Planning Application - Councillor input.

Poor Uncle Tom

I have recently come across a potential problem with LA here in the South East.

It has been said to me that if any planning application for one off housing in the countryside has not had representations made by a councillor on behalf of the applicant, then planning permission will almost certainly be refused.

Just checked the register for the last 3 weeks and 68% of one off housing applications have been refused outright without asking for FI.

Has anyone found or heard similar?

As if things were not hard enough, thats all we need, to be beaten with yet another invisible stick.

Slig

Local councillors have no formal training in the planning process (unless they come from a construction/planning background) my experience when dealing with them over planning applications has generally been that they confuse the client, annoy the planners and blame the architect.
They have no place in the planning process however some people se it as fighting fire with fire, politics to politics.

sydthebeat

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

I have recently come across a potential problem with LA here in the South East.

It has been said to me that if any planning application for one off housing in the countryside has not had representations made by a councillor on behalf of the applicant, then planning permission will almost certainly be refused.

Just checked the register for the last 3 weeks and 68% of one off housing applications have been refused outright without asking for FI.

Has anyone found or heard similar?

As if things were not hard enough, thats all we need, to be beaten with yet another invisible stick.

Whats bugs me so my about LAs is when they decide to change a policy or implement a new one, the only way we have of hearing about it is by recieving refusals on applications.
At an agents meeting with my local LA last year it was asked why they simply do not email out a circular when a change is implemented, obviously they said theyd take it on board, but it never materialised.

A cynical person would take it that all these refusals are designed to keep planners in jobs.

regarding councillors need to represent on file, have you any documentary proof thats this is now a policy in the LA?

Poor Uncle Tom

No direct proof, syd, it was said to me by two councillors seperately, one FF and one FG and I know they don't talk to each other or even like one another, so I know there is something afoot.

It is very funny that this change occurs at a time when the senior planning staff have changed.

muffler

I may be able to shed a little light on the matter - and then again maybe not.

The rural housing policy of the Devp. plan for Donegal states that applicants must show roots to the area and demonstrate a need for a house in that area. Now they include a list of items/documents that can be submitted to prove a person's bona fides but no matter what is submitted it is never enough.

However if a person gets a letter from a councilor with a few lines on it stating who their granny was and that the site is located "a few miles" from their place of employment then nothing else is needed to comply with the RH policy. Thats it - 1 letter and Bob's your uncle (or grandfather;))

Maybe this is a policy that is being adopted by other LA's.

Poor Uncle Tom

Yes, Muffler I agree, but I checked some of the refusals and the housing need was established and agreed with the LA, but refusals were still sent out.

It's the lack of consistency in decision making which is maddening.

I went into the offices of the LA this evening and met with the Director of Services and sat him down and questioned him on the inconsistencies. I chose one of the files which was refused to discuss it (it wasn't one of my applications, but just to check) He went through it and said it seemed 'very unfair' to use his words.

He advised me to contact any planning officer dealing with any of my applications for one off housing and doubly reinforce the context of the application verbally to them.

Not much help really, if an application cannot stand up for itself.

muffler

Fair play to ya Uncle T for going to the director of services. Its a bold move insofar as it leaves you wondering if your name is going to be put into the little "black book" :eek: But these things must be done and there are too many people out there who would rather discuss this problem over a pint rather than confront the planners.

Inconsistency appears to be all the rage with planners the length and breadth of the country. I dont want to even give examples as I am spoiled for choice.

Funnily enough we appear to have the same situation in Donegal where there appears to be a policy of refusing permissions rather than sending out FI requests especially in relation to design issues.

Getting back to your original point I have to say that politicians are power freaks by nature and will milk it at any and every given opportunity. Such is the nature of the beast. I am open to correction on this but I believe that if the Local Government Act was implemented in it's entirety then all planning applications can be discussed and decided on jointly between the planners and the councillors.

Is there not an amendment being brought into law whereby the section 140 is going to be abolished? If this was the case then it would be reasonable to assume that the minister is going to take with one hand and give with the other as he wouldn't want a rebellion on his hands. There may be changes in relation to the way applications are decided by input from the local councillors or perhaps, as I said above, fuller implementation of the existing legislation.

