Amendment No. 19 is in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Amendment No. 20 is related. It is suggested, therefore, that for discussion purposes we take amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together.
Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1991: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 6, lines 1 and 2, to delete ", at any time before the expiration of the appropriate period,".
These two amendments have to do with the manner in which appeals are submitted to An Bord Pleanála. Under the Bill as proposed it is intended that appeals to An Bord Pleanála be submitted within one month of the making of the planning decision by the local authority and the submission would have to state in full the grounds of the appeal and the reasons, considerations and arguments on which they are based. This amendment seeks to separate the making of the appeal and the statement of the grounds. In other words, there would be two stages in making the appeal. In the first stage the appellant would submit a notice of appeal within one month. Subsequent to that a further two weeks would be allowed for the submission of the statement of the grounds of the appeal. There is a misprint in amendment No. 20 in that the word "months" should read "weeks". The intention is that the appeal should be notified within one month and that a further period of two weeks should be allowed within which the statement of the grounds of the appeal should be submitted.
As I stated in relation to earlier amendments, sometimes the period between finding out that a planning authority have made a decision and being able to submit an appeal is very short. It may take two or three weeks before the decision of the local authority is known to an individual or to a residents' association. By the time they call a meeting to discuss it the limit of one month may have been reached. It is a very short timescale within which to prepare a case for appeal, particularly if a complex issue is involved. It might be necessary to make complex arguments in relation to traffic movements or sanitary services and it might be necessary to get some professional opinion. I am seeking to allow a further period of time within which the appellant can make a full statement. I do not think it would unnecessarily delay the whole procedure. First, there would be the notification of the appeal and then the statement of the grounds of the appeal. It could be submitted simultaneously but a further two weeks would be allowed.
We did not reach these amendments on Committee Stage. It is pushing it a bit far to send in full details of an appeal within one month, particularly as the opportunity to make a further statement is excluded. Only if one is asked for additional information, or if one is replying, can one submit such information. The proposed extension would not delay the appeals procedure but it would allow a little more flexibility and latitude in making the comprehensive statement required.
I strongly support these amendments because they dovetail well together. We on this side of the House have expressed our disquiet about the narrowing of the procedures open to third parties in appealing a decision to An Bord Pleanála. One of the things that causes great disquiet is that a full statement of objection, outlining all the matters to be covered, has to be submitted within the four week timeframe. I think it is a very good idea to separate the notice of appeal from the detailed statement. This suggestion is worthy of the Minister's consideration. I suggest that we adopt the mechanism where the formal appeal must be lodged within the four week timeframe but that a further two weeks will be allowed to complete the process. I was a little disquieted when I read six months but a six weeks period seems eminently reasonable as it gives an extra two weeks to deal with matters that might require a co-ordinated approach. For example, it would allow a residents' association to make a composite submission taking account of everybody's views as it may take longer to prepare this submission than that of an individual. It also may take longer than four weeks to submit a professional opinion.
On Second and Committee Stages a great many Members commented on the lack of time to prepare a comprehensive once-off statement. One gets only a single bite at the cherry under this Bill and it is therefore important for any appellant to make a comprehensive submission. For that reason it is eminently sensible to ask for an additional two weeks to give time for this to happen. I do not think this change would lengthen in any way the appeals process but it would give a slight breather to groups. Much of the four weeks could be eaten up before people would become aware of the planning decision, and the de facto position is that people have less than four weeks in which to prepare their case. I suggest that the notice of appeal should be lodged within four weeks but that an additional two weeks, which is not exactly extravagant, should be allowed for the submission of a comprehensive case. If anything this is too short a timeframe to work in but it is certainly preferable to the timeframe required by the legislation as put before us.
I strongly support both these amendments.
These amendments tabled by Deputy Gilmore and supported by Deputies Howlin and Garland involve a fairly fundamental departure from the Bill's proposed requirements for the lodging of an appeal. Instead of having to submit the full grounds of appeal within the appeal period, the appellant would only have to send notice of appeal within the period and then submit the full grounds within a further two weeks at the end of that period. In effect what the Deputies are advocating is a halfway house between the Bill's proposal and the present position, where appellants have only to submit notice within the appeal period and the board must then pursue them for submission of the full grounds of appeal.
I do not believe an arrangement such as that suggested by the Deputy is either necessary or desirable. The requirement in the Bill to submit the full grounds of appeal within the appeal period is reasonable and will not prevent appellants from making comprehensive submissions to the board, especially since the appeal period for third parties will be increased from the present three week period to a period of one month.
The obligation was on all appellants to submit notice of appeal and the complete grounds of appeal within 21 days, but that changed following the court case and the change in the regulations, but up until then that had been the position. I have increased the time limit from three weeks to one month, and the same start-up day will apply to everybody. I have also assured the House that in the regulations to be introduced the transparency of the procedures and the question of public notice will be dealt with in such a way as to enhance the possibilities for very early notice so that the appeals can be prepared and submitted in due time.
We have already agreed on the timeframe of four months but if this amendment were accepted we would be putting further pressure on An Bord Pleanála to meet the prescribed time limit. Four weeks is a reasonable period and indeed it is a week longer than most people had to submit an appeal until recent years. It is also a way of ensuring that we improve the system, at the same time taking account of the needs outlined by the Deputies. If we take the three areas together, increasing the time limit by one week, the transparency of public notices, as prescribed by regulation, and the evening up of the start-up time for everybody, Deputies will note I have gone a fair distance to meet their suggestions on Committee Stage. I, therefore, ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.
This is a very important amendment and I do not intend to withdraw it. Normally I would seek to call a division on an amendment of this kind but having regard to the amount of time available for the remainder of the Report Stage I will simply be asking the Chair to put the amendment as I will not be calling a division on it.
However, before I do that I want to respond to some of the points the Minister made. I am very disappointed that he has not made some concessions on this particular amendment. I do not think we can make a valid comparison with the present position whereby the appellant has three weeks to submit a notice of appeal and the situation as proposed in this Bill. Under the present arrangements the appellant may submit his case piece-meal over a period of time. It is possible for people to keep submitting additional information in relation to an appeal for quite some time.
The measure proposed in the Bill will affect both the applicant and those who wish to lodge objections to the planning application. The local authority set out the reasons, some of which may be very technical, for their decision. Some of the grounds for refusing planning permission, or granting permission subject to conditions, may relate to possible traffic hazards, the absence of sanitary services or drainage and a whole range of other reasons. Whether the applicant or somebody opposed to the decision wishes to lodge an appeal, he would need some professional assistance to make his case, particularly if he wished to refer to a technical point. Quite honestly, I do not think it is possible to do that within the timescale allowed for in this Bill; as we have already said, we are not talking about a case where the appellant will have a full month to prepare his case. The month runs from the date the local authority make the decision and the appellant will not have a full month. Even with the postal service at its best it will take a couple of days before the notice gets to the applicant and it may take an even longer period of time in local authorities where the planning lists are prepared weekly for the information to reach the appellant, and it may be up to two weeks before a residents' association, or a community organisation, for example, find out that a particular decision has been made. That is in situations where local groups are well organised. There may be other cases where it may be right up to the expiry date before people find out the decision has been made. They have then got to go to the planning office to check the file, they have got to see the reasons for the refusal, they may well have to consult with other people about it, they may have to get some professional assistance and on top of that they have to put the case together for submission to An Bord Pleanála. They are under enormous pressure in that they get only one chance and if something is omitted in the submission to An Bord Pleanála they cannot re-enter it at a later stage. Even in cases where an oral hearing has been granted people are specifically excluded — we will come to this later in the debate — from entering new material at that stage. The only opportunity that somebody making an appeal to An Bord Pleanála has to state their case is before the month's deadline. That is cutting it much too fine. I had hoped, and I thought it was reasonable, to allow a period of two weeks during which time the board would be aware an appeal was coming in. Presumably in the earlier stages, when an appeal comes in, all that is done is purely administrative work and inspectors are assigned to that file. All those matters can be dealt with within the period of two weeks before the full statement goes to An Bord Pleanála.
