Ms Maria Graham:

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members for the invitation to continue the discussion on the planning review. As the Cathaoirleach mentioned, I am joined again by Ms Jones, Mr. Waters and Mr. Ryan. The last time we discussed plan making with the committee. Today we would like to primarily discuss the consent process and enforcement and the corporate provisions of both the Office of the Planning Regulator and An Bord Pleanála that are provided for in the legislation. As the Cathaoirleach mentioned, we circulated discussion papers on the topic to the committee and welcome its views on the issues. These papers have been provided to and discussed with the planning advisory forum.

The development consent process is a cornerstone of our planning system. Local authorities deal with more than 30,000 planning applications each year, of which, approximately 10% are appealed to An Bord Pleanála and a very small, but impactful, portion are subject to judicial review. However, the legislative provisions can be difficult to follow and interpret, particularly given the number of amendments to the planning Bill since it was first enacted.

One of the principles of the review we discussed on the previous occasion is to bring clarity to the legislation and to have a chronological format for processes. The work done to date on development consents has being framed in this context. It is not proposed to make any significant changes to the consents process, but we are seeking to bring greater clarity to the different categories of consents and to make the provisions easier to follow for those involved in planning as well as for the wider public. The paper circulated to the committee on this topic sets out that we are considering classifying all consents into four main categories: consents that are approved, in the first instance, by a local authority, such as standard developments and, now, large-scale residential developments, LSRDs; consents that are approved by An Bord Pleanála, such as strategic infrastructure developments, SIDs; specific consents concerning local authority and State development, such as Part 8 developments; and retrospective consents, including retention permission and retrospective consents. The provisions related to the last aspect are going through the Oireachtas now, in respect of substitute consent. Those elements will be amalgamated. The timelines for all consenting processes, including An Bord Pleanála processes, are also being examined as part of the review. When looking at the timelines for these processes, it is important we balance public participation with robust but timely decision-making. We would welcome the views of the committee on this issue.

Local authorities play a key role in enforcement relating to breaches of planning legislation and taking action on unauthorised developments. Carrying out unauthorised development is an offence, and anyone who has undertaken unauthorised development may be subject to enforcement proceedings by a local authority. It is not proposed to remove any of the methods of enforcement, but we are looking at having a more streamlined process for the two main methods, the enforcement notice and planning injunction. Additionally, the Department has been examining the distinction between enforcement of development and enforcement of activities such as quarries. Enforcement of activities is a specialised area and the question arises as to whether there is merit in having specialist teams dealing with it at a regional level across several local authorities rather than an individual local authority dealing with it as part of its wider planning role. This approach would also allow local authorities to continue to deal directly with traditional development-related enforcement cases.

The final paper concerned planning bodies. We circulated a paper to the committee on the corporate provisions of An Bord Pleanála and the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR. These provisions are being examined as part of the review, and while some changes to the legislative provisions will be made, it is not proposed to make any changes to the independent nature of both bodies. An Bord Pleanála is responsible for the determination of appeals on planning as well as direct applications for strategic infrastructure development, including major road and railway cases. The board was established in 1977, and as there have not been significant changes made to its corporate provisions since then, these will be updated to reflect current best practice for State bodies. In particular, consideration is being given to revising the appointment process for board members to provide for such appointments to be made following an open competition operated by the Public Appointments Service. This will bring the process in line with that for other State bodies.

Regarding the OPR, its establishment stems directly from the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal and adds to the range of reform measures in respect of planning, local government and ethics legislation to address the tribunal's findings. The appointment of an independent planning regulator, empowered to oversee the planning system, was one of the key recommendations of the tribunal. While it is not a policymaking body, its role is to ensure the implementation of planning policy and legislation by planning authorities supports Government policy and statutory requirements. It also ensures effective programmes of research, training and public awareness in planning are in place to strengthen the planning process and that members of the wider public are effectively engaged in the planning process.

While it is not proposed to make significant changes to the OPR's corporate provisions, the review should ensure clarity and consistency between the respective roles of the Minister and the OPR in the planning system. In particular, as discussed on the previous occasion, there is a need to clarify policies and objectives that are mandatory and must be given effect, on the one hand, and guidelines that are advisory and to which regard must be had, on the other. While this will be covered under plans and guidelines, it will have significant implications for the OPR's plan evaluation function.

I again thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss further the planning review and we are happy to answer any questions the members may have on the processes or on the corporate provisions and these views.