It's time to talk about An Bord Pleanala

marno21

An Bord Pleanala have a statutory remit to decide planning appeals within 18 weeks. They had a 79% rate in 2016 of meeting this objective however in 2018 this fell to 38%.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/call-for-an-bord-pleanala-to-tackle-planning-delays-amid-housing-crisis-886304.html

This will come as no surprise to those who are following this, as An Bord Pleanala have now been saddled with the strategic housing developments and have not been allocated sufficient resources to deal with the extra workload

Posting this here as it effects both infrastructure and road projects, along with all the others.

CatInABox

Hardly surprising. A massive increase in workload, while the number of staff doing the work stays the same or gets worse, will always result in delays.

It's not just ABP either, NTA, TII, the courts, everything relating to construction and infrastructure in the country is horrifically under resourced.

Bray Head

Given that investment in Ireland varies so much over the economic cycle, how would you ensure that resources rise and fall in response to demand for their services?

stampydmonkey

Bray Head wrote: »

Given that investment in Ireland varies so much over the economic cycle, how would you ensure that resources rise and fall in response to demand for their services?

Do like everyone else....over priced contractors/consultants

CatInABox

Bray Head wrote: »

Given that investment in Ireland varies so much over the economic cycle, how would you ensure that resources rise and fall in response to demand for their services?

Truth be told, I'd be a fan of holding off on major investments until there's a recession, then using those projects to boost the economy during a downturn. It's better than the alternative of austerity during a recession, and better than paying over the odds during a boom. Look at the children's hospital, the price of that is soaring for multiple reasons, but one of those reasons is the cost of construction itself has gone up.

Anyway, the current level of staffing in some of those departments are so abnormally low that they wouldn't even get ahead of the work in a recession, never mind a boom. They need more staff, regardless.

roadmaster

Well ABP work load will not get any easier when you have NIMBY ministers

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/finian-mcgrath-opposes-385-home-development-in-north-dublin-1.3750505

jhenno78

CatInABox wrote: »

Truth be told, I'd be a fan of holding off on major investments until there's a recession, then using those projects to boost the economy during a downturn. It's better than the alternative of austerity during a recession, and better than paying over the odds during a boom. Look at the children's hospital, the price of that is soaring for multiple reasons, but one of those reasons is the cost of construction itself has gone up.

You're right about investing during downturns but we've so much to be done that it makes no sense to hold back. In the unlikely event that we had enough political will to drive investment through boom/bust cycles could even get up to 1950's standards within a few decades...

Bray Head

Infrastructure is not really a very good fiscal stimulus. If you want people to spend in a recession, just give them a cheque in the post.

Infrastructure is also very capital intensive, and we don't make many capital goods in Ireland. A new metro line is very good for makers of trains, TBMs and other systems.

My own view is that infrastructure investment should be invariant to the economic cycle. This means not rising when times are good, and not falling when times are bad.

This is very, very difficult to achieve in practice. TAx revenue varies a lot in Ireland over the cycle. Capital spending is relatively easy to ramp up and down in response to revenue compared to something like pension expenditure. So politicians and civil servants understandably don't want to commit to keeping it stable over the cycle.

CatInABox

Interestingly, Dublin City Council are suing An Bord Pleanala over the rejection of their new plans for pedestrian bridges across the liffey.

Apparently DCC originally wanted to build bridges at Forbes Street, and Castleforbes Road, and got permission for such, but then wanted to change their location to New Wapping St and (I assume) just next to the East Link bridge. ABP turned around and said that not only should the bridges not be moved, DCC should also build a third bridge, also just next to the East Link bridge (I assume, just from the article), but on the opposite side.

Kinda astonished that ABP would now require them to add a third bridge, it's no wonder that DCC are suing them. I can also see DCC suing them over the College Green plans eventually, I know that they're going back and making changes based upon the rejection, but if it's rejected again and rejected with the same standard of reasons, then I can DCC seeing the courts as an option.

mountai

Applied for PP on site adjacent to my house in established area . Visually looked the same as existing houses but was 4 apartments ( to be used by my children ) . Passed by Council and satisfied all departments , Engineering ,Roads etc. Usual NIMBY objections , however Council gave permission and it was noted on file that my Architect was complimented on design . Appealed to ABP . Inspector for ABP inspector seconded Councils decision and said development should be allowed ( further praise for design) .
I have no doubt , that because a local TD was one of the objectors , ABP went against the Council and turned it down . My point is , why does ABP go against their own independent inspectors decisions?. Why bother to have them employed in the first place?

