I am a practicing planner (25 years’ experience) and have responsibility for preparing planning applications, EIARs and NISs for clients. I do wind farms which are amongst the most complex and litigious projects. Let me give you some insights.
In 2003, Derrybrien Wind Farm in County Galway slid down the side of a mountain causing massive environmental destruction. The peat slide killed 50% of the fish in Lough Cutra (a Special Area of Conservation) and the drinking water for the town of Gort was severely disrupted.
As a consequence of this case, the entire EIA procedure in Ireland was found by the European Court of Justice to be in breach of EU law. The reason was that developers were simply submitting Environmental Impact Statements and planning authorities were just ticking the box i.e. they were not carrying out any actual assessments.
A lump sum fine of €5 million was applied and Ireland paid €15,000 a day in fines every day since the judgement until it was remedied.
This of course is not the only breach. Ireland has gained an unenviable reputation of being a “reluctant jurisdiction” (an actual quote from a CJEU judge) when it comes to implementing EU environmental law. We have amongst the highest rate of environmental infringement procedures of any EU member state which have cost the state tens of millions in fines.
We simply do not implement or enforce environmental law. All the laws we have today are a consequence of the state being dragged kicking and screaming through the courts.
So, if you want to know the requirement for all the procedures we have today, you need to see it in that context. The reality is that Ireland loses pretty much every environmental case taken against it. This has caused something of a counterreaction whereby developers take a ‘belt and braces’ approach to the documentation submitted.
In 2016, the government bowed to deregulatory lobbying by the property development industry and implemented SHD legislation. We all know what happened. It effectively blew up An Bord Pleanála and caused huge delays in assessing planning cases. They lost almost every single judicial review taken against it. The entire organisation had to be reformed root and branch. We are still in the washout from the imbroglio with years of delays.
The reality is that the delays have nothing to do with a ‘procedural fetish’. It is the consequence of a state which has (a) has historically had no interest in environmental/planning regulation; (b) a chronic underfunding and under resourcing of the planning system for decades; and (c) totally misguided regulatory meddling (typically at the behest of vested interest lobbying).
It’s bizarre that you write that nobody is talking about the need to make it faster and cheaper to build the housing and infrastructure. It’s all anyone has been talking about for as long as I can remember. The government just recently passed an entire new planning act and it’s been the major topic of discussion for over 3 years now.
If you want to make it faster and cheaper to build, then you need to resource the regulatory system. This is the only way it will be achieved. Of course, you hear few people (least of all economists) talking about that. Plus ça change.
The procedures being applied in the Irish planning system are a matter of EU law and cannot, and will not, be changed. They operate the same throughout Europe. The state does not impose them on itself. They are imposed by EU law. So, you'll need a better theory.
Its at the stage now where it can only be concluded that economists have little interest in actually solving the situation but only want to moan about their favourite bête noire - regulation. Especially, planning regulation. They seem to be out of any other ideas.
On the contrary, I fully agree that ABP needs more resourcing. But the system also needs reform and clearly isn't fit for purpose when - as I argue above - it delays and derails the transport and energy infrastructure we need to build to meet climate targets, not to mention housing to address our enormous housing deficit.
It isn't true to say that these procedures operate the same throughout Europe. Yes, the impetus for most is from EU law or CJEU rulings, but how we implement it and/or an interaction with our common law system is leading to the type of issues I describe which are not a feature of most other European countries.
We just enacted the Planning & Development Act 2024 which was 3 years in the making to reform the system and now you’re saying we need to reform the system?
If any further reforms were possible, they would have been made. They’re not possible because the system is primarily governed by EU law.
I work all over Europe and the same issues arise everywhere. In fact, I am currently running a project for the Danish government on how to address these issues for renewable infrastructure. Portugal, Spain, Belgium are also involved.
There is a certain trend in anglophone countries that it’s an issue peculiar to common law jurisdictions (presented without evidence, typically by economists). It’s completely untrue. Delays happen everywhere. We’re not unusual.
What is unusual is our lack of proper resourcing of the regulatory system which economists never talk about.
BusCONnects doesn't have a democratic mandate and doomed to fail multiple Double Decker bus painfully slow journeys is not the future of Transport and has been forced upon people by CONsultants even the NTA CEO isn't going to see it through
Nail on head with this. Hopefully the implementation of last year's Planning & Development Act helps alleviate some of the delays but I fear it doesn't address the fundamental problems you describe here. We badly need to unlock this.
I think this is a feature of our legal system. A drink driving conviction can be overturned because the guard didn’t offer a blood test in the right order or the townland on the paperwork noted was incorrect. Procedure gets precedence over logic/fairness.
Accepting 100s of thousands of foreigners into a small island on the periphery will be a far more aggravating factor. A shortage of housing is a self-fulfilling prophecy when you can't concrete over the entire country and can't build a shoebox flat faster than a plane ride.
I am a practicing planner (25 years’ experience) and have responsibility for preparing planning applications, EIARs and NISs for clients. I do wind farms which are amongst the most complex and litigious projects. Let me give you some insights.
