THE Green Party last night added to the pressure on Environment Minister Phil Hogan to re-open a series of planning investigations, which they started in government.
Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore denied the Government had deliberately killed off the planning inquiries into six councils around the country.
Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin said internal reviews had been carried out into a number of local authorities by former environment minister John Gormley. He claimed Mr Hogan had done nothing to progress the review.
Mr Gilmore said the review would be completed after the publication of the retail planning guidelines in April. And he said Mr Hogan would make a public statement on the inquiries at that time.
"The issues that are being looked at will be published in full," he said.
Green Party leader Eamon Ryan said Mr Hogan should continue the work done by Mr Gormley "rather than rely on internal reviews that will come to similar conclusions to earlier reports.
"It is unacceptable and damaging to politics when Minister Phil Hogan and other ministers deliberately mislead the public by claiming that Minister Gormley had done nothing to progress his independent reviews of planning practices in a number of local authorities."
Mr Ryan said Mr Gormley worked assiduously to progress the independent inquiries, "which Minister Hogan then shelved for reasons which are unclear.
"The Carlow case in his own constituency is worth looking at. Over a year since he took office, why do we still not have the results of his 'internal review', given that an internal review of these complaints was already completed as far back as 2009," he said.
Meanwhile, Justice Minister Alan Shatter promised to update corruption laws. And he's going to look at banning those found to have given bribes from applying for work funded by the taxpayer.
Corrupt
Mr Shatter said the Mahon Tribunal final report recommends amending the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 to cover TDs and senators.
Mr Shatter said he proposed to repeal all seven Acts making up the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 2010. He will then replace them with a single new law, which will apply to everybody in the public and private sector.
"The tribunal suggests the exclusion of bribe-givers from public tenders. I think that we should also seriously consider the exclusion from public office of those who accept bribes," he said.
"I will also deal in the proposed corruption legislation with other recommendations made by the tribunal in this area," he added.
Fionnan Sheahan Political Editor
Read the article @ The Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
Planners not to blame for failings
In the aftermath of the Mahon Report our politicians are still seeking to blame the wrong people for their failings.
Joe Costello TD was speaking on The Week in Politics Show on Sunday night in relation to taking pensions away from those found guilty of corruption or inappropriate behaviour. In his response he stated that all those who are paid by the public purse, including ministers and senior planners, should suffer such a fate.
The Irish Planning Institute (IPI) is the largest professional planning institute in Ireland. We represent over 700 planners north and south with our members working in both the public and private sector. The institute welcomes the report which marks the end of a lengthy public inquiry and would generally support the principle of what Deputy Costello is saying. While the report does criticise the conduct of certain persons in the planning system, mainly politicians and developers, (as did the previous interim report from the same tribunal), none of these persons are professional planners or institute members. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why his remarks are directed at professional planners.
Since its introduction in 1963, the Irish planning system has always been based on a separation of responsibilities between those who are given the responsibility to make policy decisions (i.e. the locally elected representatives) and those who are given the responsibility to provide expert advice (i.e. the professional planners). The Irish Planning Institute has stated many times that planning is there to serve the common good and not to serve private individuals or sectoral interests.
The Institute has always held the belief that this separation of roles is important and that the planning profession does not wish to replace the decision-making role assigned to the elected representatives in our planning system. It is the role of the locally-elected county councillors as elected by the public, to determine policy, based on advice from professionally-trained planners, employed by the local authority. It is the duty of the councillors to act at all times in the interest of the common good.
The Institute welcomes the recommendations of the Mahon Report and, in particular, the recommendation in relation to a planning regulator. We have stated for many years that consideration needs to be given to making the adoption of a development and local area plan subject to an appeal or approval process before it is finally confirmed, in order to provide the necessary checks and balances in the planning system. Whilst the exact role of a planning regulator needs to be considered further, it is the IPI’s view that approval of plans could fall within the remit of the regulator.
The IPI has always worked independently of all politicians to ensure that proper planning and development is at the core of all planning advice and we will continue to do so. It undermines the role of professional planners when politicians make ill-informed comments in relation to members of the profession when many of the problems related to planning corruption lie within the political system.
