Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I support both Deputy Pringle's amendments, as well as his comments and those of Deputies McAuliffe, Matthews and Boyd Barrett. Many of us have been arguing for quite some time that the earlier you involve third parties in any planning process, the better outcomes we get for everybody. However, I wish to put on record a slightly different view to a number of the comments.

I absolutely welcome the return to a two-stage process. The core of this Bill is a good proposition and many of us argued for it when we opposed SHDs at the outset. However, returning to a two-stage process is not, in and of itself, automatically going to result in a reduction in judicial reviews. I say that because the dramatic rise in judicial reviews of residential developments, which is something that was unheard of until 2020, is not actually due to the absence of a two-stage process. It stems from the conflict between the city and county development plans and the mandatory ministerial guidelines on building heights and design standards introduced by Eoghan Murphy, as well as the misapplication of the planning objectives contained in the national planning framework by An Bord Pleanála in some recent decisions. The difficulty is even though we will return to a two-stage process and that is good, the board, on appeal, potentially by a developer, may well continue the questionable practice it has been engaged in during the last two years. This has not only resulted in an increase in judicial reviews but a dramatic increase in the number of judicial reviews lost, at great cost to the Exchequer. It seems some members of the board do not seem to be cognisant of the fact they are repeatedly approving decisions on grounds that are repeatedly being challenged and defeated in the courts, and the taxpayer foots the Bill. We may not get to speak to them but Deputy Cian O’Callaghan has tabled amendments that deal with those issues with the mandatory ministerial guidelines. At some point, the Minister is going to have to deal with those.

Likewise, irrespective of the two-stage process, the very generous transitional mechanism, especially for applicants for the SHD process that are only entering pre-application now, is also going to lead to judicial reviews. When we discussed this at some length on an earlier Stage, I suggested there may well be a rush of applications to the board for pre-planning under SHD. The Minister said he did not believe that would be the case. On the front page of Monday’s edition of The Irish Times, Arthur Beesley has a good story showing there has been a significant increase in those pre-applications in the past three months when compared to this time last year. That relates to Deputy Boyd Barrett’s point. SHD applications will continue, in certain instances, until June 2022, with decisions by the board and potential challenges until October of next year. That is going to be highly problematic. Therefore, Deputy Matthew’s suggestion the Minister looks again at earlier pre-planning participation in a new large-scale residential development absolutely has merit. The essence of Deputy Pringle’s amendment is trying to achieve just that.

Unless we tackle those other two key issues, unfortunately, potential conflict will continue, not just between applicants for planning permission and third parties but between the board and our local authorities. From memory, nine local authorities have been in direct conflict with the board over planning decisions. The Minister and I are on record as questioning the logic of legal challenges involving two arms of the State. My view is that Dublin City Council has done the right thing in challenging the board on its disastrous decisions with respect to the docklands strategic development zone. The courts have upheld those legal challenges. Either way, that is not a good planning space to be in.

I anticipate the Minister will not accept many of these amendments we will get to, but these are issues we will have to return to. The Minister and his eminent officials will need to come back to us about them at a later stage. Otherwise, we will be going around in circles, as we have done for the past three or four years, on these important issues.

See this speech in context