Kerry co co panel for agents

construct06

what do people think of kerry co co's decision to appoint a panel of approved agents for plannning applications?......

smashey

construct06 wrote: »

what do people think of kerry co co's decision to appoint a panel of approved agents for plannning applications?......

Jesus, that's pretty extreme. What happens if you use an unapproved agent?

Builderfromhell

Doesn't sound legal to me. What if someone decides to design, draw and submit an application themselves, or decide they want to use an Architect they admire who happens to live in Dublin, Belfast or Barcelona.
Is there a link to where this info. is published? I find it hard to believe.

sinnerboy

yeah , please post details . does not sound right

Jimbo

Sounds ridiculous to me too.
Who are they to decide who's a good agent or not? Surely there would be a conflict of interests for a council to approve agents.

muffler

A similar process (or at least in the making) has been ongoing in Donegal for a while. What they do is record details of every invalid application submitted and the number of further information requests that were made in respect of each agent. The agents can then request a breakdown of their "score" for the previous year.

I got mine last year and I cant recall if I requested it or not but in any event they refused to accept inebriation as an excuse .

The theory behind their thinking here is that it will lead to a more streamline and efficient system and if you were gullible enough to believe that you would eat all the horse shit you could find. They have even used this process as a threat* as such (*not just the right word but it will do for now). They have sent out letters in the past to all the agents showing a percentage breakdown of invalids and FI's that were received in the previous year and stating that it was too high and unacceptable. If things didnt improve then they were going to make the agents "scores" available to the public.

muffler

smashey wrote: »

Jesus, that's pretty extreme. What happens if you use an unapproved agent?

Are you starting to get worried

smashey

muffler wrote: »

A similar process (or at least in the making) has been ongoing in Donegal for a while. What they do is record details of every invalid application submitted and the number of further information requests that were made in respect of each agent. The agents can then request a breakdown of their "score" for the previous year.

I got mine last year and I cant recall if I requested it or not but in any event they refused to accept inebriation as an excuse .

The theory behind their thinking here is that it will lead to a more streamline and efficient system and if you were gullible enough to believe that you would eat all the horse shit you could find. They have even used this process as a threat* as such (*not just the right word but it will do for now). They have sent out letters in the past to all the agents showing a percentage breakdown of invalids and FI's that were received in the previous year and stating that it was too high and unacceptable. If things didnt improve then they were going to make the agents "scores" available to the public.

Maybe I should post my percentages here just to show off.

muffler

smashey wrote: »

Maybe I should post my percentages here just to show off.

I dare you :rolleyes:

Jimbo

muffler wrote: »

A similar process (or at least in the making) has been ongoing in Donegal for a while. What they do is record details of every invalid application submitted and the number of further information requests that were made in respect of each agent. The agents can then request a breakdown of their "score" for the previous year.

I got mine last year and I cant recall if I requested it or not but in any event they refused to accept inebriation as an excuse .

The theory behind their thinking here is that it will lead to a more streamline and efficient system and if you were gullible enough to believe that you would eat all the horse shit you could find. They have even used this process as a threat* as such (*not just the right word but it will do for now). They have sent out letters in the past to all the agents showing a percentage breakdown of invalids and FI's that were received in the previous year and stating that it was too high and unacceptable. If things didnt improve then they were going to make the agents "scores" available to the public.

A request for further information hardly reflects poorly on an agent, does it?

smashey

jimbo78 wrote: »

A request for further information hardly reflects poorly on an agent, does it?

They look on it as adding to their workload.

muffler

jimbo78 wrote: »

A request for further information hardly reflects poorly on an agent, does it?

As smashey said they see it at times as using up more human resources. I partly agree with them when it comes down to simple things such as letters of consent from third parties for achieving vision lines which should have been included with the application (take note smashey ).

But how the hell they expect us to get the design issues right when one planner is allowing something that another planner wont.

Its about time we had a "rate your planner" monthly return form or even like the solicitors and hospitals - a web site for this.

holdfast

I think this panel is for guys doing percolation tests. They have to have the new FAS course done. correct me if I am wrong

sydthebeat

holdfast wrote: »

I think this panel is for guys doing percolation tests. They have to have the new FAS course done. correct me if I am wrong

that would make a lot more sense to me....

similar to what they have in carlow, kilkenny, and kildare.... a list of approved percolation testers....

Jimbo

holdfast wrote: »

I think this panel is for guys doing percolation tests. They have to have the new FAS course done. correct me if I am wrong

That makes more sense. There's rumours of that coming into Cork also. Another bloody course to do

Schooby

Panels of approved assessors are on the way in alot of counties, as the situation to date has been less than ideal, the groundwater directive and the water framework directive are at least part of the reason, the results that the EPA have been publishing regarding groundwater quality is another factor, there has been alot of damage done, close to half of the population of the county are on on site waste water treatment systems that is taking all the cities into consideration, thats alot of poo going into the ground and every bit of research on the subject shows up major problems with site testing, design, installation, and maintainance of the systems.

regarding FI's invalids etc have a look at the recent consulation paper from the DOE average cost to the councils of processing an application for a house is 650 euro

landuse planning is costing the tax payer 78.5 million euro with about 41.3m comming in from planning.

