asked the Minister for Environment if he will issue a directive to An Bord Pleanála directing the board to give top priority to planning appeals, where there is high labour content involved in the proposals, or original planning applications; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Planning Appeals.
16.
Under section 4(1) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983, which came into operation on 20 March 1984 it is the general duty of An Bord Pleanála to secure that planning appeals are dealt with as quickly as possible. To this end, the board are required to carry out reviews of their organisation and of their systems and procedures and I am empowered to direct that such reviews be carried out. Where such a direction is given, I may, after consultation with the board as to the results of the review, give directives to the board in relation to the matters which were the subject of the review.
In an address to the board on 20 March 1984 the Minister asked that a determined effort be made to eliminate the backlog of appeals as quickly as possible so that all appeals are dealt with within a reasonable period. He also asked the board to consider whether it might be possible, at a later stage, to set targets involving the disposal of all, or particular categories of appeals within set periods. I am satisfied that the board will consider these matters fully and that, in doing so, they can also be expected to consider the matter referred to in the question. In these circumstances, I do not propose at this stage to intervene formally under section 4 of the 1983 Act.
Would the Minister agree that it is causing great problems to public representatives especially who are making representations continuously because of the backlog? Some fairly large developments are being held up on appeal. At a time when work is so scarce in the construction industry, would it not be sensible to give priority to labour intensive projects?
If we can devise a system to deal with the backlog we will do so. As the Deputy is aware, it had become a bit of a joke. We are now trying to resolve it. It is all right to say X or Y should get priority, but these things should be taken in order. The important thing is to dispose of the backlog. The Minister indicated that to the board. The board have been in operation since March only and after about six months we will see how they are operating. I believe they will operate to meet the needs the Deputy is talking about. I am anxious to ensure that large applications will not be held up. I do not want to state that only large applications should get priority and small ones should not. That would be unfair. I take the point. It is important that appeals should not be held up for longer than is necessary.
Is the Minister of State satisfied that the new board have so organised their affairs that they will be able to reduce the appalling backlog which built up in the previous board, as a result of which people had to wait for 12 months or longer to get a planning decision?
That is bordering on argument.
I am asking the Minister of State if he is satisfied that the new board have so arranged their affairs.
I am satisfied that the new board are so arranging their affairs.