As I pointed out in reply to one of Deputy Barrett's interruptions—I do not recall whether I was allowed to reply before I was interrupted again — there is something more involved in this than the mere decision of individual cases. There is the question of planning policy, and if we are to have a coherent planning policy, then there must be some way of ensuring that as far as possible these decisions correspond with that coherent planning policy. The Planning Act was debated during 1963—I think it was only during 1963, though it may have been before that, but it became the Planning Act, 1963—and it came into operation on 1st October, 1964. It was not brought into operation until 1st October, 1964. The decision to bring the Act into operation throughout the whole country was not taken without careful consideration because it would obviously be a mistake to bring the Act into operation until such time as it appeared likely that it could be implemented.
Even at that time it was visualised there would be initial difficulties: it had been anticipated there would be, and many initial difficulties did materialise. Planning, nowadays, is a highly complex matter and at that time the cadre of skilled personnel was very small, and indeed it is not sufficient yet. At the same time, what has been achieved during the past three years has been remarkable. The initial developing of plans now nearing completion is an important step forward, reflecting the concern, the interest and the enthuasism of local councils and their officials for the future welfare of their respective areas.
Planning authorities are at present dealing with about 20,000 development applications per annum and it is sought to imply that the Minister for Local Government is responsible for the decisions in each of these 20,000 planning applications. Indeed Deputies have gone so far as to put themselves on record in the debates charging the Minister for Local Government with being responsible for decisions which were in fact made by themselves as members of planning authorities; and, of course, the Opposition newspapers do the same thing. They pretend that every building that is erected, every development that takes place, has been decided by the Minister for Local Government, though they know full well that that is untrue. They state it, knowing it to be untrue, for the purpose of promoting the Opposition's slander campaign.
The fact of the matter is—just in case anybody on the Opposition side or any of the hypocrites in the Irish Times or these other Opposition newspapers might be interested in the truth, which is something I doubt— that only 7 per cent of these are dealt with by way of appeal and the other 93 per cent are not dealt with by the Minister for Local Government at all. The people who preach this freedom of speech have themselves the freedom to refuse to make facts known to the public and all I can do is make the facts available on the records of this House for anybody who is not prepared to accept these one-sided statements as being the truth and who would like to find out the truth for himself.
There are many improvements still to be achieved. I agree with that, but the system under the Planning Act of 1963 is beginning to work fairly smoothly. It is now generally understood and, I think in the circumstances, any change in the system will require very careful consideration. I want to say that I am quite anxious to get rid of the load of having to decide all these appeals. I am not prepared to do the job in the manner in which Deputy O'Donnell did it, that is, by having things decided, as he says, by officials of the Department.
We all agree that appeals should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. In recent years, it has been found difficult to overhaul the sharp repeated rises in the numbers of planning appeals. I have said before that I thought many planning appeals should never come to the appeal stage. I have exhorted planning authorities to make every effort to reach agreement, if possible, with the person proposing any development of his own property. It is only in cases where it does not seem possible to recouncile the particular development proposal with the exigencies of the common good that outright refusal should be resorted to. Prior to that, there should be the maximum possible consultation between the planning authority, the planning officers and the individual making the proposal or his technical advisers.
I think there has been a considerable improvement in that regard, but at the same time, it is a fact that, probably because of the increased number of applications, which of course arises from the increased prosperity in the country and the increased confidence in the future of the country, despite the fact that there is more consultation and more resolution of difficulties at local level, the total number of appeals is still apparently increasing.
It was necessary to train administrative staff to deal with the complex questions which arise on these appeals. Procedures had to be worked out and followed which were fair and equitable to all parties and these procedures take time because most of these cases are dealt with in writing.
There was, as I said, a chronic shortage of qualified planners and those who could be recruited had to devote much of their time to other planning and training problems. Nevertheless, since April, 1966, there has been a steady improvement in the appeals position and cases have been cleared more rapidly than before. The average period taken for consideration has been reduced over the past year and a half by about 50 per cent and it is a fact that planning appeals cannot be dealt with properly without being examined and reported on by trained planners. Therefore, further improvements in the time taken in dealing with appeals are largely dependent on trained planners becoming available. I have taken steps towards that end and the arrangements made with the Dublin vocational education authorities and the universities should help to solve that problem in due course.
