I move amendment No. 20:
In page 7, lines 31 to 39, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"(1) (a) An appeal shall consist of a notice of appeal and a statement of the full grounds of the appeal,
(b) the notice of appeal shall be submitted before the expiration of the appropriate period.
(c) the statement of the full grounds of the appeal shall be submitted within two months of the date of publication of the planning authority decision,
(d) A notice of appeal shall—
(i) be made in writing
(ii) state the name and address of the appellant
(iii) state the subject matter of the appeal
(iv) be accompanied by such fee (if any) as may be payable in respect of such appeal in accordance with regulations under section 10 of the Act of 1982.
(e) The statement of the full grounds of the appeal shall state in full the grounds of the appeal and the reasons, considerations and arguments on which they are based.".
I hope I have got the wording of this amendment correct because I found it difficult to get the meaning across properly. The reason for this major amendment is that, similar to the four month provision which we discussed some time ago, this aspect poses enormous problems for the proper consideration of planning and development matters. I do not think the Minister has conceded any change. I hope he will consider this amendment and come back with good news.
The one month in which the Minister requires the appellant to state his or her grounds in full makes it virtually impossible for third parties in general and for some of the prescribed bodies like An Taisce to submit their views. One of the problems the Minister may not be aware of is that the planning lists, which alert bodies such as An Taisce to what is happening are very often delayed for a considerable time. Dublin Corporation are normally very reliable about publishing a weekly list of planning applications but An Taisce told me that recently a specific list did not reach them until 17 days after the decision had been made. I know that other local authorities only compile a monthly list of planning applications and it could be well into the following month before the list is published.
There is also the other point, which I do not suppose will bear very heavily with the Minister. I do not imagine he will consider it to be of much importance but I would like nevertheless to make it. Many voluntary organisations which the Minister was genuinely anxious to involve in the planning process, only meet once a month. Many of their members have to travel considerable distances to attend meetings, and unlike local authority members they are not paid expenses. This makes it difficult for them to meet to consider planning applications or planning appeals.
A further problem is that when they send a planning officer into the planning department they find it very difficult to get copies of some of the information. Sometimes since the file is with a Corporation official they cannot see it and they have to go back again. All these things add to the difficulties experienced by members of voluntary bodies. Another problem is that there can be a tremendous volume of appeals coming on stream together. It came to my attention recently that there will be three major planning appeals — Powerscourt in Bray, Lough Key in Roscommon and Carton, all of which I am sure Senators will agree are extremely important. They are all being appealed, and I know An Taisce are interested in them. Three appeals within a short time of each other make it extremely difficult for them to spread their resources to enable specialists to make their input. All these matters add enormously to the difficulty. The Minister insists that not only must they send in the grounds of their appeal in full initially but they must state at that stage whether they are looking for an oral hearing. Of course they do not know the decision the board will make about an oral hearing, and they will have put all this effort into sending their documentation to the Planning Appeals Board and there may still be an oral hearing where they will have to be represented. This puts a very unfair burden on the local voluntary groups who have a genuine concern and interest in their area.
Before I move off that point I want to mention a very good booklet on planning appeals — a guide brought out by An Bord Pleanála. On page four it says:
Fundamental principles of natural and constitutional justice must be applied in the consideration of each case. All parties to the matter raised must be fully and fairly heard by written representations and, where appropriate, by oral hearings.
If a body does all that is required of them under this section within a short period of time, one could say they have been given time to put up a good case.
I am proposing in this amendment that the appeal would consist of a notice of appeal, a statement of the full grounds of the appeal, that the notice of the appeal would have to be submitted before the expiration of the appropriate period, but that the statement of the full grounds of the appeal could be submitted within two months of the date of the publication of the decision of the planning authority. That is the distinction and what I think is intended by this section. What would happen if there was an appeal within the required time but a clerical error was made, a page was missing or something was left out? It would appear from this that the appeal would not be allowed.
Another question comes to mind: what would happen if the appeal was sent in but the wrong fee was included? I suppose the present practice would apply — if there was time available they would write to the Minister to get in the correct fee. A more complicated case would be if the chairman of a large association or An Taisce thought he was told to make the appeal, he sent in his intention of appeal, and he sent the fee but he was of the opinion that the actual grounds could be sent in later, and if, at a later stage the secretary of the same association sent in the full grounds, from what I understand, they could not be considered because, if the legislation was interpreted in a narrow way, that association had already communicated with the board and the board would not be allowed to consider that further information.
I wonder if the Minister is committed to this way of doing things. I do not want to give an inordinate length of time to an appellant, but I believe what the Minister is doing here is squeezing them to such an extent that I suspect in some cases people's constitutional rights will be impinged on and we may end up in a worse situation than we were before. I would like the Minister to address some of these points.