Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 2 July 2025
Committee on Infrastructure and National Development Plan Delivery
Role, Responsibilities and Processes of An Coimisiún Pleanála and Office of the Planning Regulator: Discussion
2:00 am
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the role and responsibilities of An Coimisiún Pleanála, formerly known as An Bord Pleanála, and the Office of the Planning Regulator. I am very pleased to welcome from An Coimisiún Pleanála, Mr. Peter Mullan, chief executive, Mr. Chris McGarry, Ms Bríd Hill, Ms Ciara Kellett, Ms Erika Casey and Mr. Kevin Baneham. From the Office of the Planning Regulator, I welcome Mr. Niall Cussen, chief executive, who is joined by Ms Anne Marie O'Connor.
I remind witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, witnesses will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with such direction.
I remind members that they will be afforded a six-minute speaking slot for questions and answers, with a second opportunity for questions and answers if they wish.
I call Mr. Peter Mullan, chief executive, to make his opening statement on behalf of An Coimisiún Pleanála.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I am grateful for this opportunity to address the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee regarding the work of An Coimisiún Pleanála. I may lapse occasionally into use of the title An Bord Pleanála because, obviously, we had that name for 48 years. I am the chief executive of An Coimisiún Pleanála, an organisation I am proud to lead. I am grateful for this opportunity to assist the committee in its work and explain the roles, responsibilities and processes of the organisation. I am accompanied on my left by deputy chief planning commissioner, Chris McGarry; chief officer, Bríd Hill; two directors of planning, Erika Casey and Ciara Kellett; and to my left-hand side, our director of legal affairs, Kevin Baneham. We are at members' disposal when we come to answer questions.
An Coimisiún Pleanála is Ireland’s national planning body. Our mission as an independent national body is to make impartial, timely planning decisions ensuring that developments and major infrastructure projects in Ireland respect the principles of sustainable development, including the protection of the environment.
That there have been a number of governance changes in the last number of weeks is information in the public domain. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Members of the Oireachtas in their role as policymakers in the careful scrutiny of the Planning and Development Bill, which allowed for the significant overhaul and modernisation of our planning system.
Two weeks ago, Part 17 of the Planning and Development Act 2024 was commenced. An Coimisiún Pleanála came into being on 18 June. I assumed the role of CEO and I am responsible for management, administration and the day-to-day business of the commission. The Act provides that the CEO is responsible for attending committees of the Oireachtas, and I am here today at members' disposal.
A number of other governance changes took place on that day. A governing board was appointed, and Mr. Paul Reid is its chairperson. He is obviously well known to the committee. The governing board was established to review and guide the strategic direction of the commission, set the performance objectives and monitor the attainment of those objectives. The previous board became planning commissioners, and a separate corporate board is in line with modern corporate practices. These changes, together with the increase in the staffing of the organisation over the recent period, are important for dealing with the volume and increasing complexity of the cases received by the commission, in particular with regard to infrastructure.
These measures are positive developments built on solid foundation. As an organisation, we have wholeheartedly embraced these changes and have been planning for them for the past year. I acknowledge in particular the role of our colleagues who have served in An Bord Pleanála over the past 48 years. Their public service has made a significant contribution to the Irish planning system.
To provide some context, in 2024, 5.9% of national planning decisions were appealed to the board from local authorities. Some 48% of those were altered or varied, 24% were reversed and 28% were confirmed by the board, as it was then.
To give context of the different types of work, there are essentially two streams of work, namely, normal planning appeals and strategic infrastructure developments. The body was established under the 1977 Act. Appeals under section 37 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, usually referred to as normal planning appeals, constitute a significant proportion of the work of the commission and account for approximately 70% of its decisions. These appeals arise from decisions by planning authorities on applications for permission for the development of land, including applications for the retention of structures, continuation of use, etc.
The other side of the house is responsible for strategic infrastructure developments, including major road and railway cases and renewable energy cases. These account for approximately 70% of the work. We have a specialist team dedicated to these applications, consisting of our most experienced staff. They also have the new function of determining applications for developments in the marine area. Members will have been supplied with significant material in respect of the breakdown of work roles we have in that regard.
Further details of the work and remit of the board are set out in the papers that we have supplied to the committee.
The commission has sanction for a staffing contingent of 313, including 15 planning commissioners. As of today, we have a staffing complement of 299, a third of whom are working with the planning inspectorate. As of this morning, we have achieved a staffing complement of 92%, which compares very favourably with most public sector organisations, which run at about 85% to more than 90%. We are an employer of choice. There has been a significant overhaul of the staffing of the organisation. Over half the staff, including myself, are with the organisation for less than five years. In the past year to 18 months, we have recruited 67 staff. We have a high retention rate of staff and my colleague, Ms Bríd Hill, will be able to answer any questions should they arise.
As of today, we have 14 planning commissioners. I was a decision-maker board member and then became chief executive. The role of chief planning commissioner is vacant and a competition will be run by the Public Appointments Service following a decision by the governing board, as it is a matter for that board.
There has been significantly increased capacity at inspectorate level of approximately 111, including the management team. That provision has allowed us to make significant reductions and eliminate a backlog of work that had built up in the difficult years of 2022 and 2023 when we reached three times our normal caseload. I am happy to answer any questions on that.
To put things in context, we had significant reputational damage in 2022. The then deputy chair of An Bord Pleanála resigned and, subsequently, was charged with and convicted of making false and misleading statutory declarations. Following the retirement of the then chairperson, the Minister moved quickly to stabilise the situation. My predecessor, Ms Oonagh Buckley, was appointed in November or December of 2022 as interim deputy chair and later appointed chairperson, which required a legislative change. The terms of the other board members came to an end during 2022 and they were not replaced. During this time, in the absence of a chairperson and deputy chairperson, it was not possible under the legislation to convene certain types of board for strategic infrastructure projects and strategic housing developments, so a significant backlog developed Also during that period, there were five serving board members but only four available to make decisions because one board member was on long-term sick leave. I am grateful to say that he has returned to work.
On reputational damage, one of the first priorities of my predecessor was to restore confidence in the organisation and make inroads into the backlog. Steps were taken by my predecessor and myself when I took over as interim chair in September 2023. We successfully advocated and the Department changed the legislation to increase the complement of board members, who are now commissioners, to 15 and appoint same. That was done. Sanction was sought and received for 117 posts. Of those, 115 were filled. Two were not, given their specialist nature. It is increasingly difficult to hire certain ICT grades. We have been unable to do that but we have contractors to deal with those positions. Additionally, there were recommendations by our colleagues in the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, and ministerial recommendations. We implemented those in conjunction with the OPR's office. In particular, these included the revised code of conduct, anti-fraud and protected disclosure policies, and the policy in relation to the declarations of conflict of interest, a matter that led to the difficulty for which the previous deputy chair was subsequently convicted.
There has been a significant reduction in our caseload. In May 2023, our backlog was 3,600 cases, the highest level in recent years. Our normal caseload is around 1,200 cases and depends on the trend in intake. In other words, in May 2023, we had three times our normal caseload. I am pleased to say that, as of mid-June, our caseload is between 1,250 and 1,300 mark, which means there has been a 65% reduction in our caseload and we are now close to our normal caseload. I am happy to discuss the matter further.
We are conscious of the steady progress that has been made. We are also conscious that there are some very old significant infrastructure cases on which decisions are awaited, which is colouring the perception of us as an organisation. We are on course to issue many significant decisions over the coming months and we can talk a little about that later on. It is also the case that a number of applicants and appellants await decisions significantly over their statutory objective periods, with some in excess of 12 months. I apologise to them and assure them we are doing our best to clear the backlog. I am happy to answer questions on the matter.
Prioritisation is clearly an issue for this committee. I am sure that members of the committee will appreciate that in order to clear the backlog, particularly over the preceding number of years, we have moved away from deciding cases in strict chronological order and applied different prioritisation. For example, the period for large-scale residential developments, LRDs, which are schemes comprising in excess of 100 residential units or 200 student bed spaces, is 16 weeks. I am pleased to inform the committee that we have had 100% compliance with that for the last two years. Again, we can talk about the nuances of that. I I expect there will be questions on it.
On the statutory objective period, we have talked about the LRDs in which we have 100% compliance. We have also got very high levels of compliance in respect of other land activation measures like derelict sites, residential zoned land tax, RZLT, cases and householder cases. The RZLT and derelict site cases are close to 100% compliance and we have done our best to clear the previous backlogs that had emerged.
For 2025, we have a performance delivery agreement with the Department. The targets set for the various case types later this year reflects the new mandatory timelines under the Act. In respect of planning appeals received in 2025, we hope to meet the statutory objective period in 85% of those cases. For normal planning appeals, there is an 18-week period. Again, we will discuss that later.
Technically speaking, the statutory objective period in respect of strategic infrastructure developments is 18 weeks. There is no realism to that. The new Act recognises the complexity of these cases, reflects international experience in respect of how long it takes for these developments to get planning, and recognises the period of 48 weeks. We have agreed with the Department that 48 weeks is the statutory objective period that we will endeavour to meet for those types of case. We hope that we will reach between 70% and 80% of that as we near the end of the year.
There has been significant stakeholder engagement because we have met various groups. This morning, we met Members of the Oireachtas, for example, members of the housing committee. We have met various other prescribed groups, including environmental NGOs. We also meet business and industry groups on a quarterly basis.
I expect there will be questions on judicial reviews. A significant number of judicial reviews have been lodged this year - 88 in total. A director of legal affairs has been appointed, and is with us here, and is overseeing an in-house legal unit and the procurement of additional legal services, which are important as they will help deal with the complex judicial review cases. We anticipate that there will be legal complexities and thereby will have an impact on the framework. I have skipped over a tiny bit of that for the sake of brevity.
As an independent planning body, An Coimisiún Pleanála is committed to meeting its statutory targets in respect of all cases before the commission, including all appeals and direct applications in respect of critical infrastructure projects for transport, water, the electrical grid and energy, as well as large-scale residential developments. We anticipate that we will be in a strong position to meet our statutory obligations under Part 4 of the new Planning and Development Act, which has mandatory timelines that I am sure all members are familiar with. I understand that it is scheduled for commencement later this year. It is in the Department's implementation plan. We are happy to assist the committee to understand our casework and performance by answering any questions.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Mullan and call Mr. Niall Cussen, chief executive of the Office of the Planning Regulator.
Mr. Niall Cussen:
I thank the committee for the invitation to discuss the role, responsibilities and processes of the Office of the Planning Regulator in the wider planning and infrastructure area. I am accompanied by Ms Anne Marie O’Connor, deputy planning regulator and director of our plans assessment team.
The invitation sought some information on the broad functions and processes of the office, which we have addressed in a written submission. In an overview sense, whereas An Coimisiún Pleanála is a decision-making body that deals with individual matters, cases and so on, our role principally concerns the assessment of development plans, conducting reviews and examinations, handling complaints on planning authorities, including An Coimisiún Pleanála, and undertaking research, training and public awareness activities in the planning area. My address will focus on the infrastructure remit of the commission.
The committee's invitation is timely, given the fact that infrastructure planning and delivery, in a timely, integrated and cost-effective manner, is probably one of the key national issues we all have to address in the context of delivering on housing, climate action, competitiveness and quality of life. Spatial planning and infrastructure delivery are interdependent. They are two sides of the one coin.
On spatial plans and the Office of the Planning Regulator, under the current legislation - Part IIB, Chapter II, of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended - we independently assess local authority development plans in determining their strategic fit with relevant national and regional planning policies.
These include the national planning framework which, backed by capital investment under the national development plan, is the overarching framework for spatial planning in Ireland. We are part of a system of checks and balances that was introduced post the Mahon tribunal, which inquired into certain systemic failings in the planning system in the past. This system was designed to ensure independent oversight and consistency in the alignment of national, regional and local planning.
Through planning legislation, the Oireachtas has determined that national plans, regional strategies and city and county development plans should broadly agree on key planning parameters, including where the population should grow, the levels and types of housing needs that arise from this growth, the infrastructural investment priorities that arise as a result of the growth in terms of water services, transport, schools and amenities, and how all of that is funded as a package. In addition, all of the foregoing must be delivered in a way that protects the environment and tackles climate change.
