COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government - VFM No. 41 - Planning Appeals.

Ms M. Moylan (Assistant Secretary, Planning and Heritage Division, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government), Mr. J. O'Connor (Chairperson, An Bord Pleanála), and Mr. M. Smith (National Chairman, An Taisce), called and examined.

Chairman

We are dealing with submissions from An Bord Pleanála and An Taisce. I welcome the witnesses to the meeting during which they and members should ensure all mobile telephones are switched off.

The attention of members and witnesses is drawn to the fact that, as and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 grants certain rights to persons identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. These rights include the right to give evidence; the right to produce or send documents to the committee; the right to appear before the committee, either in person or through a representative; the right to make a written and oral submission; the right to request the committee to direct the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and the right to cross-examine witnesses. For most persons, these rights may be exercised only with the consent of the committee. Persons invited to appear before the committee are made aware of these rights and any person identified in the course of proceedings who is not present may have to be made aware of them and provided with a transcript of the relevant part of the committee's proceedings if the committee considers it appropriate in the interests of justice.

Notwithstanding this provision in legislation, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. They are also reminded of the provision in Standing Order 156, that the committee should refrain from inquiring into the policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government, or the merits or objectives of such policy or policies.

I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to introduce the report, VFM No. 41 - Planning Appeals.

Mr. John Purcell

Thank you, Chairman. The report before the committee records the results of an examination carried out by my staff into the management of the planning appeals system by An Bord Pleanála and the measures in place to evaluate its effectiveness. I remind members that the previous Committee of Public Accounts touched on some aspects of the system covered by the report when it examined the board's accounts at its meeting on 11 December 2001 when representatives of An Taisce were also in attendance. As the report was published last July, some matters have since moved on as I am sure will emerge in the course of the examination this morning.

The report established that approximately 7% of all planning decisions were appealed each year and that there was a greater tendency to challenge refusals, with 29% of all applications refused by the planning authorities coming before the board. Only 4% of planning decisions are appealed when granted.

As a result of the strong growth in the volume of planning decisions, the board experienced a doubling of the number of appeals received between 1994 and 2000 and found it difficult to keep abreast of the increasing workload. This is reflected in the number of cases in hand at the end of 2000 - 2,460 as against 640 at the end of 1994. High staff turnover and the scarcity of suitably qualified professional staff contributed significantly to increased backlogs and delays in processing cases.

There also appeared to be a reduction in the number of cases being processed by the board's inspectors. The board has put this down to the fact that the more straightforward cases are generally dealt with by consultant planners who, incidentally, are now involved in almost half of the appeals processed, while those handled by in-house professional staff tend to be more complex and time consuming. I understand that over the last year or so there has been a reduction in the number of appeals and that this has enabled the board to improve its performance relative to time targets and the backlog.

Of the appeals finalised in 2000, the year on which the report concentrates, over 27% of planning permissions were reversed outright, while a further 31% had the conditions attaching to permission varied. This means that in 42% of cases the original planning decision was upheld in its entirety.

Some planning authorities were considerably above or below the national norms, and while factors such as property values and urbanisation would be expected to have an impact, the report suggests it might be useful to determine the reasons for high overturn rates in certain planning authorities when these factors are discounted. This could help the board to contribute to adjustments in learning on the part of the planning authorities by isolating the main causes of overturns of original decisions and relaying the trends and patterns to the authorities.

The report also concludes that the Department could do more with the information provided for it to inform policy decisions and management of the planning process generally. It suggests that divergences between the board's inspectors' recommendations and board decisions, which occur in approximately 10% of cases, should be analysed with a view to providing feedback for the inspectors and also to promote consistency within the board.

In summary, the board can be considered to be doing a good job. Its integrity, vital to a successful planning appeals system, is seen to be above reproach. Its procedures are regarded as being fair and impartial and its professionalism is widely respected. However, as the report suggests, there is still some work to be done in improving the timeliness of decisions, securing efficiency gains and contributing to better management of the planning process generally.

Chairman

Before asking Mr. O'Connor to make his opening statement, I welcome members of the parliamentary delegation from Bosnia Herzegovina who are visiting Ireland on a two week information gathering mission on parliamentary procedures. The committee extends its best wishes to the delegation. I hope its members are enjoying their visit to Ireland. I now call Mr. O'Connor.

Mr. O’Connor

Thank you, Chairman. In our appearance before the previous Committee of Public Accounts we provided detailed information on the trends affecting the work of the board. For the benefit of members, I have circulated some details updating these trends, on developments since then and in response to the Comptroller and Auditor General's VFM report.

I will begin with the workload of the board to bring the committee up to date with what is happening. In 2001 the intake of appeals peaked at 5,422, the highest on record. Last year the number fell by 15% to 4,562, but this year the trend has increased, with the result that there will be probably an increase. It is difficult to estimate its size in percentage terms.

The output of the board has been increasing. Up to 2002, notwithstanding the continued increase, it was still trailing the intake. However, there was a big change in 2002 as a result of the various measures the board took to try to deal with the backlog that had built up. In 2001 output increased by 5.5% but was still behind the intake. In 2002 the output of cases determined by the board increased to almost 5,900, by far the highest number recorded since its establishment. Together with the drop in the intake, this resulted in a complete turnaround in trends over previous years. Therefore, the number of cases in hand in the board decreased very significantly in 2002. As a result, there has been a considerable improvement in terms of performance vis-à-vis time objectives which I am glad to say has continued into 2003. There are detailed figures before the committee which show that last month we were determining almost 80% of cases within the statutory objective period. The average time to dispose of cases was 15.8 weeks. As members will know, the statutory objective period is 18 weeks. Our strategic target is to meet this target in 90% of cases. We are continuing our efforts in this regard.

