Vol. 605 No. 3
29 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when the new fast track planning procedure for major infrastructural projects will be operational; the measures he is proposing to provide for adequate public consultation during the fast-tracking of such projects; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22201/05]
34 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will make a statement on his plans for the restructuring of An Bord Pleanála and for changes to planning legislation. [22317/05]
112 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the funding allocation for the new strategic infrastructure division within An Bord Pleanála; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22304/05]
114 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the major transport projects of strategic importance that he envisages will come under the terms of the strategic infrastructure division of An Bord Pleanála. [21232/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 29, 34, 112 and 114 together.
I recently announced that the Government has approved my proposals to amend the Planning and Development Act 2000 to help fast-track major infrastructure projects. The Government's objective in advancing these proposals is to contribute to the delivery of a highly effective infrastructure that the public rightfully demands while, at the same time, respecting the environment and the right of people to object to developments. It is important to provide greater certainty on the timeframe for delivering decisions while at the same time ensuring robust analysis of proposals.
The proposed new legislation will establish a new strategic infrastructure division as part of An Bord Pleanála. The new division will handle the planning decisions for major roads and motorways and other large-scale projects proposed by local authorities that the board currently oversees. The division's role will also extend to decisions on other strategic infrastructure, for example, railways and major electricity transmission lines.
In addition, the new legislation will provide that major transport, environmental and energy infrastructure projects that are of strategic importance and that at present require a planning application accompanied by an environmental impact statement to be submitted to the local authority will be referred directly to the new division of An Bord Pleanála.
It is also my intention that the board will take a more proactive role in the pre-planning process for such projects, especially to ensure that developers deal with all relevant matters in their planning applications and environmental impact statements. This will help to ensure that the key planning issues and appropriate environmental mitigation measures are addressed by developers at an early stage in the process, which should help to avoid unexpected delays at a later stage and aid people who wish to review the process. The public will also have substantial rights to comment on infrastructure proposals before the board, as is the case for major local authority infrastructure.
I am happy that the new proposals build on the proven expertise of An Bord Pleanála in handling planning appeals and, since 2001, approvals of major local authority infrastructure. Obviously I am concerned to ensure that the board is adequately resourced and has appropriate organisational structures to handle these new responsibilities as well as maintaining its current excellent performance in respect of planning appeals. My Department is in discussions with the board and the Department of Finance to ensure this outcome.
The Government has decided that as well as changes to the planning system, we need to tackle delays in the courts. My colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, will therefore examine ways, in consultation with the courts, to ensure that cases get heard earlier and that court decisions are made quickly. In addition to these changes, I am proposing some specific changes to judicial review of planning decisions in the draft Bill.
Drafting of the new legislation, which is complex and will take some months, has begun. The new division will be brought into operation as soon as possible after the legislation has been enacted.
The final section of the M50 will at last open on Thursday. This has been 20 years coming, the first six or seven of which were taken up by the old Dublin County Council preparing an initial design. The next five years were taken up by the EIS process which was ordered by the Minister's Department to examine and change the different routes. It took three years from the time the Minister signed off on the motorway scheme until construction started. All told, I can only count 18 months where the scheme was on public display or when there were planning delays, including cases taken with regard to the Carrickmines issue.
The purpose of this legislation is to fast-track infrastructural development but, given the M50 experience, to address the planning aspect is to address the shortest element of delay. The greatest delays appear to occur where elements which have nothing to do with public consultation are concerned, such as design, consultants and contract document preparation.
If major projects are to be referred directly to An Bord Pleanála, which is to be the planning authority of first instance, will there be an appeal process from that or will we be left in a situation where the courts are the only recourse for people who wish to submit an appeal?
People will be able to make submissions to An Bord Pleanála. Deputy Gilmore must be the only person in the country who would dispute that infrastructure developments have been delayed in this country for an inordinate amount of time. He gave a highly questionable analysis of the M50. However, I draw his attention a little further down the road to the extraordinary delays that were encountered in the Glen of the Downs on the N11 and the Arklow sewerage scheme which has been locked in legal and planning battles for 12 and a half years. Deputy Gilmore is probably the only Member of the Oireachtas that holds the view he has canvassed here.
An Bord Pleanála did some analysis in this area which reflected that the time taken in High Court proceedings on which judgment was given in 2003 and 2004 was 92 weeks. It took almost two years from the lodging of an appeal to final court decision. It is a fallacy to suggest that we have not had undue delays in delivering planning and infrastructure, and I am surprised that the Deputy would do so.
The Minister is not addressing the problem. He is only addressing part of it — the populist bit.
I am addressing the planning problem and not only the populist aspect. The citizens and taxpayers of this country have a right to understand and expect that planning will be handled in a timely way——
The consultants will not take five years, but one.
I do not disagree with the Deputy. Undue bureaucratic delay must also be dealt with. However, it is simply nonsense for the Deputy to suggest there has not been undue delay and an abuse of the planning system.
The greatest delays with regard to the M50 were outside the planning process.
