Initial Presentation for Review Group 19 th August, 2015 Dr Mary Kelly, Chairperson Loretta Lambkin, Chief Officer
Agenda » About An Bord Pleanála » Decision Making Process » Planning Casework and Performance » Judicial Review » Organisation and Change » Concluding Remarks
Agenda » About An Bord Pleanála » Decision Making Process » Planning Casework and Performance » Judicial Review » Organisation and Change » Concluding Remarks
About An Bord Pleanála Background » Established 1976 as independent planning appeals body following controversies in 1960s and 1970s » Initially chaired by High Court Judge » Reconstituted in 1983 » Method of appointment of Board Members from panels introduced » Timelines for determining appeals introduced 1992 Consolidation Act 2000 – additional functions for An Bord Pleanála » » Strategic Infrastructure Act 2006 » Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 » Further amendments 2011 and 2012
About An Bord Pleanála Background » Organisation with excellent reputation amongst the public and institutions » Prides itself on living its values » Independence and impartiality » Professionalism and integrity » Participation and transparency » Important to preserve independence and integrity » Important not to undermine An Bord Pleanála
About An Bord Pleanála Mandate Prescribed under Planning Acts Determination of: » Planning appeals under Planning and Development Acts » Compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities » Appeals under Water and Air Pollution Acts and Building Control Act » Section 5 Exempted Development Referrals » Strategic infrastructure development applications including Local Authority Projects » Strategic Development Zones Additional functions » Expanded functions under Planning and Development Acts » Regularisation of quarries and substitute consents » New role as competent authority for Projects of Common Interest and to take on foreshore consents
About An Bord Pleanála Structure Chairperson ADP = Assist Director Planning SAO = Senior Administrative Officer SPI = Senior Planning Inspector SEO = Senior Executive Officer Deputy Chairperson PI = Planning Inspector EO = Executive Officer Chief Officer AA = Administrative Assistant Board Members – 7 Ordinary Members CORPORATE AFFAIRS PLANNING OPERATIONAL DIVISION DIVISION Director of Planning Director Corporate Affairs Strategic Infrastructure Division Appeals Division SAO ADP ADP SAO SAO ADP SAO SAO SAO SAO SAO LAPS/ LAPS/ Internal Appeals Appeals Appeals FEM Secretary HR Finance ICT Audit SIDS SIDS SEO SEO SEO SEO SEO SEO SEO SEO SEO SEO SEO SPIs SPIs SEO FEM Drafting Personnel L&D Finance ICT ICT ICT PIs PIs EOs EOs EOs EOs EOs EOs EOs EOs EOs AAs AAs AAs AAs AAs AAs AAs AAs AA
Agenda » About An Bord Pleanála » Decision Making Process » Planning Casework and Performance » Judicial Review » Organisation and Change » Concluding Remarks
Decision Making Process Life Cycle of a Case 150 case types - planning appeal process detailed below - cases generally follow similar process governed by varying business rules. Planning Strategic Referrals Quarries Other Appeals Infrastructure Processing Inspectorate Board/Drafting Acknowledge appeal Case Review, Site Visit, option Review report and case letters, validation and for Oral Hearing and report file, Board meeting and cross circulation of writing. decision, Publish Order correspondence 4 Weeks 9 Weeks 5 Weeks 18 Weeks Post Decision Public Access, Judicial Review, Complaints etc
Decision Making Process Life Cycle of a Case 150 case types - planning appeal process detailed below - cases generally follow similar process governed by varying business rules. Processing Inspectorate Board/Drafting Acknowledge appeal Case Review, Site Visit, option Review report and case letters, validation and for Oral Hearing and report file, Board meeting and cross circulation of writing. decision, Publish Order correspondence » Up to now entirely paper based and largely manual » Depends on retention of corporate knowledge » No formal knowledge management system » No Geographic Information System
Decision Making Process The Board » Chairperson and nine Ordinary Board Members under Planning and Development Act (PDA) » Currently Chair plus eight » Chair appointed following public competition » Ordinary Members appointed by Minister following nominations from panels set out in PDA » Good mix of skills - 3 engineers, 2 architects, 2 planners, 1 barrister/planner