As I said in my last appearance before the committee, the board has taken every conceivable measure to find ways to deal with the backlog of cases and our efforts have been successful. One of the additional measures we have taken has been to widen further the pool of planners available for recruitment by the board by allowing them to be headquartered outside Dublin. Another change made since previous discussions has been the assumption by the board of functions relating to the approval of infrastructural projects. This has become a significant feature of its work as major public infrastructural projects being carried out by local authorities on a public private partnership basis must be approved by the board under the EIS or the compulsory purchase order procedure.

Generally, the board is satisfied that it has carried out its new functions effectively and efficiently. There is no backlog of cases in these areas. In fact, there are only four major road schemes in hand, though five are referred to here, which may come as a surprise given the reports which appear in the media from time to time.

I assure the committee that the board attaches considerable importance to infrastructural projects and that there is a separate system for dealing with them. They are not caught up in the day-to-day appeal work handled under separate structures. Within the planning appeal structure we have a system to prioritise major infrastructural projects such as large housing schemes, energy and water projects, waste developments and major employment generating projects. Naturally, as such cases involve larger projects, they are more complex, difficult and time consuming. We have a special system to track them to ensure they are dealt with as quickly as possible. We have a dedicated team of inspectors to deal with larger housing schemes to ensure there are no bottlenecks. We have improved our performance generally in regard to these priority projects and are certainly not complacent. There is room for further improvement. We are engaged in the examination of further measures which can be taken to ensure larger cases are processed in the shortest possible time.

The Planning and Development Act 2000 effected major changes to the planning system. The most important relating to appeals is the requirement that persons wishing to make third party appeals must have made a submission to the planning authority during the currency of the planning application at local stage to establish a right of appeal. It is a little too early to say what the effect of these changes will be but the figures we have indicate they have reduced the number of third party appeals. To a greater extent, they have invalidated many of the appeals we receive as third party appellants have not made submissions to the planning authority.

At our last meeting with the Committee of Public Accounts we indicated that the board was carrying out a major review of its structures and organisation to ensure we put in place procedures which would enable us to discharge our functions as efficiently as possible. A draft report was submitted to us by independent consultants which recommended radical changes to the structures and procedures of the board. It has been the subject of observations by management and staff and we hope to finalise it soon. If the committee is wondering why it has taken so long, the answer is that we have taken a conscious decision that our priority has to be to deal with the backlog and get arrears and delays under control. We hope to finalise the future structure of the board later this year.

The VFM report drew attention to many qualitative issues about the analysis of decisions. Since its submission, the board and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have established a joint working group to consider the issues raised, many of which have a wider impact on the planning system than on the board. Two of the report's conclusions related to the rate of planning authority decisions reversed by the board. The board has published a table outlining, in relation to each local authority, the rate at which its decisions are appealed and the rate at which those decisions are reversed. Such tables will continue to be published which should aid analysis of the performance of individual local authorities.

The VFM report also referred to the need for a system to assess the quality of board decisions and the need for an analysis of the reasons board decisions did not, at times, accord with an inspector's recommendations. The board has been very conscious of the need for quality in its decisions. I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General for his comments on the professionalism with which we carry out our duties. The board has been conscious that its decisions must stand up to scrutiny from any quarter. We have many procedures in place to ensure we give decisions of the best possible quality, some of which I have listed in the briefing material. We regard consistency as integral to quality.

In practically all cases the board can avail of a professional planning report before it makes its decision. It has 12 members and normally operates on the basis that the statutory quota for a meeting is three members. Most decisions are made at meetings attended by three members who work according to a rotation system. Strong contacts are maintained by board members. Issues of general application which arise from time to time are discussed regularly among all board members and cases of particular significance due to size or the issues involved are referred to larger or full board meetings.

To assist in the better analysis of appeal outcomes, the board has been undertaking a number of detailed studies of three prominent categories. We decided initially to examine wind farms, telecommunications masts and one-off rural houses which are the subject of a substantial number of appeals. We hope to publish the results of these studies in our 2002 annual report. In the meantime some preliminary results in relation to two matters are available and can be communicated to the committee.

In the case of telecommunications masts, third party appeals against planning authority decisions have only a 10% success rate, well below the average, while first party appeals against planning authority decisions to refuse have a 44% success rate. The pattern is somewhat different in the case of wind farms in respect of which 25% of first party appeals against refusals were successful. Only 33% of third party appeals were successful.

In relation to overturning an inspector's recommendation, the traditional pattern continues to be maintained with a success rate of around 10%. We agree with the Comptroller and Auditor General that the matter may merit more detailed examination. The three studies we are undertaking will cover issues such as this. We will continue to analyse the inspectors' reasons. Each inspector gets a copy of the board's decision and its reason for overturning the report. There is nothing secret about it; it is in the file where the applicants or appellants can read it. In fact, with cases being decided under the 2000 Act, the reason the board disagreed with the inspector in the granting or refusal of permission is given in the board order.

On the wider issue of the quality of board decisions, in principle, the board would have no difficulty with, and would welcome, any assessment of the quality of its decisions. We believe it will stand up to scrutiny from any source. However, we must be careful that such a system does not lead to the reopening of decided cases, uncertainty about the finality of board determinations or involve undue diversion of the board's scarce resources.

