Debate contribution: Planning System: Fundamental Appraisal

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 12 February 2024.

MLA: Mr John O'Dowd
Party at the time: Sinn Féin
Date: 12 February 2024
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Planning System: Fundamental Appraisal
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4218259

Text

Before I start, I declare an interest in the debate. Councillor Mary O'Dowd, who sits on Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council's planning committee, is also my wife. I thank all the Members who spoke in the debate about the planning system for providing me with an early opportunity to address the wider Assembly about very important issues. I am delighted to have taken up the post of Infrastructure Minister and to have the opportunity to make a real difference and a positive change to people's lives. I congratulate Mrs Erskine on her appointment as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee and John Stewart on his appointment as its Deputy Chair. I look forward to working with them and the other Committee members in a positive manner on this and many other issues. As many have stated, planning has an important role to play in making the North a better place for us all. It is a key enabler for promoting economic growth. It helps us create attractive places and to protect and enhance our environment.
The planning system can have an impact on all our communities, young or old, urban or rural. That is why it is important that we work together to deliver an efficient and effective planning system.
On Mrs Erskine's point on rural planning, it may comfort her a bit to know that I was born and reared in a rural community. That may alarm others who have different views on how to proceed with building in rural communities, but that shows the context of our planning system. Under the review of public administration, the Executive agreed to transfer significant planning functions to local government. That allows local communities to hold their councillors accountable for how they discharge their planning functions. Mr Allister gave an example of how, because of that decision, there can be one decision in mid-Ulster and another one at the Antrim end of that council: that is local democracy, that is the devolution of those powers to local government. It is up to local people to respond according to how they feel about those matters. When Members talk about planners, it is interesting to ask who we are talking about. Are we talking about planning officials in the council, about our colleagues who sit on planning committees, about the officials who work in my Department as planners or about me as a planner, in the sense of being the person who has to sign off on planning applications? Our planning system and how we deliver it is multifaceted. That exposes the responsibilities that we all have to improve our planning. Mr Durkan referred to the resourcing of planning at council level. He said that it was properly resourced when he transferred it, and I am not in a position to argue with him: if he says it was, it was. Our councils have just set their rates: how many of them increased their investment in their planning department? I do not know the answer to that question, but, if we want to improve planning, we will have to improve investment in councils, and I will have to improve investment in the Department. We will need resources to do so. Even in terms of statutory consultees, our planning system is driven largely by people. Yes, we have to look for investment in new technologies — the planning portal is beginning to show its benefits, although there are teething problems with all technology when it is introduced — but look at statutory consultees. I will use the Roads Service and the Rivers Agency in my Department as examples. Both are understaffed, so how can we expect them to respond in a timely fashion to the multitude of planning applications coming through? We need to invest in staffing numbers and move them up. That brings me to the point raised by a number of Members about whether we should introduce penalties if consultees do not respond in time. That would be self-defeating. Should we move ahead with a planning application if a statutory consultee has not responded? There could be a significant danger in that, because, if we get it wrong, it could go spectacularly wrong, especially in relation to the environment. Those things need to be thought through.
I am not sure that I would describe it in that way. As I said, I can refer to my Department as the statutory consultees for whom I am responsible. They do not have the resources or the people to meet the demand. I have a responsibility to make sure that they are properly resourced, and that is one of the tasks that I will take on. When we have properly resourced institutions, we can go back to the conversation about what happens if a deadline is missed — Does the plan go ahead? Do you introduce penalties? — but we have to get the resourcing right first. While my Department has an important leadership role in the two-tier planning system, it does not act alone or have direct responsibility for addressing all the issues highlighted in the motion or by Members. This is a collective issue on which we must work together. I am clear that an effective and efficient planning system is key to growing our economy, protecting our environment, addressing the climate change challenge and ultimately creating successful places where people want to live, work and play and that meet all their needs for generations to come. As has been noted, there have been many reports on our planning system, each with its views on what works well, what may not work so well and where improvements can be made. Members noted the Audit Office report on the planning system and referred to a report by the Public Accounts Committee from March 2022 that identified areas for improvement and change in the planning system. Since those publications, good work has been done by my Department, working in collaboration — this is important — with local government and other stakeholders to address the recommendations in both reports. A planning improvement work programme has been established and is being taken forward jointly by local and central government. The programme