Poor Uncle Tom

It was pointed out to me by the Director that under Section 34(2)(a)(i) of the act the LA could interject nearly any planning policy thought up in the local department once it could be in some way related in context to the provisions of the County Development Plan.:eek:

It took me a little while to get around what he actually meant. But when I finally got it, it left me cold. Basically, The planners (and obviously directors) think they are right, all the time, every decision, at all stages, and it's up to us as Agents to keep up.

I don't know about you but I didn't sign up to be a lapdog of the planners. I'm going back in Monday and this time Skin and Hair is gonna fly!

Regarding the 'Black Book', its named after me down here anyway, I've been in it so much.

sydthebeat

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

It was pointed out to me by the Director that under Section 34(2)(a)(i) of the act the LA could interject nearly any planning policy thought up in the local department once it could be in some way related in context to the provisions of the County Development Plan.:eek:

It took me a little while to get around what he actually meant. But when I finally got it, it left me cold. Basically, The planners (and obviously directors) think they are right, all the time, every decision, at all stages, and it's up to us as Agents to keep up.

I don't know about you but I didn't sign up to be a lapdog of the planners. I'm going back in Monday and this time Skin and Hair is gonna fly!

Regarding the 'Black Book', its named after me down here anyway, I've been in it so much.

thats the basic premise i start with on every application.

so i prepare applications from the point of view of, what do i need to do in order for the planners to say yes.

Poor Uncle Tom

Yes Syd, it's a good idea to prepare any planning application, based on the premise you know what will be acceptable to the LA. The problem is that the goal posts change so often.

For instance, I went into the planning office this morning, to meet with the planners who refused two of my planning applications last week. We discussed the applications in detail, housing need, building design, land zoning, sightlines, road realignment, screen and amenity planting, 'digging-in' or banking around, site testing, treatment system, impact of borewell, local community, family, etc., etc. I also mentioned my meeting on Friday with the Director of Services, and I addressed his comments. Both planners took time out of our meeting (individual meetings, by the way) to 'check something' as they put it.

I did also ask about councillor imput and was told by one planner it was a good idea and by the second planner that it would not hurt any application to have representation.

When they came back each one asked me to re-submit the planning application with very minor changes, the location of the entrance by 5m, the position of the treatment system by 10m for one application and the position of the house by 8-12m for the second application and I have been issued with pre-planning documents which state that with the changes the planners will look favourably on the applications.

The changes are just an exercise in embarrasment limitation on their behalf as far as I can see.

Why these people cannot do their jobs correctly in the first place and save time, effort, expense and embarrasment, I do not know. What I am angry about is the fact that it looks like I made the mistakes on the applications, whereas if the council planners had done the job they were paid to do, this wouldn't have happened.

I am going to re-submit both applications this week and I will post progress.

sydthebeat

There is nothing s bad as having to phone a client and tell them the application was refused. It looks unprofessional as usually you would have given the client a fair idea of how it was going to go.

I always make a point of issuing the client with a written feasibility report calling up possible issues and probable outcomes when an application has been submitted. Therefore if it is refused i dint look like a complete idiot.

Its frustrating that us as agents are dealing with council policies full time for whatever length of time (10 years in my case), yet an application is deliberated by a, usually, non-executive planner, who's only in the job a few months and will be gone in a few more.

My LA has had a policy over the last few years of only operating either 6, 12 or 18 month contracts. This is to 'allow for more movement inter-authorities and therefore more consistent policies'. The problem however is new planners coming in and not having a clue regarding development plans, previous applications, off-application communications etc. I had one particular proposal that took three different application, because 4 (yes FOUR) different planners had worked on it. There was NO consistency between these planners, all wanted to push separate agendas and found separate issues with the proposal.

My LA also has a development plan that has policies that are not implemented by the planners. One paragraph states that all effleuent treatment for rural houses shall be based on and in accordance to EPA guidelines, however, the council still carry out SR 6 tests. when called out on this they simply say "we are not implementing that policy of the CDP". When asked for an updated version of the CDP to include only policies that they actually ARE implementing, im met with blank stares.

anyway, i fell for you P.U.T., unwritten internal policy changes are the bane of our work.