The briefing note provided contains some examples of where we have had to intervene where those parameters are not properly observed. Everything is or should be connected through the integration of spatial and infrastructural planning. Alignment across spatial plans at the various levels is a fundamental bedrock for national utilities and infrastructure agencies to also plan in a co-ordinated and cost-efficient manner and to meet their own regulatory obligations.
The link between the national development plan and the national planning framework began relatively recently, only in 2018. It is a work in progress. While it is not yet perfect, it has enabled a lot of progress to be made in joining the dots between spatial planning and infrastructure investment as the implementation of the two separate urban and rural regeneration funds, the URDF and the RRDF, demonstrate. There are many other examples of the linkage between the NDP and the NPF.
We have had a key part to play in building stronger links between planning and delivery. As an independent regulator to ensure the national planning framework and the national development plan are appropriately reflected and implemented in local authority plans, our role can at times provoke challenging discussions. We are very aware of the importance of these matters for our stakeholders who are deeply involved and working towards our common goal of creating sustainable communities. However, as determined by the Oireachtas, this oversight and discussion is essential in ensuring local needs are met within the context of the overall spatial planning vision in the national planning framework and the investment to deliver on that through the national development plan to serve the public’s long-term interests and the common good in ensuring plans and infrastructure delivery integrate.
In regard to addressing the infrastructural needs and planning, in our independent role we have a deep understanding of every local authority's development plan and its assessments of infrastructural needs and key gaps. We strongly welcome the Government's objectives to tackle infrastructure backlogs and initiatives such as the Housing Activation Office, the accelerating infrastructure team and all efforts to ramp up delivery. We recognise that the effective functioning of the planning process depends on infrastructure delivery to enable the delivery of future needs in housing, place-making and investment. We believe that our knowledge, expertise and understanding of the process as well as the infrastructural needs assessments underpinning such plans have the potential to provide additional valuable assistance to relevant Departments.
We believe that systems can and should be put in place to track key development areas, their status and progress versus critical infrastructure needs. They are all part of a wider national infrastructure delivery monitoring system. We can assist in building these types of system. For example, the broad spatial pattern of development at local authority plan level, overlaid with the mapping of water services, transport, energy networks and the extent of areas subject to flood risk, need to be combined into an integrated regional and national level monitor of developmental opportunity, infrastructure need and, critically, funding and timelines for delivery. These issues around information sharing, co-ordination and funding in the context of the various capital programmes were highlighted at the national infrastructure symposium we organised through the NDP delivery board in October last year, an event that was followed up by a report that we have provided in the briefing pack for the information of the committee.
Evidence-based and integrated spatial planning is a critical foundation for prudent, efficient and co-ordinated infrastructure funding and delivery. The interests of the public and the common good are at the centre of all statutory functions undertaken by the Office of the Planning Regulator in the assessment of statutory plans, the reviews of the systems and procedures used by all planning authorities, including an coimisiún, and in research, training and public awareness. Through this work, we are committed to supporting local authorities in meeting their legislative and policy requirements and obligations and ensuring that national and regional planning policy is implemented consistently across the country, which is a key building block for infrastructure delivery.
As a country, we have made a lot of progress in recent years in establishing a strong hierarchy of spatial planning at national, regional and local level, linked to infrastructure investment. More than that, we now have the resources to deliver the infrastructure that is needed to realise the opportunities that our spatial plans have identified at the various levels for housing delivery, employment and place-making. We are at a critical moment and juncture in the history of our country and the OPR has a central role in supporting and working with stakeholders to deliver the infrastructure our citizens require and deserve now and for our future. The full weight of the office is behind achieving all of this, including me and my team back in the office. I look forward to the questions of members on all these matters.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Cussen very much.
For the benefit of the committee, before the witnesses came in, I omitted to say one thing. We received a lot of correspondence from the Department of public expenditure, Uisce Éireann, the Department of Transport, Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the National Transport Authority. I do not think members will have had time to absorb it. That is the reason we did not have a discussion on it today. The report we will issue in the week the Dáil gets up will incorporate that. I have asked members to have a look at the documents they have a particular interest in and when it comes to amendments to the report, if there is something they wish to add from the correspondence, we will incorporate some of it when we issue the draft report. It would take the rest of the evening if we were to have a detailed discussion on that today, so we will come back to it as part of the draft report.
I wish to put one observation on the record in response to Mr. Mullan. It relates to the percentage of approvals he outlined. He said 28% were confirmed by the board and 48% were granted with variations or alterations to the authority's decision on the conditions. Does that mean approximately 76% of projects are approved, some with amendments and others as they came through?
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is just an observation I want to put on the record so the public have an idea about it.
Mr. Mullan referred to LDRs and the statutory timeline for them. He also mentioned the statutory obligations under Part 4 of the planning Act and said the commission was working to meet them. My conclusion at this stage is that, where there are statutory timelines for the legislation, they are met and where there are no statutory timelines, they are not met to the same extent. He referred to significant delays. He might come back to me on that. Perhaps everything going to An Coimisiún Pleanála should have a statutory timeline. I will give all the questions in one go. Mr. Mullan also mentioned judicial reviews. He might tell us how many of them are in the system and how long they take. I would welcome a quick observation on that.
Why was it decided to change the name of An Bord Pleanála to An Coimisiún Pleanála, and who did it? Was it agreed at the beginning that €77,000 would be spent on the name change? Mr. Mullan concentrated a lot in his opening remarks on reputational damage in the past. Things happen in every organisation. I am not excusing what happens as long as they are properly dealt with, but it does mean an organisation has to change its name. I hope it is not an attempt to try to leave the past behind us. Mr. Mullan might give us the reasons for that.
I have two short questions for Mr. Cussen. He mentioned that the interests of the public and the common good were at the centre of all statutory functions. Rather than discussing it now, could he send us a good information note on what he means by "the common good"? What are his guidelines? They are central and need more weight than they have at the moment.
One person can object because they do not like the colour of the paint on the window or something like that. We know what we are talking about. Mr. Mullan referred to the common good. Will he flesh that out? It is relevant to this committee. He also referred to parameters, such as population growth, housing needs and investment in terms of water services, transport, schools and amenities. He did not highlight employment. None of us could exist if we did not go out to work and paid our way. That seemed to be missing in his opening statement. Perhaps the reason it is missing is a Government issue or maybe it is down to Mr. Mullan’s observations.
In relation to the county and city development plans, can he provide a county-by-county breakdown of the development plans, including when they were initiated and when they will expire? Are there many of them currently help up in the system and they are relying on an old plan? I ask Mr. Mullan to send us correspondence on that. This gets said to me and I do not know whether it is true or false.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I am happy to address the Cathaoirleach’s questions, essentially four for me and I will then hand over to my colleague. Dealing with them sequentially, if I may, the statutory objective period, although there are a couple minor statutory categories in respect of which I am not aware, every single planning application and category has a statutory objective period. At the moment it is 16 weeks in respect of large-scale residential developments, LRDs, and 18 weeks in respect of normal planning appeals. The other thing is, and I alluded to this in my statement, whereas, at the moment, infrastructure applications and direct applications have an 18-week timeline in relation to them, the new Act recognises that the complexity of those means they require a 48-week period. We are operating to that given their complexity. The simple answer to the question is every case category has those other than some very minor categories, and we have a myriad of responsibilities which, my colleague reminds me, were introduced under the 1992 Act. In relation to judicial review, I will-----
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have all received letters from An Bord Pleanála over the years informing us that decisions have been deferred. We could all quote examples. They might be small cases. You might have timelines, but they do not have-----
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is what I am talking about-----
Mr. Peter Mullan:
No, you are absolutely right in relation to it, a Chathaoirligh, the point being that we developed a very significant caseload. It needs to be seen in the context of 2022 and 2023. There was a very significant backlog which did not allow us to meet the statutory objective periods in the vast majority of our caseload during that period. The case category we made an exemption to was the LRD caseload because we would have faced a financial penalty. We have met those in 100% of cases. I am very happy to talk about how we are transitioning in relation to it. It is in the paperwork that we have supplied to the committee.
Our SOP compliance for this year has gone from lows of 28% in 2023 and 25% in 2024 to 50% in the year to date. Month to date we are at 62%. We are confident we will reach 85% to 90% as the year comes to a close. We have done enormous work with our colleagues in relation to this.
Regarding the name change from An Bord Pleanála to An Coimisiún Pleanála, that was not a decision by ourselves to rebrand the organisation and spend the €76,000, which was reported in the media this morning. We released that figure to journalists last week. That was mandated. This is not a rebranding. This is a governance change that took place as a result of the Planning and Development Act. They renamed our organisation as a result of that. With our organisation being renamed, we were required to reflect that in the signage and in all of the documentation. We were also required to inform the public. The breakdown of the €76,000, includes architectural services for signage. This included liaising with Dublin City Council to see whether we were entitled to a notice of exemption development. We also had to engage with the LUAS operator as our office is located near the LUAS track. To put up the sign was complicated and there were health and safety issues related that. There was a radio campaign and we took out newspaper notices. We did all these things with cost of money considerations right throughout our organisation. Regarding the reference to reputational damage, we did not choose to change our name. That was a decision made by the Government and the Oireachtas. We have accepted that. It was well recorded that there was some unhappiness among staff at the time in relation to the name change. It has now been accepted and embraced. We as an organisation changed our name on 18 June and we were proud to become An Coimisiún Pleanála. There were one or two questions related to legal numbers that my colleague, Mr. Baneham, will discuss.
Mr. Niall Cussen:
We will come back on those information points. There was a point made about employment and economic development. In the opening remarks we always talk about housing, economic development and competitiveness, and the environment, those three pillars of sustainable development. Specifically on employment, and I direct members to page 17 of their information pack, last year we published practice note number 4 on the development plan and employment land. Working very closely with the Department of enterprise, our own parent Department, and a range of other bodies, including the development agencies, we put together a detailed practice manual for local authority planning staff and members on provisioning for employment land and economic development in a development plan, somewhat filling a gap with some practical guidance in this area, including the metrics and calculating what the requirements would be. We are very committed. Economic development fundamentally drives a lot of other areas of delivery, etc. Without that economic development at the core of things, there would be a lot of issues. We have done a lot of work on that.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There are two major crises in Ireland. There is the housing crisis and the infrastructural crisis. In many ways they seem to be dragging to a close in terms of delivery. We have seen a collapse in the number of houses being built, a reduction in the number of planning applications being submitted, and so many infrastructure projects are taking so long to be developed. Would the witnesses be able to tell me what is the average length of time it takes for a housing application to be processed by An Coimisiún Pleanála and the average length of time it takes an infrastructural project to be processed?
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What are the longest in both?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
As an organisation we generally do not normally discuss cases, but there are a number of projects in the public domain that are well known. There is the Galway Harbour project that dates back to 2015. There is the Dublin metro project and the Dublin Airport decision. On the infrastructure side there are a number of wind projects-----
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
How long has the Dublin metro project been before An Coimisiún Pleanála?
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
These are applications that were put into the system and they are still in the system. One is from 2015 and one from 2022, and another from the same year. They are definitely there.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
They are. We are down to two handfuls of cases. One of the slides we provided to the committee pertains to cases at infrastructure level, including transport and renewables. Pre-2021 there are two cases, pre-2022 there is one case, and pre-2023 there are five cases. This is eight in total. Again, they are well-known projects such as the Galway ring road, the metro and a couple of others there. These are reasonably well known and are in the public domain. Normally we do not talk about cases but it is well known that certain cases are at board level. The Dublin airport noise decision is at board level. I am expecting a decision within the next number of weeks. The Dublin drainage decision is also expected in the next number of weeks. We are expecting the metro case to be released from the inspectorate to the board-----
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If I may, because timewise-----
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask people to be aware of time.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is it fair to say that something is dysfunctionally wrong with those particular applications or how the State is treating them? Consider the Dublin metro project, for example. This is one of the biggest and most important applications concerning the city. Dublin is one of the only European cities that does not have a rail line going from the city centre to the airport. We spent €300 million on that application and the whole process so far. Many people would find it outrageous that not a shovel has been put into the ground for that. What is the dysfunction for that taking so long?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I alluded to a number of things in my opening statement in relation to the matter. A number of these applications arrived in - BusConnects would be a good example - during 2022 and 2023 when we were at a three-year caseload. When those cases arrive into an organisation that has gone through an existential crisis in 2022, that does not have the resources or staffing it requires, and that does not have the requisite number of board members to make decisions, then essentially all of those concurrent problems lead to the difficulty that those major projects are delayed.
