Who should prepare a planning applications? - Thread Split

RKQ

I like the idea that anybody can apply from planning permission and fill out their form if they wish. I think it is a good thing.

I can submit my own tax return or represent myself in a Court of law. It is important that a Citizen is allowed to do these things without being forced to use the services of a professional.

Fair do's to any novice or untrained person that can submit a valid planning application. I for one really appreciate the right to be able to do it.

Of course in reality I retain my Accountant to submit my Returns and I retain my Solicitor to represent my legal affairs. Its not that I don't understand the process' it just that I appreciate the value of professional advice.

Your proposed new home will be one of the biggest investments of your life. It is well worth seeking comprehensive professional advice. I would advise any person applying for planning permission to retain a professional.

Do not fill out the forms or attempt to submit your own design drawings. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Mellor

RKQ wrote: »

I like the idea that anybody can apply from planning permission and fill out their form if they wish. I think it is a good thing.

I can submit my own tax return or represent myself in a Court of law. It is important that a Citizen is allowed to do these things without being forced to use the services of a professional.

....

sinnerboy wrote: »

Hmmm . Don't agree RKQ. However I would like the thread to stay on topic so will not debate the matter.

I think what RKQ is refering to is that they have the right to do so. And I agree with him on that, but the right doesn't mean the ability.

If it was restricted to certain professions, who would say who gets to do it?
would ATs get screwed again? Would it be all people with a "building degree"?

Instead of restricting the application coming in. I think the better solution would be a tighter validation process. Specificly compliance with building regs.
If more self-apps were returned at the early stage due to design/BR flaws then the importance of professionals becomes obvious.



(Mod note: Shall we split this to a new thread?)

RKQ

Mellor wrote: »

I think what RKQ is refering to is that they have the right to do so. And I agree with him on that, but the right doesn't mean the ability.

Well spotted Mellor, thats exactly what I was refering too.

Mellor wrote: »

If it was restricted to certain professions, who would say who gets to do it?
would ATs get screwed again? Would it be all people with a "building degree"?

You bet we would and the public would be also.

RKQ

I did not start this thread.
I certainly didn't write "Good" or "Bad" in the title.

Mods should this fact be shown or acknowledged at the start of this thread?

Should Sinnerboys post be included as IMO the tread looks confusing at present.

dan_d

RKQ wrote: »

I like the idea that anybody can apply from planning permission and fill out their form if they wish. I think it is a good thing.

I can submit my own tax return or represent myself in a Court of law. It is important that a Citizen is allowed to do these things without being forced to use the services of a professional.

Fair do's to any novice or untrained person that can submit a valid planning application. I for one really appreciate the right to be able to do it.

Of course in reality I retain my Accountant to submit my Returns and I retain my Solicitor to represent my legal affairs. Its not that I don't understand the process' it just that I appreciate the value of professional advice.

Your proposed new home will be one of the biggest investments of your life. It is well worth seeking comprehensive professional advice. I would advise any person applying for planning permission to retain a professional.

Do not fill out the forms or attempt to do your onw design drawings.

Same theory applies to your accountant and solicitor deciding to build their own house and "project managing" it themselves, because they've hung a couple of shelves before, and own a hammer, so they must know how to do it.

Same thing, right??;)

RKQ

dan_d wrote: »

Same theory applies to your accountant and solicitor deciding to build their own house and "project managing" it themselves, because they've hung a couple of shelves before, and own a hammer, so they must know how to do it.

Same thing, right??;)

Yes, its the same thing. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
I retain my Accountant to submit my Returns and I retain my Solicitor to represent my legal affairs.

(But its still nice to have the right to DIY - its just not recommended )

No6

Funnily enough it used to be simple enough to do a planning application, once upon a time we had teachers and guards etc doing them all the time. I remember doin a job for two sisters building beside their parents house which was only built in 1990. I need to cherck the planning boundary of the parents house in case we overlapped and asked about the site plan, "sure I drew it myself! says the mother and sure enough she did. i got a copy and it was unintelligible in regards to the actual site but they still got planning. Now its much to compliacted!!! Nice in theory but it dosn't work in practice!!!

