Planning law and national priorities

The key question is how to ensure that planning legislation works as it should

Sir, – I concur with Fintan O’Toole’s main point in his column “Lidl wants MetroLink redesigned so it can build apartments. And can you pay the bill please?” (Opinion & Analysis, March 19th). It is hard to argue with the suggestion that Lidl’s strategy in terms of its push to significantly alter the design of a multibillion euro strategically important infrastructure project derives its motivation to do so from the developer-led reality which has been such a dominant feature of the manner in which our country has developed over several decades. Equally, this evolution was a major contributory factor to the greed that became prevalent in Irish society through the Celtic Tiger era and continues to linger today.

That said, I think O’Toole is overly dramatic in his conclusion that the new Planning and Development Act is likely to deliver more of the same – based, in part, on the fact that the word “development” will continue to be imbedded in the title of the legislation. Development encompasses everything that requires approval from a planning point of view, whether for major public infrastructure or private development with profit in mind or all that falls in between. Therefore, it is a key and logical component of the title of national planning legislation. The more pertinent question is how to ensure that the legislation works as it should.

Key to the success or otherwise of the forthcoming new Planning and Development Act will be its capacity to ensure efficiency of delivery of sound approvals for what is important to the sustainability and future welfare of this country and its population as a whole over the coming decades.

If the new Act does not succeed in robustly dealing with current incapacity to do so under a variety of aspects, there is little benefit to superseding the current 2000 Act in the first instance. Such aspects or areas of concern require:

READ MORE

Ensuring than hierarchical supremacy, in terms of what is most critical for the country’s sustainable future, is protected and prioritised through all legitimate phases in pursuit of final approval;

Incorporating rigid and detailed requirements regarding what constitutes a legitimate and appropriately informative development proposal with immediate rejection as a consequence in the event of non-compliance;

Ensuring minimal tolerance for vexatious or overly selfish objections/challenges including those submitted under cover of concern for the environment;

Minimisation of temptation to cheat the system coupled with incentives to report such activity and escalated censure.

Regretfully, our culture over the past 30 years or so has altered significantly from being one of “live and let live” to one of “obstructionism” and “Nimbyism”. While this is at the behest of the few rather than the majority, it has been more than enough to seriously impede the progress and status of our country in terms of being significantly behind the curve in critical areas such as conversion to renewable energy, provision of urgently needed housing, development of an array of strategically important infrastructure, etc.

Our planning legislation needs to restore its ownership of our destination as a country by influencing a rekindling of an ethos whereby we work “for” rather than “against” each other. I hope that Lidl will see fit to have a rethink in this context. – Yours, etc,

TOM TIERNAN,

Chartered Engineer,

Ennis,

Co Clare.