Appeals work is only one aspect of planning. There is so much more to be done on the more positive side of planning and development that I feel it desirable that all the inspectors available to me should be closely associated with that side of the work also. I do not think it is feasible or desirable to have people who will merely specialise in dealing with appeals. The present arrangements permit the best use to be made of the skills that are available. Unless the positive aspects of planning are developed further, we cannot hope to realise its benefits to any worthwhile extent.
As I said already, most appeals are dealt with on the basis of written representations by the people concerned. When a case matures for decision, the relevant correspondence and plans are submitted to me, together with the report of my inspector. The normal thing is that a person appealing submits the grounds for his appeal and states the reasons why he thinks the decision of the planning authority should have been in his favour. The processing of the appeal consists of conveying the observations submitted by the appellant to the planning authority and obtaining their comments on these submissions. That takes some time and when these local authority's comments have been received, the appellant, in turn, is given an opportunity of commenting on them. Finally, the planning inspectors of my Department consider the case. In most cases, where a negotiated settlement cannot be achieved, the papers are eventually referred to me. It is necessary that I should have all the relevant documents so that I can give each appeal the fullest consideration. Even those appeals where the issues are straightforward and simple—and there are relatively few of these — may be of great importance to the persons concerned.
In 1965-66, I received 1,344 appeals. Last year there were 1,229, and this year it looks as if the intake of appeals will rise to at least 1,600. As I said, the work and responsibility associated with the deciding of this volume of appeals place a heavy burden on me, but one which I am not prepared to shirk in the way Deputy O'Donnell says he shirked it. I am not prepared to sign my name on a line without looking at the details. I do not do it; I have not done it; and I do not intend to do it.
I doubt very much if the work could be discharged more quickly if each case had to be considered by the type of appeal board proposed in this Bill. All these processes would have to be gone through and it would take as long, if not longer — personally, I think it would take longer. Certainly I know there would be more people getting a rake-off on it. There would be plenty of work for lawyers and technical personnel generally.
This Bill envisages the setting up of a very considerable and costly organisation and I fear it would have nothing more than a disruptive influence on the whole planning process. It is not merely the temporary effects of a sudden and radical change in the established appeals procedures. If improvements are warranted, and could be effected by this change, I would not object. I am satisfied that the outcome of the changes would inevitably be to substitute a more complicated procedure for the existing arrangements where procedures are kept as simple as possible.
I would ask Deputies to consider objectively the effects of the proposed changes from the aspects of economy and expedition. The appointment of a judge to decide appeals would be interpreted as a feature making for emphasis on legal considerations rather than on considerations of strictly planning concern. It would so influence procedure that appellants might more and more feel compelled to employ lawyers as advocates. I wonder do the promoters of this Bill really appreciate the effect this change might have on the man of slender or moderate means and the advantage which it would confer on the big company and the rich developer? Is it that the Opposition have no interest in the man of slender means? A great number of planning applications and appeals come from people of that class.
I do not think we can afford to risk the loss of the great practical advantages of the system which enables any person, rich or poor, to make an appeal simply by writing a letter and which assures him that all relevant aspects of his case—legal, technical and administrative — will be examined objectively without further trouble or expense on his part. Only the big developers and the lawyers are likely to benefit from the more legalistic procedure proposed in this Bill.
This grave disadvantage does not appear to me to be in any way offset by the proposal to have a judge as chairman of the appeal board, in fact, it is doubtful that there is any special merit in having a judge decide on planning issues. On what basis is he to make his decisions? A judge in court can follow well-established principles. His task is to apply the law to the cases which come before him. Training, experience and forensic skill acquired in the course of his profession enable him to apply the law and, if necessary, to interpret the intention of the Legislature. There is a vast corpus of precedent for his guidance.
