Government to hit ‘nuclear button’ granting itself emergency powers to solve infrastructure crisis

hans aus dtschl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124041662#Comment_124041662

For every unusual case like the one you mentioned, we have something like the Galway Ring Road which was rubber-stamped by ABP and would have proceeded to planning without basic documentation having been done. I've seen loads of absolute howlers getting planning permission: I recently saw some "nationally critical infrastructure" being approved on the basis that there was nowhere else appropriate to locate it…at the same time that TWO other competing private projects were applying for permission nearby, and look likely to succeed also. I saw a battery farm recently approved on a bog with no drainage and water management plan: they're in for some fun when the construction crews get to site! Hotels and housing estates near me were built on flood planes and now need large sums of public funding to protect them from the obvious.

What I'm saying is that we currently see a large volume of low-quality applications getting permission. But for some reason we're more focused on the small few genuine horror story JR "environmental" edge cases like N28, where "environment" is weaponised as a tool to block progress. They really focused on the amount of success at JR's as a product of high levels of access (we do seem to have higher access than across the EU) rather than as a product of low levels of scrutiny prior to planning approval.

Still in my view the problem isn't the JR itself, but rather the 2-3 year wait you mention. Why can't we aspire to a sub-1-year JR turnaround? Would the JR still be weaponised as much by bad actors if the JR delays were that short?

Most importantly, do you realise that none of this was actually even discussed or deliberated in the report? You and I are having a reasonable discussion about this topic and I could be wrong in what I am putting forward as my opinion…but this topic of JR delays simply DID NOT GET MENTIONED. They seem to have just started with the premise of "JRs are bad" unfortunately. That's a really bad way to make legislation: "let's commission a study that will report the conclusions I have told them I want".

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124041724#Comment_124041724

What basic documentation?

The Galway Ring Road was rejected at JR stage because ABP had not considered a climate action plan that came out literally days before their decision. I don't think this is a good example to use for the benefits of JRs.

riddlinrussell

In that case the failing is entirely on ABP? The legislation was finalised a month or so ahead of their decision, but you'd expect they should have been aware of which applications they were looking at the new legislation which had been knocking around the Oireachtas for a few years at that stage might apply to? It was entirely up to them to release their decision shortly after the legislation was passed instead of delaying the decision until they had completed an assessment under the new rules.

It would be like claiming it was unfair for someone to be charged with speeding in a clearly signed 60 zone because it used to be an 80 zone, the law is the law and you (especially as a semi state organisation) should be aware of your current responsibilities under the law, ignorance is not an excuse.

ABP failing to carry out that assessment is the reason for any delays following

hans aus dtschl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124041740#Comment_124041740

Ah no come on now. If we interested nerds on here all noted it at the time, then ABP - whose entire job was to evaluate whether proposals are in keeping with legislation and policy - don't have any excuse.

I'd absolutely excuse the layperson for not realising that the new legislation had been enacted but it was inexcusable from ABP. I suspect they had intended to file the document a few days before the legislation was enacted, but someone messed up on the sign-off. It was a straight up mistake and they compounded that by wasting people's time.

Surely idiotic approvals like this are every bit as much to blame for the fiasco of JR's, as those vexatious NIMBY people hiding behind rare slugs and bats? However the government answer to the backlog is apparently not to make ACP etc do their job better but instead have fewer people pointing out their stupid mistakes!

I'd like to add that ABP doing insanely questionable stuff like regularly going against the recommendations of their own reports without justification also did not make the report!

Funny how all sorts of stuff like that just don't seem to matter. All that really matters is fewer people having access to JR's apparently. And lobbying the EU to allow less access to JR's.

I really think this won't end well: private companies and the well-heeled are going to abuse the new situation, and developers will be no more incentivised to develop. End result will be no improvement in the current frustrating infrastructure delivery situation.

Podge_irl

It was clearly a screw up by ABP. However, had they published their judgement a few weeks earlier then there would have been zero problem. That is not an example of a JR stopping an egregious miscarriage of justice.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124041724#Comment_124041724

I am not buying your story. Out of ten odd PP I was aware of these stood out go me. Admittedly the church PP was a national story and I was just passing the location and stopped to say a prayer and make a wish.

JR's are a money spinner to the legal profession along with Planning Consultants Its money racket. Most cases you refer to are historical.

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124043573#Comment_124043573

Not really - they are still approving the likes of windfarms on peatlands and other locations where risks of flooding, landslides, damage to water quality and biodiversity have been well highlighted in submissions and various reports

hans aus dtschl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124043642#Comment_124043642

I don't know the approvals you're referring to specifically but I'm also seeing them approving applications with basic mistakes: photo montages showing clearly incorrect structures, no site construction traffic management plans, no drainage plans, going against their inspectors report etc.

I mean, there was a whole scandal and renaming of the body itself. It would take serious mental gymnastics to ignore those basic failings and forward the argument that ABP were not highly dysfunctional at least up until very recently.

hans aus dtschl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124043573#Comment_124043573

Which story are you not buying? Do you have any thoughts on the renaming of ABP to ACP?

hans aus dtschl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124043358#Comment_124043358

Are you suggesting that there was no need for FOIE or whoever it was, to start legal action? That ABP and co would have voluntarily re-done the documentation?

I don't follow your argument here I'm afraid: you seem to be saying ABP DID make a basic error, but don't seem to think that the error needed to be overturned? Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?