Planning authority decisions can be measured by reference to the outcome of appeals - one yardstick for measuring the quality of local authority decisions. Unfortunately, since the board is the final arbiter, there is no similar ready yardstick available to it. It is difficult, therefore, to devise a system of quality assessment of its decisions, just as it would be difficult to devise a system of quality assessment of court decisions. While it is a difficult issue, we should not give up on it. There are possible approaches. The joint working group between the Department and the board is looking at this in considerable detail and we are looking forward to the recommendations it might make in this regard.

The final issue, mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General, is the number of reports being produced by board inspectors, in respect of which there has been a downward trend in recent years. To be fair, it is wrong to view this too simplistically because a number of factors bear heavily on it, one of which is the increased scale and complexity of the work. There is no doubt that the number of large and contentious developments coming before the board has increased substantially. A number of housing schemes are before it. They do not involve hundreds of houses, which would have been regarded as a large scheme a few years ago, but thousands. There are waste projects, which are difficult, and many quarry projects. There are also wind farm projects. These developments require a large input from inspectors which is bound to affect the number of reports an inspector can carry out over a given period.

Another fact mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General was that a large number, almost 50%, of the simpler cases in 2002 - the number has changed this year - were carried out by outside consultants, not the board's inspectorate. The ongoing problem of a high turnover of inspectors, unfortunately, tends to affect productivity. A final factor which should be mentioned, although it should not be overplayed, is that new legislation also has some effect on the output of inspectors while they get up to speed with it.

For the past year or so we have had in place a system of close monitoring of inspectors' work performance and reporting carried out by the planning officer and deputy planning officers. We are hoping this can ensure we get the maximum output from inspectors. We are also looking at other measures such as a greater degree of standardisation of reports, how to streamline oral hearings and so forth, which would also contribute to better output from inspectors.

That summarises the position. I hope I did not exceed my time.

Chairman

Thank you. Does Ms Moylan wish to make a brief opening statement?

Ms Moylan

Thank you, Chairman. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government welcomes the report on the value for money examination of the planning appeals system. As the report notes, the Department's role is to ensure the necessary legislation and planning policy guidelines are in place to deliver an effective and efficient planning system. It is important that it is capable of delivering the scale of development envisaged in the national spatial strategy over the next two decades while protecting our natural and built heritage.

The planning system is directly operated by the planning authorities and the board. In recent years the emphasis in the Department has been on developing a modern, comprehensive legislative code to underpin the system. This was achieved with the passage of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the making of comprehensive consolidated regulations in 2001 which regulations came into force in March last year.

In tandem with the development of the code, the Department has also assigned significant resources to the finalisation of the national spatial strategy which was published late last year. The strategy sets out a blueprint for the development of the country and the achievement of more balanced regional development. Importantly, it provides a clear context for local authority development plans. In recent years the Department has been more proactively engaged in producing policy guidelines. This year it will amend a number of guidelines, for example, on wind farms, and issue new guidelines on the drawing up of development plans, probably the keystone to a proper planning system. It will also issue guidelines on rural housing.

With these measures in place, the priority for the Department is to put procedures in place for the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the performance of planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála. In this context, the Department welcomes the detailed analysis and recommendations in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report as a significant input to this work. In its general conclusions on the effectiveness of the planning system, the report notes that a low level, 3%, of planning decisions are overturned or varied as a result of the appeal process. It goes on to state that this gives reasonable assurance that planning authority decision-making is generally effective in striking a consistent balance between the interests of developers and other interests.

The report notes, however, that there is a considerable variation between individual planning authorities in the rate of overturn of decisions on appeal and suggests that identifying and investigating such variations would point to areas where action could be taken by the board and/or the Department to ensure greater consistency in planning authority decision-making. Some of the issues raised in the report are matters for consideration by the Department, others are matters for the board and some are for joint consideration. To ensure a co-ordinated approach, we have established a joint working group to develop measures to deal with the issues highlighted in the report. We expect good outcomes from this. We also have structures in place for ongoing liaison with local authorities through the City and County Managers Association.

I will briefly summarise the main issues with which we are dealing. The key to proper analysis of trends and their underlying causes is the compilation of relevant data. The Department is reviewing its current collection of statistics to be in a better position to carry out the type of analyses suggested in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. We are linking this review to work on e-planning. The new planning information systems being introduced among planning authorities in co-operation with the local government computer services board will enable more, if not all, the necessary statistics to be captured automatically during the processing of applications and appeals. We are reviewing how the board analyses appeal data such as by category of development. This will enable us to analyse better the trends and see what measures should be taken. The board is addressing internal quality control issues, which the Department welcomes, including the increased importance being given to inspectorate training, reviews of inspectors' reports and so forth.

With regard to the performance of the board, the main cause of complaint in recent years has been the time to reach decisions. This has been a matter of concern to the Department and the board has been given significant additional staff and financial resources to tackle the issue. In fact, there has been an increase of more than 50 in the number of staff since 1997, bringing the board's complement to 138. In addition, over the same period the number of board members has doubled from six to 12. As the Chairman said, the board has advised the Department that the backlog of appeals has been eliminated. With the elimination of the backlog, the Department will work with the board to ensure it can achieve its strategic target of giving decisions within 18 weeks.

Mr. Smith

It is a pleasure to be here. I hope we can eliminate some of the misconceptions about An Taisce and persuade the committee that we contribute to quality of life and the economy and have a positive vision for its development in a balanced and sustainable way. We also hope to persuade it that the planning system represents good value for money.