Brendan Allen
IPI President
25 Great Strand Street
Dublin 1
Read the article @ The Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Joe Costello TD was speaking on The Week in Politics Show on Sunday night in relation to taking pensions away from those found guilty of corruption or inappropriate behaviour. In his response he stated that all those who are paid by the public purse, including ministers and senior planners, should suffer such a fate.
The Irish Planning Institute (IPI) is the largest professional planning institute in Ireland. We represent over 700 planners north and south with our members working in both the public and private sector. The institute welcomes the report which marks the end of a lengthy public inquiry and would generally support the principle of what Deputy Costello is saying. While the report does criticise the conduct of certain persons in the planning system, mainly politicians and developers, (as did the previous interim report from the same tribunal), none of these persons are professional planners or institute members. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why his remarks are directed at professional planners.
Since its introduction in 1963, the Irish planning system has always been based on a separation of responsibilities between those who are given the responsibility to make policy decisions (i.e. the locally elected representatives) and those who are given the responsibility to provide expert advice (i.e. the professional planners). The Irish Planning Institute has stated many times that planning is there to serve the common good and not to serve private individuals or sectoral interests.
The Institute has always held the belief that this separation of roles is important and that the planning profession does not wish to replace the decision-making role assigned to the elected representatives in our planning system. It is the role of the locally-elected county councillors as elected by the public, to determine policy, based on advice from professionally-trained planners, employed by the local authority. It is the duty of the councillors to act at all times in the interest of the common good.
The Institute welcomes the recommendations of the Mahon Report and, in particular, the recommendation in relation to a planning regulator. We have stated for many years that consideration needs to be given to making the adoption of a development and local area plan subject to an appeal or approval process before it is finally confirmed, in order to provide the necessary checks and balances in the planning system. Whilst the exact role of a planning regulator needs to be considered further, it is the IPI’s view that approval of plans could fall within the remit of the regulator.
The IPI has always worked independently of all politicians to ensure that proper planning and development is at the core of all planning advice and we will continue to do so. It undermines the role of professional planners when politicians make ill-informed comments in relation to members of the profession when many of the problems related to planning corruption lie within the political system.
Brendan Allen
IPI President
25 Great Strand Street
Dublin 1
Read the article @ The Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Redmond can't sue tribunal on finding but can seek his costs
FORMER assistant Dublin city and county manager George Redmond cannot sue the planning tribunal over corruption findings it made against him, the High Court ruled yesterday.
However, he can challenge the refusal of the Flood (now Mahon) Tribunal to cover his legal costs of being represented at the tribunal, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan said.
The judge ruled a six-year delay by Mr Redmond in pursuing his civil action against the tribunal was inordinate and inexcusable. Last January, the tribunal asked the High Court to dismiss his case over the delay.
Mr Redmond had claimed the delay was excusable because of the concealment by the tribunal of documents which would have enabled him to test the credibility of its main witness, the late James Gogarty.
The tribunal found in its 2004 third interim report that Mr Redmond, now 88, had received a corrupt payment in relation to planning matters and had also obstructed its work.
Separately, Mr Redmond was convicted of corruption in 2003 and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment following a majority jury verdict -- though this was later overturned on appeal as unsafe and he was released after six months.
In 2005, Mr Redmond initiated a High Court action seeking to quash the tribunal findings against him.
He claimed his constitutional rights had been breached, sought damages, and also challenged a costs order made against him by the tribunal.
He argued the delay was excusable because he was awaiting the outcome of a Supreme Court decision in relation to an action by another tribunal party, Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering (JMSE). That ruling, on April 21, 2010, had a bearing on his civil case because it was critical of the tribunal's failure to provide documentation in advance to JMSE witnesses at the tribunal, he said.
In its application last January to dismiss his civil case, the tribunal argued it was prejudiced by a delay of more than six years in him (Redmond) getting on with his case.
It also argued the case was brought outside time limits prescribed by court rules. He (Redmond) had simply "parked his proceedings" in anticipation of the JMSE Supreme Court decision, which he was not entitled to do.
Prejudice
The tribunal also contended the delay created prejudice to it and a balancing exercise had to be carried out by the court in assessing such prejudice.
It also had to be borne in mind that Mr Justice Feargus Flood, chairman of the tribunal, had long since retired and if Mr Redmond's action was allowed to proceed, there were serious reputational implications involved, the tribunal also argued.
