Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the presentations. Part of the purpose of today's meeting is because the proposed planning changes represent a profound change to the planning system, particularly for the large developments, so we are looking for as much information as possible before many of us make decisions. While I am intuitively not in favour of the particular proposal, I am open to persuasion, depending on the evidence presented to us. My questions are on that basis.

I have some questions on the PowerPoint presentation and the legislation, and then questions for the Irish Planning Institute witnesses, which I will go through one by one.

The third bullet point on page 1 of the presentation is about a fundamental shortage of ready to go sites. How many ready to go sites with planning permission are there across the State? What number of units does that represent? We would like to know that figure. The first bullet point on page 2 indicates that it takes up to six weeks to get an appointment. Is that an average figure? Is that due to staffing or other reasons? The second bullet point on planning applications is about requests for further information. From my experience in South Dublin County Council, one of the biggest delays in the county council end of a planning application was that process of requesting further information. That is an important process because it is the point at which the planning authority gets to assess compatibility with the development plan, local area plans, etc. Has the Department taken a view on the reason that exchange of information can take so long? Is it poor quality planning applications or that local authorities are being awkward? There must be some reason for that.

I am also unsure as to the logic of the second sub-point under that bullet point, which states that because these mechanisms for further information are available and there is a likelihood of the planning authority requesting them, applicants are encouraged to send in applications in the knowledge that they will be asked to provide further information. I would have thought that everything the Department is saying in this presentation is the very opposite of that because there is a financial cost to delaying it. There will be huge pressure from the developer, the architects and the consultants to make sure the planning application is done to the very best of their ability to ensure there are not further requests for information. I would like to know the basis on which the witnesses are making that statement.

With regard to the initial analysis of the 2016 decided cases, how many cases does that involve and over what period of time? I am confused because we were told in one of the first notes on the general scheme that we were looking at an 18 to 24 months process but the witnesses have told us that the average is a one year process, which is shorter than that. The problem with averages is that they do not necessarily tell us what happens in the majority of cases because a very small number of very big outliers, either short or long, can stretch out the average. Will the witnesses give us the full data on which this PowerPoint is based so that we can drill underneath the figures, so to speak, and make an assessment? Of the total number of cases, how many of those are happening within the 12 month period? Of the cases that are taking between 12 and 18 months, what percentage of the cases the witnesses studied does that affect?

The second last bullet point on that page indicates a potential cost of €4,000 per home, and approximately a 10% interest. Perhaps I do not understand this but I would have presumed that is a 10% interest charge on the loan yet at the start of the presentation the witnesses told us that part of the difficulty for these developers, and one of the reasons they are proposing these changes, is that they cannot get the loans. If they do not have the loans, am I right in thinking there is no interest charge? If I have it wrong, the witnesses might clarify that for me.

I have a couple of additional questions on the legislation. If this proposal goes through, where does enforcement lie? Will enforcement lie with the local authority in the relevant area or will it be similar to strategic infrastructure projects like roads, for example, where there is no statutory enforcement body? Which of those two will be the outcome of this process?

I have a concern about the ability of An Bord Pleanála to make the very detailed assessments of the planning applications. We have 30 or 40 local authorities with different development plans, local area plans, etc., and there is a lot of specialised expertise in the relevant planning authorities. An Bord Pleanála could not be expected to have that same level of information so by removing the local authority from that detailed assessment, are the witnesses confident that the staff, and I am not casting aspersions on the quality of the staff in An Bord Pleanála as their function is different, have the level of expertise in terms of all those development plans and local area plans to make those same assessments that happen in that first phase? I would be concerned about that.

With regard to the pre-application process, which is a really good idea, why was that not considered as a statutory requirement with the local authorities, with statutory timeframes for that? Was that considered and, if so, why was it rejected?

I echo Senator Boyhan's point about third party and community consultation appeals and oral hearings. There is a real concern in that it is already very difficult for third parties to have any meaningful impact on the planning process because it requires such a specialised level of technical expertise. Local councillors and community organisations could make submissions. They are usually subjective opinions and not reasoned, planning based opinions. Are the witnesses satisfied that reducing the ability of third parties to engage, appeal and have oral hearings will not reduce the quality of the final planning decisions?

The heads of the Bill contain a large section on environmental impact assessments and nobody has mentioned them. It is one of the bits of the legislation that concerns me most, particularly with large applications. I would like to hear more about the rationale for trying to reduce the reliance or need for an environmental impact assessment. That is what the legislation seems to suggest. What is the rationale behind the suggestion?

A section of the Bill mentions additional powers for the Minister. I always get nervous when I hear the phrase "additional powers of the Minister", particularly when he or she gets to award himself or herself additional powers. I would like to know more about the provision, what is envisaged and what checks and balances are in place. A small section of the legislation deals with Part V provision. My reading of it is the provision does not affect Part V obligations in those developments but I would like that to be confirmed.

In terms of the legislation, nobody has talked about Part VIII. Can the witnesses confirm if my reading of the head is correct? There will be the regular eight-week consultation and then the local authority must take a decision within six weeks. That means the process will take 14 weeks. If that is the case then it is a good thing.