable but they also have a way of expressing themselves that comes across as very helpful to users here.

Iano Ludz

sydthebeat wrote: »

I still cannot fathom why councils do not accept digital copies these days, even say 1 hardcopy and the rest digitally. The necessity for 6 copies if ludicrous in the extreme, especially when many councils now scan all.
An application could easily be prepared in pdf or doc and either emailed or posted on cd. It would make they transference to the council website eternally easier, inter dept communications would then be all digital.

Has anyone tried this yet?? I had an application all ready to go but then realised they didnt accept protected structures . Hopefully other LAs will follow the trend soon though . It would make life so much easier for everyone

RKQ

Seems the way to go Iano Ludz.... Well done Dublin City Council.
There is / was a pilot scheme in Wexford, not sure of the result.
The O.S have held meetings in Waterford & Wexford etc to discuss and demostrate computerised maps, downloads etc.

It would save so much plotting, printing, photocopying time not to mention post & petrol. I suppose we'd save the 5 "P"'s. Imagine the amount of paper we could save!

The only downside is the reading of drawings on a screen! You can olny zoom certain parts at a time. Not bad for A3 but difficult with AO.

I've been asked strange questions, the answers were clearly on the drawings. So, I assume Planners are viewing pdf drawings on screen. This can lead to misreading. (Its only human nature to view online rather than lug around large paper files)

We have to put applications into six equal ordered sets, for easy validation, which is time consuming.

I admire the ethos of the Act, to streamline all application to a National standard, but six copies is excessive. I seen numerous current planning files with four or five complete copies of the application, in the public file!

This can confuse people, as they sift through 5 copies of the same thing (Just in case they miss something important in one of the copies)

RKQ

smashey wrote: »

Maybe you shouldn't leave comments open to interpretation. I have to say that I find some of your posts condascending which can lead to the wrong interpretation.

Sorry Smashey,
Not intentional.

I suppose I do write quickly to express my point. I don't have alot of time and I don't really like long posts. Maybe my short posts are too like text messages, which can be misread!

I do not wish to be condescending, insincere, or aggressive on a public forum. I'm here to help if I can.

I am interested in the question and the answers alone. I do not want to get into conflict with any individual.

I did PM Muffler two hours ago. No reply

I started this tread today, as a discussion on a fresh topic.
It was meant to be about the return of file copies, but turned into questions as to why I wanted them back....

We have been quite this week on the Arch. Forum.

I hope I was of help to some..... I enjoyed it!:D

Bye!

No6

Now I hope we're all friends again!!:D as for the op, I'm glad I only get one set back anymore, I have files full of sets of plans returned from the planning office, what will happen when we go digital, six cd's!!:D There is huge inconsistancy with LA's accross the country, nothing new there but if they were all the same what would we have to talk about when we get together!!!:eek:

muffler

Based on some of the revelations in this thread I will start a new thread about the various PA's requirements in relation to planning applications and associated documents.

RKQ

I have listed the requirements of Wexford Town & County Councils.
I hope others will list Carlow and Kilkenny.

As I stated at the very start of this tread, the amount of copying is unethical IMO to burn, especially as it costs less to return.

Surely two copies out of six is not a lot to ask.
One copy for my file and one copy for the client.

The reason why I want copies is not relevant to the discussion but I am happy to outline my reasons below. I really believe it is terrible to see them burned ( Told by Council Employee that they incinerate them ).

• I have an office copy on every application. This stems from my first employer, who was extremely efficient and sucessful. These files proved very useful to have on file, especially now as Clients come back to convert / extend etc. ( Survey notes on file too)
• As Councils go on-line with pdf, I find it useful to down load to have "original documents" on pdf file, site plans, maps, conditions, planners notes etc. These can be useful to send to Solicitors etc. (The are tiny files so no harm to have)
• Before broadband, (not that long ago) you would visit the planning office, que to get the file, sign out the file, arrange copying etc - took alot of time to do.

I believe at least 2 copies should be returned with the final grant of permission. It would be up to us and our clients to keep on file or recycle.:D

Garroldy

Iano Ludz wrote: »

Has anyone tried this yet??

DCC Online Planning is extremely handy. I have done 4 or 5 applications through this system. The uptake is quite slow with only 20 odd apps gone through the system so far. Extremely handy with no printing or postage. And only one OS map to outline. The paperless office is here at last...not.