Planning delays to infrastructure

The Planning Bill has been published

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/833dd-planning-and-development-bill-2023-is-published/

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2023/81/

Its 700 pages so its going to take a few days to get through it however it looks like, at first glance, that O'Brien has gone even further than expected in trying to limit access to justice by placing a stupid amount of restrictions on what it required before an appeal can even be made.

In terms of judicial reviews, you will only be able to take one if you are determined to have "sufficient interest", defined below

That is not everything, there is more, but I haven't time today to drill into everything. I'm hoping the likes of Fred Logue or others more knowledgeable on the topic will release some better analysis than I can do

He's also solidified that where a JR looks like it will succeed, ABP can just amend their original decision to account for whatever the JR is for, and the JR essentially just collapses. This is also designed to limit access to justice as why would you take a case if the goalposts can be moved at any point and no costs are given (as far as I can tell, no costs would be given but its possible I've missed something on that)

100% this is going to be challenged in our courts and the EU is going to come after it too.

Beta Ray Bill

712 pages is substantial.

The moving goal posts thing.... I cannot see that going through.

Just so I understand correctly:

Entity 1 plans development X

Entity 2 challenges X via the legal process

Entity 2's challenge is upheld and is awarded legal costs

But now:

Entity 1 plans development X

Entity 2 challenges X via the legal process

Entity 1 changes the criteria for X (Lets call it X mkII)

The legal case collapses as there is no longer an X

Entity 2's has to pay their own legal costs and possibly has to challenge X mkII?

That can't be correct cant it?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121400168#Comment_121400168

Essentially, yes

The first report looking at the new legislation. I'll post more as they come where additional into is contained

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-41274637.html

Beta Ray Bill

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121400187#Comment_121400187

There's no way that will get through. I think if the mechanism was used responsibly it could be a good thing. But it is so open to abuse it's very unlikely.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121400168#Comment_121400168

It can be changed to _address_ the JR or just randomly changed and the JR is no longer valid?

alanucc

Prime Time investigates should be a good watch tonight. Always heard of this going on but first time seeing it laid bare.

The self-styled NGO withdrawing planning appeals for cash (rte.ie)

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121451600#Comment_121451600

Indeed, surprised that it wasn't exposed before now. Every payment to groups like these ends up on the sticker price of new apartments and houses.

Disgusting individuals manipulating our system for personal profit and nothing else.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121400212#Comment_121400212

I think the intention is that it can be changed to address the JR, which stops spurious JRs in their tracks.

So, for example, where a person is against a development, but brings a JR on the grounds that the 1,200 page environmental assessment didn't mention the case of the barn owls 10kms away, the JR can be made go away if a supplementary environmental assessment addresses the barn owls. Changing the development from a hotel to an apartment block doesn't address the JR, so the JR stays.

It will eliminate JRs based on minor technical flaws in the proposed development and stop them going back to square 1.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121453676#Comment_121453676

But how is it adjudicated that the change to the application accurately addresses the topic of the JR? Surely a judge would still need to review it all

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121469546#Comment_121469546

I assume that the intention is that the JR would be summarily dismissed in an initial hearing, without requiring a full hearing of the case.

spacetweek

New Planning and Environmental Court is launched today. Hopefully this speeds up the dismissal of the vexatious JRs.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2023/1211/1421334-planning-courts/

gjim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121469934#Comment_121469934

Courts currently are entitled to, and sometimes do, refuse application for a judicial review if it's deemed spurious or, for example, the applicant is without standing.

I don't see what this legislation will achieve or how it will work in practice. A JR is a request to examine a claim that APB didn't follow the law when they considered an application. A JR isn't just for challenging a grant of permission but can also be raised in response to a rejection.

To be honest, more than half the JRs I've taken an interest in have been fairly reasonable and show APB cutting corners, being lazy or developers pulling a stroke with ABP being complicit instead of sticking to simply applying the law of the land.

Even without this legislation, there is nothing stopping APB and the applicant/developer restarting the process - which kills the JR - this time following the statutory process correctly.

Every citizen, I believe, is entitled to see that processes carried out by state bodies, like APB, follow the law. Fix the actually planning laws, if there are problems with it. Either the law is the law or... This is a very strange kludge and I'll be surprised if it survives challenges to higher courts.