An Bord Pleanála ‘compromised’, claim planners

Fast-track planning laws to speed up delivery of large housing schemes have “compromised” An Bord Pleanála, the professional body for planners has said.

In a statement on the controversy swirling around An Bord Pleanála, the Irish Planning Institute also called for the way board appointments are made to the planning appeals authority to be scrutinised.

“It is imperative that public confidence in the board and its critical role in Irish society is restored and reinforced,” said institute president Dr Conor Norton, an academic at TU Dublin.

Allegations of impropriety against An Bord Pleanála’s deputy chairman Paul Hyde have led to a senior counsel’s inquiry being ordered by Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien, a separate internal board review and a looming examination of the authority’s procedures by the Office of the Planning Regulator.

The Irish Times view on Irish banking: some welcome new competition

---

Gerard Howlin: We now know which hospitals are overspending and which are delivering. Let’s fund them accordingly

---

Ulster hold on for crucial bonus point win over Benetton

---

Quiet quitting: You always had workers who did 9-5 but it’s a creeping malaise, employers say

---

Mr Hyde has denied any impropriety, and stepped aside temporarily last month “without prejudice” to the investigation by Remy Farrell SC and An Bord Pleanála’s internal review. Those examinations are scheduled to conclude within the next three weeks.

The allegations in relation to Mr Hyde specifically centred on his personal declarations to ABP and alleged conflicts of interest. He is chairman of the division within ABP that deals with strategic housing developments (SHDs), fast-track laws for the approval of large schemes that were introduced in a bid to tackle the housing crisis.

Separate claims have since been made about amendments being made within ABP to certain planning inspectors’ reports that were submitted to the board as part of its decision-making process.

The SHD laws have been criticised for allowing direct planning applications to ABP, bypassing local authorities with no appeal mechanism before any court challenge. Many projects were delayed by objectors taking judicial review cases in the High Court actions. SHDs are now being phased out.

Dr Norton said the institute noted recent events and media coverage “with concern”, adding that the controversy had “potential to damage the reputation of planning and planners and erode the public’s confidence” in the State’s planning system.

ABP had played a “critical and confidence-building” role in the Irish planning system since 1977 by providing affordable, impartial and transparent reviews of local planning decisions, said Dr Norton.

“Its success in delivering on its original, core role inevitably led to an expectation that its mission could be expanded into new areas. While some new roles have been successfully absorbed, others such as strategic housing developments, have compromised the integrity and robustness of the processes and decision-making in the board, and undermined a fundamental aspect of the Irish planning system.”

Asked to explain how the legislation had compromised ABP, Dr Norton said: “This is evidenced by the marked increase since 2017 of judicial reviews, many of which have related to strategic housing developments, and were caused by a combination of complexity and confusion around the process, and the frustration of communities and other stakeholders at the loss of access to a planning appeal on decisions for this type of development.”

Asked for its response to the institute, ABP said only that “has noted” Dr Norton’s statement.

The institute did not wish to comment on any ongoing investigation, although it welcomed the planning regulator’s proposed review of ABP’s processes and procedures. “The institute believes that these reviews must be completed thoroughly and without any undue delay,” Dr Norton said.

“The reviews must also consider the procedures of appointment of board members, the independence of the inspectorate in its decision-making and any conflicts of interest in governance protocols.”