MEATH COUNTY manager Tom Dowling yesterday told the elected councillors it would be “totally unrealistic” for him to actively manage the day-to-day management of the planning department.
He was responding to such a recommendation, contained in an independent review he commissioned this year.
The same review recommended the council planning department be restructured.
In a statement to the county councillors yesterday, Mr Dowling said the review “makes difficult reading for all of us”, and that he “accepted the findings”.
The review followed on the decision of the High Court to make a €4 million award against the council after legal action was taken by Darlington Properties Ltd relating to a site it purchased from the council in 2006 for €4.5 million.
The review team was asked to examine all the circumstances leading up to the court action, and the review was carried out by Gerry Kearney, a former secretary general and former assistant secretary with the Revenue Commissioners, and John Quinlivan, who is a member of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group and former Louth county manager.
The review found the council planning department should be “restructured” and the county manager “should assume direct executive responsibility for all planning matters”.
Yesterday, Mr Dowling said he intended to “take direct executive responsibility for implementing the recommendations contained in the report and retain that responsibility for as long as it takes to deliver the change required”.
He added that he understood “the intent” of the recommendation that he assume direct executive responsibility but, he added: “As county manager I have high-level executive responsibility for delivery of all of this local authority’s services.
“I believe it would be totally unrealistic for me, in a county of this size, to actively day-to-day manage this busy department without damaging my input into the council’s other areas of responsibility, of which there are many.”
He said he would “restructure” the remit of the director of services for planning “so as to allow him to focus 100 per cent on the delivery of this change programme and actively manage the department, unburdened by other responsibilities”.
Among the changes to be made, which Mr Dowling said people would be made “personally accountable” for, were restructuring of the planning department, a full audit of unaudited planning processes and procedures, new procedures so all major contracts involving disposal of council assets had to be signed off by senior management, and performance-related measures in the department.
Mr Dowling said he was conscious that changes must “strike the correct balance between appropriate levels of control and governance and the requirement to deliver a good and efficient service”.
He said he knew the planning department had played a significant role in the development of the county. In relation to planning staff, he said: “I want to reiterate my commitment as manager to supporting them and working with them to implement the changes necessary to instil confidence and improve morale.”
All of the 25 recommendations will be implemented, and Mr Dowling said he has asked the team to return in a year’s time “to measure the progress made”.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label planning review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label planning review. Show all posts
Monday, 19 September 2011
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
An Taisce accused of slur against council staff
DUBLIN CITY manager John Tierney has accused An Taisce of “gross misinterpretation” of facts and slurs against the integrity of council officials in its claims which prompted a planning investigation by Minister for the Environment John Gormley.
Mr Gormley last month ordered a review of the planning systems of six local authorities which he said were the subject of “substantial complaints” in how they implemented planning laws and policies. Dublin and Cork city councils and Galway, Cork, Meath and Carlow county councils were chosen for review.
The Dublin City Council review was based on a complaint from An Taisce that it had given permission for developments which were in breach of the city development plan in relation to height, scale zoning and conservation issues.
An Taisce complained to Mr Gormley that the council “acted systematically in disregarding” the plan, contravened ministerial planning guidelines and showed “serious impropriety in the conduct of its functions”.
It also claimed unnamed senior officials were “encouraging landowners and developers to lodge planning applications in breach of the Dublin City Development Plan and ministerial guidelines”.
An Taisce made specific complaints in relation to the council’s handling of 23 planning cases including the high-rise complex for Seán Dunne’s Jurys/Berkeley Court site in Ballsbridge and the Carlton and Arnotts sites in the city centre.
In his strongly-worded response, Mr Tierney said he would not comment on each case because of the “legislative position” where the Minister does not involve himself in individual planning applications.
Mr Tierney said he would only refer to specific cases where it was necessary to correct inaccuracies in the submissions. He said in all cases, the council had full regard to the development plan and national and regional policies and guidelines where relevant.
He said An Taisce’s submissions contained “substantial inaccuracies, misrepresentations and unsubstantiated allegations against this planning authority and its executives in the carrying out of our statutory duties”.
Statements by An Taisce that a number of senior personnel were not fit or competent to hold their positions were a “slur against the integrity [and] professionalism” of these officials and should be withdrawn. Mr Tierney said this particular matter was receiving “further consideration”.
An Taisce had misrepresented the facts in blaming the council for the property bubble, which showed its less than balanced approach to the council, he said. An Taisce yesterday said it was considering Mr Tierney’s submission to the review and would respond.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Mr Gormley last month ordered a review of the planning systems of six local authorities which he said were the subject of “substantial complaints” in how they implemented planning laws and policies. Dublin and Cork city councils and Galway, Cork, Meath and Carlow county councils were chosen for review.
The Dublin City Council review was based on a complaint from An Taisce that it had given permission for developments which were in breach of the city development plan in relation to height, scale zoning and conservation issues.
An Taisce complained to Mr Gormley that the council “acted systematically in disregarding” the plan, contravened ministerial planning guidelines and showed “serious impropriety in the conduct of its functions”.
It also claimed unnamed senior officials were “encouraging landowners and developers to lodge planning applications in breach of the Dublin City Development Plan and ministerial guidelines”.
An Taisce made specific complaints in relation to the council’s handling of 23 planning cases including the high-rise complex for Seán Dunne’s Jurys/Berkeley Court site in Ballsbridge and the Carlton and Arnotts sites in the city centre.
