Many planners hide behind their minute rules and regulations with devastating consequences. For example, planning regulations state that a North arrow must be on every single plan drawing. The intention of the regulations were obviously to ensure that it is clear how the plan is oriented, and to make it easier for the planner to read the drawings. Some planners interpret this to mean that they must reject any plans that do not adhere strictly to this principle.
When a planner is questioned about their actions they will say "I can't take action on this because of rule (a) paragraph (b) subparagraph (c)". The problem is that legislation and rules must be interpreted, especially in the area of planning where there is no or little public (or governmental) scrutiny because it is a "specialist" area dealt with by "specialists".
If the planning system is to work as it was intended, planners must take the attitude of positively interpreting the guidelines that they are dealing with (rather than negatively as is normally the case), and be able to defend their decisions. As it is, many perfectly feasible plans are rejected due to preoccupation due to minute unimportant details.
This is costing the country enormously because every time plans have to be resubmitted it costs many hours of labour to do so, even if the alterations are minor. Instead of getting on with the job of furthering projects, a company is engaged in reprinting drawings, making copies of slightly altered documentation and resubmission of entire mountains of paper (6 copies of everything!) Normally the individual or company that has submitted the plans has to bear the cost of this resubmission because it is difficult to explain to a client why this happened in the first place.
Making planning applications is an incredibly complex, tedious, and time consuming exercise, normally consuming vast hours of donkey-work. The main priority when making planning applications is accuracy. However, 100% accuracy is the arch-enemy of speed. In other words, to achieve 100% accuracy in a planning application would take so much work that the office would quickly be out of business if it were to take this ridiculous approach. The reality is that there is no such thing as a 100% accurate planning application (I'm sure there are some minor exceptions in existence) Any planner will argue that this is not the case.
Put a blindfold on me, let me pick a successful planning application out of a pile and give me a day with it. I guarantee you I will find some element in that application that could nullify it (that is, if the rules are to be strictly applied).
100% accuracy is a fairytale. Some would argue that planners are simply procrastinating the work of dealing with the application, or hoping that the applicant won't bother resubmitting. It is a very reasonable argument. Rule (a) paragraph (b) subparagraph (c) is a comforting defense. There is a legal priciple: "De minimus non curat lex": The law does not deal in trifles. The planning system would do well to pay heed to this principle.
 |
| From "Planning" in Ireland? 07/12/2008 11:12 |
When a planner is questioned about their actions they will say "I can't take action on this because of rule (a) paragraph (b) subparagraph (c)". The problem is that legislation and rules must be interpreted, especially in the area of planning where there is no or little public (or governmental) scrutiny because it is a "specialist" area dealt with by "specialists".
If the planning system is to work as it was intended, planners must take the attitude of positively interpreting the guidelines that they are dealing with (rather than negatively as is normally the case), and be able to defend their decisions. As it is, many perfectly feasible plans are rejected due to preoccupation due to minute unimportant details.
This is costing the country enormously because every time plans have to be resubmitted it costs many hours of labour to do so, even if the alterations are minor. Instead of getting on with the job of furthering projects, a company is engaged in reprinting drawings, making copies of slightly altered documentation and resubmission of entire mountains of paper (6 copies of everything!) Normally the individual or company that has submitted the plans has to bear the cost of this resubmission because it is difficult to explain to a client why this happened in the first place.
Making planning applications is an incredibly complex, tedious, and time consuming exercise, normally consuming vast hours of donkey-work. The main priority when making planning applications is accuracy. However, 100% accuracy is the arch-enemy of speed. In other words, to achieve 100% accuracy in a planning application would take so much work that the office would quickly be out of business if it were to take this ridiculous approach. The reality is that there is no such thing as a 100% accurate planning application (I'm sure there are some minor exceptions in existence) Any planner will argue that this is not the case.
Put a blindfold on me, let me pick a successful planning application out of a pile and give me a day with it. I guarantee you I will find some element in that application that could nullify it (that is, if the rules are to be strictly applied).
100% accuracy is a fairytale. Some would argue that planners are simply procrastinating the work of dealing with the application, or hoping that the applicant won't bother resubmitting. It is a very reasonable argument. Rule (a) paragraph (b) subparagraph (c) is a comforting defense. There is a legal priciple: "De minimus non curat lex": The law does not deal in trifles. The planning system would do well to pay heed to this principle.
Powered by ScribeFire.
