Bill will have major implications for the future of planning decisions

IF ENACTED, the Planning Bill will have wideranging implications for planning and narrow the scope of who can take judicial reviews against planning decisions.

In 2020, Micheál Martin instructed the then-attorney general Paul Gallagher to initiate work on overhauling the State’s planning code during the former’s tenure as Taoiseach. In November of last year, Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien published the draft Bill.

At more than 700 pages, it is the third largest piece of legislation in the history of the State. The Oireachtas Housing Committee is currently wading through more than 1,100 proposed amendments. The Bill proposes to introduce statutory time limits for planning decisions, a restructuring of An Bord Pleanála (ABP) and impose limitations on who can take judicial reviews.

Planning decisions will have to be decided upon within an 18 to 48-week time period, or else face a financial penalty and the prospect of a ministerial review.

However, where projects are deemed to be of a high complexity, a longer period can be agreed between ABP – which is being renamed An Coimisiún Pleanála – and the applicant in advance of the application being made. The Bill will also introduce a scale of fees in relation to judicial reviews, which could curtail parties from facing excessive legal costs. However, limiting taking judicial reviews has repeatedly raised tensions within the Coalition, with the Green Party previously opposing any attempt to restrict access to justice.

The legislation states that a ‘sufficient interest’ does not apply to an unincorporated body, meaning an organisation must meet certain criteria such as having existed for a year, having a constitution and having more than ten members.

This has been introduced, according to Government sources, due to difficulties in ascertaining who, if anyone, is legally responsible when an unincorporated body takes a case or owes costs. The legislation provides clarity to protect environmental cases. It says: ‘For the avoidance of doubt, a sufficient interest shall not be limited to an interest in land or a financial interest.’

Critics of the legislation have warned that it could have the unintended consequence of further delaying development. The Government views the legislation as essential to expediting house building and infrastructure development.