|
|
|
|
Summary Report on the Convention on the Irish Planning System - Continuity and Change, 27 November, 1997.Minister Noel Dempsey, T.D., Minister for the Environment and Local Government, opened the Convention on the Irish Planning System. While the Planning Acts have generally withstood the test of time, the planning system is a living one and must be flexible to accommodate change. The Minister stated that the planning system must be guided by three principles: -its approach must be strategic -its ethos must be one of sustainable development -its performance must be of the highest quality. The Minister emphasised that he had an open mind to reviewing the legislation, and was very encouraged by the interest shown by organisations and the general public. The Convention allowed persons with an interest in Irish planning to debate the issues and hopefully achieve a measure of consensus. Ms Mary Moylan, Planning Section, Department of the Environment and Local Government, outlined the main issues raised in the over 150 submissions received by the Department. The presentation outlined the various suggestions which were made on the seven issues which the review was focussed on, namely, •How development carried out by local authorities should be treated in the planning process. •Increasing public participation in the planning process, including an evaluation of how local authority development plans are adopted. •The introduction of special industrial zones in order to facilitate industrial development. •Minimising delays in making decisions on planning applications. •Providing for statutory Regional Planning Guidelines. •Examining the treatment of certain agricultural activities currently exempted under the Planning Acts e.g. afforestation, turbary etc. •The levying and application of development contributions. Other major issues raised by contributors were also mentioned. These included the necessity for better staffing, and better use of resources, for example with regard to information technology. Professor Lyn Davies, Department of Land Management and Development at Reading University, discussed what Ireland can learn from practice in other European countries. He pointed out that each country has a unique planning system, and simplistic comparisons cannot be made between different countries. Care must be taken in selecting examples of ‘best practice’ from other countries, to ensure that these models are suitable for use in Ireland. He discussed in this context the recently published EU Comparative Review of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies, and noted that the Review had found some, very broad, similarities between all planning systems. However, Ireland would be best placed, when looking for experience abroad, to examine the system in the UK, whose system is closest to our own, or in Denmark and the Netherlands, which as small countries, have a very unified, comprehensive ‘framework management’ planning system. He suggested addressing as a priority a system of effective regional or strategic planning above country level. Mr. Nicholas Mansergh, Geography Department, U.C.C. discussed the European, national and regional contexts for development plans. He questioned the relevance for Ireland of the first draft of the European Spatial Development Perspective. He noted a number of current opportunities for development planning, namely addressing planning at regional level, in particular in the context of economic and European funding. Mr. Mansergh also spoke of the need to revise the method of applying development contributions. Mr. James Macken, S.C., highlighted some of the current issues in judicial review of planning before the Courts. The status of litigants who claim limited liability by incorporating into a company before challenging a planning decision has been questioned and this issue has yet to be resolved. In general the Courts are unwilling to interfere in the planning administration system and will require a plaintiff to show for example an error in law or an unfairness in the procedures. This of course can come down to interpretation of the law, which may be different in the Courts compared to in the planning world. The main focus of the Convention was the six workshops which dealt with the review on a thematic basis. The outcome of the discussion in these workshops is summarized below. Workshop A dealt with public participation, local democracy and transparency in the planning system including local authority developments. Increasing public participation The point was made that the adoption of the Development Plan is a process and not a task. The strategic dimension is very important as a development plan cannot hope to address all the problems but must set out the parameters. A critical issue in this discussion concerned ownership of the plan, i.e does it belong to the local authority (the traditional view) or does it belong to the community? Different views were expressed as to how to get the public involved, some advocating going into the community with a blank sheet and working out ideas with focus groups, others argued it was necessary to first of all prepare a draft. The consultative process on the Dublin Docklands Plan was seen as quite positive from a community perspective. There was a suggestion that if a detailed consultation process was carried out in respect of a plan then certain individual applications should be ‘fast-tracked’. However there was not a consensus on the issue. Role of elected representatives The point was made that increased participation can lead to increased conflict. The view was expressed by elected representatives present that they have to take the hard decisions, whether or not a consensus had been reached and that only so much consultation was possible or desirable. However, there was no indication that greater participation would usurp the role of the elected representatives; so long as the draft came back to them for final adoption. Development Control Participation There was considerable dissatisfaction with current systems for giving public