Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Heneghan outlined very concisely why names and addresses are an issue for residents' associations. My understanding is that this comes from situations in the past where groups were established purporting to be on behalf of the people when they are not necessarily on behalf of more than one or two people. That is probably what they are trying to establish through transparency. Is there any way we can do that to make sure people's names and addresses are not necessarily being handed over or put in the public domain, as happened in the case of Ms Foster, but we satisfy the planning authority that this is a residents' group and is associated with 20 or more people or something like that? I would be really interested in hearing the witnesses' ideas around that.

I hear what the witnesses are saying in respect of judicial review and the right of access. Part of it comes down to what Ms Foster and Mr. Heneghan outlined in their submissions, namely, the lack of meaningful consultation where a county council might be going out to public consultation, be it on a public project or planning permission or application, and gets in how many submissions but does not necessarily take those submissions on board when it is making a decision. A situation arose in Lucan village in my area where I understand about 7,000 submissions were received on something and the recommendation from the manager was to proceed as is, even though a huge proportion of those submissions recommended changes. I would be an advocate for meaningful consultation where when things are put out there, they are responded to. During the development plan process, I do not think it is published but it is quite clear to councillors and local representatives that when somebody makes a submission on the draft development plan, the point is actually taken and responded to.

I do not believe that happens enough in our consultations. At least then the point was addressed, maybe not adequately from the perspective of everybody involved but at least it was heard, taken on board and at least there is a reply to it. Should we bake something like that in here?

In regard to the timelines, certainty seems to the main requirement around timelines. We have heard from other witnesses before us including An Bord Pleanála that they would like those timelines extended. Would that be okay if there were still certain timelines?

In regard to comments about development plans being torn up by central government. Are they torn up by the courts or by ministerial orders after the Office of the Planning Regulator makes a decision? I will start with Mr. Heneghan and Ms Cadell in regard to the names and addresses in the consultation. We will get to the other points afterwards.