participation in the planning system is an integral part of the decision-making process, a line in the sand must be drawn. Without sounding unreasonably sceptical, I would present the opinion that most third party objections to planning applications are made to further the interest of the person objecting to the application. Examples are numerous, a house-owner objecting to a factory being built in close vicinity to his / her property, a local community group objecting to development on open space, etc.

Whereas I am not suggesting that these objections are unjustified, there needs to be an element of trust put in the planners. These professionals not only carry out their work according to a set of guidelines (Local Development Plans, Planning Acts and Regulations, etc) but they also perform their job with a view to sustainable development. With every decision in the planning field, there are going to be winners and losers. The losers in this latest case are the individuals but they are sacrificed for the betterment of the community.

Allegations that the Crit

The recent announcement of the Critical Infrastructure Bill by the Government was met with the usual Irish pessimism and sense of wrongdoing. There were cries of protestation against what was seen to be an erosion of local democracy. The BANANA’s (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) and NIMBY’s (not in my back yard) of this world were inconsolable over the fact that they would no longer be able to single-handedly halt the construction of major motorways and would have to concentrate their time on making opposition to party walls and garage conversions. Rumours of a widespread attack on ‘front of house satellite dishes’ may well be exaggerated, but then again, these people seem to have an incredible amount of time on their hands.

The Irish planning system has often been praised for being transparent and inclusive. Any member of the community has the right to make an objection or observation on any planning application that they wish, albeit with a small fee (20 euro). Inclusive and transparent it may be, but slow and drawn-out it definitely is. It would become clear to any rationally thinking individual that when a snail has the ability to stop the construction of a motorway that there is something drastically wrong with the system. Not alone did the now extinct Whorl snail (or Pollardstown snail, as it is affectionately known to locals and objectors alike) add 6.5 million euro to the cost of the M7, it brought about huge delays to the completion of the project. The sound of veins’ bursting and knuckles cracking in the Government was audible. Other large infrastructure projects such as the Ringsend incinerator and the M50 have been similarly delayed.

It is hard to argue against the principle of speeding up this section of the system. The Critical Infrastructure Bill was first mentioned in 2003 but had to be temporarily shelved. This was for a number of reasons including objections from Minister Michael McDowell which were linked to an application for a waste incinerator in his constituency. When the Bill was finally published in mid-February of this year, it included the condition that major infrastructure projects that had already entered the planning system, including the incinerator in Minister McDowells’ constituency, would be processed through the old planning system. The Bill was met with widespread praise from the Irish Planning Institute, The Institute of Engineers of Ireland and the Chamber of Commerce of Ireland. It was met with derision from local interest groups, opposition parties in the Government and An Taisce.

The legislation effectively removes the right of the individual to make objections or observations on a proposed development that involves a major infrastructure project. In other words, it completely removes the Local Authority from the process and allows the application for planning permission to be made directly to a new branch of An Bord Pleanala. An Bord Pleanala, which has up until now only acted as a planning authority in the second instance (i.e. it made decisions on appeals), is now required to make decisions in the first instance. When carrying out this function, the Bord will listen to objections and observations from registered bodies (e.g. An Taisce, Waterways Ireland, etc) and from elected representatives. The only route that the individual has into this process is by making his / her feelings known to the elected representative.

The Government has been actively trying to speed up the passage of major infrastructure projects through the planning system for a number of years. The Planning and Development Act 2000 attempted to address this by allowing court appeals against planning decisions to be made only on points of law. This means, effectively, that planning decisions are completely independent from the courts and appeals may only be made in relation to administration matters, such as time limits not being obeyed and appropriate bodies not being notified. One of the major criticisms of this new Bill is that it makes no provisions to speed up cases that are appealed to court.

A re-assessment of the situation presented above would seem to indicate that the real issues lie not in the quality or nature of the legislation but in the general reaction to the Bill. While conceding that public participation in the planning system is an integral part of the decision-making process, a line in the sand must be drawn. Without sounding unreasonably sceptical, I would present the opinion that most third party objections to planning applications are made to further the interest of the person objecting to the application. Examples are numerous, a house-owner objecting to a factory being built in close vicinity to his / her property, a local community group objecting to development on open space, etc.