I am disappointed with the Minister's response. I will be asking you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to put the issue to the House. I would also ask the Minister, in anticipation of the outcome, to consider this matter further before this Bill is debated in the Seanad. This is the section that will cause the biggest problem in future years. Following the enactment of this Bill, public representatives, will continually have problems with people coming to us and saying: "I did not get the full submission into An Bord Pleanála and they will not now consider it, we did not have time to prepare our case" and so on. This will be a disaster area, and since the Minister does not appear to be disposed to deal with it here — in the Seanad, legislators will have to come back to it at a later stage to iron out the difficulties because it will create all kinds of problems and may well lead to legal challenges where people feel they have not been given ample opportunity to state their case.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 6, line 4, after "section" to insert "by submitting a notice of appeal at any time before the expiration of the appropriate period and by submitting a statement of the full grounds of the appeal within six months of the publication of the decision of the planning authority".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 21 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 are alternatives. It is proposed therefore that amendments Nos. 21 to 25, inclusive, be discussed le chéile.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 7, to delete lines 1 to 9 and substitute the following:
"(f) In paragraph (a) of this subsection "the appropriate period" means the period of one month beginning on the day of the giving of the decision of the planning authority.';".
All these amendments relate to the definition in section 3 of the Bill of the period within which an appeal against a planning authority's decision may be made to An Bord Pleanála. We had a fairly lengthy discussion on this matter on Committee Stage and Deputies were somewhat concerned that the appeal period of one month would run from a slightly different date in the case of the applicant for planning permission. I have reflected on the matter in the meantime and I have come to the conclusion that it would be preferable in terms of consistency and clarity if the appeal period ran from the same date for all persons. Accordingly, amendment No. 21 proposes to replace the existing provision in the Bill with a new provision under which the appeal period of one month will run for the applicant and everybody else from the date of the planning authority's decision.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 from Deputies Mitchell and Howlin, respectively, would amend the definition of the appeal period only in so far as it relates to persons other than the applicant for planning permission. I consider, however, that it is preferable to amend the definition so that the appeal period will be identical for all and on that basis I could not agree to those amendments.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 24 from Deputy Gilmore would create a situation in which the appeal period for all persons, including the applicant, would run from the time the planning authority publishes notice of their decision. While this approach has the advantage of bringing about a uniform appeal period I consider it would be preferable for the appeal period to commence for all on the day of the planning authority's decision as proposed in my own amendment.
I am very disappointed the Minister has not gone that one step further in this case. I welcome his own amendment so far as it goes in that it now gives everybody a month rather than the present unsatisfactory situation of 21 days in one case and a month in another. The legislation, with the Minister's amendment, refers to the making of a decision by the local authority. Simply because a decision is made by the local authority does not mean that the people who could be affected by that decision know about it. In fact, they may not know about it for a considerable length of time after the decision is made. I want to amend the section further so that the month, which the Minister now proposes in all cases, would run not from the date of the giving of the decision but the date of publication of the decision. That would put an onus on local authorities to ensure that publication of the decision follows rapidly, if not simultaneously, with the giving of a decision.
Regardless of the present postal dispute we all know that between the time a decision is made, a letter is typed, signed, posted and delivered there can be a lapse of a significant period perhaps as much as ten or 12 days. Sometimes letters are incorrectly addressed and returned to the sender after a couple of weeks but admittedly they are exceptional cases. My experience is that when I have made inquiries in respect of any planning decision I usually receive a letter about that decision more than a fortnight after the decision is made and frequently close to the deadline for lodging an appeal. That is even when we have a normal postal delivery.
As mentioned by Deputy Gilmore and others in discussion on earlier amendments if the decision was made close to an August bank holiday weekend or the Easter weekend or if it coincided with the holiday period of one of the people involved they might find on their return from holidays a letter in their postbox informing them they had a month in which to appeal when the date has already elapsed. It may also be the case that people who have not been directly involved in the initial planning application but who would be affected by the decision do not know about it. That is why the Minister should accept that not only should planning applications be published weekly in the same place in the same newspaper but also planning decisions. In this case we are asking that they be published and that the month run from the date of publication.
The major weakness in the Minister's argument is his absolute refusal to take steps to inform those members of the public who might reasonably be regarded as being affected by planning permissions. He has refused to insert in the legislation a provision that there should be weekly newspaper advertising of all planning decisions, applications and appeals. The Minister seems to be resisting the idea that the month in which appeals may be lodged should date from the publication of the decision and not the date of the decision. The Minister would be doing himself, the public and the planning process a great service if he reconsidered his attitude to this question of publication.
The issue addressed in the Minister's amendment was raised on Committee Stage. What exactly is a month? In the Bill, as drafted, there was one definition of a month for the applicant and another for everybody else. In the case of the planning applicant a month dated from the time the letter with the decision of the planning authority arrived through his letter box. In the case of everybody else the month dated from the time the decision was made by the planning authority. I am pleased that the Minister has seen fit to equalise the situation so that the definition of a month is the same for everybody.
I share Deputy Mitchell's reservation that, in effect, the period available is less than a month because the month starts to clock away once the decision is made by the planning authority but notification of the planning authority's decision may not reach the interested parties until some time later. However, at least we do not have one definition of a month for the applicant and another for everybody else and, to that extent, I welcome the Minister's positive response to what was said here on Committee Stage.
I thank Deputy Gilmore for his comments. The fact is that we do listen to good arguments and there is no question but that they were trenchantly made on the last occasion. I am happy to go as far as I can to ensure a level playing field.
On Deputy Mitchell's point, it would not be fair to expect us to legislate for all contingencies. It has always been the practice to stick rigidly to the date of the giving of the planning permission. That is enshrined in all of the planning laws since 1963. Our position has been consistent and is well recognised. For instance, somebody who has made application to the local authority for planning permission will be aware that there is a two months statutory limit for the people making submissions and the people making submissions would also be aware of that. One would assume from some of the contributions that the process only starts when there is an appeal. The startup position is at the earlier time when application is made to the local authority which, itself, is fairly specific notice.
I take the point about the obligation of the local authority to ensure that decisions are made known to everybody connected with the application in the shortest possible time. I have assured the House, in the context of the review of the planning regulations and the public notices and the transparency that will be required, that I will make sure that is adhered to evenly and consistently throughout the country. It has been brought to my notice that some local authorities are excellent in giving notice to interested parties but it may well be that there are delays in other places. I want to make sure that these are eradicated and that we will have a uniform policy that is effective and transparent and fair to everybody.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 25, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 7, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"4.—(1) The Board shall be answerable directly to the Oireachtas or to a designated Joint Committee thereof, not in relation to any specific appeal decision but in respect of its general policy, efficiency and fairness.
(2) Where such function has been delegated by both Houses of the Oireachtas to a Joint Committee the terms of reference of that Committee shall include detailed provisions of how the Committee and the Board shall relate to each other.".
As I pointed out on Second Stage, and again on Committee Stage, I am very concerned that the entire planning process should be democratically accountable. Where councillors seek to intervene in planning decisions by means of section 4, they should be restricted in that process in that it now requires not only a three quarters majority of those present but a three quarters majority of the entire council to do this. I was gratified by the results of the county council elections in Dublin County last year to find that those who misused section 4 so extensively were generally treated very harshly by the electorate and were, in the end, answerable to the electorate for their behaviour in planning matters. In the present situation, while the local authority can be overruled by means of section 4, at least the manager of the local authority himself can be held to account by the elected authority. In any event a decision of the manager can be appealed to An Bord Pleanála.
The difficulty is that An Bord Pleanála are answerable to nobody. It is right that individual decisions of An Bord Pleanála should be matters of independent judgment and that is something that cannot be superseded by a Minister, by a committee or anything else. However, as regards the general policy of the board, efficiency of operation and general standards within the board, the board should be answerable in some way to this democratically elected House. I have tabled this amendment to provide that there would be an environment committee of the House to which the board would be generally accountable. I am not certain, quite honestly, that that is the most effective way of making the board democratically accountable but it is at least a way to have the matter discussed here in the House. Every organ of this State should be accountable to the public. As things stand the board are virtually in the same position as the courts and, like the courts, the board depend for their staffing arrangements and resources generally on the Department. Criticisms levelled at the board might indeed be properly levelled at the Department or the Department of Finance. If such criticisms were made, that would come up at an environmental committee.
I would be very interested to hear the Minister's views on the question of democratic accountability in relation to An Bord Pleanála. I should emphasise, however, that I am not referring here to any individual decision or arguing that any individual decision should be overturned. An Bord Pleanála should be the final arbiter in these matters unless of course there is an appeal on a point of law to the courts but it should be rather on their general performance and attitude; for instance, their attitude in granting planning permission in breach of the development plan of the local authority.
