Debate contribution: Planning System: Fundamental Appraisal

Debate contribution by Mr John Stewart on 12 February 2024.

MLA: Mr John Stewart
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 12 February 2024
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Planning System: Fundamental Appraisal
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4218167

Text

I congratulate the Member on his maiden speech and also congratulate my colleague on her rise to Chair of the Infrastructure Committee — I look forward to working with her. I look forward to working with everyone who contributed today, including my East Antrim colleague Cheryl Brownlee. It was a very-well-done speech, so congratulations on that. Undoubtedly, the planning system in Northern Ireland is not fit for purpose and is stunting economic growth, international investment and our green agenda, and reform is required. While I do not disagree with anything that has been said by the three Members who have contributed so far, I think that the motion, to combine some culinary jargon, is a mixture of word salad and mom and apple pie. The proposers seem to have thrown every planning buzzword into the motion in the hope that some of them will stick. I am sure that that was not the intention, and, hopefully, we will tease out some of it in the debate. While there is much in the motion that no one could take umbrage at or disagree with, some aspects need to be teased out, particularly building in the countryside. The throwaway line about:
"opposing policies that further constrain development in the countryside"
needs to be examined closely in order to understand how it fits with subsequent lines about our green solutions and sustainability.
Yes, of course.
I thank the Member for her intervention. Absolutely, flexibility is key. I do not think that anyone wants — this is what I seek clarity on — a free-for-all as in County Donegal, where we see examples of building endlessly into the countryside. No one wants that, particularly if we are going to protect our rural and farm areas and our diversity and natural habitats. In that respect, we are in agreement. For example, in recent months, much has been made of Lough Neagh. No one could overestimate the impact of the number of large dwellings that are built on B roads, with septic tanks that have overflows and water flows leading into them, and the impact that they could have if we further opened rural development in those areas. Across Northern Ireland, the 11 district councils are producing their own development plans, and, in doing so, they have the power to produce their own bespoke policies for development in the countryside. That has the potential for mass inconsistencies across the country. Planning Policy Statement 21 (PPS 21) seemed to attract criticism from all quarters, but at least it was consistent across Northern Ireland in allowing for development in certain circumstances and was not a free-for-all. The issue is worthy of a separate motion and debate, but I caution Members not to use language loosely in a debate. It may get plaudits from planning consultants who design single dwellings in the countryside, but we need to factor in sustainability. I query whether the Minister needs to commission yet another review of the planning system. There is no shortage of them. The Department for Infrastructure's report on its review of the implementation of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 was published on 27 January 2022. The Northern Ireland Audit Office published its review of the planning system on 1 February 2022. The Public Accounts Committee published a report in response to the Audit Office report in March 2022. This institution went into deep sleep for two years, and it would be constructive, before we start to call for more reports, if the new Minister could check with his officials and tell us what consideration his Department has given to the three reports that I have just mentioned. In addition, looking outside official government reports, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce only last month produced a report detailing its position on planning improvement and reform. A lot of similar themes emerge in the reports and their recommendations. The Audit Office report is critical of the disjointed approach to planning in Northern Ireland. Its 12 recommendations relate to plan-making, improving performance on the most important applications, enforcement, delegation and committee matters, review of planning fees, leadership of the planning system, skills, and environmental ammonia levels. To focus on one issue for a moment, the Northern Ireland Audit Office report recommends greater transparency around council decision-making on planning, particularly the recording of why some applications that are normally delegated are referred to committee and the minuting of the reasons why the committee has overturned an officer recommendation. It also recommends appropriate training for councillors on planning committees, while the Department ensures regional consistency. The PAC report also has 12 recommendations, and recommendation 5 emphasises that all those involved in decision-making should:
"ensure that processes are open and transparent, particularly where a high degree of interpretation has been exercised. The Department and councils should consider how checks on good record keeping, to ensure transparency, could be carried out effectively."
When I went on to council in 2014, there was a programme from the then Department of the Environment in preparation for the devolvement of planning to councils. I remember, as part of that, observing a planning committee in Peterborough. I observed just how professionally its members went about their business. Subsequent to that, training has not been kept up to that standard. I have observed the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council planning committee in my constituency from time to time since then, and I have to say that, from a good start, standards have slipped. It is not easy to fulfil a quasi-judicial role. Members of planning committees often lose large parts of their representative role and are meant to be strictly neutral, but I frequently observed councillors going straight from recommendations without proper questioning or debate, demonstrating predetermination, which is meant to be a cardinal sin. Councillors do not always have to fulfil the recommendations, but, if they do, they —.
Thanks for the warning.
I appreciate that, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate the motion.

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

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification