Brendan Griffin (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

487. To ask the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government if he will change the law to allow for independent scrutiny of An Bord Pleanála decisions, particularly in cases where decisions are made completely against the recommendations of inspectors; if he is concerned with the current lack of transparency in the decision making process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32364/14]

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, provides that, where a question of law arises, any person may apply to the High Court for leave to seek a judicial review of a planning decision made by An Bord Pleanála (the Board). Leave to seek a judicial review must usually be sought within eight weeks of the decision, although the High Court may extend this period where it considers that there is good and sufficient reason for doing so. The High Court may only grant leave where it is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision is invalid or should be quashed. The person seeking leave must also have a substantial interest in the decision and have participated in the decision making process or had good and sufficient reasons for not doing so.

Section 146 of the 2000 Act provides that a report and recommendation on any case which is before the Board for decision can be prepared to assist the Board in making its decision on that matter. The Board is obliged to consider any such report and recommendation before determining the matter but it is not bound to adopt the report in making its decision. However, subsection 34(10) of the 2000 Act in relation to planning appeals provides that in circumstances where the Board’s decision is different, in relation to the granting or refusal of permission, from the recommendation of the reporting inspector, then the Board’s decision must include a statement indicating the main reasons for not accepting the recommendation in the inspector’s report. The Board follows this practice in all cases which come before it for decision.

In June 2007, my Department issued Development Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which planning authorities and the Board must have regard to in the performance of their functions. The Guidelines contain a section in relation to planning reports, and advise that the planning report should gather together all information relevant for the proper consideration of the application and that it should structure these considerations in a way that is clear to the applicant and the wider public and that enables informed judgements to be made as to the merits of an appeal to the Board. The Guidelines also note the requirements of section 34(10)(b) of the 2000 Act and reiterate that where a final decision of a planning authority or the Board on a planning application is different, in relation to either the granting or refusal of permission, from the recommendation of the final planning report, the decision must indicate clearly the main reasons for not accepting the recommendation. The Guidelines further advise that it is best practice that the decision would address all the relevant issues raised in the final planning report and that where the decision, while not differing from the recommendation in relation to the grant or refusal, significantly varies the conditions, the reasons for this variation should also be given. The Guidelines emphasise that implementing the above procedure is vital in supporting the openness and transparency of the planning system.

I have no plans to amend the legislation in this regard at this time.