Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

That particular line of questioning with Deputy O’Callaghan is relevant to one of the aspects that I want to question the witnesses about and seek their advice on. I want to focus particularly on sections 97 and 303. It is relevant to locus standifor appeal of a planning authority decision.

I am aware of a particular application or process, without getting into the nitty-gritty of it. I refer to the timeline of this application. It was a large-scale residential development, LRD. The application was 13 June and the local authority’s decision was 4 August last year. It was appealed to An Bord Pleanála and that decisions was on 1 February. Within an eight-month period, it went through initial application, local authority decision and An Bord Pleanála. I have that parked up here as being a timeline that has operated. The local authority cited two reasons for rejecting it. One was the servicing arrangement would have caused a traffic hazard. The second one was the car parking did not meet the published car parking standards. Those were the two reasons that the local authority turned down this LRD.

An Bord Pleanála’s decision on it was based on, first, that it did not meet the zoning. It was zoned for educational and recreational purposes and nothing could be demonstrated that it should set aside that zoning, go into the exceptions and allow residential development on it. Second, it was in a flood risk zone B, in accordance with a Department publication from 2009. Third, the density way exceeded the development plan. Even going on the first two, the contrast between the decision-making of the local authority and the rather trite reasons it cited for rejection versus An Bord Pleanála’s much more in-depth reasons, which were in line with many of the objections, is quite considerable, to say the least.

That brings me to the process of residents and people and what processes within this Bill would afford the raising of many of those issues. Many of the observations were put in by local residents in the main, some of whom had competencies around environment and were aware of flood risks and things such as thing and were able to articulate those sort of things. Some of them were basic, such as 400 units are being put up and 100 parking spaces provided. Where the hell is everybody else going to park even if you are going on 50%? Some of the rest of it was quality of life issues.

If we look at the provisions in sections 97 and 303, an appeal, first of all, has to be from the person who made the application but then any person who made a submission. That is fair enough, if all these individuals made a submission. We then engage the answers to Deputy O’Callaghan’s questions in whether that person is then exposed to risks of costs, what the taxing master would decide and all that down that road. If that had not gone and they needed to make a judicial review, in order to make an appeal, there are unincorporated identities, such as the likes of residents associations.

Within that, they require the names and addresses of all of the members. Although, I cannot for the life of me find it this morning, I am aware of a decision that was made around the Malahide Road where an agent tried to put in an objection and it was ruled out by the High Court on the basis that the name and address of every member was not listed appropriately, so the locus standiwas challenged. Residents' associations tend to bring in members on the basis of the household so, for example, No. 26 is a member of the residents' association and has paid a fee, but not every member of that house is listed. There is a potential deficiency as to how tightly that is defined, and that would put residents' associations on the back foot.

One of the things we have started to see in the last couple of years is local residents incorporating and setting up a limited company so as to limit the exposure to costs if it were to go to judicial review. When the application goes in and the submissions to that application are going in, people will form a company at that point and have the members of the company move forward at that point. However, under section 303, we have the restrictions that the company must be formed for over a year, it must have environmental objectives, it must be pursuing those objectives for over a year and it must have not less than ten members. The problem is that if a residents' association had gone that route in regard to the development I have just outlined, they would never have made that timeline and they would never have had those protections. There is almost a drafting sleight of hand going on to prevent that very situation.

I am interested to hear the response of the witnesses, in particular whether they have considered those limitations on locus standiand where we are at in that regard.