In his strongly-worded response, Mr Tierney said he would not comment on each case because of the “legislative position” where the Minister does not involve himself in individual planning applications.
Mr Tierney said he would only refer to specific cases where it was necessary to correct inaccuracies in the submissions. He said in all cases, the council had full regard to the development plan and national and regional policies and guidelines where relevant.
He said An Taisce’s submissions contained “substantial inaccuracies, misrepresentations and unsubstantiated allegations against this planning authority and its executives in the carrying out of our statutory duties”.
Statements by An Taisce that a number of senior personnel were not fit or competent to hold their positions were a “slur against the integrity [and] professionalism” of these officials and should be withdrawn. Mr Tierney said this particular matter was receiving “further consideration”.
An Taisce had misrepresented the facts in blaming the council for the property bubble, which showed its less than balanced approach to the council, he said. An Taisce yesterday said it was considering Mr Tierney’s submission to the review and would respond.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
An Taisce claims council 'disingenuous'
AN TAISCE has accused Dublin City Council of being “disingenuous in the extreme” in its response to a planning investigation ordered by Minister for the Environment John Gormley.
The council was selected for investigation following complaints from An Taisce to Mr Gormley that permission was given for developments which were in breach of the city development plan in relation to height, scale zoning and conservation issues.
Five other local authorities were selected for investigation based on separate complaints in relation to their planning practices.
In his response to the investigation Dublin city manager John Tierney accused An Taisce of “gross misinterpretation” of facts, substantial inaccuracies, and slurs against the integrity of council officials in the claims submitted to Mr Gormley.
An Taisce yesterday said the claims it made were backed up in its submission by references to the planning decisions which the council had made, while the council had failed to make a detailed response.
The council’s response to the planning investigation was a “systematic evasion of the facts” it said.
Attempting to play down the significance of the 23 planning cases identified by An Taisce by stating that 18,000 applications had been determined by the city council in the same period was disingenuous in the extreme, An Taisce said. Those cases that were highlighted were of major significance such as the Carlton cinema site, the Arnotts site and the Jurys/ Berkeley Court site in Ballsbridge, it said.
Dublin City Council’s response also evaded the questions that were raised by An Taisce in relation to the council’s role in creating the property bubble through its planning decisions, An Taisce said.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The council was selected for investigation following complaints from An Taisce to Mr Gormley that permission was given for developments which were in breach of the city development plan in relation to height, scale zoning and conservation issues.
Five other local authorities were selected for investigation based on separate complaints in relation to their planning practices.
In his response to the investigation Dublin city manager John Tierney accused An Taisce of “gross misinterpretation” of facts, substantial inaccuracies, and slurs against the integrity of council officials in the claims submitted to Mr Gormley.
An Taisce yesterday said the claims it made were backed up in its submission by references to the planning decisions which the council had made, while the council had failed to make a detailed response.
The council’s response to the planning investigation was a “systematic evasion of the facts” it said.
Attempting to play down the significance of the 23 planning cases identified by An Taisce by stating that 18,000 applications had been determined by the city council in the same period was disingenuous in the extreme, An Taisce said. Those cases that were highlighted were of major significance such as the Carlton cinema site, the Arnotts site and the Jurys/ Berkeley Court site in Ballsbridge, it said.
Dublin City Council’s response also evaded the questions that were raised by An Taisce in relation to the council’s role in creating the property bubble through its planning decisions, An Taisce said.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
An Taisce dossier led Gormley to seek review of council's planning record
MINISTER FOR the Environment John Gormley appointed an inspector to review Dublin City Council’s planning performance on foot of a “dossier” compiled by An Taisce, which claimed that it was operating in breach of the city development plan.
In a letter to Mr Gormley last October, Ian Lumley and Kevin Duff of An Taisce alleged the council had “acted systematically in disregarding” the plan, contravened ministerial planning guidelines and shown “serious impropriety in the conduct of its functions”.
Assistant city manager Michael Stubbs, who is in charge of planning and economic development, said the council would be responding to the dossier by July 16th. A Fine Gael councillor Rory McGinley said the An Taisce dossier was “over the top”.
They claimed unnamed senior officials had been “encouraging landowners and developers to lodge planning applications [for high-rise buildings] in breach of the Dublin City Development Plan and ministerial guidelines”.
In a follow-up letter to the Minister on February 1st last, Mr Lumley said: “We believe that these actions were key to the enormous sums loaned by banks which fuelled the inflation of the property bubble and the downfall of the entire economy . . .”
He cited a comment by developer Seán Dunne on March 15th, 2008, hailing the council’s management and planners as “the unsung heroes of Ireland”, in the wake of their decision to approve the bulk of his scheme for the Jurys/Berkeley Court site in Ballsbridge.
Mr Lumley said this was “reflective, not of work done to ensure proper planning for the city . . . but rather the extraordinary lengths officials went to in drawing up and promoting variations to the development plan in order that they could grant permission . . .”
The council’s handling of the Jurys/Berkeley Court site was one of 19 cases cited by An Taisce in its complaint to the Minister, which noted Mr Gormley was already investigating an “extensive submission” made by residents of Ballsbridge against the scheme.
“This case, and the extensive documentation provided, showed an absolute disregard by senior management and personnel in the planning section of Dublin City Council to the provision of the Dublin City Development Plan and ministerial guidelines,” it claimed.
