Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair. I will return to An Bord Pleanála and Ms Buckley in respect of the timelines. We hear what she is saying. What is interesting, and if I may say from the outset, these were concise and tight submissions here. There was not a great deal of detail in them and I refer to Ms Buckley’s submission in particular. There were more questions to be asked.

Twice, I see where the board in its submission states: "We have begun engagement with the Department on how to shape those timelines, seeking to use the evidence from within the Board" etc. Then, it goes on to state "There are also a number of detailed processing issues within the draft Bill where the Board will engage with the Department". I accept all that but we are the committee engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny, PLS, on this and we are in the dark. Clearly the board is doing a great deal and I am highly impressed by even just listening to Ms Buckley and seeing how she operates here today.

I accept Ms Buckley's ongoing engagements with the Department and the close relationship the board has with the Department. However, we must also remember that a distance must be kept. I keep reminding people that when we talk about strategic housing developments and all the disasters of that, the architects of all that were in the Custom House. They went out to different places. One was Ms Buckley's predecessor in her Department. My colleagues here will know and, if we play back some of the debates we had in this House some years ago, it can be seen that we warned this would happen. We are where we are, however, although I do not like using the expression. We did highlight the concerns and ask about resources and expertise. We questioned the merit of taking many planning decisions away from a planning authority and were told this was the way to go. Most of those who came up with that policy got rewarded for it. They were not sacked. Some may have chosen to leave. That is an important point to make. I am not scoring political points here but that is the reality of it. I looked back at the minutes and played back some of the recordings where we cautioned about the issues. However, we have to park that because we have to move forward and we want a proper, robust planning system. That said, it is important and to listen to the relevance of what others have to say and not always defend the status quo.

I accept that the witness may not be at liberty to discuss all the detail, and that is a pity, a disappointment and, quite frankly, not good enough, but I respect it. It would be helpful if Ms Buckley can share it with us, and I hope it is before we are debating this in the Chambers in these Houses, because we really need to hear that. I say that against a background of different opinions. I have an appeal myself with the board which I do not intend to go into but is of a strategic development nature involving more than 100 units. We have a housing crisis in this country. We have entrepreneurs and risk takers who want to develop within our country who are waiting a year or two years possibly. I spoke to someone the other day who asked me when they could expect to have a decision from An Bord Pleanála for a development of more than 100 housing units in the centre of Dublin. The person wanted to know if they would be in a position to keep on the finance package they had from the corporate bankers to do this development that was being held up by the board. What do we say to them? Developers are not all bad people. I accept the point Mr. Cussen made that anyone who gets to proceed with a development is going to benefit from it and has to pay up. That said, we need to talk about this emergency, the need for this legislation, and the context of a massive housing crisis with no homes for people and being told this development of these homes is with the board. I call the board regularly to be told it cannot be done for various reasons. These are homes in a district with major town centre zoning and we have a problem with the board. It may need to shape the outcome of the decision but surely it is obvious, and I can nearly tell, what is going to happen, which is a few modifications and it is going to get through. Whatever needs to be done should be done. I do not want to get into detail. It would not be appropriate for me to do that.

It might be helpful if Ms Buckley could share with us, when she can, the sort of discussions being had because we are talking about an open and transparent planning process. We also want to talk about an open and transparent process in how we develop this new legislation. I want to say that; it is not really a question. We have agreed as a committee that we will have another opportunity to meet with the witnesses and discuss other issues about the board. I would like to give one take-home, so to speak. Can we look at whether there is going to be a hierarchy or tiering system so major applications that involve in excess of 100 properties get some sort of priority versus someone who has something more moderate? We cannot be isolated. We are within the context of a housing and planning issue.