Planning Authority Requests

ConfusedTech

I got a request for additional information from the council the other day and one of the many requests was:

The applicant is requested to submit a comprehensive waste management strategy for both demolished materials and for waste generated during the construction phase of the proposed development.

The planning is for a one off corner site 3 bed house, and this is the first time that I have been asked for this in any planning! Is it a standard requirement now, or is this a one off?

tba

Its becoming standard now, your Builder/Contractor can provide the information for you.

Slig

Construction & demolition waste management plan. Its a standard enough document but it needs to be accompanied by a letter from a waste contractor, their EPA licence and some other licence.

ConfusedTech

Is this not becoming madness though! When you hit site, if you hit site, you do this as standard procedure and the contractor is legally obliged to comply with the laws and regulations pertaining to the same! Having to provide this information to the planners pre-tender is a little crazy, I think!

tba

I have never heard this being needed pre tender, usually they just want it prior to the commencement notice.

ConfusedTech

In essence, thats what I mean. If you dont have a contractor on board. Normally I would request this information from the contractors during the Tender Process, so the accurate plan will never be available at planning unless you have tendered before planning, if you know what I mean. Next we will be doing a 1:1 scale models of our projects for planning!

My question is is it fair to the client/architect/technician to have to produce/provide this information, when other similar applications get through without it. It is not listed as part of an application, or is it? Surely all applications for a one off house should have to provide the same list of information for planning and tagging this on as AI is an unfair extension to the time-line for planning!!!

sydthebeat

being asked for this at planning stage is absolutely ridiculous...

who has selected a contractor at this stage??????

its the planning office basically holding up their hands and saying we do not have a building control section... so we will throw every piece of responsibility onto a private certifier.

regarding the timeline argument... every application is different and it is unwise to try to predict timelines or outcomes based on previous applications....

ConfusedTech

sydthebeat, I agree with most of your comments, and in fact I agree totally that you should never predict the timeline of a planning, but I think it is unfair for the planners to be able to throw back at you requests for information that would not be typical, unless a specific situation arises warrenting it! Why cant we check all the boxes in the application and then get it through, rather then finding out that a few more boxes have just appeared at the end of the requirement list 1 day before you were to get the decision????? Especially items that are not relevant or possible at the time of planning such as this....

smashey

ConfusedTech wrote: »

The applicant is requested to submit a comprehensive waste management strategy for both demolished materials and for waste generated during the construction phase of the proposed development.

I got something similar recently but without the demolished elements. I had to calculate the volume of the excavation and tell the authority what we would be doing with it. Fortunately, our client owns a farm and we were able to tell tham that the excavated material (mostly soil) would be transported to the farm and put in one of the fields and levelled out to improve the growth potential of that particular field.

sydthebeat

ConfusedTech wrote: »

sydthebeat, I agree with most of your comments, and in fact I agree totally that you should never predict the timeline of a planning, but I think it is unfair for the planners to be able to throw back at you requests for information that would not be typical, unless a specific situation arises warrenting it! Why cant we check all the boxes in the application and then get it through, rather then finding out that a few more boxes have just appeared at the end of the requirement list 1 day before you were to get the decision????? Especially items that are not relevant or possible at the time of planning such as this....

ever consider that planners are also feeling the pinch in the recession and thus have to keep files 'active' to justify their jobs????

ConfusedTech

No Comment

sydthebeat wrote: »

ever consider that planners are also feeling the pinch in the recession and thus have to keep files 'active' to justify their jobs????

Jimbo

We were asked to submit structural drawings for a retaining wall once on a one off house. It's the reponsibility of the developer by law to construct structurally sound walls, it definatly shouldn't be a concern for the planning authority.

pseudo-tech

I have to agree again with sydthebeat. There would be an element of mischief in some requests for additional information.

I also remember once going into a planning meeting and the planner expressing a personal opinion on an application, that even though it conformed to the development plan that he did not personally want it. Low and behold i received a request for additional information as long as your arm. It would have cost the client silly money to address with the number of specialist reports the planner requested. The answer was a visit to the senior planner who saw it for what it was.

sinnerboy

sydthebeat wrote: »

ever consider that planners are also feeling the pinch in the recession and thus have to keep files 'active' to justify their jobs????

one million percent yes .

sorry to repeat what i posted on a recent thread - but i am seething over this one - one off house - we got a AI request re drainage which in effect required us to alter our drainage proposals , only to later receive a CAI which in affect required us to revert to the proposals as originally lodged ....:mad::mad::mad:

these bastards are choking the life out of what remains of the real economy

Poor Uncle Tom

sinnerboy wrote: »

....these bastards are choking the life out of what remains of the real economy

And it's priceless to watch and listen to them attempt to justify their actions to you face to face. I think they really can't see the potential damage their actions can cause just to keep planning file numbers up or files active longer.