I am very unhappy that whereas three quarters of the members of the local authority have to agree before the local authority can supersede their own development plan, An Bord Pleanála can grant planning permission and thus supersede the development plan without being held accountable to anyone. I would like the board to be answerable and to outline what their attitude is in respect of those matters. Would they not agree, if they feel it is right to grant planning permission in breach of the accepted development plan of the county, that before doing so they should consult with the local authority or that at the very least there should be an onus on them to argue or prove their case? We, in this House, decided that councils can only make this decision where three quarters of the members agree because we wanted to allay any fears of public scandal. Yet, the board can make this decision without being held accountable to anyone.
There have been long delays within An Bord Pleanála and I would like to give the board an opportunity to account for these either now or in the future. It may well be the case that it is not the board who are responsible for these delays but rather the Department and the Department of Finance, given the lack of resources, but then again perhaps they were due to inefficiency within the board. I wish to find some way of making the board democratically accountable. If the Minister is not prepared to accept my amendment perhaps he would suggest some other ways of doing so.
This is a very good amendment from Deputy Mitchell. I agree with him when he says there is a need to make bodies like An Bord Pleanála accountable. A trend has developed whereby people seek the establishment of independent institutions to make decisions on a range of matters. It is correct that there should be independent institutions to deal with individual planning applications professionally outside the realm of politics so that people will not be pressurised in making individual decisions, but underlying the call for the establishment of independent bodies is a latent distrust of politicians on the part of the public. We need to re-examine that matter because while we are getting independent bodies they in turn are not accountable to the public or to this House except perhaps to the Minister who appoints them as members of those bodies.
If the public do not trust their politicians they should change them. This House should be the vehicle through which bodies are made accountable for their policies and general approach. I agree that the time has come to establish an environment committee of this House and there is much work that it could do. An Bord Pleanála and the Environmental Protection Agency, when established, could be made accountable to that committee. In addition, they could address the regulations and secondary legislation that the Minister now has to deal with almost on a daily basis and which is not examined either in this House or by any committee of the House.
There is a necessity to establish a committee similar to the Committee of Public Accounts to address these matters. This point is particularly relevant to An Bord Pleanála. Since I became a Member of this House serious allegations have been made about the conduct of that body, while concern has been expressed publicly about some of the decisions that they have made. I can recall two specific cases which led to substantial awards of planning compensation because the reasons given by An Bord Pleanála in refusing planning permission were compensatable, whereas the reasons given by the planning authority were non-compensatable.
Serious questions were asked by the public, including myself, as to how An Bord Pleanála could make the same mistake twice and how they could, in handing down a decision, give reasons which were compensatable. In the SJX case — the Roches Hill case — in Killiney in my own constituency the sum involved was of the order of £250,000, while in the Mountgorry case in Swords Dublin County Council had to pay compensation in the order of £2 million. The same mistake was made twice. In each case An Bord Pleanála's decision left the local authority open to a claim for compensation by giving reasons, in refusing planning permission, which were compensatable whereas the local authority gave reasons which were non-compensatable. To date An Bord Pleanála have not explained how this happened.
Second, there have been serious allegations of corruption in the planning system in the Dublin area which ultimately led to charges being laid and a court case being held which involved the chief planning officer of An Bord Pleanála. I do not want to deal with that court case, as the court dealt with that matter, but the Minister for the Environment, in particular his predecessors, and the Minister for Justice, were questioned in this House during the past few years by myself and others. They were asked whether an inquiry would be established into the planning system in Dublin but no answer was ever given. I still do not know whether the Garda investigation which led to charges being brought against the chief planning officer of An Bord Pleanála has yet been concluded. Newspaper reports at the time led us to believe that the issues under investigation were considerably more widespread than the issue on which the charge was subsequently based.
The Minister now has an opportunity to clarify the position, to inform us if the Garda investigation is ongoing, whether he expects any further charges to be brought and whether he intends to carry out any investigation or inquiry of his own into it. Many recent cases have given rise to requests for the establishment of inquiries. In some cases these have been established. I submit that there would be no need to hold inquiries or for Members of the House to call for the establishment of inquiries if public bodies were accountable to the Members of this House, if Members were permitted to ask questions at a committee about, for example, the conduct of An Bord Pleanála and if everybody concerned in these bodies was aware that there was a formal system of examination of the work of these bodies.
We are not talking about involvement in individual decisions because it would be quite wrong if individual planning applications became the subject of political debate in a local authority or in a committee of this House. However, the overall conduct of their affairs by An Bord Pleanála — or other bodies — needs to be subjected to a greater degree of public scrutiny than is the case at present. We have firm grounds for concern, to put it at its mildest, about the conduct of An Bord Pleanála over the past number of years. We need a vehicle whereby the Members of this House can examine the situation and obviate the kind of speculation and reportage which has given rise to public concern and to demands in this House for the establishment of an inquiry into the planning system, including An Bord Pleanála.
I warmly support the amendment tabled by Deputy Mitchell and I am pleased that it has been supported by Deputy Gilmore. As those Deputies said, the concept of an environmental committee is very useful and I hope it will not take as long to establish as the foreign affairs committee which was promised so often in this House but which has not, to my knowledge, been set up.
If an environment committee is set up I hope provision will be made to have a representative of the Green Party on it as we tend to be excluded from all these committees. Deputy Gilmore has stolen my thunder as he spoke before I did; I suppose, representing a party of six, he is entitled to speak before I do. Unfortunately, he said everything I intended to say and I am sure he said it much better.
That is very flattering.
I am sure Deputy Gilmore will do the same for me sometime.
Deputy Garland should join the Democratic Left and make them a group.
The Tara mast was an extraordinary case and it is an example of the need for some type of audit of the decisions of An Bord Pleanála. It involved an oral hearing and the inspector duly reported to An Bord Pleanála who refused the appeal by local residents. It turned out afterwards that the board went against the decision of the inspector and it was a fluke that that fact emerged because normally the public do not have access to that type of information. We have dealt with that matter already but questions asked were not answered satisfactorily by the Minister when we debated it earlier.
The Minister should accept this amendment because, from time to time, the public have been very concerned about totally inexplicable decisions made by An Bord Pleanála.
The Minister should take note of the points made by Deputies and ensure that there is greater accountability. I have seen at first hand the deep concern of my constituents in relation to some of the decisions taken by An Bord Pleanála and Deputy Gilmore referred to some of them. These decisions have cost — and will cost — millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. The Grange Developments site at Swords was one and there was another development in Donabate, which, between them, cost approximately £2.5 million because An Bord Pleanála left the issue of compensation open.
The amendment deals with general policy, efficiency and fairness. I am a little concerned about the "fairness" aspect; I do not have any difficulty in regard to the general policy or what is required by the board to make them a more efficient organisation but the public are concerned about politicians being involved in the decision-making process. I know that politicians are involved in decisions regarding section 4 or the material contravention process but the general public must have confidence in the process. Unlike the situation in the UK, in this country the manager of the planning department makes his decision and then it goes to An Bord Pleanála. If an Oireachtas committee was set up the public might be afraid that its members might become involved in a particular decision. I would not like that to happen because I know that some politicians try to make an impact on particular decisions. In the past they were involved to a greater degree in planning decisions which were not in the long term interests of proper planning and development of our communities. While there is a need for greater accountability, the general public must be assured that politicians will not become involved in querying decisions. We are trying to build up the confidence of the public in the planning process because, for too long, there was a perception that if you wanted a decision you went to your local politician, particularly if he was a county councillor, and that he would look after you. The independent process was set up to get away from that system by An Bord Pleanála. Unfortunately, public confidence in An Bord Pleanála has been eroded by ridiculous decisions made by them.
There appears to be a general consensus in the House in regard to an environmental committee. I would not have any objection if I thought we would make progress as a result of establishing such a committee. However, if I had any advice to give to Deputies it would be that the committee should not be established as a result of a debate on An Bord Pleanála or planning matters. It should, of course, arise in a broader context and perhaps the Whips will have an opportunity to get together and talk about it. As I said, my advice is that it should not emerge from a debate like this which would tend to create an impression that an all-party Dáil committee saw special new functions for themselves in relation to planning matters.