De.Lite.Touch

I remember talking to an experienced guy after the new planning regs came in in 2002 I think it was and he was one of the victims of the Dublin City Council planners in getting his application back for the third time.

"You need a solicitor at your shoulder making a planning application now!" he said.

So there ya go - get a solicitor and he'll throw in the conveyancing for free!

-- De.Lite.Touch

Mellor

I've changed the title to better reflect the discussion at hand,
Your post will remain first RKQ, it can be helped, the vBulletin software always puts posts in chronological order.

Its a minor issue, we all know it was a split,

So, the floor is open, should every one have the right to make a planning app?
Should it be restricted to professionals, what is used to establish professional status?
Should it remain open, but the requirement stricter, such as level of drawings acceptable, reports etc?

Poor Uncle Tom

I think that each planning application SHOULD be treated the same regardless of who prepared it. There should be no allowances made because someone may not have submitted an application previously, as this would be applying double standards. All applications are being made under the same Planning Act and as such should be judged on an equal footing.

Any drawings or details submitted with a planning application should have a minimum standard of detail and specification provided and if the content of detail drops below a particular level it should be invalidated, regardless of who submits the application.

I think it should be a case that if someone wants to submit their own planning application then that's fine, just assess that application on the same basis as any other. It is also worth informing the person submitting the application that they are responsible for the content submitted, and they should be advised that it is worth being indemnified.

I think it would be more beneficial to discuss ex-LA staff submitting planning applications, to their ex-colleagues.

RKQ

Mellor wrote: »

I've changed the title to better reflect the discussion at hand,
Your post will remain first RKQ, it can be helped, the vBulletin software always puts posts in chronological order.

Thanks Mellor, thats fine. I appreciate the explanation.
On topic I'd have to agree with Poor Uncle Tom, especially regarding the need for indemnity insurance.

muffler

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

I think it would be more beneficial to discuss ex-LA staff submitting planning applications, to their ex-colleagues.

Is this a case of......:D

De.Lite.Touch

The title of this thread is apt - "preparation" is the keyword.

The actual act of lodgement - including compiling the prints the forms and the documents - can be done by a layperson
But someone competent should design the house, its orientation, its compliance with the building regulations, its reliance on sustainable technologies.

More and more it seems that the proper integration of this work requires a design team, working together, as it should be done, instead of each category of professional trying to be a jack of all trades.

The requirement to use competent professionals is already coming in with the requirement to use approved site assessors - the sooner the requirement to use competent professionals is extended to design, planning and building regulation compliance the better, IMO.

-- De.Lite.Touch

sinnerboy

RKQ wrote: »

I like the idea that anybody can apply from planning permission and fill out their form if they wish. I think it is a good thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

.

rayjdav

De.Lite.Touch wrote: »

the sooner the requirement to use competent professionals is extended to design, planning and building regulation compliance the better, IMO.

-- De.Lite.Touch

De.Lite,
Not meaning to drag this topic off course but can you define "Competent" in this context please?

I believe that all and anyone should be allowed to submit and handle to application stage, at their peril though.
Naturally it has to be a minimum standard throughout ie Act & Regs...
Without experience, I would love to see how they handle certain RFI's, without experienced help.:eek: Thats when they might realise the worth of experienced professionals....:D:D

De.Lite.Touch

rayjdav wrote: »

De.Lite,
Not meaning to drag this topic off course but can you define "Competent" in this context please?

