The board welcomes the invitation from the joint committee to discuss its annual report for 2005 and two particular areas of responsibility namely, the planning process for telephone masts and for infrastructure projects, including the role of inspector's reports.
The year 2005 set a new record for the intake of appeals and other cases, up 13% on 2004. Despite a 5% increase in the number of cases disposed of, the strong trend in cases received resulted in an increased workload on hand at the end of the year — up 37% on 2004. The 18 week statutory objective was met in 78% of cases compared to 85% in 2004 and the average time taken to dispose of cases was 15 weeks.
The average staff complement in 2005 was 134.5 compared to 128 in 2004. Some noteworthy features in 2005 were: the percentage of local authority planning decisions appealed to the board remained constant at just over 7%; the rate of reversal of local planning authority decisions appealed showed a slight decrease — 30% in 2005 compared with 32% in 2004. The large disparity between local authorities in the rate of reversal, apparent in previous years, continued in 2005 as is shown in appendix 2 of the report; about half of the planning appeals lodged with the board came from third parties; and some 17% of all appeals disposed of were invalid compared with 20% in the previous year. Late appeals, 5.4%, no fee or incorrect fee, 4.7%, and third party appeals with no acknowledgement, 4.4%, were the main reasons for invalidity. The board took additional measures in 2005 to help people avoid making invalid appeals.
The board's expenditure increased by 6% to €18.8 million in 2005. Fee income amounted to €2.1 million, approximately 11% of expenditure, and recoupment of costs from local authorities in relation to the determination of their own infrastructure projects came to €0.6 million.
The intake of cases in all categories this year matches last year's record level and could well reach 6,000 by year end. The rate of disposals is up 5% over the corresponding period last year and we are heading for the second highest output ever achieved by the board. However, because of the strong trend in cases received both this year and last, the number of cases on hand at the end of October is up 15% on October 2005; the average time taken to dispose of cases increased to 18 weeks; and 53% of cases have been disposed of within the statutory objective period so far this year. The board is taking all possible measures, including increasing productivity, to get back as soon as possible to achieving its overall strategic target of disposing of 90% of cases within 18 weeks. The board regrets the delays that are occurring at present but is seeking to put in place additional resources, to which I will refer later.
The board continues to engage part-time consultant inspectors to report on cases. In 2005, 37% of reports came from this source; this year it is running at 48%. With the approval for additional permanent staff resources, we anticipate that our reliance on outside inspectors will reduce in the future.
Apart from the sheer volume of cases, the size and complexity of cases continues to increase and this places additional pressures on our resources. The legislative framework in which we operate is also becoming more complex. In these circumstances, the continuing high level of output is a tribute to the resourcefulness and dedication of board members and staff.
Up to now, infrastructure projects have come before the board either by way of planning appeal, where they are privately sponsored, or by way of direct application where they are local authority sponsored. The local authority application system requires that any proposed development sponsored by a local authority which requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement must be submitted to, and be approved by the board in order to proceed to construction. Applications for approval of qualifying proposed road developments are made under provisions of the Roads Act while non-road local authority infrastructural development applications are made under the Planning and Development Act 2000. Both systems provide for full public disclosure of all details relating to the proposals and the facility for the public to make submissions to the board. Parallel applications for compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities in respect of these proposed developments are also dealt with by the board. Oral hearings are mandatory in the case of motorway orders and contested compulsory purchase orders. Although they are discretionary in other cases, it has been the board's policy to hold oral hearings of all major projects, even where not requested by the parties. The decision making process for these projects is similar to planning appeals. Full details of the projects, the submissions received from interested parties, the inspector's report of the oral hearing and the inspector's assessment and recommendation go before the board for decision. Normally, major projects are determined by larger boards rather than the standard three person boards. I will return to the role of inspectors' reports presently. The board has put in place systems to prioritise and avoid undue delays in the planning stage of important infrastructure projects, whether they be public, private or public-private partnerships. The average time taken to formally decide local authority projects in 2005 was 22 weeks, the same as in 2004. The board is continuing this level of performance in 2006.
As committee members are aware, the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006, which was recently before this committee and which is to be brought into force shortly, will have major implications for the board. While the number of infrastructure projects coming within the scope of the new procedures will be limited, as they will only consist of specified projects that are of national or regional significance, they represent major changes both in the scope and nature of the board's workload. The Act explicitly provides for full participation by local people, the elected and executive branches of the local authorities affected, other statutory bodies and concerned non-governmental organisations. The board intends, in its general approach and specific procedures, that such participation will be meaningful and that its assessment of projects will be independent, fair and fully transparent.
While the wider national interest and policies at EU and national level must be taken into account, projects that the board considers will seriously injure the local environment or that do not accord with proper planning and sustainable development will not be approved. The new legislation, for the first time, explicitly applies both of the twin criteria of effects on the environment and proper planning and sustainable development to projects in the transportation and energy areas and perhaps the significance of this is not yet fully appreciated. The procedures to be put in place by the board to give effect to the statutory provisions in the Act will have to ensure that the requirement to process applications efficiently and expeditiously is balanced by the need to facilitate participation by local communities and interested statutory and non-governmental organisations. The board is acutely aware of the importance of maintaining public confidence in the way it determines these strategic projects.