Deputy Jim Mitchell, and others, were in the political arena at the time of the decision to move to the establishment of an independent statutory body to deal with planning appeals. As Minister for the Environment, I am happy that the old regime has long since gone. I was a Deputy when a Minister for Local Government was involved in adjudicating on planning appeals throughout the country. Nobody is suggesting that those days should return. It was very important to establish the independence of the planning processes firmly, legally and constitutionally and that was done in 1976. There is the opportunity for court proceedings when it is felt that the actions of An Bord Pleanála do not live up to the board's constitutional requirements or adhere to natural justice. In view of the independent character and the quasi-judicial nature of An Bord Pleanála, it would be very difficult to develop a regime under which the board would be directly answerable to the House.
Deputies made very trenchant points in relation to general accountability and accountability to the democratic system. I share those aspirations. On many occasions politicians feel frustrated because independent authorities of one kind or another do not appear to be answerable to the social needs and requirements of their area. The board have to be separated from the main body of authorities as they deal with sensitive matters of planning and have a quasi-judicial role and authority. I would find it extremely difficult to try to develop proposals for a regime under which they would be answerable to the House.
Deputy Mitchell stated that An Bord Pleanála should not be answerable on individual cases and expressed a fear that in certain instances the board might depart from the principles of development plans. As the Deputy knows, local authorities have the same powers. He has rightly said that in his council a two-thirds majority is required——
No, a three-quarters majority.
A three-quarters majority is required by that council, and that is good. However, An Bord Pleanála were not established in the same way as local authorities and do not consist of elected representatives but of individuals who have special expertise that can be put to use in special applications.
However, one or two developments that occurred in the past few years raised eyebrows. Shortly after I was appointed Minister for the Environment I asked the Secretary of my Department to issue a report indicating the steps open to me to improve the system. I do not consider that the answer lies in the establishment of a system whereby An Bord Pleanála would be accountable to Dáil Éireann but it is clear that account has to be taken of the experience gained since 1976.
In a very general way, I am happy to say that the vast majority of decisions taken by the board were made on the basis of a fair and thorough examination of the different applications and I do not consider that the public should have any great worry in that regard.
Deputy Gilmore questioned decisions by An Bord Pleanála that gave reasons for refusals which did not rule out the payment of planning compensation. It is a matter for the board to determine what reasons for refusal should be cited in any case. They cannot manufacture reasons merely to preclude payment of compensation and the reasons have to relate realistically to the development in question.
Deputy Ryan mentioned the 1985 case heard recently in the Supreme Court. The reasons for refusal of permission given by the board were non-compensatable in that case.
There is a fair body of evidence since 1976 to maintain confidence in the independence of the system. I doubt very much whether Deputies are wise in going down the road of trying to bring the independent planning process into the arena of accountability so far as this democratic institution is concerned.
There is also the argument that the House has responsibility over many other issues and the workload of the House could be made unmanageable. I take the point that Deputies are not asking to have individual cases discussed but I do not know how such measures could be dealt with without becoming involved in individual cases. Many of us would prefer that different decisions were taken from time to time by the courts, for example, but if our courts system was not independent and the House had some right of interference an examination of such a system five or six years after establishment might well prove that many decisions taken would be unsatisfactory.
With all the scars and all the problems of the present regime, when one is talking about matters that are not clear cut in relation to planning appeals there will always be two sides to a story. Inevitably, there will be at least two groups or individuals with a different view, each with rights. Somebody has to take a decision one way or the other and that means, ultimately, that there will always be aggrieved parties. There is no simple way out of that. Some may think that the Dáil can, in some transparent way, colour that for the public. I do not consider that to be right. I recall the days of the old system and while I am not saying that this system is perfect, it is better.
As I indicated in the light of one or two developments in recent years, I wish to determine the range of options open to me to improve the system. I am anxious to hear Deputies' comments on how that might be achieved. However, I doubt whether adherence to the prescription enshrined in this amendment would do anything to improve it. It is important that we and the public have confidence in that system. That does not mean one will satisfy everybody, that is just not possible when it comes to circumstances in which there may be two, three or more competing considerations.
An Bord Pleanála are required, under section 9 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976, to submit an annual report to the Minister for the Environment who must lay copies thereof before both Houses of the Oireachtas. That is perhaps one way to have a discussion in the House on these matters. But I would be extremely reluctant — I do not know from where the overwhelming evidence would emerge that would persuade me — that I or the House should have anything close to an investigative role as far as the independent, quasi-judicial, statutory and constitutional rights of An Bord Pleanála are concerned, or in respect of their independent nature to take decisions on applications or appeals for planning permissions.
While appreciating the thinking behind this amendment I contend that its acceptance would constitute a minefield and be a most dangerous procedure to establish. The points other Members have made in relation to the delays that have occurred in reaching decisions by An Bord Pleanála are something with which, unfortunately, we must all live. This is something that causes grave concern to local authorities and the community at large. The Minister will appreciate also that they add to the unemployment crisis since, if such appeals could be dealt with more expeditiously, I am quite sure our dole queues would be substantially reduced. To render An Bord Pleanála answerable to this House or to a committee thereof — which is what is implied in this amendment — I contend would add further to those delays. For example, would a report from An Bord Pleanála be laid before both Houses before any decision was given or rather laid after a decision will have been taken? If it is to be tabled after a decision has been given it would be a useless exercise, a toothless operation, in that the House or a committee thereof would not be in a position then to amend or rescind any decision taken. Indeed if any such committee of the House had that function, it would be assuming some of the responsibility of An Bord Pleanála themselves. Of course it was our late colleague, former Deputy Jim Tully — who died this morning — who, as Minister for Local Government, established An Bord Pleanála, and he did so because of the widespread political abuse prevailing at that time in relation to planning matters. I once heard him say that one could build a house on top of another if one knew the right politician at the right time. It was because that type of practice obtained that he, in his wisdom — which should be remembered particularly today — did so in an endeavour to clean up what was an absolute political mess at that time. For example, if one was not well known, or a card-carrying member of a particular political party in office at any given time, one's chances of obtaining planning permission were considerably diminished. His idea was to take planning permissions out of the political arena altogether and hand them over to an independent body.
As the Minister and others have said, it is difficult sometimes to understand some of their decisions. Of course, people will always disagree whenever a decision taken is not in their favour. For example, if I support a planning permission by, say, Drogheda Corporation or Louth County Council which is appealed to An Bord Pleanála and the board rescind that decision, naturally I will be against An Bord Pleánala whereas, if the position were reserved, I would be very much in favour of their decision. Therefore, it is dependent entirely on where one stands vis-á-vis any appeal lodged at any given time.
The notion of shortening the duration within which a decision can be taken is a good one but that can be achieved only if the Minister gives An Bord Pleanála the requisite staff and facilities so to do. I understand that has been the main cause of delays. For example, in the case of local authorities it takes eight weeks for planning permission to be granted and, if they want additional information, there are another eight weeks involved. It always amazes me how decisions invariably are taken in the eighth rather than in the second, third or fourth week. If one examines the results of planning decisions inevitably one will find that for some unknown reason approximately 99 per cent are taken in the eighth week. Then if a decision cannot be reached in time further information will be sought, some of which, to say the least, is ridiculous. Certainly information sought in the eighth week could be obtained just as easily in the first week.
It is now proposed to add another string to that process. Perhaps Deputy Jim Mitchell has some other reason for suggesting there should be greater accountability. I contend accountability should be to An Bord Pleanála themselves which was, after all, established as an independent body. We must remember that the Minister for Social Welfare cannot overrule decisions of his appeals officers. The same mechanism applies to other forms of administration. I do not think that the proposal to take it out of the realm of responsibility of An Bord Pleanála, or adding another leg to the process, with a post mortem taking place after a decision will have been taken will help anybody, particularly when one remembers that the other party will not be present or be able to advance their point of view to that committee nor will An Bord Pleanála. Therefore, I would have very definite reservations about this amendment.
I am grateful to Deputies Gilmore and Garland for their fulsome support of this amendment and indeed to Deputy Seán Ryan who generally supported it but who had some worries about the use of the word "fairness" which surprised me.
Deputy Bell did not read the amendment properly because, had he done so, he would have seen that it specifically excludes the Oireachtas or any committee thereof from involving themselves in any specific appeal decision, so that there would be no question of their delaying that process in any way. It also surprised me that Deputy Bell would have reservations about parliamentary oversight and accountability. The Minister's reaction is quite incredulous. He spoke about the difficulty of rendering a quasi-judicial body answerable to this House. Is the Minister not aware of precedents? For instance, is he not aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General, a constitutional officer, is answerable to the Committee of Public Accounts for the general discharge of his duties? Is the Minister not aware, for instance, that semi-State bodies, established to be independent in the running of their businesses are answerable to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies?
