asked the Minister for Local Government whether he is satisfied with the administration of the planning law or whether an inquiry into its operation might be in the public interest.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Planning Law Administration.
48.
I am aware that criticisms in regard to the operation of planning law have been made from time to time. This is not surprising. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, is a farreaching measure involving extensive control over development and affecting property rights accordingly. A general look at the kind of criticisms that have been made and at the results of the operation of the Act, suggests that in all the circumstances the Act has operated reasonably satisfactorily to achieve its objectives for the proper planning and development of urban and rural areas and the preservation of amenities. As I have informed the House on previous occasions, the question of proposals for amending the Act is being reviewed and this review is taking account of the criticisms to which I have referred. I do not consider that an inquiry into the operation of the Act is necessary.
The administration of the Act is primarily the responsibility of the planning authorities. As to the making of development plans, these have now been in operation in most areas for some time and many planning authorities are at present engaged in the first review of their plans. In this review they will no doubt take account of their experience of the operation of the existing plans and as far as possible seek to cure any defects.
As to planning control, those who fail to secure planning permission will in general feel badly about the operation of the Act. Any system of control involves restrictions on property owners and a time element to deal with them. Nevertheless, the number of complaints is quite low and they relate to specific cases or specific authorities.
Enforcement is a further aspect which is also the responsibility of the planning authorities, but, of course, the courts are concerned as well. Enforcement of any Act has its problems, and that of planning law is no exception.
On the whole, where there is a clear breach of the Act, planning authorities have not hesitated to take the matter to court.
So far as my own responsibility is concerned, I have taken steps to reduce delays in dealing with planning appeals and the backlog of cases has been reduced considerably. I have arranged that my Department and An Foras Forbartha afford the maximum assistance possible to the planning authorities to help them to discharge their functions more effectively. The steps taken include advice and guidance to the planning authorities by way of circular letters and conferences, seminars and discussions to assist their staffs, the commissioning of various studies to help them. I have also had the question of staff shortages kept under constant review.
Can the Minister tell us if appeals are taken in any order? Are certain appeals selected and taken out of order?
Generally they are taken in the order in which they are received, but shortly after going to the Department, in order to accelerate the housing drive, I issued a recommendation to the inspectors that they should deal as quickly as possible with proposals for housing schemes containing 50 or more houses. I felt it was unfair to the community, to those waiting for homes, that their planning appeals should be delayed if it was possible to deal with them earlier than was the practice up to then. That was only a recommendation but, generally, it can be taken that appeals are dealt with in the order in which they come in.
Is the Minister aware that an appeal in respect of a business premises was taken within a month?
That would be exceptional.
Can the Minister give any reason for it?
I do not know. I have been anxious to speed up the appeals process. Many appeals are straightforward and could be dealt with fairly quickly. I think it is wrong to leave these lying there for seven or eight months.
Would the Minister agree in relation to appeals that it is important that not only should justice be done but that it should appear to be done? In relation to the question tabled by Deputy Blaney, would the Minister not consider that arrangements should be made now to provide that there be public consideration given to all appeals? When the Minister says some appeals are so simple and clear that they can be dealt with quickly, I might ask by whom? Of course, they are dealt with by the Minister's staff. Those concerned with an appeal get an intimation that the appeal has either been allowed or refused. There may be a very proper decision but people would like to feel they had proper consideration given to their appeals. Would the Minister not reconsider the Fine Gael proposal that there should be an open and public hearing of all appeals?
The Deputy mentioned a number of things about which I am not clear. He seems to imply that every appeal should be decided by way of oral hearing, a suggestion that I do not think he would find general support for.
Why not?
From experience it is obvious.
From whose experience?
From the experience of——
Bureaucracy.
——myself.
A whole lot of people do not count. They are small people and their case is trivial. It is very important to the person involved.
I was going to be helpful and try and explain my own thinking in this matter in reply to Deputy O'Higgins. He has criticised my reply before I have even given it. I do not know why he adopts that attitude.
There has been provision in the Estimate for a year or so for a planning appeals tribunal. Money has been set aside for this body but it has not been set up. Could the Minister explain why that body has not been set up?
That was explained during the course of my Estimate speech.