In another case, involving the former Carlton Cinema site and adjacent properties on O’Connell Street, An Taisce said the council’s planners had “actively encouraged the applicant [Chartered Land] to include an ‘iconic high-rise feature’ in the central portion of the site”. An Bord Pleanála did not share this view and called for the scheme to be redesigned, omitting the proposed 13-storey high- rise element as well as reassessing the scale of the opening on O’Connell Street and the extent of demolition there and in Moore Street.
In the Ballsbridge case, An Bord Pleanála overturned the council’s decision to grant a partial permission to Mr Dunne, saying the dense high-rise scheme would constitute “gross over-development” of the seven-acre site, “at odds with the established character” of the area.
Another case cited by An Taisce involves the plan by Arnotts for a new city quarter bounded by Henry Street, Upper Liffey Street and Middle Abbey Street. Its 16-storey tower, approved by the council, was rejected by the appeals board as “unduly obtrusive on the skyline”.
Its decision had “set down a very clear marker of the appropriate scale of development in a location in proximity to the GPO and O’Connell Street”, An Taisce said. “Dublin City Council entirely disregarded this in its consideration of the . . . development.” What was “particularly striking” in several other cases, An Taisce said, was “the manner in which the city council has deliberately ignored the implications of An Bord Pleanála decisions” in dealing with subsequent planning applications for the same site, or adjoining sites.
Mr Lumley claimed the draft development plan for the period 2011-2017, which is being finalised, “contains provisions designed to open the floodgates for grossly over-scaled developments . . . thus, in one fell swoop, destroying the character of the city ...”
An Taisce argued there were now “overwhelming grounds to prorogue the planning function of Dublin City Council and to appoint a commissioner under Section 255(4), Planning and Development Act 2000, in order to restore public confidence” in the process.
CRITICISM REJECTED VIEWS ON OFFICIALS' PERFORMANCE 'OVER THE TOP':
MICHAEL STUBBS, assistant city manager in charge of planning and economic development, said it was intended to respond to the issues raised in An Taisce’s “dossier” by July 16th, as requested.An Taisce’s criticism of the competence of Dublin City Council’s planning officials was “over the top”, according to Cllr Ruairí McGinley (FG), who said he saw no reason to “prorogue” the council’s planning functions.
“There have been very few complaints about planning function in Dublin city, with exception of the Ballsbridge site,” he said.
This was a reference to a number of controversies, notably over the Jurys/Berkeley Court site.
By calling in an inspector to review the council’s planning performance, he said Minister for the Environment John Gormley, who represents Dublin South East, “seems to be confused as to which hat he’s wearing” – private citizen, TD or Government Minister.
Cllr McGinley said the Department of the Environment had “expressed satisfaction” with the council’s approach to the draft Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 and its land use strategy.“Maybe they should advise the Minister,” he suggested.
He said An Taisce’s claim that Dublin City Council’s planning decisions had been a factor in fuelling the property bubble was “wildly inaccurate”, as responsibility for the bubble “lies with the Government of which John Gormley is a member”.
“The comments in relation to the competence of city officials are similarly over the top,” he said.
FRANK McDONALD
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
In a letter to Mr Gormley last October, Ian Lumley and Kevin Duff of An Taisce alleged the council had “acted systematically in disregarding” the plan, contravened ministerial planning guidelines and shown “serious impropriety in the conduct of its functions”.
Assistant city manager Michael Stubbs, who is in charge of planning and economic development, said the council would be responding to the dossier by July 16th. A Fine Gael councillor Rory McGinley said the An Taisce dossier was “over the top”.
They claimed unnamed senior officials had been “encouraging landowners and developers to lodge planning applications [for high-rise buildings] in breach of the Dublin City Development Plan and ministerial guidelines”.
In a follow-up letter to the Minister on February 1st last, Mr Lumley said: “We believe that these actions were key to the enormous sums loaned by banks which fuelled the inflation of the property bubble and the downfall of the entire economy . . .”
He cited a comment by developer Seán Dunne on March 15th, 2008, hailing the council’s management and planners as “the unsung heroes of Ireland”, in the wake of their decision to approve the bulk of his scheme for the Jurys/Berkeley Court site in Ballsbridge.
Mr Lumley said this was “reflective, not of work done to ensure proper planning for the city . . . but rather the extraordinary lengths officials went to in drawing up and promoting variations to the development plan in order that they could grant permission . . .”
The council’s handling of the Jurys/Berkeley Court site was one of 19 cases cited by An Taisce in its complaint to the Minister, which noted Mr Gormley was already investigating an “extensive submission” made by residents of Ballsbridge against the scheme.
“This case, and the extensive documentation provided, showed an absolute disregard by senior management and personnel in the planning section of Dublin City Council to the provision of the Dublin City Development Plan and ministerial guidelines,” it claimed.
In another case, involving the former Carlton Cinema site and adjacent properties on O’Connell Street, An Taisce said the council’s planners had “actively encouraged the applicant [Chartered Land] to include an ‘iconic high-rise feature’ in the central portion of the site”. An Bord Pleanála did not share this view and called for the scheme to be redesigned, omitting the proposed 13-storey high- rise element as well as reassessing the scale of the opening on O’Connell Street and the extent of demolition there and in Moore Street.
In the Ballsbridge case, An Bord Pleanála overturned the council’s decision to grant a partial permission to Mr Dunne, saying the dense high-rise scheme would constitute “gross over-development” of the seven-acre site, “at odds with the established character” of the area.