Mr Redmond rejected these claims and argued there had been oppressive and unfair behaviour by the tribunal. It was in the public interest that he should not be allowed to suffer a wrong, which the State had conceded in the Supreme Court was a wrong, by the holding back of documents.
This material, described by the Supreme Court as "explosive", contained serious allegations which would have been a "goldmine for cross-examination" of Mr Gogarty, it was argued.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Gilligan said why parts of Mr Gogarty's evidence to the tribunal were blacked out, suppressed and only divulged to Mr Redmond a short time before the JMSE Supreme Court case was clearly a situation of serious concern.
However, the reality is that it is almost 12 years since the conclusion of public hearings involving Mr Gogarty and eight years since the publication of the report in which findings were made against Mr Redmond, the judge said.
Having done "effectively nothing over a period in excess of six years" and having only recently prepared a statement of claim, the lapse of time in Mr Redmond bringing his case was "simply too great", the judge said.
In the judge's view, the delay involved gave rise to a substantial risk that it was not now possible to have a fair trial within a reasonable time to challenge the substantive findings (of corruption).
However, the judge also said, he was refusing the tribunal's application to dismiss Mr Redmond's claim in relation to legal costs. The tribunal did not satisfy him that to allow this aspect of Mr Redmond's claim to proceed would be unfair to it and the balance of justice favoured allowing the costs issue to proceed.
Tim Healy
Read the article @ The Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
However, he can challenge the refusal of the Flood (now Mahon) Tribunal to cover his legal costs of being represented at the tribunal, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan said.
The judge ruled a six-year delay by Mr Redmond in pursuing his civil action against the tribunal was inordinate and inexcusable. Last January, the tribunal asked the High Court to dismiss his case over the delay.
Mr Redmond had claimed the delay was excusable because of the concealment by the tribunal of documents which would have enabled him to test the credibility of its main witness, the late James Gogarty.
The tribunal found in its 2004 third interim report that Mr Redmond, now 88, had received a corrupt payment in relation to planning matters and had also obstructed its work.
Separately, Mr Redmond was convicted of corruption in 2003 and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment following a majority jury verdict -- though this was later overturned on appeal as unsafe and he was released after six months.
In 2005, Mr Redmond initiated a High Court action seeking to quash the tribunal findings against him.
He claimed his constitutional rights had been breached, sought damages, and also challenged a costs order made against him by the tribunal.
He argued the delay was excusable because he was awaiting the outcome of a Supreme Court decision in relation to an action by another tribunal party, Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering (JMSE). That ruling, on April 21, 2010, had a bearing on his civil case because it was critical of the tribunal's failure to provide documentation in advance to JMSE witnesses at the tribunal, he said.
In its application last January to dismiss his civil case, the tribunal argued it was prejudiced by a delay of more than six years in him (Redmond) getting on with his case.
It also argued the case was brought outside time limits prescribed by court rules. He (Redmond) had simply "parked his proceedings" in anticipation of the JMSE Supreme Court decision, which he was not entitled to do.
Prejudice
The tribunal also contended the delay created prejudice to it and a balancing exercise had to be carried out by the court in assessing such prejudice.
It also had to be borne in mind that Mr Justice Feargus Flood, chairman of the tribunal, had long since retired and if Mr Redmond's action was allowed to proceed, there were serious reputational implications involved, the tribunal also argued.
Mr Redmond rejected these claims and argued there had been oppressive and unfair behaviour by the tribunal. It was in the public interest that he should not be allowed to suffer a wrong, which the State had conceded in the Supreme Court was a wrong, by the holding back of documents.
This material, described by the Supreme Court as "explosive", contained serious allegations which would have been a "goldmine for cross-examination" of Mr Gogarty, it was argued.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Gilligan said why parts of Mr Gogarty's evidence to the tribunal were blacked out, suppressed and only divulged to Mr Redmond a short time before the JMSE Supreme Court case was clearly a situation of serious concern.
However, the reality is that it is almost 12 years since the conclusion of public hearings involving Mr Gogarty and eight years since the publication of the report in which findings were made against Mr Redmond, the judge said.
Having done "effectively nothing over a period in excess of six years" and having only recently prepared a statement of claim, the lapse of time in Mr Redmond bringing his case was "simply too great", the judge said.
In the judge's view, the delay involved gave rise to a substantial risk that it was not now possible to have a fair trial within a reasonable time to challenge the substantive findings (of corruption).
However, the judge also said, he was refusing the tribunal's application to dismiss Mr Redmond's claim in relation to legal costs. The tribunal did not satisfy him that to allow this aspect of Mr Redmond's claim to proceed would be unfair to it and the balance of justice favoured allowing the costs issue to proceed.
Tim Healy
Read the article @ The Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Gilmore insists planning probes not suppressed
Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore has denied the Government is suppressing planning inquiries into irregularities in seven local authorities and pledged to publish details of the reviews.
He rejected suggestions that independent investigations into the authorities across six counties were halted when the Fine Gael-Labour coalition took power last year.
As the fall-out from the Mahon Tribunal continued yesterday, Fianna Fáil deflected attention from itself by accusing the Government of resistance to independent planning inquiries.
The reviews into planning between 2007 and 2009 were originally launched by the last government.
The local authorities concerned are Dublin City Council, Carlow County Council, Galway County Council, Cork City Council, Cork County Council, Meath County Council and Donegal County Council.
Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin said: "An independent review was suppressed by the incoming Government. It is a serious issue that demands a serious response from the Government."
He claimed Environment Minister Phil Hogan "suppressed them when he came into office" after the inquiries were initiated by his predecessor, John Gormley.
But Mr Gilmore dismissed the allegations and claimed that Mr Gormley had done nothing seven months after beginning the planning reviews in June 2010.
The reviews, now been done by internal staff only, would be completed in April and details made public, he said.
"The minister [Hogan] has committed to issuing a public statement outlining in full the complaints at issue, the response and any appropriate actions to be pursued in regard to further policy development and guidance in line with the commitments in the Programme for Government."
But Mr Martin said the response from the Labour leader was a "complete whitewash".
He said the Department of Environment had initiated reviews into the six counties as early as 2009.
Initial checks in Carlow had found effective planning law enforcement "was not in place", he added.
Complaints were received from the public, the Ombudsman, An Taisce and other bodies about planning practices in the six counties in recent years, he said.
Fianna Fáil environment spokesman Niall Collins pointed out that government parties now dominated the councils in question.
But Mr Gilmore added: "There is no suppression.
"If there is any follow-up action required, that action will be taken."
Read the article @ The Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
He rejected suggestions that independent investigations into the authorities across six counties were halted when the Fine Gael-Labour coalition took power last year.
As the fall-out from the Mahon Tribunal continued yesterday, Fianna Fáil deflected attention from itself by accusing the Government of resistance to independent planning inquiries.
The reviews into planning between 2007 and 2009 were originally launched by the last government.
The local authorities concerned are Dublin City Council, Carlow County Council, Galway County Council, Cork City Council, Cork County Council, Meath County Council and Donegal County Council.
Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin said: "An independent review was suppressed by the incoming Government. It is a serious issue that demands a serious response from the Government."
He claimed Environment Minister Phil Hogan "suppressed them when he came into office" after the inquiries were initiated by his predecessor, John Gormley.
But Mr Gilmore dismissed the allegations and claimed that Mr Gormley had done nothing seven months after beginning the planning reviews in June 2010.
The reviews, now been done by internal staff only, would be completed in April and details made public, he said.
"The minister [Hogan] has committed to issuing a public statement outlining in full the complaints at issue, the response and any appropriate actions to be pursued in regard to further policy development and guidance in line with the commitments in the Programme for Government."
But Mr Martin said the response from the Labour leader was a "complete whitewash".
He said the Department of Environment had initiated reviews into the six counties as early as 2009.
Initial checks in Carlow had found effective planning law enforcement "was not in place", he added.
Complaints were received from the public, the Ombudsman, An Taisce and other bodies about planning practices in the six counties in recent years, he said.
Fianna Fáil environment spokesman Niall Collins pointed out that government parties now dominated the councils in question.
But Mr Gilmore added: "There is no suppression.
"If there is any follow-up action required, that action will be taken."
Read the article @ The Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
No outside experts on planning reviews
Reviews into planning decisions in seven local authorities across six counties were launched by the last government after complaints about alleged irregularities.