There is no comparison.
There are absolute comparisons and parallels. It is wrong that people in a democracy should not have ultimate control and a say over very important areas of public policy; that is what democracy is about. That is not to say they should be involved in individual decisions but certainly they should have some clout and be able to exact answers for the general discharge of powers vested in agencies appointed to act on their behalf.
Deputies Gilmore and Garland spoke eloquently and raised matters about which I preferred not to speak in moving the amendment. For example, they spoke of recent public concern about the manner in which An Bord Pleanála had been operating. Indeed there was widespread public concern about the manner in which they had been operating, not confined merely to any one or two decisions but to a series of decisions and the manner in which they were taken. Who are we to say that that could never recur or that such public concern was unfounded? The problem, though, is that questions cannot be asked about those matters in this House. Therefore, people are robbed of their rightful power. I have argued in recent years, particularly since becoming spokesperson for my party on environmental matters early last year, that my key objective would be to reinstate people's power over their local environment.
If decisions are made in such a way that people have no influence on them or the decision-makers are not held accountable we will be robbing people of their power. When people are rendered powerless the dam, so to speak, which holds the water back will eventually burst. We would greatly improve the planning process by making the decision-makers accountable. In addition, this would have a good impact on the environment. I do not see the rightful independence of An Bord Pleanála in making decisions being contravened in any way by making them answerable to the elected representatives of this House and, ultimately, the people. Many bodies are answerable to the Committee of Public Accounts and the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies.
I said in moving my amendment that the Minister may not wish to accept it but I asked him to put forward ideas on how we can make An Bord Pleanála publicly accountable. However, he did not put forward any ideas in this respect. I do not think it is unfair to say that the Minister believes An Bord Pleanála should not be publicly accountable. If that is his view, I totally disagree with him. I can assure the House that if I ever have the honour to serve as Minister for the Environment in the Custom House I will see to it that the planning process is made more democratically accountable at all levels.
Amendment put and declared lost.
We now come to amendment No. 27. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are alternatives and amendment No. 32 is related. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 32 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 7, to delete lines 34 to 42, and substitute the following:
"(1) (a) An appeal shall consist of a notice of appeal and a statement of the full grounds of the appeal.
(b) The notice of appeal shall be submitted before the expiration of the appropriate period.
(c) The statement of the full grounds of the appeal shall be submitted within six weeks of the date of publication of the planning authority decision.
(d) A notice of appeal shall:
(i) be made in writing,
(ii) state the name and address of the appellant,
(iii) state the subject matter of the appeal,
(iv) be accompanied by such fee (if any) as may be payable in respect of such appeal in accordance with regulations under section 10 of the Act of 1982.
(e) The statement of the full grounds of the appeal shall state in full the grounds of the appeal and the reasons, considerations and arguments on which they are based.".
This amendment deals with the making of appeals by residents associations and so on against the decisions of planning authorities. If there is a three or four week delay in the publication of a planning decision appellants may have to hastily amass the information they require for their appeal. There are very poor lines of communication between developers and private individuals who lodge planning applications and local authorities. The truth of this is borne out by the rather underhanded methods used by some people who make planning applications. For example, they may publish the notice of their intention to seek planning permission in a newspaper which is not widely read or distributed in the area in which they are seeking planning permission. The average Joe Soap is severely handicapped by a lack of information in the planning process. The entire planning process is a complete mystery to most citizens. When they want to make an application or lodge an appeal they have to learn how the process works. I know many residents groups and organisations who suddenly discover by word of mouth or accidentally that a planning application has been granted by a local authority. They are worried about the effect this will have on their communities and the disruption it will cause but they do not know how to lodge an appeal. I am sure the Minister knows of similar cases.
It is imperative that we allow citizens adequate time to lodge an appeal against a decision of a planning authority. We should afford citizens every access to the appeals process. This amendment proposes a different formula for the lodging of appeals to that proposed in the Bill. It proposes that the statement of the full grounds of the appeal shall be submitted within six weeks of the date of publication of the planning authority's decision. The obligation on citizens or associations to amass all the information relevant to their appeals within four weeks is unreasonable. This amendment proposes a two pronged system: first, a notice of appeal should be submitted before the expiration of the appropriate period and, second, a statement of the full grounds of the appeal should be submitted within six weeks of the date of publication of the planning authority's decision. This would be a substantial improvement to what the Minister is proposing in the Bill.
There is no doubt that, from practical experience, the initial information, from whatever source, may be confusing or inaccurate. If an individual or a residents' association, on hearing of the decision of the local authority or planning department, are rushed into making an appeal they could submit an incomplete or inadequate submission. Therefore, it is only fair that people are allowed up to six weeks in which to lodge an appeal. Very often there is a lengthy process of consultation involved. There may be divisions among residents, with some for and some against a project, and there may also be divisions in the consultation process with the public representatives. Therefore, six weeks would be a more acceptable duration to allow for the full contents of the appeal to be presented.
I understand that on Report Stage I am allowed only one contribution and I have made my case on the grounds stated.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is allowed to reply to the debate.
I accept amendment No. 27 in the name of Deputy Gilmore. My amendment No. 28 seeks to delete paragraph (d) of section 4 (1) of the Bill which outlines one of the conditions for an appeal to be valid; it must state in full the grounds of appeal and the reasons, considerations and arguments on which they are based. This subject seems to come up every hour or so as it seems to be included in different sections of the Bill. We have had a lengthy debate on the inadequacy of the one month clause. Previous legislation provided for two different timescales: one for the appeal and one for the material to back up the appeal. The Minister has been very ungiving on Report Stage, as he was on Committee Stage. My amendment, in seeking to delete this paragraph, would give the appellant unlimited time to make submissions for the appeal but perhaps that is a little unrealistic. On balance, I would favour Deputy Gilmore's amendment.
With regard to amendment No. 29 in the names of Deputies Mitchell, Carey and Allen, this is a commendable effort to leave the door ajar. As only one contribution is allowed on Report Stage, by the time I hear what this amendment is about I will be unable to respond. It appears that while applicants are obliged to put all the information up front, there is a clause here which would allow for appellants, who in good faith provided all the information they had at the time, to introduce additional information. That is highly commendable and is very reasonable. It is an effort to bring humanity to the legislation. Strict time limits can lead to great injustices and to very bad decisions. This is a small concession for which I am sure Deputy Allen will make a very eloquent case, and I will certainly support him.
Amendment No. 32 in the name of Deputy Howlin appears to be very reasonable in that it requires the relevant planning authority to provide information and technical assistance to appellants. This seems a very sensible and practical approach to try to help appellants, many of whom, as Deputy Byrne has said, are ordinary lay people, members of residents' associations and so on who are not skilled in matters of planning. It behoves planning authorities to be very helpful to these people. Developers and such people have their own technical staff who are well paid and they do not need assistance. This is an excellent amendment and I support it.
This amendment allows for flexibility in the system. I abhor the position whereby community groups and individuals find themselves at the mercy of professional outfits who, in submitting applications, know the system inside out. Community groups and individuals are at a loss to know the system, the regulations and the procedures. To give a recent example, a community group in Cork were told they would have a month to respond to an environmental impact study, but that period was much too short for the group to organise technical assistance and bring in legal experts. They did not have the resources to put a team of experts together to respond to the professional presentation. Before they could organise themselves financially the time was up. Therefore, the timescale of one month is too short.
What we are trying to do here is introduce flexibility into the system. Realising that we supported the measure relating to a four month time limit, to expect individuals to make a full submission at the first attempt is expecting a little much. I support the Labour Party proposal that individuals and community groups should get as much advice and assistance as they need from the local authority who represent them. These people contribute to service charges and possibly commercial rates, and any assistance that is available should be forthcoming. I would ask the Minister to accept amendment No. 29 in particular. I do not know whether all amendments stand or fall together.
Acting Chairman
Yes.
I would ask the Minister to take on board the contents of the amendments.
This is always a very thorny issue at local authority level. While, for example, the Cork Examiner circulates in Drogheda and Dundalk it is not bought in great numbers in that part of the country.
That is a shame.
