Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yesterday, I took the time to contact councillors from all parties and none to tell them An Bord Pleanála was coming before the committee today, as has been customary for me since I became a member of this committee three and a half years ago. To say there was an avalanche of telephone calls and emails would be an understatement. Local communities feel disenfranchised by the SHD process and politicians - national and local - feel disenfranchised. Planners also, who are members of the Irish Planning Institute, have expressed concern. Its submission on 16 July was its initial submission and the nuances are slightly different now in terms of where it stands on the SHD. It was an excellent submission and I spoke to a number of planners across the 30 or so local authorities, who all agreed. They are under-resourced and under pressure and many of them are disillusioned and thinking of getting out. As Mr. Corr said, his membership comprises people who sit on local authorities and who work in State agencies, in An Bord Pleanála and in Mr. Duffy's organisation. It is a very impressive body of people who have a track record of delivering and they are saying "Enough is enough; it has got to stop."

I will cut to the chase and say it has failed the planning system. Subsidiarity means making decisions within communities and if the witnesses are telling this committee that this is a major infringement of the Aarhus Convention and undermines citizens' ability to make their views known in the planning process, we have to do something. I do not want this to be a box-ticking exercise. The witnesses have set out their credentials well but I will focus on the IPI as I have taken the trouble to look at its track record and to talk to its membership across the sector. What is the IPI's stance on the removal of the right to a third party appeal? What is the stance of An Bord Pleanála? It is important that local authorities are acknowledged as the best-placed people to make decisions.

I am not talking about councillors. I am talking about the unique relationship between councils, which have local knowledge, and expert planners who have trained in and have knowledge of planning matters. I want to hear what the witnesses have to say about that.

On the overall process, is it right that An Bord Pleanála should be judge and jury in a case? I note that the IPI strongly advocates the need for additional resources for local authorities to allow them to get on with their work. There was some suggestion regarding other groups and the establishment of a special planning and environment law court was also mentioned. Will the witnesses comment on that? It is wholly wrong and inappropriate that citizens are forced to take costly judicial reviews because this has an impact on communities and individuals. I know a man in one local authority area who is representing himself in a case as a lay litigant. I am familiar with communities in Dublin that are literally broke because they have initiated judicial processes and then some people have decided they cannot proceed with a case or put their homes on the line. That is an important issue.

The IPI talks about the introduction of a site value tax for sites that receive permission via the strategic housing development process. Will the witnesses clarify that? I would like to hear their comments on it because it is a very important issue.

In respect of An Bord Pleanála, there is much criticism of its website and the system it has in place. An applicant can put up a map, plans and a photomontage as he or she sees fit and advocate for his or her own planning application. In some cases, after the event, councillors cannot get access to application. I want to hear the board's view on all of that in terms of access to this information, particularly its websites.

We know there are issues with requests for further information and the mechanisms involved in that. There are serious concerns about that, abuses of the system and the way it which it prolongs the process. This is meant to be fast-track planning but I do not believe that is the case.

The strategic housing development process disenfranchises communities. It is not right or proper. It needs to cease, not next year or the year after that. It was a temporary measure, which has failed and did not deliver homes. It may have delivered student accommodation and in other areas but it has not delivered on the key objective of the Rebuilding Ireland programme, namely, to deliver homes. The most important comment I am hearing from local councillors and planners is that they are demoralised. They feel disenfranchised, as do communities. The SHD process is an attack on a sustainable, consultative planning process. There can be no place in a democracy for having proper open, transparent planning done by an elite group in Marlborough Street. The system is not engaging with those who are elected by the people to represent them. The citizens have the right to engage in the planning process.