Planning delays to infrastructure

10-03-2023 4:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120340885#Comment_120340885

While you're entitled to your opinion that would be determined by the court in the event of a challenge on environmental grounds and/or adherence to the prevailing planning regulations

11-03-2023 8:38am

Anecdotal evidence now being used to justify the stripping of rights

A senior housing official has accused residents' associations of misrepresenting the views of neighbours and counting vacant homes and dead people to boost the size of their support.

No evidence, so just a case of "trust me bro"

His answer to fix this is to set extra criteria for residents’ groups to meet before being able to seek judicial reviews in planning cases.

They would be required to form companies, have at least 10 members, be in existence for at least a year, be active on the issues at hand for that time and take a formal resolution in relation to the court action.

The official did not clarify how this was supposed to address the issue he highlighted.

The proposed changes have been criticised by residents and community groups, environmental organisations, the Law Society and the planning and environmental barristers committee group within the Bar Council.

https://www.independent.ie/news/environment/residents-associations-using-dead-people-to-boost-numbers-for-challenges-in-planning-cases-42377610.html

27-03-2023 8:38am

More slating of the new legislation, this time by the Irish Planning Institute

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/housing-planning/2023/03/27/government-overhaul-of-planning-system-rejected-as-unworkable-by-irish-planning-institute/

Some of their comments echo many, many others i.e. that limiting access to justice will not fly and what is needed is resourcing and funding

key parts of the new regime were “unworkable”.

While Mr O’Brien wants the law enacted by summer, the professional body for planners said key measures “will not be achievable in practice” without more planners and increased financial support..

The IPI questioned the “large number of new and strictly defined timelines” in the proposed regime and said many of them “in our experience appear to be unworkable.”

The planning body said the draft law lacked an “explicit and evidence-based rationale” for many measures.

Specifically on the matter of stripping of rights to justice

The IPI expressed serious concern about proposals to restrict access to judicial review proceedings for unincorporated bodies such as residents’ associations.

“Given that the entire [judicial review] system is designed to correct procedural errors by decision, including in planning decisions, rather than planning assessments, the institute sees no reason or justification to limit access to justice by any person, especially in the context of the Aarhus Directive,” the IPI said.

The Aarhus measures, which took force in Ireland 11 years ago, apply international agreements on the right of access to environmental information and promote public participation in decision-making.

The IPI also questioned measures to remove the right of a third party to seek a declaration from a planning authority that a development was or was not exempt from the requirement to seek planning permission.

Such measures, it believes, could have implications for the ability of third parties such as neighbours to seek enforcement of planning law on developments as diverse as residential extensions, quarries and wind farms.

“It is a long-established, and cherished, feature of the Irish planning system that there is full provision for third party rights, and in the institute’s view this must be retained and enhanced in the Bill,” the submission said. “It is the institute’s considered view that this current Bill, with all of its complexity, is being promoted and progressed in too short a time period.”

27-03-2023 9:00am

Another article further highlighting how Darragh O’Brien's planned legislation would cause Ireland to fall foul of international agreements

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/planning-and-development-bill-6025130-Mar2023/

A raft of changes is proposed in the Bill that will restrict the number and types of organisations that can access judicial review. The intention behind these changes appears to be to eliminate challenges by residents and community groups and to eliminate long-standing environmental organisations that do not meet the new criteria.

Under the changes proposed, unincorporated associations and NGOs or associations which have less than ten members will be restricted in their access to judicial review. NGOs will also be required to have been registered in existence for at least one year prior and to have passed a resolution to take judicial review proceedings.

This represents a substantial rollback of environmental access to justice. The narrowing of the category of NGOs eligible to take a judicial review is likely to be a breach of international and EU law under the Aarhus Convention and of the non-regression principle of international human rights law.

Sam Russell · 27-03-2023 4:23pm

Surely the planning authority just needs a note (from a neighbour, say,)to check a development that is underway without planning but may require it.

27-03-2023 4:54pm

The proposals would appear to have an impact on that.

To be honest its getting difficult to keep track of the many ways this is going to fk things up

03-04-2023 7:48pm

Another issue coming from the new planning bill.

