Should Architects be the only ones allowed to make Planning Applications?

Well said PlanE, won’t happen tho’

@PlanE wrote:

Only doctors, vets and dentists can write prescriptions, only judges can give sentences, priests give absolution, teachers mark exams, licensed bus drivers drive buses, the list goes on. Why shouldn’t it be the same for architects? We have it bad enough, God knows.

Lets face it, good planning requires good design.

The countryside (in particular), and towns have undeniably been ruined over the last 40 years, mainly through unqualified cowboys and developers allowed to run rampant, providing for individual interests, all in the name of ‘competition’.

The last Building Control Bill (and the Eurocratic system responsible for it), has not gone far enough. Protection of title should have been extended to include protection of services, and thereby protection of the ‘common good’, the fundamental aim of good planning.

Absolutely not.

the basis to equate good planning to good design SHOULD be on the basis that bad design gets refused!!! Thats where this argument should be focused.

Is Mrs Murphy from no 49 supposed to engage Mr HRH RIAI to ‘design’ her disabled extension? There are many ‘architects’ coming straight from college that couldnt tell you what TGD disabled assess is covered by. And is she then bound to pay ‘suggested’ riai rates?? Get Serious.

The consumer must be protected from cartels that this proposal would create. To restrict a service to one select group is so far at odds with good consumer protect practise that it simply couldnt happen… could it?? Whos to say this isnt the end-game of the BCA??

As far as I know, in Germany only architects can submit planning applications. If it’s good enough for them……:rolleyes:

@PlanE wrote:

Only doctors, vets and dentists can write prescriptions, only judges can give sentences, priests give absolution, teachers mark exams, licensed bus drivers drive buses, the list goes on. Why shouldn’t it be the same for architects? We have it bad enough, God knows.

Lets face it, good planning requires good design.

The countryside (in particular), and towns have undeniably been ruined over the last 40 years, mainly through unqualified cowboys and developers allowed to run rampant, providing for individual interests, all in the name of ‘competition’.

The last Building Control Bill (and the Eurocratic system responsible for it), has not gone far enough. Protection of title should have been extended to include protection of services, and thereby protection of the ‘common good’, the fundamental aim of good planning.

Is this the RIAI’s way of keeping there members in employment 😀

Its a bit overkill really for extensions and the like

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Some of the most beautiful cities in England were destroyed by architects during the 20th century, so let’s not be one-sided about it.

such as? York, Lancaster, Cambridge, Oxford, all still beautiful cities
@markstephens wrote:

Well said PlanE

knew I could count on good sense from my Mayo comrades 😉
@henno wrote:

Absolutely not.

the basis to equate good planning to good design SHOULD be on the basis that bad design gets refused!!! Thats where this argument should be focused.

and who decides good design? not the planners, surely !! I would have thought that the appropriate forum for inculcating good design is the colleges of architecture.
@henno wrote:

Is Mrs Murphy from no 49 supposed to engage Mr HRH RIAI to ‘design’ her disabled extension? There are many ‘architects’ coming straight from college that couldnt tell you what TGD disabled assess is covered by. And is she then bound to pay ‘suggested’ riai rates??

after doing the Part 3 (ie. not straight from college), they are expected to know the regulations. And a good technician in support can provide help here, too
@henno wrote:

… that it simply couldnt happen… could it?? Whos to say this isnt the end-game of the BCA??

perhaps it is….
@Wild Bill wrote:

…and world domination !

I never thought of that ! good idea ! 😀
@missarchi wrote:

Architects are a reflection of society and all the differences it entails…

An Architect does not guarantee good design and never will…
Design in architecture practices is not benchmarked internally or externally you only see the good stuff… Plan E you should draw up an architecture rating from make like the BER from…
I think there would be many serious mistakes in planning applications if just architects where involved… Some practices have internal crits but it’s the exception rather than the rule… Quality control = planning = government not tech vs tect

architect = client (maybe you should focus on this)

Most of the more senior architects have forgotten how to draw as well…

Your comments are just capitulation.

As I said above, if 5-7 years of training doesn’t produce good designers, nothing can, but at least we should aspire to good design; I am well aware of architects producing dross, but I don’t think it’s the norm, and may well be a result of outside pressures such as commercial interests or client wishes. However, it is the norm that non-architect produced work is dire, and I make no apologies for saying that – I have first-hand knowledge of much that goes on regionally.

An architect does not = client. He or she should provide the best possible advice to the client. A client’s interests are generally self-oriented, while a proper planning regime would ensure that the client must pay heed to common interests, such as history and context, all in the common good. And I repeat, if an architect can’t draw (or detail or even know his regulations), then he should have and most likely will have good support in architects + technologists + technicians.

The aim must be an improved built and lived environment.

As DOC says, if it works for Germany…

@PlanE wrote:

I never thought of that ! good idea ! :…

Every business should have an expansion plan….:D

@StephenC wrote:

Personally I think that only planners should make planning applications. As a lot of you obviously dont get…there is more to the planning process than design.

Ridiculous suggestion. Design is not one of your strong points, as a lot of you planners don’t get….

@henno wrote:

Obviously what this thread has shown, as most of us understand, is that there is much more to a planning application than a “design”…. so i hope the initial proposal has been shown to be illogical.

is that why you said this ? (below)

@henno wrote:

the basis to equate good planning to good design SHOULD be on the basis that bad design gets refused!!! Thats where this argument should be focused.

@StephenC wrote:

Granted (pardon the pun). Thats why there are architects. But my point remains: making planning applications and properly planning developments is about more than simply design. For that reason planners, working with architects and engineers, should prepare planning applications.

Well, first of all, planners DO work with the above in preparing applications. I have worked with several planning consultants in private practice, in preparing applications and local area plans, etc.

Secondly, your original statement said only planners should make planning applications. But accepting your later qualification, I’m not sure it’s even a good idea taking on planning consultants, at least in many cases. It can give an unfair weighting to a bad design or wrongful development when planners ‘peddle’ planners. It’s a bit like County Councils, the OPW or Bord na Mona making a planning application – was the result ever in any doubt?