The joint committee will now discuss the 2006 annual report of An Bord Pleanála with its chairman and board. I welcome Mr. John O'Connor, chairman, Mr. Brian Hunt, deputy chairman, Mr. Paul Mullally, chief officer, Mr. Padraic Thornton, acting planning officer and a fifth official. Before the presentation commences, I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. I am sure the witnesses will not slander anyone. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask Mr. O'Connor to make a short opening statement, copies of which have been received by members, and thereafter we will have questions and answers. I hope we will have an interesting and fruitful discussion.
2006 Annual Report: Discussion with An Bord Pleanála.
Mr. John O’Connor
I congratulate the Chairman on his appointment and also congratulate Deputy McCormack, who we know of old. The members of the board look forward to continuing our good working relationship with the committee.
I welcome the invitation from the committee to discuss the board's annual report for 2006. As that is somewhat in the past, I will also deal with the developments affecting the board at the current time. Looking back to 2006 initially, I reported to this committee last year that 2005 had set a new record in the intake of appeals and other cases. The level of intake in 2006 matched that of 2005, reaching almost 6000 cases. While output increased by 4%, there was still a significant increase in the number of cases on hand at the end of the year, at close to 2,400 cases, up 15% over 2005. The 18-week statutory objective was met in 52% of cases compared to 78% in 2005. The average number of staff was 138.5, an increase of only four on the number in 2005. However, I am pleased to report that the board received sanction for additional staffing and I will return to this subject later.
Some noteworthy features in the 2006 report were as follows. The percentage of local authority planning decisions appealed to the board showed a slight decrease to 6.9% from 7.4% in 2005. The rate of reversal of local planning authority decisions appealed showed an increase from 32% in 2004 and 30% in 2005 to 33% in 2006. The large disparity between local authorities in the rate of reversal, apparent in previous years, continued in 2006, as shown in appendix 2 of the annual report. More detailed information on a county-by-county basis relating to appeal type and board decisions vis-à-vis local authority decisions is set out in the table which I will circulate for the information of members.
Just under half of the planning appeals lodged with the board came from third parties and 14.8% of all appeals disposed of were invalid compared to 17.3% in the previous year. Late appeals, accounting for 4.9%, third party appeals with no acknowledgement, accounting for 4.2%, and no fee or incorrect fee, accounting for 4%, were the main reasons for invalidity. The measures taken by the board in recent years to help people avoid making invalid appeals have been successful. The invalid rate in 2003 was 21% and the board will continue in its efforts to further reduce the invalidity rate.
The board's expenditure increased by 11% to €20.9 million in 2006. Fee income amounted to €2.2 million, or approximately 10.4% of expenditure, and recoupment of costs from local authorities in regard to the determination of its own infrastructural projects came to €400,000.
Moving on to 2007, the intake of cases in all categories is outpacing last year's level by 13% and will set a new record in the history of the board — it could well reach 6,700 by year end. The rate of disposals is up 9% over the corresponding period last year and we are heading for the highest output in the history of the board. However, because of the strong trend in cases received, the number of cases on hand at the end of November was 2,800, up 21% on November 2006, and the average time taken to dispose of cases increased to 19 weeks. Some 48% of cases have been disposed of within the statutory objective period so far this year.
As well as the new strategic infrastructure cases, the intake of cases has been boosted in particular by appeals relating to larger housing schemes — those with 30 units or more; quarries, reflecting the general tightening up of the control of quarry developments under the Planning and Development Act 2000; agricultural developments, reflecting the nitrates regulations; wind farms; and houses in suburban gardens. Apart from the sheer volume of cases, the size and complexity of planning appeals 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.
The board is taking all possible measures to deal with the backlog and to return as soon as possible to achieving its overall strategic objective to dispose of 90% of cases within 18 weeks. These include putting in place additional resources and considering other options to increase output. The board regrets the delays that are occurring at present.
Of greatest significance to the board in 2007 was the commencement of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006. The board has received 68 applications from project sponsors for pre-planning application discussions in accordance with the provisions of section 37B and corresponding sections of the Act. Some 85 meetings between the sponsors and board teams headed by some of our most experienced inspectors have been held and the pre-application phase of the process has been completed in 27 cases. These cases cover a wide range of projects such as electricity and gas infrastructure, waste, mainline, metro and light rail, harbours, airports, large wind farms, etc. The pre-application phase involves the board advising on the significant planning, sustainability and environmental issues that will have to be addressed in the formal application and, in the case of most private initiatives, determining whether they are to be admitted as strategic Infrastructure projects. In this the board will seek to ensure that the individual project addresses broader national and regional policies and takes account of its impact across other sectors.
Following closure of the pre-application phase, formal applications for approval of projects have been received in four new case types, namely, the Dunboyne railway extension — the hearing for which is being held this week — a gas-fired power plant in County Louth, a liquefied natural gas terminal at Ballylongford, County Kerry and a container terminal at Ringaskiddy, County Cork. Notice has been given to the public and relevant consultees and details have been sent for reports to the local authorities concerned. The board has discretion as to whether an oral hearing will be held but its intention is to hold hearings in all cases where there are significant planning or environmental issues or where there are serious concerns for the local community or statutory consultees.
It needs to be stressed that under the new Act the twin criteria of proper planning and sustainable development and the effects on the environment must be applied to all strategic infrastructure projects. This is a significant change in relation to rail projects, motorways and gas pipelines. For example, the broader planning implications of new rail projects will have to be addressed, including the location and design of stations, integration with other transport services, etc. Also, the broader transportation implications of other infrastructure such as harbour developments have to be carefully assessed.
The board has a very demanding statutory objective to determine strategic infrastructure cases within 18 weeks of the latest date for the receipt of submissions from the general public. In the interests of transparency and to avoid any perception of pre-judgment the board has decided as a matter of policy that the inspector who has led its team in the pre-application phase will not participate in the formal application phase or have any involvement in the oral hearing or the ultimate recommendation to the board. Different inspectors will be appointed to carry out these functions.
The procedures put in place by the board to give effect to the statutory provisions in the Act will 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.
The board has published a number of guidelines advising applicants and local authorities of the procedures to be followed and advising the general public and interested bodies on how they can participate in the process. A strategic infrastructure division, comprising five members, has been set up within the board to perform the functions assigned to it under the Act. The new division will be supported by a separate staff division within the organisation.
I mentioned earlier that the board has received approval for additional staffing. To cater for the extra intake of cases and for the new work under the Strategic Infrastructure Act, the authorised staff complement has been increased from 138 to 172. This includes 25 staff for the strategic infrastructure division. Last week, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government appointed the board's planning officer as an additional 11th board member, under section 104(4) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, for the period up to 31 August 2008. The board is well on its way to filling inspectorate vacancies in its staff complement, and is endeavouring to fill all vacancies as soon as possible.
The board continues to engage part-time consultant inspectors to report on cases. In 2006, 48% of reports came from this source and this year it is running at 42%. With the approval for additional permanent staff resources, we anticipate that our reliance on outside inspectors will reduce further into the future.
In the past this committee has shown a particular interest in the issue of rural housing. As a result we now publish in the annual report an analysis of rural housing decisions, at appendix 5 of the 2006 report. The first 11 months of 2007 have shown an increase of 11% in rural housing cases decided, with first party appeals against refusal representing 62%, significantly up from 53% the previous year, and third party appeals representing 38%, down from 47%. It is also of note that a significantly higher proportion of appeals, almost 80%, are coming from areas under strong urban influence or stronger rural areas, with a declining number from the weaker areas.