Neither would the Dundalk Democrat be bought in great numbers in Cork. There have been occasions when planning officers have refused to accept a notice which they said was not freely circulated in the area. People deliberately advertise in papers which do not circulate widely in a particular area. In County Louth someone will advertise in the Meath Chronicle and could say that the Meath Chronicle is available in Drogheda although it would only be read by a small minority.
Some local authorities circulate the planning notice within a week of the application being made. Other local authorities keep the planning applications in bulk and circulate them virtually on the eighth week and there is not sufficient time for the elected representative to consult with people or advise them that an application has been submitted. Not alone do the people living in the area not know, but the elected representative may not know until the decision has almost been taken. I have had experience of a notice being sent out on the seventh or eighth week, whereas the decision had been taken days before that, or days after it. Deputy Howlin is trying to establish that there should be the widest possible knowledge of an application being made and that it should be compulsory for the applicant to advertise in a newspaper which is circulating in the area. The notice should also be posted up on the site. That could be done under the regulations. There is a great deal of merit in Deputy Howlin's amendment and I would ask the Minister to accept it.
I support the previous speakers and particularly amendment No. 32 in the name of Deputy Howlin. In my own constituency such able groups as An Taisce and Howth-Sutton 2000 Residents Groups have successfully fought such massive applications as the Baldoyle Racecourse application by End-camp and many of the contentious planning issues on the Hill of Howth. The Dublin Bay oil refinery was fought successfully by residents' groups. I worked with those groups. When they were preparing their cases they had to employ experts to help them and this cost a lot of money. They should have been able to get the advice from local authority experts. After all, developers can discuss their applications with local authority planners and architects before they are submitted. When an appeal goes to An Bord Pleanála, residents associations and other groups should not have to run raffles, draws and put on concerts and plays in order to raise money to object to something which would endanger the environment where they live or which would, as in the case of the Dublin Bay oil refinery, have ruined Dublin Bay. These people should have access to the expertise in the local authority as a right. The Minister should look carefully at this amendment. The groups I have mentioned, like those who opposed the oil refinery and Howth-Sutton 2000, are excellent groups and should have support when they are lodging objections. The Minister should try to accommodate such people in the Bill.
At present, an appeal can validly be made by submitting an initial statement of appeal and sending the detailed grounds of appeal afterwards. This arrangement is not conducive to the effective operation of the appeals process, because the board have to exercise their power under section 17 of the 1983 Act to require submission of the grounds by the appellant and to allow time for him to do so.
The requirement under section 4 (1) (d) of the Bill to submit the full grounds of appeal when appealing is essential for the proper operation of the streamlined appeals system proposed in the Bill. I am satisfied, nevertheless, that this requirement is also reasonable from the appellant's viewpoint and that it will be possible, given the appeal period specified in section 26 (5) of the 1963 Planning Act as amended by section 3 of the Bill, to make a comprehensive case to the board within the time allowed. If I agreed to Deputy Garland's amendment No. 28, it would be a recipe for delay in the process. The trust of this and other amendments being put down by Deputy Garland seems to be to delay the process. The Deputy should realise that delay does not mean better decisions. The package contained in this Bill ensures quick, but also full and effective, consideration of planning appeals. I cannot, therefore, agree to Deputy Garland's proposal to delete this provision.
I do not consider that amendment No. 29 from Deputies Mitchell, Carey and Allen is necessary. Appeals generally will be based to a large extent on the documentation and information which accompanied the planning application. However, an appellant might wish to raise a particular issue relating to proper planning and development which had not been considered in the determination of the application. It is reasonable that an appellant should have this freedom. I fear that the Deputies' amendment might unintentionally cast doubt on it and I would not be prepared, for this reason, to accept the amendment. I take the point that Deputy Allen made that he was really looking for flexibility. In a strange way the amendment tightens the situation more than the Deputy realised. In this instance, not accepting the amendment is affording the Deputy the flexibility which he seeks.
Amendment No. 32 from Deputy Howlin would require a planning authority to provide appellants with information and technical assistance to facilitate their appeals. I am not sure that it would be reasonable in principle to require a planning authority to provide technical assistance to somebody who wishes to appeal to An Bord Pleanála against a decision by the authority. In any event, a requirement of this nature is not practical, because it is essential for planning authorities to devote their resources to ensuring that planning applications are dealt with as expeditiously as possible and to facilitating the effective operation of the appeals process by sending documents etc. to the board without delay.
As for the provision of information, section 5 of the Bill will require planning authorities to make all documents relating to their decision on a planning application available for public inspection from the day of the decision. This will ensure that all relevant papers are available immediately to any person who wishes to consider appealing to the board against a planning authority's decision.
Deputies are concerned that local authorities should facilitate local community groups as much as possible. I have indicated that in instances where local community groups for instance were appealing against a decision taken by the county council, it is hard to realise how the same technical officers could be of real assistance, since they have taken a totally different decision than perhaps the local community want.
In the context of how local authorities operate, there should be room for more dialogue and for better understanding as to how the planning system operates. Here, we are specifically dealing with An Bord Pleanála but the wider question, and in many ways the much more important question, is that 90 per cent of applications that are processed by local authorities which are never the subject of appeal. In those cases and in others that are subject to appeal, I would like the process to be as open and as flexible as possible and I would like the technical officers to have an understanding and a concern for the attitudes and aspirations of local community groups. To take this into legislation as a requirement, in a situation where there may not be anything like the value to the group that is alleged in the proposal by Deputies, would be unwise. For that reason I could not agree to the amendment.
As regards amendment No. 27, I have already indicated in relation to amendments Nos. 19 and 20 that I do not consider the two stage approach of submission of notice of appeal, to be followed by the grounds of appeal, to be necessary or desirable. Accordingly, I could not agree to the consequential restructuring of section 4 (1) that amendment No. 27 proposes. We have gone into this on other amendments. There is no need to enlarge on it, beyond saying that there is a developing situation where notices of appeal are submitted to An Bord Pleanála, on whom there is a requirement to request the applicant or the appellant to submit the appeal. When we discussed this matter with An Bord Pleanála they said this was an area in which they were having considerable difficulty. The 1983 Act imposed this new requirement on foot of a court decision that the board should be required to request the applicant to submit the grounds of appeal. It is extraordinary when somebody is interested in making an appeal that the person must be requested continually to submit it. If a person is in earnest and really wants to make an appeal, four weeks are allowed for the putting together of a comprehensive case. In my usual generous mood I am able to accommodate Deputies on almost everything they look for, except the exact detail.
I would say to Deputy Bell that if Louth can play football and roam over the field as he did on this matter, they will certainly do well in the championship. The Deputy was here earlier. Perhaps Deputy Howlin will tell him that the public notice question is not relevant here but we are concerned to embody in the regulations a transparency which will guarantee the best possible arrangements for the public as a whole.
Deputy Bell, before leaving advised me, staying with the sporting analogy, that he realised he was playing on the wrong pitch.
If Tipperary are as tight as the Minister, Cork are in trouble.
Only the back line.
I suggest it is scoring that counts rather than roaming. It is very difficult to score against this Minister. I am anxious to apologise to the House for my absence for a short while, I was attending a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges dealing with Dáil reform. That committee does not allow a substitute so I was obliged to present my party's case.
We are dealing with the mechanism for submitting appeals. I am a little upset that the Minister should be dismissive of the suggestion that the local authorities be required to provide technical assistance. Many already do so. Most local authorities are very supportive of and helpful to individuals, groups or residents associations who say they are concerned about a particular matter but are not quite certain of the technicalities. Quite often planners who have technical expertise help them to construct a case and answer specific questions of a technical nature. It would not be unreasonable to make that a legislative requirement. Such groups are often not in a position to hire professional help and it would be an undue burden to require them to do so. The Minister requires individuals and groups to provide a comprehensive statement of their objections within four weeks. Some element of assistance should be provided. I have included the words "as far as practicable" because most planning authorities are under pressure in processing applications, at least in parts of the country where development is continuing. Thankfully I live in such a place.
We will keep that going.
