Priory Hall Mk2 "The Laurels"

MadsL

You clearly don't understand the concept of auditing. The point of evidence-based auditing is to find multiple supporting documentation to support the assertion that X=true.

As to your other point about knocking holes in walls, you are also labouring under the false impression that such an independent inspection regime would have to be post signoff. No harm in unannounced inspections mid-build.


Also the construction of your posts is over-specced on exclamation marks, you might want to look at that.

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

You clearly don't understand the concept of auditing. The point of evidence-based auditing is to find multiple supporting documentation to support the assertion that X=true.

Auditing is not good enough in this case. Just because a builder took delivery of 100 blocks to a particular site doesnt mean he used 1000 blocks on that site and if you signed a cert to say he did you would be a fool!

multiple support can only be delivery invoice in this case, there will be no step by step support to proove the builder used a particular material in any particular part of the structure.

MadsL wrote: »

As to your other point about knocking holes in walls, you are also labouring under the false impression that such an independent inspection regime would have to be post signoff. No harm in unannounced inspections mid-build.

Isint this what the private sector architects/engineers were paid to do in the first place???????????

MadsL wrote: »

Also the construction of your posts is over-specced on exclamation marks, you might want to look at that.

Im seeing a Counceller!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dont be so pedantic :rolleyes:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MadsL

kceire wrote: »

Isint this what the private sector architects/engineers were paid to do in the first place???????????

Simple question. Is it working? If it is, then someone should have been disciplined or prosecuted at some point. Have they been? No.

Sponge Bob

Private sector means NOT working for local authorities, innit!

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

Simple question. Is it working? If it is, then someone should have been disciplined or prosecuted at some point. Have they been? No.

why not lobby for a law change then?

We are all entitled to opinions, but your opinions are so far wrong that i and others have tried to help you understand and correct you but you have not listened. thats your choice really.

Mr.Micro

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Private sector means NOT working for local authorities, innit!

As an aside and off topic (my apologies). Speaking of local authorities and the staff of such, I noticed the other day several such people returning to the depot bang on clocking off time, to the second. Only 20 minutes before this I had observed the same group of 4 sitting on park bench relaxing doing nothing. It goes to show that the attitude of some public workers stays the same no matter how the private sector struggles, lol.

MadsL

kceire wrote: »

why not lobby for a law change then?

Would you support it?

We are all entitled to opinions, but your opinions are so far wrong that i and others have tried to help you understand and correct you but you have not listened. thats your choice really.

Opinions? I'm saying the system is broken and that the LA bear responsibility for not policing developments effectively through the planning process, and through powers of random inspection which they still hold. Do you disagree with these 'opinions'?

If you disagree, is the UK system therefore "so far wrong"?

Gumbo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

As an aside and off topic (my apologies). Speaking of local authorities and the staff of such, I noticed the other day several such people returning to the depot bang on clocking off time, to the second. Only 20 minutes before this I had observed the same group of 4 sitting on park bench relaxing doing nothing. It goes to show that the attitude of some public workers stays the same no matter how the private sector struggles, lol.

What time was this at?
what park was it?
what depot did you see them going back into?

K-9

Mr.Micro wrote: »

As an aside and off topic (my apologies). Speaking of local authorities and the staff of such, I noticed the other day several such people returning to the depot bang on clocking off time, to the second. Only 20 minutes before this I had observed the same group of 4 sitting on park bench relaxing doing nothing. It goes to show that the attitude of some public workers stays the same no matter how the private sector struggles, lol.

kceire wrote: »

What time was this at?
what park was it?
what depot did you see them going back into?

Indeed it is very off topic and there is no need to bring it up on this thread. Stick to the OP please.

Sponge Bob

I fail to see why the NSAI solution was rejected out of hand by Madsl. Let me reintroduce it.

I was suggesting they Inspect and Certify not Certify off the desktop.

Head The Wall

I understand that there is no legal obligation for the LA to inspect properties but getting back to their own purchase of apartments in Priory Hall and other places I find it very odd considering they had the expertise in house that they would not at least keep a check on their own properties.

This to me seems to be common sense, it seems to be lacking in govt bodies regularly judging on the stories in the papers all the time.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I fail to see why the NSAI solution was rejected out of hand by Madsl. Let me reintroduce it.

