Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Nov 1993

Vol. 435 No. 10

Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983 (Section 5) Order, 1993: Motion.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. M. Smith)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983 (Section 5) Order, 1993,

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on 27 October, 1993.

The purpose of the draft order before the House today is to change the composition of the committee which selects candidates for the chairmanship of An Bord Pleanála. The draft order proposes that the Secretary of the Department of the Environment will take the place of the chief engineering adviser of that Department and that the membership of the committee will be expanded to include the chairperson of the Council for the Status of Women.

The seven year term of office of the chairman of An Bord Pleanála will expire on 1 March 1994 and a new appointment falls to be made in accordance with procedures laid down by section 5 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983. Under that section, a chairman is appointed by the Government, from among not more than three candidates chosen by a committee of selection following public advertisement of the position. This committee consists of the President of the High Court, the chairman of the County Councils General Council, the chairperson of the Council of An Taisce, the President of the Construction Industry Federation, the President of the Executive Council of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the chief engineering adviser of the Department of the Environment. However, subsection (6) of section 5 allows the membership to be altered by order of the Minister for the Environment which order has to be approved in draft by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas.

The need to alter the membership of the committee of selection arises from a reorganisation of the professional staff structure in my Department. The post of chief engineering adviser, which became vacant in September, has been discontinued and it is necessary, therefore, to make other arrangements to fill one place on the committee. I consider that the appropriate course of action is to provide that the Secretary of the Department of the Environment should be a member of the committee and the draft order makes provision for this.

The Secretary is already, under section 21 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, a member of the committee which selects candidates for the offices of Director-General and Director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The need to change the membership of the committee of selection in the manner I have outlined presents an opportunity to add to the committee the chairperson of the Council for the Status of Women. I am sure Deputies will agree that this is an appropriate addition in the interests of gender balance and helping to ensure that the needs of women are taken into account in planning issues. I would point out also that the council is represented on the Environmental Protection Agency committee of selection. The proposed changes to the membership of the committee have already been approved by the Seanad and, if they are approved in this House today, I will be making the order without delay and making a formal request to the committee to start the process of selecting candidates for consideration by the Government.

The draft order we are discussing today relates only to the procedure for filling the office of chairman of An Bord Pleanála. The ordinary members of the board are appointed under separate statutory procedures established by section 7 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983. Under that section, the Minister for the Environment appoints the five ordinary members of the board, one of whom is drawn from among officers of my Department, while the four remaining positions are filled from among persons selected by four panels of nominating organisations. As the terms of office of a number of the board's ordinary members are due to expire early in 1994, I will be activating the appropriate statutory procedures in the near future so that appointments can be made in good time.

I would like to take this opportunity to make a brief mention of An Bord Pleanála's recent performance. Deputies will appreciate that one of the key objectives laid down for the board is to ensure that there are no avoidable delays in deciding on development proposals. I am pleased that the board's annual report for 1992, which was laid before this House recently, shows a generally satisfactory picture from this point of view. At the end of 1992, there were 719 planning appeals on hands, only 15 of which were with the board for more than six months. This compares very favourably with the position at the end of 1990, when there were 1,454 appeals on hands, of which 11 per cent were more than six months old. The position has improved further since the end of last year. By the end of last September, the number of appeals on hands in the board was down to 470, with only three on hands longer than four months. Four months is now, under the 1992 Planning Act, the statutory target period for the determination of appeals and I am sure that Deputies will welcome the fact that the board is fulfilling this important new objective for virtually all appeals. The extent of the turn-around can be summed up by noting that the average time to determine appeals has been reduced from 18 weeks in 1992 to only 12 weeks in September of this year.

The 1992 Act, which streamlined planning appeals procedures, has undoubtedly made a considerable contribution to the improvement in the board's performance. The Act made important changes to the appeals process, aimed at speeding it up but without taking away from its thoroughness or fairness. The efficiency with which these major changes have been introduced reflects well on the chairman, members and staff of the board, and I take this opportunity to express my appreciation of their dedication to this task. The new streamlined procedures should enable the board to maintain, and even improve, current performance levels. In a situation in which many of the appeals before the board relate to employment creation projects, it is vital that appeals are dealt with in a way which avoids any undue delay in getting new projects off the ground.

