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

My next set of questions relates to changes to judicial review and section 249. I will preface the remarks by saying that in a really well-functioning planning system, very little would go to judicial review. In terms of both the detail of the plan-led approach and clarity in terms of the formal decision and appeal, the planning system would be sufficient. I am not an advocate for more judicial reviews, and nor am I advocating for them. I would like to see far less of them. However, it is really important that where we are making significant changes, people understand what those changes are so they can see if they are good, bad or indifferent. Section 249 talks about "sufficient interest" and "directly or indirectly materially affected." It is important that we have maximum clarity on what those things mean. Where are they set out? Unlike other aspects of the Bill where they are matters of policy, this section obviously means that they will ultimately be matters of law. What does the Bill intend when it uses those terms?

My next question relates to standing. When anything is changed, and I hear it is a clarification or a technical change, I always get very suspicious. It is just the nature of my character. There are two changes to standing. The first change is the shift from informally constituted groups, which could be campaign groups or residents' groups, to named individuals either on their own or in groups. I would like a clear explanation of why that is being done. I know the Attorney General has advised it, but I would like to understand the rationale. Likewise, a change is being made with companies. The idea is that this will involve companies with ten members that have been in existence for one year and have relevant aims and objectives. It seems to me that those two changes are materially significant. Today there are groups which may be able to take judicial reviews, but when these changes are made they will not be able to take judicial reviews as they take them now. They might have to reconstitute themselves in order to do so. I am looking for the maximum level of clarity, because this is something that will be a matter of public debate. The clearer we are on it, the better.

My third question is around making amendments to the decision arising from errors of fact and law. How many of the approximately 140 to 150 judicial reviews the Chair mentioned with respect to the planning regulations report would fall into this category? That is an interesting question in respect of what again seems to be a retrospective fix. There were cases where the error of fact or law would not have affected the decision of the planning authority but it could be materially relevant in a judicial review. If it can, therefore, be taken out of the judicial review, the original decision will stand. Was there analysis for that?

Can I also have a little more information on the direction of travel with cost protection? Obviously, it is in as a general head but the more information we can be given about that at this stage, the better.