I was suggesting they Inspect and Certify not Certify off the desktop.

NSAI are not the only inspection/certification game in town, there are plenty of other inspection and certifcation bodies in the private sector too.

http://www.inab.ie/directoryofaccreditedbodies/

NSAI are a pubic sector body with a private sector competitive certification and inspection body. IMHO they should be cut in two, I have a strong suspicion that public funds 'bleed' over into their money-making activities making it not exactly a level playing field for other inspection and certifcation bodies.

Nothing wrong with competitive tender per LA for such an inspection regime which I would support. Using accredited inspection bodies would also ensure that the inspection body is also subject to regular audit of its activities by INAB auditors.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

NSAI are a pubic sector body with a private sector competitive certification and inspection body. IMHO they should be cut in two, I have a strong suspicion that public funds 'bleed' over into their money-making activities making it not exactly a level playing field for other inspection and certifcation bodies.

Nothing wrong with competitive tender per LA for such an inspection regime which I would support. Using accredited inspection bodies would also ensure that the inspection body is also subject to regular audit of its activities by INAB auditors.

Aw OK, so that is a yes and a no now.

The reason I suggested the NSAI is because they have no planning role. LA's are compromised in that they rely on levies for funding and would not operate an enforcement regime that could impinge on money making.

The risk is that if eg Kildare were 'good' inspectors that the developers would shag off to 'lax' Fingal...that is an eg only.

So having a national body only in charge of standards enforcement reduces regulatory arbitrage opportunities.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Aw OK, so that is a yes and a no now.

The reason I suggested the NSAI is because they have no planning role. LA's are compromised in that they rely on levies for funding and would not operate an enforcement regime that could impinge on money making.

The risk is that if eg Kildare were 'good' inspectors that the developers would shag off to 'lax' Fingal...that is an eg only.

So having a national body only in charge of standards enforcement reduces regulatory arbitrage opportunities.

I suggested independent inspection all along. I think NSAI are too cosy with other commercial semi-states but there we are...

Other inspection bodies have no planning role either.

"LA's are compromised in that they rely on levies for funding and would not operate an enforcement regime that could impinge on money making. "\

Fully agree.

"The risk is that if eg Kildare were 'good' inspectors that the developers would shag off to 'lax' Fingal...that is an eg only."

Good point.

"national body only in charge of standards enforcement "

I'm hoping the newly announced planning regulators office might take charge of that as well.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

I
I'm hoping the newly announced planning regulators office might take charge of that as well.

Christ not another quango. Surely these will only regulate LA planners anyway and we need a DIFFERENT enforcement regime for standards ( not planning) ...or so I have said all along.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Christ not another quango. Surely these will only regulate LA planners anyway and we need a DIFFERENT enforcement regime for standards ( not planning) ...or so I have said all along.

Do you think a planning regulator as recommended by the Mahon tribunal is not required??

Sponge Bob

You seem to misunderstand the difference between planning and standards.

I am not going back over the difference in this thread..it is already sufficiently tedious.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You seem to misunderstand the difference between planning and standards.

You misunderstand me. I'm reacting to your comment about "not another quango".
Do you not think we need a planning regulator? It's a simple question, nothing to do with construction standards.

Sponge Bob

The issue in Priory Hal etc is a Standards issue first and foremost.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The issue in Priory Hal etc is a Standards issue first and foremost.

Should I start another thread on the planing regulator or would you like to answer my question?

Sponge Bob

A planning regulator could not have saved us from a priory hall situation, try STANDARDS again. This is a STANDARDS issue.

MadsL

You love dodging simple questions, I believe you do it just to be irritating.

I'm not talking about Priory Hall, so apologies for being OT. I'm just asking if you approve of the appointment of the Planning Regulator, it's not a trick question.

Sponge Bob

I don't care one way or another. Now stop pretending a planning regulator would make any difference to building standards onsite...they are irrelevant.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I don't care one way or another. Now stop pretending a planning regulator would make any difference to building standards onsite...they are irrelevant.

So your comment about "another quango" was you not caring either way. Interesting.

Sponge Bob

You were asked to suggest a useful solution (any useful solutions) and instead you rant at local authorities and local authority workers and now you have started to bang on about a non existent planning quango of some sort.

It makes for an utterly tedious and circular thread, congratulations!