Slig

I have to say I'm beginning to sympathise with them. My plan, once things started to go belly up, was to keep my head down and work, work, work.

That kind of back fired as work dried up, it ended up that I had projects finished and then had to wait for my incompitent office manager to assign me work. That often meant I was left twiddling my thumbs when the architect came into the office and I had nothing to do to look busy.

Now I try and drag out the projects(within reason) so that I have something to do when the boss is around. Suppose its the same as in the LA.

muffler

sinnerboy wrote: »

one million percent yes .

sorry to repeat what i posted on a recent thread - but i am seething over this one - one off house - we got a AI request re drainage which in effect required us to alter our drainage proposals , only to later receive a CAI which in affect required us to revert to the proposals as originally lodged ....:mad::mad::mad:

these bastards are choking the life out of what remains of the real economy

A1 and CA1 - those are new terms to us bog men. :P

Whats the difference?

sinnerboy

muffler wrote: »

A1 and CA1 - those are new terms to us bog men. :P

Whats the difference?

AI Additional information . Expect to receive this towards the end of week 8 of the consideration period

CAI Clarification of Additional Information . Expect to receive this in week 4 of that consideration period

Another example of LA planner "maintaining" workload - invalidation

Site notice in shop window . Planner decided that because of canopy over that the site notice was not legible enough . Complete b******x !
Two separate applications on this site ( relating to other matters ) were processed in recent years with the site notice in the same location .

When challenged with this planner said "well on THIS occasion I felt it was not legible enough - A3 size please" . This is a shopfront directly facing onto the public footpath in central Dublin the site notice behind clear glass at eye level. The notice is/was could have been read by Stevie Wonder

I would cut more than their pension entitlements

muffler

sinnerboy wrote: »

AI Additional information . Expect to receive this towards the end of week 8 of the consideration period

CAI Clarification of Additional Information . Expect to receive this in week 4 of that consideration period

Yeah, I had an idea thats what it was but it was the "C" that was throwing me a bit.

Here they simply call it FI (Further Information) or FINC (Further Information Not Complied)

sinnerboy wrote: »

Site notice in shop window . Planner decided that because of canopy over that the site notice was not legible enough . Complete b******x !
Two separate applications on this site ( relating to other matters ) were processed in recent years with the site notice in the same location .

When challenged with this planner said "well on THIS occasion I felt it was not legible enough - A3 size please" . This is a shopfront directly facing onto the public footpath in central Dublin the site notice behind clear glass at eye level. The notice is/was could have been read by Stevie Wonder

I would cut more than their pension entitlements

Im not even going to comment as it would set me off on quoting examples from here and put the old blood pressure up :mad:

sydthebeat

sinnerboy wrote: »

AI Additional information . Expect to receive this towards the end of week 8 of the consideration period

CAI Clarification of Additional Information . Expect to receive this in week 4 of that consideration period

Another example of LA planner "maintaining" workload - invalidation

Site notice in shop window . Planner decided that because of canopy over that the site notice was not legible enough . Complete b******x !
Two separate applications on this site ( relating to other matters ) were processed in recent years with the site notice in the same location .

When challenged with this planner said "well on THIS occasion I felt it was not legible enough - A3 size please" . This is a shopfront directly facing onto the public footpath in central Dublin the site notice behind clear glass at eye level. The notice is/was could have been read by Stevie Wonder

I would cut more than their pension entitlements

:rolleyes:

absolute b*llsh*t

they shouldnt be let away with this....

i think the minister will be getting an influx of mail from enraged agents...

archtech

as for the amount of retention application of late. I heard that 3 planners have been moved to enforcement in south tipp to "generate applications".

I know of a case where one guy got a warning letter, responded to advise that he was preparing a planning application and had an enforcement notice issued before the end of the period he was given to respond to the warning letter.

as for invalidations, i just won't go there, there's no consistency in what's been invalidated at present, by the same planning authority.