I will just make one final point because the Deputy will be interested in this point. We are making a commitment that, if infrastructure projects are lodged in 2025, they will meet their timeline in 80% of the cases by year end. That is the commitment we are making. If they were to be lodged today most of those cases would get through the organisation within the 48 week period.
I have one more final point-----
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Mullan says "most" - I am sorry for interrupting - and again this is a frustration. I have noticed that when Mr. Mullan talks about infrastructure, he mentions that it needs to give to be given a 45-week-----
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----a 48-week process, and Mr. Mullan believes that in 80% of the situations, An Coimisiún Pleanála will get that right. It does seep into a person's mind that An Coimisiún Pleanála is going to get this done in 48 weeks, which I think is still a problem anyway, but only a percentage would be done in that period of time. There will still be a large chunk that will actually rumble on for a longer period of time.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
Certainly with the large infrastructure projects, those timelines I am talking about of a year for a project to deliver is replicated right through the European Union. We met our sister organisations from other planning authorities in the UK and Northern Ireland and they have similar timelines in relation to all of those. The metro case, just to put it into context, is an incredibly complicated case. It is the largest infrastructure case that has ever come to our building. That case will be dealt with. That is probably an outlier. The vast majority of infrastructure projects that will come into our organisation in the coming year will be dealt with in the time-----
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If Mr. Mullan is saying that the complement of work staff is 306 or-----
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----and that it is at 299 and the organisation is nearly there, how can he say he has enough staff to deal with the complexity of the applications that are coming in when it is taking so long to put in the application? I know this is simplistic but if we have a team of ten people working on an application and it takes five years to do, surely if we quadruple that, it will take a shorter period of time to actually do that application. Given that infrastructure delivery is at such a crisis mode, that it could take well over a year and a half for An Coimisiún Pleanála to get through it and then the next steps take two or three years to get through, surely we should be really pushing up the staff levels within An Coimisiún Pleanála to achieve a much shorter delivery process within the system.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I take that on board completely and I think that is what the Government did in providing us with 117 extra staff in that regard. The paperwork has been supplied to the members showing that, since May 2023 right through to June of this year, there has been a very significant decrease in those - I believe it has been around 60%. Why I am confident that we have enough staff to deal with the applications that are coming in and are before us at the moment is because we have been eating in significantly to the caseload, which means that when our caseload stabilises, as it is about to, we have these sufficient resources to deal with the workload given the workstreams that are there. One proviso on that is there are probably additional workstreams that are going to come on stream in relation to a number of other work types and we may be making representations to get additional staff for that. I am confident that we have sufficient staff to start to deliver this year the timelines we have indicated and agreed with the Department.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Are there any reports or audits into governance currently outstanding at An Coimisiún Pleanála?
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To draw on what Deputy Tóibín was saying, Mr. Mullan is happy with the staffing levels for this year but he is saying that if infrastructure were to be scaled up and there were to be further planning applications, then the current staffing levels would not meet that demand.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
No. What I am saying is that given the workstreams we have at the moment, I am confident that we will be able to deal with the workload on the normal planning appeal side, which is 70% of our work, and on the infrastructure side and direct applications side, which is 30% of our work. I am confident we can deal with those at the moment. The reason I know that-----
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is that still the case if we were to scale up?
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is fine, I just wanted to clarify-----
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are just trying to get to the bottom of whether, if other workstreams were to come up, staffing of inspectors is a blockage.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. That was the question. Perfect. I thank Mr. Mullan. In the previous iteration of An Bord Pleanála there were differing opinions on the board maybe having different opinions from those of the inspectors and then changing those decisions. How will an coimisiún ensure this is not an issue going forward where inspectors' recommendations differ from board decisions?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I will deal with that and then I will ask my colleague, the deputy chief planning commissioner, to speak on it. A recommendation comes from the professional planner who makes a recommendation on a planning appeal that may or may not agree with the local authority decision, and the Senator will have see the percentages on that. Then it is a matter for the decision of a board of three generally, although it can be a higher number, to make a decision. That will be the commissioners, generally a quorum of three, who will make a decision on that. In 15% of cases they will differ from the inspector's report, and there is nothing unusual in that. There were controversies in the past about it but there is nothing unusual about that. Where they differ they are required by law to set out the reasoning for why they have departed from that decision. This will continue to be done by the commissioners. I was a decision-maker and I have done that on occasion. I will hand over to my colleague who will explain the nuances of that.
Mr. Chris McGarry:
The organisation is quite specific insofar as we have inspectors who make recommendations under law and we have commissioners who are duty bound to make decisions under law on foot of the written recommendation of the inspector. There are 14 commissioners at the moment and we do not make individual decisions. We have a quorum of three. The pattern has been surprisingly consistent over the years. About 10% to 14% might be overturns where we might disagree with the inspector. I believe from my own experience as a board member and as a commissioner for six years that none of this is of itself a time issue. What I mean by that is, if we have a meeting where we decide, for whatever reason, that we do not agree with the inspector on that occasion, we go ahead and make a decision and we use our skill and our knowledge to write that up. The notion of the overturn itself is not relevant, I think, to the notion of delay or other issues that might be important to this committee.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It might be an issue around transparency, I suppose.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Are there guidelines though?
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Are there guidelines or criteria on how much an inspector's weighting might be considered against the-----
Mr. Chris McGarry:
The legislation is, on the one hand, very simple and very effective, which is that we must state in written form why we have disagreed with the inspector. I do a lot of work with my colleagues at the commissioner level explaining to them the level of detail that needs to go into that. For example, an inspector might recommend a refusal for two reasons and we decide that a grant is more appropriate in terms of proper planning. We must engage with those two reasons and we do so in our language. We talk through it and we engage with any evidence that is on the file.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My understanding is that planning priorities are done on a first-come-first-served basis, meaning that if the planning for a one-off house comes first, that will be the first consideration versus the planning for a larger scale development. Are they done on a first-come-first-served basis or how are planning priorities allocated?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I am delighted to answer this question because it is a good opportunity for us to set out our stall on it. The first point is to understand the breakdown of the organisation into normal planning appeals, accounting for 70% of decisions, and 30% for infrastructure. There is no question of any of the infrastructure projects falling in behind normal planning appeals. They are separate teams. On the infrastructure side, there are approximately 30 inspectors plus management. There is a transport and waste team, a renewables and electricity team and a marine team. Infrastructure projects that come into those are generally dealt with on a first-come-first-served basis and they are dealt with by those respective teams. There is a small backlog but the director of planning on that side of the house will organise the workloads for that.
As we indicated, in 2023 a very significant backlog of normal planning appeals developed. Generally speaking, older files were dealt with first. However, last year, we decided we needed to prioritise certain categories of work. We have already indicated that large-scale residential developments of houses would be dealt with as a priority. SHD projects already in the system will be dealt with as a priority. Through engagement with various stakeholders, including the building industry, we look at housing schemes with more than 30 housing units. Again, they have been prioritised. Obviously, it is not possible to have housing without critical social infrastructure like schools and other things like that. We prioritise those as well as other infrastructure, such as water and electricity projects. I have already spoken about the land activation measures.
Particularly last year, we departed from the chronological line and have split it into two. As I have made very clear, this year we are endeavouring to meet the statutory timeline in 85% or more of cases lodged in 2025. For a case lodged in 2025 which is expected to be dealt with in 18 weeks, we hope people will get a decision within that time. I think someone called me out for using words like "hopeful" and "maybe". Anybody who promises 100% compliance is somewhat foolish. As an organisation, we are committed to meeting those timelines.
Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The witnesses are very welcome. This committee is tasked with ensuring we can deliver critical national infrastructure faster and better. Strategic infrastructure development comes under remit and responsibilities of An Coimisiún Pleanála. I ask Mr. Mullen to give us examples of how the planning process has hindered specific projects. I understand he is happy enough with An Coimisiún Pleanála's staffing at the moment. Our judicial system is certainly not properly staffed. I know that some cases have to go to judicial review. Even though they might have legal experts telling them that they are confident they will get the planning, they are still left to wait for 12 months for a judicial review. Is there anything we, as legislators, can do to help to remove those barriers?
The Heather Hill judgment found that An Coimisiún Pleanála cannot get legal costs back if the judicial review is on environmental grounds. What impact does that have on people taking judicial review cases related to the environment if An Coimisiún Pleanála does not get its legal costs but the other party does? Is there any chance that in some cases the litigants might be using the environment to appeal to ensure they are not faced with any financial repercussions? How could we address that and make sure it does not happen?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I will start. I will defer to my colleague on infrastructure and I will ask Mr. Baneham to address some of the legal issues. I will give opening comments on it. The Deputy asked where planning has delayed decisions. There is no question that a number of large infrastructure projects which arrived in 2022, 2023 and into 2024 were delayed. The papers we supplied to the committee set out a significant number of projects. The 12 Dublin BusConnects projects have all gone through the building and been dealt with. The Galway BusConnects project has been dealt with. The Slane bypass decision was delivered yesterday. A large number of renewable projects have all been delivered. They were delayed within our building but that was a product not of planning legislation or difficulties, rather, of the backlog that had developed. Regarding the issues I dealt with in my opening remarks on the backlog that emerged during 2022, there is a number of fairly significant larger cases on which we are very confident decisions will come out in the next few weeks. That is colouring everybody's perspective of our organisation.
My colleague Mr. Baneham will specifically be able to deal with delays in the courts. There have been rule changes and additional resourcing by the High Court of the environmental court.
The Heather Hill decision is a very significant one. The paperwork, which the Deputy has clearly seen, contains a graph of the caseloads, showing an exponential increase. The Heather Hill case was in 2022 and in the following year and the year after that, there was a doubling in the number of judicial review cases because of the Heather Hill judgment. It has had a very significant effect on the number of judicial reviews. This is a perfect opportunity for me to hand over to Mr. Baneham.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Obviously Mr. Mullan is familiar with it, but for those who do not know, I ask him to outline briefly what was involved in the Heather Hill case.
Mr. Kevin Baneham:
There was an SHD application in Barna, County Galway. There was a satellite point in relation to extended cost protection. That was addressed by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The finding was that if proceedings relate to the environment at all, cost protection arises in all aspects of the litigation. That was a very extensive interpretation, but a correct interpretation, in my view, of the text of the Act. It is not the only reason for it the increase in judicial reviews but it is a key part in the increase in numbers. It is not just the number of judicial reviews, but also the complexity internally. I have set out the grounds in each statement of grounds. In 2024 we had 780 grounds and we have to win every one of those grounds in order to sustain and defend the decision. That is really the challenge. It is not just the number but the extent of grounds cited. That shows the impact of Heather Hill judgment. Chapter 2 of Part 9 addresses some of the cost issues. Those are important steps in order to address the impact of the Heather Hill judgment and the wider legal costs regime.
Mr. Kevin Baneham:
The planning and environment court came into being in December 2023 and that is underpinned by order 103, which is part of the rules of the superior courts. It will increase the expedition of judicial reviews. I identified some of the infrastructural judicial reviews there. On Monday of this week a number of them had been assigned dates. It had a figure of zero, but Monday was a list to fix dates. We have 30 or so cases assigned dates between now and the end of the year. That is a welcome increase in the number of hearing dates in the expedition of judicial reviews.
Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The fact that An Coimisiún Pleanála does not get any of its legal costs puts it at a severe disadvantage.
Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
All projects are required to be in line with the climate Act cross-departmentally anyway. It is something we need to look at.
