Ms Oonagh Buckley:

-----that trundle past my door every day; it is extraordinary. What people want is certainty about timeframes. They do not necessarily want bad "Nos". The trade-off is between quality and a certain timeframe that might be a bit longer. People might like to have their decision yesterday but if they know they are going to get their decision in 18 or 26 weeks' time or in a year, so be it as long as it is a decent decision which they know will not be challenged in judicial review or if it is, will be upheld. That is the important thing we need to aim for. We cannot go shorter than 18 weeks on anything really, to be honest. We have to remember that is the limit and not the target. For example, of that 18 weeks in normal planning appeals at the moment, five weeks is processing. We are processing paper files, taking in and sending letters to local authorities and getting replies. Eplanning is on its way. Local authorities are in that space and An Bord Pleanála will have to come in. That will shave time off automatically because there will be much more automation around the process. That might mean we then need to take a little bit more time. We currently have nine weeks in rural planning for planners - this is with no backlog and when fully resourced and all that other good stuff. Maybe that means the planners get to take 11 weeks and have a slightly longer go. Maybe that means the board itself, or the commission as it will be, gets five weeks. I know from running other systems that you can have drive-by decisions, as I call them, but they will not last. They are no good, and nobody wants them. If we want decent decisions, what we need is to have the time to take proper decisions