I believe that all and anyone should be allowed to submit and handle to application stage, at their peril though.
Naturally it has to be a minimum standard throughout ie Act & Regs...
Without experience, I would love to see how they handle certain RFI's, without experienced help.:eek: Thats when they might realise the worth of experienced professionals....:D:D

rayjdav,

Again at the risk of veering wildly off topi - although I think this is relevant to the thread.
The subject is a single one off dwelling.
Competent means competent to;-

• assess the site in the context of the development plan, its historical context, its relationship to its local urban centre and pattern of development
• design the house proper in relation to its social and historical context - including architectural references taking into account the site layout, orientation, landscaping, access and drainage requirements
• detail the house to comply with the building regulations, particularly parts L and F and M
• include the implications of all of the above at planning lodgement stage

Becase if the person designing the house at planning stage doesn't do these things they are unlikely to get done and most of them cannot be done afterwards without a revised PP - and that's unlikely too.
Putting a square box in the middle of a field does not necessarily imply competence, nor does filling in all the questions on the application form.

In answer to the question you didn't ask, no, I don't think you always need a good architect, architectural technician or architectural technologist to design a house - but it helps.
And when I say good I mean just that - some architects aren't great at the small scale of houses, and some arch techs and technologists lack subtlety in their designs - "good" means "good at designing houses".
Otherwise don't let us complain if we see endless and identical "bungalow bliss" rip-offs dotting the countryside, all facing the same way because the local draughtsperson or engineer couldn't be bothered to even rotate the house or detail it to face the view, access route or sun path.

-- De.Lite.Touch

RKQ

This is an interesting thread. Mods I believe this is on topic and is given to support the positive idea of a Citizens right to make an application to there Council, Government, Revenue or defend themselves in a Court of Law.

It can be agrued that a application to the Council for a Certificate of Exemption is a Planning Application as its made to the Planning Dept and refers fully for a planning opinion on planning law. The decision is made by a Planner.

The application form is quite simple and can easily be submitted by an untrained person (some people do retain an Agent but the majority I've seen seem to be submitted by the Homeowner). Most seem to contain a brief description, hand drawn sketches, photos etc.

These applications are relatively straightforward and result in a prompt decision by a Planner. Surely there are merits to this system?

It is fast and I realised the application usually regards "as built" or a proposal to build an exempted building - fence, rear extension, farm building, change of use etc.

Naturally if you read my full post at the start of this thread, I recommend retaining a Professional but I don't belive there is merit in forcing people to give up an existing right. Where would the erosion of rights end and who would decide it?

I'm just interest in what people think.

rayjdav

From my experience, our old mate, "Billy down the pub" is the most educated of all in the design and regulation of builds in this country:D
I'm sure most of you have encountered him. He appears to have done EVERYTHING possible within the realms of the Planning Act, and succeeded every time.:rolleyes:

Over the years I, like most of you, have done numerous Planning Searches. A lot of the applications in there leave a lot to be desired.. Some of those that I wouldnt sign my name to have come from so called reputible Architects. My 2.5yr old could produce better tbh. Maybe it was a case that during the boom a certain sector of the professionals out there just got lazy? Also though, a lot of the DIY applications were as bad, but some quiet impressive too.

De.Lite, if you are suggesting that there be a locally ratified list of acceptable "competent" professionals that may submit to the relevant Authority, this I believe is nonsense. It does not, and should not, state in the Act that it must be so. It would be just another excuse for a new regulatary body to squeeze more professional people out of the planning system and close the door on persons not covered under the BCA '97, giving certain;) governing bodies more power....

De.Lite.Touch

There we differ - I don't believe its nonsense.
We don't let Bily Down the Pub design and build our cars.
[We let drive home, but that's another problem entirely]

We talk about rights when we should be talking about privileges.
We say a lot on this forum and in other places about the terrible planning decisions that get made and how corrupt the system is.
Leave it to laypersons to screw it up some more, but don't then complain about the state the country is in.

Why are you concerned about BillyDTP's rights to make a dodgy application?
I don't know what planning files some people have looked in, but I have seldom seen good planning applications done by laypeople.
The applications I've come across may be verified as complete, but the designs are seldom good, never mind great.

-- De.Lite.Touch

De.Lite.Touch

RKQ wrote: »

This is an interesting thread. Mods I believe this is on topic and is given to support the positive idea of a Citizens right to make an application to there Council, Government, Revenue or defend themselves in a Court of Law.

