Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Continuing where I left off, will the Minister introduce amendments extending permission times for any developments that have been granted permission but then can be delayed by several years due to legal proceedings?

I also want to hear what will happen with judicial reviews. There are 2,000 judicial review applications opened before the High Court every year, 1,200 of which are planning related. Unfortunately, many are addicted to these weapons in the war on rights and property. They can add years to planning developments and massive costs which eventually the poor house buyer has to pay. This Bill is making some changes in that area but I wonder if it is enough. Of course, we need some means to stop what I call the super judicial reviewers. Peter Sweetman is one well known one. A less well-known one is Michael Duffy. He is one who lingers. This year, he has brought two judicial reviews. He brought four in 2022, three in 2021, one in 2020, three in 2015, two in 2013, three in 2012 and one in 2011. Could one man living in a very small town in Ireland holding up hundreds and hundreds of houses really have an interest in counties like Laois, many miles from him?

We read recently about the carry-on in Milltown in Dublin where a massive money-per-unit bid was sought. Following it, a senior lawyer left one of Ireland's largest law firms, Matheson, over a demand for payment for not objecting to planning permission being granted for a housing development. The Irish Independentrevealed that neighbours in the salubrious southside Dublin suburb secretly sought €225,000 each to not block the project duration. The demand has been referred to the Garda and the developer reported for potential fraud. However, the written request for substantial payment was made from an official email address from one of the country's biggest firms of solicitors. The lead homeowner who sent the email was a senior lawyer at Matheson. This carry-on is not isolated.

I want to hear the Minister say how much further he will go on judicial reviews. For example, the law could be tightened to make the leave to seek cases and the full hearing of the claim heard at the same time in one set of proceedings. Is that in the Minister's plan? Will he make that mandatory rather than at the discretion of the judges, as it is at present? The biggest issue in courts is the time it takes from papers being lodged to when the court ultimately decides to reject a challenge or approve a planning decision. How many more judges will be appointed given that extra judges need to be assigned to the two planning lists?

I now want to summarise, as best I can, and briefly lay out in point form, my observations, views and asks in the expectation that amendments can be made to this mammoth Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill. First, I ask for councillors to get planning expertise so that it can be provided to them when dealing with a development plan. That will allow them to adequately and professionally scrutinise and amend, if necessary, the council management's initial draft plan. Second, I ask for a means by which specific prescribed elements of a development plan are acknowledged in the granted permission and are not open to challenge beyond An Bord Pleanála. I am thinking of the likes of height, density, design and infrastructural capacity to cater for zoned lands. Third, I ask for all outstanding decisions by An Bord Pleanála of 12 months or a longer duration to be immediately dealt with and finalised at least within six weeks of the passage of this Bill.

Fourth, with an eye on the Crofton Buildings Management CLG & Anor v.An Bord Pleanála appeal in the Supreme Court, in the event that it favours the initial development plan at the time at which the application was made over the development plan that came into force during the period of its deliberations, I ask the Minister of State to bring forward amendments to give supremacy to the plan that is in vogue at the time of the planning application, rather than any other that comes thereafter. Fifth, I ask that judicial reviews and An Bord Pleanála appeals or court proceedings are not allowed to run down the clock on a five-year permission. You can get a permission today, you can be in the courts for four years and go through all the processes I have mentioned, you can come out the right side of it, and only have a year to complete the development. That has to be amended.

My sixth point is on costs relating to judicial reviews by objectors. I believe within this plan they are to be assessed and capped prior to the commencement of a case and paid for by the State. That will be an improvement on the present scenario and circumstances, where the victors are charged with the responsibility of paying the costs of those who have caused such a lengthy delay. This is at great cost and expense not only to the developer, but to the State, in relation to the provision of housing. Seventh, I ask for serial judicial reviewers to be curtailed, because this has obviously turned into an industry in recent years. It is a runaway train. It is curtailing housing, energy projects, infrastructural projects and, indeed, it is curtailing the Government's ability to deliver a national development plan. In fact, I would go so far as to say we should seek to consider the curtailment or ridding of that process as a practice in areas of major significance or in cases of emergency. That is the road to go down. We have an emergency in housing yet we have a system that allows for developments to be held up in the courts for four or five years. We have an emergency in the provision of infrastructure to support residential or commercially zoned land yet we have a system that allows that to be curtailed. We have a system that allows, for example, for the curtailment of the provision of flood relief schemes. As I said earlier in relation to the national development plan, people in Midleton and elsewhere are amazed to find that objectors, reviews and appeals can curtail the provision of an emergency rectification work for the purpose of dealing with the effects of climate change. I earnestly and truthfully ask the Government and Minister in the provision of this mammoth amendment Bill to find a method or agreement among the coalition partners to devise a mechanism to curtail that. As I said to the Minister of State, we would then have far better figures for our housing output, infrastructural capacity and the commitments we make not just in this development plan but also those made in previous ones. At the same time as all that ambition, we cater and pander to objectors who have the capacity and the ability and who are paid the costs associated with holding up with these developments for far too long. It is high time we tackle this properly and effectively and deal with it sufficiently.

See this speech in context