Loads of pros and con's to having it more expensive but one theory is that the quality of applications would increase with an increased fee and therefore reduce the amount of time lost on invalid applications and pointless further information requests.

sydthebeat

the whole theory behind the planning regs of 2001 was to speed up the planning application time period. Having a standardised application format was supposed to reduce the every increasing FI requests. Unfortunately every county (and each validater) had different opinions as to what each regulation meant, thus the huge number of invalids in the first few years of the regs.

As to whether a list of approved 'agents' for applications would reduce FIs... no, i think thats rubbish. I have been told face to face by planners that sometimes FIs are requested in order to 'buy time' by the LA... whether because they are under tremenous pressure or there is a change of policy in the pipeline etc.... also, policies in LAs change all the time, and ALWAYS without any consultation with agents. we in our office have often argued with our local LA that, since they have all agents emails, a simple circular outlining the change in policy would reduce the need for FIs significantly.... but alas, this falls on deaf ears.

Slig

Panels of approved assessors are on the way in alot of counties, as the situation to date has been less than ideal, the groundwater directive and the water framework directive are at least part of the reason, the results that the EPA have been publishing regarding groundwater quality is another factor, there has been alot of damage done, close to half of the population of the county are on on site waste water treatment systems that is taking all the cities into consideration, thats alot of poo going into the ground and every bit of research on the subject shows up major problems with site testing, design, installation, and maintainance of the systems.

regarding FI's invalids etc have a look at the recent consulation paper from the DOE average cost to the councils of processing an application for a house is 650 euro

landuse planning is costing the tax payer 78.5 million euro with about 41.3m comming in from planning.

Loads of pros and con's to having it more expensive but one theory is that the quality of applications would increase with an increased fee and therefore reduce the amount of time lost on invalid applications and pointless further information requests.

Some interresting statistics there. but if they are trying to blame time wasting because of FIs on us then we should charge them for time reprinting and submitting stuff that was already put into the original application such as results of site assessments and alndscaping layouts etc.
In fact Roscommon CoCo sent out a letter last year saying that all unsolicited information would be disregarded.

muffler

Slig wrote:

In fact Roscommon CoCo sent out a letter last year saying that all unsolicited information would be disregarded.

Wonder how they propose to deal with objections or requests for extensions of time etc or more importantly the old letter from the local TD making representations and being asked to be kept updated.

Slig

actually the most important "unsolicited information" is the site assessment, which if sent they will return and then ask for it again with a further information. Thats the hard line but it hasent actually happened to the best of my knowledge

muffler

Slig wrote: »

actually the most important "unsolicited information" is the site assessment, which if sent they will return and then ask for it again with a further information. Thats the hard line but it hasent actually happened to the best of my knowledge

Thats interesting. In Donegal the site assessment report must accompany the application otherwise it will be invalidated.

Jimbo

muffler wrote: »

Thats interesting. In Donegal the site assessment report must accompany the application otherwise it will be invalidated.

Same in Cork.

Got the info today on the training course that site suitability assessors will have to do.
It's an 8 day Fás course, with 4 days being completed in Offaly and 4 days elsewhere (can't remember where).
It'll cost about €2700 and only a select number of people will be chosen by a selection panel

Is it just me or is an 8 day course a bit excessive, especially for people who have being doing site suitability tests for years.

construct06

no its not excessive, and its prcecisely to aradicate the thinking thats out there, from people 'who have been doing them for years'

it is a comprehensive course and even though the fee has gone up it is a worthwhile investment if you have a chane to do the tests as costs in the clare limerick area are circa. 500 - 750 euron per site suitability assessment.

if a person has been doing the tests for years and using the same old methods they would not be including new information from GSI about karst areas, acquifers etc....

muffler

construct06 wrote: »

no its not excessive, and its prcecisely to aradicate the thinking thats out there, from people 'who have been doing them for years'

it is a comprehensive course and even though the fee has gone up it is a worthwhile investment if you have a chane to do the tests as costs in the clare limerick area are circa. 500 - 750 euron per site suitability assessment.

if a person has been doing the tests for years and using the same old methods they would not be including new information from GSI about karst areas, acquifers etc....

Thats all well and good but could you clarify your original post in relation to planning applications

what do people think of kerry co co's decision to appoint a panel of approved agents for plannning applications?

Planning applications is one thing and site assessments are something else.

construct06

wa something i came across a few weeks ago, could have swore it was kerry, but have googled there and cant find anything. i did see it i swear..!

anyways if nobody else has seen it, maybe i did get confused...

if someone comes across it please post...

muffler

construct06 wrote: »

wa something i came across a few weeks ago, could have swore it was kerry, but have googled there and cant find anything. i did see it i swear..!

anyways if nobody else has seen it, maybe i did get confused...

if someone comes across it please post...

In other words you were pissed

construct06

ya, that cud've been it alright.:D

Slig

ya did post at 2 in the morning