An Taisce is Ireland's oldest and largest wide-ranging environmental organisation. We are a charity founded in 1948 by, among others, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh and Seán MacBride. We have three roles: property ownership, project management and monitoring of planning and other applications that affect the environment. We are the national trust for Ireland, which means that we own 16 properties in trust for the people, which include, for example, 6,500 acres in County Donegal, Kanturk Castle and the Boyne Canal, all of which we run without core Government support and the Europe-wide regime of tax concessions for donors of properties to national trusts.

We also run projects in partnership with local government, businesses and various European agencies. For example, we run the entire national blue flag beach monitoring scheme, the national green schools campaign which operates in almost 50% of schools, the national spring clean campaign, in which over 200,000 people have taken part in the last month, the Irish Business Against Litter all-Ireland litter league campaign, the white flag for leisure facilities programme and other programmes, all for a paltry budget of around £350,000 in 2001.

As regards our planning and environmental functions, An Taisce has an operating budget for all its planning and environmental monitoring functions of around €160,000 annually which it uses in pursuit of the prescribed role that the Government gave us. It tries to ensure Government and EU environmental policies are implemented in a country where the Government seems reluctant to implement them in many cases. It wins or achieves a satisfactory result in about 90% of its appeals with An Bord Pleanála, precisely because it usually follows Government policy. It is An Bord Pleanála's function also to follow Government policy.

An Taisce writes several thousand submissions annually in the planning process but it is important to emphasise that we do not make decisions. We are a statutory consultee only. We appeal a small number of schemes annually - about 300 in 2002 - a pertinent statistic. Anyone lodging a planning application has about a one in 250 chance of having that scheme appealed by An Taisce to An Bord Pleanála.

We welcome the report from the Comptroller and Auditor General and endorse its general conclusions regarding the effectiveness of An Bord Pleanála, at least in so far as we deal with it. We also endorse the need for monitoring of planning decisions quality, the main point we have to make about the report. We also note that the report, and the press release which accompanied it, stated that decision-making by certain planning authorities merited deeper examination. It is a pity that it was not extended to address the quality of planning decisions and the fact that the general public was not consulted about its feelings on the issue.

The report notes that An Bord Pleanála does not report to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on matters which come to its attention relating to the quality of planning authority decisions. It suggests, creditably, that this deficit should be redressed. An Taisce believes this must be done single-mindedly and systematically, addressing all factors, including the impact of Government policy and precise recommendations. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should address issues of quality in planning decisions by talking to all stakeholders, especially focus groups of the general public. An Taisce believes that if we are serious about promoting quality of life, then quality, not just quantity, of development must be assessed and the general public, not just developers and Government, should be involved in the debate.

The report highlights again that most appeals are taken by the developer or landowner, not by third parties such as environmentalists and so on. For example, the national average rate of appeal of refusals is 29%. The national average rate of appeal of permissions by third parties such as environmentalists and so on is only 4.4%, of which only 5% are confirmed on appeal. In other words, third party appeals vary or overturn the decision in 95% of cases. In other words, An Bord Pleanála agrees that the appeal was to some extent worthwhile in these cases.

Overall, we consider that the report is a small but significant step towards professionalising the assessment of planning in a rapidly changing Ireland, where planning, for good or ill, determines a great deal about quality of life.

Chairman

I have one brief question on the board's use of planning consultants. What percentage of appeals were processed by consultants in 2001 and 2002?

Mr. O’Connor

In 2002 the number peaked at just under 50%. Generally, smaller cases were handled by what we would call fee-per-case inspectors, professional planners to whom we paid a fee to make a report on a case for decision by the board. We had another category of consultant for larger cases - private consultancy firms which we engaged on a contract basis - but their activities were much more limited in terms of numbers.

Yes.

Deputy Dennehy

I join the Comptroller and Auditor General in complimenting Mr. O'Connor and An Bord Pleanála, particularly on their integrity which has never been questioned. I will have questions about timescales and so on.

Mr. O'Connor, the Comptroller and Auditor General and Ms Moylan referred to the need for consistency in planning decisions across local authorities and the board. It seems the making of planning decisions is an inexact science. Would Mr. O'Connor agree with this? Some of the decisions made at local level seem to be very subjective, made perhaps at the whim of a planner. I could cite many examples but will not delay the meeting.

I presume they all pursue their own objections in the same manner as An Taisce. There is disquiet about any group having a second bite at the cherry, being involved in decision-making, making observations and then coming back and having another go. However, that is obviously a policy issue. Perhaps I will ask Mr. Smith one or two questions, after which I will leave lovely Leitrim and hand over to other members who might be better located. However, we received documentation from County Leitrim.

The Department relies on the statistics collected from local authorities and the board. We get statistics from the board on a quarterly basis which allow us to assess its performance. While the statistics are correct and give information on the time taken on appeals and so on, they are not sufficient for us to make observations on the quality of decisions. That is part of the work with which the joint committee is dealing.

For the first time, this year we received information from the board on variations in performance among local authorities. This information means that when planning inspectors visit local authorities, they raise with them the reasons they perform differently from other authorities.

We also need the information on which the board is working in the three studies to undertake a detailed analysis of the underlying trends: is it wind farms in one county and rural housing in another that is at issue? We need this detailed information before we can make assessments.

Also, we have formed a planning committee with city and county managers which is chaired by a county manager and also involves local authority planning directors. Through this group and in frequent meetings with all directors, we are progressing on ways by which they can advance the quality of the decisions they make.

In July we will issue draft guidelines on drafting and preparing development plans, as if one gets the development plan right, there is a good chance one will get planning decisions right. Developers and applicants will be aware of the types of developments permitted and the general policies of local authorities. There will, therefore, be a greater level of transparency.