Each year at the publication of our annual report I seek to draw attention to aspects of planning that are of concern to the board arising out of its work in dealing with appeals and other applications. This year, I made some comments in relation to unsustainable land zoning in local development plans, building heights, groundwater quality and the quest for more sustainable residential development. That completes my statement.
I appreciate the opening statement and the information supplied to us. Before I call Deputy Bannon, I wish to ask one question, as regards the additional information Mr. O'Connor supplied to us. It concerns the analysis of normal planning appeals decided by area in 2006 circulated to members at the commencement. I have some difficulty in understanding it, so perhaps Mr. O'Connor can take a moment, or somebody can explain it to me in detail later.
I believe the board dealt with approximately 5,000 cases last year. The report we get from the board deals with appeals from local authorities, the percentage number of cases upheld, varied or refused. However, the appeals going to An Bord Pleanála represent a combination of incidences where planning permission was refused or might have been granted in the first place. I do not see the information in the annual report and that is why we have this extra chart. Out of the 5,200 cases disposed of by the board in 2006, how many resulted in planning permissions being granted, and how many were refusals? If Mr. O'Connor wants to take a moment, he might be able to show me that.
Mr. John O’Connor
There is a table which the Chairman will find at appendix 1, page 35 of the report. That gives the overall picture as regards the outcome of appeals. Then one can look at the total number of appeals determined. These are percentages, not absolute figures.
The total number of appeals can be determined in two ways. They can be withdrawn or they can be invalid. They then fall out of the system and are otherwise disposed of. Going down through the mainline of the system one gets a figure for "formally decided"— cases in which the board makes a formal decision. One can see that in 75% of the cases submitted the board made a formal decision.
That is fine.
Mr. John O’Connor
The three boxes underneath that are broken down into three different categories of appeal. First, there is the appeal against conditions by first parties, the smallest group. That is where first parties are dissatisfied over the conditions attached to a permission, and they can appeal. These are the smallest and least significant of the categories.
The next category refers to appeals against refusals. That is where first parties, developers, are appealing against refusals of permission. One can see that this accounted for 45% of the permissions. The next category is concerned with appeals by third parties where permission is granted. That accounts for 47%. The figures in those boxes can be further broken down. In the case of first party appeals against refusal, for example, some 26% resulted in grants of permission. In effect, the local authority refusal was overturned in 26% of cases in relation to first parties appealing.
With regard to third parties, the permission granted figure is 56% and 43% of permissions were refused. In cases where local authorities granted permission and this was appealed by third parties, the permission stood in 56% of cases and fell in 43% of cases.
Mr. O'Connor has provided information on percentages. Can I have this information in actual numbers? If Mr. O'Connor does not have this information with him he can send it to the committee in written format afterwards. The percentages are 56% of 47%, of 75% of 100%. I do not know how many cases we are discussing.
Mr. John O’Connor
They are broken down for each county.
However, it does not detail totals. This is why I asked the question.
Mr. John O’Connor
Sorry.
I do not see a total on the bottom of the schedule.
Mr. John O’Connor
We do not put the absolute figures into the report.
Does Mr. O'Connor understand my question?
Mr. John O’Connor
Yes, I do.
The percentages are broken down but when it comes to the bottom line I do not know whether it involves four cases or 3,500 cases.
Mr. John O’Connor
We can provide the committee with those figures.
If the delegation has the information with them they can give it to us and if not I request that the absolute figures be sent in writing after the meeting. The delegation might be asked to supply other information also.
Mr. John O’Connor
That is no problem.
Does Mr. O'Connor understand my question in that it is a percentage of a percentage of a percentage?
Mr. John O’Connor
Yes.
I would like to have a concept of the 5,000 cases which go in and the 3,500 which are disposed of, how many resulted in permission being granted and permission being refused.
Mr. John O’Connor
We will provide the information.
Perhaps I am coming at it from a different perspective than the way the report is normally produced.
Mr. John O’Connor
That is fine. We will send on the information to the committee.
That is fine. I call Deputy Bannon.
I welcome members of the delegation to the meeting and compliment them on their informed presentation. The statement issued with the publication of the annual report indicates that even if land is zoned and has all the services, planning permission is not guaranteed. Will Mr. O'Connor clarify this?
Questions on membership of the board of An Bord Pleanála are often asked of public representatives. What is the urban rural mix on the board? I tried to obtain the birthplaces of board members on several websites. Members of the public, particularly in rural areas, believe it is made up of people who live in penthouses in the city. Do we have cross-country representation on the board? Can we be assured that no members of the board are members of other bodies which are fairly secretive in their behaviour, namely, An Taisce? Will the delegation elaborate on this? This issue is raised repeatedly and I want clarification for once and for all.
People hold the view that the planning regime is unjust and undemocratic. People have the right to build houses for their families in the rural areas in which they were born and, in many cases, where they have lived most of their lives. Many people move to cities for educational purposes and hope to return at some stage to live in the parish in which they were born. They have a great sense of pride and belonging to the parish. It is becoming more difficult for people to live in these rural areas.
I have no doubt the strict planning regulations are curtailing the decentralisation programme. It was planned to decentralise 10,000 jobs in the space of three years. During the past three years, fewer than 2,000 jobs were moved to rural areas because the planning system prevents people from returning to live in the rural communities in which they wish to live.
I come from a rural parish. We have serious problems fielding teams and many rural GAA clubs are amalgamating because people no longer live in the countryside. Griffiths' Valuations at the turn of the last century shows most rural townlands had double or treble the population then than they do now. Legislation should ensure we increase the population back to level it was at 100 years ago. The register of electors shows that certain townlands have no electors. This is becoming a problem in rural areas.
I have always held the view that we should have regional planning appeal boards. A view exists that the board is centred in Dublin and has a "Dublin knows best" mentality. Will the delegation elaborate on this?
Mr. John O’Connor
Deputy Bannon raised a number of topics and I will go through them as I recall them.
With regard to my comments on unsustainable land use zoning, on a daily basis the board comes across planning applications and decisions. Zoning is and must be a central part of the planning process. If zoning is done in a sustainable manner, proposers and land owners should be able to rely on it to secure development subject to the land being serviced. This is where we start. What worries me is that if zoning is not done in a sustainable manner and is clearly defective this basic assumption might not continue to apply. This damages the entire planning process because it reduces the credibility of development plans.
Where zoning is blatantly undesirable, such as the zoning of land in a flood plain, one must ask whether it causes a problem with regard to the entire zoning system. I was trying to make the point that local authorities, in particular elected members who have the final decision on matters, should be aware of making the right decisions and zoning in a sustainable manner. They should also be aware that if they do otherwise they damage the credibility of the system. We then end up with a development in accordance with zoning but other problems arise and we cannot grant permission.
I stated that the board will not be able to grant permission if a proposal is not in accordance with proper planning and sustainable development. In this situation a local authority could find itself liable to pay compensation. I wanted to highlight this so that if it happens nobody can state he or she assumed if land was zoned that permission would be obtained. This assumption cannot be made entirely. One should be able to do make the assumption but one cannot if the zoning is defective.
With regard to membership of the board, the website of An Bord Pleanála has a brief summary-----
May I interject? To cut to the chase, do Mr. O'Connor's words contain an implicit criticism of local authority members for zoning land which, in his opinion, should not have been zoned?
