Mr. Peter Mullan:

I am grateful for this opportunity to address the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee regarding the work of An Coimisiún Pleanála. I may lapse occasionally into use of the title An Bord Pleanála because, obviously, we had that name for 48 years. I am the chief executive of An Coimisiún Pleanála, an organisation I am proud to lead. I am grateful for this opportunity to assist the committee in its work and explain the roles, responsibilities and processes of the organisation. I am accompanied on my left by deputy chief planning commissioner, Chris McGarry; chief officer, Bríd Hill; two directors of planning, Erika Casey and Ciara Kellett; and to my left-hand side, our director of legal affairs, Kevin Baneham. We are at members' disposal when we come to answer questions.

An Coimisiún Pleanála is Ireland’s national planning body. Our mission as an independent national body is to make impartial, timely planning decisions ensuring that developments and major infrastructure projects in Ireland respect the principles of sustainable development, including the protection of the environment.

That there have been a number of governance changes in the last number of weeks is information in the public domain. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Members of the Oireachtas in their role as policymakers in the careful scrutiny of the Planning and Development Bill, which allowed for the significant overhaul and modernisation of our planning system.

Two weeks ago, Part 17 of the Planning and Development Act 2024 was commenced. An Coimisiún Pleanála came into being on 18 June. I assumed the role of CEO and I am responsible for management, administration and the day-to-day business of the commission. The Act provides that the CEO is responsible for attending committees of the Oireachtas, and I am here today at members' disposal.

A number of other governance changes took place on that day. A governing board was appointed, and Mr. Paul Reid is its chairperson. He is obviously well known to the committee. The governing board was established to review and guide the strategic direction of the commission, set the performance objectives and monitor the attainment of those objectives. The previous board became planning commissioners, and a separate corporate board is in line with modern corporate practices. These changes, together with the increase in the staffing of the organisation over the recent period, are important for dealing with the volume and increasing complexity of the cases received by the commission, in particular with regard to infrastructure.

These measures are positive developments built on solid foundation. As an organisation, we have wholeheartedly embraced these changes and have been planning for them for the past year. I acknowledge in particular the role of our colleagues who have served in An Bord Pleanála over the past 48 years. Their public service has made a significant contribution to the Irish planning system.

To provide some context, in 2024, 5.9% of national planning decisions were appealed to the board from local authorities. Some 48% of those were altered or varied, 24% were reversed and 28% were confirmed by the board, as it was then.

To give context of the different types of work, there are essentially two streams of work, namely, normal planning appeals and strategic infrastructure developments. The body was established under the 1977 Act. Appeals under section 37 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, usually referred to as normal planning appeals, constitute a significant proportion of the work of the commission and account for approximately 70% of its decisions. These appeals arise from decisions by planning authorities on applications for permission for the development of land, including applications for the retention of structures, continuation of use, etc.

The other side of the house is responsible for strategic infrastructure developments, including major road and railway cases and renewable energy cases. These account for approximately 70% of the work. We have a specialist team dedicated to these applications, consisting of our most experienced staff. They also have the new function of determining applications for developments in the marine area. Members will have been supplied with significant material in respect of the breakdown of work roles we have in that regard.

Further details of the work and remit of the board are set out in the papers that we have supplied to the committee.

The commission has sanction for a staffing contingent of 313, including 15 planning commissioners. As of today, we have a staffing complement of 299, a third of whom are working with the planning inspectorate. As of this morning, we have achieved a staffing complement of 92%, which compares very favourably with most public sector organisations, which run at about 85% to more than 90%. We are an employer of choice. There has been a significant overhaul of the staffing of the organisation. Over half the staff, including myself, are with the organisation for less than five years. In the past year to 18 months, we have recruited 67 staff. We have a high retention rate of staff and my colleague, Ms Bríd Hill, will be able to answer any questions should they arise.

As of today, we have 14 planning commissioners. I was a decision-maker board member and then became chief executive. The role of chief planning commissioner is vacant and a competition will be run by the Public Appointments Service following a decision by the governing board, as it is a matter for that board.

There has been significantly increased capacity at inspectorate level of approximately 111, including the management team. That provision has allowed us to make significant reductions and eliminate a backlog of work that had built up in the difficult years of 2022 and 2023 when we reached three times our normal caseload. I am happy to answer any questions on that.

To put things in context, we had significant reputational damage in 2022. The then deputy chair of An Bord Pleanála resigned and, subsequently, was charged with and convicted of making false and misleading statutory declarations. Following the retirement of the then chairperson, the Minister moved quickly to stabilise the situation. My predecessor, Ms Oonagh Buckley, was appointed in November or December of 2022 as interim deputy chair and later appointed chairperson, which required a legislative change. The terms of the other board members came to an end during 2022 and they were not replaced. During this time, in the absence of a chairperson and deputy chairperson, it was not possible under the legislation to convene certain types of board for strategic infrastructure projects and strategic housing developments, so a significant backlog developed Also during that period, there were five serving board members but only four available to make decisions because one board member was on long-term sick leave. I am grateful to say that he has returned to work.

