Minister for Housing and Planning, Jan O’Sullivan, yesterday published the findings and recommendations of the internal review into allegations of serial malpractice by seven local authorities in administering the planning system. The report comes a full two years after an independent review was first announced by former Minister John Gormley.
The Department’s analysis found that the allegations did not amount to systemic corruption in the planning system. Contrast this to the findings of the independent Mahon Tribunal earlier this year, which found that the Irish planning system was systematically corrupt reaching the highest level of Government, and the complete lack of value of carrying out an internal review becomes blindingly clear. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is the line ministry with responsibility for local authorities in Ireland and it is inconceivable that a review by the Department would make serious findings against their colleagues in local authorities.
The review finds that there was “no basis in the claims against named planning authority personnel, given that such claims were not backed up by the evidence cited” and that there were “concerns regarding the quality, completeness and objectivity of the evidence provided”. While it is apparent that the Department met with senior local authority personnel to discuss each of the complaints made, it is also apparent from the report that the Department did not meet with each of the complainants. As a result, the review cannot be considered impartial. In fact, the choice of language used in the dismissal of some of the complaints borders on the derisory. It is also unclear as to why the report recommends the appointment of independent expert to review the recommendations in the report when clearly this is the remit of the Department.
The fact is that there is really nothing new in this review. According to Minister Gormley, this report was largely complete as far back as November 2009 and informed his decision to proceed with an independent review. While the current government has steadfastly insisted that the review was not shelved or downgraded upon their coming in to office, it is much more likely that the Government was jolted from passivity into action as a result of the furore that followed the publication of the Mahon Tribunal Report. This raises some serious questions as to the political priority attached to planning reform by the current Government.
In defence of the Department the review was never intended as a ‘witch-hunt’ but an evaluation of processes and procedures. It is also unclear as to the actual value of independent reviews given the experience of the Nyberg, Regling & Watson and Honohan reports on financial governance. These reports created considerable media interest, but little tangible action. However, the only independent planning review of a local authority to date, the Quinlivan Report in County Carlow, revealed some very serious instances of malpractice and cronyism and this is very unlikely to be unique to Carlow.
The Department places much greater emphasis on working within the existing structures to prompt incremental reform and, to be fair, major reforms of the planning system have been implemented in the past few years and significant unseen work is on-going. While each of the complaints are roundly rejected, the report concludes that they do they raise serious matters ranging from maladministration to inconsistency in application of planning policy or non-adherence to forward plans such as development plans. It is clear that there is, at the very least, a significant element of truth in each of the complaints as the report sets out twelve actions that are intended to address current deficiencies in the planning system including some important administrative and legislative reforms. Chief amongst these proposed reforms is the banning of the practice of local area plans being prepared by developers and the recommendation that all material contraventions of development plans by local authorities be vetted by An Bord Pleanála, further indicating a significant lack of trust in the decision making powers of local authority members. The report also recommends new procedures for achieving greater consistency between the decisions of local authorities and the independent An Bord Pleanála which, in many high profile cases, have been at considerable odds.
There can be no doubt that the dysfunctional nature of the Irish planning system over the past decade contributed enormously to the current fiscal, social and environmental problems of the State. The true value of this report may be simply to further strengthen in the consciousness of the public and policy makers of the need to maintain momentum for deepened planning reform. However, the key litmus test of the commitment of this Government will be the forthcoming White Paper on Local Government reform, property taxation and their response to the recommendations of the Mahon Tribunal, particularly the establishment of an independent planning regulator.
Gavin Daly
Ireland after NAMA 
June 13, 2012 at 5:19 pm
This is just another tawdry whitewash an effort to cover-up. This means that it will be harder to get to the truth when we eventually removed all these people.
This report is a complete and utter disgrace, a farce and the minister should be ashamed of herself, it is a shocking washing of the hands just as we have had with the financial scandal. I live in the Dublin City Council area and I have no hesitation in saying that it corrupt. Neither Jan O’Sullivan or Phil Hogan will convince me of what I know to be the absolute truth.