Mr. John O’Connor
I do not wish to broadbrush this matter too much.
Okay.
Mr. John O’Connor
However, there are well known cases where it happens and perhaps more than it used to. I want to tell people to think before they act because it has major implications. I do not wish to apply a broadbrush and state all local authority zoning is bad. Far from it. Most local authority zoning is fine and is done properly. However, some of it is marginal and people need to think about it.
Following on from Deputy Bannon, do we need to change the legislative provisions for how zoning is carried out?
Mr. John O’Connor
This is a different debate.
It is a policy issue and perhaps Mr. O'Connor does not wish to get into it.
Mr. John O’Connor
It is becoming topical and perhaps I will discuss it with the committee on a future date. I will leave what I stated stand for the moment.
I apologise for cutting across Deputy Bannon.
Mr. John O’Connor
I will respond to Deputy Bannon's other questions.
Before Mr. O'Connor does so, it should be noted that planners are frequently at fault in making recommendations to local authorities. The fault does not always lie with elected members of local authority. For example, I have known of cases involving flood plains where local authority members tried to overturn planners' recommendations and their views were not accepted by the planners. There is evidence of this is many areas. Local authority members are not always at fault.
Mr. John O’Connor
I apologise if I gave such an impression because it would be wrong to do so. I spoke about local authorities generically and stated that ultimately the legal responsibility for zoning decisions lies with elected members.
The qualifications of planners are also an issue on which I ask Mr. O'Connor to elaborate. I understand a number of employees of An Bord Pleanála are from outside the State, did not acquire their educational qualifications here and are not au fait with our planning system.
Mr. John O’Connor
They are all professional planners and all are trained to interpret development plans, national and regional policies and so forth.
My concern pertains to Ireland.
Mr. John O’Connor
We have, for the most part, a common planning system across these islands. There are many common threads across the systems.
There are also differences.
Mr. John O’Connor
Our systems and those of other countries are different species of the same genus. The employees in question are trained and An Bord Pleanála would not employ them if we did not believe they were trained and competent to interpret development plans and make sensible planning recommendations. As the Deputy is aware, An Bord Pleanála overturns recommendations in a certain percentage of cases. Our planners make recommendations, rather than decisions. The board makes decision and stands over them, a fact which should not be overlooked.
On Deputy Bannon's question about board membership. Details of the members of the board, including their curricula vitae and so forth, are available on An Bord Pleanála's website. In terms of the representational element of the board, an elaborate statutory system is in place for establishing panels for the appointment of members of the board. Membership must be spread over certain panels representing certain interests and members must be nominated by bodies within these panels. As part of the elaborate system of appointing board members, the Minister cannot appoint whoever he likes but makes appointments only after he has received nominations from the various qualified bodies set out in statute. The chairperson of the board is appointed through a different process. He or she is appointed by the Government following a recommendation from a special statutory committee chaired by the President of the High Court.
The Deputy asked whether it was possible for board members to belong to other bodies. I can give him an absolute assurance on that issue. Under the code of conduct of An Bord Pleanála, board members are not members of An Taisce or any similar organisation involved in promoting planning policies or similar matters. An Bord Pleanála has a strict code of conduct which I will ask the chief officer to supply to members to set their minds at rest. When members read the document, they will be assured that An Bord Pleanála decisions are made from the best of motives, irrespective of whether they are right or wrong.
The Deputy expressed concern about the fairness of the system in place for administering rural housing policy. As he will be aware, rural housing policy is set out in extensive ministerial guidelines introduced in 2005. These set out in a detailed, nuanced manner Government policy on housing in rural areas. If one examines the total numbers of rural houses being approved, it would be difficult to conclude that a very strict policy is in place. By my reckoning, 15,000 to 17,000 once-off rural houses are being built in the countryside every year. One would not find this in any other European country.
What is the figure?
Mr. John O’Connor
While I am not aware of a precise figure, from trying to deduce a figure from other statistics, I estimate that between 15,000 to 17,000 once-off houses are built each year.
That represents less than 20% of the 90,000 houses built last year. The other perspective is that one third of the population lives in rural areas, one third in small or medium size towns and one third in the major cities. If current trends continue, a smaller proportion of the overall population will live in rural areas.
Mr. John O’Connor
That is correct.
Mr. O'Connor appears to believe the number of one-off houses is high but it is low relative to the current population.
Mr. John O’Connor
It is certainly high in comparison with all other European countries. Whether it is high in absolute terms is another question.
An Bord Pleanála receives few appeals to decisions in these types of cases. Members will see from the figures provided that we receive approximately 600 appeals relating to rural housing each year, a relatively small number. An Bord Pleanála is not the main arbiter of the pattern of development in rural areas.
There are certain degrees of housing need. In areas under strong urban influence a more restrictive approach is taken than in weak rural areas. The type of areas the Deputy alluded to — those experiencing population decline and so forth — are weak rural areas and the policy governing them would not even require that a planning applicant have a connection with the local community. In these areas, the only requirement to secure permission for a house, assuming everything else is in order, would be that the house is intended for permanent occupation. Holiday homes would be curtailed somewhat.
When Deputy Bannon stated the decentralisation programme was being curtailed I was not sure if he was referring to An Bord Pleanálaor the planning system as a whole.
When people who wish to return to live in rural areas seek planning permission in a rural area or the parish in which they were raised, they experience difficulties securing planning permission. In such cases, when an appeal is lodged with An Bord Pleanála, it abides by the ruling of the local authority which may give as a reason for refusal such grounds as an over-concentration of septic tanks. In a recent case, the reason given was that the roof of the house for which planning had been sought could be spotted from the middle of a lake. This does not make sense.
Mr. John O’Connor
I cannot comment on the case as I am not aware of it. The guidelines and most development plans have fairly clear rules on the requirements to be met in terms of connection with the local community and so forth to obtain planning permission in a stronger rural area or an area under strong urban influence. It should be borne in mind that 80% of the cases submitted to An Bord Pleanála on appeal relate to areas already under pressure from density of development.
Deputy Bannon asked whether regional boards should be established. This is a matter for policymakers. An Bord Pleanála operates within a legislative framework and does its best to discharge the functions designated to it. It is a matter for the House to decide whether this is the best system for dealing with appeals. Generally speaking, however, An Bord Pleanála has been operating for 30 years and most commentators agree it has done a reasonably good job in terms of overall planning decisions.
I welcome the chairman and members of An Bord Pleanála to the joint committee. I will raise three issues relating to retention, the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 and the table set out in the appendix, respectively.
How many appeals are submitted to An Bord Pleanála following local authority decisions to refuse retention? Does the delegation have these figures to hand? The EU has issued a directive with regard to retention applications. As I understand it, the EU has outlawed such applications and the directive states that any future developments that come before county councils or An Bord Pleanála for which planning approval was not sought in the first instance, or where the building was built without approval, would be deemed illegal and no further approval would be granted. I am interested to know the status of this directive in Irish law.
The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 has a prominent part in An Bord Pleanála's report, with 68 applications coming under the Act. How many applications were refused strategic infrastructure status when they came before the board?
A point of note in the report, which I welcome, is that the board is granting an oral hearing in every case coming before it. This is wise considering that the public participation directive has not yet been implemented. Were it to be, it would require an oral hearing in every case, so by granting an oral hearing at this time, the board is probably saving itself from litigation down the line. Is this why oral hearings are being granted on these matters?