There has been a rank abuse of the system in the cases of the N11, the Arklow sewerage scheme and others. I have outlined the points raised by An Bord Pleanála statistics. Some 32 of the board's decisions last year were challenged in the courts, which is an increase of eight since the previous year. Therefore there must obviously be an integrated approach and we must build on what has been a record in An Bord Pleanála. We must also deal with the manner in which the courts system has been abused to introduce delays which have cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds and added huge amounts of time.
With regard to Question No. 34, what is the status of the transformation of An Bord Pleanála? How much of the work has been done? How far advanced is the appointments process? Is the funding yet in place? Can the Minister estimate how quickly a major infrastructure project will go through the planning process under the new system?
Until such time as the legislation is in place, it would neither be prudent nor normal to make the funding available up front. However, I and my Department are engaging with An Bord Pleanála to discover what it needs and with the Department of Finance to ensure the necessary resources are in place.
Deputy McCormack should consider the alternative of a second board, an issue which was canvassed at one point. A limited number of people with planning expertise at a very senior level are available in this country and we are conserving and focusing them within An Bord Pleanála. It is better to review, revise and update an existing system which works quite well at that level.
The Deputy also asked how long the process will take. It will be a difficult piece of drafting, and there will then be a lengthy debate on the issue when it comes before the House. It would be wrong of me to speculate on how long the process will take. I am anxious to ensure the process is as limited as possible. With regard to the personnel numbers——
Will the process be complete before the next election?
I hope so. We have until 2007 to complete it and I certainly hope we can do so. Deputies McCormack and O'Dowd have planning and infrastructural issues in their constituencies, which I know are of concern to them. Given their concerns, I anticipate help from them in getting the legislation through when it is presented to the House.
To take up the last point made by the Minister, is it not the case that his predecessor, Deputy Cullen, met Indaver Ireland at the end of the planning process regarding an incinerator for Carranstown? The company made submissions to the then Minister and he agreed to change the decision of An Bord Pleanála. Is that not a fact? At the same time, the process relating to the waste licensing system had not been completed through the Environmental Protection Agency. Is it also not a fact that Greenstar, another company with interests in waste licensing in this country, met officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in Brussels — I do not know why they met in Brussels — to make a submission to them on the decisions of An Bord Pleanála?
If the Minister is putting An Bord Pleanála at the heart of his plans for a fast-track decision making process, which I welcome, it is utterly wrong that Ministers would try to change or sidestep decisions of An Bord Pleanála by changing regulations. The Minister brought in regulations several weeks ago relating to regional boundaries for the transport of waste. Those regulations have put Indaver Ireland back in position and allowed it to circumvent the decision of An Bord Pleanála, which was a democratic one.
If one disagrees with a decision of An Bord Pleanála, one has a right to appeal it to the High Court, which was the process to date. From now on, however, the Minister proposes to establish a process for specific projects whereby an incinerator developer, for example, can lobby the Minister to introduce new regulations to circumvent a decision that is not to his or her liking. This can occur, notwithstanding the fact that thousands of people may have objected to the incinerator, as is the case in my constituency, in County Cork and other parts of the country. This is simply not good enough.
The Minister raised objections.
Deputy McCormack is correct, the Minister objected to incinerators in the past. Where does he stand on the issue now?
The allegations from Deputy O'Dowd are outstanding.
They are not allegations, they are statements of fact, and I have the documents to prove it.
Fair play to Deputy O'Dowd if that is the case. Let us nail the Minister on these matters.
Does the Minister accept that the two major causes of delays are political indecision and appeals by property owners? Is he putting any measure in place to deal with these two issues? He must accept that the Luas was delayed for several years by Deputy Harney's dithering over whether it should be put underground or over ground. Even now, the two lines still do not join up in the city centre. The M50 was delayed for years because appeals by property owners were going through the courts. Is the Minister doing anything about either issue? After three years in government we still do not have a decision on the proposed metro.
On the issue of judicial review and judicial proceedings, there is a marked silence as to what the Minister's colleague is doing in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Has Deputy McDowell given the Minister anything in writing about his proposals to deal with the legal obstacles to the process? The two major causes of delays on projects are political indecision and legal challenges, and I am not convinced that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has done anything to address either of those issues.
I am not sure if the Deputy heard me correctly, but I made a major point about improving the situation in terms of legal challenges. I reject the idea that a Minister should retrospectively interfere with any decision made by An Bord Pleanála.
The Minister did just that.
I certainly did not.
What about the regulations?
The Minister interfered by introducing regulations. He got around the decision of An Bord Pleanála.
That is simply untruthful.
It is not untrue.
That is simply untruthful and I will not engage in a debate on an untruthful statement.
Deputies must allow the Minister to finish his point.
To address Deputy Cuffe's point about political indecision, the Deputy knows that delays on issues like the N11 were caused by people using the planning system to create them. Sadly, his party was involved in that process.
The Minister is being inaccurate.
Deputy Cuffe's party was particularly culpable on the matter of the Glen of the Downs. He does not want to hear the truth of the matter and I can understand that. The activities of his party contributed to a loss of €42 million to the taxpayers and a delay of over two years.
The Minister should speak to the Tánaiste about the loss of taxpayers' money.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
