An Bord Pleanála denies that the high number of planning decisions it has overturned is a sign of its lack of faith in the local authorities, writes Edel Morgan

An Bord Pleanála has shown a lack of confidence in local authorities by overturning 36 per cent of their decisions in the 12 months to June, just over half of which were decisions to grant planning permission, according to estate agent Ken MacDonald of Hooke & MacDonald.

"This amounts to 3,345 new homes in Dublin turned down by the board that were approved for development by the local authorities," says MacDonald.

However, the secretary of An Bord Pleanála, Diarmuid Collins, says it is not a question of a lack of confidence. "The board decides on the merits of each individual case, taking account of the views of all parties, including the planning authority. In fact, the level of reversals overall showed a 2 per cent decrease in 2005."

MacDonald says that inconsistencies are undermining confidence in the planning system "with differing interpretations of local, regional, and national planning guidelines and policies. What is considered an acceptable form of development at local authority level can be completely unacceptable based on the board's assessment."

Architect James Pike of O'Mahony Pike, and president of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, agrees that these reversals indicate a lack of confidence in the local planning authorities. "Some local authorities are almost dysfunctional when it comes to planning, particularly those on the fringes of Dublin. They haven't got the resources and in some cases aren't trying too hard."

Pike says he has no problem with the planning system itself but "it's the way it's managed that is so inconsistent. A huge amount is being spent on validating applications which could be done across the desk. The board has a major problem with resources, and it's perhaps not for the want of trying, but they're not being given the right resources. The planning system is totally overloaded and the board is suffering from the same problem. Quite a few [around 22 per cent] of the planning consultants An Bord Pleanála uses are located outside the country."

In its recently published report, An Bord Pleanála said the percentage of cases being decided within the statutory 18-week time frame has fallen from 78 per cent in 2005 to 53 per cent in 2006.

According to Geoff Tucker, an economist with Hooke & MacDonald, only 19 per cent of residential developments in the four Dublin local authorities were decided upon within an 18-week period. Of the 90,000 new homes that are being built across the country this year, he says only 19,000 are in the greater Dublin area, falling short of demand which he reckons stands at 26,000.

"Residential developments are much more complex now because they tend to be part of a mixed-use development and involve a lot more consideration and resources on the part of the board. They [the board] are experiencing difficulty in providing those resources."

It now takes on average 24.2 weeks - almost six months - for the board to issue a decision on a planning appeal. The board is also taking between six and 12 months to issue a decision in 27 per cent of cases.

"From the acquisition of a site to pre-planning, consultation, the planning application and, eventually, the decision of the local authority and the appeal, it can take two years and, at the end of that, there could be a refusal. You are then looking at another two years to go through the process again, which means it can take 12 months to three years to develop a site," says Tucker.

According to Diarmuid Collins, the number of cases on the board's hands at the end of September was over 2,300 - an increase of over 19 per cent on the previous year - and this is a consequence of the very high intake of appeals related to the activity of the construction sector.

"The board's output is up 5 per cent," says Collins, "but intake is likely to be 6,000 cases. The board is doing everything possible to deal with the backlog, including increasing staff numbers and expanding our consultants panel. For instance, the number of inspectors at the end of 2005 was 36. In January 2007 we will have 47 inspectors and we are currently interviewing for more."

MacDonald accuses the board of trying to take on the role of policy maker, instead of adjudicator. "They are setting policy for the industry, which is outside their remit and causing consternation."

Collins disagrees: "The board is not a policy making body. It interprets and applies policy within its remit of having regard to proper planning and sustainable development. Policies in relation to residential standards are set out in ministerial guidelines and local development plans. All advocate policies of good quality accommodation."

MacDonald and Tucker point to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council (DLRCC) as an example of a local authority where a substantial number of decisions have been reversed.

"Supply is particularly constrained there because of the limited availability of land, yet Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown is one of the most sought-after residential locations. Because of the limited supply and the impact of prices, there are few opportunities for first-time buyers to buy."

A number of high profile decisions made by An Bord Pleanála earlier this year - to refuse planning permission for high density schemes at the Smurfit site in Clonskeagh, Dublin, and the former Premier Dairies site in Churchtown, Dublin 14 (because apartment sizes were too small and there were too many single aspect apartments) - seemed to send a clear message to the industry. By May of this year seven DLRCC decisions were overturned in a 12-month period, involving the loss of more than 2,100 new homes.

The board's chairman, John O'Connor, has publicly criticised badly designed development projects which show "scant regard" for density, location and architectural heritage. In an interview with Frank McDonald in this supplement in January, he defended refusals of permission for several high-density housing schemes in Dublin by saying that the board had to take a longer term view of the environmental and social implications. He said some criticism of the board's record was based on a poor understanding of its role as the final arbiter of planning applications and the board would carry out its statutory duties independent of vested interests.

Given that such schemes would "house communities for many decades into the future", he said: "Essentially, it is a question of striking a balance between the need to increase densities and the reasonable protection of the existing and proposed residential environment."

It was in this context that the board had refused permission for a number of schemes where the provisions of the 1999 guidelines or the policies of the local development plan "had not been given sufficient consideration and the necessary balance had been lost".

MacDonald says that, in the case of the Clonskeagh and Churchtown developments, the board "zoned in on the small number of units in it, and did same for John Fleming's development on the former Allegro site in Sandyford, where they said the units are all very small. We checked the figures and we can prove they were above the local authority requirement with regard to size. If the local authority has a standard on sizes and they actually comply, then why would the board have a problem with them?

Tucker and MacDonald argue that the board's objection to too many single-aspect apartments in these developments is not taking into account the "constrained locations" involved. "Providing a number of single aspect units in a development means you can include more units at a lower price to the buyer," says Tucker.

Pike says that districts with no local area plan in place can be "a bit of a free for all" in planning terms. He believes the board's stance on the quality of some of the schemes " is right enough" but says perhaps there has been "somewhat of an overemphasis" in its opposition to single-aspect apartments.

However, he says while the inclusion of single-aspect apartments in a development might increase the number of units, it would affect prices in that development "very marginally. Prices are really about the market. What drives up prices is overall lack of supply. The growth in population has been underestimated and not enough land has been zoned or infrastructure put in place."

Collins argues that the planning system, including An Bord Pleanála, "has facilitated an extraordinary expansion in housing production over recent years. The board operates a system of priority for housing schemes of over 30 units to ensure that delays in dealing with these appeals are kept to a minimum. Overall, it is unlikely that the time taken by the planning appeals process is having any significant effect on the supply of housing. It is but one of many factors at play."

A number of planning policy and advisory documents are expected to be published by the Department of the Environment, Housing and Local Government. Pike says the hope is that these documents will be published in 2007 "and will set out a clear national policy for all local authorities to follow and the planning board. We are all looking forward to seeing some sort of guidance."