Louis O'Hara (Galway East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am a bit confused about the staffing. Mr. Mullan mentioned that An Coimisiún Pleanála has sufficient staff to deal with the applications before it. However, he is predicting that the statutory timelines will not be met in 15% of the cases. In that context, how can he say that the staffing is sufficient? Is it not the aim to consistently meet these timelines?
Obviously, nobody is suggesting that 100% is feasible but should there be more ambition there? Is it the case that An Coimisiún Pleanála is not resourced to take on board more staff?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I am very happy to answer this. Perhaps there has been a minor misunderstanding. In respect of this year to date, we are at 50% statutory compliance. In respect of this month to date, we are at 62%. We are working to achieve 85% to 90% compliance by the end of the year. With regard to the response to the earlier question on whether we considered we had sufficient resources at present, if we look at decision-making and the number of decisions we make, we hit a high in May 2023 with a caseload of 3,600 cases. We are now down to approximately 1,300 cases. It has consistently decreased month on month over the two-year period.
Louis O'Hara (Galway East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does Mr. Mullan expect this to continue?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
We do but we will hit a plateau. The natural caseload is approximately 1,000 to 1,200 cases. If we had all of the resources in the world, and everything was working perfectly, there would always be 1,000 to 1,200 cases in the building. We are close to meeting our mandatory timelines. There are several other issues which are important. Sometimes issues arise in a case, particularly in infrastructure cases, whereby there are matters that were not dealt with in the application and it is necessary to seek further information. This is quite an important area. Historically we might have refused an application if there were shortcomings in the paperwork but now we go to the applicant and this can take a long period of time. I will defer to one of my colleagues on this.
Louis O'Hara (Galway East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My time is limited. Mr Mullan mentioned earlier there are eight cases in particular where there are excessive delays. The Galway ring road is one of these. We are a decade into the project and there is still no planning permission. It has been subject to judicial review. It is being reported there is potential for further public consultation on the project and a new oral hearing. Is it possible for Mr. Mullan to give a timeline for the planning process for this project?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I will not do so because it is a live case. If there are certain aspects in the public domain I am happy to speak about them but this is a live case so I will not do so. I might ask Ms Kellett to assist me on this. When a case of a large infrastructure project is remitted back from the High Court following a judicial review sometimes the environmental information, such as the EIA assessment, is not up to date and it needs to be redone by the applicants. They have to be given an opportunity to do this so we can consider it afresh. When this information is supplied to us it can be significant. In such a case it must be circulated to the people who objected to the project. Sometimes when this happens, the applicants will ask for a period of up to nine months to allow them to get the material together. We also need to give an opportunity to the observers or appellants to make objections to it. This can add time. These are statutory requirements to have fair procedures for planning applications. This adds to the timeline. It becomes difficult to give timelines for some of the complicated cases.
Louis O'Hara (Galway East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to ask about the wind energy development guidelines. The most recent guidelines were published in 2006 and the technology has changed massively since then. The Department has been reviewing them for quite some time. There is no timeline for completion of the review. Is An Coimisiún Pleanála experiencing issues with making decisions on wind farm planning applications because of the lack of up-to-date modern guidelines?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
Guidelines on wind farms and masts have not been updated for some time. I understand the Department is hopeful there will be guidelines for both close to the end of the year. We welcome this because it will assist our decision-making. The current guidelines do not prohibit us from making decisions but there are grey areas in certain parts of the decisions that we make. I will hand over to Mr. McGarry on this because he has a lot of experience with strategic infrastructure development.
Mr. Chris McGarry:
We are duty bound to have regard to the guidelines that exist. We can have some consideration for what might be in a draft but our first obligation is to look at the guidelines that exist. There are other elements, such as development plan policy and ministerial objectives, and under section 143 of the Act we can take these into account. The simple answer to the question is that we continue to make decisions in an ever-changing environment. There is no point in saying we could close the door and wait for policy to be perfect because it never is. We understand why guidelines have to change. We would welcome updates, of course, and we make use of them as soon as they come through. In the meantime, it does not stop us making decisions. As Deputy O'Hara knows from the broader court environment, there are other interpretations of how particular legislation, such as the climate Act, would have an effect on wind energy development. We have to be mindful of all of this layering of complexity that sits on top of our cases but we keep moving ahead and making decisions in any case. We will welcome any update to the guidelines and we will make use of them with immediate effect.
John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee. I will start with an issue brought to my attention approximately 12 months ago, whereby someone seeking planning permission for 98 residential homes received a letter and was told that due to the statutory guidelines the time for the decision would be extended beyond 18 weeks. I got a sense from the letter that there was an element of disinterest, a lack of empathy and no acknowledgement of the costs on the applicant's side. Mr. Mullan has made the case that the office prioritises large-scale residential development because of the financial consequences to An Coimisiún Pleanála but I get a sense there is no empathy or understanding of the financial consequences for the individuals caught up in these applications. As part of the change from An Bord Pleanála to An Coimisiún Pleanála I ask Mr. Mullan to look not only at structural changes in governance but to show a bit of empathy, understanding and urgency for the people caught up in these cases.
In recent years there has been growing disconnect between applicants and the planning process. I have seen this in the applications processes and at the level of county council with regard to local town plans and national development plan reviews. We are getting far too caught up in the theory of how we colour code land on maps in comparison to how it is working out practically on the ground. There is no understanding of how landowners potentially want to use or not use their land. There may be an element of Government policy that needs to follow this, and I completely appreciate this point, but I ask whether there are councils that are impeding the implementation of Government planning policy. Are there county councils throughout the country that are impeding the implementation of planning policy?
John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Both organisations are exposed to it.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I do not think it is for us to answer. I am not trying to avoid the question. We are the national planning authority and we make decisions on planning but it is not for us to comment on individual councils with regard to what their policies are. They are decisions made by elected members with regard to local development policies. I do not feel I am in a position to answer the question. I would be happy to answer several of the Deputy's other questions and comments but perhaps my colleague would be happy to address this question.
John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have a few more questions.
Mr. Niall Cussen:
There has been a significant improvement in the quality of development plans reflecting these policies. At the same time, we still see significant areas where from time to time there is no particular pattern to it. There are areas where there is not appropriate policy implementation. Take, for example, flood risk. The largest proportion of our directions and recommendations to Ministers on changing development plans relate to flood risk and the location of lands that are very remote from the general fabric of the town with little or no infrastructure and little or no prospect of infrastructure ever being delivered for the site. Government policy is very clear on ensuring we focus on delivery, town centre first and the regeneration of, and support for, the existing urban fabric. Then, from time to time-----
John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Office of the Planning Regulator highlight these councils? Where are they highlighted? Where are the councils that do not co-operate in this process being highlighted?
John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Can Mr. Cussen send me the names of those councils?
John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is also a question of who the efficient ones are. Which are the councils that are actually-----
Mr. Niall Cussen:
We are not in the business of publishing league tables. We are dealing with individual development plans as they arise. As I said to the Deputy at the outset, it is very difficult to describe a general pattern. However, there are areas where, far too often, we see a clear breach of very clear Government policy that we do not put vulnerable development in high-risk areas.
John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I think there is a cultural change in relation to the progression of projects. For some of the exemptions that the Office of the Planning Regulator is coming forward with to try to speed up the development of heritage developments, or whatever the case may be, I feel these exemptions are getting caught up at a local level in subjective reviews. Maybe the guidelines are not detailed enough. We need to figure out how to ensure we are mitigating that to a greater extent. That would be a point to note.
I will go back to the timelines. Mr. Mullan mentioned the 48 weeks and said that it will be similar for our neighbours. What is best practice in Europe? If 48 weeks is what our neighbours are at, what is best practice regarding turnaround?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
Excuse me, it is 52 weeks, while for offshore, it is 65 weeks.
The Deputy mentioned a project involving 98 houses and the letter that his constituents received in that regard, and he suggested a certain lack of humanity in that regard. In my opening address, I apologised and I continue to apologise. We are a State organisation. People are entitled to a public service from us and they are going to get that. They have been getting it as we have cleared our backlog but we inherited what we had. That is the first point.
The second point is that we are statutorily required to send those letters. There is a little bit of form-filling but, nonetheless, it is required by statute to send those letters out. We have looked at it. If the wording has recently changed, a second letter goes out. As this year progresses, we are hopeful that those letters will not be going out, in any event.
If that has specifically not been provided to the Deputy, we will provide it to him. We provided it to his housing colleagues, who were in with us this morning as part of our stakeholder engagement.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry, I did not know what Mr. Mullan meant by that.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I should have clarified that. We met a number of your colleagues this morning.
One of the statistics is for the 30-plus houses category. In 2024, there was a large backlog of 30-plus housing. As part of stakeholder engagement, we engaged with a number of different stakeholders and they indicated to us that housing is an issue. The development of projects that are not the larger projects - those medium-size projects - would particularly suit certain types of smaller and medium-size builders. We chose to prioritise those. In 2024, 64 of those cases were dealt with, 29 were granted and 22 refused. At the moment, there are 13 cases in the office that are in our backlog. We have prioritised those and almost completely cleared that caseload. At present, there are 35 cases for 2025 in that category. All of those are within our statutory objective period, SOP, and are compliant. We are going to meet our guidelines in that regard.
What I am saying to the Deputy is that his constituent was unfortunate. Their application arrived in 2023, I suspect, when the organisation had its largest backlog. We have prioritised those 2024 cases in the last six to nine months, we have worked relentlessly to clear those out. We have 13 left, eight of which are at board level, and I expect they will be gone in the next three to four weeks, and the rest are imminent. The 35 are in date within the building. If one of them is a new constituent making an application, they will not be getting those letters because they will be dealt with within the period that we have specified.
John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is important to note that such applicants during that period lost out on development levy waivers and Uisce Éireann connection charges.
John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is important to note that, because of the delay on the side of An Coimisiún Pleanála, they lost out on development waivers and connection charges.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I am very conscious of the effect of that. My colleague has corrected me. There are 53 cases in total rather than 35. Again, they will be compliant within the SOP compliance period.
The final statistic, which is important, is that in 2024, for that 30 to 99 housing category, we were delivering those cases in 34 weeks, obviously, over a period. This year, we are delivering those cases in 16.7 weeks. Again, we have not supplied that to the Deputy, although his colleague got it this morning, the emphasis being on the infrastructure. We will happily supply that data to him because it is important, and it is very important that we get our message across in that regard.
Ollie Crowe (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In his opening remarks, Mr. Mullan mentioned the increasing number of judicial reviews of the commission's decisions. As has been pointed out by others this year, there is the suggestion that this has been used by serial objectors. If the number of decisions going to judicial review continues to increase, does Mr. Mullan think it is unsustainable? Will we need to change the current structure?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I will give some opening remarks and will then hand over to our director of legal affairs, Mr. Baneham. At the moment, there have been 88 or 90 cases this year. Year on year, there has been quite a significant increase in recent years. It is a reflection of the Heather Hill case, which, at its simplest, gives indemnification to applicants if they challenge the court decision. There can be no cost order against them, which can be a factor in driving the litigation. Chapter 2 of Part 9 makes proposals as to how the cost regime might be dealt with. We welcome the proposals in the current planning Act. I will hand over to my colleague to expand on that.
Mr. Kevin Baneham:
Chapter 2 of Part 9 introduces significant changes in relation to the legal costs regime. There is a scale of fees and a funding scheme. We think they will contribute to stabilising or reducing the number of judicial reviews. It will also require the expedition of cases through the courts so we are not left with a big backlog and stasis. The two together are part of the solution in terms of reducing the impact that judicial review has on planning and development. They are key reforms.
Ollie Crowe (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In terms of the stakeholder engagements, can Mr. Mullan tell us more about those? Have any actions arisen from them?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
My predecessor began the stakeholder engagement approximately two years ago on a quarterly basis. Generally, at the beginning of each quarter, we meet various stakeholders. I have a slide here that shows the details. This morning, for instance, we met Oireachtas Members on housing; tomorrow, we meet business and industry groups; earlier this year, we met environmental groups and State bodies, which would include the IDA, Enterprise Ireland, Uisce Éireann and various different organisations; and next week, we will meet the prescribed bodies.