Another case cited by An Taisce involves the plan by Arnotts for a new city quarter bounded by Henry Street, Upper Liffey Street and Middle Abbey Street. Its 16-storey tower, approved by the council, was rejected by the appeals board as “unduly obtrusive on the skyline”.
Its decision had “set down a very clear marker of the appropriate scale of development in a location in proximity to the GPO and O’Connell Street”, An Taisce said. “Dublin City Council entirely disregarded this in its consideration of the . . . development.” What was “particularly striking” in several other cases, An Taisce said, was “the manner in which the city council has deliberately ignored the implications of An Bord Pleanála decisions” in dealing with subsequent planning applications for the same site, or adjoining sites.
Mr Lumley claimed the draft development plan for the period 2011-2017, which is being finalised, “contains provisions designed to open the floodgates for grossly over-scaled developments . . . thus, in one fell swoop, destroying the character of the city ...”
An Taisce argued there were now “overwhelming grounds to prorogue the planning function of Dublin City Council and to appoint a commissioner under Section 255(4), Planning and Development Act 2000, in order to restore public confidence” in the process.
CRITICISM REJECTED VIEWS ON OFFICIALS' PERFORMANCE 'OVER THE TOP':
MICHAEL STUBBS, assistant city manager in charge of planning and economic development, said it was intended to respond to the issues raised in An Taisce’s “dossier” by July 16th, as requested.An Taisce’s criticism of the competence of Dublin City Council’s planning officials was “over the top”, according to Cllr Ruairí McGinley (FG), who said he saw no reason to “prorogue” the council’s planning functions.
“There have been very few complaints about planning function in Dublin city, with exception of the Ballsbridge site,” he said.
This was a reference to a number of controversies, notably over the Jurys/Berkeley Court site.
By calling in an inspector to review the council’s planning performance, he said Minister for the Environment John Gormley, who represents Dublin South East, “seems to be confused as to which hat he’s wearing” – private citizen, TD or Government Minister.
Cllr McGinley said the Department of the Environment had “expressed satisfaction” with the council’s approach to the draft Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 and its land use strategy.“Maybe they should advise the Minister,” he suggested.
He said An Taisce’s claim that Dublin City Council’s planning decisions had been a factor in fuelling the property bubble was “wildly inaccurate”, as responsibility for the bubble “lies with the Government of which John Gormley is a member”.
“The comments in relation to the competence of city officials are similarly over the top,” he said.
FRANK McDONALD
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Cork council planning defended
Cork county manager Martin Riordan has expressed confidence that planning procedures in the council will prove to be of the highest standard when examined as part of a review announced last week by Minister for the Environment John Gormley.
Mr Riordan said Mr Gormley raised issues identified by An Taisce where it had appealed Cork County Council decisions to An Bord Pleanála. The majority of the 42 cases identified by An Taisce in its correspondence with the Minister referred to single rural housing applications, said Mr Riordan.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Mr Riordan said Mr Gormley raised issues identified by An Taisce where it had appealed Cork County Council decisions to An Bord Pleanála. The majority of the 42 cases identified by An Taisce in its correspondence with the Minister referred to single rural housing applications, said Mr Riordan.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Monday, 28 June 2010
Planning review to focus on Drogheda
THE REVIEW of planning in Meath ordered by Minister for the Environment John Gormley is to focus solely on the southern Drogheda local area plan which was adopted by Meath County Council last year.
The council is one of six local authorities facing reviews of their planning systems as a result of a decision announced last week by Mr Gormley.
The Drogheda local area plan was controversial mainly because of plans for a €35 million 10,000- seat stadium for Drogheda United football club on lands in Bryanstown, on the southern edge of the town.
In a deal the club did with developer Bill Doyle, the new stadium was to be funded by the sale of houses he wanted to build in Bryanstown, but he first needed residential zoning on the lands. However, in the local area plan, they were zoned as open space.
Mr Doyle and his supporters said this zoning, along with the National Roads Authority decision to appeal planning permission for the stadium to An Bord Pleanála, dealt the project a fatal blow.
A spokesman for Meath County Council confirmed that the department’s review “relates to the southern Drogheda local area plan” and that the department had written asking it to “gather documentation” relating to the process that was gone through before the plan was adopted in April 2009.
It is understood that complaints made by Mr Doyle about the council are among those which prompted the department to include Meath in the review of planning decisions made by six local authorities.
Details of some of the complaints have been given to the council in Meath. Its spokesman said: “We will gather all the information requested by the department and respond by the date given.”
The southern Drogheda plan also sparked controversy because it included residential and other zoning on lands identified in an already adopted plan – prepared jointly for Meath, Louth and Drogheda local authorities – as a strategic land reserve and therefore not to be developed.
Four county councils – Galway, Cork, Meath and Carlow – and two city councils, Dublin and Cork, comprise the six being subjected to the review.
Mr Gormley said “substantial complaints” had been received about the planning processes of the six. One other local authority, Donegal County Council, is already the subject of a similar review.
The first phase of the inquiry announced last week will require each council to provide information about its planning system within four weeks and to answer specific questions about complaints and allegations that have been made.
These will cover areas such as zoning, the scale and height of certain structures and concerns raised in local government audit reports.
The review is being carried out in the context of the new planning Bill, which is expected to become law by the summer.