I emphasise, finally, that the purpose of the draft order before the House today is merely to make necessary and appropriate adjustments to the membership of the committee of selection. It does not involve any fundamental change in the overall process for selecting the chairman of An Bord Pleanála, which has worked well since 1983.

Mrs. Doyle

I greet with approval the Minister's announcement that the vast majority of appeals are dealt with in the four month period mandated by recent changes in the 1992 legislation.

I have no particular difficulties with the order before us but I note with interest some of the changes the Minister made. However, it is in his interest to listen to the serious concern expressed about certain aspects of the operation of An Bord Pleanála. I ask him to give us another opportunity to discuss constructively and in greater depth the extension of the brief of An Bord Pleanála, given the new regulations that now impinge on its brief. Many practitioners in planning feel that the practice of preparing the full and final grounds of the appeal application within 28 days makes for greater efficiency, even if they are put to the pin of their collars to meet this new deadline — a deadline which has helped speed up appeals but which, nonetheless, is causing problems in many areas. We must remember that the planning authority and the developer will be very familiar with all the documentation and the issues by the time the application gets to the appeal stage as they have been through the initial planning application. We must, however, think for a moment about community groups, residents' associations and even neighbouring landowners who will be affected by the proposal for even a medium or large project on their doorsteps. If these groups, for whatever reason, assume that planning permission will be refused and then find they have to lodge an appeal they have only four weeks in which they must secure the services of a relevant consultant — we are assuming a fairly large project. They must also obtain, analyse and assess the application itself and indeed any environmental impact statement that may have accompanied it, that can be a highly technical document as most environmental impact statements range from 500 to 1,000 pages. Finally the appellant groups must formulate, present and deliver the full and final grounds of appeal within the four week period.

My concern is that the balance of advantage now lies with the developer and the planning authority. Even though the four weeks was introduced to bring efficiency to the process, we have erred in that we have titled the balance so that the third party appellant often becomes familiar with the entire project only on the day planning permission is granted. Will the Minister reconsider that aspect of the legislation in order to ensure equity? We need development, but we need balance between development and environmental impact. Legislation should not tilt the balance against the genuine third party objector who is hard pressed to document his concerns within four weeks. If the professionals in local authorities are hard pressed to meet deadlines, what hope has a community group or an individual? Procedures for lodging appeals against large projects must include the flexibility of an extension to the time premitted for lodging the appeal. This would ensure the more equitable operation of the Act.

The freedom of access to environmental information regulation which many of us called for, and welcomed when it came, was a major disappointment when we discovered that An Bord Pleanála had been excluded by the Minister when introducing the directive into Irish law. This is an absurd decision and I urge the Minister carefully to review it. If planning affairs are to become transparent with access by individuals to environmental information, individuals and groups must be entitled to have access at least to the inspector's reports. We need only recall the Tara mast saga where it became apparent in the process of the judicial review that the inspector had recommended against planning permission but, in a one line minute, the board granted planning permission. The appellants called for a judicial review and the High Court sided with the appellants, whereas the Supreme Court subsequently decided with An Bord Pleanála. Now we have this judgment blocking many community groups and non-governmental organisations of one kind or another in terms of their approach to An Bord Pleanála. These groups are not sufficiently financed to take the risk of having the Supreme Court decision used as a precedent against them. I would urge the Minister to allow transparency, to allow the directive on freedom of access to environmental information to apply to all appeals to An Bord Pleanála. The Minister would be on safe ground in that we would not need to go back to Europe on this issue. The European regulation does not preclude An Bord Pleanála from making some amendment which is urgently needed.

We must address the issue of the extended scope of the brief of An Bord Pleanála, with the European regulation and our legislation now encompassing environmental impact statements. Originally the board in determining an appeal only had to consider it in terms of the "proper planning and development of the area". With the expansion of the scope of issues to be considered since the introduction of the EC regulation on environmental impact statements, the board is now required to have regard to the EIS and to any supplementary information relating to the EIS and any other submission or observation concerning the effects on the environment of the proposed development.

The problem lies in the fact that there is no evidence the board has changed its approach to determining appeals so as to encompass the broader issues to which it is required to have regard. The major environmental issues raised by appellants in the appeal against the planned new power station at Poolbeg were not reflected in the planning conditions imposed by the board. Similarly, the appeal against the Westport irradiation plant which cited among other things the fact that it would help to support the Canadian nuclear industry, with obvious international environmental implications, was rejected by the board. In this instance the inspector at the oral hearing attempted to rule out all issues which did not relate to the proper planning and development of the area. The planning conditions subsequently imposed only related to matters concerning the "proper planning and development of the area" and not the environmental impact on the area. The board has yet to take up the scope granted by the recent legislative changes. I would like another opportunity to debate that issue in depth.

