Mr. Tom Flynn:

I broadly agree with that proposition. Looking at the idea of standing and whether it should be restricted in planning legislation, it depends. There are very different perspectives on this and policy choices to be made in relation to it subject to confinement of obligations under the Aarhus Convention and EU law. It could be argued that one is entitled to restrict in relation to it but a contrary argument is made by some people, which is that there should be very light restrictions because this is public legislation and is a matter which deals with the public interest. Every decision is a decision of public interest. If, for example, somebody proposes an extension to Trinity College Dublin and for whatever reason - maybe I am abroad at the time - I do not make a submission to the planning authority or the board, and subsequently I see a decision which I strongly believe to be incorrect, should I be excluded simply because I did not participate? There is an argument to be made there. People sometimes ask if there should be geographic restriction. Should we say that somebody from Donegal should not be allowed object about an extension to Trinity College Dublin and it should only be people within 20, 30, or 50 miles? That is just an example in relation to those matters. The contrary argument is that this is public legislation and the sense is that the planning domain and decisions are public issues so therefore should have very lightweight restriction. Many of these planning decisions, such as a wind farm and a road bypass, have very substantial intergenerational impacts and have environmental, climate change and amenity impacts, given that large-scale housing developments change the character of an area and raise amenity questions. However, that is a policy choice.

There is an attempt, it seems to us, to restrict and narrow the definition of "substantial interest". This will probably be counterproductive in the short term because it will lead to lots of litigation.