Contrary to my earlier assertions, the RIAI have not given up entirely on their survey which showed that so many architects were extremely unhappy with just about every aspect of the planning system. In correspondence I received late last week from the Director of the RIAI, John Graby, I was left with the strong (and very welcome) impression that the Institute is determined to stay on top of the matter with more media activity promised for when the Dail resumes.

Crucially, it seems that, in future, the Institute will be represented in the media by Mr. Graby himself and not by other senior RIAI officers who may happen to be in practise. (I take this to mean that media stewardship on planning matters will shift from Institute President to Institute Director. For those who were following the media roll out of the RIAI survey results, the significance of this move will not be lost.)

Quoting directly from John’s correspondence, the following specific matters will be targets of RIAI attention in the coming months:

'1. Need for leadership and management at National, City County Manager level and Director of Services Level. There are policies and guidelines but these are not operated and in many Local Authorities there is no corporate view in terms of planning etc.

2. Need to clear out once and for all the mess about invalidation, planning notices etc.

3. The need for proper recording of pre-planning meetings and for these to form a corporate view.

4. Planning authorities to work on the basis of multi-disciplinary teams and not simply sending a file to the Roads Department one week before a decision is due.

5. Consistency is needed. There is always a great deal of complaint about Planning Officers moving around and if you think about it, why should this make a difference if there is a consistent planning view. What this supports is a perception that planning is a matter of whim or belief on behalf of a particular planning officer.'

If I were allowed to include a no. 6 on John’s list of items requiring immediate attention, it would be to address the whole situation of how the quality of an architect’s design is to be judged in a planning application: we’ve all been involved in situations where our best design efforts have been referred to as ‘inappropriate’, ‘poor’, etc., by planning officials with no qualification in (nor, even, inclination toward) design.
 
However, it’s all very reassuring. From the fighting tone of John’s correspondence I think it is clear that the business of planning applications is now the focus of the Institute’s gaze. Everyone familiar with John Graby’s reputation for not tolerating bs will know that when he says an issue is live, then that issue is live and change will happen.