It can be agrued that a application to the Council for a Certificate of Exemption is a Planning Application as its made to the Planning Dept and refers fully for a planning opinion on planning law. The decision is made by a Planner.

The application form is quite simple and can easily be submitted by an untrained person (some people do retain an Agent but the majority I've seen seem to be submitted by the Homeowner). Most seem to contain a brief description, hand drawn sketches, photos etc.

These applications are relatively straightforward and result in a prompt decision by a Planner. Surely there are merits to this system?

It is fast and I realised the application usually regards "as built" or a proposal to build an exempted building - fence, rear extension, farm building, change of use etc.

Naturally if you read my full post at the start of this thread, I recommend retaining a Professional but I don't belive there is merit in forcing people to give up an existing right. Where would the erosion of rights end and who would decide it?

I'm just interest in what people think.

Is this the exception that proves the rule?
You said it yourself RKQ, there's very little in it.
Surely there's been enough racing to the bottom.

-- De.Lite.Touch

Mellor

I think peopl are getting to much focused on the aspect of single dwellings.

What about multi-dwelling units? I would imagine these are non-runners for all laypeople. They have the right, but they are aware of their limitations.

What about extensions?
Two story large extensions?
Minor elements that would be except except for a minor detail.

What about a front velux?

Where's the line?


(these are all retorical btw )

Poor Uncle Tom

muffler wrote: »

Is this a case of......:D

/why yes, yes it is.......:D
for another thread though......:p

De.Lite.Touch

Mellor wrote: »

I think peopl are getting to much focused on the aspect of single dwellings.

What about multi-dwelling units? I would imagine these are non-runners for all laypeople. They have the right, but they are aware of their limitations.

What about extensions?
Two story large extensions?
Minor elements that would be except except for a minor detail.

What about a front velux?

Where's the line?


(these are all retorical btw )

That's always the question, isn't it?

There will be some projects where you can point to them because of ther priminence in a street or in the landscape and say "Yes, that needs a lot of care with the design" and others you'd walk right past which could be more technically demanding in terms of internal layouts and fire escapes. Bu even in houses, you can have larger houses say 3,000 - 12,000 sq.ft. that need specialist fire safety measures that would be beyond a layperson. Judging from some of the posts on forums these days, even converting an attic properly for habitable use is beyond many laypeople and indeed some of the so called specialist "Attic-Converters" out there now.

I think the quality of your questions has pointed the determiner out as being the member of the local authority planning department who assesses the pre-planning application. That being said I know of at least one planning officer who could be "smart" even with qualified people submitting plans - I think he wanted "starchitects" doing them all to increase tourist revenue or something.

-- De.Lite.Touch

RKQ

De.Lite.Touch wrote: »

Is this the exception that proves the rule?
You said it yourself RKQ, there's very little in it.
Surely there's been enough racing to the bottom.

-- De.Lite.Touch

This thread is about Who should be allowed to prepare a planning application.
It is not a discussion on the quality of design in the Irish countryside. It is not a thread on political corruption or the recession.
Its simply about your existing rights.

IMO unless you are a full member of a professional body, you are an Agent. In law an Agent may simply be a member of the public that submits applications. Which profession can claim they are specifically trained to submit planning forms?

Its simple - should you or I be allowed to submit an application?
Because once you limit who can make the application you get into dagerous territory. De.Lit.Touch who would you specifically exclude?
How would you feel if you were to be excluded, for whatever reason.

In reality, if the Government was to limit who submits planning applications they would do the simplest thing and IMO limit it to Architects only (maybe Engineers, unlikely AT's ).

Rayjdav, I've come arcross "Billy down the pub", he's a very popular guy. At least he seem s to be best buddies will all my Clients!:)

De.Lite.Touch

RKQ wrote: »

This thread is about Who should be allowed to prepare a planning application.
It is not a discussion on the quality of design in the Irish countryside. It is not a thread on political corruption or the recession.
Its simply about your existing rights.

