Mr. John Spain:

Valid points were made by Deputy Casey on the delays in the local area plan review process and on density in smaller settlements.

These are issues that do not arise from the SHD process. They are there for all applications. The LAP update process will be addressed in the short term now that the regional strategies are in place. Although the delay is regrettable, it is now being addressed. LAPs will remain an important part of the process and the input of elected representatives to the make-up of those plans will also remain important.

The density policy is set by Government, not by the board, which just implements the policy. There is room to provide a review of policy as it applies to smaller settlements and those that are more remote from major urban centres. There are a lot of concerns about the viability of delivery of higher density schemes in some of these smaller settlements and more remote locations. That must be considered further.

The 34% refusal rate is high. Compared with all planning applications under the normal planning application process across the board, the local authority level refusal rate is 10%, for instance. I welcome that the refusal rate appears to be falling somewhat more recently. Our submission suggests several measures to address that and achieve a higher permission rate. No one goes into this process other than to achieve a permission. It is a very expensive, time-consuming process for applicants. However, it shows that it is a very rigorous process for developers and is risky. It also shows that the concerns raised by local authorities, planners and others making submissions and observations - third parties and statutory bodies - are taken very seriously and that has had a significant influence on that refusal rate. There are measures that could go further to bring that down, including oral hearings, which we would welcome. It has been used relatively recently. We also suggest introducing provisions similar to section 132 provisions in normal applications in exceptional circumstances in those few cases where refusal could be avoided by further information. That is an approach that is permitted. Second meetings with the board in exceptional circumstances at pre-application stage and greater clarity, which we are seeing being given at pre-application stage in the board's opinions, are very welcome.

I agree on the serious issues about resourcing and timeliness of agreements with Irish Water. That is an important matter that can be addressed to improve on delivery. Of the approximately 67 permissions we examined, around a quarter - 16 - exceed where they are in implementation from a detailed knowledge of the situation on the ground. The vast majority of those, 11 of the sample of 16, are at preliminary construction or full construction stages. The sample is across the board geographically in the types of scheme and type of developer. Three more recent permissions in the recent weeks are at compliance stage. We anticipate 15 of the 16 being implemented in the short term. All are likely to be implemented within the lifetime of the permissions, but the great majority will be implemented in the short term. We are only beginning to see the feed through of a significant increase in construction rates following from the increase in planning applications and permissions being granted. The system is delivering and will be seen to deliver very strongly over the next year or two.