Planning enforcement

Make people buy the planning regularisation certificates and have plans drawn up. 

There are those that comply with planning laws - apply in advance and get the required approvals. Then there are those that get caught and apply for retrospective ( which should cost more than a standard application).

Then there are those that have gotten away with no planning and are time barred for prosecution, or it's considered not in the public interest to proceed, they should still be made to have all works regularised and the certificate should cost a percentage of the value of the works. They should still have to submit plans which become a public record.

Why the contribution is important

Those that don't follow societies rules should be penalised. It's only fair and equitable that those who go to the trouble of drawing up plans and seeking the required permits are better off than those that don't. The fees would contribute to the running of the department, the fees to architects etc will contribute to the economy. Works will comply with H&S and building controls. House purchasers can check the records to ensure all work is regularised and approved.

by charlie on April 16, 2017 at 09:19AM

Current Rating

5.0
Average score : 5.0
Based on : 3 votes

Comments

  • Posted by Manneen April 16, 2017 at 12:23

    I agree. Those people who flout the system should pay the full cost of their folly not everyone else. It's our money ultimately - deviousness and selfish behavior should not be rewarded at our cost.
  • Posted by Manneen April 16, 2017 at 12:23

    I agree. Those people who flout the system should pay the full cost of their folly not everyone else. It's our money ultimately - deviousness and selfish behavior should not be rewarded at our cost.
  • Posted by dpfellows April 16, 2017 at 13:50

    I agree that there should be a severely punitive fee for retrospective planning applications to discourage people from thinking that they can flout the system and then get a green light without any penalty.

    If there is no planning approval there should not be a time bar as that sends out the wrong signal. There is also the issue of 'caveat emptor' - buyers need to get their advices to check whether changes made to a property have approval. If they don't then it is up to the prospective purchaser to delay a purchase until a vendor has obtained the approval - again at severely penalty rates for the application.

    It's one of those approaches where the Public Service should be seen to be applying the planning laws without fear or favour and in a way that makes it easier to conform than to try it on.
  • Posted by Fairforall April 16, 2017 at 15:26

    While I agree to a large extent with regard to retrospective applications being dealt with more harshly there are however so many aspects of planning that are pure red tape, totally unnecessary and have a severe impact upon the build costs.
    Many of these planning demands are seemingly at the whim of the individual inspector.
    First hand experience of some of the crass stupidities.
    Insisting upon timber window frames in a new extension when the rest of the property had maintenance free windows. This for an elderly neighbour. In another instance I have first hand knowledge of the owners were told they could change them once they had their habitation certificate.
    My own daughter had to enclose a staircase leading to the bedrooms and a minstrel gallery when an open plan sweeping double stairway won a reward for design elsewhere on the Island. It cost her in the region of £2500 extra only to be told after completion that she could remove the enclosed part upon receipt of her habitation certificate. Madness.
    In the building world delays cost a lot of money not only for the person who owns the property but also wastes planning officers time adding unnecessary costs on the department. Efficiency!
     Does the planning department ever consider the effect of further building costs especially towards first time home owners who don't wish to become state dependent. I think not.
  • Posted by Yukiyama April 17, 2017 at 20:50

    Sell off Building Control and Planning Enforcement - save money
  • Posted by commonsense April 18, 2017 at 09:17

    you put in one application and make it truly bad.
    people object
    you then quietly sneak in a second application, which no one objects to so it passes.
    or
    you build it, keep quiet and then get retrospective permission with the reason that it's there already.
    it was built without planning permission, start again.

    or
    apply properly, speak to the neighbours about things, pay the fees and do it properly.

    if you make an application you should not be allowed to make a second one for six months.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics