It's time to talk about An Bord Pleanala

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.