Mr. Gavin Lawlor:

I apologise that I do not have the section to hand. However, there is a provision under which the planning authorities have the ability to redact submissions in the event that certain issues are mentioned that are of a sensitive nature. It is just that the timelines are too rushed.

One of the big issues - and I mentioned this in my submission - that is important to the institute is engaging more with communities in the plan-making process. We firmly believe in a plan-led approach. We see the ambition of moving towards a more plan-led approach. Let us face it: we have a plan-led system at the moment, but what we are moving towards is a more detailed plan-led system. One of the things I know as a practitioner is it is difficult to get communities to engage with development plans. They find it impenetrable because of the language, the detail and whether they will be looking at 2D or 3D maps. I know this has come up in some of the submissions to the committee. The answer is not in an advertisement or in telling people that the plan is there. One has to physically engage with communities and that takes time and it takes expertise to listen. I know from speaking with communities and from making submissions - not in a professional capacity but a personal capacity for community organisations - is they feel disheartened when they are not listened to. Listening to them does not mean that they have to be agreed with; it just means that they have to be heard. A lot of the time, planning authorities just do not have the time to engage properly with communities. Because of that, people say, "I cannot be bothered" and because they are not engaging with the plans, plans happen that they then feel disenfranchised from. That is part of the start of the problem when it comes to planning and development because the plans are meant to be led by their councillors and representative of their community's views, or at least taking them into account. However, if one loses people at the beginning of the process, it will not be unusual for them to come back at the end of the process with JRs. The timeline that is provided, therefore, is not sufficient. We think instead of two years it should be a minimum of three years.

Another issue we have is with the sequencing of plans. There is the national planning framework, NPF, the regional spatial and economic strategy, RSES, etc. One thing this legislation will do is bring in ten-year development plans immediately after it comes in. The planning authorities, unless otherwise directed by the Minister, will come to the end of their natural plan and then get into the new sequence. There is a horrible complexity until all that works out. It will take anywhere up to 16 years. Dublin City Council's plans, South Dublin County Council's plans and Fingal County Council's plans this year are all newly adopted. Unless the Minister directs those planning authorities to start their development plan process, it could take up to 16 years and it will be a minimum of two to three years before those plans come in.