Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister stated we have to have trust and integrity in An Bord Pleanála. I agree with him that we should have trust not just in An Bord Pleanála but in the full planning process and in our civil servants. It is difficult at times, when decisions have been fundamentally flawed and An Bord Pleanála has often been a closed shop. Now board members and their actions have been called into question. Despite the fact An Bord Pleanála is expected to hold oral hearings in cases of applications involving national and significant issues, or when such hearings are requested, this is routinely refused and dismissed out of hand. It indicates the decision-making process of planning authorities should be more open to scrutiny. That is the reason those decisions are taken. How often have we seen the board of An Bord Pleanála ignore its own inspectors' reports? This was alluded to. They correct them for their own value or change them to support a decision they were going to take. How often have we seen An Bord Pleanála ignore not just the concerns of local council planning officials and authorities but also development plans or the zoning confines of a particular site? Far too often in my view, and it has been happening more of late.

It would be interesting to look at the decision of the board members now under scrutiny when it comes to the destruction of our historical heritage in this city in recent years. Were the members who are now under investigation party to decisions to grant consent to the demolition of the O'Rahilly family home at 40 Herbert Park in Ballsbridge, a key house in the revolutionary years of the early 20th century? I do not know, but if they were, I do not know whether there was a conflict of interest or for what reason that decision was taken. I know that some of those named An Bord Pleanála officials who are under scrutiny played a role in refusing to grant an oral hearing on three planning applications before them regarding Moore Street. They are now adjudicating them at present. I am not aware if there is any specific conflict of interest.

I have to say, from a heritage perspective, shame on them. There is no more important site being earmarked for development at present than Moore Street, and I know the Minister has a specific interest in this. It is historically significant and of national and international importance, with legislation seeking its full protection before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Many local authorities are opposing its destruction. A national monument would be interfered with. A historical building survey and assessment reports that the local planning authority have are not being considered by An Bord Pleanála because they were produced after the deadline. Yet, An Bord Pleanála refused an oral hearing.

This is a national monument. This terrace held a retreating GPO garrison at the end of Easter week. This was where the last meeting of the 1916 Rising Military Council met and where the surrender was decided to avoid further loss of civilian life. This is where the soldiers of the republic, namely, the IRA, were told that there would be a day soon when the war would be waged again. However, there are some who would rather erase our history. In this context, let there be no illusion that some people would rather it would be destroyed.

Does anybody bar me find it obscene that those presiding on planning applications often have skin in the game? Some are definitely not independent. Some are developers and holders of development land. Given the scandals of the past in this city, in particular Wood Quay and Frascati House, we need to be very careful with who is on An Bord Pleanála. I agree with the Minister on the importance of maintaining trust and confidence in our planning system. However, I am sorry, but I do not have it at the moment. I will explain why.

I know there were underhanded goings-on in relation to Moore Street in terms of the State, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage officials and Dublin City Council officials lining up with the current owner of the site to offer a package for loss of earnings to the area's street traders. However, that €1.7 million was tied to three conditions, thus making it a bribe. The figure quoted is not disputed. A trader has put it that they received three offers: the first one was €1 million; the second was €1.5 million; and the third and final offer was €1.7 million. How much value is put on the disruption of history?

The traders on the most recent ministerial Moore Street Advisory Group, MSAG, were being told to endorse the Dublin central vision of the Hammerson group, involving the destruction of much of the historic Moore Street site. They were specifically told to vote for a report to the Minister that also endorsed the same. They were instructed to issue a statement going back on their earlier support for the Ceathrú Chultúir 1916 Bill, my own Bill, which had unanimously passed First and Second Stages in the Dáil and is awaiting Committee Stage. They were also told to give a commitment not to submit any planning objections to the applications that Hammerson was about to make late last year regarding that site. That is a bribe - there are no two ways about it - because it is conditional. The supposed package was conditional on them taking those actions. That is also gross interference in the planning process. It is gross interference in the legislative process given that the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, had earlier indicated here in the Dáil that he would take his lead in relation to my Bill from the MSAG report. It is also interference in the function of the same Minister’s own advisory group.

Thankfully, the traders walked away in disgust literally minutes before the MSAG’s finally deliberative meeting in May 2021. While I made that charge to the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, earlier this year, he dismissed my concerns as being unfounded allegations, without asking me for any proof, without asking for the help of An Garda Síochána, without even picking up the phone to ask his own party members who are on the MSAG whether those allegations stood up or without even asking the traders who walked away who had been in the media backing up the allegations I had made. As far as I am aware, the allegations have never been directly put to the traders by An Garda Síochána or anybody else.

Was the Minister aware of what was happening in his Department under his watch? Did he agree the bribe figures and amount? Did he agree that officials from his Department were colluding and were allowed to so with a private developer and the city council to interfere in this way to attempt to bribe ordinary Dublin citizens concerned about their future livelihoods to act illegally?

See this speech in context