In 2003, Derrybrien Wind Farm in County Galway slid down the side of a mountain causing massive environmental destruction. The peat slide killed 50% of the fish in Lough Cutra (a Special Area of Conservation) and the drinking water for the town of Gort was severely disrupted.
As a consequence of this case, the entire EIA procedure in Ireland was found by the European Court of Justice to be in breach of EU law. The reason was that developers were simply submitting Environmental Impact Statements and planning authorities were just ticking the box i.e. they were not carrying out any actual assessments.
A lump sum fine of €5 million was applied and Ireland paid €15,000 a day in fines every day since the judgement until it was remedied.
This of course is not the only breach. Ireland has gained an unenviable reputation of being a “reluctant jurisdiction” (an actual quote from a CJEU judge) when it comes to implementing EU environmental law. We have amongst the highest rate of environmental infringement procedures of any EU member state which have cost the state tens of millions in fines.
We simply do not implement or enforce environmental law. All the laws we have today are a consequence of the state being dragged kicking and screaming through the courts.
So, if you want to know the requirement for all the procedures we have today, you need to see it in that context. The reality is that Ireland loses pretty much every environmental case taken against it. This has caused something of a counterreaction whereby developers take a ‘belt and braces’ approach to the documentation submitted.
In 2016, the government bowed to deregulatory lobbying by the property development industry and implemented SHD legislation. We all know what happened. It effectively blew up An Bord Pleanála and caused huge delays in assessing planning cases. They lost almost every single judicial review taken against it. The entire organisation had to be reformed root and branch. We are still in the washout from the imbroglio with years of delays.
The reality is that the delays have nothing to do with a ‘procedural fetish’. It is the consequence of a state which has (a) has historically had no interest in environmental/planning regulation; (b) a chronic underfunding and under resourcing of the planning system for decades; and (c) totally misguided regulatory meddling (typically at the behest of vested interest lobbying).
It’s bizarre that you write that nobody is talking about the need to make it faster and cheaper to build the housing and infrastructure. It’s all anyone has been talking about for as long as I can remember. The government just recently passed an entire new planning act and it’s been the major topic of discussion for over 3 years now.
If you want to make it faster and cheaper to build, then you need to resource the regulatory system. This is the only way it will be achieved. Of course, you hear few people (least of all economists) talking about that. Plus ça change.
The procedures being applied in the Irish planning system are a matter of EU law and cannot, and will not, be changed. They operate the same throughout Europe. The state does not impose them on itself. They are imposed by EU law. So, you'll need a better theory.
Its at the stage now where it can only be concluded that economists have little interest in actually solving the situation but only want to moan about their favourite bête noire - regulation. Especially, planning regulation. They seem to be out of any other ideas.
On the contrary, I fully agree that ABP needs more resourcing. But the system also needs reform and clearly isn't fit for purpose when - as I argue above - it delays and derails the transport and energy infrastructure we need to build to meet climate targets, not to mention housing to address our enormous housing deficit.
It isn't true to say that these procedures operate the same throughout Europe. Yes, the impetus for most is from EU law or CJEU rulings, but how we implement it and/or an interaction with our common law system is leading to the type of issues I describe which are not a feature of most other European countries.
We just enacted the Planning & Development Act 2024 which was 3 years in the making to reform the system and now you’re saying we need to reform the system?
If any further reforms were possible, they would have been made. They’re not possible because the system is primarily governed by EU law.
I work all over Europe and the same issues arise everywhere. In fact, I am currently running a project for the Danish government on how to address these issues for renewable infrastructure. Portugal, Spain, Belgium are also involved.
There is a certain trend in anglophone countries that it’s an issue peculiar to common law jurisdictions (presented without evidence, typically by economists). It’s completely untrue. Delays happen everywhere. We’re not unusual.
What is unusual is our lack of proper resourcing of the regulatory system which economists never talk about.
BusCONnects doesn't have a democratic mandate and doomed to fail multiple Double Decker bus painfully slow journeys is not the future of Transport and has been forced upon people by CONsultants even the NTA CEO isn't going to see it through
Nail on head with this. Hopefully the implementation of last year's Planning & Development Act helps alleviate some of the delays but I fear it doesn't address the fundamental problems you describe here. We badly need to unlock this.
I think this is a feature of our legal system. A drink driving conviction can be overturned because the guard didn’t offer a blood test in the right order or the townland on the paperwork noted was incorrect. Procedure gets precedence over logic/fairness.
Accepting 100s of thousands of foreigners into a small island on the periphery will be a far more aggravating factor. A shortage of housing is a self-fulfilling prophecy when you can't concrete over the entire country and can't build a shoebox flat faster than a plane ride.
Meanwhile, Paris can open 68 new Metro stations and 100s of km of track: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Paris_Express and https://edition.cnn.com/travel/paris-new-metro-network/index.html
Meanwhile our cities all need dramatic new fixed line public transport initiatives (overground is fine!). Perhaps we shall have them by 2125...