Gormley initiates planning review

Gormley initiates planning review

Postby Paul Clerkin » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:47 pm

Gormley initiates planning review


The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government John Gormley T.D. is to initiate a review of how planning laws and policy are being implemented by a number of local authorities around the country.

Minister Gormley is to use powers granted to him under planning legislation to undertake the review, which will involve the appointment of independent planning experts to complete the review.

The review, which will involve a cross-section of authorities, will focus on how existing planning legislation, Government policy and guidelines are being implemented and to determine whether local authorities are acting in a consistent and transparent manner, and whether they have the correct powers and tools to deliver on their responsibilities.

Representations and submissions on various planning issues which have been received from NGOs and members of the public are being used to shape the review, and to assist in looking, in particular, at the preparation of and adherence to development plan policies, how these plans take account of national policy and guidance, and how planning applications are assessed in accordance with these policies and with planning legislation generally.

Minister Gormley is writing to a number of local authorities asking them for their views on these issues. The minister is using powers available under section 255 of the Planning Act, which allows him to seek information from local authorities as to the operation of their own “systems and procedures. The purpose of the review is not to examine particular planning decisions but to assess the processes and systems that enable such decisions to be made.

Minister Gormley said “I believe this review is very important in that it comes alongside a range of other planning reforms. A new planning bill is before the Houses of the Oireachtas, and a range of new planning guidelines have been issued in recent years by the department. I am anxious to ensure that these laws and guidelines are implemented in a consistent and transparent manner. This review will be fundamental to ensuring this.”

When these reviews are completed, they will inform a broader policy examination of the implementation of planning law, development plans and the associated management systems and procedures and indicate what further steps are warranted to ensure consistent implementation by planning authorities in general.

The planning authorities selected cover urban as well as rural areas, which
are both large and small, covering different planning procedures.

The six authorities are:
o Dublin City Council
o Carlow County Council
o Galway County Council
o Cork City Council
o Cork County Council and
o Meath County Council

The Councils will be asked to examine the issues raised with the Department and provide a detailed response within 4 weeks (i.e. by mid-July).

Once these reports are received, the Minister will then appoint independent planning experts to review the replies received from the local authorities concerned, and where specific issues or concerns arise regarding previous practices, to make recommendations to inform the preparation of any necessary actions, policy guidance and direction.
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5427
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby kite » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:15 pm

Credit where it’s due, well done to John Gormley for having the balls to officially ask the questions the dogs in the street were asking for the past 6-7 years.

In my opinion there were some truly shocking planning decisions passed in Cork over the past decade. Eight months on from last year’s floods, The Irish Examiner ran a two page article yesterday on the floods and the legacy that remains. One legacy was the 5 star Kingsley Hotel that is still shut down after receiving planning permission to build 10 feet from the river Lee.

Hopefully somebody will end up in prison if planning ‘flaws’ are discovered.

Just wondering if Dick Roche was still Minister for Environment would the tough questions be asked?
kite
Senior Member
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:06 pm

how come they can come up with a detailed response on "how existing planning legislation, Government policy and guidelines are being implemented and to determine whether local authorities are acting in a consistent and transparent manner, and whether they have the correct powers and tools to deliver on their responsibilities" in 4 weeks when it takes them 8 weeks to make a decision on a poxy little house extension
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby gunter » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:10 pm

It wouldn't matter if Gormley gave them them four months, they're never going to come out with their hands up and say; yes your complainants are quite right, we were cavalier in our planning decisions, we lost the plot, send us our P45s.

The press release says that this review won't get into analyzing any individual planning decisions, no matter how incomprehensible, yet Gormley made it clear in the radio interview that it is precisely representations on individual planning decisions [representations primarily by An Taisce he seemed to indicate] that has sparked this action, so it's difficult to see how the accused local authorities can avoid having to answer for their actions on some individual cases at least.

One possible structural change in the planning process that could result from this review would be the creation of a final layer of over-sight just before the decision issues that tests whether the intended decision actually conforms to any of the high minded aspirations in the Development Plan, just that issue alone, this would reinforce the status of the 'Development Plan' as the primary planning instrument, and 'Development Plans', by and large, are quite good.

I can think of at least half a dozen decisions on high profile planning applications that would not have got past that hurdle if it had been there and not obscured by all the hyperbolé that arrives in crates nowadays when a serious planning application is lodged.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:14 pm

gunter wrote:.

