Debate contribution: Planning System: Fundamental Appraisal

Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on 12 February 2024.

MLA

Mr Mark Durkan

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

12 February 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Planning System: Fundamental Appraisal

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4218193

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I join others in congratulating those who have made their maiden speech today. It is surreal to hear maiden speeches from colleagues from whom we heard so much over the air waves in the couple of years that this place was mothballed. It is clear that our planning system is not working anywhere near to where it should be, and that has been outlined by all contributors today. I therefore understand the motivation behind the motion, but the motion — Mr Stewart referred to it more colourfully than I can — is maybe a wee bit muddled. It is fair to say that we all are or, at least, should be aware of the value of good planning; the need for planning to shape and create spaces for us to live and work in and to enjoy; the role of good planning in facilitating economic development while ensuring environmental protection; and the challenges that that can and does inevitably create for planners across our councils and in the Department. More often than not, it is the planners who bear the brunt of unhappy applicants, unhappy objectors and, even occasionally, unhappy politicians. The system as it is is not just letting down people but letting down the planners. They are overstretched, under-resourced and under immense pressure. That is not to say that they do not get it wrong occasionally. I will not go so far as to say that.

Certainly.

I thank the Member for his intervention, I think. Mr Stewart also referred to inconsistencies across councils, and different councils face different challenges. As the Minister who oversaw the transfer of the planning function from central government to councils, it is something in which I have a keen interest and about which I share concerns. At the time of the transfer, it was adequately resourced, but different things have cropped up in different council areas. There is a particular challenge in border areas. There is always the temptation for gamekeepers to be persuaded to turn poacher all across the area by a more lucrative private sector. That is why our planners need to be properly recognised and supported and why planning needs to be adequately resourced. I value an appraisal of the planning system, but it has to go beyond the planners themselves. We need to look at statutory consultees, many of which, be they in DFI itself in development control or Roads, or be they in the NIEA or DFC's historic environment division, seem to struggle to get responses to applications in in a timely fashion. There needs to be more accountability here, and perhaps a thorough and meaningful appraisal will assist in getting more support to those services in their respective Departments. Maybe it is time to explore mandatory consultation response times again, and that is something that, I am sure, I will revisit with the Minister. The fault for delays does not always lie with the statutory agencies. It is often about the drip-drip exchange or the bat and ball of information between them and applicants, and I wonder whether an appraisal might point to the implementation of a checklist for applications so that they will not be accepted until they have all the ducks in a row. That will save officer time and applicant time and will save money in the long run. The introduction of the pre-application discussion (PAD) process was meant to do that, but, evidently, it is not working as envisaged. The motion uses the term "disjointed and ineffective" to describe the approach to major projects. We have seen many projects delayed and delayed due to that, and that is why the SDLP brought forward a proposal for an infrastructure commission to oversee such projects. The Executive agreed to that in the last mandate, and TEO was to take it forward, so I encourage the Minister and the Committee to take that up with that Department. TEO also has responsibility for SIB, so the fact that the motion calls on the Infrastructure Minister to review that board suggests that the motion itself is a wee bit disjointed. There is mention of the process enabling Programme for Government (PFG) outcomes to be attained. We need an updated Programme for Government for a start, and the Climate Change Act 2022 will be central to that. Renewable energy projects will need to be prioritised, but that is not to say that they all have to be approved. Those applications cannot drag on for years and years causing anxiety for objectors as well as uncertainty for investors. We acknowledge that the motion refers to the need to maintain and support thriving rural communities. I refer to a PAN brought forward by the previous Minister, Nichola Mallon, who was my colleague. I say to the Member that the PAN, which was panned, did not introduce anything new but just reminded us all what —

— all parties had previously agreed to.

822 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