There have been two important parts to that. One is that it has provided us with an opportunity to set out our case and correct the narrative out there that everything is blocked in planning, and to set out the very significant progress that we have made on our caseload and the developments in that regard. A very important part is the listening part so that, as the previous speaker said, we can hear the stories regarding planning delays and the effect that is having. I have already indicated that representations were made to us as to how we can better deal with the 30-plus housing cases and how they are an important category. We listened to that. We listened to the environmental NGO sector, which wanted our documents in a searchable format. We have listened to other stakeholder engagements relating to how applications are made.
One of the other significant things that arose from the representations concerned appeals. To appeal a case in our organisation, people needed to post it or lodge it in Dublin, given that we are the national planning body and we are based in Dublin. That clearly discriminated against rural constituents, applicants and appellants.
We are hopeful that by quarter 3 of this year, we will have introduced the national appeal system whereby you can appeal from your home once you lodge the appropriate fee. In quarter 3 of this year, that will go live. That came out in the representation from the stakeholder engagement. We came away from that engagement energised, having heard good ideas. I have given three or four examples of the various ideas we have got from stakeholder engagement. We have listened and engaged.
One other matter is how we facilitate people when they come in to look at documents. Previously, you needed to come to Dublin to look at our documents. At the beginning of quarter 3, we will begin a pilot scheme whereby the documents for all larger infrastructural projects will be online. If you want to search for and look at those documents, you will not have to travel to the office from somewhere in the rural west of Ireland. You will instead be able to go online and see that they are available. You will not have to travel to Dublin, which you would have done historically.
Ollie Crowe (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In his opening remarks, Mr. Cussen mentioned the possibility of "an integrated regional and national level monitor of developmental opportunity, infrastructure need and ... funding and timelines for delivery". Will he explain that further?
Mr. Niall Cussen:
I thank the Senator. If one is looking for a single national dataset around land, planning permission, infrastructural capability and actual progress on the ground, it does not currently exist. It is an objective of the Department of housing to progress that project. It has been in progress for quite some time. It would be of great benefit to infrastructure agencies if they all had, if you like, a shared heat map to show where the pressures are and, therefore, where investment needs to be focused. What I said in my opening remarks was that we see every development plan in the country. Ms O'Connor and her team go through the development plans in close detail. We have the plans evaluation forum, which is a non-statutory piece that pulls together Uisce Éireann, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, the National Transport Authority, the Office of Public Works, the Department of education, our own parent Department and a number of other agencies around physical and social infrastructure. When we look at those development plans, we try to understand how they fit with the national planning framework and the national development plan. We do that in the knowledge of where the different national agencies are. We try to reflect that and pull it together from a considered and whole-of-government perspective to support the local authorities. That is the type of detailed information we have at a development plan by development plan level. There are 31 city and county development plans and 150 or 200 local area plans, and that is the depth of knowledge in our office.
We understand that the Department of housing and the accelerating infrastructure team are working on that., as is the housing activation office. All I said in my opening remarks was that this is the depth of perspective that we bring to the process. That is a key objective on which we must work collectively in the coming months.
Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The witnesses are most welcome and I thank them for the frankness of their answers so far. The majority of my questions are for An Coimisiún Pleanála. I have listened carefully as some of my colleagues have spoken about the delays with strategic housing developments, SHDs. I just want to focus on that. I am aware of a case in my area that has been awaiting decision for 168 weeks. I write to the commission every three or four months and am told the case is awaiting referral to the inspector for a report. In those types of cases, what, apart from manpower and staffing, is the cause of these delays?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
The emphasis of the material we provided was on the infrastructural side. I am happy to share our slides. We will hold two sets of stakeholder engagement this week and next. Those slides will go onto our website the following week or early next week. I am happy to share them.
Crofton was a significant Supreme Court case. It clarified the law. A large number of strategic housing and development cases were waiting behind that case. We gave a commitment. As part of stakeholder engagement, we met business and institute groups in respect of the importance of the cases awaiting decision and the number of housing units in the organisation was recognised. We dedicated a team in that regard. When you are dedicating a team, you need the recognition of the other parties within the organisation. You have large-scale residential development, LRD, 30-plus housing and all of the other things. We put in a team in that regard.
Since April last year, which was after the Crofton judgment, we have decided 42 SHD cases. Six were granted, three of which are currently under judicial review. Historically, there have been significant judicial review issues in respect of SHDs. The same does not arise in respect of LRD. Some 26 applications have been refused. Two have ended up in split decisions and eight have been withdrawn. A total of 42 cases have been dealt with over the past year and a month or two. Remaining within the system are ten further cases at board level. Generally speaking, we anticipate those will be decided in the next four weeks. One issue has arisen as a result of Crofton. As the Senator knows, there was no ability to request further information as part of the SHD process. That was one if its flaws. It was designed to fast-track planning but that became one of its flaws and, in essence, its Achilles heel. The Crofton case stated that in certain cases, a limited oral hearing can take place. In certain cases, the board has done that. If a certain issue around an application requires clarification, we can do that. I am anticipating ten more cases. If they do not go out for limited oral hearing, they will be dealt with in the next number of weeks.
There are three further cases at the inspectorate, which we anticipate will be dealt with in July and shortly thereafter by the board. That leaves 16 cases, which we will deal with in quarters 3 and 4. It has taken us some time to clear the backlog. It was been concurrent with our other obligations. We have made considerable inroads in that regard. There are still 28 cases within the High Court. Whether they will ever be remitted to us remains to be seen.
It is important to say that the refusal rate in respect of SHDs at the moment is 76%. That is probably reflective of the fact that they must be consistent with the current development plan, as I understand it. Many of these applications were made one development plan, or possibly two development plans, ago. That is why there is a very high refusal rate.
Blame for many of the delays should not be laid at the door of our organisation, although we accept responsibility for some of the delays. There has been a huge amount of litigation. The Heather Hill and Crofton cases were part of it. Many cases were delayed pending clarification of the law in that regard.
Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will turn to fines. The Irish Times reported that An Coimisiún Pleanála paid approximately €1.43 million to developers because of the delays in assessing these strategic housing failures. Is that liability capped out or are we expecting further-----
Mr. Peter Mullan:
That dates from 2023. It has capped out. We paid one penalty in respect of an LRD at the very start. The new Act will make provision for penalties in respect of other decisions but the only category of decision-making that is covered by penalties at the moment is in respect of LRDs. We have 100% compliance in respect of LRDs.
Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When assessing a general planning application for large-scale strategic infrastructure projects, and I am talking about the biggest projects that the witnesses consider, are some of the difficulties as a result of our planning framework and legislation or are they coming from our obligations as a member of the European Union?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I am certainly going to defer to the expert in that regard. I will give the Senator an initial view. I have indicated that the complexity of some of these cases is recognised. People talk about Madrid. I have heard references to Madrid at this committee. The complexity of many of these infrastructural projects is reflected in our sister organisations throughout Britain, Northern Ireland and Ireland. The timelines are what they are.
Our environmental obligations arising from European directives appear to have been considered in the common law jurisdictions differently from in EU members which are civil law states. I would not underestimate the complexities of this. Ms Kellett will give a more nuanced answer.
Ms Ciara Kellett:
Any of the large projects would generally be accompanied by an environmental impact assessment report, which can run to thousands of pages, and by a Natura impact statement. The Natura impact statement is subject to the habitats directive while the EIA is for the EIA directive. We also have the water framework directive. These are all European directives we must comply with. By their nature, these are complex projects. There are many linear projects, there is tunnelling in the Metro and so on. Members will understand the complexity of the projects and, therefore, the complexity of the environmental assessments that must be carried out. That is our obligation and it is in our Planning and Development Act, which reflects the EU directives. A significant amount of information is supplied by applicants. Our inspectors and the commissioners have to take that into account in making their decision. They are complex and can consist of a significant number of documents - thousands of pages in some cases - and they have to be gone through by the inspector and then by the commissioners making the decision.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
The complexity is clearly part of it but the requirement on us as an organisation in relation to decision-making and engaging with objections and other things is incredibly important. The courts have placed an onerous obligation on us. Every decision we make is possibly subject to judicial review. It has perhaps added a layer of complexity but that is the legal requirement and the environment in which we work. That has added a degree of complexity to all of it, to be honest.
Tony McCormack (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Mullan and Mr. Cussen for their opening statements and all the witnesses for their answers. As I come near the end of the line, many of my questions have been answered. As a colleague did earlier, I thank the witnesses for their forthrightness. I have a couple of questions for An Coimisiún Pleanála. It has been said the name was not changed due to the previous scandals; however, I would say it was partly due to that.
What changes have been made to ensure greater transparency in the appointment and oversight of board members and inspectors? What specific measures are in place to reduce delays in processing strategic housing developments, large-scale residential developments and certain infrastructure applications? How can the public and applicants have confidence that future planning decisions will be timely, impartial and legally robust? Is there a regular, independent audit or external review of An Coimisiún Pleanála's decision-making performance and procedural integrity?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
Taking it at its highest level, various governance changes took place following the commencement of the Act. For the previous board, there was a selection process but they were essentially appointments of the Minister. One of the effects of the Act is that the governing board now goes through the Public Appointments Service. Following a process, six of them were appointed and then the Minister appointed Paul Reid as the governing chair.
On the decision-makers, the commissioners, again the Act is very clear on that. The governing board will request the Public Appointments Service to make decisions on that and the board will then make the appointments. The political input from the Minister that was involved for many years has now been taken away and it has been handed over to the governing board to finalise the decisions, using the Public Appointments Service we are all familiar with to recruit the governing board and commissioners. The competitions for inspectors are run by our internal HR. We are an employer of choice. Most planning inspectors have to have five or six years' experience. Senior planning inspectors have to have seven years' experience. We hire those. Independence and integrity are things we value.
On delays with housing, the Deputy mentioned three categories. I think I have dealt with the three of them. As the Deputy said, many questions have been answered. Regarding LRD, there is 100% compliance and we will continue to meet that objective. For SHDs, there was a large backlog. We have systematically worked through that and are hopeful that by quarter 3 and 4 we will have cleared the number of cases that are in the organisation. We will supply the figures to the committee in relation to our decision-making around that.
The Deputy asked about future planning decisions and re-establishing the reputation of, and public confidence in, the organisation. This is part of that process. We are starting to do far more public engagement with stakeholders. We welcome the opportunity to address the committee on the workings of our organisation. We met members' colleagues from the housing committee this morning. We will end up with an invite to the housing committee as a result of that and we welcome those opportunities. There is an opportunity for us to go out more into the public and assure it we are doing the job we have been tasked to do, which is making planning decisions within the statutory objective period. We are working progressively towards that and meeting the timelines in relation to it.
We have our internal audit system, which works with our audit and risk committee. One of the functions of the new governing board will be to look at the performance objectives of the organisation. They are independent. I will be reporting to them on behalf of the entire organisation. I am now accountable to them. This is a new classic corporate structure that has been put in place under the new Act. As CEO, I will be responsible to them. They will have oversight of the performance delivery objectives of the organisation. The quality of the decision-making will be part of that. They will not be commenting on individual decisions - that is not appropriate - but they will talk about it in general terms and we will be happy to engage with them on that.
Tony McCormack (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I know Mr. Cussen wants to come in but I have a couple of questions for him as well because I did not want to leave him on his own. We have looked at previous county development plans. I know the population numbers in Offaly were wrong and, from colleagues, I know others across the country were wrong. Why did we get that so wrong? Are the OPR's assessments of county development plans publicly available? If so, where? Does the OPR assist community groups or citizens on engaging in the decision-making process, apart from submissions to the county development plans? Does the OPR follow up with local authorities on how plans are implemented on the ground? What roles does the OPR play in monitoring planning outcomes or development trends after the plan is adopted?
Mr. Niall Cussen:
There is good meat in that but before coming to the substance of the questions - Ms O'Connor will come in on where we fit in with regard to the population piece, whether that was got wrong and so on - I will make a point on An Coimisiún Pleanála. The structure of the commission arose from two review reports we did into issues that arose there. They are obtainable on our website, etc. That fed into a Government action plan on the reform of An Bord Pleanála, which then led into the Planning and Development Act. There are significant innovations in the Planning and Development Act 2024 around our role in relation to the commission.
