I thank the Chairman for those introductory remarks. I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity of discussing with it again the issue of housing in rural areas and the operation of the ministerial guidelines on sustainable rural housing.
An Bord Pleanála, as well as planning authorities, is required by the Planning and Development Acts to have regard to the policies set out in ministerial guidelines in discharging its statutory functions. Accordingly, in deciding planning appeals the board has had the benefit of ministerial guidelines since March 2004. The guidelines were first published in draft form at that time and the board complied with the Minister's request that, although in draft form, regard would be had to them. The board continues to have regard to the final version of the guidelines published in April 2005. Since their introduction all board members and inspectors, both staff and consultant inspectors, have been instructed to have regard to the guidelines in their decisions or reports and recommendations, as the case may be. To assist board members and inspectors in interpreting and implementing the complex of policies contained in the guidelines the inspectorate management prepared an advisory memorandum and conducted two specific training courses for both in-house and consultant inspectors, one after the draft guidelines were issued and the other following publication of the final guidelines. Inspectors are required in all cases in which the guidelines apply to refer specifically to the guidelines and to factor the policy in the guidelines into their assessments and recommendations. In particular, they are requested to identify the type of area in which the site of any development is located.
In addition, board members are required to fill in a standard form as each case to which the guidelines are relevant is decided at the board meeting recording certain basic information about the appeal and the decision.
The information contained in these forms is statistically analysed and the more salient results published in the board's annual reports. Prior to the guidelines, the board in its annual report for 2002 published details of a survey it had carried out of decisions relating to one-off houses in rural areas. I am circulating for the information of members of the committee two charts showing the results of the statistical analyses and the previous survey. I would caution, however, that the survey results are not directly comparable with the other figures, but they can be taken as a broad indication for comparison purposes.
It might be appropriate for me to make some comments to the committee on the information that has emerged from these analyses — figures generally relate to the current year unless otherwise stated.
The number of new houses in the countryside which are the subject of appeal to the board is quite small — only 500 to 600 a year — especially when one considers that we are building perhaps of the order of 17,000 new houses a year in the countryside. While the established pattern is for about 7% of local planning decisions across all categories to be appealed the propensity to appeal rural housing decisions appears to be considerably lower. This tallies with the fact that the vast majority of rural housing applications are granted permission by planning authorities. About half of the appeals received are from first parties against refusals and the other half from third parties against grants of permission.
It is noticeable that the majority of appeals coming before the board related to rural areas considered to be under strong urban influence — box 1 of the guidelines — whereas only 31% are in weak rural areas and dispersed settlement areas combined — boxes 3 and 4 of the guidelines. This confirms that the greatest pressure for housing development in the countryside is in areas within the catchment of the main urban centres and in areas already containing a high density of one-off houses. There is much less pressure in areas that are classified as weak rural areas, which represent only 16%, of rural housing appeals. These are the areas which in the past have suffered most from population decline. The preliminary results from the 2006 Census, which have recently become available, indicate a significant reversal in that trend. In general the population of the weak areas has increased by 6.7% and the north-midland counties of Leitrim, Roscommon, Longford and Cavan have all experienced substantial growth.
It is also of interest to look briefly at the breakdown of the reasons for refusal of permission. The two most common reasons for refusal are failure to comply with the criteria for rural-generated local housing need and problems with regard to drainage and the consequent risk of water pollution. The next most common reason relates to traffic hazard followed by reasons relating to impact on the landscape.
Rural housing need criteria is the most frequently quoted reason for refusal, accounting for 26% of all reasons. In general, it would only apply to cases located in areas under strong urban influence or strong rural areas and where the board cites a reason of this nature it means that it does not consider that there is a genuine case in relation to a rural generated housing need as defined in the guidelines. The board fully supports the provision of new houses in rural areas to meet the needs of persons who are natives of the area or who have strong ties with the area by having lived or worked there. However, because of the value of sites with permission there is huge pressure of a speculative nature which is leading to an unsustainable pattern of urban sprawl and pushing up prices for genuine local needs. It is often difficult to distinguish between the genuine local need and the speculative applicant, whose ingenuity should not be underestimated.
The issue of drainage is featuring to an increasing extent in rural housing appeals owing to increasing awareness of drinking water quality issues and the threat posed by the proliferation of septic tanks and other proprietary systems to drinking water supplies. There is a tendency for neighbours to appeal permissions granted for septic tanks near water sources. It is also evident that, in many cases, the issue of drainage is not adequately addressed by applicants and their agents.
There appear to be major differences of approach between individual planning authorities to drainage and it is not uncommon to find permissions granted without the submission of any or adequate soil tests or where tests show drainage conditions to be very problematic. This is reflected in the high incidence of drainage reasons in board decisions at 26%. The guidelines are unambiguous on the need to avoid the risk of water pollution.
Landscape, at 20%, is also a significant reason for refusal. This reason is cited where it is proposed to locate a house in a landscape that has a particular scenic designation or where the design or particular location, for example, in an excessively elevated position, as proposed is obtrusive.
Traffic hazard is the last of the four major refusal reasons, accounting for 18% of refusals. This usually relates to cases where access sight lines are not in accordance with the prescribed safety standards, thus creating restricted visibility or where developments require new accesses onto national roads where it is policy only to grant permission in extreme circumstances.
It might also be of interest to examine the trends that have emerged from the figures I have circulated. The percentage of appeals resulting in a grant of permission has risen since the guidelines were introduced. The 2002 survey highlighted that, overall, only 13% of appeals resulted in grants of permission with 4% of first party appeals being successful. In the current year, by comparison, the proportion of permissions granted is 21% overall with 14% of first party appeals successful. The percentage of permissions granted in 2005 was less than in 2004. While it is difficult to be certain about the reason for this, as the guidelines were applied in a consistent manner by the board throughout this period, it may be accounted for by dynamics within the planning system as a whole.
For example, in 2004 the increase in permissions granted was most likely due to the board's application of the more liberal approach set out in the guidelines as compared with local development plans. By 2005, the development plans had generally been revised to take account of the guidelines so that the more liberal policies were reflected in local decisions and consequently appeals were less likely to succeed. The guidelines may well have encouraged more so-called hard cases to appeal which would be bound to lower the success rate. Another factor may be that in 2006, 52% of appeals related to rural areas considered to be under strong urban influence, whereas only 48% were in this category in 2004.
It is important to keep in perspective the impact the board is having on the overall pattern of housing development in rural areas throughout the country. The number of cases coming before the board is quite small in the overall context. The policies set down by local authorities in development plans, which are supposed to reflect the ministerial guidelines, and the implementation of those policies by local authorities largely determine the scale and nature of the development taking place in the countryside.