Mr Gormley has expressed concern that the legislation will be ineffective unless all 34 local authorities can fully implement its measures.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The council is one of six local authorities facing reviews of their planning systems as a result of a decision announced last week by Mr Gormley.
The Drogheda local area plan was controversial mainly because of plans for a €35 million 10,000- seat stadium for Drogheda United football club on lands in Bryanstown, on the southern edge of the town.
In a deal the club did with developer Bill Doyle, the new stadium was to be funded by the sale of houses he wanted to build in Bryanstown, but he first needed residential zoning on the lands. However, in the local area plan, they were zoned as open space.
Mr Doyle and his supporters said this zoning, along with the National Roads Authority decision to appeal planning permission for the stadium to An Bord Pleanála, dealt the project a fatal blow.
A spokesman for Meath County Council confirmed that the department’s review “relates to the southern Drogheda local area plan” and that the department had written asking it to “gather documentation” relating to the process that was gone through before the plan was adopted in April 2009.
It is understood that complaints made by Mr Doyle about the council are among those which prompted the department to include Meath in the review of planning decisions made by six local authorities.
Details of some of the complaints have been given to the council in Meath. Its spokesman said: “We will gather all the information requested by the department and respond by the date given.”
The southern Drogheda plan also sparked controversy because it included residential and other zoning on lands identified in an already adopted plan – prepared jointly for Meath, Louth and Drogheda local authorities – as a strategic land reserve and therefore not to be developed.
Four county councils – Galway, Cork, Meath and Carlow – and two city councils, Dublin and Cork, comprise the six being subjected to the review.
Mr Gormley said “substantial complaints” had been received about the planning processes of the six. One other local authority, Donegal County Council, is already the subject of a similar review.
The first phase of the inquiry announced last week will require each council to provide information about its planning system within four weeks and to answer specific questions about complaints and allegations that have been made.
These will cover areas such as zoning, the scale and height of certain structures and concerns raised in local government audit reports.
The review is being carried out in the context of the new planning Bill, which is expected to become law by the summer.
Mr Gormley has expressed concern that the legislation will be ineffective unless all 34 local authorities can fully implement its measures.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Gormley under fire over planning inquiry
ENVIRONMENT Minister John Gormley yesterday denied Cork City Council had been left in the dark about a probe into its planning policies and those of five other councils.
Mr Gormley told the Irish Independent that several messages had been left with Cork City Council informing them that a review was due to get under way.
Cork city manager Joe Gavin said yesterday that he had received no communication from the Department of the Environment about the review.
Mr Gavin and he was "very disappointed and surprised" at the move, insisting that every aspect of planning in the council was fully in accordance with the law.
Mr Gormley said the aim was to achieve greater consistency in the planning process, to avoid planning decisions which are inconsistent with other local authorities. This had been a big bone of contention, he added.
The councils facing a review are Dublin City, Galway County, Cork City, Cork County, Carlow and Meath.
The relevant managers will be given four weeks to respond to specified issues, after which their replies will be assessed by the expert group, which can make far-reaching recommendations. Individual planning decisions will not be examined.
The six councils are being peer reviewed and the currently unidentified team of experts can call for a full investigation of planning policy.
Joanna Tuffy, Labour's environment spokesperson, said it was unclear what Mr Gormley hoped to achieve by carrying out the review of planning policy in the six councils.
Treacy Hogan and Louise Hogan
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Mr Gormley told the Irish Independent that several messages had been left with Cork City Council informing them that a review was due to get under way.
Cork city manager Joe Gavin said yesterday that he had received no communication from the Department of the Environment about the review.
Mr Gavin and he was "very disappointed and surprised" at the move, insisting that every aspect of planning in the council was fully in accordance with the law.
Mr Gormley said the aim was to achieve greater consistency in the planning process, to avoid planning decisions which are inconsistent with other local authorities. This had been a big bone of contention, he added.
The councils facing a review are Dublin City, Galway County, Cork City, Cork County, Carlow and Meath.
The relevant managers will be given four weeks to respond to specified issues, after which their replies will be assessed by the expert group, which can make far-reaching recommendations. Individual planning decisions will not be examined.
The six councils are being peer reviewed and the currently unidentified team of experts can call for a full investigation of planning policy.
Joanna Tuffy, Labour's environment spokesperson, said it was unclear what Mr Gormley hoped to achieve by carrying out the review of planning policy in the six councils.
Treacy Hogan and Louise Hogan
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Review fires warning shot in advance of Planning Bill
Six local authorities are under scrutiny not so much for their specific records as to ensure widespread co-operation with legislative changes
THE REVIEW announced yesterday by Minister for the Environment John Gormley into the planning practices of six county and city councils may not live up to the sum of its parts.
The announcement was certainly dramatic. The Minister made reference to serious and substantive complaints about irregularities. Unsurprisingly, the reaction of the managers of the named local authorities to a review of their planning practices ranged from nonplussed to apoplectic.
It is true that Gormley does have concerns about what he sees as possible problems or flaws in the planning process in the four county councils (Galway, Cork, Meath and Carlow) and two city councils (Dublin and Cork) named yesterday. But the rationale behind his decision is not based so much on those concerns as on the “dragging effect” they might have on one of his major projects.
