Planning delays to infrastructure

hans aus dtschl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120681521#Comment_120681521

Would a judge need to be involved though? If they just amend the documentation then there's no case in the first place?

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120681738#Comment_120681738

Sure, you could drop the case, but no one will, because as soon as it gets in front of a judge, ABP will stand up and say "this is no longer an issue because we changed the application to remove it", to which every judge will respond "so the application was changed as a result of the JR being brought, ergo the JR was successful."

Changing the application won't be seen as removing the problem, it's going to be seen as an admission that the JR was right.

Look, I'm no lawyer, and I think that they're using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, this is without doubt a terrible law, and it almost certainly will get overturned, but I also don't think that it's the end of the world.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120681850#Comment_120681850

Again, as I understand it, the idea is ABP change X so negate any determination of the case by the courts i.e. the case becomes null and void. The judge would have nothing to rule on

LuckyLloyd

Let me just say that if APB had to use this provision I think costs should be conceded by default.

Again, let’s keep these things moving, hear objections and incorporate valid ones.

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120681938#Comment_120681938

The only person who can decide if an JR is null and void is a judge. Can't see them allowing the opportunity to costs go unrewarded in that case.

It's all a bit moot anyway, as this is all going to be struck down. There's a queue of groups waiting to get their hands on this, and anyone of them could succeed at getting this overturned. A massive missed opportunity, in my opinion. There's reforms out there, some easy, some harder, but all of them more worthwhile than this poor attempt.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120682147#Comment_120682147

100%. I don't think anyone thinks the current system is fit for use and it does need an overhaul but amendments like this and others which go against Aarhaus are counter-productive and will just add further delays.

I'm not sure if these new delays are a good thing or a bad thing

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2023/07/03/further-delay-to-bill-seen-as-largest-overhaul-of-states-planning-system-in-decades/

Hopefully a good thing and they are taking on board the approx 150 recommendations and adjusting accordingly.

For such an important piece of legislation I really do hope they do it right and don't leave it open to being shot down by the courts (which is likely if no changes are made)

tom1ie

I posted this on another thread so I’ll post it here again as it’s directly related to planning.

If the government were serious about delivering infrastructure we’d have ABP working 3 eight hour shifts seven days a week to pump out decisions. 

It would require hiring a large amount of suitably qualified and competent people to do this but the cost in wages would be minuscule compared to construction inflation.

O'Brien might be ploughing ahead with limiting access to justice in the new Planning bill. If it does its going to end up being struck down by the courts which will be a colossal waste given this is "the third largest piece of legislation ever passed in the state".

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2023/08/24/new-planning-law-to-speed-up-developments-will-be-passed-by-christmas-vows-obrien/

The Planning and Development Bill runs to over 750 pages and is the third largest piece of legislation to be published in the history of the State.

It includes a number of changes designed to accelerate building during the housing crisis, including fines for breaches of mandatory planning deadlines, and placing new limits related to the standing of parties to take court cases.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121025294#Comment_121025294

Serious question- what do you propose he does to shorten the length of time it takes major infrastructure projects to from design to shovel in the ground?

Also what would your imagined improved time period for the above be?

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121029758#Comment_121029758

Developers in Dublin alone are currently sitting on 40k building permissions - maybe you should address your question to some of them??

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121030415#Comment_121030415

So introduce a vacant land tax?

Podge_irl

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/britains-infrastructure-is-too-expensive#:~:text=At%20a%20cost%20of%20%C2%A3676m%20per%20mile%2C%20British%20projects,times%20more%20expensive%20than%20Spain.

Some food for thought.

I'm very open to the idea that the current bill is wrong-headed, but clearly something is deeply wrong in anglophone countries that needs to be corrected. I would not cite Norway as lacking access to justice.

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121030486#Comment_121030486

By all means and it should have been introduced decades ago - however FFG don't want to upset their speculator pals it seems on that one....

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121034241#Comment_121034241

It this would only exacerbate the length of time it takes for planning to be granted…….

The issue is the decision time.

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121034296#Comment_121034296

Surely it would work the opposite though right? Longer they sit on land with permits/the increase speculative value of the land, then the more they pay on tax for it. At least thats my understanding of LVT, mind it does need to hit relatively high levels for it to be getting punishing.

Re speculation, I honestly think the biggest barrier to increasing Property/LVT isn't property speculators, but the Farming lobby, who absolutely would hate this.

tom1ie

So imagine a vacant land tax came in tomorrow and all developers decided to lodge planning applications for development of their lands at the same time (ie within a 6 month time period).

ABP would blow up and it would take years for them to grant planning.

They are completely under resourced as it is.

Looks like this will come to cabinet shortly. My guess is he will have dropped 1 or 2 of the most contentious parts in order to quell some of the opposition to it. Maybe it'll work

https://www.rte.ie/news/2023/0904/1403207-planning-bill/

namloc1980

Any ideas what's going on with the Cork level crossings project? The literal definition of a low hanging fruit project to improve line speeds and it's sitting undecisioned in ABP for nearly 2 and a half years. If we can't get the easy stuff done quickly, then there's very little hope for anything remotely big or complex.

Limerick74

https://x.com/eamonryan/status/1709246322312675619?s=46

Planning bill approved

Sam Russell

I heard a suggestion today that the decisions by ABP be that of the inspectors without the need for referral to the Board of ABP in most cases. This would be for the first number of years while the new planning law beds in.

