Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)

I stand over what I said.

There has been a lot of speculation and misinformation around the planning review, the report of which I published this afternoon. The motion put down by Fianna Fáil is timely therefore and I hope that our debate tonight and tomorrow night will allow some much needed clarity to be shone on the report itself, its background, the nature of the issues under review and the next steps in the process.

I would like to provide the House with some of the background to the review. In June 2010, the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, John Gormley, announced the initiation of a planning review. The announcement published at that time stated that the purpose of the review was to assess the application of planning legislation, policy and guidance within the development plan and development management systems at local level, with the aim of identifying measures to ensure consistency of approach to these issues across all planning authorities, and to improve the delivery of planning services generally. It is important to recognise what Mr. Gormley actually intended.

The process was not intended at any stage as an investigation of any specific alleged irregularity or impropriety on the part of particular planning authorities. Nevertheless, the scope of the review provided for the carrying out of such further actions as might be deemed necessary on foot of the review. Mr. Gormley's announcement followed consideration of a number of sample complaints and concerns referred to the Minister by a mix of stakeholder groups and individuals. These were broad-ranging relating to such issues as the preparation of development plan policies that accord with national and regional priorities, the application of such policies in the consideration of specific planning applications, and certain aspects of the decision-making process itself.

The complaints were spread across seven planning authorities: Dublin and Cork city councils, and Carlow, Galway, Cork, Meath and Donegal county councils. It was felt that these represented a broad geographical spread of both urban and rural areas, as well as both large and small authorities. It is important to note that in a given year hundreds of representations are made to the Minister and the Department in respect of planning matters. A large proportion of these are complaints from individuals or organisations regarding some aspect of forward planning, development management or enforcement. For example, correspondence might be received from an unsuccessful applicant for planning permission, or appellant of grant of permission, alleging that the decision reached on particular case by a planning authority was unfair or irrational. This is not so surprising in my view. The planning system touches the lives of every citizen of this country on a daily basis and it is an emotive subject for many people. In other cases, individuals may make allegations of unauthorised development, seeking the intervention of the Minister or the Department. Section 30 of the Act specifically bars the Minister from involvement in any case with which a planning authority or the board is or may be involved, so in many instances a complainant will be referred either to the relevant planning authority or An Bord Pleanála.

Given the separation of responsibilities between the Department and Minister on the one hand and planning authorities on the other, the focus of the review was on general procedures and practices within planning authorities rather than individual planning decisions by either the authorities themselves or An Bord Pleanála. Mr. Gormley wrote to the seven councils involved, seeking a report on each of the issues raised and these reports were received in the Department in July 2010. Subsequently, the Department prepared and issued an open request for tender in September 2010, seeking external planning experts with the necessary competencies and skills, to be included on a panel of experts to undertake these reviews. It was intended that such proposed appointments could be made under section 255(3) of the Planning Act, which states: "The Minister may appoint a person or body, not being the planning authority concerned, to carry out a review in accordance with sub-section (2)."

Some 40 eligible submissions were received by the closing date for receipt of tenders on 22 October 2010. The tenders were evaluated and a panel of six individuals or firms was provisionally selected to carry out the reviews, pending the receipt of further information by the Department. It was made clear in the tender documents that selection to the panel did not guarantee allocation of specific reviews. Ultimately, however, the panel was not formally established. The recent suggestion, therefore, that Mr. Gormley had launched any independent investigation is clearly not correct. To be clear, his proposed investigation had not been commenced, no contract had been awarded, and no preferred tenderer had been selected. Mr. Gormley's successor as Minister for the Environment, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, did not progress the matter during his period as Minister. The question of reinstating the reviews does not arise, therefore, because they were never cancelled in the first place.

In April 2011, the then Minister of State with responsibility for housing and planning, Deputy Willie Penrose, outlined to the Dáil that the resources of his Department would be directed primarily towards supporting the implementation of the Government's commitments in these areas and that he was currently reviewing in detail a number of specific complaints, following the initiation of the process by former Minister, Mr. Gormley. He also stated that when the review was completed he would issue a public statement outlining the complaints at issue, his response and any appropriate actions to be pursued in regard to further policy development and guidance in line with commitments in the programme for Government.

In July 2011, a preliminary commentary from the Department on the complaints was received by the then Minister of State, Deputy Penrose. Noting the preliminary commentary, he asked in September 2011 that a further report be furnished to him dealing with the issues arising from the original files, the planning authorities' responses, an evaluation of the responses and recommendations for any further action. On taking up office, I accepted the course recommended by former Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, and in April my officials carried out site visits to each of the seven planning authorities. During these visits in-depth discussions were held with senior officials on the issues involved. Each of the authorities was then asked to respond to a series of specific written queries from the Department. The authorities were also invited to make recommendations for the enhancement of the planning system, including in regard to any actions taken by them on foot of lessons that may have been learned in the cases in question.

