An Bord Pleanala have just released their 2009 Annual Report. In the accompanying press release they argue that ‘the present hiatus in development activity gives us a chance to review the way our planning system works so that it will be fit for purpose when development is restored to a sustainable level in the future’. However, the second paragraph argues that the planning systen did not contribute to the present crisis of excess supply and ghost estates:
“Under the legislation it is not the role of the planning system to control the overall level of development or to restrict competition, rather to ensure that whatever level of development the market demanded takes place in an orderly manner in accordance with good planning principles and practice. Thus, while bad local decision making in planning contributed to some of the current problems, such as ghost estates in certain areas, the overall provision of excess capacity over a wide range of property types cannot be put down to a failure on the part of the planning system.”
This seems to me to be a very narrow and limited definition of the role of planning in the state. Planning and planners take an active role in the visioning, production and implementation of local and county development plans, their role is not simply confined to making decisions on applications and undertaking enforcement. A number of principles and guidelines relate to sustainable development in line with demographics and environmental considerations and so on (indeed, later in the press release it is stated: ‘The planning system will have a crucial role in this by directing where development should be located and the kind of development that is sustainable’). If planning was to oversee ‘whatever level of development the market demanded’ then clearly there is a major issue, because way more housing units, retail units, offices and hotels were produced than there was demand for. How can planning have ‘a crucial role in this by directing where development should be located’ but then have no responsibility for the location or level of poor sustainability of development? And planning is meant to restrict competition around issues such as zoning of land. Plus the main statement is somewhat contradictory. If ‘bad local decision making in planning contributed to some of the current problems, such as ghost estates’ it is difficult to see how these ‘cannot be put down to a failure on the part of the planning system’. The second half of the sentence does not logically follow the first part. ‘Bad local decision making in planning’ – so it was bad planning then (perhaps not by planners, but certainly within the planning system).
If the planning system was not part of the problem then why have the government just introduced a new Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, that explicitly recognised that planning played a significant role in producing unsustainable development, even if it was mainly those parts of planning most influenced by politicians and politics, and a lack of coordination across boundaries and scales? And if the planning system was not part of the problem why do An Bord Pleanala think that ‘The bursting of the property bubble raises questions about the role of the planning system in the property market.’ That we need to ‘learn very important lessons from recent experience’ including:
- ‘planning for each area must adhere to national policies and must be governed by the relevant regional and local context;
- all zoning must be very carefully considered on the basis of well established good planning principles;
- development must be strongly directed to locations where infrastructure – especially, transport, water services, education – exists or is proposed under the public capital programme’
- in planning the public good must be given greater priority over private interests;
- statutory development plans, when duly made, need to be respected across the board by all interests, and indeed by local authorities themselves, rather than being seen as something that can be changed or circumvented if enough pressure is applied?’
What the statement seems to be trying to argue is that the planning system as it was devised did not fail as it worked within its parameters. The argument seems to run: the system might not have been fit for purpose, but we ran that system as it was designed; therefore planning did not fail, because we followed and upheld all of that system’s principles and guidelines. If that’s the case, then it’s somewhat of a specious argument. All it is that means is that we had a poor and failing planning system, that was implemented as it should, thus leading to poor, but procedurally correct, planning decisions. The system was nevertheless a failing system.
Planners clearly had a very difficult role during the boom. They were under fierce pressure from politicians, developers, businesses and residents. There was a presumption for development operating and the system did not always help them. They were accused of blocking or slowing development and being a general hindrance and nuisance. The vast majority were trying to do a good job, often trying to work back against the system, with the odds stacked against them. I’m not then arguing that planners or organisations such as An Bord Pleanala were the problem. Indeed, they did a sterling and valuable job of trying to counter some of the worst and inappropriate excesses. The overall planning system in terms of planning for, and overseeing, development did however contribute to the problems we now face. If that was because the system did not give planners a strong enough role or position or powers, then that is nonetheless a failure of the system as it was (though not necessarily of planners).
In my view, planners need to move from being defensive about both their role and the system. Rather than saying, ‘it wasn’t us or the system,’ they should be using the crisis – as noted by An Bord Pleanala – as an opportunity to point out the weak parts of, and flaws in, the system, highlighting what aspects of the way the system was configured contributed to levels of oversupply and ghost estates, and how it should be altered and their position strengthened. Trying to argue that the planning system did not contribute to the problem, at the same time as calling for very important lessons to be learnt and the system to be altered is simply not credible – especially when what is being asked for relates to changes in how planning is performed and implementation. If there were no failings within the system, then everything can surely be left alone?
