Mr. Jack O'Sullivan:

This delay is unusually long. There are several similar cases where there have been very long delays but, normally, those are cases that involve a degree of legal complexity as well as environmental problems. In this case, the county council is stuck in this situation. It can no longer grant planning permission retrospectively because that legislation was struck down, so the problem it faces relates to how it can deal with the issue. The committee may wish to bring in a witness from Westmeath County Council. This raises the question as to why the Department or the Minister, as a legislator, has not acted to change the legislation. I do not want the legislation to be changed to make it easy to get retrospective development or retrospective consent. That would not be right. The legislation that was in place was struck down because it was only supposed to be used in exceptional circumstances. It was struck down in a case relating to a quarry in respect of which there were no exceptional circumstances at all yet An Bord Pleanála granted permission for the quarry using that legislation. We need to change the legislation quite seriously and look at it in a way that is more thoughtful in the sense that it conforms to the European requirements and does not drive a coach and horses through the appropriate assessment requirement of the habitats directive, the birds directive or the environmental impact assessment directive or, very importantly, the Aarhus Convention, which guarantees that every citizen has the right to public information and public participation in environmental decision-making and to environmental justice. Local authorities and An Bord Pleanála do not give enough information to members of the public and that is where things start to go wrong. When Sean and Mary citizen find out that certain decisions have been made but they do not know why and cannot get the information, a kind of unwillingness or fear or, at least, a lack of trust creeps in. Although we in Ireland generally trust our Government more than some people in other member states do, we are not as trusting as the Nordic states, for example, are of their governments. Having far more openness and transparency is another issue that needs to be examined. That would help this kind of thing to happen.

A member made a very important point that I notice quite often, which is that some of the State agencies do not work together. For example, An Bord Pleanála and the Environmental Protection Agency should work together. In name, they do so. They actually have a memorandum of understanding. However, if one looks at a planning application that involves both a licence from the EPA and planning permission from An Bord Pleanála and how those bodies talk to one another, one will see that they do not actually say anything to one another.

I find that is not good. I would far prefer to see a much greater level of collaboration between them. While I am aware that this may not be part of our present discussion, I would love to see an oral hearing with two chairpersons — one from the EPA and one from An Bord Pleanála — rather than two separate oral hearings six months or a year apart. I would like to see a single oral hearing. That would save a lot of money for the developer in addition to those opposing the development. We made a recommendation in this regard in 2009 when several us were asked by a Minister responsible for the environment to examine the EPA. The Department did not like it for various reasons, so it fell. Those are my few thoughts in response to the question.