Debate contribution: Planning System: Fundamental Appraisal

Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on 12 February 2024.

MLA

Mrs Deborah Erskine

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

12 February 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Planning System: Fundamental Appraisal

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4218140

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

As the Chair of the Assembly's new Infrastructure Committee, I fully expect the subject of the motion to be one of the bread-and-butter issues in the months ahead. At the outset, however, I make it clear that any comments that I make during the debate are made solely in my capacity as DUP MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, not as Committee Chair. Like many colleagues in the Chamber, I first saw day-to-day planning concerns while I was a councillor on Fermanagh and Omagh District Council. You will appreciate that many of the issues related to rural matters and were very different to those that were seen by some of my urban colleagues in the Chamber. Many of the frustrations are the same, however, including length of time for applications and feedback etc. We need a planning service that understands the needs of the countryside and its inhabitants. We face challenges with keeping young people in their home communities. Planning should be there to support that, not aid in driving them away. It is important that Ministers understand the challenges and the unique nature of rural villages and do not seek to bring into force dangerous and concerning legislation, such as was the case in 2021, with the planning advice note (PAN) on countryside development that Minister Mallon sought to introduce in 2021 and on which she later reneged. I recognise that there is also clearly a need for balance between development and protecting our green spaces, which are one of our greatest assets. During the past two years, the previous DUP infrastructure spokesperson, Phillip Brett, engaged with stakeholders and worked on a policy paper regarding the planning system and the need for reform. When we talk about significant foreign direct investment coming into Northern Ireland alongside growing our indigenous SME base, we must think carefully about how planning can facilitate those critical outcomes. Too often, however, we are regaled with stories and complaints from stakeholders with a common theme: planning in Northern Ireland is not fit for purpose. That has been reflected in several reports: it must therefore be a priority for change. I was shocked to read recently of the pressures that are faced in the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC), which I would have considered to be one of the key spokes in the planning wheel. It cannot be right that the PAC is forced to commit almost all its resources to a single case, meaning that many other significant projects are held back. I understand that many investors face internal competition to come to Northern Ireland, so the prospect of a long waiting list, should they need to avail themselves of the PAC, does not inspire confidence. I am aware that, between 1 January and 31 May 2023, only 3% of appeals determined by the PAC were within its target timelines. I want to work constructively with the PAC and others to understand its needs and how we can do things more effectively. Funding is key to unlocking some of the issues, and greater cross-departmental working is needed to solve them. Indeed, the role of the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) could be greater in ensuring that key strategic government projects are delivered in time and are not held up through planning delays. Planning will also be key to achieving our net zero and decarbonisation ambitions in Northern Ireland, with the installation of renewable zero-carbon technologies and infrastructure. Are we yet in a place of having streamlined our planning approach to that? I am not sure that we are. Again, work will have to be done to ensure that all strands of government work together and deal with the real challenges, such as investment in our water and sewerage network. To have buildings that are future-proofed and that work for our communities, we must ensure that policies match the needs of our residents and investors. Some of the ways in which planning could be reformed in Northern Ireland are streamlining the local development plan process and a more collaborative approach in the planning system between the public and private sectors to create better outcomes, which would create better transparency in the planning process. For example, there is concern that the interim Regional Planning Commission does not represent those who engage daily with the planning system. I ask the Minister to outline the commission's terms of reference and the work done to date. We must also ensure that those involved in planning are skilled to meet the demands and support them in that work.

I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, transparency is at the heart of this, to ensure that people have access to all the information that they need in to fully come to decisions. It is worth clarifying that, in the motion, we are not proposing yet another wholesale review of the planning service. Reports such as the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report in February 2022 and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report have found that the current planning system is not working effectively. Instead, I urge the Minister to appraise the current situation in the planning service, identify the key needs and address them in the context of the many reports that have made clear recommendations. My colleagues on these Benches and I acknowledge the work undertaken to date by the Department for Infrastructure through its planning improvement programme. While my remarks are made as a Fermanagh and South Tyrone MLA today, I look forward to working with my Committee colleagues, the Minister and officials to really make a difference in this area.

934 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:36 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification