I am pleased to accept the invitation from the committee to make a presentation on the board's annual report and performance for 2009. I take this opportunity to advise the committee of the up to date position and comment on two issues which were discussed at our meeting last year.
Last year's total intake of 3,800 cases was significantly down on the intake of 5,600 for 2008. This meant that in spite of a significant reduction in expenditure, which necessitated the effective end of the use of fee per case inspectors to report on normal planning appeals, the board was in a position to reduce the backlog of cases and improve its performance relative to the 18 week statutory objective period. Although a considerable workload still existed from the Strategic Infrastructure Act the number of cases on hands was reduced from 2,636 at the start of 2009 to 1,332 at the end of the year. In 2009, 26% of cases were disposed of within the statutory objective period. The compliance rate has improved continuously this year and more than 70% of cases are being disposed of within the 18 week statutory objective period. The current number of cases on hands is just over the 1,000 mark. The projected intake of all cases in 2010 is 2,900 and we are projecting a similar intake for 2011, not including new case types under the 2010 Act. While the great majority of cases are being disposed of within 18 weeks the board is continuing its efforts within available resources to achieve its strategic target of discharging 90% within that timeframe.
In regard to normal planning appeals the 2009 report shows that the percentage of local authority decisions appealed to the board showed a slight increase to 9%; just over half of these were received from third parties; the proportion of local decisions appealed which were reversed by the board remained broadly unchanged at 34%; first party appeals against refusal resulted in grants of permission in 29% of cases; third party appeals against grants of permission resulted in refusals in 39% of cases; and 8% of the appeals lodged with the board were invalid.
From the introduction of the Strategic Infrastructure Act in 2007 to the end of October 2010, the board received 174 requests from project sponsors for pre-application consultations. Some 292 meetings have been held. In 136 of these cases the consultations have concluded with 28 cases being withdrawn. Of the remaining 108 cases, the board determined that 46 were to be regarded as strategic infrastructure cases.
The board has received 17 "Seventh Schedule" applications for permission. Of these 14 have been concluded with nine granted, four refused and one withdrawn, three railway order applications have been concluded and approved. Seven gas applications which includes related compulsory acquisition requests have been concluded with four granted and three withdrawn. Six electricity applications have been concluded with five approved and one withdrawn. In a number of cases the board has used the powers given to it in the Act to require that projects be significantly amended before they can be approved. Despite our best efforts the 18 weeks period has proved to be impossible to attain in some of the larger projects, in many of which we have had to seek further information from the applicants. The figures given relate to projects submitted under the Strategic Infrastructure Act 2006 and do not include local authority projects such as roads, waste and water services. When the Strategic Infrastructure Act was introduced I advised the committee that each project would be subject to a robust and thorough assessment of its environmental and planning implications by An Bord Pleanála. Any fair minded assessment of our performance to date would bear this out. It continues to be our general policy to hold oral hearings to facilitate a thorough examination of significant projects and the greatest possible public participation in the planning of such projects.
The total actual expenditure of the board in 2009 was €20.4 million in comparison to €22.4 million in 2008. The expenditure projected for 2010 is €16.9 million, a reduction of some 25% since 2008. Significant curtailment of expenditure and tight monitoring and control of the budget continues to be an imperative for the board.
The board has adhered strictly to the Government embargo on recruitment and the requirement not to renew any temporary contracts of employment. There are now eight board members compared to 11 in 2009. The authorised complement of staff is 172 posts. The number of posts currently filled is 155. The board is conscious of the need to ensure it retains a clear focus on deploying staff resources in a manner which gives it the capability to achieve clear and measurable performance outcomes in accordance with its statutory remit and the Government agenda for transformation of the public sector. The board is fully co-operating with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the implementation of the Croke Park agreement relating to public service reform. All aspects of the board's operations relating to budget, staffing and so on, are constantly monitored and reported to the Department on an ongoing basis.