One possible structural change in the planning process that could result from this review would be the creation of a final layer of over-sight just before the decision issues that tests whether the intended decision actually conforms to any of the high minded aspirations in the Development Plan, .


I'd be for that if it could be structured in to a system that abolishes ABP. Otherwise, just a layer that leads to yet another delay in the inevitable
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby luap_42 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 5:47 pm

Hear, hear. ABP is an absolute f*in disgrace. Inconsistent, subject to govt. (read FF) pressure, a despotic planning regime which suspiciously overrules its own well trained inspectors regularly.

What's the point in investigating bad LA decisions when ABP is the ultimate culprit. If Gormley wants to do more than pay lip service to proper planning and really reform the planning quagmire of this country, then he needs to reform both LAs & ABP, so that they observe all development plans unless there are truly exceptional circumstances.
luap_42
Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:54 pm

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby Smithfield Resi » Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:55 pm

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.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0628/1224273466956.html

Why solely on Drogheda?? I would have thought Meath could have provided enough material for years??
Smithfield Resi
Member
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:03 am

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby PVC King » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:28 pm

luap_42 wrote: What's the point in investigating bad LA decisions when ABP is the ultimate culprit.


I have to disagree; in the main ABP gets it spot on; there have been a few decisions I haven't understood such as the Clarence Hotel but in the main they convert development plans and a very pro lax development standards government policy by which they are equally bound into a series of generally good decisions. The danger is that as the government passes more and more desperate measures to allow any development in an effort to stimulate construction employment that An Bord's powers to stop poor planning will be hamstrung.
PVC King
 

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby wearnicehats » Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:54 pm

PVC King wrote:I have to disagree; in the main ABP gets it spot on; there have been a few decisions I haven't understood such as the Clarence Hotel but in the main they convert development plans and a very pro lax development standards government policy by which they are equally bound into a series of generally good decisions. The danger is that as the government passes more and more desperate measures to allow any development in an effort to stimulate construction employment that An Bord's powers to stop poor planning will be hamstrung.


as someone who has the misfortune to have to be dictated to by ABP within this ludicrous planning system I am absolutely astounded by that comment. The very fact that ABP exist breeds lax planning decisions because it's an easy road for the LA. ABP are an organisation who are kicked into action by the agendas of others - an organisation (can you have a disorganised organisation?) with an invisible elite who systematically overrule those below them who are supposedly more qualified to judge than they, an organisation who consistently fail to "judge" on decisions within the timescale stipulated in their mandate; an organisation that has absolutely no respect, trust or faith from the professions it lauds over; an organisation that exists without the courtesy of discourse with those whose livelihoods lie before them and an organisation that is cataclysmically ill informed and ultimately a metaphor for the galloping bureaucracy holding this country to ransom every day
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby GrahamH » Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:33 am

wearnicehats, I've a lot of time for what you have to say. But equally, you always state the same arguement that ABP should be abolished simply on the basis of how they administer their operations: namely with regard to timescales, first party consulation and a more flexible engagement with relevant professions. Broadly speaking these issues have to be agreed with, but they in no way warrant the abolition of an extremely worthwhile, independent (as you're going to get) organisation, which by and large has promoted and defended standards which large swathes of the associated professions, including its own, have so dismally failed to uphold in this country over the past decade.

In fact, I would strongly argue that the trite proposed abolition of such a body is precisely the type of thinking that has got us into the mess we created for ourselves over the past number of years. In reality, we will never have truly professional planning in Ireland until such a time as the number of local planning authorities is slashed, small town councils are liquidated, and stringent regional planning guidelines are properly enforced. Only then will we have a critical mass of expertise and professionalism in local authorities - centres of excellence if you will - capable of making sound, principled decisions based on solid Development Plans. And only then will a body like ABP be able to take a back seat role in not having to do the work - and be criticised for doing the work - of local planning authorities. Does it need reform? - absolutely. Just don't throw the baby out with the floodwater.
GrahamH
Old Master
 
Posts: 4590
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby PVC King » Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:10 am

Wearnicehats just wants a return to the days of ministerial appeals, the days of Tully and Burke......

There was a phase when developers paid way over the odds for sites, architects didn't get instructed unless they ignored development plans and local authority planners didn't have time to examine plans properly. Starting an examination at second instance when in so many cases first instance examination has been less than thorough will always lead to delays as did the failure to properly resource the organisation when for example housing went from 40,000 units p.a. to 96,000 units p.a.
PVC King
 

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby gunter » Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:18 am

PVC King wrote:. . . . local authority planners didn't have time to examine plans properly.