Schooby

there is undoubtedly serious problems in both policy formulation and policy implimentation in planning and many of the issues y'all have are very valid points, the follow may give you some insight to the other side:

the frustrations with the system, staffing policy conflicts and lack of clarity do not only lead to frustrations of agents but also to planning staff hence quick turnovers in planning staff. The worse the state of planning in a county the quicker planners will get the flock outta there and the worse it gets.
There are counties that cannot get staff to fill posts because they have such bad reputations.
The story in the previous post regarding facilitating staff to move around to gain consistency between counties is rubbish and typical local authority managment gobbledygook (it is the director of services or equivalent who makes planning decisions not the planner, planners only make recommendations and have no power to grant or refuse in the planning act).
Displaying a great example of county managerism, when pushed on why Meath County Council had 60 planners working there in a 4 year period (total number of positions around 15) he replied that it was due to the high quality of planning in meath that the staff were highly sought after once they had been employed there:p (published in local press)

A development plan review is a 2 year process, many many counties (often the ones who need it most) will not have a single member of professional staff working on it from start to finish.
Most local authorities have, and/or commit insufficient resources to policy formulation, it is not uncommon for rural local authorites to have a single junior inexperinced member of staff with little or no supervision drafting policy, it is the councillors job to ensure that this meets the needs of the local communities they represent before they adopt the polcy however all they appear to concern themselves with in the course of the development plan review is whos land gets zoned, not where, not why and certainly not the effect on the area.
staffing levels in local authorities were set in 1999 in the programme for better local government and based on 1999 developement levels when an application for anything over about 50 houses was an exceptionally large planning application in the majority of the country, despite the massively increased work loads, the massive increase in local national and european policy and legislation to be applied, staffing levels have not been increased except in instances where temporary contracts have been used to shore things up, not to achieve any increases in quality of service but to stop things from falling over badly.
several local authorities are currently in the process of reducing staffing in planning in reaction to the slow down in applications, as opposed to using the oppertunity to fix the problems.

I need to finish this rant as if I keep going I get to bed 2 hours after I have to get up.

Moral of the story, if you think its frustrating interacting with planning from the outside, spare a thought for the poor unfortunates who are stuck in the middle of it. Not all, but a significant number of the planners in the public sector are doing the job as they believe they can achieve something positive in it, and try to do the job well even when they may have to deal with up to 20 planning files in week!!!

If planning was taken seriously, it would be resourced seriously, its not, it isnt and untill that changes we are stuck with a sytem that has never worked to its intended purpose and will not for the forseeable future.

Rant over

Slig

Schooby wrote: »

there is undoubtedly serious problems in both policy formulation and policy implimentation in planning and many of the issues y'all have are very valid points, the follow may give you some insight to the other side:

the frustrations with the system, staffing policy conflicts and lack of clarity do not only lead to frustrations of agents but also to planning staff hence quick turnovers in planning staff. The worse the state of planning in a county the quicker planners will get the flock outta there and the worse it gets.
There are counties that cannot get staff to fill posts because they have such bad reputations.
The story in the previous post regarding facilitating staff to move around to gain consistency between counties is rubbish and typical local authority managment gobbledygook (it is the director of services or equivalent who makes planning decisions not the planner, planners only make recommendations and have no power to grant or refuse in the planning act).
Displaying a great example of county managerism, when pushed on why Meath County Council had 60 planners working there in a 4 year period (total number of positions around 15) he replied that it was due to the high quality of planning in meath that the staff were highly sought after once they had been employed there:p (published in local press)

A development plan review is a 2 year process, many many counties (often the ones who need it most) will not have a single member of professional staff working on it from start to finish.
Most local authorities have, and/or commit insufficient resources to policy formulation, it is not uncommon for rural local authorites to have a single junior inexperinced member of staff with little or no supervision drafting policy, it is the councillors job to ensure that this meets the needs of the local communities they represent before they adopt the polcy however all they appear to concern themselves with in the course of the development plan review is whos land gets zoned, not where, not why and certainly not the effect on the area.
staffing levels in local authorities were set in 1999 in the programme for better local government and based on 1999 developement levels when an application for anything over about 50 houses was an exceptionally large planning application in the majority of the country, despite the massively increased work loads, the massive increase in local national and european policy and legislation to be applied, staffing levels have not been increased except in instances where temporary contracts have been used to shore things up, not to achieve any increases in quality of service but to stop things from falling over badly.
several local authorities are currently in the process of reducing staffing in planning in reaction to the slow down in applications, as opposed to using the oppertunity to fix the problems.

