Planning System

They say a good start is half the battle, if this is true, we might just start to see some much-needed change to Ireland’s disjointed planning regime. In The Sunday Times last weekend, newly-elected president of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland wrote quite a damning indictment of current planning rules, describing it as “a planning system ripe for modernisation”.

We are, perhaps, accustomed to media sound bites that fail to translate in to action or any real change, however, when these sound bites come from such an industry stalwart as Des O’Broin (director of construction consultancy Linesight), we know that change will be demanded.

The article in question describes the function that a successful planning system ought to fulfil, and it is stuff that we know – in theory. For instance, we know that well-thought out, strategic planning should be responsive to evolving and cyclical economic and demographic challenges, but what would this even look like?  One of the main criticisms that O’Broin levels is that “when it comes to residential planning in Ireland, our processes are more geared to solving the problems of our past — at the cost of our present and future”. This is a strong assertion, not many working within the industry today would disagree. Of the many difficulties that looking backwards presents, the main one is that we are talking about a completely different market, with completely different demographics and geographical population spread. The piecemeal approach to reform over the decades falls short of the radical overall needed. There has been a distinct lack of leadership in this respect – part of the problem is the political nature of the work and the short-term nature of political power.

Another topical issue that he touches on is the ability of people who are not directly affected by a particular development to raise comment on and to object to that said development. This does not  make any sense, it never did, it was simply a bad practice that was allowed to continue until such time as it was provided for in law.

One of the points not covered in the article is the divided and somewhat adversarial make-up of the industry, private planners vs. public planners. There does not appear to be sufficient alignment of interests, if anything, one is perceived to be a barrier to the success of the other. If the planning system worked, then all parties would find their eventual interests more closely aligned. Certainty is missing and there is no stakeholder agreement on where to find it, or even where to go looking.

On a positive note, the temporary fast-track planning for developments of 100 or more homes is to be welcomed it is nowhere near enough as a response to the current housing crisis we find ourselves in.

Finally, he mentions ‘NIMBY-ism’ and we know that this is a problem but do developers and place makers hold the key to this? Do we need to take public and community engagement out of the planning process and back into the community and, if so, do developers have an appetite for this? It is just something to ponder on for the long weekend…

Ian Lawlor
086 3625482

Director / Business Development
Lotus Investment Group