asked the Minister for Local Government the number of planning appeals that were awaiting a decision on the 30th September, 1974, from (a) County Offaly and (b) County Laois.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Planning Appeals.
15.
The numbers of planning appeals awaiting decision on the 30th September, 1974, from Counties Offaly and Laois were 24 and 17, respectively.
16.
asked the Minister for Local Government the number of planning appeals dealt with for the year ended 30th September, 1974, and the percentage of these cases in which planning permission was granted.
As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to have it circulated with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
Analysis of planning appeal decisions in the year ended 30th September, 1974.
|
Appeals against decisions to refuse permission or approval |
Appeals by proposers against decisions to grant permissions or approvals subject to conditions |
Appeals by aggrieved third parties against decisions to grant permissions or approvals |
||||||
|
Permission or approval granted on appeal with or without conditions |
Permission or approval refused |
Permission or approval granted subject to same conditions as planning authority |
Permission or approval granted subject to revised or additional conditions |
Permission or approval refused |
Permission or approval granted in accordance with decision of the planning authority |
Permission or approval granted subject to conditions or additional or revised conditions |
Permission or approval refused |
Total number of appeals de by Minister or Parliamentary Secretary |
|
1,662 |
886 |
41 |
99 |
2 |
140 |
132 |
24 |
2,986 |
NOTE: The above figures relate to appeals formally decided and excludes 1,142 appeals otherwise disposed of (withdrawn, invalid, etc.).
The reply should involve only one figure and one percentage figure. Why, then, should it be necessary to set it out in the form of a tabular statement to be issued with the Official Report?
The reply contains nine figures but if Deputy Cunningham wishes and if the Chair so allows, I shall read these out.
My question is to ask the Minister the number of planning appeals dealt with for the year ended 30th September, 1974, and the percentage of these cases in which planning permission was granted. That involves two figures. The Minister can keep the other seven figures to which he referred.
I will give the Deputy the exact figures and he can calculate the percentages.
The Minister has more time and is better equipped, by way of officials, to provide this information than I am.
Order. Is it the wish of the Deputy to have the reply now or to await it in the form of a tabular statement?
I shall have it now, please.
It is usual for the Chair to accord permission for Ministers to give replies in the form of tabular statements.
I am pointing out to the Chair the subterfuge that is being adopted by the Minister in this case where there are only two figures involved.
I do not think we should argue the matter now.
What Deputy Cunningham is asking for does not convey any information to him because he does not differentiate in his question between third party appeals and decisions given already.
I do not want that differentiation now, but I hope I will be able to get that information on another occasion. For the moment I shall be happy with the information I asked for.
(Interruptions.)
Let us either dispose of this question or move on to the next question.
The total number of appeals decided either by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary was 2,986 while the figure for permissions or approvals granted on appeal with or without conditions was 1,662.
The Minister has not given me any percentage but I have calculated this to be about 50 per cent.
Has the Deputy a question?
Arising out of that figure, can the Minister explain why the figure for permissions granted in Meath is 90 per cent and 10 per cent in respect of those refused? Is the Minister looking after his friends? Is he postponing the setting-up of the committee under the new legislation in order further to deal with his friends?
The Deputy is engaging in argument.
Must I bring before this House details of planning permissions either dealt with or put to one side by Deputies Cunningham and Molloy during their term of office?
Let the Minister go ahead and do so. He has already threatened us ten times with this.
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 17, please.
Deputy Cunningham should be ashamed to mention planning permissions in this House.
I am not ashamed.
We know the rotten practice that is going on.
Let the Minister prove what he is saying.