Vol. 477 No. 5
10 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for the Environment if he will review section 8 of the 1992 Planning Act in which public representatives are requested to pay a £30 fee to An Bord Pleanála every time they make submissions on matters before the Bord; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9671/97]
Planning appeal fees were introduced to offset, to some extent, the considerable cost of the operation of the appeals system operated by An Bord Pleanála, as were fees for formal submissions and observations on appeals submitted to the board. A public representative may make representations to the board in support of others who have made appeals or who have made submissions or observations on an appeal and in such cases no fee applies. However, where the representations raise new and substantive issues these constitute formal submissions or observations to which the fee provision apply. I have no proposals to change this position which has applied since 1983.
I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter.
I accept the need for it as people who want to appeal a decision may want to go to their public representative, but public representatives should be in a position to make their observations known to the board in their own words. Is the Minister aware that public representatives can merely support a submission made, which is really a pointless exercise? Will the Minister look at this matter again with a view to allowing public representatives put forward their views to official bodies? Nothing would be lost in allowing that, provided a submission has already been made by somebody else and that it is not an appeal. It is ridiculous that public representatives should be asked to pay £30 to represent their constituents. I ask the Minister to examine this with a view to overturning it. I understand the reason this was put in place — I do not want to end up making a series of representations to An Bord Pleanála — but I should not be penalised at the rate of £30 per letter if I want to make known a point of view.
There is a good deal of merit in the case made by the Deputy and I have given it careful consideration. Two things strike me. First, the reason for the establishment of An Bord Pleanála was to set up a clearly independent appeals board that was not subject to political influence. There was concern that the existing appeals system, which was purely at the discretion of the Minister, was less than independent and, because of that, everybody who stands before the board should have equal status. The notion that one accords a measure of additional status to a public representative by implication gives him a particular status and an added weight to the representations he or she might make. It is worth reflecting on that point. The second and equally valid point is one referred to by the Deputy. If the public felt that a free way to make appeals or observations was to use the local councillor or TD as a conduit, that would be burdensome both on the local representative and on An Bord Pleanála. There are people who like to make representations — I hope they would not be discouraged from making valid ones — but some might think they can trot down to the local TD at his or her weekly clinic, put in a list of complaints and expect them to be acted upon. I accept there is a great deal of weight on the other side of the argument in relation to the right of a public representative to have access to an appeals mechanism such as this without penalty, but on balance it is difficult to decide to open the channel completely. I do not know whether it is possible to have a reduced rate and if that will address the concerns or compound both sides of the argument. My decision to date is that the system that has operated since the Planning Act was amended in 1983 is operating reasonably fairly, although a number of local councillors have voiced particular concerns to me. It is not a closed book, I am open to persuasion.
The Minister referred to the independence of the board and what the perception might be, but I will never concede to the perception that local or national public representatives in any way lessen the independence of a body simply because they make representations on behalf of constituents. The Minister has suggested a compromise that might be acceptable in relation to reducing the fee, and I ask him to consider that, as was done in relation to the Data Protection Commissioner.
If it would not compound the difficulty.
I do not think it would because if a public representative wants to make a submission in support, it will not cost anything, but if he or she wants to go a little further, £10 or £15 will not break the bank. The Minister's suggestion is a good one.
I will certainly reflect further on the point made by the Deputy.
I would advise caution in relation to this matter. As a member of two local authorities for the past 25 years, I appreciate the point made by the Deputy. However, I have also had the experience, in cases where planning permission issued in the name of Mr. A or Mr. B, of a member appealing against the decision of his own council, not having raised an objection at local authority level or put through a section 4. I would encourage the Minister to double the charge.
I would not take that line. Everybody has a different view on this matter. We can talk about independence but it is undemocratic to ask public representatives to pay money to do the job they are entrusted to do by the people. That is playing down their role. The Minister should allow one letter to be written without charge in cases where an appeal has already been lodged. Public representatives should not become involved in appealing every decision but if somebody has paid £100 they should be allowed write one letter free of charge or at a reduced fee. Something must be done about this matter because many public representatives pretend they are doing something when in fact they are merely writing a harmless letter to An Bord Pleanála. If it did not cost anything, or very little, to write a letter, we could be straight with our constituents.
As we have heard from the views expressed by various Deputies, there is no consensus on the right action to take in this matter. I would be concerned that the public might see the councillor as the conduit for all appeals if they had free access and every other citizen would be required to pay a fee. I will reflect further on all the points made and see if I can come up with a solution that might improve the matter.