I note both the city and county of Cork are treated equally with regard to refusals. Some of the figures on the list referring to counties Cavan and Offaly are amazing. Some 61.6% of cases were overturned in County Cavan but only 19% in County Offaly. This suggests one of these counties is doing quite well in dealing with planning applications while the other is not doing such a good job. These figures are mirrored for applications granted. The two counties are the extremes and there is a band of results between them. However, the figures show inconsistency among local authorities given that such a broad dichotomy could occur. Will the chairman explain this? Is there a need for guidelines to ensure local authorities operate on a more even keel?
Mr. John O’Connor
On retention applications, I do not have figures in the annual report but I would be able to find figures for the total number of appeals regarding retention of development, given that we charge a higher fee for the first party. We will send the information to the committee as it might be of some assistance.
While I am not familiar with the EU directive, the EU is concerned not with run-of-the-mill smaller developments but with larger EIS-type developments, and it is these that have been the focus of any information we have received from Brussels. I have not received any direct communication on the directive. The law is in place. People can apply for retention at present and, in the first instance, it would be a matter for the Department to consider whether the legislation applies. However, while the legislation is as it stands, we have no choice but to consider applications. Where there is a large EIS-type development, its retention would be problematic in all sorts of ways and it would not be a route any developer would be advised to take.
With regard to the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006, there were 68 applications for pre-planning consultation, of which we have disposed of 27. Perhaps half of those were not deemed strategic and would go through the normal local authority planning process while we accepted the other half were strategic and that the applications for permission would be allowed to be made directly to the board. We made it clear from the outset that it is the policy of the board to hold oral hearings. It is not so much to avoid litigation, although it might have that benefit, but to give people the confidence that the system is an open, fair and transparent one. If people have something to say, they will have the chance to say it in writing, as well as later at an oral hearing. If they want to raise questions about issues, they can do so in the open. It is a question of being seen to have an even-handed approach and, as such, we are committed to holding oral hearings in the case of major projects.
There will be hearings in the four cases to which I referred, with three having already been arranged. One of the hearings will be held this week and another two will be held in January, with the final case, the Ringaskiddy case, being dealt with later.
The Deputy made an interesting comparison between counties Cavan and Offaly but I am not sure I can enlighten him in this regard. There have always been major differences between local authorities with regard to the rate at which decisions are overturned. It is an indicator of how well a planning authority is performing its functions. Each year the Department publishes a list of performance indicators for local authorities, in which the rate of reversal of decision is one of the key indicators. People are aware of this issue. It is noticeable, as staff move location, that one can see changes happening over the years. Perhaps there is something to be learned from this.
I thank the board and Mr. O'Connor for the presentation. With regard to the remarks on unsustainable land rezoning, I have concerns that such rezoning still happens. In his opening contribution, Mr. O'Connor stated that the board would not be deflected from refusing permission in such cases merely because the local authorities might be at risk of having to pay compensation arising from unjustifiable zoning. If land is rezoned, what legal powers does the board have to refuse permission?
If the board can turn down a project, why can the local authority not do so? Surely local authorities are bound by the same planning considerations as An Bord Pleanála. Why would a project go through the council and then have to be overturned by the board?
Why does compensation need to be paid? If the board overturns planning permission on grounds of, for example, a development being on a flood plain, why would the issue of compensation arise? Does An Bord Pleanála have a list of flood plains from which it can work? I am curious as to whether there is an overall view.
The tables provided contain an analysis of the county councils. Two councils have had 50% or more of planning application decisions reversed by the board, and another one is at a similar percentage but the board's decision has been varied. County Cavan has had 61.6% of application decisions reversed and the figure is 53.5% for County Donegal. Does this not suggest a problem in the system of those councils? Has this been taken up with them by the board given that more than half of their planning application decisions have been reversed by the board?
Mr. O'Connor stated that the board is being granted an increase in staff from 138 to 172. Will that be enough for what the board needs to do? Is he happy that the staff increase is sufficient?
Mr. John O’Connor
I will try to address some of those questions. As regards land rezoning, for a start, the board has the legal power to overturn permission if it is not in accordance with proper planning and sustainable development, even if it is in accordance with the zoning. That is quite clear. The council would have that power also, but obviously it is much more difficult for a council to go against its own zoning. It would present serious difficulties in terms of credibility if the elected members of the council decided, after some deliberations, to include a certain zoning, and the executive of the council refused it when somebody applied. That is a problem and that is why we have an independent board to deal with it, but there is no doubt about the board's legal powers to do it.
There would not necessarily be compensation because there are other non-compensatable reasons that could be adduced as well. Where there is a general presumption in favour of development, it is set out in zoning, which is basic to the planning system. Therefore unless there are other reasons coming into play and somebody is refused simply without recourse to those non-compensatable reasons which are set out in the legislation, then compensation could come into play. It is something that has gone on to the back burner in recent years, but there are still some circumstances in which compensation may be payable.
As regards a list of flood plains, much work is being done on mapping flood plains. My colleague may wish to say something on that.
Mr. Padraic Thornton
The Office of Public Works has quite a good website on which information concerning flood plains may be obtained. The board's inspectors have access to it and obtain information from it, and occasionally they would also engage specialist expertise to get an assessment of flood plain problems. The OPW website is very useful for getting information on this issue.
Mr. John O’Connor
Much good work is being done in this regard and information on flooding is much better than it used to be. A question was raised earlier about the diversity of performance by councils. I was asked whether the board had taken this up with the councils concerned but it would not really be our function to make decisions on these things. It would be a matter for the Department to follow up, having examined the information they get from us. It is part of the performance indicator system. I am sure the Department is conscious that there is a difference in performance among local authorities. It is not new and has been there for a long time.
I was also asked about staffing. We have received a significant increase in staffing. The submission we made on additional staffing for the strategic infrastructure Act was approved in full by the then Minister. At the moment, our focus is on getting the staff in and getting them up to speed.
I welcome Mr. O'Connor and team who are providing us with some information on how An Bord Pleanála does its business. We have received a fairly good insight as to how it operates. For my part, I had no idea how the board does its business. I would like to have clarification on a few matters in the report, including the contamination of ground water. I think Mr. O'Connor said that rural housing development was responsible for about 56% of contamination. I can see him shaking his head, so that figure must be wrong. Have I quoted him incorrectly?
Mr. John O’Connor
Does the Deputy want me to deal with that now?
Mr. John O’Connor
I referred to the fact that we are building a large number of rural houses every year, all of which are serviced by septic tanks. I also noted that the EPA report showed that 57% of ground water sampling points showed faecal contamination.
That is right.
Mr. John O’Connor
I did not say that rural housing was responsible for 56% of the pollution. I said there were two facts. On the one hand, 15,000 to 17,000 septic tanks are being added every year. Also, the EPA report found an overall deterioration in ground water, with quite a high figure, 57% of sampling locations with faecal coliforms. I then raised the question as to whether there is a connection and if is it something we should address.
Perhaps I read it wrong and I apologise if I did so.
Mr. John O’Connor
The Deputy is not the only one who has got that wrong.
Can I take it that we have decided that 17,000 one-off houses are built in the country, because Mr. O'Connor referred to that figure?
Mr. John O’Connor
Yes.
So we are happy that it is 17,000.
Mr. John O’Connor
That is a rough figure. There is a lack of research on the actual number.
It is very important.