We are a body that is, if you like, watching the systems and procedures used by all planning authorities, including the coimisiún, that relate to the discharge of their day-to-day planning functions. One of the functions we did not have under the old 2000 Act, but will have under the 2024 Act is that we will be in receipt of any correspondence about concerns members of the public have about the performance of the board or matters going on there. We have an excellent working relationship with the coimisiún as it is now. Mr. Mullan and his colleagues and my management team met only in the past week or so, and we do so as part of a quarterly process of constant engagement looking at how things are working out with it in practice, especially with regard to the recommendations issued in our two review reports. That whole governance and oversight model of the coimisiún, which plays an absolutely critical role in our planning system, is a hell of a lot stronger than it was in the past.
The Deputy raised a few questions about the cascade from the national planning framework to local development plans, whether we got it wrong and how it works out in practice. I will ask Ms O'Connor to respond to that briefly and then I will comment on some of the other points.
Ms Anne Marie O'Connor:
The round of the development plans we currently have was done subsequent to the national planning framework, which was introduced in 2018. A key part of that process was refocusing away from population based on housing, because that provides a lot more transparency and is a lot more meaningful in terms in what we need to serve our citizens. Those numbers were reflective of the modelling that was done at that time. It is generally accepted that that modelling underestimated the level of net immigration. That was a factor of the economic growth we have experienced, fortunately, in the past six years. As a result, the numbers needed to be reviewed and increased. That process has been undertaken and the new figures have come out through the revision of the national planning framework.
That is all part of a well functioning process. Targets are in place. They are reviewed, changed and adapted, according to needs.
Tony McCormack (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Where I was coming from is that the dogs in the street were telling us when we were doing the development plans that the numbers were wrong and we did not change them at that stage. We waited until we were further down the line. We got that completely wrong.
Mr. Niall Cussen:
The point I might add to that is that there might have been a sense in council chambers around the numbers being wrong, but what we see all the time is that the real issue is increasing output and delivery of housing even in the locations we have identified. The Deputy will be familiar in his area of Offaly of the significant gap between even what was in what might have been the flawed or capped development plan and, in many cases, the actual delivery of housing, which was perhaps a third, not even half, of what was in the core strategy of the relevant development plan. That does not speak to a lack of zoned land. It is because of issues around viability, the capability of housing providers and developers to mobilise lands and so on and issues around infrastructure. To some extent, many of these questions and debates were a little bit academic, around whether the population targets should be increased. The issue was that we were struggling to get output off the floor and that is still the case in large parts of the country, particularly in regional and rural Ireland.
Tony McCormack (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry for hogging the floor. I will finish on this.
In our situation in Offaly, we probably have more building going on than other counties in proportion to their county development plans.
Tony McCormack (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are in a situation where the land that was zoned was not enough and now we have to rezone more land. That made the land that was zoned much more expensive, which increased the price of the houses because of supply and demand.
Mr. Niall Cussen:
We can come back with more specific information about Offaly, but I will respond to the questions the Deputy raised. All the submissions we make on development plans and so on, indeed everything we do, are available on our website. That is our mantra. Everything we do, we publish.
We provide a lot of information and support for community groups about how to access the planning system. There are explainer videos and leaflets to beat the band on our website and we are very keen to expand that side of the business. Many of the issues we have around infrastructure, planning and litigation go back in origin to the importance of ensuring the public understand the planning process and roles and some of the difficult challenges we have to try to address in the context of meeting housing, climate challenges and so forth.
We follow up with local authorities on how the implementation of the development plan is going. Ms O'Connor and the team engage constantly on that. We also carry out reviews of planning authorities and much of that is about the implementation of the development plan. We are currently in the review process in two local authorities. It is an NCT, if you like, of the broader systems and procedures used by planning authorities, but also of how the implementation of the development plan is going.
The Deputy mentioned outcomes and it tripped something for me. We have a whole piece of work going on around measuring what matters and moving towards a much more outcome-focused approach in measuring the efficacy of the planning system. Not only are we doing that but, in fairness to our colleagues in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, they have established an innovation and efficiency part of the planning division, which has been spurred on by our work around the reviews looking at what success looks like in terms of the planning system. Everyone jumps immediately to how quickly a planning application is dealt with and that is an important yardstick, but there are other yardsticks, such as, when we have dealt with all the planning applications and the communities have been built, whether they are better quality, whether we have stronger communities as a result, whether environmental indicators are pointing in a better direction, with regard to, for example, the level of transport demand, our emissions and all that. We, our colleagues in the Department of housing and a wide range of other stakeholders are working on putting together an exigence framework and the Department of housing will be pushing forward on that front in the months ahead.
If the Deputy has any further questions on that area, I would be more than happy to engage with him on it.
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I apologise. I have been going back and forth to other meetings as well, but I was here for the opening statements.
My question is for Mr. Mullan. How does he think the entity he is running is working?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
It is working well. It is important to acknowledge and continue to acknowledge that there are still backlogs in the organisation and there are delays. For the individual applicants and appellants, that is obviously a matter of concern. We are confident that we will clear those backlogs by the end of the year and we will be at our normal caseload as we go forward.
As an organisation, when it had its difficulties and existential crisis, as it was described, in 2022, we engaged with the Department. The Department provided the resources to us. The governance changes and implementation plan that Mr. Cussen spoke about were implemented. We have systematically worked in conjunction with the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, to implement those recommendations. We got the additional staff. Our leadership team has been expanded and we have worked hard to re-establish the organisation to the footing and point where our integrity and independence is recognised again. Overall, I am happy with how it is going.
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
How does Mr. Mullan think the local authorities are performing?
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is An Coimisiún Pleanála seeing more referrals from individuals? I will ask quick questions as I am conscious of the time.
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I meant I will ask quick questions that require "Yes" or "No" answers because I am conscious of the time.
Are certain local authorities having more cases referred? Does the coimisiún keep a chart like that?
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will it be made public then?
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The risk is that the local authorities would farm out the decisions to the coimisiún.
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What would be the length of time for a decision from referral to An Coimisiún to completion? How long would it take?
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
At the moment, what is it? Mr. Mullan is saying that 18 weeks is the ideal but-----
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask Mr. Mullan to clarify an issue in relation to judicial reviews. Where do they fit into the picture? I am speaking more holistically about the planning process because that is where the questions remain. Judicial reviews are becoming far more popular. How is that affecting what is happening in the planning system? Are cases going to an coimisiún or being referred for judicial review? How is that operating and are there any links there?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
It is rare that a local authority's decision is subject to judicial review. Almost all of the judicial reviews are related to our decision-making. If somebody is unhappy with a decision, he or she will appeal it to us. There has been an increase from approximately 3% or 4% of all of our decisions a year or a year and a half ago to 4.9% as of this morning. Obviously ,because we are at the pinnacle of the planning process, a number if issues can arise. They can be about the quality of our decision-making and on occasion, we get that wrong. However, it is reflective of the fact that because we are the final decision-maker, legal issues can arise for the first time which will be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court and we feel the effect of that. The net effect is obviously delays within the planning system. We will make our decisions and our timelines are getting better but obviously there will be delays in the judicial process. This also relates to the points my colleague Mr. Baneham made earlier. I understand that representatives of the Courts Service will appear before the committee next week. I worked for the Courts Service for a number of years and know that resources have been set aside for the planning and environment court. There are now three judges working more or less full time on that and the decision-making coming out of the High Court and the timelines in that regard are increasing month on month.
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Thanks. I have a number of questions for Mr. Cussen now. Local area plans, LAPs, are going to be taken out circulation when it comes to county development plans. Is that correct? Zoning can be done for areas that formerly had local area plans. Is that correct?
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is exactly what I am asking about. Mr. Cussen will be very familiar with some of the plans that I worked on previously. We both know the area. Is there a risk that we lose touch with local planning when we go through that process? One of the benefits of a LAP was that it allowed us to approach local areas holistically and do it properly. Is there a risk that we would lose connectivity at a county level with local areas?
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I asked if it was a risk. It was a question.
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I think I know what Mr. Cussen is going to say.
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A fairer decision might be made at a higher level.
Mr. Niall Cussen:
-----and maybe not enough focus on how that is going to work in practice. Where are the playing fields going to be? Where is the school? How do we access it? How are the amenities protected? It is all about who gets the zoning or how much zoning and that is very often the focus of zoning debates rather than the detail-----
Mr. Niall Cussen:
If I could finish my point, that actually makes the job of my colleagues in an coimisiún even more difficult in the context of the importance of there being a very clear framework for planning set out in the forward planning process. Too many times the development plan effectively leaves it at the point of being zoned. It is very often the planning authority, an coimisiún, a debate or litigation that teases out, in relation to an individual case, the type of housing, how high, how people get in, how we provide for all of the needs that arise from that development and so on. The forward planning process should really settle most of those key questions, leaving in effect an coimisiún to deal with, broadly speaking, the implementation of the plan in the context of Government policy.
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
One of my biggest misgivings as a councillor was that it all seemed to be focused on housing. I know we are talking about housing a lot and obviously that is the subject of this discussion but ultimately, what we are talking about is building communities.
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is often lost when it comes to LAPs. I have often felt that they should not be called local area plans but housing zoning plans because ultimately, that is where all of the focus lies. That is a serious issue. I come from a constituency which Mr. Cussen knows well, where some might say house building is an issue but for people living in the area, it is not an issue because every time they walk out their doors in Maynooth, Leixlip, Celbridge, Clane or Kilcock, all they see is new houses being built. What they do not necessarily see, however, is the playing pitches, the schools, the bridges that are required and so on. As Mr. Cussen knows-----
Mr. Niall Cussen:
Absolutely, and in fairness to the Government and the Oireachtas, the legislation with the new set-up of the county development plan dealing with the big picture questions, broadly speaking, of how much and where and the focus of the forward planning process pivoting much more to the urban development zones and the various different types of plans is exactly about the very point the Deputy raises. That is the focus of the forward planning process and to the credit of the Oireachtas and the Government, the forward planning elements of the Planning and Development Act are particularly innovative. There has not been an awful lot of debate or discussion in a wider sense, beyond the political process around it. Indeed, we are hoping to mobilise a whole training programme on the implementation of that legislation later on this year. Our focus is to get community very much at the heart of the planning process. Of course we have to provide housing, we have to make sure we have enough land and that the land is co-ordinated with the infrastructure but ultimately, as I said earlier, it has to deliver quality. We have to be able to look back in ten or 20 years' time at what we did through all of the development plan process and say we did a good job, that they are good communities and that places are better as a result of the planning process, not despite it.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My first question relates to recent scandals. What extra measures have been introduced to prevent any repeat and to rebuild public trust? Only 28% of cases met the legal deadline last year. Why are social and affordable housing projects still waiting months for a decision? An coimisiún spent €10.8 million on legal fees in 2023, approximately one third of its budget. How does an coimisiún defend that level of spending when local services are under huge pressure? How many Traveller accommodation or social housing applications did the commission refuse or approve in the past year? Do its decisions hit marginalised communities harder? Given that 88 judicial review proceedings have already been lodged this year, does that show deep flaws in the decision-making process?
That is my first set of questions-----
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I can go through my questions for Mr. Cussen as well if-----
Mr. Peter Mullan:
No, I am happy to answer those first, if that suits. The first question relates to the scandals of 2022, the difficulties we faced and what assurances we can provide to the public in that regard. Mr. Cussen has already indicated that two reports were done by the OPR and there were ministerial recommendations on foot of that. In conjunction with the OPR we have implemented those recommendations. I am very grateful that Mr. Cussen clarified that. A lot of the inspiration and the governance changes provided for in the Act come from some of those recommendations. For instance, there is a written procedure document which sets out how decisions are made within our organisation and how they progress through the building. That is on our website and is one of the first things the new governing board has to do within that first six months. The code of conduct is there as well. That is very important so people can have an understanding of how decision-making takes place within our organisation and how the files are dealt with.