Bray Head

mountai wrote: »

Applied for PP on site adjacent to my house in established area . Visually looked the same as existing houses but was 4 apartments ( to be used by my children ) . Passed by Council and satisfied all departments , Engineering ,Roads etc. Usual NIMBY objections , however Council gave permission and it was noted on file that my Architect was complimented on design . Appealed to ABP . Inspector for ABP inspector seconded Councils decision and said development should be allowed ( further praise for design) .
I have no doubt , that because a local TD was one of the objectors , ABP went against the Council and turned it down . My point is , why does ABP go against their own independent inspectors decisions?. Why bother to have them employed in the first place?

It's an independent, deliberative body a bit like a court. The purpose of the inspector's report is that of one input of many.

You can have your suspicions but I doubt your TD'S objections mattered. Politicians object to everything!

Idbatterim

mountai wrote: »

Applied for PP on site adjacent to my house in established area . Visually looked the same as existing houses but was 4 apartments ( to be used by my children ) . Passed by Council and satisfied all departments , Engineering ,Roads etc. Usual NIMBY objections , however Council gave permission and it was noted on file that my Architect was complimented on design . Appealed to ABP . Inspector for ABP inspector seconded Councils decision and said development should be allowed ( further praise for design) .
I have no doubt , that because a local TD was one of the objectors , ABP went against the Council and turned it down . My point is , why does ABP go against their own independent inspectors decisions?. Why bother to have them employed in the first place?

so have you abandoned this now? if the pathetic councils with their block everything will allow it, how in gods name did abp block it?!

mountai

I eventually defeated the NIMBYs . Went through the Planning process again with different proposal . Again got PP from council . , last minute appeal to ABP , in fact the objectors thought they were being clever by delaying until the final day . They miscalculated however and were 16 hours late in lodging appeal so PP went through by default . My point though is , the BP inspector is surely the best judge of such matters. I would expect they have professional qualifications ( open to correction on this) and AFAIK are the only ones to visit sites thus giving them more information than a committee . If they work for the Board and their decisions are ignored , what is the point of their purpose??.

Idbatterim

mountai wrote: »

I eventually defeated the NIMBYs . Went through the Planning process again with different proposal . Again got PP from council . , last minute appeal to ABP , in fact the objectors thought they were being clever by delaying until the final day . They miscalculated however and were 16 hours late in lodging appeal so PP went through by default . My point though is , the BP inspector is surely the best judge of such matters. I would expect they have professional qualifications ( open to correction on this) and AFAIK are the only ones to visit sites thus giving them more information than a committee . If they work for the Board and their decisions are ignored , what is the point of their purpose??.

good I am delighted! Typical bloody begrudges that this country is full of! There is a desperate need for housing, glad that you werent screwed over by this banana republic!

McAlban

Yeah, I keep a close eye on planning in Fingal, and most of the appeals to ABP are just re-hashing the same ones submitted to FCC and disregarded by them. The problem is it increases the workload and delays decisions.

roadmaster

CatInABox wrote: »

Interestingly, Dublin City Council are suing An Bord Pleanala over the rejection of their new plans for pedestrian bridges across the liffey.

Apparently DCC originally wanted to build bridges at Forbes Street, and Castleforbes Road, and got permission for such, but then wanted to change their location to New Wapping St and (I assume) just next to the East Link bridge. ABP turned around and said that not only should the bridges not be moved, DCC should also build a third bridge, also just next to the East Link bridge (I assume, just from the article), but on the opposite side.

Kinda astonished that ABP would now require them to add a third bridge, it's no wonder that DCC are suing them. I can also see DCC suing them over the College Green plans eventually, I know that they're going back and making changes based upon the rejection, but if it's rejected again and rejected with the same standard of reasons, then I can DCC seeing the courts as an option.

The only problem with DCC bringing ABP to court is its our money they are playing with and nobody will be held accountable

roadmaster

roadmaster wrote: »

The only problem with DCC bringing ABP to court is its our money they are playing with and nobody will be held accountable

Its not your money.