is broken down across key themes, including policy and legislation; local development plans; development management; performance engagement; and financial sustainability of the system. In an area where we need improvement, there is what some refer to as "the MOT theory": you put in an application and see how it goes, in the same way as some people put their car in for an MOT and see how it goes. Some people tell me that they cannot get their car in for an MOT, but that is a debate for another day. No doubt, you will have me back on that one. When I was in the post previously, I commissioned work on a validation checklist. Work is at an advanced stage on that. Like any legislation that we bring forward, we have to make sure that we have got it right. We are engaging with partners on it. We are engaging with the Planning Appeals Commission on an appeals mechanism, but, surely, in this day and age, planning agents, architects and others know exactly what is needed when submitting a planning application. If you submit a planning application with the required information, the Department can deal with it more quickly, and the statutory consultees can deal with it more quickly. While I will pursue the validation checklist, which is at an advanced stage, it is disappointing that we require legislation to cover it, but what has to be has to be. We will continue to work together to address the challenges, whether that be with local government, statutory consultees or the Planning Appeals Commission, which, as you will understand, falls under the Department of Justice. It is wholly independent but sponsored by the Department of Justice. We could use independent commissioners, as has been pointed out in the debate and by other bodies, but it is an expensive route to go down, and, at the moment, I do not have that option. I would much prefer to engage with the Department of Justice and see how we can support the Planning Appeals Commission rather than going down the road of appointing independent commissioners, but we have to keep that under review. The delivery of major capital projects by the public sector has long been a source of comment by many. There has been some improvement. I accept that one swallow does not make a summer. The most recently published statistics, for the first six months of 2023-24, show that the average processing time for local applications was 19·2 weeks across all councils, against a target of 15 weeks, with four of the 11 councils meeting the 15-week target. For major applications during that period, it was 34·7 weeks across all councils. That represents a decrease of more than 15 weeks compared with the same period a year earlier, moving closer to the 30-week target. Results for the target of 70% for the closure of enforcement cases within 39 weeks are not available at this time. Once that information becomes available, I will make it available to the Committee and whoever else requires it. There has been progress, and, although I accept that it was measured over only one year, with the various reports that we have had, the recommendations therein and the stop-start implementation of those at a political leadership level, we are having some change in the right direction, although I will not be complacent about it. I want my Department to function at full capacity and to set a pathway for long-term future investment. For my part, I am determined that projects that are a priority for me, such as the A5, will move forward and deliver long-awaited benefits for the people who use them. The progress already made is a starting point. We need to build on that and ensure that the whole system and all parties to it are properly funded and resourced in respect of capacity and capability in order to deliver the system change that is needed. There is lots to do in my Department and, more widely, with key stakeholders in the process, and I am up for that challenge. As has already been pointed out, the Strategic Investment Board is a matter for the Executive Office, but I am committed to working with every delivery partner to get the whole system working better for everyone. I intend to take some time to understand the progress that has been made to date and to ensure that we do everything possible to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our wider planning system. I note that the proposer of the motion stated that they are not looking for another full-blown review of planning; they are looking at an appraisal of the planning system. I am more than happy to do that. I will continue the work that has already been done and continue to actively pursue and implement the reports that have been published in the most recent period. I accept that our planning system is not working to its full potential, but we need to be careful not to send out a message to investors here or potential investors overseas that you cannot do business here in terms of planning :we can. We will do everything within our power to support the development of new industries and the green economy, wherever it may be. We will do our best and work with them to improve it, but let us not send out the message that you cannot do business here. There are challenges for planning systems across these islands. If you look at some of the major planning applications that are going through in Britain or down South, you see that there is always a challenge. It is down to this: when you listen to the different views on planning in this Room today, you find that what one person, such as Mr Elliott, sees as economic development, another may see as a threat to the environment. It is about getting that balance right, and we have to work within the legislation that is before us to get it right. Mr Allister made a comment about the ammonia policy. I accept that that is a huge challenge for the farming sector, but it is also a huge challenge for the environment. Various elements of that policy are under investigation, and reports will have to be developed on that as well. I ask colleagues to work with me, and I will work with the Committee and others to ensure that we bring our planning system forward, secure the investment that it requires and deliver sustainable development into the future that benefits rural and urban communities.

2,144 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