Mick Clifford: Confusion and frantic activity at Department of Housing
The department might consider that, when engaging in any major or complicated enterprise — analagous to building project, say — it's really worth while consulting the experts. Stock picture
Things are pretty frantic right now in the Department of Housing.
The sense of urgency that we are in a crisis has been ramped up since the current government came into being.
All manner of charges are being pushed through, some progressive, others with a whiff of panic.
In such an environment, the innate caution that used to inform governing can begin to slip.
Another cultural change that appears to be afoot in attempting to tackle the crisis is a tendency to sidestep what are considered vested interests, even if those interests are focused just as much on getting things done.
Some of this is just a product of being in a mad rush.
More of it is a fashionable trend to avoid experts as if they might bring to the table some awkward truths.
It was in this environment that major errors occurred last month in the department.
A new regulation was brought into force in what appears to be a cack-handed manner that has now put the validity of planning permissions since 6 August in some peril.
The regulation is a Statutory Instrument designed to transpose an EU directive on renewable energy. The directive was scheduled to be transposed in the Autumn of 2023.
That didn’t happen, which of itself is not unusual.
The department of housing, and other departments, can be sluggish in effecting changes from Europe.
So it was with the latest directive designed to ramp up renewable energy, REDIII.
Somebody in the department copped that if things didn’t get moving by midsummer, Brussels would move on to another level of enforcement, with accompanying sanctions.
Statutory Instrument 274, to give effect to REDIII, thus came into force on 6 August.
Among the provisions of the statutory instrument was one that brought into being a new site notice to accompany planning applications.
This notice has a section where a box must be ticked to clarify whether or not the project in question is one concerning renewable energy.
Planners have stated that there is confusion as to whether this site notice must now be used in all planning applications.
If so, as some local authorities have interpreted, applications made since 6 August are potentially invalid.
In any event, the original statutory instrument was not published until 12 August, six days after it came into force.
Ordinarily there would be a lead-in time for such a change, but here it appears that the change came six days before anybody even knew about it.
In the original circular there was also a typographical error that inferred any observations — or objections — on an application would attract a fee of “€6.5020”, which is highly confusing.
In a clarifying circular sent out on 26 August this was acknowledged and ascribed to an error “which arose during the process of converting the final statutory instrument from a Microsoft Word copy, to the official desktop publishing version.”
The fee, this circular went on the say, remains at €20.
The major issues of confusion over what the changes mean for planning, however, remain.
On September 5, the Irish Planning Institute (IPI) senior executive Sean O’Leary wrote to the department expressing alarm at what was going on.
The confusion around it all “risks undermining the confidence of practitioners, and all those who engage with the planning system,” he wrote.
He pointed out that various local authorities were interpreting it in different ways.
“One local authority has made clear to us that the new wording should be included in site notices for any and all planning applications.”
This could lead to applications that have been made since 6 August being declared invalid if the new version of the site notice was not displayed.
“Even where applications are not deemed to be invalid by a planning authority, there is a risk that this could be successfully argued in a legal challenge. What is the Department’s view on this?,” O’Leary asked.
He suggested changes to the wording to attempt to eliminate the confusion.
The confusion, quite obviously, has occurred at a time when the department is under severe pressure.
It also betrays an urgency, that while well placed, is ensuring that consultations, which were part of the system up until recently, are no longer being undertaken.
Contrary to the prevailing culture, it’s usually worthwhile to consult the experts.