What accountability are you looking for where people are doing the job required of them?

questionmark?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Its not your money.

What accountability are you looking for where people are doing the job required of them?

Am ya it's called tax payers money so the poster was correct to say it was their money. Tax payers money belongs to all of us tax payers. That's how the country works!!!

markpb

Deleted User wrote: »

What accountability are you looking for where people are doing the job required of them?

DCC believe that ABP are acting outside of their remit with this decision. If they're right, someone is precisely not doing their jobs and it needs to be fixed.

CatInABox

markpb wrote: »

DCC believe that ABP are acting outside of their remit with this decision. If they're right, someone is precisely not doing their jobs and it needs to be fixed.

I'm no legal scholar, so this is just my uneducated opinion, but I really have to side with DCC on this one.

Imagine getting planning permission for a project, then applying for planning permission to change said project, and instead of just rejecting or approving the change, ABP not only rejects the change, but goes back to the original application and totally changes that too.

roadmaster

Deleted User wrote: »

Its not your money.

What accountability are you looking for where people are doing the job required of them?

Are you happy for two state bodies to go to court and spend 100’s of thousands of tax payers money?

questionmark?

questionmark? wrote: »

Am ya it's called tax payers money so the poster was correct to say it was their money. Tax payers money belongs to all of us tax payers. That's how the country works!!!

Am no. Tax is what you are legally required to pay for the running of the country through services and infrastructure.

Once you pay it, its no longer yours. It is for the government to decide how to spend

roadmaster

roadmaster wrote: »

Are you happy for two state bodies to go to court and spend 100’s of thousands of tax payers money?

How would you prefer they resolve a legal issue?

Flip a coin?

roadmaster

Deleted User wrote: »

How would you prefer they resolve a legal issue?

Flip a coin?

I’d prefer Rock Paper Scissors to be honest.

For state bodies there should be an internal mechanism to resolve these issues

roadmaster

roadmaster wrote: »

I’d prefer Rock Paper Scissors to be honest.

For state bodies there should be an internal mechanism to resolve these issues

Thing is, DCC are treated no differently than anyone else. It has to be that way otherwise you end up with corruption and tribunals as has been seen in the past.

Whether ABP were right or wrong will be decided by the courts.

questionmark?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Am no. Tax is what you are legally required to pay for the running of the country through services and infrastructure.

Once you pay it, its no longer yours. It is for the government to decide how to spend

Sweet Jesus! Here's me thinking we live in a democratic country. A Republic! Guess I was wrong. The Government(elected representatives of the people) are totally allowed to do what they want with tax payers money with no accountability so?? Not everyone agrees with how every cent is spent(that's democracy) but for the greater good we allow people to manage our(taxpayers) money.

questionmark?

questionmark? wrote: »

Sweet Jesus! Here's me thinking we live in a democratic country. A Republic! Guess I was wrong. The Government(elected representatives of the people) are totally allowed to do what they want with tax payers money with no accountability so?? Not everyone agrees with how every cent is spent(that's democracy) but for the greater good we allow people to manage our(taxpayers) money.

Fair enough, in that case it's still not your money that will be used, it'll be a portion of the corporate tax take. Happy now?

vicwatson

mountai wrote: »

Applied for PP on site adjacent to my house in established area . Visually looked the same as existing houses but was 4 apartments ( to be used by my children ) . Passed by Council and satisfied all departments , Engineering ,Roads etc. Usual NIMBY objections , however Council gave permission and it was noted on file that my Architect was complimented on design . Appealed to ABP . Inspector for ABP inspector seconded Councils decision and said development should be allowed ( further praise for design) .
I have no doubt , that because a local TD was one of the objectors , ABP went against the Council and turned it down . My point is , why does ABP go against their own independent inspectors decisions?. Why bother to have them employed in the first place?

Totally agree, it's absolutely nuts that they go against their own site inspectors opinions, why bloody have them

facehugger99

CatInABox wrote: »

Truth be told, I'd be a fan of holding off on major investments until there's a recession, then using those projects to boost the economy during a downturn. It's better than the alternative of austerity during a recession, and better than paying over the odds during a boom. Look at the children's hospital, the price of that is soaring for multiple reasons, but one of those reasons is the cost of construction itself has gone up.

