asked the Minister for Local Government the number of appeals against refusal of planning permission by Dublin Corporation, which have been submitted to him during the past 12 months; the details of the location affected in each case; which of these appeals have been successful and on what grounds he overruled the decision of Dublin Corporation in each case; and if he will make a statement of the general policy of his Department in considering these appeals, particularly in cases where historical and architectural considerations are concerned, or where zoning into residential, etc., areas is involved.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Planning Permission Appeals.
31.
The number of valid appeals received by me in the year ended 30th September, 1966, against decisions by Dublin Corporation to refuse planning permissions was 252. It would be impracticable for me to furnish particulars of the locations affected. These are available for inspection in the Planning Register maintained by the corporation.
Of the 252 appeals received during the year referred to, 26 were subsequently withdrawn, 77 have so far been determined by me and the remaining 149 cases are still under consideration. Of the 77 cases determined by me, I granted permission in 17 cases and permission subject to conditions in a further 21 cases because I was not satisfied that there were adequate planning grounds to justify the withholding of permissions for the developments proposed.
As for my general policy in dealing with planning appeals, the position is that under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, I am bound when dealing with an appeal to consider the planning application which has given rise to the appeal as if it had been made to me in the first instance. I must consider the arguments put forward by the parties to the appeal and the report of my inspector in cases where oral hearings are held. I am required by the Act to have regard to the proper planning and development of the area concerned and to the anticipated objectives of the development plan. This would include objectives relating to land use zoning and the preservation of buildings of artistic, architectural or historic interest.
The making of the development plan and the framing of its objectives are matters for the planning authority who must take a realistic view of future needs, including housing, office accommodation, shopping facilities and traffic needs and also of the resources likely to be available for achieving those objectives. They must also reconcile these with the protection and improvement of amenities including what may be both desirable and feasible in regard to the preservation of buildings of special interest.
Did the Minister say that of the 77 appeals determined by him, he has reversed the decision of the Dublin Corporation in 38 cases, practically 50 per cent of the cases?
That is right.
Would this not imply that the Dublin planning authority, the people responsible for these appeals in the corporation, must in the Minister's opinion be incompetent?
No, I would not say so at all. The general number of successful appeals, whether they are decisions of the planning authority or appeals by a third party, with conditions attached or not, is still about 50 per cent. This applies not only to Dublin but to the entire country.
Would the Minister then suggest that the difference between the number Dublin Corporation approved and the number of cases in which he saw fit to overrule the Corporation means that they must be applying different standards, or what would be the reasons?
Not necessarily. Matters other than standards come into this. The corporation, for instance, or any local authority, may have had some views such as might have been expressed in the 1957 Dublin Corporation zoning scheme. They may have had to change their views in this regard, or I as Minister may believe they should have changed their views. However, because they had not specifically made that change in their regulations in regard to zoning, they may have had to refuse, even though they knew it should be allowed.
Is the Minister now saying the corporation are not up to date in the information they have concerning the progress the Minister's Department is making in regard to such matters as zoning?
Again, I do not agree that is what I am saying at all. Lest I am misunderstood again, what I am saying is that the corporation or any other planning authority have quite serious difficulties and are trying to cope with these as best they can, in many cases with inadequate staff. We have almost the same problems in the Department. If we find action taken on an application and ultimately on appeal or a more just decision is taken, I do not think this implies any wrong on the part of either the Department or the Corporation.
I do not know whether it is a question of justice or expediency.
Would the Minister not agree that there is a practice in local authorities—he was a member of one himself for a long time— whereby members passed the buck by refusing applications for permission to build, the purpose being to let the Minister's Department decide? This is most irritating and delaying. It is something that should be discouraged by legislation or otherwise.
Without reflecting on any of these people, such cases as the Deputy mentions do arise.
All over the country.
In some places more than others.
Local authorities could make many more decisions than they are making.
The local authority has made decisions and the Minister saw fit to overrule them. Grave public disquiet has been caused in regard to some of the decisions the Minister made.
Is it right that individual applications for permission to build should be delayed for six months by somebody wanting to pass the buck?
Of course, that happens.
Can the Minister do anything about it?
I have been endeavouring to.
I am not criticising the Minister; I am trying to get the position improved.