Pat Casey (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Kelly and the rest of the delegation for coming in this morning.

An Bord Pleanála has achieved 80% compliance on the decision-making process. What are Dr. Kelly's views on having mandatory time limits from now on? Even though it achieved 80% compliance, 400 cases were not decided within that timeframe. It is important that we move to a time-bound process.

Given the lack of legislation on wind energy development, what is the importance of the wind energy strategy in individual county development plans to An Bord Pleanála's decision-making process?

County Wicklow has a number of very small quarries and the new regulation requiring an environmental impact statement, EIS, and appropriate other assessments is making them almost unviable. We are shutting them down, in effect. We will need this stone from somewhere at some stage. Much of this may have been driven for Europe where there are much larger quarries. Can anything be done in this regard? In one serious case, Wicklow County Council granted permission for a quarry. It was appealed to the board, which refused it. Now Wicklow County Council is being sued for loss of earnings by that company. Where is this all going?

Further to what the Senator said, do the witnesses have statistics for the number of occasions on which the board has overruled the decisions of inspectors?

The most important matter before us at the moment is the fast-track planning process. I also have some reservations as to whether this is fast-tracking. Dr. Kelly has said she has been told that the resources will be forthcoming. However, are the resources available? Are there people with appropriate qualifications available in Ireland?

Dr. Kelly mentioned the nine-week pre-planning process, which is time bound and which is fantastic. However, there is another pre-planning process prior to that within the local authorities. In a recent presentation from departmental officials, we were informed that it is taking 28 weeks on average. If we add 28 weeks to what is being presented here at the moment, we are not far away from where we were. As part of that, an environmental impact assessment or Natura 2000 assessment may be required. I am not sure if I am reading it correctly. Is the board requesting an additional eight weeks to make a decision on whether that pre-planning application will need an EIS or an EIA? After that, if it is in a Natura 2000 site, it needs a further eight weeks.

Is that only to tell the applicant that these assessments are needed? If not, what is the purpose of it? In that case, we are adding another 16 weeks onto the whole process. I have concerns about whether we are actually fast-tracking the process when some of these issues are not quite clear. The pre-planning around local authorities is not time-bound and, therefore, that period could go on forever. The Minister says that it is important that we get quality in the application process. I do not fully understand from reading the heads how that is determined and what the process is. Is it in the pre-planning process? If one gets an application through the pre-planning process with the board, can it then be turned down in the application process because it is a poor application? If that is the case, there is something wrong there.

The Senator also honed in on the issue of public consultation. One aspect of the heads is a material contravention of a county development plan or a local area plan. Normally that would have nearly two stages of public consultation at local level. From what I am reading, it will only have one stage of public consultation if it is in the fast-track planning process. This would be in the case of a site that is not zoned. At least in the case of a zoned site, it goes through a development plan process and then a public process. I am worried about public consultation in the fast-track process.

I have an observation to make. Are we actually too concerned about the number of houses that we are building in the planning process as opposed to creating sustainable communities moving forward? Maybe we should have a more balanced emphasis on that.