Don't start making excuses for them. If anything they took too much time delving into the deeper recesses of their own Development Plans looking for phrases that could be used to justify granting permission for schemes that should have been dispatched with a simple REFUSE, - DOES NOT COMPLY.

I'd have no problem with them adding another page to the planning application form that requires a simple point-by-point statement by the architect of how the proposed scheme complies, or otherwise, with the key headings in the Development Plan. If on a number of key issues the scheme has to be stated that it does not comply, but we're claiming instead ''exceptional circumstances'' then it should be required that the planning application states that fact in bold print giving the planning officer no where to go other than to state [in a maximum of two sentences] whether the case for ''exceptional circumstanses'' is proven or not. Not proven results in an invalidation, not a refusal, so the scheme never gets to waste everyone time in Bord Pleanala.

If there was a temptation for planning officers to grant ''exceptional circumstances'' to schemes that didn't merit it and in due course these schemes were refused by Bord Pleanala, then it's goodbye charlie to the planner.

I dunno, maybe give them a quota of two mistakes a year, if we're being generous.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby tommyt » Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:10 pm

Have to stick up for ABP . They get it right far, far more often than not. The inspectors reports are really well structured and reasoned over 90% of the time, The Board itself are more prone to gaffs but not by enough to talk of abolition or any wholescale restructuring of the organisation.

I built my major undergrad and masters research project work around ABP files as they are such a useful resource for the student and the practising planner.

At any given time I'd be involved in a couple of live appeals and whilst we haven't always 'won' for a client I have only personally been involved with one absolute stinker of a decision in nearly four years.

As far as referees go I would have them up there with Pierluigi Colina rather than that Jorge Larrionda in the England game the other day!
tommyt
Member
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: D5

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby wearnicehats » Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:01 pm

GrahamH wrote:wearnicehats, I've a lot of time for what you have to say. But equally, you always state the same arguement that ABP should be abolished simply on the basis of how they administer their operations: namely with regard to timescales, first party consulation and a more flexible engagement with relevant professions. Broadly speaking these issues have to be agreed with, but they in no way warrant the abolition of an extremely worthwhile, independent (as you're going to get) organisation, which by and large has promoted and defended standards which large swathes of the associated professions, including its own, have so dismally failed to uphold in this country over the past decade.

In fact, I would strongly argue that the trite proposed abolition of such a body is precisely the type of thinking that has got us into the mess we created for ourselves over the past number of years. In reality, we will never have truly professional planning in Ireland until such a time as the number of local planning authorities is slashed, small town councils are liquidated, and stringent regional planning guidelines are properly enforced. Only then will we have a critical mass of expertise and professionalism in local authorities - centres of excellence if you will - capable of making sound, principled decisions based on solid Development Plans. And only then will a body like ABP be able to take a back seat role in not having to do the work - and be criticised for doing the work - of local planning authorities. Does it need reform? - absolutely. Just don't throw the baby out with the floodwater.


I did try to initiate a think tank sort of affair previously in this thread

http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=8069

Unfortunately no-one seemed particularly bothered
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby gunter » Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:03 pm

wearnicehats wrote:I did try to initiate a think tank sort of affair previously . . .

Unfortunately no-one seemed particularly bothered


Actually plenty of people were bothered, if you read back on that thread . . . . until you said:

wearnicehats wrote:Re: What to do about the SYSTEM?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

''this is all becoming very prosaic and 5th year but is moving away from the immediate issue of how to streamline the system that we are stuck with''


Personally I've no interest in making the planning system faster, they can take twice as long as far as I'm concerned so long as they get the feckin decisions right.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby wearnicehats » Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:41 am

gunter wrote:Actually plenty of people were bothered, if you read back on that thread . . . . until you said:



Personally I've no interest in making the planning system faster, they can take twice as long as far as I'm concerned so long as they get the feckin decisions right.


You obviously don’t run a business gunter – if you did you’d realise that budgeting and planning require a certain amount of certainty in terms of where you think you’ll be in 2-3 months time. The planning system breeds only uncertainty and has, undoubtedly, cost a great deal of people their jobs over the last 3 years. Not the civil servants themselves of course.... Can you imagine if the government brought through – without consultation – new penal laws under which an accused would be tried, off camera, by a jury of one person and in which a panel of judges could choose to accept the jury’s verdict or not. And the accused would have no opportunity to defend themselves. I doubt people would be happy

It’s actually pretty easy to comply with the development plan – simply because the plan is so vague. Whilst a checklist is a good idea per se it would be too subjective to be of any real use. This is where applicants need direction from LAs and where, in many cases, especially large projects, this direction is flawed. This direction also rarely forms part of the evidence put forward to ABP and so rarely results in any form of retribution towards the LA.

