Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Hogan and the team from the Department. I agree with what Deputy Ó Broin has said. We acknowledge the enormous amount of work that has been put into this Bill. Clearly a lot of work has gone into it. I was thinking, as I was coming in this morning, that what everyone wants is concise, clear guidance around planning and a sense of certainty about it. I do not think there is an issue about reform. The biggest recurring theme for me and for people who have come in here is dispute resolution. If I was to sum up everything that I have heard in this process, it is the feeling that citizens, NGOs and other bodies that have appeared before the committee, or have engaged with us inside and outside the House, are concerned about dispute resolution. Nobody wants to go down the judicial review route. I said the other day, and I will say again that I do not like the phrase "serial objectors", which implies that it is offensive to object. Planning is about proper planning and sustainable development; end of story. The system should screen everything else out. Other decisions should be made exclusively on the basis of whether there is proper planning and sustainable development. That is the basic point, and it is important to make. There is a recognition that there is a need for reform and for a consolidated planning and development Act but dispute resolution is the recurring theme for me. There have been some imaginative suggestions about how we might look at dispute resolution, and I ask the Department to look at that. That is the key issue that is being raised all the time.

The NGOs, in particular, have raised the issue of the Aarhus Convention. They want to guarantee the rights of individuals for effective remedy in Irish and EU law. We know the significance of EU law in relation to the Aarhus Convention. The Bar Council of Ireland made a submission to the committee on the draft Planning and Development Bill 2022. I want to quote to that, particularly with reference to the Aarhus Convention. The witnesses will be able to read the submission themselves anyway. According to the submission:

There is an obligation therefore on Ireland as a Member State and of national courts in Ireland to guarantee the right of individuals and NGOs to an effective remedy under EU law, and this right includes that access to justice should not be unduly burdensome ...The role of national courts is one of the cornerstones of the proper functioning of the EU’s system of effective judicial protection. Where necessary, national courts must set aside any provisions that are contrary to EU law, even if these are of legislative or regulatory nature. Therefore, Irish legislation which is contrary to EU law, risks being set aside by Courts.

It goes on to talk about EU law requirements etc. I think that is the kernel of the issue. Looking at the cases that NGOs have taken, and the cases where people have gone to the courts to determine outcomes, many of them have been successful. No doubt, the Department has gone through all of that and has reflected on the reasons for that. I think it is a key issue. I ask the witnesses to touch on that in their response.

I agree that it is disappointing that we did not receive the explanatory memorandum. We, as legislators, were disadvantaged by not having it. The message needs to go out loud and clear that we are not planners or lawyers but we are charged with putting this legislation through both Houses of the Oireachtas. I think that message should go back clearly to the Department. I do not know if it was accidental or deliberate; somehow I think it might have been deliberate. I do not think it was a good strategy. It was a wrong one. It fed into a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. I think that message needs to go back to the Department.

Another issue I want to raise is that of the role of a chief planning officer. It came out in some discussions, particularly in relation to Scotland, that there is a statutory function of a statutory county or city planning chief. We have county architects who have a proper function. There is a situation in Ireland where we have effectively directors of service who are heading planning authorities and they have no planning skills. They have no training in planning. I am not saying that to be disrespectful of them, but that is a skill set. I think we need greater synergy between architecture and planning. We need to look at that. Every city and county council is effectively a planning authority. Every planning authority should have a statutory chief planner who cannot be pressurised by a CEO to tweak a planning application or determination in some way. That is important. I would like to see that in the legislation.

I ask the witnesses to touch on the issue of dispute resolution. We know all about the issue with An Bord Pleanála. We welcome the response and it cannot come fast enough. I know what Mr. Hogan is saying about increasing from membership of the board from ten to 15. That is all to be welcomed. We have been talking about the issue of e-planning for the last seven years. When the former Minister, Deputy Coveney, brought in Rebuilding Ireland that was one of the key objectives and we are no further on with it.

To stay focused, what are the witnesses' thoughts on dispute resolution? Has the Department given any thought to the matter? Clearly, the Department will have listened to all the proceedings here. I ask the witnesses to share their thoughts on that with us.