There are many difficulties relating to proof of appeal but the time constraint will not allow me to go into them this morning. We should look again at appeal fees. We want to be reasonable and we do not want vexatious objections and cranks blocking the serious good work of An Bord Pleanála. At the moment the fees deter many local groups and individuals who have serious concerns of a personal or an environmental nature in relation to planning permissions granted by their local authorities. There is a £100 fee for a domestic appeal, a £200 fee for a commercial development appeal plus a £50 fee if either of those appeals requires an oral hearing. The payment of £30 for observation needs clarification. One can become an observer to an appeal without being a full appellant but one is not involved subsequently within the full communication process.

We welcome the improvements and the tightening of the timeframe in terms of the four month deadline for most appeals but the Minister should look again at the four weeks allowed to the genuine third party objector, who will not be able to get the consultant's report and the necessary technical documentation together in that time. The Minister should reconsider the fees and look at broadening the scope of the remit of an Bord Pleanála to ensure that it takes into account matters such as environmental impact statements. Please allow transparency in the operation of An Bord Pleanála for its sake. It is suspect as long as people feel it is not transparent. It has nothing to fear by being transparent.

Ms Keogh

While the proposition before us is very simple, it gives rise to some complex questions. In this short debate we will not have the time to deal in depth with the various issues.

There is no difficulty in changing the membership to include the Secretary of the Department of the Environment. I welcome the decision to include the chairperson of the Council for the Status of Women because it acknowledges the valuable work done by the council and it recognises the representative nature of that body which represents over 90 women's organisations, many of which are involved on a day to day basis with environmental matters. The first acknowledgement of the Council for the Status of Women came in the Environmental Protection Agency Bill initiated by Deputy Harney as Minister. In a debate in the Seanad I welcomed that initiative.

The Minister in his contribution read out a list of the people who are members of this committee. He referred to the President of the High Court, the chairman of the County Councils' General Council, the chairman of the council of An Taisce, the president of the Construction Industry Federation and the president of the executive council of ICTU.

At a time when there is so much talk about equality we are still using the archaic term of "chairman". I accept the argument that there are constraints in respect of wording, but at a time when the Government has given a commitment to take affirmative action in respect of gender proofing all legislation, it is ironic that we are still using such archaic language. There is a wider point involved in this matter which may not be appropriate to the Minister's brief, but at the basic level of communication we should use the mode of expression that best describes the type of society in which we live. The position of women should be acknowledged. I have great difficulty with being referred to as chairman and my two daughters, who are seeking role models in society, find it difficult to accept the use of the word "chairman" because of the automatic assumption behind the use of that word. This may seem a trivial matter but the use of language is fundamental and for that reason there should be a quicker resolve in respect of this matter. Perhaps the Minister might examine the issue.

In regard to the work of An Bord Pleanála, I welcome the fact that the 1992 Act streamlined the planning appeals procedure and assisted in speeding up the board's procedure. The Minister stated that that legislation contributed greatly to the improvement of the board's performance, but unfortunately we do not know if that is the case because we have not the transparency we were promised, despite regulations on freedom of access to information and the powers vested in the Minister. I made that point in the debate on the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1993 last June when the Government was forced, because of the Supreme Court decision on the interpretative centres, to provide that planning legislation applies to the Office of Public Works and other State agencies. I have made a consistent plea since then about the importance of openness and transparency as promised in the Programme for a Partnership Government. That is an example of the Government sitting on its hands until forced into action. The Minister should show greater openness in the use of his powers. The response, particularly regarding freedom of access to information, has been minimalist. The Minister has power in this area but has failed to use it.

At that time other Deputies and I called for greater openness so that people could be reassured about the planning process and the decisions reached by An Bord Pleanála, the final arbiter, could be seen to be fair and unbiased. I have no doubt that is true in most cases, but people are generally cynical unless something is seen to be done. They are cynical in particular about the political process and matters on which they do not have sufficient information. That is the crux of the matter. If people are given information they can make a judgment based on accuracy, not on speculation.