Ok – I’ll admit that the 5th year comment was probably trite but all I could see was a lot of talk about talk. All I could think of was Life of Brian (ha – how apt for the current government debacle):

Reg: Right! Now, item four: Attainment of world supremacy within the next five years. Ah, Francis, you've been doing some work on this?
Rogers: Yeah, thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman Empire within the next twelve months!
Reg: Twelve months?
Rogers: Yeah, twelve months. And let's face it, as empires go, this is the big one. So we gotta get up of our arses and stop just talking about it!
All in PFJ: Yeah! Yeah! Hear!
Loretta: I agree! It's action that counts, not words, and we need action now!
All in PFJ: Yeah! Yeah!
Reg: You're right. We could sit around here all day, talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches, it's not to ship one Roman soldier!
Francis: So let's just stop gabbing on about it! It's completely pointless, and it's getting us nowhere!
All: Right!
Loretta: I agree! This is a complete waste of time!

I agree with GrahamH that reform of the LAs is necessary but I also think that ABP needs reform too. I do think that, no matter how much reform is done at LA level, the safety net of ABP is always there and will always cloud any decision. I also agree that fundamental changes are required in the legislation but a cast iron copper bottomed development plan with no ambiguity will take years to agree but, that said, I don't think from a creative design standpoint that such a thing would actually benefit the built environment.

That is not a reason, however, not to initiate reform to the system we have whilst the talkers are talking
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby gunter » Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:14 am

wearnicehats wrote:It’s actually pretty easy to comply with the development plan – simply because the plan is so vague.


I do take your point, Development Plans can be hopelessly vague, by coincidence I was just reading a copy of the manager's response to public submissions on the draft new DCC Development Plan last night, and there are worrying signs that the new DP may have the makings of a complete shambles.

The terminology is all over the place, with your ''Urban Quarters'' and your ''Character Areas'' overlapping with district centres and branded ''gateways'', there's no clarity about what the actual primary objective is. Consolidating the compact city should be no. 1 and everything else a distant second, but although numerous submissions from individuals and organizations make that point, this gets lost in a sea of other objectives, many of which would seem to be contradictory.

Assuming that the Development Plan can be seriously tightened up and that in the final draft the primary objective is there in bold print, and that a series of secondary objectives can be clearly stated, I do think that a lot of the dodgy planning proposals for extra toppings on the doughnut [which are always at the expense of consolidating the centre] could be cut down at source, if there was simple over-sight on that one big issue: Does this scheme comply with, or conflict with, the primary objectives of the Development Plan?

On the length of time issue, I do run my own - I was going to say - business, but unfortunately very badly.

Having said that, if we're involved in architecture, we're in the posterity business and I'd sooner we left something decent to posterity, even if the process takes a bit longer, than have a system that delivers schemes rapidly, schemes that we may end up regretting for a very long time.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby forrestreid » Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:29 pm

Dublin City Council have published their response to Gormley's Enquiry on their website.


The report is quite defensive, even has a quite a surly tone at times.

They are quite trenchant in their criticism of An Taisce, obviously no love lost there!
forrestreid
Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 12:46 am

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby kite » Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:56 pm

forrestreid wrote:Dublin City Council have published their response to Gormley's Enquiry on their website.


The report is quite defensive, even has a quite a surly tone at times.

They are quite trenchant in their criticism of An Taisce, obviously no love lost there!


:rolleyes:Cork City Council decided to make their 'excuses' in the Irish Examiner.

http://irishexaminer.com/ireland/nothing-to-fear-from-inquiry-city-council-told-125093.html
kite
Senior Member
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby PVC King » Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:30 am

Cork City Council decided to make their 'excuses' in the Irish Examiner.

http://irishexaminer.com/ireland/not...ld-125093.html


Clearly a lot smarter to respond in the media than on the front page of your website

The Dublin City Council Response

The repitition of the line below or similar fluffy langauge to skirt around direct hits is not helpful; for example trying to justify the tower in Donnybrook on zoning grounds :eek:.

In relation to... it is acknowledged that there is a difference in opinion between Dublin City Council and the Board in the level of....