I need to finish this rant as if I keep going I get to bed 2 hours after I have to get up.

Moral of the story, if you think its frustrating interacting with planning from the outside, spare a thought for the poor unfortunates who are stuck in the middle of it. Not all, but a significant number of the planners in the public sector are doing the job as they believe they can achieve something positive in it, and try to do the job well even when they may have to deal with up to 20 planning files in week!!!

If planning was taken seriously, it would be resourced seriously, its not, it isnt and untill that changes we are stuck with a sytem that has never worked to its intended purpose and will not for the forseeable future.

Rant over

First of all, fair dews for giving us the story from the other side.
I can see the frustrations with trying to work to a development plan (flawed or not) and refusing applications that should be refused due to unserviced, unzoned or sensitive sites or poor house design not compliant with design guidelines only to get a reccomendation to grant from a politically motivated superior or hassle from a local councillor.

The problem with planning from both sides has always been consistancy. If we can nail that down then we can work on the smaller things. I have learned through bitter experience that you simply cannot tell a client what should or should not get planning permission. In my area brick is a definate, resounding NO. yet tell this to a client and they can list off several examples of brick bungalows around, not least the one built right beside the main road into town on top of a hill. On the other side I have seen applicants applying for a house on family farmland, living and working in the area with a substantial housing need being dragged through planning and FIs & clarifications for years, swapping house designs, different sites etc. while a housing development of holiday homes gets granted in record time in the next field.

HeatLoad

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

I have recently come across a potential problem with LA here in the South East.

It has been said to me that if any planning application for one off housing in the countryside has not had representations made by a councillor on behalf of the applicant, then planning permission will almost certainly be refused.

I find that the only advantage in having a councillor make reps. on behalf of the client is that he/she will get the nod if the application is about to be refused and the reasons why. The client can then apply for an extension of time to ammend the application to suit and request a meeting with the planner, or withdraw the application entirely. In my experience it is better to withdraw the application than have it refused, unless of course you think you may be able to have the decision overturned by an board pleanala. Be careful which councillor you approach as some have very bad relationships with planners

damiand

In response to Headload, it relation to representation from Councillors, it depends on the County. I must apoligise in advance to Muffler if I am out side of the rules of the forum but here goes. In Wexford it doesnt make any difference, in Carlow it does, in Kilkenny up ontill recently at least written representations from members were not allowed, Wicklow sounds like the local authority mentioned by Headload (yes reps really do matter in Wicklow)and in Kildare it doesnt really matter. In relation to other south east counties I dont know.

muffler

damiand wrote: »

I must apoligise in advance to Muffler if I am out side of the rules of the forum but here goes.

No need to apologise at all.

Good post.

HeatLoad

damiand wrote: »

In response to Headload, ....Wicklow sounds like the local authority mentioned by Headload....

I was referring to L.A.s in the south and west, I have no experience of the east coast, except for Dublin. Within the last seven months I have had two applications, that were about to be refused, granted and another I have had to withdraw. Without the input of a councillor all three would have been refused. Two of these were in Galway and the other in Clare. I am interested to know what you mean when you say it doesn't matter if you have representation or not in certain counties?

Slig

HeatLoad wrote: »

I was referring to L.A.s in the south and west, I have no experience of the east coast, except for Dublin. Within the last seven months I have had two applications, that were about to be refused, granted and another I have had to withdraw. Without the input of a councillor all three would have been refused. Two of these were in Galway and the other in Clare. I am interested to know what you mean when you say it doesn't matter if you have representation or not in certain counties?

To be fair, this information could also be passed on to the architect.
It doesnt hurt to ask the planner if they are recommending a refusal before it goes out so the application can be withdrawn. It looks good for the council, helps the architect, means that the client doesnt end up with a refusal and it hurts nobody.

Poor Uncle Tom

Slig wrote: »

To be fair, this information could also be passed on to the architect.