It will be later in the year before we issue draft guidelines but we have started work on consulting the planning professions and others on planning control guidance on dealing with planning applications. It is a two stage process involving the development plan and then actual decisions. It will take us a while to get there. We need better statistics.

Chairman

This can be a reflection on planning staff and county managers, that they may not be qualified to make appropriate decisions on planning applications. When there is no cohesion in councils, the timescale for the review being embarked upon is critical. It is important to have compatibility between councils.

Ms Moylan

I agree. It is work we are advancing but we need better information from the board and local authorities. While waiting for it, we are having major discussions on quality, the issues that determine good quality planning decisions, in order to reach a general consensus. When we get the statistics——

Chairman

I am disappointed as there is huge investment in local authorities. Planning departments are well staffed. I am amazed that information is not a matter of fact given the economies of scale. It is not that massive.

Ms Moylan

An Bord Pleanála has been trying to make decisions within two months but the regulations brought forward during March last year introduced major changes for local authorities. They have now bedded down but in order to get better statistics we are working with the local government computer services board to have information automatically presented in order that there will be no additional jobs to be done to put the information together.

Deputy Boyle

Regarding the quality of statistics and how they relate to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the last statistics given to me indicate that no more than one in eight planning decisions made at local level is subsequently appealed. I do not know if——

Mr. O’Connor

It is about 8% which has stayed fairly constant.

Deputy Boyle

The figure is one in 12. The report does not give us much statistical information which would inform us about the quality of decision-making. For instance, the Irish Planning Institute states there is a wide variation in the number of planning officials in each area to review applications. This has implications for the quality of decisions made at local level and the applications subsequently referred to An Bord Pleanála. Is there any attempt by the Department or the board to make linkages to ensure consistency among planning departments?

I wish to ask about the number of decisions reversed as opposed to recommendations made by local planning officials, not by the city or county manager. What impact does this have on appeals to An Bord Pleanála? What are the cost implications for each local authority? This is part of the climate in which we deal with planning.

In regard to An Bord Pleanála, there is a similar process whereby planning officials make recommendations and the board, in its wisdom and given the factors by which it is bound, decides to go against them. How many such decisions are made? What impact does this have on the process? Are there cost implications?

Having listened to Mr. O'Connor's earlier replies about being bound by Government policy in making decisions, what does the board do when there are conflicting Government policies? I realise it is very much constrained in terms of pure planning - for instance, the issues of health and the environment are excluded from its decision making process. Many of the applications before it can be justified in building and construction terms but there might be a national policy on protecting health or maintaining the environment of an area where a particular development has been proposed. Is any attempt made to juggle these conflicting policies where and when they arise?

The variation in the overturn rate in local authorities of between 12% and 56% is phenomenal. What are the factors behind this? Are they the one I have outlined, that is, lack of consistency among planning staff, the lack of a set policy on what decisions are made and how they are made? Can the committee see the variations? I would like to know which local authorities have found their decisions have been overturned, the extent to which they are being overturned and the reason.

Mr. O’Connor

The number of staff available in planning authorities is not really a matter for the board but at board level one can see that sometimes local authorities are under severe pressure in making decisions on planning applications before the statutory deadline. The planners probably believe they could do with more time to decide a case but deadlines are a fact of life. The same is true of the board when it tries to make decisions within the deadlines. At times it can affect their quality.

As regards the reversal of planning authority decisions, under the new Act, if a manager overturns a planner's recommendation, he or she must give the reason for doing so. Anyone affected should be able to see from the file the reason there was a reversal. The planning system should be quite open and above board since implementation of the 2000 Act. If this occurs, it should be clear what is happening to planning applications. If people wish to appeal, they may use, as they frequently do, what was said at local level.

Deputy Boyle

Is it done on a national or local basis?

Mr. O’Connor

It certainly would not be a matter for us but for each local authority to do its own analysis or figures and so on. Since implementation of the 2000 Act, the structures are in place to enable this to be done. There is a requirement to do certain things if this happens.

In regard to the overturn rate in the board as opposed to local authorities, we have already discussed this matter at some length with other members. The rate is quite significant but due to different interpretations of national policy, whether on sustainable development or wind farms. Telecommunications matters are a case in point where there can be a considerable divergence of policy locally. That is the first place at which I would look in analysing the reason there is a higher rate of overturn in some authorities as opposed to others.

The Deputy mentioned the question of conflicting Government policies. There can be conflict between different parts of Government policy. There can also be conflict between Government, local and regional policies. The board must ask itself what is right in terms of proper planning and the sustainable development of an area. As I said, the decision-making of the board centres on balancing all these considerations, including local, national and environmental considerations versus the cost in environmental terms, which must be weighed. The board will then make a decision. That is the reason it is so difficult for it to make a decision in some cases in which it is not easy to make the right decision. In his or her report the inspector tries to bring together all of the issues to be taken into account and weighed and then put them before the board which will make its decision. If it differs from the inspector, it must say why it is doing so.

Deputy Boyle

I have another question specific to An Bord Pleanála. I refer to the overturn rate within its system of inspector reports——

Mr. O’Connor

We debated that matter at length earlier. The overturn rate has been around 10%, that is, where the board overturns a recommendation to grant or refuse. It would make other changes relating to conditions and so forth, about which we are not talking.

Deputy Boyle

I think most of my other questions were for the Department.

Ms Moylan

The annual statistics published by the Department list the number of planning and administrative staff employed in planning departments of local authorities. The number of planners has increased quite considerably over the past decade, particularly over the past five years. The Department has emphasised that managers should make sure planning departments are well staffed in order that they can deliver good quality decisions in a timely manner.