What it relates to, in reality, is the Green Party leader’s Planning Bill which will become law by the time the Dáil goes into recess next month. Gormley sees this as his magnum opus in the planning area during his time in Government. But he is concerned that local authorities will not share his enthusiasm about the legislation and won’t move might and main to make sure that it works.
“There’s no point in having Rolls Royce planning legislation and a suite of new guidelines if he cannot be certain that they are going to be implemented on the ground,” says a source who is familiar with the process.
So, in a sense, what is happening is a piece of political “pretaliation”. The outcome of the review will have unmistakable political overtones. Therefore, it must be emphasised that Gormley is not launching a major investigation or inquiry into planning practices in local authorities. He is merely reviewing the planning processes and practices (but not any specific decisions taken) in six named local authorities.
The reason he has picked six is because his department accepts it would be impractical to review all 34 local authorities. Sure, the six chosen are the ones with problems (in other words, there have been substantive complaints). But they have also been chosen because there is a good geographical spread and also a mix between urban and rural councils. So that’s why “review” is a much more accurate description than “inquiry” or “probe”.
Ostensibly, Gormley is putting councils on notice that their practices will have to live up to the high principles of his new legislation. If they’re falling short of the mark now, he can make an example of them, so that he can emphasise to all 34 local authorities that certain ways of doing things will no longer be tolerated.
There won’t be an investigation into specific decisions. Nobody is going to walk the plank. It’s hard to second-guess a process that is only getting under way. But the indications are that the most serious sanctions will be a naming-and-shaming exercise.
Gormley has been thinking of such a review for some time. According to the department, the six councils have substantive issues with their planning process. It also said yesterday that numerous complaints and submissions had been received. It is certain that some came from An Taisce but the department also said there were correspondences and contacts from individuals, councillors and from other organisations.
The issues are different for each council. Questions over Carlow’s corporate governance have been in the public domain for some time, especially since a road project was abandoned after it emerged the council did not own the land. In Meath, the council has faced criticism for not following its own development plan. Galway County Council has had an unusually high number of planning permissions overturned on appeal to An Bord Pleanála.
In Dublin city, questions have been raised about whether or not decisions on high-rise buildings have complied with its development plan. Both councils in Cork, city and county, have faced criticisms over the planning process, namely that they have lacked transparency and consistency.
The first stage of the review will give each of the six local authorities four weeks to supply information on how they perform their planning functions. Specific questions will be asked of each about the substantive issues.
For example, where An Bord Pleanála reversed local authority decisions, certain councils are being asked to set out how their authority’s decision-making had regard to national and local planning policies.
When this information is supplied, a broader review will take place.
This will be conducted by a planning expert or experts. The person or persons will report to Gormley, who will then decide if further steps are warranted.
But no planning experts have been chosen as yet, though it’s likely they will come from abroad. Nor has the exact format for the panel’s work been chosen.
The Minister does intend to publish the findings of the review. Paradoxically, depending on the week that’s in it, the findings may struggle to have the same impact as the announcement had yesterday
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
THE REVIEW announced yesterday by Minister for the Environment John Gormley into the planning practices of six county and city councils may not live up to the sum of its parts.
The announcement was certainly dramatic. The Minister made reference to serious and substantive complaints about irregularities. Unsurprisingly, the reaction of the managers of the named local authorities to a review of their planning practices ranged from nonplussed to apoplectic.
It is true that Gormley does have concerns about what he sees as possible problems or flaws in the planning process in the four county councils (Galway, Cork, Meath and Carlow) and two city councils (Dublin and Cork) named yesterday. But the rationale behind his decision is not based so much on those concerns as on the “dragging effect” they might have on one of his major projects.
What it relates to, in reality, is the Green Party leader’s Planning Bill which will become law by the time the Dáil goes into recess next month. Gormley sees this as his magnum opus in the planning area during his time in Government. But he is concerned that local authorities will not share his enthusiasm about the legislation and won’t move might and main to make sure that it works.
“There’s no point in having Rolls Royce planning legislation and a suite of new guidelines if he cannot be certain that they are going to be implemented on the ground,” says a source who is familiar with the process.
So, in a sense, what is happening is a piece of political “pretaliation”. The outcome of the review will have unmistakable political overtones. Therefore, it must be emphasised that Gormley is not launching a major investigation or inquiry into planning practices in local authorities. He is merely reviewing the planning processes and practices (but not any specific decisions taken) in six named local authorities.
The reason he has picked six is because his department accepts it would be impractical to review all 34 local authorities. Sure, the six chosen are the ones with problems (in other words, there have been substantive complaints). But they have also been chosen because there is a good geographical spread and also a mix between urban and rural councils. So that’s why “review” is a much more accurate description than “inquiry” or “probe”.
Ostensibly, Gormley is putting councils on notice that their practices will have to live up to the high principles of his new legislation. If they’re falling short of the mark now, he can make an example of them, so that he can emphasise to all 34 local authorities that certain ways of doing things will no longer be tolerated.
There won’t be an investigation into specific decisions. Nobody is going to walk the plank. It’s hard to second-guess a process that is only getting under way. But the indications are that the most serious sanctions will be a naming-and-shaming exercise.
Gormley has been thinking of such a review for some time. According to the department, the six councils have substantive issues with their planning process. It also said yesterday that numerous complaints and submissions had been received. It is certain that some came from An Taisce but the department also said there were correspondences and contacts from individuals, councillors and from other organisations.
