Mr. John Sheahan:

I reiterate what our chairperson said. We thank the committee for the invitation to address the serious issues arising from the publication of this draft Bill. LAMA is the representative body of some 800 of the 949 councillors throughout the 31 local authorities.

Our concerns on this draft Bill are that without robust reviews being built in, the proposed tenure of future city and county development plans is far too long, at ten years. With an effective rolling ten-year plan, it is possible that councillors elected to a local authority may never get a chance to have any input to a plan. LAMA sees the merit of the longer period to coincide with national strategies like Project Ireland 2040.

Councillors need to be able initiate a proper review. All city and county development plans are passed in good faith, in that the interpretation of the written word reflects what councillors believed it meant on the day they passed the plan. Plans, along with a robust review, should be scheduled for mid-term in any council term. This would allay fears that the review could become an election issue, which could lead to poor decisions.

The initiation of material contraventions to city and county development plans should be equally the gift of both the members and the executive. At present contraventions seem to come from the executive predominantly. To overcome overuse of the material contravention process, a two thirds majority would be recommended before the contravention is ratified to proceed.

The removal of any aspect of the reserved function of Part 8 planning from councillors must be opposed strongly. Last December, the Government introduced an amendment to the Planning and Development and Foreshore (Amendment) Act 2022 that removed councillors' power to approve planning on council-owned lands. This was akin to the strategic housing developments, SHDs, and other attempts at taking away power to decide at local level. We in LAMA ask our national legislators to desist from these ill-thought-out solutions to issues that are not of the making of local authority members. Local decisions at local level in the interest of subsidiarity, within prompt timelines, are the most efficient way of effecting timely solutions.

Adequate resourcing of local authorities and An Bord Pleanála is crucial in making planning work efficiently in this country. All the fanfare around direct planning routes to An Bord Pleanála has done little to expedite decisions. First, the board was totally under-resourced for the extra workload, which has led to huge backlogs, with approximately 70,000 homes still awaiting a decision. We welcome statutory timelines similar to those at local authority level. People may not be happy with a local authority decision but at least they will get one within the timeframe laid out. If An Bord Pleanála fails to meet timelines, it should face sanction.

The format for taking judicial reviews should have some filtering process in terms of how such reviews get to court in the first place. It must be determined whether the review is vexatious - are those taking the review doing so for the common good or is it just plain nimbyism? There is a line where local democracy can find itself quasi-supplanted by another arm of the State. The ability of someone from outside the jurisdiction or from long distances within the country to object to planning needs review. In some cities in Europe, objectors have to be within a certain radius, for example, 100 km, to have a valid objection. LAMA does not have specific solutions for this as it is predominantly for the legal eagles to decide but we would urge our national legislators to use all at their disposal to review this in the context of the Bill.

Finally, we ask that in conjunction with this Bill, the publication of the rural housing guidelines would happen forthwith as councillors, while making decisions, are unclear as to what national legislators want. We thank committee members for their time and are happy to take questions.