That's how it used to be. I think all that stopped in the last couple of years. One planning officer will usually give me a call if an application is in trouble, which I can then do something about. I wish more would do the same it would save sooo much time.

Anyway since I started with the opening post it has been confirmed to me that representations by councillors are now expected in most LA's to come in line with the requirements of the County Development Plan's and the National Development Plan.

One councillor has even said that getting him involved at an early stage does away with the need for a pre planning meeting. I know in some cases having a pre planning document attached to an application means nothing as I've seen where the LA has gone against them, but I think the Councillor's ego has taken over here.

In the long run having councillor's involved moves a planning application further away from the technical side and further towards the political end of the spectrum. Is this a good thing? I have my doubts.

Either someone deserves to get planning permission or they don't, and if they do, then either the building designed for them suites the site and needs of the client or it doesn't. Simple as that. Intereference from a political party, or someone trying to advance their political profile, should have no effect on the outcome of a planning application, imo.

damiand

I agree Uncle Tom with a number of your points.

County Developmnet Plan, Regional Plans, Local Area Plans, etc are drafted by the 'planners' and adopted by the elected members. The development proposed at a later stage is in accordance with the policies of the Plan or else materially contravenes same. Black and white, simple.

There are actually no provisions in the Planning legislation to allow the elected members to make a 'representation' or what ever they wish to call it. Its tolerated at local level, but in most authorities effectively ignored.

In relation to pre-planning its generally not worth the paper its printed on. The legislation in relation to pre-planning ensures that no matter what is said it cannot later be used against the authority. Also all the planner is supposed to advise is what chapter of the Plan and what policies to read.

To conlude although I believe that there is no place in the planning system for Councillors, at times they can be useful in resolving situations, an example of which at this moment i cannot think of.


To Headload.
In relation to your question "I am interested to know what you mean when you say it doesn't matter if you have representation or not in certain counties?". Some councils get so many from the same individuals (Councilors) each week that they are effectively ignored. There are actually no provisions in the Planning legislation to allow the elected members to make a 'representation'. In addition the legislation doesnt say they have to be read. I know of one councillor who puts in reps on cow sheds........not a joke.


To Slig,
there is little/no point in passing on info to agents/architects before issuing a refusal. Either an application is a good application, percolation ok, sightlines good, applicant complied with i.e. local need policy or doesnt. There is finality to an application. an applicant although faced with a refusal has three options. One appeal to An Bord Pleanal, 2. reapply and address the reasons for refusal or 3. move on and try again some where elso/dont reapply.

Poor Uncle Tom

Thank You, Daniand. I do believe a planning application should stand on its own merits and be judged on its content, without intereference.

If a person wants to build a home at a location which proves to be receptive to a particular design and that the site should pass technical testing and if the applicant should, under the provisions as set out in the County Development Plan (or other regional plans) come within the remit of someone 'allowed' to live there, then all being equal, that person should be allowed to do so. I'm afraid I have seen time and again where this is not the case.

It is my belief that currently a planning application, which is a cart load of forms, drawings, details, technical information and other data, is left on the planning offices shelves until the very last minute. A planning officer gets hold of the file, skims through without processing the information properly, gives a quick run to the site, back to the desk and makes a decision based on whether they like the building or not, or their impression of the site as viewed from the road, and thats it. All that time, effort, money wasted on a very very few hours, of whimsical wonderment at best, on behalf of the planning officer. Now, the waters are being muddied even further by the intereference of Ronald McCouncillor.

Sorry, rant over.

Slig

damiand wrote: »

I agree Uncle Tom with a number of your points.

County Developmnet Plan, Regional Plans, Local Area Plans, etc are drafted by the 'planners' and adopted by the elected members. The development proposed at a later stage is in accordance with the policies of the Plan or else materially contravenes same. Black and white, simple.

There are actually no provisions in the Planning legislation to allow the elected members to make a 'representation' or what ever they wish to call it. Its tolerated at local level, but in most authorities effectively ignored.

In relation to pre-planning its generally not worth the paper its printed on. The legislation in relation to pre-planning ensures that no matter what is said it cannot later be used against the authority. Also all the planner is supposed to advise is what chapter of the Plan and what policies to read.