The issues are different for each council. Questions over Carlow’s corporate governance have been in the public domain for some time, especially since a road project was abandoned after it emerged the council did not own the land. In Meath, the council has faced criticism for not following its own development plan. Galway County Council has had an unusually high number of planning permissions overturned on appeal to An Bord Pleanála.
In Dublin city, questions have been raised about whether or not decisions on high-rise buildings have complied with its development plan. Both councils in Cork, city and county, have faced criticisms over the planning process, namely that they have lacked transparency and consistency.
The first stage of the review will give each of the six local authorities four weeks to supply information on how they perform their planning functions. Specific questions will be asked of each about the substantive issues.
For example, where An Bord Pleanála reversed local authority decisions, certain councils are being asked to set out how their authority’s decision-making had regard to national and local planning policies.
When this information is supplied, a broader review will take place.
This will be conducted by a planning expert or experts. The person or persons will report to Gormley, who will then decide if further steps are warranted.
But no planning experts have been chosen as yet, though it’s likely they will come from abroad. Nor has the exact format for the panel’s work been chosen.
The Minister does intend to publish the findings of the review. Paradoxically, depending on the week that’s in it, the findings may struggle to have the same impact as the announcement had yesterday
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Cork city manager surprised council is part of inquiry
CORK CITY manager Joe Gavin expressed surprise and disappointment at learning Cork City Council was to be included in the review. He said the first that he knew of it was when he heard Minister for the Environment John Gormley announce it on radio yesterday.
He had received no official information on the alleged irregularity and he expected a letter from the Department of the Environment in the coming day.
He was satisfied the procedures followed in the council were first class. “I would be very concerned that anyone would think there are irregularities in Cork City Council’s planning department because there aren’t,” he said.
Cork county manager Martin Riordan first heard about the inquiry on the radio yesterday.
“I’m not clear what the Minister is concerned about,” Mr Riordan said. He was not aware of an unresolved planning issue at the council and was anxious to “clear up that”.
Dublin City Council had yesterday not received details of the specific complaints being investigated or the terms of reference.
However, it would “co-operate fully” with Mr Gormley’s request “when received”, a council statement said.
All decisions were “made in the context of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”, the statement said.
The announcement had come “out of the blue”, Dublin Labour councillor Dermot Lacey said.
Officials told a council planning committee meeting yesterday that it had received no information and no advance warning about the review, Dublin councillor Seán Kenny (Labour) said.
Complaints by an individual about corporate governance at the Carlow County Council planning department was the main issue under investigation in the planning review for Carlow, the county manager has said.
Carlow is one of six local authorities for which a review of how planning laws and policy have been implemented has been ordered by the Minister.
Carlow County Council was audited by the department’s local government audit service in 2008. The corporate governance and planning issues which were raised in the 2008 audit report would be similar to those examined in the forthcoming investigation, Carlow county manager Tom Barry said.
Among the corporate governance issues raised were the use of special development contributions, planning enforcement and planning time being extended at quarries .
The council had not yet received a formal notification of the report. “I am happy to respond and give reasons why I made the decisions,” Mr Barry said.
No information or notification of the planning review had been received by the majority of the six local authorities concerned.
The number of approvals by Galway County Council which were subsequently overturned by An Bord Pleanála was a key factor in the decision to approve this local authority in the inquiry, Green Party Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin said yesterday. Galway County Council was unavailable for comment yesterday.
Galway’s An Taisce branch has welcomed Mr Gormley’s planning review for Galway County Council, but has called for it to be extended to the city.
Last winter’s flooding of estates built on river plains highlighted the need to review planning in the county area, branch chairman Derrick Hambleton said.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
He had received no official information on the alleged irregularity and he expected a letter from the Department of the Environment in the coming day.
He was satisfied the procedures followed in the council were first class. “I would be very concerned that anyone would think there are irregularities in Cork City Council’s planning department because there aren’t,” he said.
Cork county manager Martin Riordan first heard about the inquiry on the radio yesterday.
“I’m not clear what the Minister is concerned about,” Mr Riordan said. He was not aware of an unresolved planning issue at the council and was anxious to “clear up that”.
Dublin City Council had yesterday not received details of the specific complaints being investigated or the terms of reference.
However, it would “co-operate fully” with Mr Gormley’s request “when received”, a council statement said.
All decisions were “made in the context of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”, the statement said.
The announcement had come “out of the blue”, Dublin Labour councillor Dermot Lacey said.
Officials told a council planning committee meeting yesterday that it had received no information and no advance warning about the review, Dublin councillor Seán Kenny (Labour) said.
Complaints by an individual about corporate governance at the Carlow County Council planning department was the main issue under investigation in the planning review for Carlow, the county manager has said.
Carlow is one of six local authorities for which a review of how planning laws and policy have been implemented has been ordered by the Minister.
Carlow County Council was audited by the department’s local government audit service in 2008. The corporate governance and planning issues which were raised in the 2008 audit report would be similar to those examined in the forthcoming investigation, Carlow county manager Tom Barry said.
Among the corporate governance issues raised were the use of special development contributions, planning enforcement and planning time being extended at quarries .
The council had not yet received a formal notification of the report. “I am happy to respond and give reasons why I made the decisions,” Mr Barry said.
No information or notification of the planning review had been received by the majority of the six local authorities concerned.
The number of approvals by Galway County Council which were subsequently overturned by An Bord Pleanála was a key factor in the decision to approve this local authority in the inquiry, Green Party Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin said yesterday. Galway County Council was unavailable for comment yesterday.
