Ireland's planning power deficit
Planners accountable to no one, least of all each other
A LOT OF PEOPLE have serious concerns about the way that planning permission is granted in Ireland - and it's not just about brown envelopes. There is a major conflict brewing between developers and local communities as the developers tear down whole districts for `profitable redevelopments' and select sites to dump or burn our waste, or sites for pylons and mobile phone masts.
Developers are enraged at the delays caused by objections to An Bord Pleanála, or applications to the courts for judicial reviews, which can hold up projects for months. The Construction Industry Federation (CIF) along with the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation (IBEC) and the Industrial Development Authority (IDA Ireland) are lobbying for restrictions to be put on objectors in forthcoming legislation.
Many other people are of the opinion that developers are accountable to no one but their profit and loss accounts. They plough ahead their with multi-million pound projects without proper consultation with the people affected by them or any adequate assessment of the effects on the social or natural environment. They are looking to Environment Minister Noel Dempsey to pay proper regard to EU directives on planning procedures.
Bord Pleanála - a lot on its plate
As it is, large-scale development projects are being contested, like the massive Docklands development at George's Quay (see An Phoblacht, 22 July) and the Millennium Shopping Mall in O'Connell Street, both in Dublin. The redevelopment of Ballymun has now been challenged. Even the 12-metre-high monumental Millennium Spike is now in doubt following Michael O Nualláin's successful high court action.
d it isn't just Dublin. The visitor centre planned for Mullaghmore has been held up since 1994. The proposed waste incinerator at Kilcock, County Kildare, is only the latest in a whole string of objections around the country to contentious proposals for waste management. The Kildare by-pass has been challenged, as has the erection of mobile phone masts all over the country.
Although local authorities may think they have overall responsibility for local planning and waste management, An Bord Pleanála is most often in the situation where it is asked to rule over the heads of the democratically-elected councillors. And it does.
The board, an independent quasi-judicial body which consists of government appointees, is accountable to no one. An Bord Pleanála members themselves do not necessarily have a concern for social issues. This was shown by their decision last month to throw out Dublin Corporation's planning stipulation for 15 per cent affordable social housing in the ILAC Centre development project because they thought it `too vague'. They didn't think to ask for clarification.
Construction and environmental issues
The board's role is to assess planning permission from the perspective of planning and development. Relevant considerations are questions of economic benefits, and planning issues such as services to the site, roads, water, sewerage, traffic, and so forth.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on the other hand, has the role of assessing environmental considerations. It looks at a proposal from the point of view of what conditions should be imposed to ensure the protection of the environment, conditions which the company proposing the development is then often expected to monitor itself.
This means that the real environmental issues are often entirely neglected in determining whether or not permission should be granted because they arise only indirectly under the aegis of An Bord Pleanála. They occur more in the interaction of planning (construction) with environmental protection, that is in the interaction of the EPA and An Bord Pleanála's two separate jurisdictions. But there is no forum in which this interaction is directly considered.
Landmark decision
A landmark decision was given last week by High Court Judge Peter Kelly on this very issue.
Mary Goonery, of Kinnegad, County Westmeath, sought a High Court injunction to stop An Bord Pleanála hearing objections to the construction of a cement factory on her doorstep. She argued that it would not be possible to make a coherent submission to An Bord Pleanála or the EPA because the functions of assessing the development were split between the two authorities. Yet neither authority was prepared, nor allowed, to assess the other's functions. The separation of the functions of construction issues and environmental concerns meant that their interaction could not be considered and were therefore in breach of the EU directive on environmental impact assessment which requires that the interaction be considered.
The case went to the very heart of many planning decisions, where people fear the environmental effects of some developments. Yet the environmental issues don't arise directly for Bord Pleanála, which may grant planning permission, or for the EPA, which may set conditions for the granting of the licence. A judicial review no longer allows for consideration of the environmental issues, only of the legal procedures by which planning permission was dealt with. The courts have consistently refused to take up environmental aspects of planning decisions under judicial review.
On 11 May, Mary Goonery was given leave to make her High Court challenge. On 15 July, however, Judge Kelly reversed this judgement and set aside the leave granted to Marie Goonery, supporting An Bord Pleanála's contention that her proceedings were `frivolous and vexatious'.
Costs were also awarded to the State and the development company against Marie Goonery, a decision which also highlights another inadequacy - if not injustice - in the planning procedures in the state. Where a developer proposes a project to which many local people have strong objections, the protestors have to invest enormous expenditure in time and money to contest the proposed development.
The cost of objecting
The cost of legal and scientific advice which is necessary to contest the argument and submissions proposed by state, local authority, and wealthy corporations and developers is borne by the people affected by the development.
In the recent notorious case of Genetic Concern, the High Court awarded £400,000 costs against an objector to planning permission for genetically modified trial crops.
The tiny village of Silvermines, in County Tipperary, has to take on the huge Waste Management Incorporated, the largest waste management company in the world, if they don't want a `super dump' on their doorstep.
The case of the Hanrahan family, who lost 224 animals as a result of toxic poisoning from the nearby Merck, Sharpe and Dohme factory in County Tipperary, and received no compensation is a reminder of the personal costs of taking on the corporations and the developers.
What provision is Environment Minister Dempsey going to make to offset the high personal costs involved in exercising your democratic right to object to what the corporations deem profitable to do to the area where you live?
We should not have long to wait. Minister Dempsey is due to his promised planning and development bill sometime this year.
|
Historic Planning Decision for Dublin City.
DUBLIN CORPORATION has just made one of the most momentous planning decisions in the history of the State. It decided, last week, to give the go-ahead for a substantial part of the £1 billion Spencer Dock Development proposals which will irrevocably alter the character of the city, or at least six million square feet of it.
What did Dublin City councillors say about the proposals? How did they vote?
They didn't.
The decision was taken by the City Manager. It never came to the councillors at all.
``What do we have elected councillors for?'' asks Sinn Féin's Christy Burke, leader of the Sinn Féin group on the council.
You might well ask, Christy. You might well ask.
|
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)