Decision Making Process The Board » Full time Board acts like a quasi-judicial tribunal » All appeals/cases must be determined by the Board » Board sits in divisions » Quorum generally 3 (2 in limited circumstances) » Designated Strategic Infrastructure Division of 5 members » Full Board used for complex cases » 10 Board sessions a week (6 per member with 4 allowed for preparation and drafting)
Decision Making Process The Board Inspector’s Report with Recommendations to Board » » Draft Order attached and file allocated to individual Board member » Board member reviews and prepares file for presentation to Board » Amount of work varies depending on complexity » Planning history, Planning Authority report, EIA, AA, refusal reasons » Discussion and vote » Board member writes Direction and signs Order when drafted Very simple files – 6 to 9 per meeting » » Complex files may take several meetings and require further information and analysis
Decision Making Process The Board Under the Acts, the Board does not have to accept the Inspector’s Recommendation Where it does, it adopts the Inspector’s » report Overturn Rates of Inspector » Where it does not, it must give reasons Recommendations and considerations for not accepting 25 19.9 » Developing jurisprudence in all areas of 20 % of cases disposed 17.7 administrative law requiring fuller reasoning 15.4 14.9 14.5 15 for decisions 10 Board does not accept Inspector’s » recommendations in circa 15% of cases 5 » Often a source of criticism from parties 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 when Inspector has recommended in their favour and Board does not agree
Decision Making Process The Board There is a correlation between the number of Board members and cases disposed. No. of Board Members & Cases Disposed 7000 12 11 11 10 6000 10 9 9 5000 8 4000 6 6 3000 4* 4 2000 2 1000 5801 5090 3248 2326 1794 2253 1864 0 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Cases Disposed of No. of Board Members
Decision Making Process Summary Points » Maintaining our reputation » Capacity of the Board to cope with upturn » Ensuring continuity
Agenda » About An Bord Pleanála » Decision Making Process » Planning Casework and Performance » Judicial Review » Organisation and Change » Concluding Remarks
Planning Casework and Performance Workload – All Planning Cases » Approximately 7% of planning authority decisions are appealed each year to An Bord Pleanála and make up the bulk (over 80%) of our casework. » The number of planning cases received has dropped from Celtic Tiger years and remains static in line with conditions in economic environment. » In recent months, there has been an uplift in the number of planning appeals lodged which may be an indication of increased activity in the construction sector. All Planning Cases : Intake and On Hands - 2000 to 2014 7000 6664 5946 5930 5571 6000 5422 5308 5261 4743 5000 4562 3786 4000 2850 3000 2227 2110 1814¹ 1810 2865 2753 2431 2364 2635 2000 2062 1503 1426 1353 1000 1332 1152 719 935 718¹ 664 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Intake of Cases Cases on Hand
Planning Casework and Performance Statutory Objective Period » Provisions in the relevant Acts set down an objective to ensure appeals and other matters are determined in specified periods of time (in most cases 18 weeks). » Currently, 76% (75% in 2014) of all cases including those where no objective applies are disposed of within the relevant target. » Normal planning appeals achieve a higher rate of compliance (83% in 2014) with the average number of weeks to dispose cases at 15.6. Performance versus Statutory Objective (All Cases) 85% 7000 90% 81% 78% 75% 74% 80% 6000 70% 63% 62% 5000 60% 52% 48% 47% 4000 50% 41% 36% 40% 3000 29% 30% 23% 26% 2000 20% 1000 10% 1814 ¹ 5308 5422 4562 4743 5261 5946 5930 6664 5571 3786 2850 2110 2227 1810 0 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Intake of Cases Statutory Objective Period
Planning Casework and Performance Workload – Strategic Infrastructure Development » An Bord Pleanála as one stop shop Good feedback from applicants and many 3 rd » parties » No appeal against Board decision (except Judicial Review) » Pre Application consultation provided for » Most require Environmental Impact Assessment and many Appropriate Assessment » High Court, Supreme Court and European Court of Justice case-law » Complexity means difficult to achieve 18 week target
Recommend
More recommend
