Mr. Peter Mullan:

The emphasis of the material we provided was on the infrastructural side. I am happy to share our slides. We will hold two sets of stakeholder engagement this week and next. Those slides will go onto our website the following week or early next week. I am happy to share them.

Crofton was a significant Supreme Court case. It clarified the law. A large number of strategic housing and development cases were waiting behind that case. We gave a commitment. As part of stakeholder engagement, we met business and institute groups in respect of the importance of the cases awaiting decision and the number of housing units in the organisation was recognised. We dedicated a team in that regard. When you are dedicating a team, you need the recognition of the other parties within the organisation. You have large-scale residential development, LRD, 30-plus housing and all of the other things. We put in a team in that regard.

Since April last year, which was after the Crofton judgment, we have decided 42 SHD cases. Six were granted, three of which are currently under judicial review. Historically, there have been significant judicial review issues in respect of SHDs. The same does not arise in respect of LRD. Some 26 applications have been refused. Two have ended up in split decisions and eight have been withdrawn. A total of 42 cases have been dealt with over the past year and a month or two. Remaining within the system are ten further cases at board level. Generally speaking, we anticipate those will be decided in the next four weeks. One issue has arisen as a result of Crofton. As the Senator knows, there was no ability to request further information as part of the SHD process. That was one if its flaws. It was designed to fast-track planning but that became one of its flaws and, in essence, its Achilles heel. The Crofton case stated that in certain cases, a limited oral hearing can take place. In certain cases, the board has done that. If a certain issue around an application requires clarification, we can do that. I am anticipating ten more cases. If they do not go out for limited oral hearing, they will be dealt with in the next number of weeks.

There are three further cases at the inspectorate, which we anticipate will be dealt with in July and shortly thereafter by the board. That leaves 16 cases, which we will deal with in quarters 3 and 4. It has taken us some time to clear the backlog. It was been concurrent with our other obligations. We have made considerable inroads in that regard. There are still 28 cases within the High Court. Whether they will ever be remitted to us remains to be seen.

It is important to say that the refusal rate in respect of SHDs at the moment is 76%. That is probably reflective of the fact that they must be consistent with the current development plan, as I understand it. Many of these applications were made one development plan, or possibly two development plans, ago. That is why there is a very high refusal rate.

Blame for many of the delays should not be laid at the door of our organisation, although we accept responsibility for some of the delays. There has been a huge amount of litigation. The Heather Hill and Crofton cases were part of it. Many cases were delayed pending clarification of the law in that regard.