To conlude although I believe that there is no place in the planning system for Councillors, at times they can be useful in resolving situations, an example of which at this moment i cannot think of.


To Headload.
In relation to your question "I am interested to know what you mean when you say it doesn't matter if you have representation or not in certain counties?". Some councils get so many from the same individuals (Councilors) each week that they are effectively ignored. There are actually no provisions in the Planning legislation to allow the elected members to make a 'representation'. In addition the legislation doesnt say they have to be read. I know of one councillor who puts in reps on cow sheds........not a joke.


To Slig,
there is little/no point in passing on info to agents/architects before issuing a refusal. Either an application is a good application, percolation ok, sightlines good, applicant complied with i.e. local need policy or doesnt. There is finality to an application. an applicant although faced with a refusal has three options. One appeal to An Bord Pleanal, 2. reapply and address the reasons for refusal or 3. move on and try again some where elso/dont reapply.

I appreciate what you are saying but there are undeniably huge problems with the planning system.
Most of these can be contributed to human error be it from flawed development plans, "close personal friends" of planners and county managers influencing decisions, planners only sticking around for no more than 6 months, over enthuastic validation staff, lack of communication between departments and local councillor imput.

If we had an efficent and most importantly consistant planning process then I would agree that the application should stand on its own.
If you have a situation, however, where a councillor meets a planner on site and argues a case for a particular site which we (the agents) are told is agreed as the best position for the applicants house. Councillor then meets the same planner over the house design and it is agreed. Further along the line, somewhere between lodgement and decision the planner leaves and the file is passed on to a new planner. All the basis for the application has now changed, maybe the new planner wants a dormer instead of 2 storey or doesnt like the site. If there is a refusal then the client has one strike on the site which will affect future applications.

There is already a thread here about daft invalidations, I think we would all appreciate a call from validation before they invalidate to give us a chance to submit the missing material or at least discuss it. 1 particular LA require a 1:2500 discovery map included in the pack to identify the site, its not in the required information but if left out will invalidate the application as the site isnt properly identified. The validation staff have usually been helpful by accepting it by fax if they notify us beforehand.
In a uniformly consistant planning system the same criteria would apply to each LA, we all know however that it doesnt.

jwt

This is a very scary thread!!!

Is it really that hit and miss with planners? That totally unregulated, whimsical, catch the planner on a good day type of thing?

And I assume once decided unless you can prove to within an inch of your life the planner made a mistake you're doomed.

Where does An Bord Pleanala fit into this, waste of time unless LA are seriously off the wall?

<SNIP>

JWT



Mod edit: We dont need those type of comments. They dont help any debate

damiand

Hi Slig

Section 22A, (1) of the Planning & Deveopment Regulation state In addition to the information required by Article 22, the Planning Authority may require the applicant to submit with the Planning Application specific additional Information.

Heres the catch,

(2) no planning appllication shall be invalidated under article 26 for failure to submit with the application any information or particulars requested under sub-article (1).

Looks like wont be looking for 1:2500 discovery map again, unless by phone.

I think we all have to accept that the Irish planning system is hit and miss. Its not a perfect system. If we were to be like our continental cousins (germany for example) there would be virtually no rural housing. Rural housing is the bain of everones life. Its all this and other threads genearally talk about, while larger multi million euro developments are in general ignored.

Poor Uncle Tom

jwt, It is a percentage of one off rural housing planning applications which cause the problems and formed the basis for me starting this thread. The comments here should really only be taken in that context.

But, all being equal, if someone deserves to live in an area, under development plans, etc., then that is that. It should not be down to whether a councillor made representations on their behalf or not.

Slig

damiand wrote: »

Hi Slig

Section 22A, (1) of the Planning & Deveopment Regulation state In addition to the information required by Article 22, the Planning Authority may require the applicant to submit with the Planning Application specific additional Information.

Heres the catch,

(2) no planning appllication shall be invalidated under article 26 for failure to submit with the application any information or particulars requested under sub-article (1).

Looks like wont be looking for 1:2500 discovery map again, unless by phone.

I think we all have to accept that the Irish planning system is hit and miss. Its not a perfect system. If we were to be like our continental cousins (germany for example) there would be virtually no rural housing. Rural housing is the bain of everones life. Its all this and other threads genearally talk about, while larger multi million euro developments are in general ignored.