Talwin

Got an CFI from planners saying that having 2 options for a waste water treatment percolation area or soil polishing filter was not acceptable and to choose one of them.

The guy that did the tests was a bit shocked as it states in the EPA treatment manual to show all the options available.

RKQ

Can't give too much detail but had an application invalidated due to site notice on a pole at entrance to house - latest application of many. So the site notice was in the same position for a number of previous applications and at least 2 other planners felt it was fine.

Then, I had application invalidated in urban area - site notice at garden gate, so I got fed up!

I took a photo of "offending" site notice, from the public path and emailed it to Planner, Head of Planning Department, & County Manager requesting return of all application documents for re-submission and noting that IMO the Site Notice was perfectly compliant. No more problems with Site Notices..... strange!

Don't get mad, get even. We can all be silly billies, but you make me look stupid to a Client and you'd better be "perfect" at your job!

topcatcbr

When i started working in kildare i would put a fair amount of info on site notice (Eg Dormer style dwelling with sunroom and two storey element) but i was getting it returned ocasionaly for opinions on discriptions so i soon found out that in this case less is more and now describe this same home as a proposed Dwelling.

I have never got a return yet because of lack of info.

muffler

topcatcbr wrote: »

When i started working in kildare i would put a fair amount of info on site notice (Eg Dormer style dwelling with sunroom and two storey element) but i was getting it returned ocasionaly for opinions on discriptions so i soon found out that in this case less is more and now describe this same home as a proposed Dwelling.

I have never got a return yet because of lack of info.

On that point it is always advisable to state "dwelling house" only. If an application is made for a 2 storey and the client or the planners want it changed (mid application) to a 1.5 storey then technically it cant be changed under that application.

topcatcbr

muffler wrote: »

On that point it is always advisable to state "dwelling house" only. If an application is made for a 2 storey and the client or the planners want it changed (mid application) to a 1.5 storey then technically it cant be changed under that application.

Yes I agree.

But when starting out it would appear that a description was that. A description.

This is just something you learn from experience. I was certainly not thought it in collage.

ConfusedTech

Am I going feckin mad or what!!!!! I just got another Request for Further Information from the same council as my original post. Planning was for a Chriopractic clinic, for a sole practitioner, working from home. Room for one client at a time, clearly stated in the planning and carparking layout and letter. No signage noted, intended or required.

They have two requests: a: details in relation to the intended hours of business b. Details in relation to the intended patient numbers / frequency of visits (Outlined in application by us already, bar opening hours)
and
I have to indicate if we require signage. (If we wanted it, we would have put it on the drawings!)

My tender is now extended out by 4 weeks, my client is unhappy and I have to do more unecesarry work, as the only issue is his operating times which in fairness was never requested as part of the planning, and something that could have been cleared up with a phone call!!!! Is it not hard enough to put in and get paid for the work we are doing at the moment, or do people have to make it as complicated as possible!

sydthebeat

ConfusedTech wrote: »

Am I going feckin mad or what!!!!! I just got another Request for Further Information from the same council as my original post. Planning was for a Chriopractic clinic, for a sole practitioner, working from home. Room for one client at a time, clearly stated in the planning and carparking layout and letter. No signage noted, intended or required.

They have two requests: a: details in relation to the intended hours of business b. Details in relation to the intended patient numbers / frequency of visits (Outlined in application by us already, bar opening hours)
and
I have to indicate if we require signage. (If we wanted it, we would have put it on the drawings!)

My tender is now extended out by 4 weeks, my client is unhappy and I have to do more unecesarry work, as the only issue is his operating times which in fairness was never requested as part of the planning, and something that could have been cleared up with a phone call!!!! Is it not hard enough to put in and get paid for the work we are doing at the moment, or do people have to make it as complicated as possible!

many councils now have an additional addendum for for planning with these questions on it..

ie hours of operation, signage required, frequency of visitors etc....

i am now telling clients to expect ridiculous FI requests.. and to plan for a 16-20 week application period...

