Ms Danielle Conaghan:

There is a categorisation exercise that needs to be done and the Cathaoirleach asked about the OPR and the reasons these decisions are quashed.

The reasons are common across all development sectors, which is very important. They fall, broadly, within a few categories, the vast majority of which can be addressed and never be made again. The flaws need never be made again, with the lessons learned being applied by a properly resourced coimisiún. I fully believe that. I refer, for example, to not giving reasons for disagreeing with the report of An Bord Pleanála or the coimisiún inspector's report. That is pretty basic decision-making. To do that again is just not the expectation that anyone has of a robust, functioning planning system.

Another category of flaws that can be avoided completely with a bit of thought employed - we see this especially in our sector - is that where developers have put up science and where people who have made submissions disagree with it generally speaking, and there is case law on the question, then the onus is on the inspector to state which science is preferred and why. That is basic decision-making - taking into account plans and having a rolling eye on what has changed. That is not an easy job. We are a fully resourced legal team, and we find it difficult to keep up with the pace of change in EU legislation and case law, and Irish law and case law. We can offer to do that job of work in terms of the categorisation of the OPR's reasons for refusal. We have done the exercise ourselves because we have to do it. In our legal reviews of applications, the onus is on us to have applied those lessons learned, but it is a difficult job to do.

Coming back to the question, there are points of law on which we need guidance from the court. For example, where is the line in terms of conducting a lawful EIA for indirect effects? Where do we get into remoteness territory where the obligation to conduct an EIA does not apply? We had the Supreme Court opine on that last year. There are questions of law that are important, but the vast majority are fixable and avoidable.