In the past three or four years we have negotiated with the planning school in UCD to increase its output of planners. The number has been doubled. This September for the first time 50 people will graduate. New planning courses were also set up in Dublin Institute of Technology, Kevin Street. While a postgraduate course is offered at UCD, people will be able to obtain a primary degree in planning from Kevin Street. I think the first group graduated recently. We are working with the local authorities, the universities and the professional bodies to ensure more planners will be available. We were involved in assisting local authorities in recruiting planners from abroad to bring staffing levels up when there was a shortage.

Deputy Boyle

What about the collection of statistics on the overturning of decisions at local authority level by city and county managers?

Ms Moylan

Under the 2000 Act, the provisions of which came into force in 2001, where a manager overturns the decision of a planner, he or she must explain his or her decision on file. As this provision has only applied for the past year, we have not collected any statistics. As I said, we are reviewing the statistics to ensure we get the necessary information to allow us to evaluate the quality of decisions. A balance needs to be struck. While we must make sure we collect the right data, we must also ensure we do not collect too much. It is difficult to strike the right balance. We are working on the matter and hope we can complete the process within a matter of months.

Mr. Purcell

To elaborate slightly and refer to a point made by Deputy Boyle and Mr. Smith, we received co-operation from a number of local authorities. As the committee will be aware, local authorities are outside my remit but to get a feel for what was happening at local level, we requested the co-operation of five local authorities. In respect of Ms Moylan's point on managerial overturns, we established that there were no readily accessible data in any of the five at the time. We also tried to establish the reasons for the level of overturns in particular authorities. However, it was inconclusive and very difficult to determine a trend. That is the reason the report seems to fall a little short in that regard. One needs to dig deep to do the kind of work being done by An Bord Pleanála and the Department within this new group. I am grateful to see it being done.

Deputy Boyle

There seems to be a mystery regarding An Bord Pleanála's decisions whether appeals are oral. Is there a cost implication in the decision-making process in deciding whether to have an oral hearing?

Mr. O’Connor

In 2001, 33 cases were instituted against the board. Those involved have to apply for leave for judicial review. Even when they are given leave, many do not end up being tried substantively.

Chairman

Thank you.

The Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned the code for the Civil Service. A similar code of practice is being developed for local authority members and officials. However, it is still under discussion and has not been finalised. It will be on parallel lines to the Civil Service code.

Deputy Dennehy

Considering the total number of planning applications in County Leitrim, the small number appealed by An Taisce is striking. While the focus of criticism of An Taisce from some development sources in County Leitrim has tended to hone in on these cases, the overwhelming majority of housing and holiday developments in the county town of Carrick-on-Shannon and other towns such as Manorhamilton, Drumshanbo, Leitrim village and Ballinamore, were not subject to objection by An Taisce. Its main concern in regard to development of Carrick-on-Shannon was development in flood plain areas, a particular concern in the area.

Of the large number of decisions made by Leitrim County Council and the number that could potentially be appealed by An Taisce, only a very small percentage were appealed by it. Such appeals were generally concerned with areas of outstanding natural beauty, high amenity areas identified in the council's development plan or areas of natural heritage significance - in many cases not just national but European significance or sites protected under the EU directives governing birds and habitats which were already designated as special areas of conservation or which had species which would warrant such a designation. This is reflected in the number of appeals in the Lough Allen area, for example, in regard to holiday house and jetty development on the shoreline of the lake.

As in all cases, we took a strategic approach that the focus of development should be on existing serviced developments. There are many developments around Drumshanbo at the southern end of the lake which we were happy to welcome because they were developing tourist infrastructure. However, other developments were in areas with poor soil conditions of very scenic character and, more importantly, which had important birds, plants or other species identified under the European habitats directive. Very serious concerns were identified for the development of these sites.

For example, on the north-western shore of Lough Allen, a development in Kilgarrif, near Ballinagleragh, of ten dwelling houses with an entrance and a jetty was recommended for refusal by the Leitrim County Council planning department. However, permission was granted on the basis of a management order. In view of this conflict, An Taisce referred the case to An Bord Pleanála and I visited the site. An Bord Pleanála's eventual decision was that it was an inappropriate development because of the location in a remote, elevated, scenic rural area of high amenity and the risk of pollution. It is striking that its decision ruled that there was an adverse impact on species listed in the EU habitats and birds directives.

This raises serious concerns about the quality of the planning decisions made by Leitrim County Council. An Taisce is exercising its public interest role in monitoring planning systematically on a county and national basis. The useful role which it is able to bring to bear is in identifying more problematic categories of planning applications or areas where applications are particularly sensitive and need proper assessment, and to refer such cases to An Bord Pleanála, as it has in regard to comparable matters. This is reflected in the high rate of overturn of local authority decisions in such cases.

An Taisce welcomes the fact that major parts of County Leitrim and surrounding counties have been designated by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuiv, as a green box area for sustainable and eco-tourism. The accompanying guidelines will provide better guidance for applicants, landowners and local authorities in bringing forward more sustainable housing and tourism development proposals in these areas and avoid the types of problems highlighted. This applies to decisions by An Bord Pleanála in County Leitrim and other counties included in the rural renewal tax areas, particularly the north-western part of County Cavan.

Chairman

Has An Taisce ever withdrawn an objection?

Mr. Lumley

That would be rare. In most cases, where a planning appeal is withdrawn, the withdrawal is made by the applicants, perhaps because they are concerned that they are likely to be refused.

Chairman

Has An Taisce ever withdrawn an objection?