On reputational damage, one of the first priorities of my predecessor was to restore confidence in the organisation and make inroads into the backlog. Steps were taken by my predecessor and myself when I took over as interim chair in September 2023. We successfully advocated and the Department changed the legislation to increase the complement of board members, who are now commissioners, to 15 and appoint same. That was done. Sanction was sought and received for 117 posts. Of those, 115 were filled. Two were not, given their specialist nature. It is increasingly difficult to hire certain ICT grades. We have been unable to do that but we have contractors to deal with those positions. Additionally, there were recommendations by our colleagues in the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, and ministerial recommendations. We implemented those in conjunction with the OPR's office. In particular, these included the revised code of conduct, anti-fraud and protected disclosure policies, and the policy in relation to the declarations of conflict of interest, a matter that led to the difficulty for which the previous deputy chair was subsequently convicted.

There has been a significant reduction in our caseload. In May 2023, our backlog was 3,600 cases, the highest level in recent years. Our normal caseload is around 1,200 cases and depends on the trend in intake. In other words, in May 2023, we had three times our normal caseload. I am pleased to say that, as of mid-June, our caseload is between 1,250 and 1,300 mark, which means there has been a 65% reduction in our caseload and we are now close to our normal caseload. I am happy to discuss the matter further.

We are conscious of the steady progress that has been made. We are also conscious that there are some very old significant infrastructure cases on which decisions are awaited, which is colouring the perception of us as an organisation. We are on course to issue many significant decisions over the coming months and we can talk a little about that later on. It is also the case that a number of applicants and appellants await decisions significantly over their statutory objective periods, with some in excess of 12 months. I apologise to them and assure them we are doing our best to clear the backlog. I am happy to answer questions on the matter.

Prioritisation is clearly an issue for this committee. I am sure that members of the committee will appreciate that in order to clear the backlog, particularly over the preceding number of years, we have moved away from deciding cases in strict chronological order and applied different prioritisation. For example, the period for large-scale residential developments, LRDs, which are schemes comprising in excess of 100 residential units or 200 student bed spaces, is 16 weeks. I am pleased to inform the committee that we have had 100% compliance with that for the last two years. Again, we can talk about the nuances of that. I I expect there will be questions on it.

On the statutory objective period, we have talked about the LRDs in which we have 100% compliance. We have also got very high levels of compliance in respect of other land activation measures like derelict sites, residential zoned land tax, RZLT, cases and householder cases. The RZLT and derelict site cases are close to 100% compliance and we have done our best to clear the previous backlogs that had emerged.

For 2025, we have a performance delivery agreement with the Department. The targets set for the various case types later this year reflects the new mandatory timelines under the Act. In respect of planning appeals received in 2025, we hope to meet the statutory objective period in 85% of those cases. For normal planning appeals, there is an 18-week period. Again, we will discuss that later.

Technically speaking, the statutory objective period in respect of strategic infrastructure developments is 18 weeks. There is no realism to that. The new Act recognises the complexity of these cases, reflects international experience in respect of how long it takes for these developments to get planning, and recognises the period of 48 weeks. We have agreed with the Department that 48 weeks is the statutory objective period that we will endeavour to meet for those types of case. We hope that we will reach between 70% and 80% of that as we near the end of the year.

There has been significant stakeholder engagement because we have met various groups. This morning, we met Members of the Oireachtas, for example, members of the housing committee. We have met various other prescribed groups, including environmental NGOs. We also meet business and industry groups on a quarterly basis.

I expect there will be questions on judicial reviews. A significant number of judicial reviews have been lodged this year - 88 in total. A director of legal affairs has been appointed, and is with us here, and is overseeing an in-house legal unit and the procurement of additional legal services, which are important as they will help deal with the complex judicial review cases. We anticipate that there will be legal complexities and thereby will have an impact on the framework. I have skipped over a tiny bit of that for the sake of brevity.

As an independent planning body, An Coimisiún Pleanála is committed to meeting its statutory targets in respect of all cases before the commission, including all appeals and direct applications in respect of critical infrastructure projects for transport, water, the electrical grid and energy, as well as large-scale residential developments. We anticipate that we will be in a strong position to meet our statutory obligations under Part 4 of the new Planning and Development Act, which has mandatory timelines that I am sure all members are familiar with. I understand that it is scheduled for commencement later this year. It is in the Department's implementation plan. We are happy to assist the committee to understand our casework and performance by answering any questions.