Mr. Paul Hyde:

I will take two of the questions and pass one to my colleague. On the question regarding the number of cases in which the board overturns its own inspector's recommendation, in SHD the rate is less than 10%. In the wider course of our work in terms of normal section 34 appeals, the rate is higher, possibly between 12% and 15%. It is not something that is done very often. The board is a tribunal made up of three people who deliberate on each case. They will look at the legislation, the guidelines and everything else. On occasion, they disagree with their own inspector. The Senator referenced the 2019 Supreme Court judgment in Balz & Ancor v.An Bord Pleanála. The board, like all decision makers these days, always endeavours to give as concise and clear a set of stated reasons and considerations as possible for its decision. Many decision makers have been challenged in the courts in respect of the conciseness or accuracy of the stated reasons and considerations in the interests of public participation and transparency, as the Senator stated. The board always endeavours to give its reasons and considerations to the best of its ability.

On the issue of student accommodation, as I stated earlier, we can only address our minds to cases that come before us on their own merits. If they are appropriately zoned within the zoning matrix of the development plan, then we must consider them against all of the guidelines that are there. Obviously, in specific parts of the city there have been many types of uses coming in. As I stated, we must take them on their own merits.

Ms Kenny may wish to deal with section 37 and material contraventions of the development plan.