Mr. Lumley

In the rare cases where it withdraws an appeal, it is based on information brought to our attention on circumstances not obvious on examination of the original planning application file and which were not fully taken on board by us in assessing the making of an appeal. In such circumstances, we review the matter.

I frequently advise those lodging planning applications that applicants often do themselves a disservice in the quality of information and drawings they supply with their applications or in their justification of their proposal. This is often the case with one-off housing planning applications. However, many local authorities now have a test requirement. Cork County Council, in particular, has a good model which other local authorities could follow. The system is useful to everyone since the applicant is being asked for detailed information to justify his or her planning application, which is in his or her own interest. This is the main reason for lodging the application. However, the system is also good for environmental groups and other third parties assessing the application because they can see the reason for the application being lodged. For example, it may refer to a family land holding where the applicant needs to care for an elderly parent. Unfortunately, the quality of information lodged by applicants and accepted by other local authorities is extremely poor. It would be a major improvement in the planning system if applicants supplied better information and local authorities were to insist on this at application stage.

Chairman

The issue of membership was referred to. What mechanism does An Taisce have for screening membership, given that membership applications have been returned?

Mr. Smith

Mr. Lumley

Let me clarify some further points with regard to County Leitrim. In an analysis of the limited number of 20 cases which An Taisce appealed to An Bord Pleanála - the original decision was overturned - in the overwhelming majority permission was refused on a number of grounds as being prejudicial to public health because the original adjudication of the adequacy of the site and the soil conditions for a sceptic tank or puraflo system was not adequately carried out, either by the applicant or the local authority. Typical terms in the Lough Allen area would be a statement in a final ruling by An Bord Pleanála that soil conditions and proximity to the lake render the proposal prejudicial to public health.

It is a very serious matter that so many decisions granted by local authorities are prejudicial to public health on sewerage grounds or, in other counties, public safety on traffic grounds. For instance, the number of local authorities not complying with National Roads Authority policy on restricting development on national primary and secondary roads is causing tangible traffic safety difficulties and directly linked to accidents and fatalities. An Taisce is fulfilling a public interest and public service role in highlighting these cases, not only in County Leitrim but also in other local authority areas.

The same applies to County Mayo. I understand some members of the committee do not represent that county and would not be familiar with it through their background. Similar figures apply to it. In all the appeals taken by An Taisce in the county - an even smaller percentage than those taken in County Leitrim - all the decisions by An Bord Pleanála ruled that the developments were prejudicial to public safety or public health.

We appeal one in 250 submissions lodged countrywide. I do not think anybody would say that fewer than that number of developments applied for across the country are unsatisfactory. Therefore, we consider we exercise our prescribed role on a very conservative, cautious and reasonable basis.

I accept that we have been subject to adverse publicity but the prime reason for that is it has been estimated that €8.1 billion in capital gains windfalls will accrue if we continue at the current rate of one-off house developments. There is a strong vested interest antagonistic to our remit, which we consider to be driven by the public interest.

Chairman

Please elaborate on your point regarding a windfall of €8.1 billion.

Mr. Smith

A capital gains windfall will accrue to landowners if over the next ten years we continue to approve one-off housing developments in the countryside at a rate of 36%.

Chairman

If one looks at planning applications, the scale of the acceleration in terms of developments has been considerably reduced. I question your assertion regarding a capital gains windfall.

Mr. Smith

There was record breaking housing construction last year, which seems likely to continue. We are animated about this issue because there are 1.2 million houses and it is proposed that 500,000 new houses will be built over the next ten years. It is crucial that we get this right. We do not consider enough research is being done on the long-term implications of one-off housing construction in the countryside. They do not build this way across Europe where less than 1% of housing is built one-off in the countryside and which has far lower patterns of growth. We believe we are creating a dangerous legacy for the future, including a dangerous social legacy, if we build in this way, which is abnormal in European or international terms.

It was said there seemed to be a conflict with the political system. We are very keen to work in partnership. Many of our projects such as the green school and blue flag programmes are centred on partnership with local authorities. There is no conflict between us and the political system which works for us to the extent that when we appeal, we have a 90% success rate. We take the stance one would expect in that we support the stance of local authority planners for the most part. When we appeal, An Bord Pleanála reinforces the stance we take for the most part. It is not because the appeal is made by An Taisce; it is not random, it is because our approach is animated by sustainability and balancing social, economic and environmental concerns. One can predict the stance An Tasice will take on any development as ours is not an ad hoc or random approach. We assess projects systematically in terms of sustainability. While there is no conflict between us and the political system, I accept that in many cases we differ in perspective from county managers and often elected representatives who are clearly subject to aggressive lobbying by landowners who stand to benefit from the €8.1 billion windfall over the next ten years.

We would love to go to County Leitrim in partnership with local politicians but our primary concern is that the county does not seem to be aware that the greatest threat to it is posed by the growth of the greater Dublin area. County Leitrim and others in rural Ireland will continue to decline due to the Government's unwillingness to enforce its spatial strategy and strategic planning guidelines. There does not seem to be a will to curtail the continuing sprawl of Dublin into its hinterland. The real future for rural Ireland involves channelling that growth outside the greater Dublin area. I ask Deputies and others in rural constituencies to adopt a much stronger stance on this issue. The reality is that the greater Dublin area continues to burgeon while rural Ireland declines. There is a win-win option available. Unlike the greater Dublin area, rural Ireland requires growth. It is important that teeth are given to the guidelines which are supposed to represent Government policy. We are witnessing the sprawl of the greater Dublin area and the decline of rural Ireland.

