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

@teak wrote:

I think that this thread is bullshit.
As an experienced architect himself, the proposer must have thought about and discussed this many years before — not least in his student days.
But now — all of a sudden — it’s a new issue again.
I wonder why so is that now . . . .

How about the proposition:

That all planning officers that review the build and landscaping aspects of a development proposal have a primary qualification in architecture.
And then have had already taken additional postgraduate studies in planning prior to applying for suitable vacancies in planning offices.

That’s a really useful way of both improving the built environment and deploying slack skilled labour within the architectural profession.

Good man Teak, so you are saying that all architects are qualified to review the landscaping aspects of a development proposal too…… Back to my original point that the majority of architects think they can do everything….. and architects wonder why they get stick for being elitest…..

Oh and why should planners get a primary qualification in Architecture? There are already 4 year Planning degree courses out there e.g DIT Spatial Planning Course that has core design and building modules amongst other disciplines interwoven through the years……..

Oh and why should planners get a primary qualification in Architecture? There are already 4 year Planning degree courses out there e.g DIT Spatial Planning Course that has core design and building modules amongst other disciplines interwoven through the years……..

That may well be how it is with the present recruits to planner jobs.

But the people I’ve met in the last 6 years have just a B. Eng. (Civ) to their name.
And these fellows are still the bullying “Senior Planners” over any properly qualified new ones . . .

Naturally, my recommendations on minimum qualifications for planner jobs (B.Sc. from planning courses fine if it’s all you suggest it is vis-à-vis building design, landscaping design) would have to be applied retrospectively.:)

I also seem to remember a foster getting people to sign off his works…

@RKQ wrote:

Maybe the title of this thread and your wish to force the public to use Architects only, reminds me of the single party politics of Germany in 1939?

The analagy is a tad extreme perhaps, but I think we realised what you meant when you posted it first.

@RKQ wrote:

I do feel it is a pity that well educated, experienced professionals are depending on “Protectionism” and the dream of an “Monopoly” to survive. Shame on those with elitest feelings that are oboviously not believed by the public.:)

I’m sure the idea of the protection of a body such as the RIAI is a very comforting prospect before fees are taken into account. If I were paying those fees I would expect to have my chosen career and workload protected too. What is wrong is the monopoly aspect, when it comes to the RIAI, monopoly is no longer a game!

@RKQ wrote:

A talented Architect with excellent design & business skills, excellent reputation and strong ethics has nothing to fear in a recession. These Professionals always survive & prosper. Only the meek complain and beg for protection.

Spoken like a young sprite full of vim and vinegar ready to take on the world comfortable in the knowledge you are the best at what you do and the world loves you. Two or three decades in the job, with the memories of a few recessions in your diaries and the keblar turns back to cotton.

I find your posting interesting, but I’m afraid I find it too salty for my palate. I have no wish to wage war on my fellow workmen (figuratively speaking ladies) but I would like to make the policy makers aware of my extreme distaste at the ease with which their signatory hand can be readily directed and manipulated by a select few, for the benefit of a select few. This I am doing in my own way.

@henno wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63534652&postcount=4

one reason alone why RIAI registered architects SHOULD NOT be the only ones allowed to submit planning applications!!!

Trying to save a week has cost a likely 8 weeks. Well done mr architect.

Are people really that stuck for work that they feel the need to squabble over planning and design.

A good track record, and satisfied clients should be all that is required to keep the head above water

@arch77 wrote:

thats fair enough henno, there’s a$$holes and chancers everywhere… but id wager that this instance only occurs 10% of the time [10% to much] with architects, but perhaps 60-70% with non architects…
.

i would seriously question the logic behind this.

RIAI listing provides this practitioner with a fall back. The next client to enter that persons office will be told in no uncertain terms that “I am RIAI registered” and be filled with all the usual sales sphel that goe swith that statement.

Non-architects (as you call them) generally have only their reputation as a method of measuring their service. They know that if a client is unhappy with their service they cannot fall back and say “but i am RIAI registered”…. To suggest that this kind of unprofessional work occurs in 60-70% of ‘non-architects’ (who could be technicians, enginners, QS etc) is grossly miscalculated. I myself would wager it would be equatable to the 10% you suggest occurs for architects. As a profession, architectural technicians should be considered to actually have the most professional capacity to prepare correct planning applications.

@arch77 wrote:

80% of planning applications for residential work are submitted by non architects or people pretending to be architects.. [a figure confirmed by the RIAI, not made up by me]. look at the state of the place… its only 20% our fault.
.

I have no issue with that statement, other than it being an indictment against the body in charge of “the state of the place”. Bad design should not be allowed, whether architect or non-architect designed.

@arch77 wrote:

there’s also the possibility he’s not an architect, was his name verified by the RIAI… ?? i don’t know. that’s the purpose of registration.

thats a possibility… but judging on the fees charged…..

@arch77 wrote:

Again, you’re just presuming, its conjecture.

yes, and so are you..

@arch77 wrote:

your also talking about being qualified re: preparing planning applications, i think the point is buildings should be designed by architects. not, they should draw the red line around a site plan..

thats not what was going on in the post i linked to.. which you commented on and lead to this exchange 🙂

@arch77 wrote:

why can’t we all just get along and do our Jobs.

i absolutely agree….
but did you read the title to this thread??? 😉

@parka wrote:

I disagree, the CAD monkeys are the best choice.

Agreed parka, and they’ll work for peanuts too.

It’s also legal and justified to beat them if they make any errors.

CAD Monkey
(Carrot+Stick) =Legitimate Planning Application.

Problem Solved.

@arch77 wrote:

thats fair enough henno, there’s a$$holes and chancers everywhere… but id wager that this instance only occurs 10% of the time [10% to much] with architects, but perhaps 60-70% with non architects…

first of all, I have a bit of a problem with the way you group everybody into Architects, and non-architects. It smacks of us against the world, and reality isn’t black and white.

I agree that there are many people posing as architects submitting plans, and this is wrong.
There are many people offering a planning service (without posing as architects) who do not have the formal training to do so, this is wrong.

There are many people who have formal training, and are qualified to prepare plans, who you are grouping with the above non-architects, this is wrong

That is the main problem I have with your argument, you are being totally condescending towards trained professionals by considering them on par with laymen and cowboys. Maybe you didn’t mean to or realise you did it, if if you did then its plain old superiority complex, get over yourself.

there’s also the possibility he’s not an architect, was his name verified by the RIAI… ?? i don’t know. that’s the purpose of registration.

the OP said he was an RIAI architect. I have no reason to doubt that. He obviously check it out.

Should a full service be a condition of planning applications?