The overall thrust of An Bord Pleanala’s statement is correct – the present crisis presents the best opportunity in generation for planners and their organisations such as the Irish Planning Institute and An Bord Pleanala to push for change in planning in Ireland at all scales. However, rather than be reactive and defensive, now is the time to be proactive. Now is the time to seize that opportunity.
Rob Kitchin
Ireland after NAMA 
October 30, 2010 at 11:35 am
Planning has been a collossal failure, mired in corruption and the fuel for patron client relationships that underpin cronyism.
Abolish all planning powers of local authorities. Centralize the lot! Make some redundant!
October 30, 2010 at 6:45 pm
I think Pat Donnelly is on the right track!
The planners authorities wanted income, wanted their cut of the Celtic Tiger. Where was that income going to come from? Planning contributions first and foremost and then the beauty of it was that commercial rates were going to flow from the commercial buildings constructed. Water water rates were on the horizon as was the congestion charge for Dublin.
So what did they do to achieve that? Planners and officials above them drove a coach and four through their own “Development Plans” which though democratically arrived at were seen as gross impediments to them making money, big money.
I had a meeting with the Dublin City Manager on 3rd of November ’08 about high rise and he tried in vain, to explain his high rise agenda for the city to me. For my part I told them they were facing bankruptcy. They were designating 15 areas of the city as High Rise. He maintained it was not a revenue generating exercise. It was. It still is I have no confidence in the new development plan as it is an extension of the thinking of the bubble.
Revenue driven planning must be stopped the councils were entangled with developers. When requested, minutes of meeting went ‘missing’ the usual stuff. Well the cosy cartel has been put on ice (and while it is on ice we need to kill it) by the collapse of the bubble they created. So yes, we must repair the system but who is going to do this? “Experts”, “professionals”. What experts, from the panel of experts, that brought us here are going to have the selflessness to lead the way forward? I have no faith in “experts”. Even the experts in Board Pleanala made decisions in a vaccum away from any economic realities.
Economics of supply and demand must feature large on the agenda of any new planning system. If there is no demand for it then it must not be built unless it is a long term infrastructural development. Also if it is not in the interests of the community then it should not be dumped on them.
As a result of the rush to make money Board Pleanala became the de facto planning authority for Dublin and of course he rest of the country because inappropriate development was happening everywhere.
Board Pleanala’s remit is far too narrow. In fairness they did refuse many of the worst developments and were it not for them the disaster would be twice the size it is. We would be doubly bankrupt this way we are only bankrupt. They must still explain their failures to those living on flood plains on vandalised estates and to those people who will be living in negative equity for 20 years or more in an economy with little or no growth and poor job prospects.
Bad planning has turned into economic collapse, high unemployment and emigration, so,small wonder the terms of reference need to be widened.
October 31, 2010 at 6:51 am
This sentence “directing where development should be located” is incomplete and is the crux of the problem. Planning should also direct ‘where development SHOULD NOT be located.
In my experience, we have weak planners who do not themselves control where development goes, but, who are under the control of Local Authority adminstrators, managers, who do not generally know anything about how planning works and will , themselves, not stand up to developers when considering big projects.
In Galway I have often asked that City administrators/managers would take control of certain developments to ensure that these projects were subject to what the city wanted/needed, through introducing a Framework Plan, which they should direct and to not let the developer lead. Only to be told that these developments were private developments and that they, he, could not get involved!
Because the planners did not stop certain developments, we now have residents who were allowed build houses in unsuitable Flood Plains, now facing another wet winter.
In your comments Rob, you do not mention the poor ‘foot soldiers’ of An Taisce, who have, for over 6o years been pointing out the deficiencies and Gombeenism that operate within the planning system we have.
Only lately have the media been outing the bad developers and corrupt councillors who were on the take. But few listened. Even fewer wrote about these issues in our one sided media.
I dont agree that ‘centralising’ the system is the answer. But firm control from a Ministers Office would help. At least the present Minister, for all his faults, has pulled up some of the worst Councils for overzoning, but he has not finished this practice, which is growing as we speak in Galway city.
And what about the role of the simple councillor in all this. We have a long way to go before the system is even half right and ABP is all we have between us and total ruin.
November 17, 2010 at 9:52 am
Pat I’m a planner working in the North which has the sort of centralised planning system you advocate and I can assure you that the sort of bad decisions which plague planning in the Republic are just as prevalent!!