IMO unless you are a full member of a professional body, you are an Agent. In law an Agent may simply be a member of the public that submits applications. Which profession can claim they are specifically trained to submit planning forms?

Its simple - should you or I be allowed to submit an application?
Because once you limit who can make the application you get into dagerous territory. De.Lit.Touch who would you specifically exclude?
How would you feel if you were to be excluded, for whatever reason.

In reality, if the Government was to limit who submits planning applications they would do the simplest thing and IMO limit it to Architects only (maybe Engineers, unlikely AT's ).

Rayjdav, I've come arcross "Billy down the pub", he's a very popular guy. At least he seem s to be best buddies will all my Clients!:)

Perhaps we need two more thread splits!
One for quality of design and one for corruption.
But I think you're getting into sadism, bestiality and necrophilia there, all at the same time [think about it]

I addressed your main point in post number 13 above and clarified it when asked by rayjdav in number 16 about "competence!.
I said that - in theory - ANYONE could lodge the application, in terms of compilation of documents and filling out forms.

However I made the point that someone competent had to DESIGN the building and its context.
This is actually a requirement in law now in relation to some matters of design - read the health and safety legislation.
Its just that most people seem to have missed it and/or there have bene no court cases supporting it.
The defining term is "competent" as opposed to "qualified" or - to risk another thread split - "registered".

Its not about whether you're a member of a body or even a profession, but both can give assurances dwarfing those from "Billy DTP"
Except for Billy's track record at getting dodgy permissions approved, which must be - as he says - a miracle.

-- De.Lite.Touch

muffler

De.Lite.Touch Im going to put this very straight and honest to you - stay on topic or dont post here.

We have been down this road before.

De.Lite.Touch

RKQ wrote: »

This thread is about Who should be allowed to prepare a planning application.
It is not a discussion on the quality of design in the Irish countryside. It is not a thread on political corruption or the recession.
Its simply about your existing rights.

IMO unless you are a full member of a professional body, you are an Agent. In law an Agent may simply be a member of the public that submits applications. Which profession can claim they are specifically trained to submit planning forms?

Its simple - should you or I be allowed to submit an application?
Because once you limit who can make the application you get into dagerous territory. De.Lit.Touch who would you specifically exclude?
How would you feel if you were to be excluded, for whatever reason.

In reality, if the Government was to limit who submits planning applications they would do the simplest thing and IMO limit it to Architects only (maybe Engineers, unlikely AT's ).

Rayjdav, I've come arcross "Billy down the pub", he's a very popular guy. At least he seem s to be best buddies will all my Clients!:)

In direct reply to your question above I would encourage a situation where "competent" people were required to design the subject matter of planning applications.
I would also encourage "competent people" to compile and lodge planning applications - they are not necessarily the same people who design the subject matter.
Designing the subject matter and compiling are both elements of the thread topic implied by the word "prepare", but both can have different requiremnets.
Different kinds of subject matter will define the need for specialists/professionals/techncians each acting within their competence.

To keep things equitable before the law therefore, the issue is competence, not qualification.

-- De.Lite.Touch

rayjdav

De.Lite,

Apologies, maybe it's me, but your posts are seriously confusing me here:o. I know your just trying to get a point across but if the reponse was a little more concise and to the point, I think this thread may go a little smoother;) I am NOT nit picking but just trying to get my head around this and your replies:o. (No offence meant by this)

Maybe I missed it above, who (body) would define "competent"? On another point, if we take the right from joe soap to apply, will we not be left with Architect designed only houses out there. Not all qualified designers are good and it would get very boring imho driving around and seeing this the whole time. Time and place etc...

Certain aspects of of the process are rightfully in the hands of nominated persons, suitabillity testing/RSA's etc etc. We cant do everything the whole time.. Even Joe Soap realises this but other manageable aspects could, possible, be within their capabilities?