Read on Twitter
"De-democratising the Irish Planning system"
This is a good paper on how lobbying defined the democratic character of the planning system as a problem resonating with the ideology of politicians and senior civil servants leading to #SHD legislation
https://researchrepository.ucd.ie/handle/10197/9683 1/n
This is a good paper on how lobbying defined the democratic character of the planning system as a problem resonating with the ideology of politicians and senior civil servants leading to #SHD legislation
https://researchrepository.ucd.ie/handle/10197/9683 1/n
The lobbyist sought to strategically de-democratise the planning decision making process for large scale developments 2/n
Two aspects were singled out.
1. The Development Plan making procedure described as "political interference" generating arbitrary and inconsistent policy and
2. Third party appeals "Why does joe-public have the same right as the developer every time?" 3/n
1. The Development Plan making procedure described as "political interference" generating arbitrary and inconsistent policy and
2. Third party appeals "Why does joe-public have the same right as the developer every time?" 3/n
The lobby aimed to "max out democracy upfront and minimise it" 4/n
As one interviewee quoted put it "development plans are a bit of a waste of time because all the preparation, the public consultation debate, input from local Councillors: you don't have to, you're not bound by it" 5/n
The authors identify a side-effect of de-democratisation is that it enhances the technocratisation of the planning system and may well conceal ideological dispositions of decision makers under the guise of good management. 6/n
So we end up with the #SHD procedure that overall has terrible outcomes.
The vast majority are now proposing material contraventions of height density, open space and housing allocations in democratically approved development plans that have been subject to SEA 7/n
The vast majority are now proposing material contraventions of height density, open space and housing allocations in democratically approved development plans that have been subject to SEA 7/n
In virtually every SHD I have looked at the Local Authority has not raised a concern about material contravention or sought to defend their development plan.
To me this is remarkable. 8/n
To me this is remarkable. 8/n
Material contraventions are based on questionable and selective interpretation of NPF and RSES (in essence we need more houses) without regard to whether the development plan is consistent with higher tier plans 9/n
The pre-application consultation has turned out to be technocratic solution to the problem of public participation.
See testimony from An Bord Pleanála and @DeptHousingIRL
to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing Planning and Local Government
https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2020-11-10a.163 10/n
See testimony from An Bord Pleanála and @DeptHousingIRL
to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing Planning and Local Government
https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2020-11-10a.163 10/n
The closed-door pre-application procedure between Board, Developer and local authority was designed
"intended to avoid the issuing of further information requests by the board to developers relating to SHD proposals" 11/n
"intended to avoid the issuing of further information requests by the board to developers relating to SHD proposals" 11/n
In other words the public, often with detailed local knowledge has no say in what further information is needed.
(as an aside it is hard to see how involving the public at this stage would delay applications) 12/n
(as an aside it is hard to see how involving the public at this stage would delay applications) 12/n
The behind closed doors consultation has "meant that applications granted through the process are determined to be better" 13/n
That view is from the expert review into SHD and is in fact attributed to private and public sector planners, and so is not an objective view of things https://ptfs-oireachtas.s3.amazonaws.com/DriveF/Data/Library3/library3_lib/pdf/HPLGdoclaid301019B_150356.pdf 14/n
Inevitably the lack of third party appeal and the sidelining of development plans has lead to a huge amount of litigation. From my figures around 1 in 8 of granted SHDs are judicially reviewed - which is 10x compared to normal planning decisions. 15/n
From a technocratic perspective the SHD procedure may work but from the public's perspective it doesn't given the level of litigation 16/n
From a quality perspective the litigation data is alarming given that 95% of concluded JRs have either been successful. (this is 5x the rate for normal planning JRs). 17/n
It is only a matter of time IMHO before the de-democratisation is revealed to be contrary to EU law and the Aarhus Convention (and even the Irish Constitution) - which is unsurprising since democracy is a feature of our society 18/n
Of course when this inevitably happens, the next problem to be solved will be the judicial system. In the same way that public participation was de-democratised from the system will the public be blocked from the accessing the judicial system? 19/n
Overall, viewing democracy and access to justice as problems that need to be solved makes things worse in the long run for everyone 20/n
PS credit to the authors of the paper @micklennonucd and Richard Waldron for inspiring this thread. n/n
