Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter. Will the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government consider the reform of An Bord Pleanála given the overwhelming view of the population that the board is incapable of operating independently, since it is bound by Government policy in making its decisions?

I attended a meeting of several hundred people about a proposed asbestos recycling facility in Killala recently. Nobody present spoke in favour of the development. I attended a demonstration involving 2,000 people two days ago in Killala. They abhor the possibility of this facility being located at Killala. The only people who have spoken in favour of the facility are the company's managing director and public relations man.

However, local people are concerned, particularly when they reflect on the decision by An Bord Pleanála regarding the Ringaskiddy incinerator. There was strong opposition locally to building the incinerator, including a written objection signed by 20,000 people. Despite the refusal of the necessary rezoning by Cork County Council, An Bord Pleanála overruled its own inspectors who had highlighted a long list of reasons planning permission should have been refused for the incinerator, thereby, upholding the view of the county council and the people. The board ruled that the incinerator should be built because it is Government policy.

That is amazing. I do not know how the board can be described as independent when it favoured the proposers of the incinerator because their proposal was in line with Government policy. What was the point in the board making, an adjudication and proceeding with its investigations when it was a foregone conclusion? This was a waste of taxpayers' money. The internal structure of An Bord Pleanála must be fatally flawed if it does not heed its own recommendations. The Minister of State and the Government are accountable for their decisions. However, natural justice does not appear to prevail in the case of An Bord Pleanála. It would be perverse in the extreme if this facility was allowed in Killala, when everybody in the place is against it. There will be the mother of battles if there is any attempt to send this project to the county council.

This is not the NIMBY syndrome. We must have a sense of proportion. The Minister said in a reply on this issue in the Dáil on 2 November that additional capacity is required nationally to deal with the hazardous waste we generate. However, this area has been totally neglected. It is a wasteground from a burnt out Asahi facility. The area needs the jobs that all other places get, not the jobs that nobody wants. We want necessary infrastructure and to keep our children in the area. The fear is that even if the county council goes against this, An Bord Pleanála will do a Ringaskiddy on it. An Bord Pleanála overrules the inspectors in 10% of cases. If this happens, the reason should be clearly stated.

There is a lack of democracy in planning. I suggest we should have a planning monitoring committee, like the rural water monitoring committee, that would shadow each local authority and would comprise local elected and rural stakeholder representatives. These should have the right of appeal to a national monitoring committee that could directly appeal to the Minister. This would return democracy to the planning system through allowing applications be kicked back to the planners for re-evaluation where indicated. This would reduce appeals to An Bord Pleanála.

An Bord Pleanála is seen as an anti-rural group. This is often attributed to the lack of proper representation of the rural groups on the board. The Minister of State should do something to ensure such representation on the board. That lack is a significant deficit. The Irish Rural Dwellers Association was set up as a result of a groundswell of opinion regarding what is happening around the country. The association, in which I am involved, has 1,600 members, but gets no funding from the Government. Organisations such as An Taisce get funding, but the IRDA, which is truly democratic, gets none. It should get at least the same funding as An Taisce. The reply given on the matter in the Dáil gives no comfort. Government policy is that if everything is all right with the EPA etc., this may be approved.

I speak a great deal on the issue of jobs and what is needed in my area. We need fair play. We need power, roads and rail. We also need the other essential infrastructure necessary to make the area competitive. Most of all we need to maintain the infrastructure we have. I seek reform of An Bord Pleanála in that regard.

Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

An Bord Pleanála is a body established under the Planning and Development Act 2000. It is mandated to operate completely independently in performing its functions. Members are appointed on the basis of nominations from 37 bodies prescribed under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001.

The board is required to make an independent determination of appeals on planning authorities' decisions. In dealing with an appeal, the board must consider all submissions on the file, together with the inspector's report and recommendation. It reaches its own conclusion in each case, in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Section 34(10) of the 2000 Act provides for the board to make a decision, which is not in accordance with the recommendations of its inspector — a ruling passed in this House — but requires reasons to be given for not accepting the recommendations.

The Planning and Development Act 2000 requires planning authorities and the board to have regard to Government policy when taking decisions on planning applications and appeals. Section 29 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 requires planning authorities and the board also to have regard to ministerial policy and guidelines, and comply with such guidelines in the performance of their functions. This has been a requirement on the board since its inception in 1977.

It is right and proper that state agencies, like the board, should operate in a policy framework set by the Government, which has a democratic mandate. I am sure the Deputy welcomes this requirement in certain areas of policy, for example, with regard to rural housing. For the first time, the new guidelines provide a policy framework setting out in detail how Government policy on rural housing, as set out in the national spatial strategy, is to be taken forward by local authorities in planning more effectively for rural areas.

The board operates a number of measures designed to ensure fairness and impartiality in carrying out its functions. Section 150 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 provides for the adoption by An Bord Pleanála of a code of conduct for dealing with conflicts of interest and promoting public confidence in the conduct of its business. The code further requires that persons employed by the board are to carry out its work in an independent manner that embodies the public service ethos of integrity, impartiality and a desire to serve the public interest while giving due consideration to all legitimate viewpoints and interests.

An Bord Pleanála has recently adopted a customer service action plan that provides for a complaints procedure with regard to the quality of service provided to customers. While it cannot overturn a decision, it will endeavour to deal with complaints dealing with procedure and clarify matters relating to the decision. It has undertaken to endeavour to reply to any complaint within one month of the date of its receipt. The board's code of conduct and customer service action plan is available to the public on request. They are also on the board's website.

The provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as they relate to the operations of An Bord Pleanála, and the measures taken by the board as outlined, ensure that practices and procedures are carried out by the board to the highest standards of impartiality and professionalism.

I understand the Deputy's concern as I have been a public representative for 20 years. As councillors and Deputies we often complain about the board one week but think it is great the next week, depending on its decisions. Everybody works within a general framework. The Deputy's constituents may be concerned about the plant in Killala, whether or not the concern is well founded. I always urge constituents to acquaint themselves with the facts. We, as elected representatives have the responsibility to provide the right information to people and not lead them into a cul-de-sac with misinformation.

Planning permission is not given lightly. A long process must be gone through although some people feel the process is over long. People are concerned about issues. The board does not always make the right decision. I recall the board came up with a decision that the Government did not like in regard to Belmullet. We complain about the board one day, but think it is great on other occasions.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State should conclude.

Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Deputy's constituents are concerned, they should go through the process and make their input. They should not prejudge the board's decision.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Minister of State to conclude.

Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

People should base their opinions on information. If they work with the system, they will get a proper decision at the end.