A further continuation of the ‘We need to build smaller blog post’ and follows up on James’ comment on the expense of resubmitting drawings when the bank lowers the mortgage offer and the house has to be reduced in scale.
The first step is to look at the Architects ‘Certificate of Compliance with Planning Permission’; it’s role and what it means.
This is the front cover of the relevant certificate that the RIAI architect completes (engineers will have different versions):
ARCHITECT’S OPINION ON COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING
PERMISSION AND/OR EXEMPTION FROM PLANNING CONTROL
The key thing to notice is the actual title of the document ‘ARCHITECT’S OPINION ON COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING PERMISSION AND/OR EXEMPTION FROM PLANNING CONTROL’. What the architect is giving is his opinion on whether the ‘Relevant Development’ is in Substantial Compliance with the Planning Orders. Notice that it’s not saying that the development has to be EXACTLY the same as what was granted, just that it is ‘substantially compliant’.
If we read further down in the document, there is a definition of ‘substantial compliance’:
“Substantial Compliance with the Planning Orders” means that:
[a] the Relevant Development is constructed in accordance with the said Planning Orders saving and excepting such minor deviations which in my opinion do not constitute a contravention of the proper planning and development of the area as expressed through such Planning Orders and the Development Plan, and
[b] such minor deviations do not warrant the issue of enforcement proceedings by the relevant Planning Authority as provided for in the Planning Acts.
Again it comes back to the architect’s opinion on whether any ‘minor deviations’ ‘do not constitute a contravention of the proper planning and development of the area as expressed through such Planning Orders and the Development Plan’
The problem arises in the definition of this ‘substantial compliance‘ as one architect or engineer could have a difference of ‘opinion’ to another.
So what can you do? You could send the drawings to the County Council for their advice on whether the deviations are non-compliant. My guess is that most wouldn’t want to take the responsibility and will simply request a retention. I’m working on a project at the moment where exactly this is happening, so I’ll keep you posted on the results.
Blog post to follow is on the role of this document and we’ll then return to the original question of what you can do when you can’t build the house you’ve got planning for…
I’d be very interested in comments from architects/engineers on their stories concerning this matter…
Hi Mark, I’m a planning consultant and I’ve come across this situation before -either before the development has taken place or after when the Council have issued warning letters and / or requests for retention of the changes.
The provision in the planning legislation which allows for immaterial deviations, as you refer to, often appears to be interpreted differently across planning authorities. However there is a process whereby you can seek an official opinion on the changes from the Authority (and appeal to the Board if you disagree). These are Section 5 Declarations (or Referrals).
Referrals made by ABP are available on their website and are often a good reference source in relation to these type of queries, the usual question being whether the works are development / exempted develope
Independent planning consultants do not have the same forum to provide planning compliance certificates akin to the RIAI – we can provide a professional opinion – but maybe this is something which should be considered in the future reform of the planning system.
By: Louise O'Leary on June 29, 2012
at 9:19 am
Excellent comment, you’re right a Section 5 makes excellent sense.
By: markstephensarchitect on June 29, 2012
at 9:37 am
[...] promised conclusion of the Blog Post on The Problem With Planning Compliance Certificates explains the role of the Planning Compliance certificate and when it’s [...]
By: OK, the last blog post on Planning Compliance certs… « Mark Stephens Architects on July 3, 2012
at 9:46 am
Hi,I have a query related to a design build contract.
To acheive cost savings the developers contractor has changed an architects spec for curtain walling to a different system, similar to that specified in the planning permission. They also deleted the entrance canopy and ramp. What options are available to the architect in relation to issuing opinions on compliance? Any suggestions would be appreciated…Thanks, Ian.
By: Ian Cummins on September 25, 2012
at 7:46 pm
Hi Ian
Not really my area as don’t get involved on Design-Build, sorry
Mark
By: markstephensarchitect on September 25, 2012
at 8:32 pm
Hi Mark,
Do you know if it is possible to issue an Opinion of Compliance when all proposed works have not been completed as opposed to “minor deviations” that may have occurred during the build?
E.g. the main structure has been completed except for an ancillary room/section.
Technically the building is not in full compliance with the PP drawings until this room has been completed but can a “qualified” Opinion (if such a thing exists) be issued and a standard Opinion be issued if/when funds become available for completing the building as per the original PP down the line?
Thanks in advance for any advice,
Ray
By: Ray Dow on January 24, 2013
at 4:40 pm
Hi Ray
Great question, I’m now putting ‘phases’ onto drawings that deal with such an eventuality.
I’m sure you’d get someone to do a compliance cert for this and I am sure that someone else would disagree with it. As you say, technically it’s not strictly in accordance with the pp
Mark
By: markstephensarchitect on January 24, 2013
at 4:50 pm