The Irish Examiner has learnt that a decision to appoint outside experts to oversee inquiries was put on hold by the current Government because of a fear that the costs could amount to a "runaway train".
Planning experts from abroad were even considered but, at a time of budget cuts, it was feared that seven separate inquiries could end up costing the taxpayer between €100,000 and €150,000.
Former environment minister John Gormley, leader of the Green Party, had established the inquiries into decisions by Dublin and Cork city councils, as well as county councils in Carlow, Meath, Galway and Cork and Donegal.
Mr Gormley pledged that external, independent experts would assess the local authority decisions.
However, the hiring of independent experts was put on hold in June after the Government took power.
Internal department officials are now assessing issues around the authorities, including the application of planning legislation, policies, and guidance within local authority development plans.
It is understood the seven reviews do not focus in the main on irregularities involving elected members. Instead, there has been a focus on complaints by local planning groups, technical issues such as timelines for planning permissions, and matters such as high-rise buildings in urban areas.
It was expected the reviews would be completed at the end of this month. They will now be completed by the end of April.
Read the article @ The Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
The Irish Examiner has learnt that a decision to appoint outside experts to oversee inquiries was put on hold by the current Government because of a fear that the costs could amount to a "runaway train".
Planning experts from abroad were even considered but, at a time of budget cuts, it was feared that seven separate inquiries could end up costing the taxpayer between €100,000 and €150,000.
Former environment minister John Gormley, leader of the Green Party, had established the inquiries into decisions by Dublin and Cork city councils, as well as county councils in Carlow, Meath, Galway and Cork and Donegal.
Mr Gormley pledged that external, independent experts would assess the local authority decisions.
However, the hiring of independent experts was put on hold in June after the Government took power.
Internal department officials are now assessing issues around the authorities, including the application of planning legislation, policies, and guidance within local authority development plans.
It is understood the seven reviews do not focus in the main on irregularities involving elected members. Instead, there has been a focus on complaints by local planning groups, technical issues such as timelines for planning permissions, and matters such as high-rise buildings in urban areas.
It was expected the reviews would be completed at the end of this month. They will now be completed by the end of April.
Read the article @ The Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Martina Devlin: Big Phil must risk opening can of worms on planning
AS you read this, you may be living in a house built because a developer handed over some brown envelopes to councillors -- containing either bribes or money dressed up as political donations.
That house could be in a development with inadequate facilities, located miles from anywhere -- and the negative-equity trap may also mean that you can't move away.
Even if you don't live in one of those properties, it's quite possible that you have a ghost estate on your doorstep, an eyesore that poses a danger to anybody wandering into it.
I expect you'd like to know why and how such housing developments were allowed to spring up, what pressures were brought to bear on councillors to approve them and whether inducements were offered to sway their votes.
The Mahon Report confirmed widespread suspicions that bribery was a tried and tested way for developers to get the decisions they wanted. Councillors don't have a great deal of power under the Irish local-government system, but one they do hold is the ability to rezone land. And what a lucrative income stream that proved, for some, during the boom.
In parts of the country, land was changed from agricultural to residential use, regardless of whether sufficient housing already existed. Some local authorities also appear to have flouted their own development plans in granting certain permissions.
Look around. The consequences are visible. And the taxpayer, via NAMA, is now the reluctant owner of many of these empty houses and ghost estates.
Mahon lays bare how our democracy was subverted by an unhealthy -- and in some cases corrupt -- relationship between politics and business.
It was endemic, was not restricted to one party and there is no evidence that the culture has changed significantly. The only difference is that the property bubble has burst with a vengeance.
Several years before the Mahon judges reached their conclusions, John Gormley tried to investigate alleged planning irregularities.
The Green Party minister instructed officials in the Department of Environment to study complaints about a number of councils and the managers of those authorities were ordered to compile reports.
After reviewing the dossier, Mr Gormley narrowed the field to six councils, where further inquiry was needed. A seventh, Donegal County Council, had already been marked for examination. Issues at stake included whether councils zoned too much land for development.
Seven independent planning consultants were chosen to head these probes and were on the point of being allocated a council to inspect. The other local authorities in question were Dublin and Cork city councils and Donegal, Carlow, Galway, Meath and Cork county councils. Incidentally, Cork has the highest number of ghost estates in the State.