But where is the similarity in dealing with planning appeals? Do the proposers of this Bill imagine that the chairman would simply have to interpret and apply some code of bye-laws? If he looks to the law for guidance, he will find it only on procedure and the things which he may or may not do. He will find that he is restricted to considering the proper planning and development of the area in which the particular case has arisen, regard being had to the provisions of the development plan. The question as to what is the proper planning and development of an area is one of policy rather than of law. His assessors, no matter how highly qualified, can only offer their own opinions as to the proper planning and development of the area.
In general, appeals can be decided only within a general policy framework. The only line of policy available to the board would be that of the planning authority. If the board were to adopt this automatically as a proper criterion, there would be no point in considering any appeal. If the board were to make their own policies they could not be sure that these policies would be implemented because the components of a development plan must be integrated with due regard to the inter-action of each part on the other.
My objection to the type of appeals board proposed is one of principle. There are problems in dealing expeditiously with the present volume of appeals but I am convinced that the Bill would aggravate rather than relieve these problems. I agree that there is room for improvement on this aspect but I have explained the difficulties so far as I am personally concerned. The deciding of all these appeals is a load I would like to be rid of. I have also indicated some of the new problems this proposal would create.
In view of what I have said, I do not consider it necessary to deal with this Bill in greater detail. Nevertheless, there are a couple of further points I should like to mention.
Subsection (2) of section 7 proposes an amendment of the Appeals and References Regulations. An addition is to be made to paragraph (2) of Article 2 and, although it is not so stated, I take it that it is intended for the end of sub-paragraph (a). The intention appears to be that where an application for permission is refused, any person who has objection to the grant of permission shall be a party to any appeal. It is not quite clear to whom objection may have been made, but I presume that the intention is to give all the rights of a party to each person who lodged an objection with the planning authority while the application was under consideration. In addition, it is proposed to give the same rights to any person who applies to the board and appears to the board to have a genuine interest in the appeal.
I am not unsympathetic to this idea, but experience suggests that it would not be worth the trouble and delay which it would cause in dealing with appeals. Each party is entitled to receive a copy of the appeal and to submit observations. They are also entitled to see any document or information which any party is required by the Minister to submit. They must be afforded an opportunity to make observations to the Minister on any considerations relating to the proper planning and development of the area which he proposes to take into account and which are matters other than those put before him by the parties to the appeal. Any party to an appeal may request an oral hearing and seven days notice must be given to all the other parties if that request is withdrawn. Notice of the time and place of an oral hearing must be given to each party and each party has a right to be heard at the hearing.
What happens is that a number of residents object to some development proposal in their neighbourhood. If the planning authority turn it down and the developer appeals, the objectors are not regarded as parties to the appeal. If the objectors submit their views to the Minister, he takes them into account. Copies of their letters are given to the appellant in accordance with the regulations. If the appellant requests an oral hearing, notice of the time and place of the hearing is given to the objectors. They are invited to attend and to make a statement of their objections after the appellant and the planning authority have presented their cases. If it appears to the Minister that the matter is of sufficient public interest, he usually directs that an oral hearing be held, even if the appellant or the planning authority have not requested it.
This procedure is not unreasonable. If appeals are to be dealt with expeditiously there must be some limit to the copying of documents and the exchange of submissions, observations and counter-observations. Cases involving oral hearing already tend to take longer to decide than those dealt with by correspondence. It is undesirable that further complications in the procedure be introduced. It is not unusual to have from 20 to 60 objectors—in one cases there were several hundred—all objecting independently. While it might be necessary to instruct an appeal board to have regard to the views of a body of interested residents, I can assure the House that no Minister needs such instruction. The views of objectors are always given the most careful consideration even where they are not parties to an appeal.
The other point which I want to mention is the requirement under section 8 that appeals shall be decided in the order of receipt. This is qualified by the phrase "so far as practicable". Without this qualification the effect of the section would be deplorable; with the qualification, I am satisfied that the section could have no effect whatsoever. A recent check in my Department showed that one-third of all the cases not yet sent for inspection were held up because the appellants had not submitted their full grounds of appeal or had requested that their appeal be held in abeyance.
When the inspector is in an area, he normally tries to deal with all current cases in that area. It would be inefficient to restrict him because there is an earlier case awaiting inspection in some other area. When he reports, some of the latest cases may be straightforward and capable of being decided without further correspondence, but further information may be required on earlier ones. Why hold up those cases which can be decided?