Whereas I am not suggesting that these objections are unjustified, there needs to be an element of trust put in the planners. These professionals not only carry out their work according to a set of guidelines (Local Development Plans, Planning Acts and Regulations, etc) but they also perform their job with a view to sustainable development. With every decision in the planning field, there are going to be winners and losers. The losers in this latest case are the individuals but they are sacrificed for the betterment of the community.

Allegations that the Criti

d become clear to any rationally thinking individual that when a snail has the ability to stop the construction of a motorway that there is something drastically wrong with the system. Not alone did the now extinct Whorl snail (or Pollardstown snail, as it is affectionately known to locals and objectors alike) add 6.5 million euro to the cost of the M7, it brought about huge delays to the completion of the project. The sound of veins’ bursting and knuckles cracking in the Government was audible. Other large infrastructure projects such as the Ringsend incinerator and the M50 have been similarly delayed.

It is hard to argue against the principle of speeding up this section of the system. The Critical Infrastructure Bill was first mentioned in 2003 but had to be temporarily shelved. This was for a number of reasons including objections from Minister Michael McDowell which were linked to an application for a waste incinerator in his constituency. When the Bill was finally published in mid-February of this year, it included the condition that major infrastructure projects that had already entered the planning system, including the incinerator in Minister McDowells’ constituency, would be processed through the old planning system. The Bill was met with widespread praise from the Irish Planning Institute, The Institute of Engineers of Ireland and the Chamber of Commerce of Ireland. It was met with derision from local interest groups, opposition parties in the Government and An Taisce.

The legislation effectively removes the right of the individual to make objections or observations on a proposed development that involves a major infrastructure project. In other words, it completely removes the Local Authority from the process and allows the application for planning permission to be made directly to a new branch of An Bord Pleanala. An Bord Pleanala, which has up until now only acted as a planning authority in the second instance (i.e. it made decisions on appeals), is now required to make decisions in the first instance. When carrying out this function, the Bord will listen to objections and observations from registered bodies (e.g. An Taisce, Waterways Ireland, etc) and from elected representatives. The only route that the individual has into this process is by making his / her feelings known to the elected representative.

The Government has been actively trying to speed up the passage of major infrastructure projects through the planning system for a number of years. The Planning and Development Act 2000 attempted to address this by allowing court appeals against planning decisions to be made only on points of law. This means, effectively, that planning decisions are completely independent from the courts and appeals may only be made in relation to administration matters, such as time limits not being obeyed and appropriate bodies not being notified. One of the major criticisms of this new Bill is that it makes no provisions to speed up cases that are appealed to court.

A re-assessment of the situation presented above would seem to indicate that the real issues lie not in the quality or nature of the legislation but in the general reaction to the Bill. While conceding that public participation in the planning system is an integral part of the decision-making process, a line in the sand must be drawn. Without sounding unreasonably sceptical, I would present the opinion that most third party objections to planning applications are made to further the interest of the person objecting to the application. Examples are numerous, a house-owner objecting to a factory being built in close vicinity to his / her property, a local community group objecting to development on open space, etc.

Whereas I am not suggesting that these objections are unjustified, there needs to be an element of trust put in the planners. These professionals not only carry out their work according to a set of guidelines (Local Development Plans, Planning Acts and Regulations, etc) but they also perform their job with a view to sustainable development. With every decision in the planning field, there are going to be winners and losers. The losers in this latest case are the individuals but they are sacrificed for the betterment of the community.

Allegations that the Crit

ects that had already entered the planning system, including the incinerator in Minister McDowells’ constituency, would be processed through the old planning system. The Bill was met with widespread praise from the Irish Planning Institute, The Institute of Engineers of Ireland and the Chamber of Commerce of Ireland. It was met with derision from local interest groups, opposition parties in the Government and An Taisce.

The legislation effectively removes the right of the individual to make objections or observations on a proposed development that involves a major infrastructure project. In other words, it completely removes the Local Authority from the process and allows the application for planning permission to be made directly to a new branch of An Bord Pleanala. An Bord Pleanala, which has up until now only acted as a planning authority in the second instance (i.e. it made decisions on appeals), is now required to make decisions in the first instance. When carrying out this function, the Bord will listen to objections and observations from registered bodies (e.g. An Taisce, Waterways Ireland, etc) and from elected representatives. The only route that the individual has into this process is by making his / her feelings known to the elected representative.