Regarding the commissioners, I have already indicated that there was a full transparent process for their recruitment through the Public Appointments Service. That was put in place by the new Act. Several commissioners were appointed under the old Act, including Mr. McGarry and two or three others. The vast majority of our commissioners have been appointed under the new process and are only in the building less than two years, with seven there for less than a year.
In respect of the 28% compliance with meeting our statutory deadline, the Senator is right. That was the figure. I have pointed to other graphs that we have provided to the committee regarding our compliance. This year will see 50% and at the end of the month it will be at 62%. We are hoping that will rise as the year progresses. We will improve on that deadline as the year progresses and we hope to meet it. We have already agreed in an open discussion with the Department - it was our suggestion - that we meet that SOP in 80% to 85% of cases by the end of the year.
A third of our budget goes on legal fees. Certainly, that was the case last year. We have pointed out the environment in which those judicial reviews are taking place. It is an environment where, year-on-year, there has been an increase. There is the effect of the Heather Hill decision and the indemnity in taking proceedings against An Bord Pleanála. I indicated that nowhere else within the planning system were judicial reviews taken. They are taken against our decisions.
The Senator is right to point out that, on occasion, some of the decisions we make are flawed. Generally speaking, we can see those quite quickly. We put our hands up, get the cases back into the system and try to rectify our decisions.
Regarding Traveller and marginalised communities, all applications within our organisation are dealt with essentially using the exact same criteria. I do not believe there are any Traveller projects. We had a look and I do not believe there are any or any that have been delayed. If they come in in the next year, they will be dealt with under the normal statutory process but there is certainly no favourable decisions one way or the other on that.
I might point to Mr. Baneham to discuss the judicial review point. The Senator made a comment on our decision-making and the budget for our legal fees.
Mr. Kevin Baneham:
We pay our own lawyers as well as the costs of successful applicants. If they win their cases, they will be awarded the costs.
To address the Senator's point on flaws, an important part of my job is to try to feed back some of the lessons from the court proceedings to improve decision-making. We address any frailties so that we do not make the same mistake again.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for coming back with upfront answers and I respect the honesty. As a cross-party committee, our job is to come up with reports to make infrastructure work for the public. I will not have time to ask Mr. Cussen the questions I have but I have on last question, even though I am over time. What one recommendation would the witnesses make as regards what we can do as a committee to make their jobs easier and to be more engaged with the public?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
We are thankful for the opportunity to address the committee on the work we do. There is a narrative out there that I hope we have been able to address. If nothing else comes out of this, it was important to address that narrative and set out the work we have done in clearing out the backlog and moving forward.
In respect of a single thing this committee could do, it would have to do with the importance of electrical and water infrastructure. There is a narrative that there are delays in those areas within our organisation, but we are not necessarily seeing that. There has been one very high-profile water case in the building. We will have it out in the next few weeks. The clarification around that is important. We are ready to engage with utility stakeholders and have that level of stakeholder engagement as we go forward.
The importance of planning, what we do and resourcing is important. We will continue to play our role if this committee can ensure Government resourcing of our organisation. If we face further challenges, we will need to be resourced. If we are not resourced, we will fall into the difficulties we fell into in the past.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is important the committee get a copy of the presentation the witnesses gave to our colleagues today.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not know if Mr. Cussen has enough time to answer.
Mr. Niall Cussen:
The Senator asked a very good question. I echo my colleague Mr. Mullan in saying that the resourcing and supporting of the planning process that the committee can advocate for is really important.
When the crash hit, local authorities and the then board were public service areas that cutbacks hit much harder than anywhere else. The numbers in local authorities were reduced by a third, for example. The two areas where those cutbacks hit hardest were in planning and housing. To some extent, we are still dealing with the retrenchment we had to do at a time of great national need. There was a price to it and we are only really starting to come out of it.
In terms of supporting our planning process, the clue is in the remarks I made at the very beginning on infrastructure planning and our spatial planning process. We will get through this if we ensure that they are very carefully and tightly aligned. It is not a question of getting infrastructure delivered despite or around the planning system. Rather, it should be done through long-term and integrated thinking and making sure the two sides of the same coin - infrastructure and planning - join up.
Anything the committee can do with regard to looking at that or engaging with other committee colleagues - the housing committee and others - would be great.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have Deputy Tóibín. I will immediately call Deputy O'Toole after that. She is not a member of the committee but has been with us all day and is very welcome to be here to ask questions.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I apologise for coming back at the witnesses again. I get the sense that the witnesses are working hard, getting the train back on track and are making progress, but I do not get the sense that they understand the urgency we feel, given that we are dealing daily with people who are homeless. While the figures have improved and look as though they will continue to improve, they are still too long in several areas.
The witnesses have said that they do not need more staff. Maybe they feel they are unable to say they need more staff because, as civil servants, that is not necessarily the right thing to do. However, they do need more staff. If there is a backlog, there needs to be more staff to rectify that situation. There are no two ways about it.
We had Uisce Éireann in, which the witnesses have mentioned. It told us that it would not have the infrastructure in place until 2050 that was necessary for housing to be built. It said that permissions and consents were blocking its delivery of what it was looking to do. There is some nuance in that. It also said that the sequence of those permissions and planning consents was an issue. That is my first question for the witnesses to answer.
I am dealing with a builder in Navan who has been waiting 16 months for a planning application to be processed. In the jaws of the worst housing crisis in the history of this State, the witnesses can imagine how those two things are jarring. The idea that there is capacity and16-month waits while there is a housing crisis shows there is a problem.
The witnesses mentioned that the backlog was reducing, but the number of applications being made is also reducing. There has been a fall in the number of applications being made for the likes of apartments by 40% in recent times. The witnesses may be dealing with a backlog through better work, more efficiency and more capacity, but is it the case that some of that backlog reduction is because there is a reduction in the number of applications being made? That is my second question.
The third question relates to vexatious objections. There is a major problem with these in the State. I know of a farmer who is building a slatted shed in County Meath and some fella down in Cork has an ideological objection to farmers building slatted sheds. This individual is putting in an objection, even though he does not have a material interest in that type of situation.
The Government is talking about a change in planning law and extending the length of an application if there is a judicial review. Maybe now is the time to put in an amendment on who can make objections so that we limit that to those people who really feel a material impact or affect from a project. That might be a question Mr. Mullan can answer. I know of one particular case where I believe there is an objection going in on a planning application for blackmail reasons. An individual has actually asked for money so that he will not put in an objection to it. Mr. Mullan might speak to how we police that and mitigate that particular situation? That could be the fourth or fifth question.
There are cycles for everything in life. Sometimes, things are a good idea and, sometimes, they are not. Mr. Cussen mentioned he wanted to leave good planning behind. I agree with him because there has been so much developer-led development over the decades that it has been disastrous for this country. The witnesses might not like me looking at particular cases but there are cases where planning applications are being refused because they do not follow concentric settlement patterns. I am a big fan of concentric settlement patterns because many estates were built at an edge of towns while brownfield sites remained empty for years. Right now, however, I would not say that is the most important thing. I would say that, in a housing crisis with so many people homeless, we should build the bloody housing estate at the edge of the town for the moment to get people into the houses. Sometimes, there could be a regulatory lag and while our regulations were good for 2021, 2022 and 2023, getting people into homes is the issue right now. Counties such as Mayo, which has very few housing estates being built at the moment, are having housing applications knocked back because of concentric development patterns. That is the sixth question.
My last question is on the issue of turbines. We are still waiting for guidelines. Should An Coimisiún Pleanála be telling the HSE about issues such as a planning application for a wind turbine farm, given that for some people, like children with autism, sound levels might have an impact? Why does An Coimisiún Pleanála not notify the HSE of these types of thing?
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Mullan has 33 seconds.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I was in time on the last one but I noticed everybody else was over their time.
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy has to ask the question and get the answer in his time.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Everyone else was over their time, so I followed other members' lead.
Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Now Mr. Mullan has 22 seconds.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I am very happy to answer, although it is obviously a matter for the Cathaoirleach. To address the last question directly, I am very much aware of the issue. It was a peculiarity of planning law that a decision would be made about whether we would put the HSE on notice in relation to certain wind farm applications. We now do that as a matter of course. It was a very topical issue.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is that done at council level? Is that just An Coimisiún Pleanála and not at county council level?
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is not across the board.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
Obviously, if a wind farm is under a certain number of turbines and wattage, it will go to the local authority. In terms of applications to ourselves for strategic sites over a certain number, we notify the HSE as a matter of course.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the board do it for appeals that come to it having already been with a local authority?
Mr. Peter Mullan:
I do not think we do. The notifications will have been dealt with, so we do not. It will have gone through the local authorities and whatever notifications related to that.
On the blackmail issue - I am a former criminal lawyer - we are not an investigative body. We are not there to investigate, but evidence could come to us. Under the old Act and the present Act, we would obviously dismiss an objection that was made for the purpose of blackmail. Generally speaking, we have no investigative powers in that regard. Those are matters for An Garda Síochána. As a matter of course, we might refer something to An Garda Síochána. However, the real issue here is that blackmail was an effective method when delays were one year, 18 months, two years and beyond. That was a real factor and there was an RTÉ programme on it about a year and a half ago. Obviously, if we are getting SOP compliance back to the levels it should be, that is no longer an effective way to delay things.
I am dealing with the questions backwards. On the issue of locus standi and the slatted shed, where it is not necessarily the person next door but might instead be someone in an adjacent county, some parts of that issue have been dealt with, in that there are proposals on who can bring legal proceedings and a judicial review, as set out in Part 9 of the Act. It limits the ability to do that. I accept that there are probably arguments for strengthening some of those provisions. We might engage with the Department on the matter. As a lawyer, I understand the Deputy's interest in the issue of locus standi, but let us be absolutely clear - the one exception to all of that is environmental groups because they have a specific exemption and have not been involved in the planning process. If they see a decision on which they would consider there are environmental grounds to object, they are able to bring judicial reviews at a later stage, despite the Act.
On the 16 months, there are still cases within our system. We are confident that the backlog will be cleared by the end of the year. I have given very detailed answers today.
Senator Flynn asked us to provide the presentation we gave on housing matters. We will provide those figures. There is 100% compliance with the 30-plus LRDs. There are 11 cases left from 2024, but the rest of them are within SOP compliance. We cleared those out of the system and we are doing our very best. There are 41 rural housing cases left within the system. We are working very hard to clear those backlogs. That 16-month period is wrong but we are hoping that, as the year progresses, it will not happen again.
The SHD process was replaced by the then Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and the previous Government with the LRD process. The SHD process had two essential flaws at a very high level. One was that there was no further information, FI, provision, which created enormous difficulties. The second was that it was not particularly liked because it bypassed local decision-making and local authorities, as the applications were made to us. It was not popular. There was a huge amount of litigation with it. After that litigation ended in Easter of last year, we have systematically tried to get through those applications. We gave SHD figures in the papers we supplied. To date, we have decided 42 cases. There are ten-odd at board level and, in the next four-to-six weeks, I am confident we will get them out of the building. Ms Casey has the numbers for how many will remain after that.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
By quarter 3 or quarter 4, we really want to bring an end to delays with those. I cannot remember if the Deputy was here for it but I pointed out that the refusal rate for a lot of those was quite high. That is reflective of the passage of time and various different things around that. We are very confident that we will get a lot of those out of the building before quarter 3 and quarter 4.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Could I get a quick answer about concentric developments?
Mr. Niall Cussen:
The sequential approach is another way to put it. As my colleague Ms O'Connor reminded me, when we go through the development plans and they have been adopted and the lands are zoned, we are very much clearing the way for all of those lands to come forward through the normal development management process. We have been through that whole point around the sequential approach and how best to shape the long-term development of an area. There are issues that probably should not arise that have arisen in the past about which piece jumps first. The Deputy raised a broader debate that we hear from time to time about how we are in a housing crisis, so let the brakes off and just zone it.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Let us match regulation to need.