I fail to understand the Minister's continued reluctance to accept that, for example, the inspector's report should be published or at least made available to the public and interested parties. Some decisions taken by An Bord Pleanála are unclear and access to information would help iron out difficulties and clear up speculation. The Minister appears to have a certain reluctance in regard to freedom of access to information; he frequently talks about what he cannot do rather than what he can do in that regard. Will he reassess his attitude?

Deputy Doyle referred to the question of charges for making representations in respect of decisions. Public representatives are frequently asked to make observations or representations, the minimum charge for which is £30. It is ironic that a public representative should be asked to pay a charge for pursuing his or her job. We want to ensure that vexatious claims are not made or that representations are not spurious and, therefore, a certain sum of money should be required to be lodged, but I would ask the Minister to re-examine the charges and allow a waiver in instances where a good case is made on behalf of local organisations. That should not present an enormous difficulty. We do not want to clog up the system. We want to ensure that cases put forward are valid but, at the same time, we do not want to disenfranchise people or price them out of the business, as it were.

In general there has been an improvement in the work of An Bord Pleanála, but there is a long way to go yet. I welcome the Minister's decision in regard to the chairperson of the Council for the Status of Women and I look forward to greater openness from Government in respect of gender awareness and gender proofing.

Mr. Gilmore

The motion before us involves a relatively minor change in the manner in which the committee of selection for the chairman of An Bord Pleanála is appointed. I welcome that and recognise the necessity for it. This debate gives us an opportunity to take an overview of the operations of An Bord Pleanála and how it operates within the planning system generally. It is fair to say that there is a worrying decline in public confidence in the planning system. It is regrettable that the legislation in relation to An Bord Pleanála which we passed some time ago contributed to that. While it is true that the appeals procedure has speeded up, the sense of isolation felt by many people in regard to An Bord Pleanála has increased.

Deputy Doyle referred to the charges imposed on members of residents' associations, but I would not make an exception for a public representative. What cuts for a public representative should cut for members of the public also. Many individual citizens might wish to express an opinion on planning applications in their area and they should not be prevented from doing so because they do not have the money. The sum of £30 is a fairly substantial charge and it costs £100 to make an appeal. That may well be "small beer" for a developer lodging an appeal but it is a substantial charge for a member of the public. Those charges should be reduced to make the planning system more accessible for the general public.

An Bord Pleanála should provide clear-cut reasons for taking a decision. It frequently makes decisions that are difficult to understand and explain, but there may be a valid reason. The point has been made that in some cases the decision eventually made by the board varies from the recommendation made by the inspector. There is a necessity for An Bord Pleanála to be much more open in providing information, to make available the inspector's report to the public and to explain more fully the basis on which decisions are made. This would be of help in restoring public confidence in the planning system.

As I said, public confidence in the planning system is low. To some extent this is due to the deficiencies in the legislation relating to An Bord Pleanála and other factors. For example, during the past four years there have been two Garda inquiries into allegations of malpractice and corruption in the planning system. The inquiry carried out in 1989 resulted in the then chief planner of An Bord Pleanála being charged. These charges were subsequently dismissed by the court. This was a very disturbing episode in the history of the planning system in that senior officials were brought before the court and a Garda inquiry was conducted into the way in which the system operated.

A second Garda investigation is now underway arising from articles which appeared in The Irish Times last July and on the review of the development plan for County Dublin. I understand that that Garda inquiry is continuing. This has led to public confidence in the planning system being undermined.

There is a belief among the public that to a large extent the planning system operates in favour of the developer. What we have seen during the past few months in relation to the review of the development plan for County Dublin, for example, would lend strong support to that opinion. During the past 25 years or so the greater Dublin area has grown and developed; and it appears that this was not based on good planning principles but more at the behest of individual developers who proceeded on the basis of what was good for them. We have sprawling suburbs which very often were developed without appropriate infrastructure or community facilities. Costs for the taxpayer have increased in terms of servicing the land, while the quality of the environment has declined in County Dublin.

As a result of many of these decisions the cost of houses has increased which, in turn, has led to higher mortgages and so on for the home owner and purchaser. This has been to the benefit of the developers. During the past 25 years, for example, large tracts of land in County Dublin have been rezoned. I very much regret that this process has been continued in the review of the development plan for County Dublin which is now nearing completion. An additional 2,500 acres has been rezoned for development, particularly in parts of the country where there was already sufficient land zoned for development. Last Saturday the Irish Independent estimated that the value of the land in question would increase to £110 million, which in anybody's language is a substantial increase in profit.

