FAO Expert System Suppliers

Richard, as you know we are always ready to help in any way we can and will be happy to get involved in any discussions/correspondence, just keep us posted. As for our plans for the PES, we will update our scripts for our customers just as soon as is humanly possible. Ours is the easy bit, yours is the hard bit!
Regards
Jon - JDi

We haven't made up the web pages yet, but attached are the xml and schema for the new content on the part 1.

I'd be interested to hear how ICT suppliers find it in comparison to our previous 'visio' scripts.

The xml is extremely straightforward, but I will be putting together an annotated copy as part of the first release.

Richard

Download firstgen.xml (size 36Kb) This file has been virus tested and is safe to use

Download firstgen.xsd (size 1Kb) This file has been virus tested and is safe to use

The XML has been updated to:
- use the PARSOL schema to describe constraints as node attributes
- constraint-type questions have now been split out to test each constraint separately
- bug - the constraint tests in class E now test article 1(5) more accurately
- bug - improve the wording of the conditions in classes A and B
- bug - a couple of typos...

Further improvements are scheduled for :
- adverts
- change of use
- microgen
- further improvements to guidance

see also the main web page at http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=88490

Richard

Download 20081002_part_1.xml (size 43Kb) This file has been virus tested and is safe to use

The XML has been updated to:
-altering the trees affected by the PARSOL schema.
- bug - fix duplilcate in node names in Class E

Download 20081006_part_1.xml (size 43Kb) This file has been virus tested and is safe to use

The xml has been updated following user feedback as attached.

The node references have also been changed to allow new parts of the GPDO to be added. Part 40 (microgeneration) is expected in the next week or two.

Download 20081107_part_1.xml (size 54Kb) This file has been virus tested and is safe to use

Download es feedback.doc (size 37Kb) This file has been virus tested and is safe to use

Are you removing completely the original guidance notes to "Planning Permission is not Required" or are you appending the new text?

Hi Jemil.
The new guidance is in addition to the details of the conditions required under PD.

They've been added at the suggestion of a few people who thought that users needed to be clearer on the weight to be attributed to the expert system and its relationship to lawful development certificates, article 3&4 etc.

The XML has been updated to include the GPDO part 40 (microgeneration) together with some minor amendments to the root nodes to improve the initial menu selection.

Parts 2,3,4 (minor changes, change of use and temp changes) are being worked on. You may wish to wait a few more days for the rest of these updates.

Note that the xml has been issued in its entirety - this is not an incremental addition.

Download 20081127_expertsystem.xml (size 74Kb) This file has been virus tested and is safe to use

The XML has been updated to include GPDO part 2 (minor development).

Change of use will not be done as part of the expert system (see instead http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/genpub/en/1011888237916.html

Similarly the temp uses is of marginal benefit to most users. Possible useful for school markets etc. but there are issues around curtilage and other licenses that mean personal contact is preferable.

This means the XML is now functionally complete, pending alterations arising from the work arriving at a consensus on the new householder regs.
Any thoughts ?

Download 20081205_expertsystem.xml (size 80Kb) This file has been virus tested and is safe to use

Some authorities have gone live with the new scipts, which is great. I need to put some words together for a web page that is provided as a link, which I'll do today.

I've also been asked to add article 3 and 4 checks to the XML.

I would think that article 4 is quite easy - add a constraint check at the outset and require the applicant to talk to a planner.

I'm less clear about article 3, removal via condition and (with an eye on the long-term) local development orders (LDO). To those authorities who have captured the constraints my questions are:

- what does an article 3 do and how should it be treated in the tree ?
- how have you recorded removal of future PD via condition ?
- are you happy with the label "LDO" to be added to the list of constraints I'm using:

SSSI
Listed
NationalPark
AONB
SpecialAreaOfConservation
Broads
areasofspecialadvertcontrol
Conservation
Article3
Article4
TPO
AncientMonument
Aerodromes

I suspect with article 3, 4 and LDO that the job of the expert system is to bring them to the attention of the planning department early on in the process. I can't imagine being able to record the specifics of a LDO 'liberalisation' of planning control with enough subtlety to give definitive answers from the scripts. Thoughts ?

Richard
The view from a couple of our clients is that the removal of PD rights, however caused, should be identified as early as possible, and the user advised to contact the council.
Jon

Dear all, following some user feedback this is a minor update to the xml.

It now guides the user through the concept of planning conditions and whether their proposal is actually 'development' before asking them the GPDO questions. There are also a couple of typo fixes.

Note that it uses a new constraint code "Condition" to cover a range of property constraints - article 3, 4 and removal via previous condition.

Note also that I'm attending a meeting with CLG and the portal next week, so there should be an update on future developments soon.
Richard

Download 20090521_expertsystem.xml (size 87Kb) This file has been virus tested and is safe to use

Richard,

The question "Are the works proposed actually classed as 'development'" seems a little confusing and there is no explanation of what that question actually means?

Tom

Several people have suggested that the "development" question does more harm than good, so I have removed it. No other changes at this point.

It's been a bit quiet for the expert system while a review was carried out on a possible national system. This has now been published.

On this page
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/policy/reform/parhome/
you can find the report
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/kpr/CRD_Final_Rpt_v1.pdf

We'll be doing some thinking about what this means in the new year.

Download 20091224_expertsystem.xml (size 83Kb) This file has been virus tested and is safe to use

RE the CRD Report

can't help but think the 'sample' was a bit small, and not entirely representative. Would also be nice to see all the 'answers' rather than those the authors 'choose' to include.

i think there is scope to improve the Online Systems so they provide definitive answers more of the time. But they need to form part of a structured approach, which includes Phone Support, a Written Service (Cert of Lawfulness etc), a Duty Officer service. As customers are not a homogenous, either in their needs or abilities,

For the record, we use an Expert System and have done for years. Initially we used one from Software AG and now we use IDOX.

Are there any LPAs out their who have a proper structured approach, and are willing to share best practice?