The report I have published today has, therefore, been informed by the initial complaints received, the responses provided by the relevant planning authorities in 2010, the Department's preliminary analysis, structured site visits to each of the planning authorities and further formal responses from planning authorities. With regard to the findings of the review, in the case of each of the seven planning authorities I consider that the allegations made range from serious to very serious. They deserve and have received the fullest attention. My Department's rigorous analysis has found that the allegations do not relate to systemic corruption in the planning system. Similarly, the review did not find any prima facie evidence of malfeasance in any of the seven local authorities subject to inquiry. This, after all that has come to light through the work of the Mahon tribunal, is very welcome. Nonetheless, each case has raised serious matters. These range from maladministration to inconsistency in application of planning policy or non-adherence to forward plans such as development plans.

A key issue arising in respect of several of the cases reviewed is the fact that the development management process involves, of necessity, an element of interpretation or discretion on the part of the final decision-maker. Decisions on planning applications - and particularly so in the case of complex applications - involve the weighing up of various factors, which may sometimes be conflicting. It may be simplistic to assume that there is always a right or wrong answer in the development management process. It is, therefore, important that allegations which compare the decisions of a planning authority and of An Bord Pleanála are considered in their proper context. For instance, it is important to examine not just a selected sample of cases but to consider the full volume of planning applications received by a particular planning authority in a given year, the number of decisions by a planning authority appealed to An Bord Pleanála and, within this, the rate of overturn of planning authority decisions by the board on appeal. Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that because a planning authority and An Bord Pleanála arrive at different judgments on the same application, this is not necessarily a reflection on the abilities or competence of the staff of the planning authority nor does it necessarily signify a disregard for the council's planning policies.

In the case of six of the seven authorities, the review has identified areas of policy and procedure where greater clarity, consistency and transparency will improve the planning system. It also vindicates the decision of my predecessor, former Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, not to rush headlong into appointing seven external planning consultants to embark on costly, open-ended inquiries.

As I mentioned earlier, the report contains 12 actions, all of which I am committed to implementing. These actions will entail legislative change and consolidation, revised non-statutory guidelines and improved management systems in planning authorities. It is a comprehensive programme of reform, which I intend to implement. I believe that these measures, together with the further reforms the Government will bring forward as part of its response to the report of the Mahon tribunal, will significantly improve the planning system, bring about increased transparency and consistency and enhance public confidence.

In the case of the seventh authority, Carlow County Council, the review accepts fully the findings of the Quinlivan report. In that case, the former Louth County Manager carried out an on-site, in-depth analysis of the corporate governance structures relating to the administration of planning in Carlow county. He identified irregular practices and administrative deficiencies and provided the Carlow county manager with more than 120 recommendations to address these. These recommendations are now all at various stages of implementation.

Members are all too aware that over recent decades the planning system has suffered serious reputational damage. During my time as Minister of State, I want to do all that I can to restore the reputation of Ireland's planning system. As part of this, I fully recognise and appreciate the need for the absolute maximum level of transparency. I am conscious that whatever the outcomes of this review, there will be some who will view the process and the report with scepticism. I want, therefore, to do all that I can to ensure that the process, the report and its findings stand up to independent scrutiny. For this reason, while I have accepted fully the review completed by my Department, all actions and recommendations and the full review on which they are based are to be considered by an independent planning expert who will undertake a thematic evaluation of the review and its associated proposed actions. The themes to be considered are communication of planning policy, availability of preplanning application records, the local area plan process, the means by which related socioeconomic considerations can be factored into the decision-making process, the role for structured dialogue between planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála and remaining gaps in the existing package of statutory planning guidelines. In addition, this expert will be invited to suggest further actions and make any further recommendations deemed appropriate. Crucially, this process will be time-bound and concise. The last thing the planning system needs is for this process to become another running sore. It will be a condition of contract that the evaluation is completed within three months of appointment.

I want to be clear in what I am saying to the House. This review did not find any prima facie evidence of malfeasance in any of the seven local authorities subject to inquiry. Having said that, the conclusions and recommendations made should not be read as criticisms of the entire planning system nor should the report be read as giving a clean bill of health to planning in Ireland. Undoing the damage done to the reputation of the planning system by past actions and incidents of corruption is a process to which I and the Government are collectively committed. It will not be achieved overnight. However, I believe that this review process, its openness, the transparency of the report, the extensive list of actions and the next stage of external, independent assessment, provide a starting point of sorts.

We cannot, however, ignore just how damning was the report of the Mahon tribunal. This review should be seen as a precursor to the publication of a comprehensive whole-of-Government response to the Mahon tribunal report within the coming weeks. I am not going to prejudge the Government's overall approach, but I am confident that it will, in tandem with the actions arising from this review, significantly improve the planning system, bring about increased transparency and consistency and enhance public confidence. We badly need this.

I commend the amendment to the House.

See this speech in context