I completely agree and as PoorUncleTom said it is really only the one off rural housing that is affected by this. What you say about the discovery map is perfectly true, but in this sector it is generally easier to submit the map than argue it, especially when there is an invalidation hagning in the balance.

I also realise that a lot of the comments posted here are by people dealing with LA planning everyday and are therefor very specific. I think it needs to be mentioned to anybody reading that these are extreme cases and generally 80% to 90% of applications are dealt with professionally. The system may be flawed but it is the only one we have:P.

muffler

I thought the discovery series of maps were to a 1:50,000 scale?

Schooby

A point that occasionally needs to be aired:

the planner is almost never the decision maker, the planner makes a recommendation to a person in management (who is delagated powers from the county manager) that my be from any of a number of backgrounds. more often than not is a non technical person who entered the local authority after the leaving cert this person is often an expert at local authority politics and has known no working world other than this. This persons career progression to the point of decision maker and beyond is not based on a detailed analysis of the technical and policy merits of an application.

in my experience the counties with the most problems of inconsistency in planning and turn over of staff are those that the planners recommendations are overturned by management.

Main ponit is that the planner is an easy target, but no planner who is dealing with planning applications is making decisions, anywhere

Poor Uncle Tom

Schooby wrote: »

A point that occasionally needs to be aired:

the planner is almost never the decision maker, the planner makes a recommendation......

Main ponit is that the planner is an easy target, but no planner who is dealing with planning applications is making decisions, anywhere

Of course, and your statement is backed by the fact that every planning officers report is either addressed to, or countersigned by, management.

But, I have found that the planners recommendation becomes the council's decision very quickly with the aid of a signiture from management and an order from the manager, usually all within hours of each other. (in most cases)

About 3 years ago, after receiveing a refusal for a one off, I decided to see if I could get some basic questions answered:

1. Was all the information supplied with the application processed / taken account of ?
2. Did a site visit occur ?
3. Did middle management actually remember this particular case ?

I rang the planning officer, who I had met a few times, and I went on to debate the case over the phone with her (4 days had passed since the report had been signed) during conversation I got the following information:
The planning officer had driven to the site but because of the heavy rain had not in fact gotten out of the car, There was a large pond of water some 150m away on the raod side, so there was no need to examine the trial holes, they would have failed in her opinion (all were dry even though they were not even covered) The applicant was born, lived and worked in the area but the planning officer was under the impression that the applicant was working in England (there was a letter from the applicants employer on file as part of the application, the applicant's brother had emigrated to England some years earlier).

I then rang the co-signature on the report (who I knew with years) to discuss the case and he told me he just signed off what was put in front of him because of workload he could not go through each file and he trusted his planners to do their job properly.

This is just my experience of one case in point, but, you will forgive me if I take your comment about the planner not being the decision maker with a pinch of salt.

No6

True Uncle Tom but the reverse is also true, I've had numerous cases where the area planner with whom I've spent a lot of time on the project has done a report reccomending a grant, a more senior planner takes a 2 minute look at the file, decides they dont like it / part of it and either reccomends refusal or looks for additional information often including a complete redesign and If I want to argue it with them it takes six months to get near them !!!! :mad:

Rowley Birkin QC

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

I then rang the co-signature on the report (who I knew with years) to discuss the case and he told me he just signed off what was put in front of him because of workload he could not go through each file and he trusted his planners to do their job properly.

In my, admittedly short, experience of the Irish planning system this is the major problem.

Our senior planner was telling me that in the Dutch planning system the upper limit is something like 1 planner for every 10000 people in a local authority. Here it could be up into 50/60/70,000 per planner.

That said, my own personal experience is that every case is treated fairly and investigated fully, usually all within 8 weeks.

Also, to be frank, I find this attitude that planners are undertrained or unprofessional in any way pretty childish.

sydthebeat

bigkev49 wrote: »

In my, admittedly short, experience of the Irish planning system this is the major problem.

Our senior planner was telling me that in the Dutch planning system the upper limit is something like 1 planner for every 10000 people in a local authority. Here it could be up into 50/60/70,000 per planner.

