Planning laws - Bord has to maintain its independence

THE ink is barely dry on fast-track planning proposals unveiled yesterday by Environment Minister Dick Roche and already serious questions are being raised about the ramifications of the coalition’s bid to accelerate major infrastructural projects.

Predictably, opposition parties are highly critical of this initiative, aimed at pushing through reforms of An Bord Pleanála and effectively by-passing the country’s local authorities.

Speeding up the consent process for such ventures as incinerators or port facilities should not mean diluting the public input to the planning process.

Nor, as stressed by the Green Party, should it undermine local democracy by negating people’s rights to question and, if necessary, object to projects perceived as contravening the communal interest.

It would indeed be a retrograde step if, as suggested by Labour, the rights of individuals and communities to voice concerns over such developments were restricted by the Strategic Infrastructure Bill.

At the same time, however, there is an undeniable need to streamline the present system, where projects become interminably bogged down in long-running legal battles. Invariably, lawyers are the sole beneficiaries of such costly cases.

It would be a travesty if the new bill were to become an unfettered charter to allow developers to trample all over the rights of individuals and local communities.

In a democracy, it is essential to strike a balance between the common good and the interests of minorities. With that in mind, the public inquiry process was seen as a fail-safe, ensuring a broad canvas of interests would be taken into consideration when controversial planning issues arose.

To an alarming extent, however, An Bord Pleanála is increasingly perceived as over-turning the recommendations of its own planning inspectors where issues of a contentious nature have to be decided.

Rightly or wrongly, this scenario raises the risk of the public inquiry process being discredited.

Notwithstanding the prevalence of the nimby - not in my backyard - syndrome, most people still have faith in the planning laws. But if unpopular projects repeatedly receive the green light in the teeth of recommendations from planning inspectors, the system will be undermined in the eyes of a sceptical public.

It goes without saying that if objectors believe the cards are being stacked against them, even before the inquiry process begins, the process will be regarded as little more than window dressing.

Given that enormous sums of public money are involved in major projects, it may be counter-productive to further remove from public gaze the decision-making machinery of the country’s primary planning body.

Therefore, An Bord Pleanála must guard against undue interference from vested interests. It would be appalling if its independence was sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

While several weeks will be allowed for the public and local authorities to voice their concerns, Labour’s Eamonn Gilmore contends the new bill will not advance “a single project by a single day”.

He argues that projects can be stymied by Government’s failure to make up its collective mind. Delays in providing vital infrastructure were not due to planning objections by members of the public. The Dublin Airport planning debacle is a case in point.

To avoid long legal delays, it would make sense to create a separate arm of the High Court to deal with planning issues.

In the final analysis, there is an onus on Bord Pleanála in its handling of future projects of major importance, to strike a careful balance between national interest and the fragile rights of individuals and local communities.