The way we plan our physical environment -- whether in cities, towns or countryside -- has never been quite so controversial as it is today.
An Taisce has been excoriated by councillors on the western seaboard, essentially for playing its public interest role, ordinary people are becoming more vocal in objecting to what they see as inappropriate developments, and some of the murkier depths of planning corruption are still being plumbed by the Flood Tribunal, more than four years after it was set up.
An Bord Pleanála, which marks the 25th anniversary of its establishment this month, may be criticised by the construction lobby for the length of time it takes to determine appeals and for the thrust of its decisions in some cases. But despite the pressure of its enormous workload, there can be no doubt that the appeals board has won a solid reputation for impartiality and fairness, especially in recent years. This is of the utmost importance as it underpins public confidence in the appeals process.
Among the board's most significant decisions in recent years were its welcome refusals of permission for the visitor centres so wrong-headedly planned for Luggala, in the Wicklow Mountains, and Mullaghmore, in the Burren, as well as the overblown master plan for Spencer Dock in Dublin's Docklands. On the other hand, approvals included such contentious projects as the Masonite plant near Drumsna, Co Leitrim; a golf resort at White Strand, Doonbeg, Co Clare, and the Westin Hotel in the centre of Dublin.
It is clear that An Bord Pleanála carefully weighs all the arguments before making its decisions. In doing so, it must often strike a balance between national policies -- for example, on the promotion of alternative energy sources -- and the impact on the environment of particular schemes.
This is not an easy task, requiring Solomon's judgment at times. But the board is aided by an impressive level of expertise among its planning inspectorate and several of its own members, recently expanded to a baker's dozen.
The Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, has not been found wanting in providing the board with additional resources to deal with the flood of planning appeals. However, it is unfortunate that its anniversary should coincide with the imposition of a E20 charge for making submissions to local authorities on planning applications. This regrettable measure represents a further tightening of the noose on the rights of third-parties, who are often representing the public interest.