Then the general election intervened and Mr Gormley was replaced as Environment Minister by Phil Hogan. Within a few months of taking office, Big Phil had closed down the independent inquiries.
It was a baffling move, since appointing independent inspectors to run the rule over questionable planning decisions is a straightforward and transparent way to deal with the issue.
Instead, the inspectors were replaced by an internal Department of Environment review, which has still not reported. Mr Hogan promises that its conclusions will be shared with us in May.
But an internal review had already taken place as far back as 2009 under Mr Gormley's stewardship. It was at that point that seven councils were identified with questions to answer.
So why turn back the clock? And why downgrade the investigations?
Perhaps Big Phil feared that a can of worms might be opened. His decision looks particularly inappropriate in the context of Carlow County Council, which is located in his own constituency.
But he nearly pulled it off. Last year, the significance of shutting down those inquiries provoked little comment. Planning wasn't high on the agenda.
Mahon is the only reason we're paying attention now to Big Phil's odd -- some might say anti-democratic -- move, because Mahon reminds us of the ripple effect throughout society from corruption in the planning process.
It's understood that some of the issues that independent inspectors would have examined include liaison between planners and councillors on specific planning applications in Cork County Council; a report from the local government auditors, highlighting weaknesses in planning procedures in Carlow; An Taisce criticism that Dublin was not adhering to its own policies regarding tall buildings; complaints that Galway and Meath were not abiding by their own policies in granting planning permissions; complaints about processes followed in Donegal's planning department; and procedures concerning pre-planning consultations in Cork City Council.
In the aftermath of the investigations being halted, various members of the Government bleated about the expense of independent consultants.
However, I doubt if seven inspectors with a clearly defined job of work would break the bank. On the contrary, their reports might even have given value for money.
As for Big Phil, he has waffled away in the Dail about how we've learned from past mistakes and how the planning system is no longer developer-led. But where is the transparency?
He has also seized the opportunity to take a swipe at his predecessor, saying words to the effect that Mr Gormley sat on his hands on the matter. This is misleading.
Mr Gormley had made considerable progress, between using his formal powers to order reports from councils, identifying authorities where further investigation was needed and completing a tender process for independent inspectors. In fact, the reports of those consultants would be in the public domain by now -- carrying considerably more weight than internal Department of Environment findings.
FINE Gael pledged transparent government last year when it was chasing votes. Big Phil's decision to pull the plug on his predecessor's review of planning decisions in seven local authorities does nothing to promote openness. An internal inquiry lacks the confidence-building impact of an independent scrutiny.
Besides, how independent can this internal examination be when Mr Hogan is already on the record telling 'Village' magazine -- before he had even taken office -- that allegations about planning irregularities in Carlow were "spurious, mostly"?
Surely it's for independent experts to decide if they are spurious, not the minister -- especially in the case of a council in his own constituency.
Martina Devlin tweets @DevlinMartina
Read the article @ The Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
That house could be in a development with inadequate facilities, located miles from anywhere -- and the negative-equity trap may also mean that you can't move away.
Even if you don't live in one of those properties, it's quite possible that you have a ghost estate on your doorstep, an eyesore that poses a danger to anybody wandering into it.
I expect you'd like to know why and how such housing developments were allowed to spring up, what pressures were brought to bear on councillors to approve them and whether inducements were offered to sway their votes.
The Mahon Report confirmed widespread suspicions that bribery was a tried and tested way for developers to get the decisions they wanted. Councillors don't have a great deal of power under the Irish local-government system, but one they do hold is the ability to rezone land. And what a lucrative income stream that proved, for some, during the boom.
In parts of the country, land was changed from agricultural to residential use, regardless of whether sufficient housing already existed. Some local authorities also appear to have flouted their own development plans in granting certain permissions.
Look around. The consequences are visible. And the taxpayer, via NAMA, is now the reluctant owner of many of these empty houses and ghost estates.
Mahon lays bare how our democracy was subverted by an unhealthy -- and in some cases corrupt -- relationship between politics and business.
It was endemic, was not restricted to one party and there is no evidence that the culture has changed significantly. The only difference is that the property bubble has burst with a vengeance.