That said, my own personal experience is that every case is treated fairly and investigated fully, usually all within 8 weeks.

well, in co laois theres only a population of 70,000 but i could name 6 planners.......???

Poor Uncle Tom

We all have our views on this based on our own experiences and I'm sure we have seen all sides of the situation but what will happen by throwing the coucillor into the mix ?

It has just occurred to me, is any of our number actually a councillor, or was once a councillor, perhaps a comment please ?

sydthebeat

"Anyway since I started with the opening post it has been confirmed to me that representations by councillors are now expected in most LA's to come in line with the requirements of the County Development Plan's and the National Development Plan."

Uncle Tom...

Is there a specific policy in either your CDP or the NDP that requires councillors input??
If so, to what means?? What is the expected advantage of having such representations??

In the cases where youve had refusals and local need was established, what reasons were given for refusal?

muffler

bigkev49 wrote: »

Our senior planner was telling me that in the Dutch planning system the upper limit is something like 1 planner for every 10000 people in a local authority. Here it could be up into 50/60/70,000 per planner.

I dont think its helpful to make comparisons to other countries especially given the fact that their systems are so so different from here.

bigkev49 wrote: »

That said, my own personal experience is that every case is treated fairly and investigated fully, usually all within 8 weeks

Unfortunately I cant say that I'd agree with that at all. I havent the time or the inclination to even give examples other than I've lost count of the number of times that I have spent a considerable amount of time communicating at various levels with planners and getting nowhere. A politician then makes a call to the planner and hey presto all is sorted.

And you call that fair.

bigkev49 wrote: »

Also, to be frank, I find this attitude that planners are undertrained or unprofessional in any way pretty childish.

I (wearing mods hat) dont think anyone said that so be please be careful with this type of accusation. The general consensus however seems to be that planners - not all of them I hasten to add - lack a bit of common sense and can be very amenable to political representation.

Slig

muffler wrote: »

I dont think its helpful to make comparisons to other countries especially given the fact that their systems are so so different from here.

Unfortunately I cant say that I'd agree with that at all. I havent the time or the inclination to even give examples other than I've lost count of the number of times that I have spent a considerable amount of time communicating at various levels with planners and getting nowhere. A politician then makes a call to the planner and hey presto all is sorted.

And you call that fair.


I (wearing mods hat) dont think anyone said that so be please be careful with this type of accusation. The general consensus however seems to be that planners - not all of them I hasten to add - lack a bit of common sense and can be very amenable to political representation.

Very diplomatic:D
I dont think anybody is having a go solely at planners but at the entire system. Personally I dont see the point in adding more politics to the system. If an application meets all the LA requirements in terms of house design, site suitability, infrastructure, housing need, compliance with zoning and development plan then mudding the waters with "political representation" is throwing a spanner into an otherwise very workable system. Why should somebody with, for example, a Fianna Fail background get more preferance than somebody without.

Poor Uncle Tom

sydthebeat wrote: »

Is there a specific policy in either your CDP or the NDP that requires councillors input??
What is the expected advantage of having such representations??

In the cases where youve had refusals and local need was established, what reasons were given for refusal?

No specific policy that requires councillor input.

The only advantage I can think of regarding having a councillor make representations on behalf of someone would be to expand on or elabourate on the advantages from a social perspective of having a particular person or family living in a particular area or community.

But of course what I have found is that when a councillor gets involved they don't stop there. They, generally, have very forcefull opinions on scale, design, site characteristics, site screening., etc, nothing is out of bounds.

Regarding refusals, Syd, I find the usual suspects are trotted out in the usual paragraphs, in the usual order and bear little or no resembelence to the actual reason for refusal, the fear that someone might be trying to 'get one over' on the council.

Sceptical ? maybe. Realistic ? definately.

Lets take this to the next level, down the road when councillor input is the norm in a planning application, what happens when an observer/objector also wants representations made by councillors against a planning application ?

Rowley Birkin QC

Points taken on board Muffler.

Poor Uncle Tom

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

I am going to re-submit both applications this week and I will post progress.

That was a while ago. I resubmitted both applications with the minor changes. Guess what.

Got notification of one grant of planning permission yesterday and the second one today.