mulp
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Irish Times, Friday, 02 March 2007:
“Director of the RIAI objects to energy standard for new homes”Posted Under New Thread:
“Energy Performance Standards for New Homes: RIAI v DLRD.”Coexist wrote:If anyone engages the assistance of a planner in pre-planning discussions is it imperative that a record of these discussions be keptm or is there a more informal way of just asking a planners advicem on a planning matter?We had a pre-planning consultation with two D.C.C. North inner city planners before lodging an application for a 40 apartment scheme. I was conscious that the then draft devlopment plan was due to come into force approx 4 months after our intended lodgement date. It contained significantly different standards for min. apartment sizes.
The main item I wanted clarified at the meeting was if our scheme could be designed and lodged under the then active dev. plan standards.
The planner’s answer was a very clear yes.
I noted this and all the other (numerous) items discussed in file notes.
When the scheme was lodged we received a request for additional information asking us to redesign to meet the draft plan standards.
I spoke to the planner involved. He went off to check his ‘notes’ and came back to tell me that he had no record or recollection of telliing us we could use the current standards. He then used the the stock phrase: “You are aware that all pre-planning comments are without prejudice, aren’t you?”.
I accept this “without prejudice” lark no problem, when it relates to the nature of the proposed works. But when a planning official is asked a clear question on Council ‘policy’, one should get a definitive answer. There is a big difference.
We eventually got the revised scheme to work but it cost our client money and time.
When I did get to see the planner’s notes of the 45min pre-planning meeting, they consisted of two lines of scrawl of the most general nature.
The pre-planning process on this project was a complete waste of time.An Bord Pleanala 2004 Report:
Public Confidence: “The Board’s three core principles of independence, impartiality and openness are embedded in our Mission Statement and objectives and underpinned by legislation. We are always mindful that public confidence depends on the integrity and quality of our decision-making and the professionalism with which we carry out our functions. There is a statutory code of conduct for all Board members, staff and consultants which places stringent obligations on members and employees of the Board to declare interests and conduct themselves generally in a way that reinforces public confidence“.An Bord Pleanala Code of Conduct:
“Section 150 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (Appendix 1) requires that the Board adopt a code of conduct for members and employees. It is the intention that members and employees should adhere not just to the letter of the Code but also to the spirit of the Code in a manner that maintains the highest level of public confidence and trust in the Board and its operations”The planning consultant involved here has been employed as a “Part Time Consultant” and is currently employed on a Fee-per-case basis by the Bord.
There is no section of the code of conduct that prohibits inspectors operating as private consultants who can lodge third party appeals to the Bord.
However, when an inspector undertakes this type of private work and is prepared to submit an appeal, which is heavily disingenuous, and intentionally misleading, for a fee, does this not directly contravene the code of conduct quoted above.
I accept that the case inspector & Bord members will determine the case in an impartial manner.
The issue here is that an employee of the Bord, while acting in a private capacity, has seriously eroded my client’s perception of, and confidence in the “independence, impartiality and openness” of the planning appeals process which is stated to be so important.
Is this acceptable?I have no doubt that we will be able to submit an fitting response. The consultant’s submission has provided much of the ammunition.
It is interesting that articulate, concise submissions that stick to relevant planning matters are infinitely more effective than ones that stray off course and include subjective rants and fabrications.The content of the consultant’s submission concerns me. Someone who is charged with the responsibility of dealing with planning appeals should be capable of reading architectural drawings and should know what is a relevant planning matter and what is not.
It is possibly more the perception of a flawed system that causes real apprehension for applicants. The board (or the legislation) should seek to remove even the slightest whiff of a potential conflict of interest.I fully agree on the funding issue. And what about some building control inspectors too?
[Confirmed by An Bord Pleanala that the consultant is still used as an Inspector]
I am waiting for that to be confirmed & it will be interesting to know. However, the concerns are still very much there even if the tenure has finished.
The inspector is of course not a ‘member’ of the board. It would seem that inspectors are retained on a panel and assigned appeals on a case-by-case basis.