notice of planning applications. Site notices were extremely important but needed much more stringent monitoring and should be inspected earlier in the process so that any problems could be rectified quickly. Enforcement The majority view was that section 27 of the Planning Acts is an ineffective mechanism for enforcement and that it is often too late by the time proceedings can get under way. Recommendations included new/improved legal procedures to allow for more immediate action by Local Authorities, realistic penalties for those who carry out development without due authorisation, the track record of developers to be taken into account and increased Local Authority staffing. Development by Local Authorities Some participants were satisfied with the current consultation under Part X of the 1994 Regulations and argued that Local Authority developments were too important to be subject to delays. All agreed that it would be a nonsense for a Local Authority to apply to itself for permission to develop. The majority would accept an appeal procedure being added to Part X. An Bord Pleanala The discussion on appeals for Part X developments resulted in the raising of other issues concerning the operations of An Bord Pleanala. Questions were raised as to the degree of transparency of the Board operations, to whom is the Board responsible and whether it should be a regional body with broader representation. The point was made that, if the Board overturns an inspector’s recommendation, a full explanation should be given on the public file. Workshop B dealt with the issues of achieving sustainability and the interface between planning and Integrated Pollution Control Achieving Sustainability The incorporation of the concept of sustainable development into planning legislation was discussed. There was some disagreement on whether it was possible to achieve a precise statutory definition for incorporation into the Acts. ‘Proper planning and development’ may cover the concept adequately, but a more sophisticated concept, that of ‘the common good’, may be required. There are a number of aspects to sustainable development, social, economic, environmental, and a balance must be achieved between them. It was generally agreed that the concept of sustainability should permeate the Acts. Sustainable development requires that the transport and energy implications of land use decisions be considered. High density should be encouraged in urban ‘brownfield’ sites. Development plans could be used to promote village living, perhaps through the use of incentives for under-utilised areas. While ‘cluster housing’ in villages is encouraged, often the infrastructure and resources may not be available to support the new residents. Indicators of sustainability must be formulated and guidelines produced by the Department. Interface between Pollution Control Licensing and Planning. The demarcation between the responsibilities of the planning authority and those of the EPA can lead to inconsistencies in practice. Increased co-operation between the authorities is necessary. This includes both the stage of drafting the development plan, where the EPA could advise on locations suitable for IPC-controlled industrial development, and the development control stage. Consideration should be given to refusing planning permission on environmental grounds, after consultation with the Agency. It was also suggested that the EPA should be required by law to have regard to the Development Plan. The view was expressed that planning authorities should be encouraged to take a more holistic approach to the concept of environmental pollution and protection, for example considering odour and noise or ‘adverse impact on the environment’. A contrary view was expressed that, at present, developers have a clear set of standards, applied by one professional agency. A second layer of control on environmental pollution would introduce greater confusion and inconsistency. A better means might be to ensure that a suitable location is selected at the outset. Workshop C examined how to improve effectiveness and efficiency in the planning process while ensuring its quality. The planning system has become more and more central to the social and economic development of the country. It is crucial therefore that the planning system delivers a high quality performance. The view was expressed that in recent years there had been a huge increase in the number of planning applications submitted to planning authorities but no corresponding increase in the number of planning staff. Badly prepared planning applications were a problem. A standard application form for use by all applicants would be helpful. Planning authorities needed to be more willing to reject planning applications which did not meet the requirements of the Regulations instead of requesting further information to put right the deficiencies in the original application. The Regulations also needed to be looked at to see where they could be simplified, for example, in the case of small developments. The possibility of extending exemptions should also be examined. Development Plans The Workshop felt that the Development Plan also had a role in promoting efficiency in the planning process by being clear in its aims and objectives and in the standards it lays down. There was a need to make use of local area plans and special industrial zones where appropriate. The introduction of fast-tracking for industrial development in other European countries such as France and the UK was mentioned. Ireland would have to ensure that the planning system here did not place us at a disadvantage. Enforcement Enforcement is an area of the planning service that many felt to have been neglected. There has been far too much abuse of retention permission. Effective penalties should be introduced to combat abuses. It was pointed out that the planning fees for retention applications were only 1.5 times the ordinary fee. This does not act as a disincentive and should be increased. The enforcement provisions were unwieldy in some respects and could be