Mr. John O’Connor
Sometimes it is difficult to know whether a house is in a settlement or in a rural area; the dividing line may not be clear. In some counties they have control points on the road out of a town and matters within that are not regarded as being rural. It is quite a difficult thing to pin down.
It is an important point, however. From my prior experience as a councillor, I know that whether it is a reconstruction or a house that is being done, they are all put into the one category.
Mr. John O’Connor
No.
The figures I received from my local council suggest that is so, although An Bord Pleanála may do it differently.
Mr. John O’Connor
In any figures, I would not talk about replacement dwellings. I would talk about additional separate dwelling units in the countryside.
I would dispute the figure of 17,000 because I cannot see where they are. It does not make any sense to me. Forty or 50 years ago when sewage or waste water was not treated to the same standard, we had many more houses in the country. There is no doubt about that and the ruins are still there today. I do not know how they were able to drink a drop of water at that time if that was the case.
Mr. John O’Connor
I do not know how many gallons of water a household uses now. I come from a place not too far from the Deputy, but one cannot compare for a second the amount of water households are using today with what we used on a farm in those years.
That is just one point that I feel strongly about. My home town where I was born and raised is Skibbereen, which still does not have a treatment plant. We are really dwelling on the effect Mr. O'Connor's statement had in pinpointing local authorities as culprits in granting permission for many of these one-off houses. Mr. O'Connor is clarifying that for me now.
Mr. John O’Connor
To put this in context, I was not saying that we should put a stop to rural house building. I said we need to be aware of this because it is quite possible that in years to come, if our groundwater continues to deteriorate, we will be subject to EU action under the water framework directive. There are all sorts of strict EU regulations on water quality. I am calling on people to be conscious of this issue.
I want to get clarification on this. Is Mr. O'Connor saying that the new systems in place for treating waste water, including bio-cycle treatment plants, are ineffective? People are spending a great deal of money on them, but in essence if it means those systems are not working maybe we need to re-examine them.
Mr. John O’Connor
The board's deputy chairman is an engineer, I will ask him to address that question.
Mr. Brian Hunt
All systems are only as good as the maintenance provided for them. One of the major issues with individual systems is that they should continue to be maintained. This is a difficulty and there is much evidence of such difficulties. The old system, including cesspits and later septic tanks, was a passive one. These new systems are modern, active, and electrically or mechanically operated. For that reason they need proper maintenance every year, which is a difficulty. There is a risk element in it therefore.
It is important that people understand the level of risk of pollution from the proliferation of such systems. In many areas, the ground is not suitable for the disposal of the effluent from these systems, even allowing for the higher quality of effluent provided by them. A large percentage of our refusals in rural areas relates to drainage problems and directly to evidence on the file which states the soil is not suitable for the disposal of the effluent. It is the amalgam of all those things.
We are being given wrong information on these systems. The people who make, sell and install them could nearly fill a glass from what comes out of them. Are we being led up the garden path?
Mr. Brian Hunt
Systems are becoming more complicated and every system is only as good as its maintenance regime. If it is a complex system, it needs maintenance and this leads to difficulties
Does Mr. Hunt believe conditional planning would resolve that?
Mr. Brian Hunt
As I have said, these lead to difficulties.
Mr. John O’Connor
I referred to the question of conditional planning. I said it was not good enough to grant permission unless the local authority had established that the site was capable of dealing with the drainage satisfactorily. It is not good enough to put in a condition that tests must be carried out after the granting of the permission to see if the site is good enough to take the discharge. I made that point and tried to alert local authorities to the need to be sure tests are properly carried out and, furthermore, that the tests carried out and submitted are not fake. It is quite common for us to come across evidence of tests which do not match the ground conditions our inspector sees on site.
This is a very serious problem and statement. Mr. O'Connor said the tests being carried out by the local authorities-----
Mr. John O’Connor
Some of the tests are not reliable.
In County Laois, the local authority carries out the tests. Private contractors are not allowed to do so because they have a vested interest in passing the site. Let us be blunt about it.
Mr. John O’Connor
County Laois is unique.
Are these tests being carried out by local authorities across the country?
Mr. John O’Connor
No.
I would have far more confidence in a test carried out by a local authority official who has no interest in whether a development goes ahead and has no beneficial interest in progressing a planning application. The person drawing up the plans may have a vested interest in getting the house built. We need to remove soil condition tests from those with a vested interest in the application. Only council officials, who come out promptly, do this in County Laois and a person must pay €150 to the council. Is that not the case nationwide?
Mr. John O’Connor
No.
I am very concerned. Some technicians doing the tests might not have adequate qualifications, and it is a bit of a hit and miss job if there is not a uniform system in place.
Mr. John O’Connor
The Chairman has made my point.
I thought all local authorities did this. I believe they should do so.
It is a serious problem.
Perhaps I am disagreeing with Deputy Christy O'Sullivan's point of view.
No. The Chairman is agreeing with my point. As Mr. O'Connor said, the tests being carried out are not up to standard.
Mr. John O’Connor
Some tests are not up to standard. Not every test is-----
That is as strong as one can put it. That is a very serious statement to make. The council officials and local authorities are granting these planning permissions. What we are saying here is that the assessment of the ground is not being carried out properly.
If the board has evidence to suggest that, it should write to county managers or otherwise to draw attention to this. Perhaps it does so.
Mr. John O’Connor
We do not do so because it is not our function. We are independent adjudicators of planning decisions. It is not our function to get involved. As I said in my opening statement, each year I try to draw attention to a few things which cause us concern. It is really for others to follow up on those issues.
A very important point has come up.
I would like to see rural renewal because we have seen rural decay for long enough. We want to see people coming back to live in the country and contribute to the local community. Mr. O'Connor said that if a person is going to live permanently in an area, he or she should be accommodated if a site is suitable.
Mr. John O’Connor
That is provided it is not one of the areas under urban pressure.
Perhaps Mr. O'Connor will clear that up for me.
Mr. John O’Connor
In the guidelines brought out in 2005, the then Minister set out fairly detailed policy on the requirements in regard to settlement and one-off rural housing. There are basically four categories of areas. The first area is called "an area under strong urban influence"— in other words, the overspill from cities, big towns and so forth where there is much ribbon development and pressure for development. Most of the one-off appeals we get come from those types of areas. The next category is the stronger rural area where there is no population decline or otherwise and the area is doing quite well. There would also be a requirement that one would have a local connection with the area to get planning permission for a house. The third category is the weaker rural area, which is showing decline and so forth. The fourth category is the dispersed settlement area along the seaboard where there is a tradition of a dispersed pattern of development. We get very few appeals in regard to the latter two categories.
What is Mr. O'Connor's interpretation of a "local connection" because it varies?
Mr. John O’Connor
That is spelled out in the guidelines. Most local development plans set down their rules which generally have been taken from the guidelines. They set out their own rules in respect of cases in which they will grant permission in terms of a rural generated housing need.
That is very serious because in some instances, one must be from the local townland. The parish does not even come into it. It is very narrow. I do not know if it is the same in every county council or local authority area.
Mr. John O’Connor
It would not be exactly the same but they would all take their policies from the national guidelines. They must have regard to them. While they would not be exactly the same in every area, there would be a great deal of commonality among the policies.
I am talking about one off rural housing. I come from a rural constituency, so Mr. O'Connor will understand why I raise the rural scene. I have seen instances where an inspector has gone through an application with a fine-tooth comb and recommended that it should be granted but where the board has turned it down. It is different in the case of a development but I am worried about instances where the board rejects an application for one off housing.
