Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Planning delays to infrastructure

Options
245

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    And who is Burke?

    Gah! I keep calling him Burke, I don't know why, O'Brien I meant to say, corrected my post



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,824 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    speaking of planning delays, are there many delays to ABP decisions given all the recent shenanigans? there was one i was keeping an eye on which was due a decision monday last week (i.e. 8 days ago), but the ABP website has no update.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,824 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    With regard to JR, I think that there could/should be an appeal system such that someone seeking a JR should have their case for a JR adjudicated prior to being allowed to take the JR. [I am not a lawyer so might have phrased it badly].

    This would be a way of having to state the case for a JR before being allowed to go to the High Court. Now whether that would be to the HC or another judicial body is a matter to be decided. [The way the Director of Prosecutions is used to decide whether a criminal prosecution is valid to go to court].

    An example would be a Residents group looking to object to a housing development across from their own housing scheme on waste land or farming land zoned for houses. They should need to give good legally backed reasons for objecting - not just because they do not like it.

    So we have - LA planning authority, decision appealed to ABP, JR appeal scheme, JR before HC.

    The missing bit is the time scale for each part of the process.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭kieran.


    I have a case for a client that was lodge late dec 2021 and it still has not been decided. From talk to ABP best case scenario is that it will be reviewed by the board in March/April 2023



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Comments from MM today

    He also insisted that the proposed legislation did not contravene the Aarhus convention, a set of EU rules that requires public consultation in planning and environmental decisions. “It is Aarhus compliant – I have to stress that,” he said.

    I disagree. Any attempt to restrict access to justice will be struck down so putting conditions on who can or cannot take a JR will not stand up to challenge imho



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Mehole will come out with any old BS to justify FFG developer led plans to curtail citizen rights in this space



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,824 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    cheers, the one i'm interested in is a housing estate in north county dublin, i'm completely ignorant of whether that sort of decision would receive any priority. and the funny thing is, i know someone who's part of an informal group of locals keeping a keen eye on it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭kieran.


    We I spoke with them yesterday they said they are working through them on a date basis. This may not apply if it is SHD type development.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,824 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder




  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Well, ABP is f0kd

    I said it when it was announced, but the SHD process was always going to sink ABP and it looks like its on the verge. It got landed with the workload of 30 local councils for large developments and no extra staff to handle the workload.

    Now there's a backlog of 2,300 cases of which 600 are ready to be assessed by the board while the other 1,700 not at a ready state.

    There's 4 people left on the board so those 600 won't be done anytime soon



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    A pretty good assessment of how the recent moves by the housing minister have gutted the legal options for the public. It lays bare the avenues now open for corruption, coercion, and Ministerial interference and the constraints placed on the ability of the public to challenge unlawful decisions.

    An obituary for An Bord Pleanála




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,546 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    Good.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    SHD is the gift clusterfk that keeps on giving




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The draft planning legislation details

    Govt press release

    The bill itself

    Some of the main changes

    • Reforms include the renaming and restructuring of scandal-hit An Bord Pleanála
    • New criteria will make it harder for residents' associations and community groups to seek judicial reviews of High Court planning decisions
    • Mandatory timelines for planning decisions will be introduced with fines to be paid in default
    • Changes to the way local authorities make county development plans and local area plans 
    • Local authorities will get beefed up powers to enforce breaches of planning law and will have greater scope to use compulsory purchase orders to take over vacant and derelict sites and properties.
    • A loosening of restrictions on the redevelopment of heritage buildings and protected properties will also come into effect.
    • The Office of the Planning Regulator will get new powers to investigate complaints against An Bord Pleanála.
    • Proceedings sought on environmental grounds will only be considered if taken by named individuals or by associations or NGOs that have been registered and active as a company for over a year and have at least ten members.
    • Applicants will have to prove they are materially affected by a proposed development rather than taking proceedings on principle.

