Mr. Paul Hogan:

I think I used the word "mediation" in the opening statement. The purpose of planning is to mediate between competing interests and the common good and to get the best possible outcome, in the context of lots of things, as I have said. There are really three stages of dispute resolution, as the Senator is aware. There are more if you go back up the pipeline to the development plan. In reality, if the development plan and the plan-led system does its work, we should not be in dispute. If a field is zoned beside your house, you should have a reasonable expectation of knowing what is going to happen in that field. Likewise, the risk and uncertainty that planning carries for the person who wants to develop on that site should be eliminated. Really, it should be about securing the best form of development rather than dispute resolution at the application stage. Lots of things have been done to try to enhance that in recent times.

Large scale residential developments have come in to replace the strategic housing development, SHD, process, for example. If that stage does not work or if it does not resolve the issue to the satisfaction of individuals, there is an appeal mechanism, and that considers the whole thing de novofrom the start again. Therefore, there is a fresh look at the whole thing by an independent group of people, again with strengthening processes in terms of how the board operates.

There is the third stage for decision-making, which is judicial review and which is enshrined in the Aarhus Convention in terms of access to justice at reasonable cost. We are reinforcing that by proposing a cost scheme as part of this whereby people's costs are paid to engage with that if they still feel a decision is unlawful. That is a three-stage decision-making process on top of the four-stage planning process.

The Senator made the point that groups challenging decisions are being successful and he asked what we have to look at. We have to question the robustness of the legislation as intended by the Oireachtas in the common good. Clearly, it is obviously not delivering what it should be if that is the case. That is partly what this review is about.