This weekend was the 25th anniversary of An Bord Pleanála. Frank McDonald, Environment Editor, assesses its performance over the years and details some of its more controversial decisions.
Until 25 years ago, a single individual - the minister for local government - had the power to make decisions that could result in property developers earning substantial profits at the expense of "proper planning and development".
Indeed, James Tully, the last minister to deal with planning appeals, frequently ignored the recommendations of his department's planners and smiled broadly at them as he signed orders granting permission for such appalling schemes as the lumpen office block at Donnybrook Bridge, Dublin.
As long as ministers continued to exercise appellate jurisdiction, there was always a lingering suspicion that other factors would enter the equation - personal connections, political donations, even straightforward bribery.
Taking politics out of planning was the only way public confidence in the appeals process could be restored.
And so Tully reluctantly ceded jurisdiction to An Bord Pleanála on March 15th, 1977. Though he appointed one of his own associates - a breadman from Co Meath - as a member, the government underlined its independence by appointing Judge John Pringle, formerly of the Special Criminal Court, as the board's first chairman.
First housed on Waterloo Road in leafy Dublin 4, An Bord Pleanála later joined the very few State agencies in the north inner city by relocating to the Irish Life Centre in 1980.
At the time it had only five board members and a small number of planning inspectors and administrative staff to deal with fewer than 2,000 appeals per year.
After a series of blatantly political appointments in 1981 and 1982 by Ray Burke, then minister for the environment, it became clear to his successor, Dick Spring, that urgent steps would have to taken to shore up public confidence by introducing a more transparent procedure for the appointment of board members, at arm's length from politicians.
Under legislation passed by the Oireachtas after some of the most unruly scenes the Dáil had ever witnessed, An Bord Pleanála was "reconstituted" in 1984.
Its new chairman, Frank Benson, a shrewd planner with experience of the public and private sectors, broke new ground in becoming the first non-High Court judge to head the board.
Adjudicating on the rights and wrongs of anything can be a very difficult task, even for judges.
Planning, in particular, involves making hard choices about whether a proposed development would enhance or detract from its setting - or, indeed, whether the principle of developing this or that piece of land is acceptable at all.
Too often in the past, perhaps because of a fear of being branded "anti-development", the board could almost be counted on to come down in favour of those with significant interests at stake; the economic needs of "Ireland Inc", as former chairman Paddy O'Duffy called it, tended to take precedence over those opposing "progress".
But even during Mr O'Duffy's term of office between 1994 and 2000, there was a perceptible shift in the board's thinking towards sustainable development - pre-dating the reformulation of "proper planning and sustainable development" in the Planning Act, 2000. Neither were State projects fire-proofed against refusal, as exemplified in the Luggala decision.
Even more shocking was An Bord Pleanála's decision to reject, on strictly conservation grounds, the National Gallery's original plan for its Millennium Wing.
But there was little surprise when it ruled against the controversial visitor centre at Mullaghmore, in the Burren, ending a long-running saga that ensnared the State in the planning process.
Inevitably, the board's decisions can be controversial - in some cases, very controversial. Politicians irked by the rejection of development proposals in their constituencies have even called for its abolition, on the grounds that no board composed of "faceless bureaucrats" should be allowed to overturn favourable decisions made at local level.
One-off housing in rural areas, which accounted for 24 per cent of appeals in 2000, remains a thorny issue - particularly as the board has been taking a tough line in this area, even refusing permission to the President and her family for their initial plans for a lakeside house in Co Roscommon. But the board must have regard to stated public policy.
This reflects its commitment to the Sustainable Development Strategy, published in 1997, which took a dim view of urban-generated rural housing, and to its interpretation of the letter and spirit of local authority development plans.
If local authorities were more assiduous in abiding by their own plans, such conflicts could be avoided. But though An Bord Pleanála has taken on board the inherent unsustainability of urban-generated rural housing, it has yet to show - judging by its recent decisions to approve two new peat-fired power plants in the midlands - that it recognises the impact of increased carbon dioxide emissions in stoking the furnace of global warming.
The increased level of activity generated by the so-called Celtic Tiger led to the board being inundated by appeals - mostly from developers who had been refused permission at local level. A heightened level of awareness among the public also pushed up the proportion of third-party appeals to 43 per cent of the 5,300 cases dealt with in 2000.
However, the board has no way of determining whether certain third-party appeals are truly bona fide, rather than attempts by unscrupulous objectors to extort ransom money from developers with too much at stake to risk lengthy delays.
Even some residents' associations have joined the ranks of these latter-day Dick Turpins. An Bord Pleanála has brought in planners from Britain and further afield to dispose of a backlog of appeals.
The board's membership has also been increased to 12 in recognition of the huge additional workload imposed by the Planning Act, 2000, including adjudication on compulsory purchase orders for motorways and other road schemes.
In terms of its relations with the media - and, through them, the general public - the board has become much less secretive than it was.
Indeed, newspapers, radio and television stations are notified of major decisions as soon as the parties to an appeal have first been informed.
This is as it should be and works very well.
It is clear that An Bord Pleanála is independent, even of its own planning inspectorate.
Though the recommendations made by the inspectors in their reports are accepted in most cases, the board - which now meets in sub-groups of three, other than for major cases - frequently makes contrary decisions to grant or refuse permission.
The publication of inspectors' reports, long withheld from scrutiny, was a significant step towards more transparency and accountability in the board's deliberations.
So, too, was the inauguration of a website providing public access to planning appeal files, with photographs of the board members as if to show that they are not "faceless" after all.