Mr. John O’Connor
The board must give its reasons and considerations in general terms. More particularly, where it disagrees with the inspector's recommendation, it must state why. That information can be gleaned from any file. Anyone can look at the website, see what the inspector recommended, what the board decided and if it differed, the reason it did so. That information is available. Sometimes people jump to conclusions and do not read the reasons carefully. More often than not, the board overturns a refusal. I would guess that is more common than the other way around in terms of these rural houses.
If an inspector makes a decision on one off housing, it should be granted. Perhaps I am not close enough to the issue.
Mr. John O’Connor
The board carries final responsibility for the decision. In most cases, the inspector's recommendation is followed but it is not in a minority of cases. Where the board does not do so it must be clear on the reason.
To follow up on what Deputy O'Sullivan spoke about, last year the board overturned 554 appeals on the inspector's report. That is not a major amount in that 4,000 appeals went before the board but I have great belief in the foot soldiers, the people who go out to the site to examine it, and I am always concerned when the foot soldiers' decisions are overturned by people who have not seen the site.
Regarding the planning authority in Kildare, 207 appeals went before the board and in approximately 76% of those the board either reversed the decision or altered it. That is a fairly high number.
Regarding what was said earlier about the involvement of public representatives in development plans, local area plans, etc., I have much experience of doing those plans. The plan is first written by the officials, presented to the councillors, discussed, mainly in private, by the officials and the councillors, some minor alterations are made to it and it is then put before the full council for approval but approximately 99% of the final plan is what appeared in the original draft. It is the easy way out for officials to say it is the members' plan when in reality it is the officials and the managers' plan, and they should carry the can for errors that may be contained in it.
I would like to hear the representatives' comments on wind farms. I am in favour of wind farms, which I accept are a necessity, but they are a blight on the countryside when they are erected on hills, mountains and so on. There are a substantial number of wind farms in County Cavan. Also, they are a nuisance to people living in rural areas because they emit a continuous sound or vibration.
In the decision on a number of appeals dealt with by the board, it deleted the community gain the council put on the original planning permission. I do not know the reason for that but it is often the case. It is put there by the local authority because there is a need for it but when the board is making a decision it often does away with it.
I do not know how the board classifies my area of Kildare but I read a document produced as part of a partnership which stated that the area I represent is more disadvantaged than parts of County Mayo. I cannot recall any case of an application for a one-off house being returned with a favourable decision from the board. They have all been turned down, at least all the ones with which I have been involved. Many appeals to the board are made by third parties, not because of the visual impact on the countryside or something else that might appear reasonable but because of some interaction between local parties.
Most of the debate today was about rural housing and having listened to the interaction between the officials and this committee, I believe rural housing soon will be a thing of the past if we are to comply with all the different regulations the board representatives mentioned earlier. The quality of water in Kildare is excellent but it is a different story when it comes to applications for one-off houses. At county council level there is a reasonably good response to rural housing but once the applications go before the board, they do not come back with a favourable decision.
While public representatives have to go before the public to be re-elected, officials are like birds — they fly in and fly out and read the Irish Independent on a Wednesday to look for their next job. I have a great deal of respect for the views of public representatives but I sometimes believe that if a letter from me is on a planning file, that letter is of no benefit to the applicant when it goes to the board.
On that point, when a case goes from the local authority to the board everything in the planning file goes with it, including the full objections and representations from public representatives, but I understand the board asks for specific information rather than the entire file and that the board may not even see some of the representations.
Mr. John O’Connor
In my experience we would see many of the representations in many cases. I cannot vouch for the fact that every local authority always sends the representations but under the new regime, where the €20 has to be paid, most planning reports will have representations from either a private individual, a public representative or whatever. In my experience most of the planning reports will list whether local representatives or other people have expressed an interest of support or an objection.
On that point, we can all quote cases from our own local authority but I presume it is a uniform system nationwide. There are representations and submissions on the planning files-----
Mr. John O’Connor
Do not assume there is uniform planning; it is not necessarily uniform planning countrywide.
I accept that but I am aware there is a section on the file and on the computer screen to which the public has access where public representatives can make representations and then there are the formal submissions that accompany a fee. A distinction is made in that regard by local authorities. Is that done across the board or does the board just receive the paid submission?
Mr. John O’Connor
I frequently see it on files on a daily basis but in terms of the documents, I am not sure whether they are statutorily required to supply them to the board.
Mr. Paul Mullally
I do not believe that is the case. I understand it is only those representations that have been made in accordance with the regulations where there is a fee. I do know if the other ones come with the file. Public representatives would make submissions to us on an informal basis to ascertain the status of an appeal and request that it be speeded up.
Mr. John O’Connor
In many cases we see the involvement of local public representatives, although not in all cases.
He could not possibly comment on that.
Mr. John O’Connor
Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned wind farms. There are planning guidelines on the way wind farms should be dealt with. Many local authorities now have what we could call search areas, in other words, they have indicated in their plans areas where wind farms would be preferred to keep them out of the more sensitive locations. That is progress.
On the nuisance aspect, the board takes a reasonably strict view of the potential for nuisance in terms of noise, shadows flicking and so on that could be caused. We apply a fair standard in terms of keeping them distant from dwelling houses. Wind farms are a desirable renewable energy resource and they should be exploited in accordance with national policy but we try to balance that against the negative impacts they might have on the residential amenity of individual householders.
I was surprised to hear Deputy Fitzpatrick say the board tends to delete community gain from its decisions. I would be a strong advocate of community gain and where a community is asked to accept some form of infrastructure at some cost to the area that there would be entitled to look for some form of compensation in terms of community gain. The legislation in this regard was strengthened considerably in the 2006 Act. Legal difficulties have arisen in cases and the board might have found it to be illegal to impose the condition, but generally as a matter of policy where the board can do so, it is favourably disposed to supporting local authorities where they try to secure community gain in regard to certain developments.
I welcome the chairman of the board and his team to the meeting. The information I have heard has been most helpful and this opportunity to speak to the chairman is valuable.
Like Deputy Bannon, I come from a rural community in east Galway. I grew up in an area where I considered people who lived four to six miles away to be my nearest and dearest neighbours and friends. I now live in a community where an under-11 hurling team came home victorious from the Community Games last year. To see people from the four corners of our parish converge on the team to congratulate them on their efforts was unique, but there may not be that sense of community in other countries. It is valuable to me and something we should hold dear and be intent on ensuring we do not lose.
An accusation was levelled at the board that there is a definite agenda against that type of dispersed rural community and in particular the development of one-off rural houses. When I see these statistics before me I am led to believe that agenda may have some foundation in real terms. I note the refusal rate nationally by the board on decisions from local authorities on all developments is an average of 32.8% across the country. Is that correct?
Mr. John O’Connor
The Senator is quoting the figure of local authority decisions reversed.
Mr. John O’Connor
Those are not refusals, they could comprise a reversal from a grant to refusal or it could be a reversal from a refusal to a grant.
Does the chairman have a statistic for the general refusal rate for all developments throughout the country?
Mr. John O’Connor
Yes, that figure is set out in the table in the appendix to the report. From memory, 54% of decisions were refused. The Senator probably does not have the annual report.
I have.
Mr. John O’Connor
If he checks appendix 1, page 35, he will note the overall outcome in the box at the bottom left-hand corner of the table.
It was 54%.