The bill plans to specifically disallow appeals for mobile masts which have been built without planning permission

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41107786.html

This is a weirdly specific thing to legislate for

tom1ie · 03-04-2023 7:56pm

I haven’t read the whole of this thread so apologies if this has been answered, but what professions work in ABP.

I asked this previously in a different thread and someone mentioned ABO consisted mainly of civil servants.

So how long does it take to train up the civil servant and have we started tracing enough of them to match the current and projected infrastructure projects that will travel through the doors of ABP?

Also who is the minister responsible for ABP?

05-05-2023 5:15pm

The Oireachtas Housing Committee finished its review of O'Briens proposed legislation and he won't like what they have to say.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/committee-seeks-revisions-to-planning-bill-over-concerns-about-judicial-review-restrictions/a1507788856.html

153 recommendations on elements which cause concern, with the top one being "that the proposals around judicial reviews be thoroughly rechecked to see if they comply with the Aarhus Convention". Virtually everyone who presented to the committee raised this as a major concern along with the timeline requirements to bring a JR (8 weeks) and the requirement that a company must be formed in order to bring a JR (almost impossible to do within the 8 weeks when you consider who would be mounting challenges)

On the Aarhaus Convention, the committee recommended

The Committee recommends that Part 9 of the Draft Bill is reviewed against the Aarhus Convention, in particular unencumbered access to justice, barriers to seeking review of decisions, and prohibitive administration or burdensome process which may inadvertently restrict access to justice and updated to comply with current CJEU and Aarhus Convention decisions, ensuring access to justice through proportionality

Regarding the 8 week requirement, they stated

The Committee recommends that the time limits proposed in Part 9 are reviewed, given the impractically short timelines proposed.

On the requirement to form companies to take a JR, they stated

The Committee recommends that the stated intention to exclude unincorporated organisations from Judicial Review proceedings should not proceed. It is recommended that clarity is provided to ensure people, incorporated organisations, unincorporated organisations and co-operatives, including organisations incorporated within the EU should be in a position to seek to take Judicial Review

On the loophole built into the legislation which would allow ABP a get-out-of-jail free card to use at their own leisure and not face any consquences, they stated

The Committee recommends that section 249(5) of the Draft Bill is reviewed to ensure only minor administrative errors can be corrected following the publication of a decision. It is further recommended that the position on costs is clarified where cases do not proceed as the error has been rectified.

That last one is a pure "cute hoor" move by O'Brien which was basically to allow ABP to correct a mistake on the steps of the courthouse and quash the rationale behind any JR raised against them without having to pay costs. This is a particularly disgusting move and the committee's recommendation basically would allow for only minor corrections and would potentially automatically burden ABP with costs should they choose to use this ability. To be honest this entire provision should be removed as its literally building in a dirty trick into legislation.

The full report is linked below

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/committees/33/housing-local-government-and-heritage/

The recommendations fall under 5 headings

Access to justice
1. 14 recommendations
Forward planning
1. 69 recommendations
Timelines and resourcing
1. 20 recommendations
Exempted development
1. 18 recommendations
National planning policy statements
1. 13 recommendations
Omissions
1. 19 recommendations

They also didn't shy away from highlighting the way O'Brien has tried to bulldoze this through

Throughout the Committee meetings, it was reiterated that, given the unfinished and complex nature of the Draft Bill and the significant concerns raised on several aspects of the legislation, adequate time must be given to the final Bill for scrutiny and avoidance of unintended consequences.

As the planning legislation review was conducted without a General Scheme to expedite the delivery of an updated Planning and Development Act, no explanatory rationale was set out and an explanatory memorandum has not been provided.

Many witnesses expressed frustration with aspects of the Draft Bill, stating that it was difficult to understand the reasoning behind proposed amendments.

This lack of information on the evidence and justifications for specific proposals hindered informed discussion and analysis. Publication of detailed evidence and an explanatory memorandum should be a priority.

It was also highlighted to the Committee by CLM and EJNI that no Regulatory Impact Assessment was carried out on the Bill, which is a standard governance instrument used to establish the nature of the problem sought to be addressed by the legislative intervention and the best options to address it.