The latest legislation passed by the Houses related to planning is the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010. The Act will have a significant impact on An Bord Pleanála in respect of the nature and extent of the board's functions when all sections of the Act are brought into effect. In the case of environmental impact assessment, EIA, type developments and projects affecting European natural heritage sites, retention permission applications may only be entertained where the board has determined that exceptional circumstances exist. The Act makes provision for a substitute consent procedure in exceptional circumstances where developments have been carried out but are not in compliance with EU directives. Substitute consents may only be granted by An Bord Pleanála and cannot be granted by planning authorities. The legislation introduces the concept of a remedial environmental impact statement, EIS, and remedial natural impact statements to accompany such applications. The board will have to rule on the adequacy of remedial measures and, in certain circumstances, it will have powers to direct the cessation of activities and the taking of specified action by the developers or plant operators.
The Act also contains additional detailed controls and regulations with regard to quarries. Following determinations and decisions of planning authorities on the legal status of quarries in the light of EU directives, the legislation provides a right of review by the board of notices served on quarry owners and operators. There are also provisions in the legislation for quarry operators submitting applications to the board for substitute consent.
The Act contains provisions for local authorities and some State authorities to apply to the board for consent for development for which appropriate assessment is required under the EU habitats directive. This provision will extend the number of local authority developments requiring board consent beyond the range of development for which approval from the board under the EU EIA directive is currently required. In addition, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has indicated his intention to transfer functions under the Foreshore Act from his Department to the board but this must await primary legislation.
The committee will be aware that many of these provisions are complex and arise from judgments of the European Court of Justice and representations from the European Commission with regard to the implementation of various EU directives on environmental impact assessments and nature conservation. I accept the need to improve and clarify the legislation and to ensure it is implemented effectively but it is essential that the new provisions are implemented in an efficient, sensible and balanced manner. Care should be taken by all statutory bodies involved not to over-react to the new requirements and to ensure that the procedures and practices required to implement these provisions are not excessively bureaucratic, legalistic or financially prohibitive to project sponsors. Otherwise, they could end up damaging the competitiveness of the economy or discouraging or delaying development which is sustainable and provides employment, with no gain in terms of environmental protection. For its part, An Bord Pleanála will be conscious of these risks in the discharge of its functions.
Last year, at the committee's request, I dealt in detail with the issue of internal financial controls in the light of comments made by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report on the 2008 financial accounts. I am pleased to report that in 2009 the board complied in all respects with internal financial control requirements. Appendix No. 8 of the 2009 report contains a statement of the system of internal financial controls. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the 2009 accounts does not contain any criticism relating to a lack of review of the controls currently in place.
On the question of legal costs, at the start of 2009 a total of €3.3 million in recoverable legal costs was outstanding. A total of €804,000 was recovered in 2009, the bulk of which related to pre-2009 cases. However, a further total of €1.2 million in recoverable legal costs was also generated during the course of 2009. While the board continues to vigorously pursue all costs owed, its experience indicates that not all such costs will be recovered. The board continually reviews the recoverability of the outstanding legal costs and, in accordance with standard accounting practice, a certain proportion of such costs are written off for accounting purposes. A total of €648,000 was written off in the 2009 accounts. While it may be necessary to write off long-outstanding debts for accounting purposes, the debts remain outstanding in legal terms and may be recovered if this proves feasible. As a result of actions taken to recover debts and the re-designation of some debts as a result of final court decisions, the outstanding amount of recoverable legal debts reduced from €3.3 million at the beginning of 2009 to €2.7 million at the end of the year. This figure takes account of €1.2 million arising from court decisions in 2009.
The committee should note that due to a change in the 2010 Act, the legal cost recovery provision for some cases, including many cases of significance to the board, has been altered. The result is that, in future, the possibility of the board recovering its cost when it wins a case in legal challenges will be reduced. The amendment to the legislation was required to give effect to an EU directive on public participation. The new provision applies to cases involving the implementation of the EU EIA directive. Many such cases are dealt with by the board on an annual basis.
At last year's meeting, the Chairman requested that the board supply a breakdown of board decisions as they affect individual planning authorities rather than on a county basis. We have supplied this information to the committee this year.