Mr. Niall Cussen:
In the Deputy's own time, I ask that he go through the briefing pack we gave and look at the maps. Look at the photographs on pages 26 and 27 of the cases where we had to intervene on the direction of the processes. There may well have been an aspiration and objective to deliver housing on those sites, but if they were 1 km, 2 km or 3 km out the road and there was no certainty as to how Uisce Éireann would deliver the trunk infrastructure, the cost would be put on the individual householder, who would have to pay very significantly for that in a developer-led approach. There might be other, better locations that should come forward. Are such cases not the antithesis of planning? Is that not the very point that the Deputy and I agree on as regards looking back on these things in ten or 20 years' time with regret?
We have sadly had too many cases where we have had to implement significant retrofit investment relating to active travel, schools and community infrastructure because someone persuaded a council at a point in time to zone land in the middle of nowhere where there was no fabric. That is not consistent with proper planning and sustainable development. We have a climate crisis and compact growth. Yes, we have a housing crisis. The challenge of planning is to try to pull all of those pieces together, particularly in the context of the significant land bank still out there for development plans across the country. We have always been tracking this closely. We have a land bank that is capable of delivering, even at relatively modest densities, the equivalent of 300,000 homes. Maybe it is not always in the area with the highest demand is, but we have a lot of land out there. However, we have a bigger crisis with the co-ordination of infrastructure. There is no point in zoning land and then being at the end of a ten-year queue for enabling water services or access to infrastructure, given the funding context those utilities have to work in. Uisce Éireann works within the CRU and the funding model it has been given. I said it at the beginning and I want to be consistent: spatial planning and infrastructural planning are two sides of the one coin. One has to be joined to the other. You cannot go off on a spatial planning vision that is disconnected from the how, when and the cash of how the infrastructure is going to be delivered.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I agree, but what is driving development at the moment is not spatial planning, but the fact that no builder can make a profit building a house in the likes of County Leitrim. Builders can only make a profit building a house in counties Meath, Louth, Dublin or the mid-east.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The spatial planning is out the window at the moment. It is purely market forces driving the location of housing.
Mr. Niall Cussen:
We have a piece of work on this that has travelled into the Department of housing in the context of its housing plan. You can look at regional and rural Ireland, and at large swathes of the midlands, the west and so on. I think I mentioned this in the response to Deputy McCormack. There is a huge disconnect between the level of housing being delivered in key towns, some of them quite large, and what the core strategies of their development plans have targeted. That speaks to the heart of whether they can get the land. Is the land affordable? Is the infrastructure there? Are there developer platforms or house builders of scale that have the funding and all of that and the conditions of viability to move on those sites? There have been initiatives under the Housing for All plan, particularly in relation to the sites like the ready to build scheme, croí cónaithe villages and so on. In the context of our research function, we think they have great potential to deliver similar success for small towns and villages, particularly in rural Ireland, like the vacant home refurbishment grant has delivered in the reuse of individual houses. That is a huge issue in the implementation of development plans.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The witnesses have been patient. It has been a long day. It is a sign of the interest in the meeting today that practically every member of the committee was here and wanted to engage extensively. That is a good sign in its own right.
Gillian Toole (Meath East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will try not to detain the witnesses too long. They have had a long session. First, I thank the OPR team for the training they provide to councillors, which is beneficial throughout. This question is for them. Is it possible to set a minimum standard for public consultation? There is a tendency in some local authorities to advertise projects and put them out to public consultation during the summer when there is lower engagement. Their collective recognition of the common good, and their focus on that, is welcome. Public consultation is intrinsic to meeting common good objectives.
On renewable energy, do they provide guidance, since we do not have guidelines, particularly for solar? I am in south east County Meath where we have approximately 2,000 acres of solar permission granted. I am not sure about the level of support or the competency within the local authority and the impact on the existing communities. There are different community grants, but they are not accessible to the community directly adjacent. They are accessible to organisations, community and voluntary groups that are statutorily structured. There is a mismatch there if the witnesses can or do provide guidance.
My ears pricked up when I heard about SIDs and notifying the HSE of wind turbines. Without mentioning an elephant in the room, the EPA does not monitor aircraft noise, but we know from other jurisdictions that there is significant health impact. If a solution were possible that could be put forward by a professional group that would mitigate against current and future aircraft noise, might that be considered by the coimisiún rather than the regulator? I hope I am not speaking too fast, but I am conscious of everybody's time. Environmental studies where they relate to renewable projects are client paid and client proffered. Is there scope for a fund being paid into where they would be independently evaluated as opposed to being produced for a client? I have a possibly unfounded concern about bias that could exist.
Mr. Niall Cussen:
I am delighted to hear the Deputy found the councillor training beneficial. She will remember that when we were established in 2019, the local elections had only just happened. Even though we were barely functional back then, we decided to pour a lot of resources into supporting elected members. We continue that process through engagement through the Association of Irish Local Government. We have a whole new training programme coming in the context of the Planning and Development Act. We have two in-person events on that in October.
A lot of the Deputy’s focus was on renewables. Our role is about ensuring that Government policy, as it is, is broadly reflected in the relevant development plans. We are not the policy body. That is the jurisdiction of the Minister and so on. We currently do not have guidelines around solar development and solar energy projects. There is a wider raft of energy policies, on which I will ask Mr. Mullan to come in, and how the decision-making process goes on anyway despite the fact that there are not solar guidelines. There is no doubt about it. Planning guidance on renewables generally, and solar specifically, will more than likely come along in due course and will be helpful. That does not mean we are sitting on our hands in the meantime. There is a whole piece on the translation of the national renewable energy targets that fall out of the climate plan energy policy into the spatial plans of the local authorities. The revised national planning framework had targets for the three regional assembly areas across a mix of renewable technologies such as wind, solar, biomass and so on. As part of the implementation of the national planning framework, the updated regional spatial economic strategies will take that out in more detail and work through the local authority renewable strategy methodology to break our more detail for the individual local authority. There is a process coming on giving more guidance to local authorities on what they need to go after in the context of renewables. We need to decarbonise our electricity systems and our economy, etc.
I turn to the practical and training piece about guidance and supporting staff and elected members. Working closely with the local government, we have thankfully seen the establishment of the planning service training group, which is a shared service across the 31 local authorities to provide detailed technical training for local authority staff. It is run out of the local authority services national training group based in Tipperary. We are working with it to put in place a whole series of events on renewables, climate, infrastructure and all of those technical aspects of solar and getting the right balance.
I am familiar with south-east Meath and so on. As I travel around it on the highways and the byways, I can literally see the approaching scale of development. That is out of our remit directly, however. The land use review is looking at the competing demands for rural land, be it for agriculture, forestry, renewables and so on, and how that is mediated, etc. While this matter definitely goes out of the competency of the Office of the Planning Regulator, it would be worth the committee's time to look at the progress of that area. To use the old phrase, there is a lot going on but there is more to do in the context of that renewables piece. There is no escaping addressing our climate emergency, either.
Ms Ann Marie O'Connor:
I will respond on the public consultation question the Deputy asked. As she will be aware, the minimum standard for public consultation is set out in legislation. Generally, we do not see any real problem in this regard. Local authorities are mindful of their obligations around public consultation. They engage in it positively because huge benefits come from engaging with the public about their understanding of their local areas, etc. Sometimes, there are issues.
In respect of the Deputy’s point about the summer holidays, we generally see that local authorities make an effort to avoid those periods. Sometimes it is unavoidable if the statutory timelines require them to move ahead. It must be borne in mind that they do not generally have council meetings in August as well. While they have a lot of moving parts, they generally engage in a positive and proactive manner.
We have also produced a toolkit for local authorities to use for their public consultations. It goes through and provides some good examples of where the sector has used innovative tools, etc. That is available on our website.
Mr. Peter Mullan:
If the Cathaoirleach gives us time, I am happy to answer some of those questions. Without commenting on any individual case, noise is an element that is considered within the guidelines that are there in any individual planning decision. I cannot get into certain cases. The case that was mentioned related to wind guidelines and whether the HSE is notified in that regard. We do that as a matter of course. The decision on the airport noise case will be made within the legal and planning constraints. I am not going to comment on it. That decision is imminent.
With regard to the environmental impact assessment issue and its independence, those studies are prepared by private consultants. One of the first things that is done when reading a planning report from one of the inspectors is their assessment as to their professional capacity. Their independence is assessed by one of our inspectors. On occasions, I have seen them say they are not adequate and there is an element of engagement there. Generally, however, that level of independence is assessed by an independent inspector with professional expertise in our organisation. Generally, it is fair to say that many of the professional organisations that do this are professional and independent, as they are supposed to be. Our inspectors are well able to assess their independence.
When it comes to solar guidelines or any kind of guidelines that come from the centre, we will operate within those guidelines, whether they are wind, solar or whatever. In respect of the decision-making at commissioner level, I might ask my colleague, Mr. McGarry, to describe how those decisions are made in the absence of guidelines. He has more experience in this regard.
Mr. Chris McGarry:
I thank the Deputy for the question. I wish to make a point, which will hopefully provide some reassurance. It is a particular aspect of an coimisiún. Our professional colleagues at the inspectorate will provide us with a detailed assessment of the material. By the time it comes to the commissioners, we will have all the evidence on the file, that is, the contested evidence from both sides. I assure the Deputy that we cast quite a cold and sceptical eye, if you want to call it that, on all detail. We interrogate it in our meeting schedule. We interrogate quite forcefully. As the Deputy will know, commissioners, under law, are appointed because they come from a certain area of experience. They are intended to bring experience of decision-making, analysis and debate to the commission. I can say to the Deputy quite honestly, having looked at a lot of the EIA work over the years, we find them impartial. Dare I say it, those who might stray from impartiality will be found out quickly in the analysis we do.
I note the Deputy’s notion about a central pull. That might be slightly tricky in the Irish context in terms of sheer numbers. If it is any kind of reassurance, there is a clear impartial and neutral interrogation of the evidence. We engage with all evidence before we come to our decision.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for bearing with us. I have two quick questions I wish to ask. The inspectors’ reports were mentioned. What percentage of reports are approved? I totally accept the right of the board not to accept an inspector's report. There is no issue in that regard. I am just asking for a feel of it. I presume they are the minority but they are the ones-----
Mr. Peter Mullan:
The annual report, which is right up to date to 2024, states that 89% of recommendations were accepted. A total of 11%, therefore, were set aside by the board. As an organisation, we generally talk about somewhere between 10% and 15%. While it may go up and down year on year, it never really varies. On occasions, we analysed a couple of weeks in a row where we discerned certain types of cases. It never really strays beyond that 10% to 15% level. That is the general level.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will Mr. Mullan outline the process when a decision is taken for a judicial review and the courts decide it should go back to An Coimisiún Pleanála for it to reconsider its decision? In my opinion, the courts have not gone either way. They are essentially telling An Coimisiún Pleanála that it must go back to look at its decision. I can think of one such case regarding a windfarm in my constituency in County Laois. I am on record as having made a submission to Laois County Council about that case. I understand the judicial review said that all the planning was looked at but equal weight was not given to climate change issues. I understand that outcome because I have read various articles in the media on this. It was sent back to An Coimisiún Pleanála to reconsider its decision. Does that happen? For the people who made submissions, how do they know and get back into the loop if the loop is being-----
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Did An Coimisiún Pleanála appeal it?
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Mullan has provided me with the information I often go looking for.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is in the Supreme Court.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We will have a decision before the end of the year.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is outside the control of An Coimisiún Pleanála.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My question has been answered to an extent then. I did not know where that case was.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have put on record that I have an interest in it. I do not want anyone to say I was asking the question. I am upfront. My name is on the file somewhere.
There are no other questions at this stage. I thank the witnesses for being here all day. It has been a long and interesting session. Good information was provided. All the members kept the meeting going on for a number of hours, as the witnesses can attest to. That is an indication of the interest people have in this particular area. Finally, I ask that any information requested be provided to the committee within two weeks.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Some other questions were asked as well.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Witnesses can liaise with the clerk to the committee for clarification. It has been the experience of this committee in recent months that people have been slow to send information on.
Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They all got their act together because they were going to be summoned in here next week if they had not sent their answers in today. I should never even have had to say that. The two-week window applies. That is the standard process at this committee.
At this stage, I thank the witnesses and members for their attendance.