simplified and clarified. Information Technology The use of information technology can make information on development plans and planning applications more easily attainable, within the planning office and in other offices of the local authority, libraries etc. Better Consultation Finally it was felt that better and earlier consultation between developers and the planning authority would help in improving efficiency in the system. Workshop D dealt with the issues of planning for growth, strategic land use and transportation. The workshop concentrated on exploring the need for a hierarchy of plans, national, regional, county and local and the role, if any, for Strategic Planning Guidelines. National Plan A National Plan was seen as essential to identify the measures needed to sustain economic growth. National Plans produced to date, however, were felt to apply to single functions and were seldom capable of being related spatially. A National Land Use Plan was the answer. Regional Plans, Planning and Planning Guidelines There was strong consensus for a “regional approach”. The need for such an approach was obvious in the Greater Dublin area. In terms of political structure, the eight Regional Authorities were in existence and should be greater resourced. Public bodies must be prepared to make contributions to promote Regional Planning. The expertise of the cities and counties should be drawn on in preparing Regional plans and guidelines. It was considered that Regional Guidelines should be comprehensive, statutory, binding and enforceable. They should be based on a 15 year horizon with a five year review. City/County Development Plans Development Plans were perceived by some as largely being out of date. There seemed to be a lack of will to review them and a lack of resources. Reference was made to one Council which were still operating an 1985 Plan, this could not deal adequately with current economic and environmental circumstances. With high growth nationally and even higher growth in places such as Dublin and Galway, a 5 year horizon for development plans was essential. Workshop E dealt with planning and the natural environment Special Areas of Conservation, Natural Heritage Areas etc. The European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 implement the EU Habitats Directive in Ireland. There was a discussion on the implications of designation of special areas of conservation for landowners and planning authorities. Afforestation A major afforestation programme is in progress, around 24,000 hectares of forest are planted in Ireland every year. The use of land for agriculture, including afforestation, is exempted from planning control under the 1963 Planning and Development Act. Those representing the forestry industry pointed to the various controls laid down by the Forest Service when giving grant aid, including guidelines on archaeology, etc. They also pointed to the various guidelines which apply to the scheme. They felt that this self regulation was working and that further controls in the Planning Act did not need to be introduced. However, many others suggested that full planning permission should be required for afforestation. It was felt that the absence of a formal mechanism whereby the public can give their views on proposed afforestation projects has lead to disquiet. Peat Extraction There was a general concern regarding the protection of Irish bogs as natural habitats. Turbary is exempted from planning permission in the 1963 Act. It was felt that there was a need to introduce proper definitions in the Planning Acts to ensure that turbary for domestic use remained exempt while any commercial peat extraction would come within the remit of the planning system. Workshop F dealt with development levies planning gain and compensation. Gain from Development The view was expressed that local authorities should not some benefit from the increase in land values due to zoning. While capital gains tax was paid in relation to the sale of such land, the proceeds accrue to central government. The view was expressed that allocation of such monies directly to the local authorities would increase public perception of gain from development and local communities could see how monies were received and spent. These monies could be used to further develop infrastructure and services which would make the area more attractive for further development. However, it was recognised that areas with little or no development taking place would not benefit. It was stressed that taxation of development gain should not be passed on to the final purchasers. Some discussion took place on incentives to encourage development within a particular time frame. One suggestion was the zoning of land for development should only apply for the period of one development plan. Development Levies The general view was that Section 26 of the 1963 Act, which allows for the levying of development contributions, requires review. From the local authority view it is too restrictive in terms of application and time frame. While there was an argument for standardisation of levies, it was felt that levies would have to be set at local level to reflect local conditions and needs. There was an acceptance by all of the need for more transparency and accountability on levy setting, collection and subsequent spending of the monies collected. Open Forum The meeting concluded with an open forum. Among the main themes which arose in the discussion were the incorporation of sustainable development concepts into planning and the need to operate in a transparent manner. In summing up, the Chairman pointed out that the planning system has moved away from just being an instrument to encourage development although that is still an important aim. It now has a much more complex relationship with the built and natural environment. There is a need for partnership, for better resources and information, and finally for strategic thinking throughout the planning system. Department of the Environment and Local Government. |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