I thank the chairman of the board forproviding figures on one-off rural houses,which are interesting. I note the refusal rate is73% to 74%. That leads me to believe that perhaps there is an agenda against dispersed rural housing if the national refusal rate is approximately 50% and the refusal rate pertaining to rural houses is 74% to 75%. I concur somewhat with what the chairman of the board said regarding the suggestion that the board operates along the guidelines on one-off rural housing issued by the Government more than two years ago, but I cannot figure out how professional planners operating in local authorities are also operating from the same guidelines. They see fit to grant these applications taking into consideration the guidelines and, as the chairman of the board said, the best principles of planning and sustainable development, but he can then say that 74% of those decisions purely pertaining to one off housing were incorrect. I would like him to comment on that.
Deputy Bannon suggested that a considerable number of outside inspectors were used. Some of them come from this country but others come elsewhere in Europe and further afield. I question in particular the ability of those who come from outside this country to assess planning appeals for one-off rural houses. The chairman of the board said a while ago that planning permission is granted for 17,000 to 18,000 one-off rural houses every year and that this was unique to Ireland compared to the rest of Europe. We have a unique situation where we have a large but, unfortunately, diminishing rural community, yet we have planners from countries who have no experience of that sort of development adjudicating on decisions on one-off rural houses.
In my previous job I had many opportunities to visit France in particular. One can drive or cycle, as I did, from Brittany in northern France all the way down to the Pyrenees and I have yet to see a single one-off rural house being built in that countryside. On that route, one passes villages, then green fields and a few kilometres further on another village. What we have in Ireland is unique. I question the ability or professionalism of a planner who has no experience of this unique situation to be able to adjudicate on decisions on one-off rural houses.
Deputy Bannon also raised the question of how representative is the board of Irish society. Most criminal cases are tried in front of a jury which is supposed to be representative of Irish society as a whole. I question how representative of our society is the membership of the board. I agree with the chairman of the board that this is not an issue for him because he is working within the parameters of the legislation provided. While he may not offer an opinion on this matter, what groups that represent the views of rural Ireland or what voice has rural Ireland among the membership of board?
I wish to ask a question that pertains uniquely to County Galway in my constituency. Galway County Council and its councillors brought forward a planning policy recently, which was included in our last development plan more than four years ago, for the establishment of a number of settlement centres around the county. This was in conjunction with the guidelines, as issued by the Minister. This perhaps is a half-way point between full urban development and fully dispersed one-off rural housing developments. These are developments in small villages with three or four tiers or levels of development allowed in each village.
It has been the practice of the board in the past year or so to begin to refuse permission for small developments of perhaps six to ten houses in such settlement centres, which goes against the grain of what is considered best planning practice by the planners in the council and what is very much supported by the representatives on the council. I know of two such developments, one comprising eight houses and another ten houses, that were refused in a settlement centre, one to be located next to a national school and a church. Such developments represent an effort by the local authority to perhaps move towards settlement centres and from dispersed rural settlements, with which I do not wholeheartedly agree, although there is some merit in them. It seems that decisions on such developments are appealed to the board and that it seems to refuse them, which is at variance with the planning policy as agreed by the planners and the representatives on Galway County Council and with national planning policy on settlement centres.
Mr. John O’Connor
The Senator raised a number of points. I will not disagree with him that hurling teams coming home with a championship is unique, which is something with which I am familiar.
In terms of the board having an agenda against any form of development, a dispersed pattern or otherwise, that is not correct. The board's job is to implement and apply policy in cases that come before it on appeal. It does not have a policy as such, nor is entitled to have one. Its job is to interpret and apply policy and make a decision on individual cases based on its interpretation of the policy.
The Senator pointed to the higher refusal rate in the case of third party appeals in rural areas. That is true, the rate is higher than for developments generally. In terms of the number of houses being built, very few third party appeals come to us, as the Senator will note from the figures. We receive only a few hundred appeals out of thousands about which we are talking.
The tendency for people to make third party appeals in respect of one-off houses is very low. A view pertained in recent years that An Taisce made a large number of appeals to the board, but that was not true. The number of appeals made by An Taisce now is very few.
The appeals against rural housing we tend to receive are usually from neighbours worried about their water supply. That is a common reason for appeals. A person might give notice of his or her intention to build and put a septic tank in the field next to a neighbour which might be close to his or her water supply. The neighbour is perfectly entitled to appeal that planning application and have its impact assessed independently. I do not believe anyone would advocate that a neighbour would not have that right. Concern about water supply is a common reason people appeal a planning application. There is an increased awareness of the impact of private individual septic tanks on water quality.
The Senator repeated comments about the inspectorate, which I dealt with. It is unfair on professional inspectors who not alone are properly trained but also attend our induction course before they can make recommendations on appeals. What is more, each of the reports submitted by fee-per-case inspectors, as we call them, must go through our own management planners in the organisation. Therefore, they are not left on their own to do what they like; they fit into a defined system with clear controls, checks and balances.
As regards the make-up of the board, all I can say is I come from a small farm in north Cork and know exactly what the Senator is talking about.
I appreciate that.
Mr. John O’Connor
The other members can speak for themselves. The settlement centres in Galway were also mentioned. Although the Senator did not say so, I would like to know what reasons were given by the board for refusing these centres. Generally, if something is designated as a settlement centre, there is a presumption that there will be development there.
It, effectively, stated the village was not ready to be designated a settlement centre.
No sewerage.
No. We have many settlements without sewerage and probably will have for the next 20 or 30 years. However, the board stated that in its opinion the village should never have been designated as a settlement centre in the first place. That was the principal reason.
Mr. John O’Connor
It stated it should not have been designated as a settlement centre?
Mr. John O’Connor
I am sorry, I am not aware of that case. Was Mr. Hunt aware of it?
Mr. Brian Hunt
No. There are difficulties with sewerage facilities in settlements.
I would say 75% of the settlement centres in County Galway do not have sewerage facilities.
Mr. Brian Hunt
Yes. Those are the difficulties that have been identified. I will not say County Galway has unique problems, but it clearly has identified ground water problems. Many areas in the county are not called "Turlough-something" for no reason.
Mr. John O’Connor
We have granted permission in some of them.
The board has, yes.
Mr. John O’Connor
There is a system, whereby a certain number of population units are allocated to each settlement centre.
That is correct.
Mr. John O’Connor
We pay a lot of attention to this.
It is the first ever development in each of these settlement centres — one comprising eight houses and the other, ten. Both were refused.
Mr. John O’Connor
I would be surprised if we second guessed the authority in saying it should not be designated as a settlement centre. If we were to do that, I would not be happy.
I have a few specific questions for Mr. O'Connor who might talk to us about development levies. Local authorities have an improved scheme but at official level are now adding special levies here, there and everywhere unbeknownst to the elected members and the general public until someone receives an extra levy for €5,000 on top of the development levy. I understand the board tends to reject a number of these special levies, unless they are part of the approved scheme.
Mr. O'Connor referred to rural housing. Does this refer to house design as well as the physical location of the house on the site? People now want to build houses that would be considered more environmentally friendly, perhaps facing in a number of directions to get the value of the sun, yet the local authority may state it is not a traditional house design for a rural area. However, house designs that local authorities may consider appropriate for a country area are not in keeping with the changing times in terms of climate control. Mr. O'Connor may wish to comment on that matter.
Is there a significant difference as between part-time inspectors and fee-per-case inspectors, or is the position consistent?