Anyway, the current level of staffing in some of those departments are so abnormally low that they wouldn't even get ahead of the work in a recession, never mind a boom. They need more staff, regardless.

Never going to happen in Ireland.

If there's a choice between telling public servants they need to take a pay cut or dramatically reducing spending in infrastructure, you can be pretty sure what option an Irish Government will take - doesn't matter who's in power at the time.

facehugger99

Bray Head wrote: »

Infrastructure is not really a very good fiscal stimulus. If you want people to spend in a recession, just give them a cheque in the post.

Most infrastructure is very labour intensive - the people getting a cheque in the post would be the thousands of construction industry workers - you know, those guys who lost jobs in the last recession.

Bray Head wrote: »

Infrastructure is also very capital intensive, and we don't make many capital goods in Ireland. A new metro line is very good for makers of trains, TBMs and other systems.

Not really - road schemes for example require very little import, the vast majority of materials used can be locally sourced.

Metro is very much the exception, not the rule.

Bray Head

facehugger99 wrote: »

Never going to happen in Ireland.

If there's a choice between telling public servants they need to take a pay cut or dramatically reducing spending in infrastructure, you can be pretty sure what option an Irish Government will take - doesn't matter who's in power at the time.

Actually public servants took three pay cuts between 2009 and 2013.

Personally I think this was necessary, but it seems people have short memories.

I am not aware of any other direct pay cuts to public service salaries in Europe at the time. Greece perhaps.

plodder

The board have to be able to overrule their inspectors. Planning isn't an exact science. If it wasn't an independent board doing it, it would be a politician eg the minister for the environment, with all the problems that would create.

I never understood the rationale for bypassing councils though for large (strategic) housing developments. Forcing BP to handle such applications from the start was obviously going to create a bottle-neck, never mind losing the local knowledege/expertise at local authority level.

Dats me

Nimby's hate density, a lot of these would probably get appealed anyway so this bypasses the wait for a council decision and gets "straight to the appeal" in effect

Bray Head

plodder wrote: »

I never understood the rationale for bypassing councils though for large (strategic) housing developments. Forcing BP to handle such applications from the start was obviously going to create a bottle-neck, never mind losing the local knowledege/expertise at local authority level.

The logic was that these big developments would get appealed anyway so it made sense to fast track the process.

I'm a bit sceptical of the need for 30 different planning authorities in the first place tbh.

The rules are close to identical nationwide and it would make sense to streamline a bit.

mountai

plodder wrote: »

The board have to be able to overrule their inspectors. Planning isn't an exact science. If it wasn't an independent board doing it, it would be a politician eg the minister for the environment, with all the problems that would create.

I never understood the rationale for bypassing councils though for large (strategic) housing developments. Forcing BP to handle such applications from the start was obviously going to create a bottle-neck, never mind losing the local knowledege/expertise at local authority level.

Whats the point of "local knowledge/expertise at local authority level" if local authority decisions are liable to be overturned at BP level . Are the inspectors not independent also?.

plodder

Bray Head wrote: »

The logic was that these big developments would get appealed anyway so it made sense to fast track the process.

I'm a bit sceptical of the need for 30 different planning authorities in the first place tbh.

The rules are close to identical nationwide and it would make sense to streamline a bit.

Development plans are not identical and planning doesn't just involve the planning department. Roads, and other services are local authority functions that have a role in planning. Planners also have to visit the relevant site sometimes which is obviously a lot easier when you have "boots on the ground" locally.

I get the point about speeding up the appeals process, but I would have thought a fast-tracked appeals system might have been better.

plodder

mountai wrote: »

Whats the point of "local knowledge/expertise at local authority level" if local authority decisions are liable to be overturned at BP level . Are the inspectors not independent also?.

As far as I know, local authority planning decisions are only overturned 25% of the time. If they were overturning a high percentage, then I think that would be a problem. The inspectors are independent, but it's well known in planning circles that you'll get different decisions from different individual planners. A board comprising several people is more likely to be consistent over time.

Bray Head

plodder wrote: »

As far as I know, local authority planning decisions are only overturned 25% of the time.

That's actually quite high when you consider that many large projects get appealed.