This was a wonderful opportunity for the DCC to fess up and put on the record that they were put under huge pressure during the bubble phase due to a lack of resources in the context of record construction and unprecedented re-applications for a second, third and forth bites of the cherry. Instead they have chosen to waffle on about every national/regional document none of which dealt with specific site treatment of buildings other than the height survey instead of simply saying in specific cases we got it wrong; as a percentage of cases it was small but we have learned our lesson and will not under this management team allow the same mistakes again.
PVC King
 

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby wearnicehats » Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:08 pm

forrestreid wrote:Dublin City Council have published their response to Gormley's Enquiry on their website.


The report is quite defensive, even has a quite a surly tone at times.

They are quite trenchant in their criticism of An Taisce, obviously no love lost there!


the antagonism is paramount and certainly offers no hope of the planning process going forward in a spirit of co-operation and consultation to the mutual benefit of all.

Interesting point though in there that, of the 15 out of 23 ABP reversals of the DCC PP that AT adhere so closely to, 5 of these (33%) saw ABP overturn the recommendations of their own inspectors

At least DCC had the balls to put it up on their website rather than in the papers - CCC took the "today's news is tomorrow's chip wrappers" option so we'd all forget about it
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby PVC King » Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:14 pm

According to your logic ABP got it right twice as often as they got it wrong; but we all know you don't accept the current planning system structure of first instance local, second instance An Bord and third instance High Court etc.

After the JC Deceaux advertising fiasco and now a failure to fess up to their planning record under direct ministerial enquiry; you do wonder if DCC realise that they in fact at first instance level and subject to oversight. If I were John Gormley I would be having a conversation with the elected body of the City Council informing them of the loss of their powers should he be required to develove more power to the new mayoral office to remove certain functions due to a potential to acheive a better fit with national standards.
PVC King
 

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby wearnicehats » Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:44 pm

PVC King wrote:According to your logic ABP got it right twice as often as they got it wrong; but we all know you don't accept the current planning system structure of first instance local, second instance An Bord and third instance High Court etc.

.


another way of looking at it is that, if the inspector was "right", ABP agreed with DCC 13 times out of the 23. Lies, damned lies and statistics - you should know that PVC, you're fond of your stats.

It's all about opinions. Yours, mine, AT's, the punter, LA's, ABP's, courts - I don't agree with the structure because it breeds too many opinions
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby PVC King » Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:21 pm

Interesting point though in there that, of the 15 out of 23 ABP reversals of the DCC PP that AT adhere so closely to, 5 of these (33%) saw ABP overturn the recommendations of their own inspectors


&

ABP agreed with DCC 13 times out of the 23.


Were those calculations done on an Abacus?

15 reversals are 15 reversals on major schemes as decided by a bord of the most emminent planners as appointed by Government; by granting planning permissions that were not professionally assessed to a standard capable of passing an Bord Pleannala they created a new layer of risk which meant that meant developers paid significantly higher financing costs due to the requirement to wait for the ABP decision and then spend months reapplying. If the decisions were bullet proof at first instance a lot more schemes would have been built prior to the music stopping.....


I would love to see a planning student do a thesis on the percentage of professional fees as a percentage of build costs on major schemes built in Dublin between 2004 and 2009; comparisons to London or Frankfurt would not be pretty.
PVC King
 

Re: Gormley initiates planning review

Postby wearnicehats » Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:25 pm

PVC King wrote:&



Were those calculations done on an Abacus?

15 reversals are 15 reversals on major schemes as decided by a bord of the most emminent planners as appointed by Government; by granting planning permissions that were not professionally assessed to a standard capable of passing an Bord Pleannala they created a new layer of risk which meant that meant developers paid significantly higher financing costs due to the requirement to wait for the ABP decision and then spend months reapplying. If the decisions were bullet proof at first instance a lot more schemes would have been built prior to the music stopping.....

.


not sure what you mean here, although I note that you cut only a small section of my argument (a statistician's move there!). 8 of the 23 DCC decisions were upheld by ABP. Of the other 15, 5 of the inspectors recommended upholding the decision - giving 13 upheld decisions if the inspectors were correct. By your logic above, the 5 of ABP's own inspectors who recommended acceptance of DCC's decision were equally as professionally incapable of assessing the schemes to a standard acceptable to ABP as DCC themselves - which kind of makes a mockery of the process don't you think?
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Next

Return to Irish Planning Matters