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You were asked to suggest a useful solution (any useful solutions) and instead you rant at local authorities and local authority workers and now you have started to bang on about a non existent planning quango of some sort.

It makes for an utterly tedious and circular thread, congratulations!

I've suggested a solution to the standards issue, I believe you agreed with me and suggested the NSAI run it.

This non-existant planning quango has been announced - do try and keep up.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0720/1224320450750.html

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

I've suggested a solution to the standards issue, I believe you agreed with me and suggested the NSAI run it.

I suggested it and you DISAGREED. I suggested it again after a stream of vitriol was directed at LA staff by you and you may have accepted it second time round. Believe what you want anyway.

I don't care about the planners quango because most of the Irish planners I ever met are generally holders of geography degrees and will never have a role in construction STANDARDS thank God.

Now stop wittering about this irrelevant quango you are obsessed with and get back to a standards regime.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I suggested it and you DISAGREED. I suggested it again after a stream of vitriol was directed at LA staff by you and you may have accepted it second time round. Believe what you want anyway.

I don't care about the planners quango because most of the Irish planners I ever met are generally holders of geography degrees and will never have a role in construction STANDARDS thank God.

Now stop wittering about this irrelevant quango you are obsessed with and get back to a standards regime.

Obsessed?? :rolleyes: Vitriol?? :rolleyes:

Can I suggest a cup of tea?

Paulzx

With all due respect to Madsl I'm going to have to comment on Spongebobs side here.

He is absolutely correct in saying that the issue being discussed here is nothing to do with palnning per se. It is adherence to the standard that the planning has laid down.

All the buildings are planned correctly on paper with correct building and Fire regs shown. It's a differnet matter however when it comes to builders on site adhering to the standards and who has responsability to enforce them during the building process.

Personally, i think LA's should be given the correct legal power to do this and more importantly be obliged to do it. Make sure there is no way out for the LA or the developer.

If either the LA or the developer don't carry out their obligated functions have legal sanction in place.

MadsL

*sigh*

I'm not mixing up the planning regulators role with construction standards, what I actually said was

I'm hoping the newly announced planning regulators office might take charge of that as well.

Meaning oversight of construction standards.

I don't see any reason why there might not be two roles allocated to the regulators office to ensure we have oversight of both the LAs and the Developers.

Sponge Bob poo-poo'd this suggestion as "another quango" that's all.

Sponge Bob

You mean sponge bob pointed out that planners have no engineering qualifications in the main and that a planning quango will not give them any engineering qualifications.

Which bit of 'not the right people' will you not understand next. ??

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You mean sponge bob pointed out that planners have no engineering qualifications in the main and that a planning quango will not give them any engineering qualifications.

Which bit of 'not the right people' will you not understand next. ??

Are you deliberately being ridiculous? If the planning "quango"s remit is both planning and engineering standards, then naturally they are going to employ engineers

The Revenue Commissioners employ some people who know f all about tax I hear. Some of them are quite good I believe at keeping the computer systems running.
:rolleyes:

MadsL

.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

Are you deliberately being ridiculous? If the planning "quango"s remit is both planning and engineering standards, then naturally they are going to employ engineers

They will employ PLANNERS. They are a PLANNING QUANGO FFS!!!!!

Very few planners are qualified as engineers and architects. They are qualified as planners or have trained on the job off some class of enviro gick or from geography degrees or done a postgrad like these ones...... in a Geography Department.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

They will employ PLANNERS. They are a PLANNING QUANGO FFS!!!!!

Very few planners are qualified as engineers and architects. They are qualified as planners or have trained on the job off some class of enviro gick or from geography degrees or done a postgrad like these ones...... in a Geography Department.

Planning quango restricted to hiring planners shock. Dept of Education only allowed to employ teachers shock. Dept of Finance only hiring accountants shock, oh wait.

Think about it, the answer will come to you.

K-9

Thread seems to be going round in circles at this stage with nothing much added except bickering. Can't see it staying open much longer at this stage.

Sponge Bob

May as well lock it up K-9. Simple and obvious logic don't cut it in this thread.

MadsL

Yes lock it, Bob seems (wilfully) incapable of understanding that a Govt agency can employ more than one type of skillset. I'd appreciate the break from trying to spell it out to him.