To assist project sponsors, interested parties and local authorities in the effective operation of the new legislation, the board is preparing guidance, including details of its procedures. These guidelines will give particular emphasis to ensuring that the public is made fully aware of proposed projects and has access to full details of them so that it can participate in the process on a well-informed basis. I have no doubt that members are aware that the statutory objective in the new legislation of returning strategic infrastructure cases within 18 weeks of the closing date for submissions by the general public is extremely demanding, having regard to the size and complexity of these projects.
At last year's meeting with the committee, I mentioned that the implementation of a major review of the board's organisation and structure was the subject of an industrial relations dispute that was then before the Labour Relations Commission. I regret that it was not possible for the LRC to mediate a resolution of the issues and the matter has been before the Labour Court, which issued an interim recommendation in February 2006. An improved offer made following this recommendation did not prove acceptable to the union. Since then the court has held further hearings and is due to hold another hearing next Friday, 10 November. I hope this will lead to an early resolution of the outstanding issues.
To take account of existing workloads and the new functions under the Strategic Infrastructure Act, the board has received approval from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for a significant increase in staffing from 136.5 to 160.5, excluding board members. In conjunction with the preparatory work being undertaken for these new functions, the board is giving detailed consideration to the adequacy of the approved staffing resources to effectively and efficiently discharge these important functions. There are ongoing discussions with staff representatives in relation to the implementation of the new functions.
I understand from correspondence that the committee has a particular interest in the role of inspectors' reports in the decision making process. When determining a planning appeal or other case before it, such as approving a road project, the board is obliged by law to have regard to certain matters. These include Government policies and objectives, local statutory development plans and the views of all parties and interested persons. In accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2000, where the board appoints an inspector to make a report and recommendation on an appeal, the board must also consider that report and recommendation before making a decision. When the report and recommendation is received, the full appeal file is then assigned to a member of the board who familiarises him or herself with the file before presenting the appeal to the board for consideration and decision by the members present at the meeting. In recent years, the board has accepted the broad thrust of inspectors' recommendations regarding grant or refusal in 87% to 90% of cases. However, in a high proportion of these cases where the recommendation is not overturned the board makes changes to the recommended reasons for the decision and-or recommended conditions attached to the decision. In many cases these changes are such that the decision in planning terms is significantly different from that recommended by the inspector. It should also be noted that where the board does not accept the recommendations of its inspector, its decision often reflects the original decision of the planning authority in just over 50% of the cases.
When considering an appeal the board members bring a wide range of professional expertise and experience to the case. It will be clear from what I have said that the input into the decision involves more than just the inspector's report and recommendation. The combined professionalism, experience and varying backgrounds of board members, along with a thorough assessment of all the relevant issues and the inspector's report and recommendations, bring a better assurance as to the quality of the ultimate decision. Even where the inspector's recommendation is not followed, there is no doubt that the report has an indispensable role in informing the decision of the board.
The board's order and its direction indicate the main reasons and considerations for its decisions and, where relevant, for not accepting the inspector's recommendation on the appeal. The board is an independent body which is required to act in a quasi-judicial manner. In law, it is clear that the board has the final responsibility for a decision.
It is national policy to provide the country with a quality mobile telephone service which will conform to the concept of environmental sustainability, meeting socio-economic objectives and conservation of natural resources. In determining appeals relating to mobile telephone infrastructure, the board is obliged to have regard to the ministerial planning guidelines. There are now four mobile phone operators in Ireland as well as several independent agencies providing mast structures for co-location. Demand for antennae locations will continue at a high level in the foreseeable future as a more comprehensive coverage is sought, in line with the 3G technology. As advised in the guidelines, permission granted by the board is generally granted for a five year period to take account of changing technology, changes in circumstances and to encourage co-location. Where appropriate, the board normally attaches a condition requiring the applicant to facilitate co-location with other operators.
Over the period January 2003 to October 2006 there were 84 third party appeals against the decision of the planning authority to grant permission and 199 first party appeals against the decision of the planning authority to refuse permission. There were 29 first party appeals against conditions. The board upheld the planning authority decision to grant in 90% of the third party appeals and this is consistent with the findings of an earlier survey published in the 2002 annual report. The board overturned the planning authority decision to refuse in 59% of the first party appeals and this compared with 44% in the earlier survey.
The predominant reason for refusing permission for telecom masts relates to the impact on visual amenity. Other reasons relate to proximity to residential development and schools and failure to explore apparently better options such as clustering, co-location and less obtrusive or otherwise more suitable sites.
Undoubtedly, the increased success rate for first party appeals against refusal is due to the inclusion by some local authorities in their development plans of severe restrictions on the erection of masts in relation to distance from dwellings. These would amount to an effective ban on mobile telephony over large areas and are contrary to the ministerial guidelines and Government communications policies generally. While the board considers each case on its merits, it gives precedence to the policy in the guidelines unless there are overriding local planning considerations. On the issue of health impacts, any grant of permission by the board is confined to licensed operators which ensures that emissions of non-ionising radiation must comply with the standards set by the telecommunications regulator which reflect accepted international practice. Other than that, the board does not concern itself with the health impacts of individual proposals.
