Ms Pauline Foster:

I am grateful for the invitation to contribute the views of residents' associations to the debate. We represent the Recorders and Terenure West residents' associations in south-west Dublin. We are well placed to speak for the sector on the Bill given the significant co-ordination in our part of the city between 40 residents' associations on transport matters. Residents' associations are vital players in the planning system, often paying a professional to make a submission. In other cases, the person preparing the submission is likely to have some planning expertise gained from experience. Furthermore, a residents' association frequently has much better knowledge of local issues than either the planning authority or the developer. They are core to putting the other side of the story.

Residents' associations are frequent contributors to consultation processes on development plans. We have no sectoral position on the proposal for ten-year development plans. Enormous effort is invested into putting in submissions, but it seems rare that any account is taken by a public body of those comments. Plans by their nature are complex. Inadequate time is given for comments to be submitted. As plans are not unduly time-sensitive, more time needs to be given for comment. Third, we believe that timescales for plans including those of the National Transport Authority, NTA, are not synched correctly.

We are concerned regarding the erroneous allegation in the media that residents' groups are in some way responsible for huge hold-ups in the planning system. The core difficulty is the excessive time taken by An Bord Pleanála to make decisions and the level of procedural errors by that body in coming to those decisions, largely caused by huge under-resourcing at a staff level. In recent decisions, we find it difficult to find any substantive decision made within the supposed 18-week timescale, with the bulk of current decisions relating to 2021 appeals. This is the core issue our legislators need to address. If an appeal is made to the courts, we understand this is not related to the merits of an issue on planning grounds, but will be grounded on procedural issues. It is not the case, as is often asserted, that the courts are deciding planning matters; rather, their decisions are invariably critical of the process employed by An Bord Pleanála.

We wholly reject any suggestion that residents' associations be barred from seeking judicial review. This is akin to taking away David’s sling in his battle with Goliath. We wholly reject the impractical requirement for a residents' association to have to list all its members in order to appeal to An Bord Pleanála. The law should expressly permit residents' associations to appeal to the courts. The planning Bill should recognise that the standard legal format for incorporated residents and environmental bodies is a company limited by guarantee, CLG. Residents' associations can spring into life when controversial planning arises, so longevity tests are not appropriate. The Aarhus Convention suggests that access to courts should not be prohibitively expensive. It is not correct to assert that it is in some way easy-peasy to mount an appeal. It is an extremely stressful situation for those involved and requires a concerted fundraising effort. There is a case for the law to state that no costs award will be made against a non-governmental appellant in the absence of frivolity.

The Bill contains provisions for pre-consultation between developers and planning authorities but no provision whatsoever for anyone to talk to residents groups. We think the Bill should include this. The timescale for comment is too short, particularly for complex applications. It should run from the date all documents are put up on the planning authority’s website. Each authority should be required to put every document up by the next working day following receipt. An Bord Pleanála frequently makes decisions without an opinion on issues raised by the local authority. We think An Bord Pleanála should be obliged to deal with the grounds cited in the local authority decision.

On enforcement, a neighbour having to report a discrepancy between plans agreed and the actual build is totally unacceptable.

Enforcement is one of the most understaffed areas in councils yet we believe it to be essential. On inspections, the practice of issuing a certificate of compliance at each stage of a build used to be paramount. This necessity should be reinstated. Problems with non-compliance with fire regulations or pyrites would not have occurred if these controls had been in place.

We thank the committee for the opportunity to have some representatives of the residents' sector heard. Mr. Heneghan and I are happy to take questions.