The time has come for the Government, which is considering the budget that it will introduce in the new year, to introduce a tax on windfall profits made from land rezoning. Given that we live in a State where the pensions of elderly people are taxed and where a 1 per cent income levy was introduced last year — the Irish Congress of Trade Unions wants to have this removed — it is not unreasonable to ask the Government to introduce a tax on the windfall profits made from land speculation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is straying somewhat from the subject before us.

Mr. Gilmore

I am not; I am dealing with the question of public confidence in An Bord Pleanála. Apart from the revenue that would be raised for the State, it would have the effect of reducing the pressure from developers and landowners to have land rezoned. If they realised that the windfall profits made might be lower, they might be less inclined to push to have land rezoned in the first place. This, in turn, would have the effect of restoring a degree of confidence in the planning system. This is not a new proposal. Twenty years ago the Kenny report was presented, but no Government has done anything about it. It recommended measures which go much further than what I have now suggested.

In summary, while I am aware that this motion deals specifically with An Bord Pleanála, it raises questions about confidence in the planning system. Specifically, I am asking the Government, which is now considering its budget for the new year, to consider the possibility of introducing a special tax on the profits made from land rezoning because planning decisions, regardless of whether they are made by the elected members of a local authority during a review of the developing plan, by a county manager in reaching a decision on an individual planning application or by An Bord Pleanála in respect of an appeal, can result in substantial gains. There is probably no other area of public activity where a decision made by a public authority can result in the same windfall gain for small numbers of people. In the case to which I have referred in Dublin County Council approximately 30 land owners stand to gain substantially from decisions made during the past two and a half months. It is time that the Government, which would normally accuse the Opposition of being opposed to the introduction of taxes, took the suggestion on board that a tax be introduced to deal with this problem.

Mr. Bell

On behalf of The Labour Party, I welcome the Minister's proposal, because this change is necessary. In particular, I welcome the involvement for the first time of a representative of a women's group. This is essential. As those of us who are members of local authorities are aware, few women are involved at any level of the planning process and in many respects they have more to contribute than many of their male colleagues.

While I support the point made by Deputy Gilmore that a tax should be introduced on the profits made from land rezoning, I should point out that in 99 per cent of cases the bad publicity centres on planning decisions taken in County Dublin. I want to assure the Deputy that this is not the position in County Louth. Ninety-eight per cent of all planning applications in County Louth relate to the construction of dwelling houses. Indeed, only a small percentage ever reach An Bord Pleanála. Strange as it may seem, if one were to look at the appeals one would find that they contain the same signatures. There are small groups of "appeal crazy" people who tend to take satisfaction in appealing against everything.

My party campaigned and sought a reduction in the length of time it took An Bord Pleanála to process appeals. I welcomed that decision because it was a good one. The time specified in the legislation is more than adequate. In talking about the planning system we seem to concentrate on the objector and never seem to think about the unfortunate person who has to go to great expense in submitting a planning application to a local authority.

Mrs. Doyle

They are called developers. They are not all bad.

Mr. Bell

A very large percentage of planning applications are submitted by ordinary, working class people and they relate to the construction of a house for their family. We get carried away by the mass media coverage of County Dublin. I wish County Dublin would keep its planning problems to itself and leave the unfortunate people on rural county councils and corporations to deal with their own affairs.

Mrs. Doyle

We do not all want to be tarred with the same brush.

Mr. Bell

We do not have those problems, and they do not have them in Wexford, so far as I know. Dublin should look after its own affairs for a change, we are sick of reading about them.

The applicant must also be taken care of. Many of the appeals to An Bord Pleanála could be avoided if certain changes were made to the planning procedure. Generally speaking, the notification for the planning permission is given in, say, the seventh week of the statutory eight. Alternatively, if the local authority is under pressure, it will ask for further information thereby gaining a further eight weeks. There would be much saving of time and effort at local level if that were to change. A four week period would be more than adequate to deal with an application for a dwelling house at local level. We must take into account the fact that applicants have to pay very substantially and can lose very substantially in the event of failure to get planning permission. We must not alone strike a gender balance but a planning balance to give a fair crack of the whip to the applicant as well as to the objector. It should not be necessary to have an elaborate system of appeals where we are only talking about an application for a dwelling house in a rural area, because the county development plan sets the criteria for dealing with planning applications. Everything it is necessary to know about the planning application is contained therein and much of the fault lies with auctioneers and solicitors who do not advise the applicant to find out before purchasing a site if there is planning permission, and its conditions, to ensure the contract is signed subject to planning permission being granted.