Sounds a good proposal - it just requires the board to agree, and nod cases through. [I would have thought].

KrisW1001

Doing that goes against the purpose of having ABP, which is to deliver consistent decisions. The inspector recommends, and the board decides based on that recommendation plus other inspectors' reports on similar projects, plus current goverment policy.

Skip the board, and it'll be like when you did your driving test.. if you get that one bastard, you'll fail no matter what.

specialbyte

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121190277#Comment_121190277

That's not what's being suggested. The board will have the option to review any case they like but the default isn't that they need to review every case.

The point of the board was it's harder to bribe a majority of the board than a single planner. It was an anti-corruption move rather than about consistent decisions, which was never an aim.

You also need to remember that the board are made of independently appointed people including a large number of them who have no planning expertise. The planning expertise lies with the inspector not the board members. ABP also deal with a huge number of minor appeals including tiny cases like planning permission to widen a driveway by removing part of a boundary wall. Do the board really need to rubber stamp all of those recommendations from the inspector?

I suspect the board will be required to review all cases with EIARs, strategic infrastructure etc. Not sure what the thresholds will be but I suspect anything medium/big/controversial will still end up on the board's committee table. Just the small stuff will be filtered out.

hans aus dtschl

Interesting proposal. I would typically have considered inspectors reports as being "good" when I've seen them. Though I haven't seen that many.

Sam Russell

The Gov needs to do something in short order to release the log jam in ABP. Getting the big ticket items reviewed quickly with some level of priority, and get the trivial ones dealt with at planner level with the Board accepting the planner's decision - with some circumspection.

The Planning Bill needs to be hurried, but still properly checked. It is a big piece of legislation, and could be subject to constitutionality challenge after passing, or in the future. Restricting Judicial oversight might be challenged. An alternative would be to setup a special High Court to hear challenges quickly.

specialbyte

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121192955#Comment_121192955

There is a danger that the new planning bill will slow things down in the short-term.

I can't find the article I remember reading about 2 years ago now but it was by the a court of appeal judge. The argument was that constantly changing the laws around planning was slowing things down. Changes like ministerial guidelines around height, strategic housing development (SHD) process in the short-term create lots of new legal cases. The reason being that new law means new legal arguments can be presented that didn't exist in the past. As time passes and cases related to these new laws/regulations get decided there is a body of case law that clearly outlines the limits of this new law. In order to get that case law there will be judicial reviews.

There were High Court cases (yes, multiple!) between Ronan Group, ABP and Dublin City Council over whether ABP could grant permission that conflicted with the SDZ in the Docklands. The main question was whether ABP, who decide SHDs and who are never mentioned in the laws around SDZ, had the authority under the newer SHD law to override an SDZ plan by using the ministerial guidelines around building height. Lots of new laws and regulations being tested in the courts.

A similar case being the Dublin Cycling Campaign vs ABP / Ballymore case related to the Connolly Quarter development. The developer argued they didn't need planning permission for the car parking they were demolishing and relocating within the SHD development. Dublin Cycling Campaign argued successfully that they did. The main point of the legal argument was around the definition of SHDs in the Section 3 Act 2016. A developer can only apply for an SHD if there are more than 100 houses, and the non-housing elements must be less than 15% of the total development area and must be less than 4,500sqm in total. The judge ruled the development wasn't an SHD as the public car park area (unrelated to the housing) should be included in that area assessment. A court case built around new law's definition of something. Something that the Dáil probably wouldn't have predicted. But it took probably 12-18 of court time to decide.

The new planning bill is going to create new law, which is going to create novel legal questions, which is going to lead to more judicial reviews in the short-term.

We've been rocking the boat a lot in the less decade when it comes to planning laws and regulations. Is rocking the boat again going to help? Probably yes in the long-term but in the short-term it might make things worse. Worth keeping in mind.

CatInABox

There were High Court cases (yes, multiple!) between Ronan Group, ABP and Dublin City Council over whether ABP could grant permission that conflicted with the SDZ in the Docklands. The main question was whether ABP, who decide SHDs and who are never mentioned in the laws around SDZ, had the authority under the newer SHD law to override an SDZ plan by using the ministerial guidelines around building height. Lots of new laws and regulations being tested in the courts.

Indeed, the most annoying part of this is that the developer eventually won the case, showing that ABP could indeed give permission, as the SHD process was outside of the SDZ process. It was completely moot, as the SHD process was withdrawn by that stage anyway, but the case has proven that if the government creates a new process, it doesn't fall under the SDZ restrictions.

Annoying that the SHD process was shut down, the biggest problems with it were very fixable, namely that developers weren't even following the process correctly(like your point about Connolly Quarter).

While this is great news, its also long overdue. This was flagged as needed back in 2018. Even still, its probably only 20% of whats actually needed

Local authorities are to immediately share 100 new posts and An Bord Pleanála is to get 60 more people by early next year.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/scores-of-new-jobs-pledged-to-tackle-backlog-in-planning-applications/a1321062467.html

The govt are going so slow with this that any good work they do get completed will only benefit the next govt while they will continue to be slapped over the head with the slow rollout

Another raft of judges appointed. Still nowhere near enough, but its a start

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/4ca11-nominations-to-the-high-court-and-the-circuit-court/

ABP has 50 of 93 new positions filled

Once fully staffed up this should make a nice difference in their timelines. Shame it took a major scandal to get to this point, should have happened a decade ago

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41257372.html