There are many circumstances which make delays unavoidable. An appellant may misunderstand the reasons for a refusal of permission and must be given time to make his case when the reasons are clarified. The same applies if a new objection is raised in the course of the appeal. Some cases raise policy issues which have to be worked out in detail; others can best be settled by finding an acceptable compromise. Not infrequently, cases are almost ready for determination when the appellant requests an oral hearing. As regards oral hearings, a frequent cause of delay is the difficulty of finding dates for hearings convenient to all the parties.
This section of the Bill would not in any way help to eliminate what has been the main source of delay in the past—insufficient skilled staff to keep up with a 50 per cent increase in appeals in 1964-65 and again in 1965-66. The measures which I have taken to clear the backlog have been showing good results and, while there is a further increase in the intake of appeals this year, a much better work flow is being maintained and I am confident that the position will improve further. The limiting factor in this regard is the necessity to follow a procedure which is fair and just to all concerned. In a great many cases delays are outside my control and in other cases, more often than not, are in the interests of appellants. In general, I regard it as more desirable to find a solution acceptable to both appellant and planning authority or to allow an appellant every facility to make his case rather than to reject his appeal promptly.
I have no doubt the proposers of this Bill are anxious to ensure that the procedure for dealing with planning appeals is as just and fair as possible. It may even be that from their own experience they have some appreciation of the difficulties which faced and still face my Department. I am deeply concerned about both aspects, but, having considered these proposals, I am satisfied that they hold no promise of effecting improvements. I also feel certain that there is no special merit in appointing a judge to decide planning issues but that inevitably appeals would be dealt with in a more legalistic manner. For these reasons I consider the Bill to be unacceptable in principle but that does not mean I am opposed to change in the present method. I am arranging to have the whole question of how planning appeals could be dealt with re-examined. There are some serious difficulties in proposing any new system. One of these which I have already touched on is the need to make good the scarcity of skilled personnel. Time must elapse before the supply is adequate to meet the demand, and, in the meantime, we must husband our resources to secure the best possible return from their services.
There are other difficulties also which I do not propose to go into now but if a reasonably satisfactory solution seems possible, I intend to put forward the necessary legislative proposals. The opportunity can also be taken to look again at the other provisions of the 1963 Act and to consider any changes or amendments which may be found desirable in the light of the experience which has been gained of the Act in operation. This examination will take some little time but when it is carried out we should have reached a position where the regional studies at present in progress are completed and development plans have been made for the whole country. We will then have a comprehensive picture of what has been achieved and a better idea of what is needed to secure the real benefits of planning and the modifications which should be made in the system.
As I said the burden of deciding planning appeals at the present rate is very heavy. There may be some Deputies who think that I am opposing this Bill because I am reluctant to allow appeals to be decided other than by a Minister of the Government or to lose some political advantage. If so, it is time that they studied the Act and the Appeals and References Regulations. I can assure the House that, as far as I am concerned, I would be very pleased to get rid of this responsibility if I thought planning policy could be implemented in some other way. I am just indicating some reasons why I consider it necessary to oppose this Bill.
As I said, the manner in which the debate has been conducted makes it necessary for me to deal with allegations made by those Deputies who have been allowed to speak so far. I want, first of all, to point out that there is some element of profit for the individual making the proposal in, I am sure, every planning application made. Otherwise, it would not be made. There is provision made for the hearing of appeals and in any case in which an appeal is made there is a dispute as to the validity of the reasons given by the planning authority for making its decision. I would say it is probably inevitable that some appeals would be successful. Obviously then, in view of the fact that there is this big number of appeals submitted, these planning appeals offer great scope for any group of people who have decided as a deliberate policy to abandon any effort to remove the Government by the normal political tactics and to embark instead upon a deliberate and planned campaign of character assassination. I quite appreciate there is no field which offers better scope for that type of person, for the type of person who cannot carry out his political efforts in the normal way, who has long ago despaired—no matter how many new policies are drafted—of getting the support of the people on that basis——