Galway’s An Taisce branch has welcomed Mr Gormley’s planning review for Galway County Council, but has called for it to be extended to the city.
Last winter’s flooding of estates built on river plains highlighted the need to review planning in the county area, branch chairman Derrick Hambleton said.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Six councils' planning systems face review
THE SIX local authority areas that face reviews of their planning systems have been the subject of “substantial complaints”, according to Minister for the Environment John Gormley.
Mr Gormley yesterday announced a two-phase review of how four named county councils – Galway, Cork, Meath and Carlow – and two named city councils – Dublin and Cork – have implemented planning laws and policies. One other local authority, Donegal County Council, is already the subject of a similar process.
The first phase of the review will require each council to provide information about its planning system within four weeks, and to answer specific questions about complaints and allegations that have been made.
These will cover areas like zoning, the scale and height of certain structures and concerns raised in local government audit reports. The review will call on Dublin City Council to address concerns that decisions on high-rise buildings in its area did not adhere to the development plan.
Galway County Council faces questions on the percentage of permissions that have been overturned on appeal to An Bord Pleanála. Meath has been asked to confirm it followed its own development plan. The issues for the two councils in Cork relate to processes and transparency, while Carlow has been asked to address concerns about governance.
The review is being carried out in the context of the new Planning Bill, which is expected to become law by the summer and concerns expressed by Mr Gormley that the legislation will be ineffective unless all 34 local authorities can fully implement its measures.
Mr Gormley said some 8,000 complaints, representations and submissions on various planning issues had been received by his department from An Taisce, NGOs and the public last year. He said this correspondence would be used to shape the work of the review group and to help prepare future development plans.
He said there were specific and major complaints about decisions made by the authorities that were to be examined but that they also offered a good geographic spread.
Mr Gormley said the purpose of the review was not to examine particular planning decisions but to assess the processes that allow for such decisions. He said he was precluded from getting involved in individual planning cases.
Mr Gormley said if impropriety was uncovered in the course of the investigation it would be treated very seriously. However, he said “corruption” and “breaches of the law” were loaded terms and should be used carefully in the context of the review.
“We have to be very careful not to in any way prejudice the outcome of these inquiries. We have to look at why exactly they made these decisions and there could be legitimate reasons for that.”
Planning experts from here and abroad are to examine the decisions made by the local authorities in question and look at processes in detail. They will also assess if the local authorities have the correct powers and tools in place to deliver on their responsibilities.
The format of the review has not been decided, nor has the identity of those on the panel, a department spokesman said.
Labour’s environment spokeswoman Joanna Tuffy said yesterday that the purpose of the review was not apparent.
“There is no clear notion as to what he hopes to achieve out of this exercise . . . the whole process lacks transparency.” She said she had serious doubts as to whether the councils would be in a position to provide insight or analysis, to the level of detail that the Minister appears to expect, in four weeks.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Mr Gormley yesterday announced a two-phase review of how four named county councils – Galway, Cork, Meath and Carlow – and two named city councils – Dublin and Cork – have implemented planning laws and policies. One other local authority, Donegal County Council, is already the subject of a similar process.
The first phase of the review will require each council to provide information about its planning system within four weeks, and to answer specific questions about complaints and allegations that have been made.
These will cover areas like zoning, the scale and height of certain structures and concerns raised in local government audit reports. The review will call on Dublin City Council to address concerns that decisions on high-rise buildings in its area did not adhere to the development plan.
Galway County Council faces questions on the percentage of permissions that have been overturned on appeal to An Bord Pleanála. Meath has been asked to confirm it followed its own development plan. The issues for the two councils in Cork relate to processes and transparency, while Carlow has been asked to address concerns about governance.
The review is being carried out in the context of the new Planning Bill, which is expected to become law by the summer and concerns expressed by Mr Gormley that the legislation will be ineffective unless all 34 local authorities can fully implement its measures.
Mr Gormley said some 8,000 complaints, representations and submissions on various planning issues had been received by his department from An Taisce, NGOs and the public last year. He said this correspondence would be used to shape the work of the review group and to help prepare future development plans.
He said there were specific and major complaints about decisions made by the authorities that were to be examined but that they also offered a good geographic spread.
Mr Gormley said the purpose of the review was not to examine particular planning decisions but to assess the processes that allow for such decisions. He said he was precluded from getting involved in individual planning cases.
Mr Gormley said if impropriety was uncovered in the course of the investigation it would be treated very seriously. However, he said “corruption” and “breaches of the law” were loaded terms and should be used carefully in the context of the review.
“We have to be very careful not to in any way prejudice the outcome of these inquiries. We have to look at why exactly they made these decisions and there could be legitimate reasons for that.”
Planning experts from here and abroad are to examine the decisions made by the local authorities in question and look at processes in detail. They will also assess if the local authorities have the correct powers and tools in place to deliver on their responsibilities.
The format of the review has not been decided, nor has the identity of those on the panel, a department spokesman said.
Labour’s environment spokeswoman Joanna Tuffy said yesterday that the purpose of the review was not apparent.
“There is no clear notion as to what he hopes to achieve out of this exercise . . . the whole process lacks transparency.” She said she had serious doubts as to whether the councils would be in a position to provide insight or analysis, to the level of detail that the Minister appears to expect, in four weeks.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)