Senator Conroy made a very good case for implementing amendments, Nos. 7 and 9. He pointed out how extremely complicated and complex the whole system was, especially when an EIS is involved. He even spoke about the time it took to get an EIS. He said that if there was a request for further information it might require up to six months work. The general thrust of his comments underlines the problems and the complications for the Planning Appeals Board.
The latest figures I have are from the 1989 Bord Pleanála report according to which only 15 per cent of cases took more than six months; the majority of cases are dealt with expeditiously and satisfactorily. Only a small number, presumably the more complicated, take longer. Environmental impact studies are relatively new. The board's annual report says that many appeals are probably cases that have raised difficult issues at local level arising from the implementation of the provisions of the development plan, the protection of amenities and the need to reconcile proposals with the proper planning and development of the area. A number raise contentious third party issues. These cases by their nature require more time for processing and careful consideration, a factor which is sometimes overlooked in criticisms of the system. I think that is something we must bear in mind.
When an application is made to the local authority, one applicant makes that application to those who have power to grant it or refuse it. Third parties are rarely involved at that stage because they are probably satisfied that the local authority is either going to grant or refuse the application, as the case may be. They only come in when they are dissatisfied with the decision given by the local authority. The Planning Appeals Board has to deal with the local authority, the applicant and possibly a third party appellant. The whole operation is extremely complex and sometimes it is further complicated by the fact that planners make changes in the application between the time it goes to the local authority and the time it goes to the Planning Appeals Board.
The unfortunate outsider — and the third party is really an outsider — has great difficulty in finding out exactly what is the nature of those changes and what is the nature of the application that is going to be considered by the Appeals Board. That even happens on occasions when you go into an oral hearing. I have had the experience of going into an oral hearing and finding the carpet almost completely pulled from under me because the developer had submitted a substantially different set of plans from those which went to the local authority.
I am making these remarks in response to Senator Howard. I do not want to be seen as somebody who is making a case for the Appeals Board because nobody has pushed as hard as I have for the Planning Appeals Board to get its act together and get the decisions out in reasonable time. I would like to see the board become efficient and speed things up while being able to take time, trouble and care over the important decisions. As the Minister has so rightly said, those decisions are very important for the future of the country.
I would like to make a brief reference to the Culliton report which addressed the issue of a more efficient infrastructure. The report said that "concern for the environment should be addressed by the Government in a positive proactive rather than a negative reactive way." That is really all we are trying to do on this side of the House. We are trying to be positive and address these issues so that in the long run there should be more consultation and consensus at an early stage between the developer and the planning authority to avoid the necessity to have appeals at all. That should be our aim but that is not, unfortunately, helped by the confrontational nature of our political system which thrives on confrontation and which seems to abhor consensus. We had an extraordinary situation last week, which was interesting to see, when the four parties got together. Perhaps that is a sign of things to come but I must not deviate.
The Culliton report also says:
Sites for particular types of industry with unique physical planning requirements should be selected in advance, on a national basis as necessary, and the infrastructure required planned in advance to meet the environmental requirements of both the industries concerned and the local planning authorities.
I understand what is meant by that is that these will not require planning permission. Coupled with what I heard from Senator Conroy, that makes me extremely anxious and apprehensive about the road on which we are going. If you tend to alienate, exclude and make things difficult for those who have a genuine concern for and an authentic interest in the environment, architectural heritage or whatever, what happens is that they put on the boxing gloves and get into a confrontation. That should be avoided. I would be interested to know if the Minister agrees.
The Minister mentioned a TD who said he waited until the last moment to put in his appeal and waited until the last moment to ask for an oral hearing. I have no doubt there are some isolated incidents of that. However, I have dealt for 20 years with residents' associations and other community bodies and I have found them to behave in an extremely responsible manner. The Minister and the Government have no special understanding of the problems of unemployment and the social consequences. I can tell the Minister that in my electoral area those concerns are extremely high. If a residents' association or some other community group make the hard decision to lodge an appeal which may prevent certain jobs from coming to their area, they do not do it lightly. They certainly do not want the development to go by default. They want the process to be speeded up. We should not presume that everybody has a "not in my back garden" attitude. The Minister knows as well as I do that the board has the facility to deal with vexatious or frivolous appeals and to deal with them expeditiously.
It is in the context of those remarks that I would like the Minister to consider these amendments.