Based on these recommendations, if O'Brien does proceed with it as-is, I think its a safe bet it will be challenged and quashed by the Supreme Court

CatInABox · 05-05-2023 10:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120559540#Comment_120559540

Based on these recommendations, if O'Brien does proceed with it as-is, I think its a safe bet it will be challenged and quashed by the Supreme Court

This is the most frustrating thing about this really. There's a way to bring in a reform of how we do planning, with a fair bit of room for improvement, but this is guaranteed to be annihilated in the Supreme Court. They're going to rip it to pieces.

05-05-2023 10:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120560692#Comment_120560692

100%.

His approach to this whole thing is doing nothing but wasting years, literally.

That being said, what I expect him to do is remove one or two controversial items, tweak 2 or 3 others and whack it through saying "hey look everyone, I listened".

It's just a farce

10-05-2023 2:57pm

The Climate Change Advisory Council calling out the poor levels of investment in the planning system, in particular at local level, which is severely impacting on the meeting of climate goals.

They are calling for "an urgent increase in staff numbers at local authority planning offices to help effectively deliver national climate policies".

No idea where councils are going to get the staff though

https://www.thejournal.ie/underfunding-planning-climate-change-advisory-council-letter-6063703-May2023/

blanch152 · 10-05-2023 3:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579547#Comment_120579547

This is just another example of how the county system has wrecked the country.

Our local government is based on the British county system and we should have fixed that decades ago. Because they are small, councils are also generally incompetent, and they have lost responsibility for major roads, driving licences, water services, sanitary services, motor tax, etc over the last 40 years. About the only thing left, apart from parks and libraries was planning. That they are incompetent at that as well is no surprise.

18-05-2023 11:45am

The Courts Bill 2023 has concluded its passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/3f48a-minister-of-state-announces-passing-of-the-courts-bill-2023-through-the-houses-of-the-oireachtas/

Just has to be signed off by Michael D now

This will see further increases in the number of judges at all levels of the system. this will hopefully see timelines shortening but not by much as Ireland is still very poor in terms of the number of judges even with these planned increases

In February of this year, Minister for Justice, Simon Harris received Government approval to appoint an additional 44 judges to the courts in Ireland by the end of 2024. An initial tranche of 24 will be appointed this year, followed by a further tranche of 20 subject to the implementation of reforms and efficiencies to the operation of the courts.

Sam Russell · 18-05-2023 3:18pm

Could the courts sittings commencing at 9am help to increase court time?

[I think courts start at 11 am - but of course I may be wrong - I do not frequent the courts].

18-05-2023 3:27pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120612809#Comment_120612809

I'm sure there are reasons for the existing times (writing up judgements etc), but anything that adds additional time for hearings would be no bad thing. not sure how feasible it is though

Birdnuts · 19-05-2023 1:29am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120611661#Comment_120611661

There has to be concerns about the current governments role in this given the ongoing meltdown at ABP eg. the reckless comments on due process by the current government appointed Chairperson targeted at certain judges and barristers involved in Judicial Reviews - as covered by The Ditch in recent days

hans aus dtschl · 19-05-2023 11:18am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120614961#Comment_120614961

I don't understand what you mean, could you possibly explain further?

Edit: I think I can see what you mean. ABP chairperson was criticising "two activist judges" apparently. And you're saying that the government appointed the ABP chairperson, so there's a conflict of interest in them appointing judges. Yep, makes sense.

It was a very strange comment out of the chairperson IMO, I personally read it as a moan about the Galway Ring Road, but ABP don't have a leg to stand on there, it was just out-and-out shoddy work out of them. And legislation doesn't just change by surprise. If the legislation is changing, it's usually signposted really well in advance. I don't know enough to say more but she looked out of order

19-05-2023 12:19pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120615756#Comment_120615756

I didn't see those comments by her but I know she did the same in relation to a solicitor who has taken many JR's on environmental grounds, Fred Logue. Basically called him an ambulance chaser. She had to swallow her words and apologize after everyone pointed out that he would have zero grounds for JR's if the laws and requirements were adhered to

She seems to be a bit of an idiot in this regard, making digs at people. She'd be better off focusing on sorting out her own house first

hans aus dtschl · 19-05-2023 12:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120616006#Comment_120616006

Yeah she seems to be complaining about the laws themselves this time, saying that the laws are changing by the time the judicial review comes through and implying that the judges are applying new laws to old cases. It's nonsense, to my non-expert eye.

tom1ie · 19-05-2023 8:04pm

What qualification do you need to work in ABP?