    The 3 bolded points are the ones that are going to be stumbling blocks as these will potentially fall foul of the Aarhaus Convention on the basis of restricting access to justice. The previous post above, with the tweet shows the level of impact they are trying to address by limiting access.

    Then we have this one rearing its head again, which got shot down the last time the Minister tried to sneak it through

    • changes to Judicial Reviews (JRs) of planning decisions: there will be timelines for various steps in the JR process. ABP will be able to correct an error of fact or law in a planning decision and will be able to apply for a stay on the determination of JR proceedings whilst making such corrections. The Bill will bring clarity to the role of different parties in accessing justice. In the case of applications for JRs by certain organisations, these will be taken by an individual or individuals

    In essence, this will allow ABP to drag a case right up to the point of judgement, with all the costs that this would entail for all parties, at which point they could ask the court to "hold on for a sec while we adjust our original permission, ok, we've adjusted it to account for X, the case can now be thrown out".

    This is another underhanded way of limiting access to justice as it amounts to moving of the goal posts after the shot has been taken.

    The rest of it seems fine in principle.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Some comments and further details

    Green Party TD for Dublin Central Neasa Hourigan said the Bill was also not compliant with the Aarhus Convention, a key UN declaration on public participation in decision-making and environmental information which is also in EU and Irish law. She told The Irish Times that “limiting judicial reviews in the manner outlined by the Bill as published is clearly unlawful within the EU and under the Aarhus Convention”.

    Dr Elaine McGoff, natural environment officer with An Taisce, said it was “hard to conceive of a more dysfunctional and inappropriate response from Government than the planning Bill published today”.“

    What this Bill presents is a significant erosion of the public’s right to access justice and participate fully in the Irish planning process,” Dr McGoff said, adding that An Taisce’s view was it was “primarily an appeasement of developers and a facilitation of developer-led planning.”

    Attracta Uí Bhroin, environmental law officer of the Irish Environmental Network, said the group was “extremely concerned” about the changes to judicial review.

    “In fact, they’re much worse than what was outlined in December. It’s going to cause delays rather than solving problems. There will be arguments about legitimacy and the lawfulness of what is being introduced,” she said.

    Vincent P Martin, the Green Party Senator and senior counsel, warned there could be “no diminution of rights of access to the courts”.

    As to the impact to local communities access to justice:

    The Bill sets new rules under which residents’ associations and other interested parties can take judicial reviews and stipulates that applicants for judicial review will have to demonstrate a “sufficient interest”, with NGOs, residents’ groups or other similar bodies expected to be incorporated as a company, have protection of the environment as part of its corporate constitution, have at least 10 members and to have passed a resolution authorising the bringing of proceedings.

    Residents’ groups can still take proceedings but if they do not comply with these rules, they will have to sue individually or collectively under their own names.

    If they do get this passed, it'll be killed in the Supreme or EU courts



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    More judges to be appointed to the courts to try assist with the backlog of cases will be in the first tranche (24) broken out as follows

    • Court of Appeal to increase from 16 to 18
    • High Court increases from 45 to 51
    • Circuit Court increase from 38 to 46 and
    • District Court increase from 64 to 72

    A second tranche of 20 appointments will happen......sometime in the future, maybe. That will be broken out as follows

    • High Court gets an additional 6
    • Circuit Court gets an additional 6
    • District Court an additional 6
    • and the Court of Appeal would get an extra 2

    This will take use from 173 to 217 but this still leaves wayyyyy behind the norm in Europe

    Statistics published last year by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, found that Ireland has the lowest number of judges per head of population. It found Ireland had 3.27 judges per 100,000 people in 2020, below the European average of 17.6 judges.

    The Planning Court will also be born out of these appointments

    Incidentally further concerns were raised about restricting access to justice and Irelands non-compliance to the Aarhaus Convention, this time by the Irish Planning Institute in a presentation to an Oireachtas committee 

    Meanwhile, a leading Oireachtas committee heard concerns about resourcing and about communities' access to justice under the draft planning legislation.


