Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The amendments tabled relate to the planning authority. There is a different section with regard to An Bord Pleanála, which we will come to and I will address that as part of the response.

The argument made by Deputy Ó Broin regarding there being a backlog in the board due to a lack of resources is something I would not completely agree with. I want that on the record. We are very aware of the issues in An Bord Pleanála and we need to stabilise the board and make sure it functions. At one stage, there were as few as five board members. Due to the actions we have taken, there are now 15 board members and a full-time chairperson, who is the successor to the interim chair. I use this opportunity to say that Oonagh Buckley did an exceptional job and has moved on to pastures new.

Through a new appointments process, an excellent chairperson of the board and 14 other board members have been appointed. They have engaged with the committee on the work it is doing to clear the backlog. It has advised me and the committee that by quarter 2 it expects to be back to a normal processing of applications for the first time in a long time, notwithstanding some cases that are, in effect, in abeyance. Some SHD cases are still awaiting further adjudication from the courts or a final judgment. In terms of normal applications and appeals, the board and what will be an coimisiún pleanála will be back to a normal processing time. They should be.

On resources, yesterday I gave details to the committee about the number of posts we have on the board. We have filled 261 posts and have sanctioned more than 300, which is a sizeable increase from what was there before. As I said, we will provide the Deputies with a breakdown of the additional planners in each local authority since 2020. There is a ramping up of resources, notwithstanding the fact we need to grow the talent pool. There is movement between the private and public sector and within the public sector.

The objectives of the Bill were to provide certainty around timeframes and decision-making, clarity within our planning process and consistency of approach. When timeframes are set, they need to be adhered to. I will be very straight about that. If we mention planning to the normal Sean or Mary Citizen, one of the first words we would have heard from them over the past couple of years would have been "delays". That is why timeframes are important, including the setting down of statutory timeframes, as will be the case with the board.

With regard to delays in the planning system, I will deal with the issue of someone who does not consent to an extension, which relates to a different provision. Deputy O'Callaghan raised this issue. There is no fine, rather a repayment of fees because there are costs to delays. Let us be straight about that. There are costs for applicants when there are delays to planning applications, in many cases significant costs. They are real. Delays lead to delays in the delivery of housing and infrastructure, including social infrastructure, which we know a modern state needs. We should not hide behind this in any way, shape or form. When we set down statutory timeframes, they should be met.

In my view and that of Government, there should be a mechanism for a small proportion of those costs to be repaid and for the information to be published. It should not act as an incentive for an applicant. However, it should certainly be a target for our planning authorities in this instance - because we are not talking about An Bord Pleanála here - to meet the timelines that are set. I have considerable regard for our planners throughout the country, as I know the Deputies present also do. I respectfully disagree that it would lead to poor planning decisions on the basis of making a decision to avoid incurring a penalty as such or having to repay an amount that would be a multiple of the planning fee that was lodged.

Deputy O'Callaghan asked about somebody who does not consent to an extension. Section 98(5)(c) states:

If the applicant fails to notify the planning authority, within the period referred to in paragraph (b), as to whether or not he or she consents to the extension sought in the notification under subsection (4), the applicant shall be deemed to have consented to that extension.

Section 98(5)(b) states:

If, within such period as may be prescribed, the applicant notifies the planning authority that he or she does not consent to the extension sought in a notification under subsection (4), the application shall be deemed to be refused, and the applicant may appeal that deemed refusal to the Commission under section 100.

That is very clear, and people will understand what the objective is. I do not agree that it would lead to a planner making a decision on the basis that it will go outside the statutory timeframe. Costs are incurred by applicants if decisions are delayed. I am not just talking about the development community; I am talking about anyone who makes an application. We have seen that; let us be straight about it. We have discussed where we have seen additional information, clarification of additional information and further letters going back to say that the decision dates have been put forward and put forward. That has a real impact on people. It can be families, organisations firms and housing developments as well. It is right and proper to have this provision in place.