Mick Clifford: Why must it take disaster before requisite attention is given to State service?
At a time of an alleged emergency, An Bord Pleanála was, to a great extent, absent without leave. File photo
Two reports out this week demonstrate why there are problems around delivery of services in this state.
Both items emanated from An Bord Pleanála (ABP), a vital cog in the most vital social, economic and political issue right now — housing.
On Monday, the board’s chair, Peter Mullan, posted a statement about a major investigation into malpractice at the organisation. The statement noted that the report would not be published on legal advice but there were no major adverse findings against anybody. In other words, nothing to see here, please move along.
Later that day, the board issued preliminary performance statistics for 2024. They show a major improvement in the performance of ABP in dealing with appeals and planning applications. In some areas, the length of time to process cases has been halved.
Architect and housing analyst Mel Reynolds told the that the stats reflect his tracking of the issue. He pointed out that the average time for an appeal was around four months in 2016 and everything indicates that it could get back to the level of performance if the current trajectory is maintained.
All of that is a long way from the situation that developed since 2017, and reached a nadir just two years ago. During that time, the board was mired in multiple legal actions, leaking staff, and subjected to plummeting morale.
Then in 2022, a whole slew of credible allegations of malpractice were aired in the media. The board’s work all but ground to a halt. This, in the maw of a housing crisis that reverberates right across society and the economy.
The ultimate outcome was that at a time of an alleged emergency, ABP was, to a great extent, absent without leave. Where did it all go wrong?
Firstly, there was government policy, driven by vested interests. In 2017, in response to lobbying from the property industry, the government introduced the Strategic Housing Development (SHD) scheme.
This permitted housing developments in excess of 100 units to apply directly to the board for planning permission, bypassing local authorities. The thinking behind the initiative was that it would cut down on the length of time required to process a case.
So instead of responding to the crisis by seriously ramping up resources, a shortcut was devised. It was a disaster. The outcome for ABP was a huge hike in workload and legal challenges.
For instance, in 2016 there were outcomes to 25 judicial reviews taken against ABP decisions, with the board winning 68%. By 2020, this had increased to 51 cases taken, with the board winning just 37.3%.
So not only had the number of cases being challenged doubled two years into the SHD system, but the board was effectively losing nearly twice as many as it had when operating exclusively as an appeals body.
A feature of the SHDs was that the board was obliged to process applications within 16 weeks. This was unrealistic and in the absence of a major increase in resources, greater pressure was applied to staff at the board.
In 2022, the reported on sentiment inside the organisation.
One source had this to report: “There was huge pressure to get these cases over the line. It was as if getting as many as possible within the 16 weeks was seen as a badge of honour that could nearly be presented to the government to show that the board was doing its bit. And there was a feeling that the positive should be accentuated when it came to assessing applications.”
The man overseeing SHDs in the board was the deputy chair, Paul Hyde. The failure to dot the I or cross the T ramped up judicial reviews and ate into resources.
In 2019, the legal bill for ABP was €3.5m. The following year it was €8.2m.
Despite the fast track system, less than 20% of homes were built for which permission was granted under SHD legislation. In 2021, the policy was quietly shelved.
Then in 2022, the malpractice was revealed. There were cases of potential conflicts of interest for a small number of board members, inappropriate relationships, board members making decisions on cases close to their home.
There was also the serious business of requests from a small number of board members to inspectors to change reports.
All of it impacted on a long standing and vital reputation for impartiality and integrity. The inspectors trade union, Forsa, expressed concern to management at this, possibly illegal, practice.
An internal review of the allegations found, to the greatest extent, that all of them were factually based and reflected badly on the organisation. More often than not in State and private organisations, the internal review is a mechanism to minimise damage, provide a cover, make it all go away.
For once, this was not the case. The only positive action to emanate from ABP during that period was the internal review, completed by three management figures, that laid out plainly what had occurred.
The review wasn’t published and a new investigation — to review the review — was announced. The obtained a copy of the review and did publish its damning findings.
In the end, Mr Hyde resigned and was subsequently prosecuted. The chair Dave Walsh, against whom there was no allegation of personal impropriety, took early leave.
A series of reports from the Office of the Planning Regulator set out a path to reform. Senior civil servant Oonagh Buckley was sent in to clean up the mess and she was then succeeded by the current chair, Mr Mullan.
Over the last two years, resources have finally been ramped up. As reported in yesterday’s staff numbers have increased from 202 in 2022 to 290 at the end of last year.
The number of inspectors over the same period has been ramped up from 66 to 100. There were five active board members two years ago, compared to 15 today.
Things are finally back on track.
How different would it all have been if resources had been ramped up seven years ago instead of attempting to operate on the cheap by using a disastrous short cut?
Some things don’t change as seen by the failure to publicly wash the dirty linen by publishing the report that Mr Mullan referenced in his statement this week.
The public is now expected to have confidence in this vital body without being told what exactly went wrong and therefore why it won’t happen again.
Overall, the travails at ABP beat a well-worn path.
It was left to its own devises at a critical time and proceeded to march headlong into disaster in terms of resources and governance. Once the bottom of the barrel was reached, the government sprang into action to rectify and redeem.
Why must it always take a disaster, a crisis, a complete mess-up, before the requisite attention is given to a State service?
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
