Re: Re: Building control

That is the very point. If something is important enough and systemic (to borrow the financial parlance) then it must be funded, therefore the fees associated with submissions for planning and regulation should follow the requirement. Also a central single authority supplementing the individual LA’s would solve the efficiency problem. As for being separate laws, laws can be changed and even if left separate they could still have a single operational system which unties these two strands. For instance; at the time of planning the same documents could be submitted in parallel to a national agency that would carry out the assessment and analysis. This is not rocket science. Also our model of planning and building regulations is essentially the British system with tweaks. They have determination and inspections and enforcement, why take 70% of the system and leave the functioning 30% behind. By the way I am not a fan of the over specified, excessive red tape, constantly changing, conflicting and contradicting levels of legislation and guidance that currently defines the “system”. (I am also aware that the English system is not working perfectly either and CABE was supposed to be the answer. Instead of fixing the system there they added a Quango to look after the deficiencies.) Enforcement is only one aspect of a thorough reformation of how and why we plan.