I welcome the proposal and I hope further improvements will be made to allow for the quick processing of important planning applications.

Mr. E. Ryan

I too, as a member of Dublin City Council, would like to set the record straight.

Mrs. Doyle

You are all washing your hands of them.

Mr. E. Ryan

We do not have the same problems as county councillors, neither do we have the problems they face in regard to population shifts, for example. On radio this morning Deputy Rabbitte said there were only about six bad rezoning decisions, but that the media give the impression it is all about rezoning land and that every single thing the councillors did was bad. As a city councillor, I am delighted we have not had the same problems and that we did not get all the media attention the county council got. I do not know enough about them to say whether they are right but there is certainly a huge problem because people want to live in a certain area and we must recognise that things are not as simple as they look.

I very much welcome the appointment of a member of the Council on the Status of Women to this group because women have been ignored in the planning process. As chairman of the planning committee on Dublin City Council, which drew up its own development plan, we received a very good submission from a group called, I think, Women in Planning, which opened councillors' eyes on how planning affects women. They probably spend far more time in housing estates than men, but they rarely have an opportunity to design housing estates. This submission highlighted a number of areas, including shopping centres. It was taken on board and one of the biggest and most prestigious housing estates in Dublin, St. Helen's in Booterstown, recruited housewives to help in the design of the houses, vis-á-vis the lay-out of kitchens, living rooms, etc. This was done over a considerable period of time to ensure that the housing estate and the houses were designed in such a way that people would feel comfortable there.

The planning changes have been very good. Prior to the changes an enormous amount of time was wasted by people objecting to any development. In many of these developments people who wanted to set up factories and create jobs were never told when they would get planning permission. The matter could go on for years and it was extremely difficult for the IDA to deal with. The Bill will be advantageous in the long term to developers and residents' associations. Many people would like to believe that developers are dreadful people but they create jobs. Residents' associations will also benefit, particularly in cases where somebody builds without planning permission, the residents' association objects and the person applies for retention of use. This can go on and on, the case goes to An Bord Pleanála and there is another time lag. Residents' associations wonder how this kind of thing can go on for years when people are breaking the planning laws. Therefore, these changes are not all bad.

Residents' associations in urban areas face huge expenditure in objecting to small extensions and small developments, and perhaps the Minister could look at the question of reducing the charges in the case of small developments because some residents' associations would have to deal with many in a one or two year period.

I agree with other Deputies that there should be no change in relation to charges for public representatives. If they did not have to pay, they would be asked to object to every single development for which there was a proposal. After a while our objections would not be worth the paper they were written on. If other people have to pay, the same should apply to public representatives. When residents' associations ask me to object to a proposed development, I will do so, if I feel strongly about it, but sometimes I do not. However, it would be foolish to allow public representatives to make objections free of charge because, after a while, their objections would not be taken seriously but would be seen merely as another routine letter from a public representative.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. M. Smith)

I thank my colleagues who contributed to the debate. I am not surprised we have moved from the main issue before the House. Planning and development is a central question here and opportunities are all too infrequent to deal with that matter in a comprehensive way. I hope in future to debate in greater detail some of the matters raised. Nonetheless, I will try to deal with Deputies' questions in the time limit available.

Deputy Keogh raised the point regarding the "chairman" and "chairperson". It is impossible to win on this issue. As a democrat I contacted all the organisations to inquire what term was used in their constitutions and applied those terms. It has been said on many occasions that this matter should be decided locally rather than centrally. As Deputy Doyle and other Members will know, Deirdre Bolger is Chairman of the General Council of County Councils and has no objection to being addressed by that title. This matter may not be best adressed locally and I accept we should decide an appropriate title. However, the title I am adopting is that contained in the constitutions of the various organisations. That position may change following contact with those organisations in the future.

Ms Keogh

Would the Minister suggest the term "Cathaoirleach"?