Several years before the Mahon judges reached their conclusions, John Gormley tried to investigate alleged planning irregularities.
The Green Party minister instructed officials in the Department of Environment to study complaints about a number of councils and the managers of those authorities were ordered to compile reports.
After reviewing the dossier, Mr Gormley narrowed the field to six councils, where further inquiry was needed. A seventh, Donegal County Council, had already been marked for examination. Issues at stake included whether councils zoned too much land for development.
Seven independent planning consultants were chosen to head these probes and were on the point of being allocated a council to inspect. The other local authorities in question were Dublin and Cork city councils and Donegal, Carlow, Galway, Meath and Cork county councils. Incidentally, Cork has the highest number of ghost estates in the State.
Then the general election intervened and Mr Gormley was replaced as Environment Minister by Phil Hogan. Within a few months of taking office, Big Phil had closed down the independent inquiries.
It was a baffling move, since appointing independent inspectors to run the rule over questionable planning decisions is a straightforward and transparent way to deal with the issue.
Instead, the inspectors were replaced by an internal Department of Environment review, which has still not reported. Mr Hogan promises that its conclusions will be shared with us in May.
But an internal review had already taken place as far back as 2009 under Mr Gormley's stewardship. It was at that point that seven councils were identified with questions to answer.
So why turn back the clock? And why downgrade the investigations?
Perhaps Big Phil feared that a can of worms might be opened. His decision looks particularly inappropriate in the context of Carlow County Council, which is located in his own constituency.
But he nearly pulled it off. Last year, the significance of shutting down those inquiries provoked little comment. Planning wasn't high on the agenda.
Mahon is the only reason we're paying attention now to Big Phil's odd -- some might say anti-democratic -- move, because Mahon reminds us of the ripple effect throughout society from corruption in the planning process.
It's understood that some of the issues that independent inspectors would have examined include liaison between planners and councillors on specific planning applications in Cork County Council; a report from the local government auditors, highlighting weaknesses in planning procedures in Carlow; An Taisce criticism that Dublin was not adhering to its own policies regarding tall buildings; complaints that Galway and Meath were not abiding by their own policies in granting planning permissions; complaints about processes followed in Donegal's planning department; and procedures concerning pre-planning consultations in Cork City Council.
In the aftermath of the investigations being halted, various members of the Government bleated about the expense of independent consultants.
However, I doubt if seven inspectors with a clearly defined job of work would break the bank. On the contrary, their reports might even have given value for money.
As for Big Phil, he has waffled away in the Dail about how we've learned from past mistakes and how the planning system is no longer developer-led. But where is the transparency?
He has also seized the opportunity to take a swipe at his predecessor, saying words to the effect that Mr Gormley sat on his hands on the matter. This is misleading.
Mr Gormley had made considerable progress, between using his formal powers to order reports from councils, identifying authorities where further investigation was needed and completing a tender process for independent inspectors. In fact, the reports of those consultants would be in the public domain by now -- carrying considerably more weight than internal Department of Environment findings.
FINE Gael pledged transparent government last year when it was chasing votes. Big Phil's decision to pull the plug on his predecessor's review of planning decisions in seven local authorities does nothing to promote openness. An internal inquiry lacks the confidence-building impact of an independent scrutiny.
Besides, how independent can this internal examination be when Mr Hogan is already on the record telling 'Village' magazine -- before he had even taken office -- that allegations about planning irregularities in Carlow were "spurious, mostly"?
Surely it's for independent experts to decide if they are spurious, not the minister -- especially in the case of a council in his own constituency.
Martina Devlin tweets @DevlinMartina
Read the article @ The Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Terrible legacy of corrupt Quarryvale rezoning
SOME PEOPLE are living in floodplains as a result of land rezoning decisions made by local councillors at the behest of landowners or property speculators. Others have no option but to get into their cars to travel to a shopping centre because the one that was planned nearer wasn’t built, against planning advice. “Corrupt and bad planning decisions have a significant impact upon people’s lives,” says Jerry Barnes, chairman of the Royal Town Planning Institute (Southern Ireland). He cites as prime example the designation in 1991 by Dublin County Council, tainted by widespread bribery, of Quarryvale as a “town centre”.
Read the article @ The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Read the article @ The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)