An Taisce: why in a democracy should so few people have so much power?

I REFER to An Taisce’s recent ‘unreserved’ apology to journalist Fintan O’Toole for describing his plan for his holiday home in Co Clare as ‘criminal’ and an ‘infection’ on the landscape.

I can understand why An Taisce should apologise for their use of language, but can we have an explanation as to why their underlying objection to Mr O’Toole was withdrawn?

One can only assume they are now perfectly happy with his planning application. They say that “sometimes submissions from local affiliates... reflect a more emotional expression of planning matters as they are felt locally”.

Why do they not control their local associations? After all, the directors of An Taisce are the only authority who can control these local associations because — despite special quasi-governmental status which entitles them by law to receive a copy of every planning application in the country — they claim to be independent and so are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Neither do they have to account to planning applicants for their members’ assertions, which are often highly emotional.

Unlike any other authority empowered by the Oireachtas, they do not have a public list of their members or their members’ interests.

The Freedom of Information Act would mean that these out-of-control local associations would be held to account by planning applicants for assertions they make.

Unlike Mr O’Toole, ordinary individuals in rural Ireland do not have the media to highlight An Taisce’s absurd personalised attacks in planning submissions.

Like Mr O’Toole, these ordinary individuals, often with young families, are not what he has described as “enemies of good planning”.

Like Mr O’Toole, they are simply trying to move their lives forward, in the majority of cases in their home townlands which, incidentally, they love just as much as these ‘emotional’ members of An Taisce.

An Taisce state that the O’Toole submission was “without the knowledge and approval of head office” and that when such an “emotional expression of planning matters comes to the attention of head office it is the policy of An Taisce to request that the local association withdraw such submissions”.

How does it come to the attention of head office? It doesn’t, unless the applicant against whom the false assertion has been made attempts to get in touch with them. When many ordinary citizens raise the same queries as Mr O’Toole, they are ignored. Why? Because, unlike Mr O’Toole, they do not have a voice.

An Taisce’s website declares they believe in “partnership and dialogue” as opposed to “conflict and monologue”. This is incorrect. The fact is that their objections to ordinary individual’s applications remain in the planning process and influence it. If they receive planning from their local council, An Taisce often go on to appeal the matter to An Bord Pleanála never having discussed it with the applicant or responded to the applicant’s queries. In the meantime the applicant is left in limbo waiting for a decision by An Bord Pleanála that is, in almost 80% of An Taisce appeals, a ruling in their favour. Incredible, but true.

Or perhaps (and dare I suggest it) An Taisce withdrew their objection because one of their high-profile supporters (Mr O’Toole) had seen and felt the personalised and unwarranted nature of some of their submissions. Is it because they do not want further publicity in this regard?

Can they not see, or do they not care, that this decision is hypocritical and symptomatic of their inconsistent behaviour at local level.

In rural Ireland it will certainly be seen as one rule for the big fella and another for the small fella. People who believe they are submitting planning applications in good faith should be able to see by whom and why objections from An Taisce are made.

An Taisce’s local associations are inconsistent in relation to the planning applications they choose to oppose or appeal. That leads to a planning process that is totally inconsistent.

Either An Taisce and its members are truly independent and are not empowered under planning legislation or they are subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Otherwise their secret membership will continue to allow wild emotion to interfere with ordinary people’s lives in a way that simply amounts to a huge democratic deficit.

An Taisce is an unelected body. There is no accountability and no forum for redress for legitimate grievances by applicants who suffer similar problems to Mr O’Toole.

Why in a democracy should 10,000 people have a special empowered status behind closed doors? The Oireachtas must act because, as the O’Toole submission has highlighted, An Taisce admit they cannot control their members.

Michael Kingston

Goleen

Co Cork