Is my RICS membership worth the hassle?
I have recently had a second RICS regulatory visit and it raised two points.
First, because of the regulation reforms which have been imposed on us in recent years at great additional expense, I employed a fully qualified accountant.
But apparently, when he does his weekly/quarterly balancing, it is recommended that I check and inspect his work and sign it off. I would not insult his superior qualifications and experience in this field.
The second point was that all valuers undertaking valuations should be registered under the RICS Valuer Registration Scheme. This astonished me, and I questioned why a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors of 55 years standing could not undertake valuations without being part of the scheme.
The response was that the banks, if you please, needed to know that the valuation surveyors they were using were qualified and regulated due to problems arising presumably as a result of the recession. This is absolute bunkum.
In my professional career, I have seen several recessions following booms. All were characterised by the banks and lending sources themselves throwing good lending practice out of the window for growth and targets.
Why is the RICS more concerned with pleasing the banks and lending sources than protecting its own membership?
I will be 70 at my next birthday. The RICS, which I grew up with and loved during my professional career, no longer exists for the benefit of small provincial practices. It is pursuing a global persona which may be of use to big national companies or indeed London-based practices. It is becoming increasingly irrelevant to small or sole-proprietor practices which are clearly seen as a risk.
I do not need the RICS for my estate agency; indeed, the sales staff say it is of no benefit whatsoever. I do not need the RICS for my management practice, so I suppose the only reason I am still a RICS member is sentiment. I qualified on leaving school and wished to remain a RICS member until the day I died, but I am seriously considering whether or not it is truly worth the hassle.
Keith Metcalfe, Metcalfes, 117 Union Street, Torquay
HSE’s online advice helps guide planning process
I write in response to the article “Caught in the web” (6 October, p109).
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) fully recognises the challenging environment in which local planning authorities currently operate and the need for safe and sustainable development.
We continue to work closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Scottish Government to ensure HSE contributes efficiently and effectively to planning decisions around hazardous installations and pipelines.
I would like to point out a misunderstanding in the penultimate paragraph of the article. PADHI+ (Planning Advice around Hazardous Installations) was developed as an online tool to help planning authorities obtain HSE’s advice on planning applications in a simple, timely way.
It is then for local planning authorities to make informed planning decisions around hazardous installations and pipelines that balance safety with other socio-economic factors.
The public would expect that authorities should give proper consideration to HSE’s advice, but PADHI+ should not be used to dictate decisions.
The vast majority of planning applications put through PADHI+ result in a planning decision without any further input from HSE.
In the small number of, usually more complex, cases that can significantly affect public safety, local planning authorities can receive more detailed advice from HSE’s specialist risk assessors.
Peter Baker, deputy director & head of chemical industries division, hazardous installations directorate, Health and Safety Executive
No reason to doubt Poundbury’s record
In your article on Garden Cities (13 October, p76), you referred to the Prince of Wales’s Poundbury development in Dorset, but cast doubt upon its job-creation record.
Over the past 20 years, more than 140 businesses have established themselves in Poundbury, employing more than 1,600 people.
In 2010, Dorset County Council completed an economic assessment of Poundbury which estimated that the construction activity that has taken place there since 1994, when the development began, has created the equivalent of 1,877 person-years in employment and 1,049 business-years for firms, including the self-employed.
Andrew Hamilton, Poundbury development director
Correction
In the Estates Gazette Rich List published on 10 November we incorrectly said that the central London estate owned by the late Paul Raymond had been split “after a lengthy legal dispute and high court ruling”.
Howard Raymond has never made or been involved in any claim concerning his late father’s estate and was not involved in a legal dispute in the high court or elsewhere concerning these matters. Estates Gazette apologises to Mr Raymond for any embarrassment or upset caused by this incorrect statement.
send us your views on issues affecting the industry: comment@estatesgazette.com