Mr. John O’Connor
There is a difference, but it is not very significant.
Percolation is a bone of contention for every public representative in rural Ireland. Mr. O'Connor can tell me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that all these bio-cycles, which companies are selling, might help to purify but they do not reduce the output volume. If drainage is inadequate those systems do nothing to improve site drainage. Perhaps Mr. Hunt, who is an engineer, can confirm that. Members of the public seem to think that because they are putting in such systems they should get it even if the percolation is bad, but they do not improve percolation on the site. It might improve the quality of output from the system but one is still getting the same volume. That is one of the biggest misunderstandings that members of the public have because they think these systems solve everything.
Page 22 of the annual report refers to projects that go to An Bord Pleanála from local authorities. According to the report, the board made 60 decisions from proposals submitted by local authorities, of which 11 were refused and 49 were granted with conditions. The bottom line is that of the 60 schemes submitted by various local authorities, An Bord Pleanála approved only 25 of them without variation. That seems to indicate that, in the first place, highly professional people in local authorities are not bringing up their schemes to the board's standards. I know the board approved some of them with modifications but if a number of these large projects are refused and others are seriously modified, it calls into question the best expertise available to local authorities. We may talk about why there are so many refusals, yet when local authorities' decisions on thousands of applications are put to the test by submitting 60 to An Bord Pleanála, the percentage pass rate is not inspiring from the board's viewpoint. Mr. O'Connor may care to comment on the nature of those decisions. Why does the board feel the need to refuse or modify the majority of local authority projects? Surely local authorities should know the board's thinking and get the projects right in the first place.
Mr. John O’Connor
The Chairman is exaggerating the figures slightly.
I am reading An Bord Pleanála's figures.
Mr. John O’Connor
No. When we say "modification", supposing one has a compulsory purchase order—
It might be minor.
Mr. John O’Connor
When it goes to the hearing it may be agreed that we do not need this much land from this man.
Okay.
Mr. John O’Connor
That would be down to the modification.
A minor matter.
Mr. John O’Connor
One could not fault anyone for that, by and large. Perhaps Mr. Thornton could comment on that.
Mr. Padraic Thornton
A significant number of the modifications would be issues that were agreed with the local authority or which, following an oral hearing and having listened to the objections, the local authority itself had agreed that modification should be made. They often arise from the process of holding an oral hearing. The modifications listed would sometimes be of that nature and sometimes the board would obviously appeal that and some additional modifications might be required.
Eleven of the 60 were still refused by An Bord Pleanála. Could Mr. O'Connor cast some light on those?
Mr. John O’Connor
I would have no hesitation in saying that, generally speaking, the submissions we get for infrastructural projects from local authorities are well done. Since these were submitted to the board from 2001 onwards, there has been a noticeable improvement in the quality of applications, compared to the old system whereby they went to the Department. Under the board's system, all local authorities realise they have got to make applications stand up to independent scrutiny. I would like to put the Chairman's mind at rest as regards the concerns he has expressed because it is not a big issue.
Not as severe as it looks.
Mr. Padraic Thornton
Some of the local authority projects may be derelict site cases and by the time they come to the board something may have been done to resolve the issue. Accordingly, the board would not consent to the acquisition as the problem may have been resolved by the time the board is dealing with the case.
Have many CPO cases for derelict sites gone to the board? They are only starting to come in.
Mr. John O’Connor
No.
Mr. Padraic Thornton
Not in big numbers. We are still talking about relatively small numbers in the overall 11.
At least local authorities are taking their functions seriously in putting in compulsory purchase orders for derelict sites.
Mr. Padraic Thornton
Yes, we do get a number of them.
I am sorry for that digression, Mr. O'Connor. I mentioned a few other points also.
Mr. John O’Connor
I will go back to the points made about development contribution schemes and special levies. I recognise what was said. The system is open and transparent, so if somebody wants to carry out development, by and large, he or she should know by reading the development contribution scheme what he or she will have to pay up front. When the developer is doing his or her calculations on the viability of the project, he or she should know. The development contribution scheme should bring clarity to that matter.
The special levies are quite restrictive. They must be special and deal with a specially identified project which is necessary to facilitate the development. One would not expect widespread special levies because they would not be special if they were. They should be related to the particular development in question and to particular projects as well.
The third form of levy is a supplementary development contribution scheme where, for example, a major new infrastructure project arises in the area. The council can pass a supplementary development contribution scheme and developers will have to pay that. My experience is that sometimes local authorities have opted for special levies when they should have had a supplementary contribution development scheme for major work which was not included in the main scheme.
Mr. O'Connor might go through that again for the benefit of the public. There are general, special and supplementary levies. I can see how people are getting confused.
Mr. John O’Connor
There is the standard development contribution scheme which is adopted by the elected members of every local authority. That is facts based. It must be based on an assessment of the infrastructure spend in the area over a given period. It must also be related to the amount of development expected and so forth. How much one pays per dwelling or square metre of development is then worked out. That is clear. There is the special levy where there is something special to do. For example, if a developer is outside the remit of the sewerage scheme and a special pipe is required, a special levy can be charged.
Is it so much per housing unit, for example?
Mr. John O’Connor
Yes. Usually it must be apportioned because there is more than one housing scheme. By and large, the special levy should be a good deal smaller than the general one. There should not be a situation where the special levy exceeds the general contribution. That would be a subversion of the scheme as intended.
Where a major infrastructural project comes on stream, such as a major rail project, the Luas, the metro, etc., there is a provision where the council can pass a special development contribution to part fund these schemes. That is the third scheme, namely, the supplementary development scheme.
Let us say there is a proposal for a ringroad or an orbital route around a town, is the extra couple of thousand euro per housing unit set as a contribution to a fund for a ring road a supplementary or a special levy?
Mr. John O’Connor
If the ringroad is in the development plan, it should be in the main scheme and in the development contribution.
Perhaps some local authorities are a bit remiss in that department.
Mr. John O’Connor
I would not disagree with the Chairman.
I would like clarification. I am interested in that because I know of two applications before the board where the developer agreed to build and pay for a road as part of his planning application but third parties objected to it. Is Mr. O'Connor saying that should not be there?
Mr. John O’Connor
No. That is okay if the developer agrees to build the road. If he builds a road that is in excess of the requirements of his scheme, then he is entitled to get back the excess expenditure over the road required for his scheme. If the developer agrees to put in a road or part of one, that is not a problem. That can be done, although usually one will then find there is some adjustment in the terms of the levy. Some local development schemes have a provision whereby there can be an offset against that in terms of the overall levy.
There is an adjustment. As far as I know, the local authority wants him to build the road first and then it will let him build the houses.
Mr. John O’Connor
That can be done. It is not a problem.
If a developer wants to bring a new sewage or water pipe to an area and there is a contribution, sometimes he will lay the pipe on the basis that he will get a contribution back from further development.
Mr. John O’Connor
Yes.
In some cases, his contribution will only be a portion of the cost. The local authority may not be ready to proceed with its element of the cost because it does not have the funds.
Mr. John O’Connor
That can be worked out locally. The system is pretty flexible in that regard.
We have a had full and useful discussion on the 2006 report and on several other items related to it. I thank Mr. John O'Connor and his colleagues for joining us this afternoon. I also thank the members of the committee. Planning will always be an issue close to the hearts of most public representatives. I have no doubt we will meet again in regard to further annual reports or issues of relevance to the committee.