Deputy Dennehy

Your suggestion sounds very practical to me. While I have seldom had conflict or contact with An Tasice, I have been concerned over the last two or three years. People I have known have worked on many projects such as the one involving the old waterworks on the Lee Road. There seems to be conflict but I do not know if it is the result of change of personnel or approach within An Taisce over the last two or three years. I do not come into contact with it much, though the matter of the School of Music upset me very much, as did one or two other projects in Cork city. The Chairman seems to be taking the correct approach by suggesting that if there are difficulties in County Leitrim or County Mayo, people should sit down together as An Bord Pleanála is doing with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The difficulty may be the overruling of local planners by the county manager.

Certainly, An Taisce is being brought into serious disrepute for many who have no great interest in this area. To start throwing comments about a windfall and pressure from landowners on politicians is not relevant and the argument should not be used. We are talking in most instances about one-off housing. An Taisce seems to be beginning to advise the Government on how it should run the country in a range of issues. Mr. Smith referred to Government unwillingness to do various things. If An Taisce is placing itself at that level to advise Government, we will really have a difficulty. My humble advice to it is that in hot spots like County Leitrim and County Mayo, to avoid wasting funding, it should get together with local planners, developers and the chambers of commerce to work together. Whether it knows it, as many people are concerned it is involved in a stand off. I can sit back in the Cork scene and look upwards.

I have often driven through County Leitrim and can say the place is denuded. Whether Mr. Smith likes it, we worry about our own. There are 136,000 people living in Cork city and we worry about maintaining the population but having driven through some places, if I was in Mr. Smith's position, I would be out with a large flag welcoming people in. I would ask how I could help people on the environmental side. There is a difficulty in the west which the Government has tried to address. If Mr. Smith disagrees with the Government's policy, we are really in trouble. The Chairman is quite right in the advice he gives as we are looking for value for money in everything we do, great or small. An Taisce should sit down with the various groups to try to put something together in the hot spots. It can do what it likes in the rest of the areas.

I am concerned. I wish to see anyone even partially funded from public funds doing very well. There is a great need for An Taisce. While its role is defined, it must move in tandem with the general public. If one finds one is in conflict with 90% of the public, it is time to look at oneself. My advice is to follow the advice of the Chairman and work with people, whatever the difficulties are.

Mr. Purcell

I return briefly to support a related point the Chairman made. It relates to the requirement for information. If people are better informed, they are less inclined to waste their money making planning applications which are clearly inappropriate. The manner in which that information is disseminated is very important. In the report we point to a development in Meath County Council which involved holding pre-application clinics. I do not know to what extent that measure has been developed since the report was published but the intention was that a local authority official could use information and communications technology to access the history of a site. He or she could then indicate to an individual in the case of one-off housing, for example, the likelihood or otherwise of an application's success. If the individual has this information, he or she knows exactly where he or she stands. We looked at this from an auditor's point of view with a value for money mandate and judged that it would cut down on wasted time and effort and appeals to An Bord Pleanála.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Purcell for his comments which sum the matter up to an extent. The more information an applicant has on the table, the better. It is important that An Taisce and all others involved in the planning process work to further the interests of wildlife and nature but it must be remembered that there are only 27,000 people living in County Leitrim. There are 56,000 living in Country Sligo. There has been huge development in the regions and towns but development and enterprise can be encouraged in the context of correct planning which would complement rather than endanger the region for future generations. That is the role of everybody involved in developing his or her investment in an area which needs it. Does Mr. O'Connor wish to comment?

Mr. O’Connor

No, we have run over all aspects of the matter. I do not need to say more at this stage.

Chairman

Does Deputy McCormack have any questions?

Deputy McCormack

That is fine but it is not the reality for a young couple who are getting married and have a site for a house. To say they can apply and appeal again to the appeals board where they can allude to the alleged false information is ridiculous. It costs up to €1,000 to make a planning application in rural areas, apart altogether from the delay and the cost of building the house. The couple in question emigrated in frustration and are now happily housed in London. That is no good to the people of Dowra. It is ridiculous to say they could appeal again. That is what the planning authority tells people after making alleged bad decisions or where there was an error. It tells them to apply again. It is €2,000 down the drain every time one makes a planning application. There is also the delay and frustration. However, I will not pursue the matter further.

Chairman

That concludes a very interesting meeting. I thank Mr. O'Connor of An Bord Pleanála and Mr. Smith and Mr. Lumley of An Taisce for being here today. I also thank the Comptroller and Auditor General for his outstanding report. As always, his team has produced an excellent document. I also thank Ms Moylan of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

From today's meeting, I hope there will be co-operation. I appeal to An Taisce and all of the bodies working on the controversial element of planning. The perception among customers and constituents is important. There must be an appearance that people are working together, although Deputy McCormack will agree there are conflicting opinions. I hope the Department will accelerate the timescales, which is urgently needed.

I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General for an outstanding value-for-money report which has brought to life many issues of concern throughout the country. Is it agreed that we note it? Agreed.

Next week we will deal with the accounts for the National Treasury Management Agency for 2001 - chapter 13.1, which deals with the national debt, and chapter 13.2, which deals with the savings bank fund. We will also deal with the accounts for the national pensions reserve fund for 2001.

The witnesses withdrew.

The committee adjourned at 2.40 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 19 June 2003.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht - Thursday, 12 Jun 2003

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government - VFM No. 41 - Planning Appeals.

Mr. Ivan Grimes

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. Smith

Mr. Smith

Mr. Smith

Mr. Smith

Mr. Smith

Mr. Smith

Mr. Ian Lumley

Mr. Purcell

Mr. Smith

Mr. Smith

Mr. Purcell

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Jun 2003