Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the documentation and the presentation. I apologise for not being able to remain for whole session last week, but I have read back over it. Therefore, a few of my questions may refer to the some of the subsequent comments made in response to other members.

Starting with Ms Graham, I have some initial thoughts or feedback on the questions, because, in some sense, that is what these sessions are for. I will take them in order, in respect of consent enforcements and bodies. The biggest criticisms we hear from a range of statutory bodies, private developers and private individuals is that the consent process just takes too long, especially concerning large infrastructure projects. Even if something is not subject to a judicial review but is an SID or it requires an appeal to the board, the average time being looked at for planning for big projects can be 12 months. Irish Water, especially, will complain that planning accounts for many of the big delays with the urgent wastewater treatment plants required to tackle the agglomerations currently subject to European Commission enforcement. I am not saying Irish Water is always right in that.

We must therefore be in a situation where all the timelines for the different periods of consent and consenting processes are clear, rigid and adhered to. Before we had the LSRDs, for example, the only clear, rigid statutory timeline was that of the local authorities, where they were making the initial decisions. That approach works, subject to some resourcing challenges etc. Therefore, it would be a positive development if this review came out the other side with the result that everybody knew how long each bit of the consenting process took, because that would give us the clarity everybody is seeking.

This leads us to the question of resources. Even in the LSRD scheme, the 18 weeks taken by the board to make a decision is too long. I also live in the real world, however, and part of the reason this process takes so long is that there are resource challenges. Likewise, if we are going to pile LSRD development applications on top of the board's existing work as well as applications for offshore wind planning projects, it will be a big challenge for the board, even with the promised staff. This review will therefore have to address the issue of resources, even in respect of recommendations, or perhaps not recommendations but by setting out that if a specific timeline is desired, then achieving it will require the following resources. This would allow for an informed discussion, whether in Government or here in the committee, to consider how such aspects can be managed. I say that because if one good thing were to emerge from this process, it would be not just a consolidated and clarified Planning and Development Act, which would be welcome, but that we fix the significant weakness in the current system.

Moving to enforcement, part of the problem is the enforcement powers in many instances do not work or are too slow. Larkfield House in my constituency is a case in point. It has been well documented, so I am not saying anything in the committee that is not in the public arena. A developer fitted out a building with 48 apartments with no planning permission and no building control certification. That building is still fully occupied. The developer has used the antiquated nature of the enforcement processes by submitting subsequent retention applications and new applications to string this matter out. This has been going on since late 2018. Today, I have a building in my constituency that houses 48 families, half of whom came from emergency accommodation and two thirds of whom are receiving housing assistance payment, HAP, or homeless HAP at enormous cost to the State and themselves. This building has no planning permission and is subject to ongoing enforcement action by the hard-working officials in South Dublin County Council.

This is an extreme example but it shows us the challenges that can result when we have these big developments. Therefore, while I am not necessarily proposing the core elements of enforcement change, if the Larkfield House situation is allowed to continue as it is and the individual concerned is making enormous profits in a building that is not fit for purpose, then we have a problem. We need to think this aspect through. The problem here again is resources. The enforcement process is incredibly laborious for local authorities and incredibly high risk if they have to take it all the way to initiating court action. One of the reasons, and it is not the only one, the regulations initiated by the former Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, former Deputy Eoghan Murphy, concerning short-term letting, which were based on a unanimous report of this committee, have proved so ineffectual is not because the regulations were weak, because I think there were correct, broadly speaking, but because the enforcement process is cumbersome.

Local authorities either find it difficult to enforce and it causes them difficulties, or a manager might say "Why use all that time and energy for such a poor return?" and use those resources elsewhere because of the resource challenges. Enforcement is about how we speed the process up and make it much easier. I am aware of the Minister's response when I proposed the idea of on-the-spot fines for certain categories of planning breaches for short-term letting. The great thing about on-the-spot fines is that they are quick. Of course, they are at a lower level - they cannot be at the very high level of fines - but we need to find some way of loosening that process.

On the planning bodies - I refer to the OPR - it is too early to make any substantive changes. Just a review of OPR is a good idea. I am sure the witnesses know what I am going to say. It is not aligned with what the Mahon tribunal recommended, as it should have been in my view. That should be included in the review. There was a reluctance to have a fully independent regulator as opposed to a regulator who makes recommendations on courses of actions to the Minister. So long as there is a clear delineation of responsibilities, that the Government and the Oireachtas make policy and pass laws and the regulator's job is to independently implement and ensure enforcement of those, I think we are okay. Some of the key deviations from the Mahon tribunal should be looked at, not necessarily to make changes now but to assess whether they were as problematic as some people thought.

In terms of An Bord Pleanála, obviously, we cannot stray into the wider difficulties that institution is having but I would say that given so many of the key recommendations of the 2016 review, particularly those pertaining to the Department and Government policy and legislation, have not been implemented the Department and the Government should take the opportunity, considering what will come out of the reviews by Remy Farrell, the OPR, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the board's internal review - there are four reviews happening now - to completely modernise that institution as part of the overall review. Therefore, I welcome some of the comments made in terms of appointments etc. but are there concerns around the recommendation of the 2016 review, for example, just using the Public Appointments Service for appointments to the board? I know that some planning professionals do not like the current system and would like a hybrid system or another mechanism of having a small number of nominated bodies as well as an open competition and a public appointments process. If the Government justifies why it is deviating from the recommendations but does something else to modernise the body, that would be very welcome. It would be a wasted opportunity if we do not come out of this with something to assist the board to overcome the difficulties that we all know will come out when the four reviews are made public.

Finally, there is one issue I did not get the chance to raise last week. The expert group on Traveller accommodation made a number of recommendations and there is an implementation group working on those. However, a small number of recommendations of the working group that pertain specifically to planning, planning reform, section 183, land disposals in Part 8, and planning approvals etc., are not in the work programme of the implementation group because they cannot be as they are matters for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. This is the opportunity to make those legislative requirements. Ms Graham will be aware that we struggled in the previous Oireachtas around those recommendations but collectively we unanimously came to a cross-party view that because there were no better proposals on the table that Part 8 and section 183 recommendations should be implemented. This is the Bill within which to do it. I know it does not specifically fit within these three areas but it would be a huge missed opportunity if we did not do it in this Bill. In some respect, it makes sense because it would not be a subsequent addition to the new planning and development Act, it would be integrated in the new Act and that would be much cleaner for everybody. I will ask some questions in the second round.