I am anxious that it would be sustained. The two local authorities of which I am a member, Wexford Corporation and Wexford County Council, are concerned for proper and good development but we are very jealous of the appellation we enjoy as the environment county. We want to be a green county but there is nothing contradictory about being pro-development and pro-environment. That is the ethos I want to inculcate into this legislation. Many local authorities are delighted to assist with technical information in the preparation of appeals. Making papers available is not all that helpful to the layman. It is certainly not the type of assistance to which I am referring. There should be a private room where people can sit with planning officials and go through the planning applications which are of concern to them. That is the simple message in amendment No. 32. If the Minister reflects further on it, he will find it eminently feasible. He says that half of this is done already with regard to the provision of information. I suggest that he should take the other step and as a matter of course allow the provision of simple technical assistance to such groups. He would have the support of all sections of the House and the gratitude of community groups and of those individuals concerned with the proper development of the environment.
I am saddened by the Minister's response to amendment No. 27. Were it not for the written brief which constituted his response, I believe he would see the logic of our position and would be sympathetic to it. I appreciate that the Minister is new in his posting but he should show a little more adventure and work a little more from the heart rather than under the bureaucratic obligations of the post. I do not believe he wrote the notes himself.
I get more adventurous as the day goes on.
The ordinary man and woman find the planning process a somewhat vague area. It is not fair to expect them on learning of the decision of a local authority to compile the total documentation in the case and present it to An Bord Pleanála in a four-week period. This is expecting too much. It is more democratic to allow the two-tier approach whereby the appellant can submit the initial appeal and then gather the documentation and the technical advice that might be needed.
The Minister must surely be aware that very few residents' associations or individuals have the full range of technical knowledge or professional expertise required to lodge a comprehensive appeal. Indeed, very few people understand the planning process. People are put in an unequal position vis-á-vis the planning authority when they appeal the planning authority's decision to An Bord Pleanála. The Irish Planning Institute have argued along the lines of Deputy Gilmore's amendment for a two tier system as they say this would allow adequate time for submission of comprehensive grounds of appeal and would not create further delays. When the Minister replied to one of the other amendments he spoke of time being of the essence in order to get things done in an expedient way, but the Irish Planning Institute argue that our amendment would not create further delays as the board cannot process an appeal until they receive the documents from the planning authority involved. I understand there is a time lag between the time the planning authority make the decision and submit their documentation to An Bord Pleanála so we are not talking about an interruption of the procedures but creating a healthy democratic process where residents are encouraged to get involved in the planning process and not feel powerless when they learn of a decision that affects them.
It is our democratic obligation to involve the public in the planning process, indeed, I agree with Deputy Howlin's view to extend the expertise and facilities of the local authorities to them. We should not be afraid of what citizens have to say; we should encourage them to express their views to the best of their ability.
I do not know whether the Minister will change his mind although I believe that in his heart he would like to change his mind. He should be brave enough to inform the House of his change of mind and I look forward to hearing the Minister express positive views along these lines.
Does the Deputy wish me to put the question on amendment No. 27?
Yes.
Will it have a composite effect on all the amendments we discussed together?
No. Amendment No. 28 has been discussed with amendment No. 27 and if I put the question on that amendment, it will affect amendment No. 29.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 not moved.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 8, line 2, after "appeal" to insert "but where the Board decides to hold an oral hearing of an appeal the grounds of appeal can be clarifies, elaborated on or added to, and an extension of time for the appeal may be agreed between the applicant and the Board".
I will try not to repeat myself but this amendment is on similar lines to our previous amendments, which the Minister did not accept. We are attempting to democratise the planning system to a greater extent. One can imagine the procedure during an oral hearing. In the process of teasing out the arguments, additional angles, different interpretations and completely new insights can be exposed for the first time.
The Minister takes up an extremely harsh position as section 4 (3) states:
Without prejudice to section 9, an appellant shall not be entitled to elaborate in writing upon, or make further submissions in writing in relation to, the grounds of appeal stated in the appeal or to submit further grounds of appeal and any such elaboration, submissions or further grounds of appeal that is or are received by the Board shall not be considered by it.
One can see that the Minister is trying to avoid difficulties by not allowing appellants to make various submissions in the four week period, to which we have now agreed, as documents arriving at different times could create all types of confusion, but in a sense an oral hearing provides the opportunity to submit additional information, which the Minister tried to prevent by compelling people to make their complete case in one submission. It is very likely that documentation will be produced to substantiate the oral evidence at an oral hearing. I can foresee instances where information may become available which would necessarily need to be teased out and developed after the oral hearing has taken place. I hope the Minister will be more charitable in his response to my seeking to insert an amendment whereby if the board and the applicant agree to an extension of time for the appeal, this could be allowed. I would like to think that the Minister will accept our amendment.
I support the amendment in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Quite frankly there is a necessity to loosen up the procedures the Minister has put in place in this Bill, particularly when it comes to an oral hearing. The amendment would go a long way towards allowing reasonable elaboration and expansion. The section, as drafted, is much too narrow and restrictive. I would hope the Minister would look positively at this proposal, which is one of a number of amendments that seek to work towards the Minister's objective, that is the rationalising, in terms of time, of the planning appeals process while at the same time enabling all considerations to be taken into account so that the best decisions are made.
It is not enough that we arrive at the most speedy decisions; it is also in the national interest that we arrive at the best decisions, and this amendment would help to achieve that objective.
I support this amendment. The two previous speakers have made the point very well. While I am on my feet — I am reminded by the arrival of Deputy Owen——
Thank you very much.
——I should say it is time we stopped using sexist language in the House. On at least two occasions today people talked about "the man in the street" and "a layman". I would remind Deputies that that type of sexist language can be very offensive to women and I suggest we mend our ways.
Can we hear a comment from Deputy Owen?
That was a very enlightening contribution from Deputy Garland. I thought he was going to say something about the amendment. In the case of an oral hearing being allowed I assume the Minister is not preventing the submission of additional information and documentation at the oral hearing. If that is the case then clearly the Minister must accept the amendment. Currently when an oral hearing is granted the appellant is allowed submit material until such time as the date for the oral hearing is fixed. When an oral hearing is taking place I hope the Minister will still allow appellants to introduce material that may not have been submitted. If you knew you would not get an oral hearing the appeal submitted would be slightly different from that which would be submitted if you were guaranteed an oral hearing. It is absolutely impossible to know on what criteria An Bord Pleanála base their decisions. Sometimes they will give an oral hearing for a single house and refuse an oral hearing for 100 houses; sometimes they allow it for a huge business and do not give it for a small business that may be causing a great deal more problems to individuals or to residents. It is very difficult to read into their minds why they might give an oral hearing. Can the Minister outline the procedure when an appellant is allowed an oral hearing? They receive a notification and I assume they are then allowed submit material, for example, graphs and diagrams which may be more relevant to allow an inspector see more clearly the problem on the ground with a particular application. I would like to hear the Minister's views on how he sees an oral hearing and an appellant's right in respect of such a hearing.
If an oral hearing is to make any sense, clearly there must be the option for elaboration, explanation, making one's case stronger or whatever else is necessary. One cannot prescribe the ambits because it has to do with known individuals and how they have planned the whole exercise. It would make absolute nonsense of the facility of an oral hearing if I were to prescribe what a person could or could not do or say in such circumstances. For that reason the amendment is clearly unnecessary.
If we are confused what way will the general public be?
It is not the first time there has been an element of confusion in this place. I am sorry if the heartless harshness of the environment has added to that dilemma here today.
We should endeavour to be clear.
I have been accused of all sorts of things. However, Deputy Byrne can be assured in the context of an oral hearing appellants will have the fullest possible opportunity to make their case or to elaborate as necessary on the case made. On that basis I see the amendment as being unnecessary.
The Minister would consider it superfluous.
I am calling Deputy Byrne to conclude.
The Minister has been very brief in rejecting the amendment. I did use the terminology "the man in the street" and "the layman", which seems to have annoyed Deputy Garland, when I referred to appeal hearings etc.
The Deputy is gone now.
I am shocked that it is deemed to be sexist language. I wonder why Deputy Owen should have been the cause of reminding Deputy Garland the language we were using was somehow or other sexist. We have a Minister for the Environment who will be dealing with many building matters. Those of us who are members of local authorities have to deal with many problems relating to blocked sewerage systems. As a member of the 50 per cent of the population who are male, I find it slightly offensive that the dirtiest location, particularly when it is blocked, is the manhole. I do not know whether Deputy Owen wants to recommend that it should be called the womanhole or whether the Green Party have a new definition.
Can we come to the business before the House?
It is called an access hole.
I am glad it is called an access hole and I will probably use that terminology from hereon in.
Rather cheery.