ConfusedTech

Is there a written document listing this information? Is it new, or is it just something that is off teh radar and that will stay off the radar? I am considering pulling together a few councelors and making a complaint, as I find this stratagy very unfair and challengeable!!!

sydthebeat

ConfusedTech wrote: »

Is there a written document listing this information? Is it new, or is it just something that is off teh radar and that will stay off the radar? I am considering pulling together a few councelors and making a complaint, as I find this stratagy very unfair and challengeable!!!

when the regs were changed, and the 'common application form' became teh norm... some councils added supplementray forms to the application pack... to deal with rural applications, agri applications and commercial applications.... it was a good idea in hindsight.....

the information i snot required to make a valid application, but, as in your case, will be requested at some stage...

ConfusedTech

What can I say! Makes a mockery of the planning process, in my opinion, when an application can be extended out for not supplying a 'Comprehensive Waste Management Stratagy' or a list of opening hours, especially when I spent time, by phone, with the planners on both applications.

At the risk of repeating myself, are these guys not meant to be nurturing new builds rather than retarding them???

ConfusedTech

I just got a grant of planning for the forementioned planning application. 24 conditions came with it!!!, including conditioning for the AI that was already given to them. 24 conditions on a similar application that would have got the standard seven last year. What are these guys up to. The conditions include items that have to be re-submitted to the planners pre-construction and really add 25% work-load to a planning that was already cut in price to get the job...... Talking about trying to justify your position!

muffler

Nothing surprises me any more.

Slig

Its like going back to the good ol days of '04 and the rural renewal grants except back then they were giving out rediculous FI's, clarifications on completely new questions and invalidating applications for no reason because they were too busy, now its because they have nothing else to do.

muffler

I had a site meeting a couple of months ago with the local planner, the client and a councilor. This was a follow up meeting from a previous refusal but the planner said that she would now be happy enough to allow a 2 storey house on the site providing the ground level was lowered by 1.50 and we showed a good decent bit of landscaping.

Submitted the application and it was due for decision last week but just prior to that the planner told the client by phone that she wouldnt even allow her a bungalow on the site and that the landscaping details I had shown were useless as "the trees wouldn't grow fast enough" :eek:

Poor Uncle Tom

Wierd animals, planners.

i) Minimal attention span,
ii) Experts at everything,
iii) The only breed of person capable of creating aesthetic beauty,
iv) The only breed of person capable of judging aesthetic elegance,
v) Mandatory to suffer from selective Alzhimers,
vi) Capable of correctly holding a drawing without ever knowing what it contains.
vii) Able to generate months of work for a whole nest of planners from one agents application.

I could go on, but my blood pressure is rising at the thought...:)

ConfusedTech

Let me guess. Wicklow?

archtech

ConfusedTech wrote: »

Let me guess. Wicklow?

No..... I would say any one of the 70 odd county/city/borough or town councils, that planning applications are made to.

Joxer Brown

hi all new to boards, only joined when i saw the arch tech forum. i'm a AT3 student and although we've spent three years doing details and construction drawings i'd be fairly puzzled when it came to planning drawings. i'm aware of the required drawings but its the detail required in the drawings themselves that i was wondering about.

any feedback would be appreciated thanks.

muffler

All listed in Part 4 of the 2006 Regs

Joxer Brown

cheers lad, problem solved.

pseudo-tech

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Wierd animals, planners.

i) Minimal attention span,
ii) Experts at everything,
iii) The only breed of person capable of creating aesthetic beauty,
iv) The only breed of person capable of judging aesthetic elegance,
v) Mandatory to suffer from selective Alzhimers,
vi) Capable of correctly holding a drawing without ever knowing what it contains.
vii) Able to generate months of work for a whole nest of planners from one agents application.

I could go on, but my blood pressure is rising at the thought...:)

You could have just said Civil Servant!

Poor Uncle Tom

pseudo-tech wrote: »

You could have just said Civil Servant!

:D

Slig

Joxer Brown wrote: »

hi all new to boards, only joined when i saw the arch tech forum. i'm a AT3 student and although we've spent three years doing details and construction drawings i'd be fairly puzzled when it came to planning drawings. i'm aware of the required drawings but its the detail required in the drawings themselves that i was wondering about.

any feedback would be appreciated thanks.

When you come out of college, the real world is a baptism of fire. If you think the time limits on projects are tight then wait until your asked to draw any building for a farmer:D.

Nobody knows about planning when they come out of college, even though its the mainstay of most practices, but dont worry, each and every office will have their own system for planning drawings so you will learn. The important things like numbers of copies and whats required is very well explained in the back of most application forms.

Oh and welcome to the club;)