    Gavin Lawlor of the Irish Planning Institute told the Oireachtas housing committee that the bill in its current form would limit those who can apply for a judicial review and would exclude residents' association from directly bringing High Court challenges (though they could be taken in the name of an individual directly impacted).


    This reduction in actors who can appeal through the courts is problematic for the Irish Planning Institute, Mr Lawlor said. “We do believe it will reduce who has access to the law. We have concerns regarding equality of people of different means having equal access to the law.


    “We have concern over the Arhaus convention [an international agreement that gives people the right to access justice on environmental matters, information about the environment and promotes public participation in decision-making].”

    Its been flagged now by so many different groups that if the govt do plough ahead, it will most certainly end up in the courts and I can see the EU getting involved to strike it down. They don't take interference with the judicial system lightly as evidenced by them withholding billions from Poland over their shenanigans



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Further concerns raised at an Oireachtas committee today about the plans to limit access to justice, this time by the Law Society of Ireland

    Full statement here

    Outside of the construction lobby, I don't know of a single body within the state supporting these restrictions on the access to justice.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Me thinks WEI and their fellow travelers were prime lobbyists in this space too



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Lawyers concerned about measures to reduce unnecessary litigation is hardly surprising, is it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Depends what you define as "unnecessary"?? There would be no need for alot of this litigation if ABP had not become so dysfunctional over the years in terms of ignoring best practice, relevant EU legislation etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    It doesn't matter how I define it, it is the Oireachtas that is considering legislation to reduce unnecessary litigation. My point is that it is not in the least surprising that lawyers oppose this, which means any argument that because lawyers oppose it, it is wrong, is stuck on the clear conflict of interest.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Let me see if I understand your logic...

    Lawyers, who are experts in the law, should not be allowed to comment on changes to the law because they work in the area of law

    Next up, teachers are to be prevented to commenting on changes to education

    Where do you see these restrictions of your stopping?

    Farmers & agriculture?

    Doctors/nurses and the health system?

    Thankfully this is not how the world works and Oireachtas committees go out of their way to bring in experts in relevant fields so they can make informed decisions because the alternative would be, well, fking stupid in the extreme



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Nope, that isn't what I said.

    Of course lawyers are allowed to comment on changes in the law. Generally there is no conflict of interest.

    However, in this particular case, there is a legislative measure designed to reduce litigation and there is a clear conflict of interest. Their views have to be considered in that context.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    At least you acknowledge that the changes are designed to limit access to justice



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    If you recall, the lawyers were vociferous in their opposition to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board.

    That initiative limited access to justice, so limiting access to justice is not necessarily a bad thing. In this particular case, Ireland is decades behind on infrastructure. Part of that reason is the access to justice issue which these proposals will address. In my opinion, that is a good thing.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Your PIB example is not the same as that merely standardised the process for awards and claims. There was no restrictions placed on making claims

    A key difference is in relation to changes to the environment and adherence to environmental legislation and protections. Per Aarhaus, there can be no limits. This is the point that every opposing voice has made, including EU representatives and which will form the basis of legal challenges to the limits should they be enacted.

    Its also important to note that challenges made on non-adherence to points of law and are exactly that.

    Vexatious challenges are rightly called out by the courts and dismissed.

    What the proposed changes mean is that only someone living close to an affected area could challenge and they could only do so on a personal basis and not as a group. This means, that unless you are an expert in the legal requirements, you would have little luck in challenging the legality of various things going into a site close to your home, for example

    • a waste incinerator plant
    • wind turbines
    • motorway etc

    What you personally see as a good thing will only be good for as long as it doesn't affect you personally. Once it does, you'll be hard pressed to do anything to mount a challenge.

    This is what repeatedly gets pointed out, over and over.

    You are ok with that fact, cool for you. I am not, nor are many others.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    If a waste incinerator plant, motorway or wind turbine is being built for the benefit of the community, to my mind, those "living close to an affected area" who object are NIMBY, and their claims should be considered vexatious.



Advertisement