Mr. M. Smith

I do not accept Deputy Gilmore's statement that there has been a decline in public confidence in the planning process. I am sure he will appreciate — and Deputy Bell made the point in a different way — there have been very few problems with the planning process and that, where they emerged, we tried to deal with them. In the past the appeals process was dealt with by the Minister. A planning appeal board was established and it worked quite well. When the appeals process became sluggish due to long delays associated with processing appeals we tried to minimise delays and the appeals process has improved. We are still endeavouring to make the planning process more efficient and modern and ensure there is greater public consensus and participation. I am reviewing the regulations in the planning process in respect of public notices. The public will be aware of what is happening. They will have the benefit of knowledge from the beginning. They will have the benefit of knowledge from the beginning of an appeal as distinct from receiving information accidentally. The planning process is not in decline. In 93 per cent of cases planning permission is either granted or refused at local authority level without reference to the planning appeals process. There should be recognition of the work at local authority level.

There is need for further work in respect of the pre-planning applications process. Some applications that end up in appeals process or in dispute with local authorities might have been managed better if there had been greater emphasis on the pre-planning application process by the local authority to investigate and resolve the problems. This would also apply in circumstances where a planning application is refused because it is very important for applicants to know how to proceed.

Mrs. Doyle

Planning sections need more resources urgently.

Mr. M. Smith

I could be limited by what Deputy Yates said last week about a proposed £30 million cut in public expenditure.

Mr. E. Ryan

Deputy Doyle would not agree with Deputy Yates.

Mr. M. Smith

Deputy Doyle expressed concern about the operation of the recent planning Act. It was introduced a year ago and has worked quite well. Very few representations have been made to my Department in respect of difficulties arising from the provisions of that Act. Nonetheless, it must be kept under review and, if changes are necessary, they will be addressed in future. I am anxious to ensure that not only is the planning system efficient and modern but that it is one in which the public have confidence. If any aspects of the Act create disadvantage for individual groups they will be addressed in the future. At this stage it is too early to make amendments to the Act. We went through that process a year ago and tried to find the right balance to ensure the system was fair and streamlined. There were not only vexatious appeals but an almost deliberate attempt to lengthen and frustrate the process, but that practice has been eliminated now.

A number of Deputies raised the question of fees. It is important to remember that the taxpayer who is not involved in the appeals process contributes 85 per cent of the cost of the appeals system. We are asking for a contribution towards that cost from those directly involved which would be approximately 15 per cent of the cost of an appeal. I have no intention of transferring any more of the burden to the taxpayer.

I agree with Deputies Gilmore and Ryan that if public representatives had free access to the substantive area of the appeals process they would be used as a lever on a regular basis and that would not be acceptable. Such a role for public representatives in the appeals process acting for appellants would not be appropriate. Public representatives are in favour of developments and employment and they must make a balanced judgment as to what they would support under the appeals system.

Deputy Doyle referred to the question of the environmental impact statement. Under law An Bord Pleanála is required to give due consideration to all environmental aspects when considering new projects. If there is evidence to suggest otherwise I would welcome details of any complaints.

I have no wish to engage in arguments with colleagues in relation to access to information. We have a new instrument at an embryonic stage. The present system is a change for many local authorities. We are anxious to accommodate such change which not only builds confidence in the system but also in the public who have access to it. We will continue to improve the system. I appear to stand accused of not being anxious to make inspectors' reports available to the public but that is not the position. Deputy Doyle indicated her thinking on this matter when she outlined the case, where the board made a different decision from that recommended in the inspector's report. It would be wrong if an inspector's report is required only for such cases. The board must decide all the issues and that is why it was established. People are selected through an independent process, they have a broad experience which brings a blend of opinions and a wider perspective to the planning appeal process and they will consider all areas before making a final decision. The inspector's report is a technical one and is upheld in more than 90 per cent of cases. Deputies appear to be suggesting that the public consider the technical report to be the be-all and end-all in regard to planning matters. If that is the position I must accept every technical and administrative report I receive in my Department, but I do not because I have to take into account wider issues. This House must decide whether to abandon the present Bill and get rid of the board system so that the inspector's report will become the major element in planning appeals. That system is applied in the United Kingdom but it has not been adopted here. I am prepared to listen to any arguments advanced but I am not prepared to allow Deputies accuse me of considering only one element.

Question put and agreed to.