Is ABP populated by town planners or civil servants for example.

19-05-2023 9:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120617939#Comment_120617939

The ABP site should have the info you need

tom1ie · 19-05-2023 9:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120618141#Comment_120618141

Couldn’t find anywhere that they have a list of professions that work their now, but I see they are looking for marine/offshore energy consultants.

Nice money too:

Rates of Payment

Fee per day is €699 with time estimate authorised in advance.

Seth Brundle · 20-05-2023 12:29am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120617939#Comment_120617939

I'm sure they employ both but in terms of reviewing actual planning application appeals, you would have planners along with some legal heads.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120618306#Comment_120618306

€699 per day for a consultant nowadays isn't much. Over twenty years ago my day rate in a consultancy firm was over a grand (which the company got (not me) and was used to help pay both me and my colleagues).

tom1ie · 20-05-2023 8:07am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120618825#Comment_120618825

I’m sure they do employ both but it’s quite difficult to see who makes these planning decisions in ABP and what qualifications they actually have.

Sam Russell · 21-05-2023 2:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120612857#Comment_120612857

I was told (I cannot remember who told me) that the reason was to allow country folk to get to court without having to stay overnight.

[This would have applied to people who travelled by train].

LuckyLloyd · 04-06-2023 12:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119990881#Comment_119990881

You’ll have to explain to me how this is a bad thing? Surely if you raised an objection and it was corrected / incorporated your concerns have been addressed? And the development in question gets to proceed? If the interest is in correcting something, this makes a ton of sense.

I infer therefore, that your perception of the motivation behind challenging APB decisions in court is to block their progression, and force the process back to the drawing board? And if you can’t block or delay a development, why bother?

Because if the objection is incorporated / a correction is made then surely the investment in legal fees has been worthwhile on the part of the applicant? This doesn’t limit access to justice imo. It is just a practical way to keep things moving. Which is clearly required more than ever.

06-06-2023 8:54am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120676195#Comment_120676195

Its been explained previously so I'll summarise

Think of it like the opposition moving the goalposts, after you've run up 6 figure costs and the movement of the goalposts now means you are no longer entitled to claim costs while at the same time, the folks that moved the goalposts can move them back to their original position again unless someone else spends 6 figures to point it out again. There is also no admission of failure in locating the goalposts in their original position and no measures taken which would prevent said goalposts from being moved and/or cemented into an incorrect position again and the impact of any selected position on other things may or may not be assessed properly. If its not, you need to spend another 6 figures to challenge, then maybe they do that assessment poorly on the last day and you're left holding the bag as you've no basis to challenge the assessment at this point unless you go back to the start again.

Its basically another method by which to dissuade challenges.

Just to note, there are frivolous challenges, and those are typically thrown out by the courts and they absolutely should be thrown out. However challenges on points of law or non-compliance to environmental protection requirements are the ones that always go the full way. The sheer volume of cases that ABP loses for not following legal or environmental protection requirements is mind blowing. These guys are the gate keepers and I understand they have a large workload, however if they are required to assess the environmental impact of a development on the surrounding area, then they should absolutely be challenged if they didn't do that correctly.

The flip side of it is, if they do their job properly, assess all that should be assessed and give permission for a development, then there is little scope for challenges. They may still occur, but many would fail as ABP would have done everything correctly.

There is little chance of this aspect of the new planning legislation being allowed to stand. If it gets enacted, it will be shot down by the courts as its 1,000% against the Aarhaus Convention in every way. It limits access to justice, it makes it prohibitively expensive and its designed to prevent involvement in decisions.

CatInABox · 06-06-2023 10:42am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120681182#Comment_120681182

While I don't think that this law will stand either, I do think that your comment on costs is slightly unrealistic. There's no way that a judge would allow ABP & Co to amend their application to correct any errors, and also not acknowledge that costs are needed.

06-06-2023 10:53am

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

I'm pretty sure its written this way in the proposed legislation but I'm open to correction

Planning delays to infrastructure

Comments