The Government has been actively trying to speed up the passage of major infrastructure projects through the planning system for a number of years. The Planning and Development Act 2000 attempted to address this by allowing court appeals against planning decisions to be made only on points of law. This means, effectively, that planning decisions are completely independent from the courts and appeals may only be made in relation to administration matters, such as time limits not being obeyed and appropriate bodies not being notified. One of the major criticisms of this new Bill is that it makes no provisions to speed up cases that are appealed to court.

A re-assessment of the situation presented above would seem to indicate that the real issues lie not in the quality or nature of the legislation but in the general reaction to the Bill. While conceding that public participation in the planning system is an integral part of the decision-making process, a line in the sand must be drawn. Without sounding unreasonably sceptical, I would present the opinion that most third party objections to planning applications are made to further the interest of the person objecting to the application. Examples are numerous, a house-owner objecting to a factory being built in close vicinity to his / her property, a local community group objecting to development on open space, etc.

Whereas I am not suggesting that these objections are unjustified, there needs to be an element of trust put in the planners. These professionals not only carry out their work according to a set of guidelines (Local Development Plans, Planning Acts and Regulations, etc) but they also perform their job with a view to sustainable development. With every decision in the planning field, there are going to be winners and losers. The losers in this latest case are the individuals but they are sacrificed for the betterment of the community.

Allegations that the Crit

.g. An Taisce, Waterways Ireland, etc) and from elected representatives. The only route that the individual has into this process is by making his / her feelings known to the elected representative.

The Government has been actively trying to speed up the passage of major infrastructure projects through the planning system for a number of years. The Planning and Development Act 2000 attempted to address this by allowing court appeals against planning decisions to be made only on points of law. This means, effectively, that planning decisions are completely independent from the courts and appeals may only be made in relation to administration matters, such as time limits not being obeyed and appropriate bodies not being notified. One of the major criticisms of this new Bill is that it makes no provisions to speed up cases that are appealed to court.

A re-assessment of the situation presented above would seem to indicate that the real issues lie not in the quality or nature of the legislation but in the general reaction to the Bill. While conceding that public participation in the planning system is an integral part of the decision-making process, a line in the sand must be drawn. Without sounding unreasonably sceptical, I would present the opinion that most third party objections to planning applications are made to further the interest of the person objecting to the application. Examples are numerous, a house-owner objecting to a factory being built in close vicinity to his / her property, a local community group objecting to development on open space, etc.

Whereas I am not suggesting that these objections are unjustified, there needs to be an element of trust put in the planners. These professionals not only carry out their work according to a set of guidelines (Local Development Plans, Planning Acts and Regulations, etc) but they also perform their job with a view to sustainable development. With every decision in the planning field, there are going to be winners and losers. The losers in this latest case are the individuals but they are sacrificed for the betterment of the community.

Allegations that the Crit

participation in the planning system is an integral part of the decision-making process, a line in the sand must be drawn. Without sounding unreasonably sceptical, I would present the opinion that most third party objections to planning applications are made to further the interest of the person objecting to the application. Examples are numerous, a house-owner objecting to a factory being built in close vicinity to his / her property, a local community group objecting to development on open space, etc.

Whereas I am not suggesting that these objections are unjustified, there needs to be an element of trust put in the planners. These professionals not only carry out their work according to a set of guidelines (Local Development Plans, Planning Acts and Regulations, etc) but they also perform their job with a view to sustainable development. With every decision in the planning field, there are going to be winners and losers. The losers in this latest case are the individuals but they are sacrificed for the betterment of the community.

Allegations that the Critical Infrastructure Bill will see an exponential rise in the number of incinerators, landfills, motorways and nuclear power stations being constructed in the country are quite outrageous. Presumably, all applications to the new section of An Bord Pleanala, because they are for major infrastructure projects, will still be subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The EIA will ensure that the projects will have no adverse effects on the environment.

The new legislation must be considered to be bold and progressive. Ireland is already a number of years behind other leading European countries in development terms, especially in relation to transportation networks and waste infrastructure. If the new Bill means that waste incinerators and major transportation projects, such as the proposed metro to the airport and the underground rail interconnector, go through the planning system at a reasonable speed, then the legislation may even be hailed as revolutionary. They say hindsight is 20 / 20 but we must look forward in order to be able to look back.