The high rise agenda was pursued with vigor to the detriment of people and it was done so as to garner in as much “planning contributions” as possible. This just shows that when they “get power” they change their spots and become totally and utterly ineffectual not to mention shameless.
With regard to the Sean Dunne debacle. Henning Larsen architect to Dublin City Architect Jim Barrett. “Which tower (in Ballsbridge) do you think would be best”? Oh! I think the 37 storey tower would be most appropriate!
Enough said.
June 13, 2012 at 7:33 pm
A complete and utter whitewash just as expected from Fine Gael protecting their fellow councilors and blood brothers in council,the Destiny Soldiers.
Eternal shame on the Labour party.
they sell every core principle so cheaply,for a share in the spoils of office..
Prostitutes have more dignity.
June 14, 2012 at 8:36 am
If the intent was : ‘an evaluation of processes and procedures’ is this the most effective (cost or otherwise) to carry out such a process? What was the real cost of this review and how will the recommendations contained in it be effected? I don’t want to jump on the bandwagon of saying it’s a whitewash, but do want to question the investment in these endless reviews as the most effective means to do as you mention – to identify incremental (or transformative – God forbid 😉 change oppoortunities.
June 14, 2012 at 9:54 am
Who would be a politician? A week a go Michael Noonan was criticised in a post on this blog for spending time with Bilderbergers when the author felt he should instead have been spending time with Ballynantyites in his home constituency. But go back a twelve month and there was a public clamour for national politicians to be divorced from local constituency issues so that they could be more objective, more professional, more ‘scientific’ in dealing with matters of public policy.
This post alleges that the dogs in the street know that all local planning is corrupt. When local politicians exercise their democratic duty to adopt a plan that favours some particular X and disadvantages some particular Y they are deemed to be acting corruptly. Plans and policies ought to be based on scientific reasoning from facts it is said. But every plan must favour some X and disfavour some Y.
So how far does science take us in the realm of public policy?
The economic scientist who invented NAMA now disowns his creation and says it will not succeed. The Economic and Social Research Institute withdraws a controversial working paper. An academic institute and a bank look at the same housing data and draw radically divergent conclusions. The Irish Meteorological service looks at thirty years of data and concludes that no conclusions can be drawn from Irish data in relation to climate change.
Why?
Science must be funded. Different clients have vested interests in different conclusions. Exposure of the scientific reasoning that led to a particular conclusion merely exposes a policy to attack and to (heaven forfend!) change. That is why no ‘file’ exists on the bailout. We have a conclusion, but no line of reasoning. The decision is unassailable. It has become a fact.
Charles Fort devoted his life to collecting facts that science could not explain. Rains of frogs and falls of fishes are still reported in the Fortean Times founded in his memory.
The ‘facts’ and ‘science’ of Irish polity are rapidly assuming Fortean status.
June 14, 2012 at 11:11 am
where is this allegation regarding ‘the dogs in the street’?
June 14, 2012 at 11:46 am
“Contrast this to the findings of the independent Mahon Tribunal earlier this year, which found that the Irish planning system was systematically corrupt reaching the highest level of Government…”
Irish streets are home to some remarkably well-read canines.
June 14, 2012 at 11:34 am
I agree with your claim that “the choice of language used in the dismissal of some of the complaints borders on the derisory.”
As one of the complainants in relation to Carlow County Council I am bemused that our 300 + page submission was omitted from the DoECLG Review although it is listed as being in Appendix 3. I believe that this document clearly sets out the case for systemic problems in Carlow where even the Quinlivan review identified 120 ‘significant irregularities’. The DoECLG report notes that his recommendations from October 2010 have not yet been implemented.
If you want a copy of our original complaint email: architects@vca.ie
June 24, 2013 at 5:31 pm
[…] have blogged a number of times on this saga (See here and here). The review was initially announced by former Minister John Gormley as an independent process to […]