I hope all the building construction manuals begin to use the term "access hole". I apologise if I offended Deputy Garland and the Green Party by using the terms "layman", "laywoman", "the man in the street" and "the woman in the street".
Deputy Owen will get over that.
I will survive it.
I do not fully comprehend why the Minister said appellants have been adequately catered for in the oral hearing by being allowed submit the full documentation or to be facilitated in making their case. Deputy Gilmore's amendment seeks, because of what may come out in the oral hearing, an extension of time. It may be that the volume of information produced requires further elaboration and further research and it may be that one side has to engage the services of professional people, be they architects, engineers or whatever. The amendment seeks to relax the rigidity applied in the Bill. If there is an agreement between the board and an appellant, surely the board would be entitled to an extension of time. Would the Minister not agree that it would be incorrect, if the board believed that more time was required, that their hands should be bound? We could end up with very bad decisions if they were not allowed more time. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this call for allowing an extension of time in appeals where that is agreed between the appellant and the board.
The Minister would not be in order in replying but if there is one, brief comment he wants to make in order to compose Deputy Byrne I suppose we could accommodate it.
Section 2 (3) takes into account situations where the board are of the opinion that more time is required. I do not wish this to be used on any sort of normal basis, but the facility for additional time is afforded to the board in cases where complex issues have to be decided.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
This is not an invitation, but I must say to the Deputy that he is at liberty to move amendment No. 32.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 8, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"(c) The relevant Planning Authority shall provide such information and technical assistance as is practical to appellants in complying with the requirements of subsection (1) (d).".
I move this amendment, which has already been discussed, to allow the Minister to reply. The Minister responded prior to my commenting at all on the amendment.
I know I am getting a little tried, but I am not so fatigued that I did not know what Deputy Howlin was about while I was replying, even though my reply came before his contribution. The simple fact is that I made the point that I did not think that it was feasible to have a legal provision to require a local authority to advise a group where it had made a decision in contravention of what the local community group might have required. I went on to say that I was extremely anxious to ensure that the planning process at local authority level would be a much more open process so that the community as a whole would have more confidence in it, be able to understand it and be afforded every facility by technical and administrative staff in so doing. This is an area in which I have a special interest and I have already made some contact with county councils throughout the country to try to support developments of that kind. However, I am not in favour of putting into legislation a requirement that technical staff be obliged to support local groups in circumstances where they clearly took an opposing view.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 33 in the names of Deputies Gilmore, Garland and Howlin. Amendments Nos. 50, 55 and 68 are related and may be discussed with amendment No. 33.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 8, to delete lines 3 to 8.
This amendment requires the straightforward deletion of subsection (3) of section 4. As written, it is a draconian provision that will deny people the right to elaborate on submissions they have made. There is already imposed a four week timeframe within which they must make their appeal. Under this section we have required that they state in full the grounds of the appeal. In fact many groups and individuals will not have four weeks because by the time they hear of the decision it will be several weeks into the four-week period. We have decided, unfortunately that they must still have made a comprehensive case within the four-week period. The Minister decided in the previous amendment that the local authority will not be legally required to give assistance in the fulfilling of these requirements. Now, in this subsection the Minister is saying that once the submission is made the appellant shall not be entitled to elaborate in writing upon, make further submissions in writing relating to the grounds of the appeal stated in the appeal or to submit further grounds of appeal, nor shall any such elaboration or submissions of grounds of appeal received by the board be considered by them. Anything new that develops, any information of a technical nature that might come to notice subsequent to the four-week period shall not even be considered, even if it is absolutely essential to the proper determination of the appeal. This provision is quite draconian and quite wrong and I hope the Minister will agree to delete it.
There is a number of related amendments. They are all deletions of similar subsections which repeatedly circumscribe the second opportunity an appellant currently has to make submissions. This is a fundamental right. When new and absolutely essential information comes to light it is only right and proper not alone that the individual has every right to make submissions in relation to it but that the board should be entitled to take due account of such information. I appeal to the Minister in all reasonableness to accept the deletion of this draconian subsection.
I think Deputy Howlin has made the case. Similar provisions apply in sections 7, 8 and 13. It is the same point that is being made all the time and it is very important. This is clearly in breach of natural justice and, if examined more closely could mean that the Bill is unconstitutional. I would refer the Minister to Article 40.3.2º of the Constitution. There is a possibility that this draconian clause in the legislation could be held to be unconstitutional. Unless the Minister wants to make more money for the lawyers, who are getting fat enough as a result of the various tribunals, he might, even at this late stage of the day reconsider that. The last thing we want is three days in the High Court on such an issue.
I agree with the two previous speakers. This subsection is both unacceptable and illogical. Given that we are trying to ensure that the planning system is fair, that everything is above board and justice is seen to be done when an appeal is heard by An Bord Pleanála — I agree with Deputy Garland in that regard—it would fly in the face of natural justice if a person was not allowed to produce evidence which would have an impact on a decision. The section must be withdrawn because it is flawed.
Let me make a comparison. Could the Minister imagine himself applying this provision in a court of law in a case involving a person — unfortunately, this is what is happening in the United States of America — who has been sentenced to death and is on death row on the evidence presented in the original court case and where additional information could not be accepted? Could the Minister envisage a situation where material evidence could be rejected and where there was no channel through which information could be conveyed?
I ask the Minister to reconsider his position as the provisions of this section are draconian. It flies in the face of the aim of the Bill which is to ensure that planning decisions are made by the appeal board only after they have considered all the available information. It is wrong that one should try to prevent access to the board in this way. The section is flawed and I cannot support any Bill which contains such a section.
In discussing this amendment we need to take into account the purpose of the Bill which is to tighten up the system for everybody's sake including those who feel aggrieved about a planning decision and those seeking planning permission. For this reason we have to accept that all those with an interest in a planning application also have to tighten up their procedures.
I hope this section will place an obligation on those who are concerned about a planning application. While the methods of notifying groups and residents associations that planning applications have been submitted are improving in County Dublin, the area I represent, I would like the Minister to make the placing of a sign on a site obligatory. People should be notified in two ways — an advertisement should be placed in the newspapers and a sign should be placed on the site. Many residents associations obtain the planning lists but it is disingenuous to suggest that they only have the time to lodge an appeal and submit documentation when a decision has been made because they have between two and six months, the time it takes the local authorities to make a decision——
If the Minister is to make a comment he must get in now. I must put the question at 6.45 p.m.
Once this Bill becomes law it will sharpen up all our activities, including those who are anxious about planning applications and those who have lodged applications. I should remind Deputies that the board have a discretionary power to request further submissions and I hope they will use this power in regard to appellants and applicants and ask for elaboration if they feel a good case has not been made.
I would like to respond to a number of the points made by Deputy Owen. It is clear to anyone who has experience in dealing with planning appeals that in many cases the appellants decide to slow down the procedure by elaborating further at monthly or two-monthly intervals thus making it impossible for An Bord Pleanála to come to a decision. We are trying to streamline the system. Most people agree that this should be done but it seems each time a practical effort is made to do so an amendment is tabled to block it.
We need a balance.
Either we have the good sense to go forward or, alternatively, we leave things as they are and lose projects. I made it clear this morning that while almost everybody wants to be associated with certain kinds of appeal there are others who would like a decision to be made even though they know they will be refused so that they can go on and do something else.
I would like to thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate. I am sorry we did not get an opportunity to discuss the other amendments but this Bill will help streamline the planning process. It is fair, balanced and takes account of the legitimate needs of everybody.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I must advise the House that it is not entitled to change the order in respect of the vote. However, I will allow the Minister to make one final comment.
An Bord Pleanála will have an opportunity to extend the time where they deem that to be necessary. In relation to complex cases, in the light of our experience we will consider whether further changes will be needed in the future. Deputies will have other opportunities to make their contributions.
I am now obliged to put the question.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if you recall an adjustment was made to the order of the House this morning whereby the Minister may accept amendments from Opposition Deputies which have not been reached. Perhaps he would indicate if he is accepting any amendments.
The Chair has had no indication from the Minister——
The Taoiseach accepted this on the Order of Business this morning.
He did.
It was conditional on whether the Minister was disposed to accepting them and the Chair has not been notified that the Minister is so disposed. Therefore, I will put the question as ordered.
Therefore, there are no such amendments?
We were very close on a few occasions.
The question is: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment and not disposed of, including those which in the normal course would have required recommittal, are hereby agreed to, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.
Question declared carried.