Mr. Brendan Allen:

I thank the committee for the invitation. The team has been introduced already. The Irish Planning Institute represents approximately 700 professional planners across the public, private, semi-state and academic sectors. At the outset I am keen to say that we recognise the current housing situation. The institute assists in delivering the housing units required to try to resolve the situation. However, we have queries on a number of aspects of the proposed legislation.

In Dublin there is potential to deliver approximately 46,000 homes on lands zoned where essential services already exist. Approximately nine in ten applications were granted by local authorities last year. Two thirds of these were decided within eight weeks. That is based on our basic research.

The An Bord Pleanála 2015 report notes that all appeals involving larger multi-unit housing developments have been decided within the statutory compliance time limit of 18 weeks. We question how it can be said that the planning system is targeted or frequently cited as the main constraint on supply. Permission is not always the issue. It is a question of activating the permission. Once an applicant gets permission, how does the applicant build out the plans in terms of dealing with compliance submissions and having houses in place? It is all very well getting planning permission, but delivery is really the issue.

A threshold of 100 homes is referred to in the legislation. We have a query in this regard. The current system allows for third-party planning appeals.

Given that the centralisation of the planning system in terms of taking more applications directly into An Bord Pleanála is not set out in any Government policy, we are unclear as to where it sits. Will there be more applications or strategic infrastructure development, SID, type legislation be introduced to deal with other aspects of planning?

The IPI believes spatial planning is a fundamental local government function which should be primarily delivered at local level with reference to the principle of subsidiarity. Again, we made the point a number of years ago regarding the Department in its recent statement of strategy consultation. Other than anecdotal evidence that the housing action plan has not identified any systematic difficulties associated with the development management system which might form a basis for requiring all applications for 100-plus residential units being made directly to An Bord Pleanála, we need information that can be given, including details of the evidence basis for choosing the threshold of 100 units. Has research demonstrated this is a particular threshold at which applications are consistently coming into the planning system, or is it less or more? We also need information on the evidence basis for the cumulative floor space threshold of other uses in mixed-use schemes and clarity on how it is proposed to deal with, for example, student accommodation.

There is a presumption against further information requests in the proposed legislation and oral hearings. An analysis of the issues that necessitate further information requests and oral hearings would be welcomed. The housing action plan has set a timeline for a root-and-branch review of the planning system to be undertaken by the first quarter of 2017. We are unclear as to the format this might take and whether it can be accomplished in the timeframe. It was referred to in the previous presentation.

We represent planning practitioners at a variety of levels and our members have reviewed the proposed legislation. There are several issues regarding its practical implementation. It is vital that we encourage rather than reduce public involvement at all stages of the planning process. This would be a key role of the office of the planning regulator and is also one the IPI has advocated for many years. The proposed legislation further removes communities from their local authorities and the development plan and decision-making process. The recent review of An Bord Pleanála outlined difficulties with the strategic infrastructure process, which can lead to significant delays in decision making. Having regard to the lack of appeal of such decisions, there is an increased risk of legal challenges. There appears to be a large number of judicial reviews taken on current SID applications. This must be considered in the timeframe of delivering developments and planning permissions.

Without clear anti-avoidance measures, the legislation would not be effective. It is not clear how phased sub-threshold applications would be dealt with. The legislation is not accompanied by commitment for extra resources for An Bord Pleanála to deliver the requirements. The institute suggests strong consideration should be given to ensuring planning authorities are properly resourced in the first place to deal with the issues discussed previously regarding lengthy pre-application planning consultations and how they can be made better and more effective before removing them from the local authorities and diverting them to be dealt with by a different body, which presumably would then require additional resourcing.

The legislation allows for compliance matters with conditions to be dealt with by planning authorities but is silent on the timeframes associated with compliance. The agreement of compliance issues before commencement of development can be a very major issue for the delivery of developments that have planning permissions. The proposed structures could result in increased costs for applicants for housing developments. The cost of third-party submissions to the process is unclear. It is unclear whether it will remain the same as the €20 fee people currently pay or will be the €50 people pay for SID applications. While the Bill names Irish Water, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, and the National Transport Authority as consultees, it is unclear why these bodies are listed. Other prescribed bodies that typically are consulted on applications such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the development applications unit and various others are not listed.

More easily, rapid response teams project managed by a professional planner or appropriate individual in a local authority who has responsibility for co-ordinating housing applications within that planning authority from the pre-planning phase through to the compliance stage could be put in place in local authorities. Greater co-ordination between bodies such as TII and local authorities, funding for essential infrastructure, addressing land costs and improved compulsory purchase order, CPO, powers to assemble sites are all factors that could play a part in increasing housing output. Addressing deficiencies in the existing planning code which have been identified as impeding the efficient delivery of housing should be prioritised. For example, statutory timeframes around compliance submissions would be welcomed. The consolidation of planning legislation is difficult for planning practitioners, never mind the public, to understand at times. The onus is on applicants to engage appropriate teams of professionals in order to assemble applications. We encourage the committee to support the institute's call for the regulation of the title "planner" to ensure qualified and trained individuals would offer and lead such planning teams. It could be done by placing a definition of "planner" in the legislation and detailing the role of professional planners.

The IPI wishes to work constructively with the Department. Given the experience of our practitioners in the public and private sector, in the event that the legislation is passed we would like to work through the specifics of the Bill so we do not find ourselves in 12 months' time with a miscellaneous Bill to tidy up glitches we anticipate could happen with the legislation. We are very open to working with the Department through a working group for something like this to occur. I thank committee members for this opportunity.