Debate contribution: Green Growth: Removal of Barriers

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 17 September 2024.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

17 September 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Green Growth: Removal of Barriers

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4537414

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I start by thanking the motion's sponsors for tabling the motion on the important topic on green growth and for highlighting that we, as an Assembly, need to continue to work together to facilitate and enable green growth for the benefit of all our people. I agree with the assertion set out by the motion:

"fair and just growth in the green economy is vital for securing"

our

"economic future and delivering on our net zero commitments".

I also support a fair and just planning system, and I will return to that point later. I acknowledge the work that my Executive colleague Minister Muir and his officials have undertaken to date to bring forward the green growth strategy. I look forward to continuing to work collaboratively on a cross-Executive basis in order to ensure the appropriate progression of strategy, policy and legislation not only to assist in decarbonising our economy and creating jobs but to support the achievement of our wider climate change commitments. For my part, I am committed to building on the good progress that has already been made in my Department, whether through promoting active and sustainable travel; the roll-out of lower-emission buses, as Mr Middleton mentioned; enhancing our public transport services; or ensuring more generally that our existing and proposed infrastructure addresses the many challenges that we face because of climate change. While I accept that the planning system has a role to play, I do not agree that it is one of the greatest barriers to green growth. No empirical evidence was given during the debate that pointed to that statement being factual. I do not accept that it is the greatest barrier to green growth, inward investment or the delivery of renewable energy infrastructure. In fact, sustainability principles are at the heart of our planning system. The planning system has the protection of the environment, the well-being of people and society and balanced economic growth at its core. It supports a fair and just system. Much of the commentary in the debate thus far has been on the need for developers to bring forward green energy proposals, and quite rightly so. In this instance, most developers will be small to medium-sized enterprises, large corporations or maybe multinational corporations, but we also deal in the planning system with individuals. However, on the other side of the equation are the persons or communities that may have strong feelings about or objections to a planning application. Their views have not been reflected in the debate. It is important to recognise the fact that planning is literally a contested space at times. That said, many planning applications go through with no objections whatsoever. Where you may have a fundamental change in the character of your community, neighbourhood or environment and given the fact that many green energy projects are on a significant scale, it is understandable that concerns will be raised, be they by residents, environmentalists or others. It is only right and proper that each argument is tested fully before the decision is made. Arguments that are based on the rights of the developer, be they large, small or medium, and the rights of the resident, the environmental group or the objector, for want of a better term, are all valid and have to be brought to the table. The role of the planning system, be it in my Department or a council, is to decide, based on its policies, on the points of view that are at the table.

I will shortly, after I make this point. When it goes wrong with some major infrastructural projects, it goes terribly wrong. I think of an event in Galway a number of years ago, although I accept that the development of wind farms was in the early stages. The impact was catastrophic when that went wrong, so it is important that we get it right.

I will come on to timing later. The Member is absolutely right: planning matters should be settled in a timely manner. As I work my way through my speech, I will examine where the delays come from and, more importantly, how we can resolve them.

The question is this: who makes that decision? Do I impose my will on councils and local communities? Does the Environment Minister impose his will on councils and local communities? Or, is that best placed with councils through their local development plans? Currently, the legislation and the will of the Assembly and the Executive reflect that that decision is best placed through local development plans. A report published by NISRA as recently as 5 September 2024 shows that just under 46% of all our electricity consumption between July 2023 and 2024 was generated from renewable sources. Members will not be surprised to learn that the vast majority of that energy generation has been made possible because of permission granted by the planning system. Notwithstanding those figures, I acknowledge that much remains to be done. Since taking up my role as Infrastructure Minister, I have been engaging with a wide range of key stakeholders, each with their own perspectives on our planning system. I am also continuing to take forward a wide-ranging planning improvement programme, which has already achieved important progress, including planning application fee uplifts and consultations on and reviews of planning policy and procedures. The review of regional strategic policy on renewable and low-carbon energy is well advanced, and a call for evidence on the potential review of regional strategic policy in relation to climate change has issued. There is also the development of new and amended legislation to streamline and ensure that key aspects of the planning process are up to date and fit for purpose, including bringing forward legislation to enable local planning authorities to produce statutory validation checklists. That piece of legislation is, quite rightly, being scrutinised by the Infrastructure Committee. The delivery of a comprehensive capacity-building programme to planning offices and statutory consultees in the area of environmental impact assessments and working closely with local government to find efficiencies and improvements to the local development process will all continue to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of our planning system. Integral to improving the planning system is the role of statutory consultees, a subject touched on today, and the ongoing work that my Department has been conducting with them and local government through the planning statutory consultee forum. Significant progress has been achieved through the forum, including the development of quarterly and annual reports on statutory consultation performance; a review of statutory consultee advice and published guidance; and the production of a protocol for statutory consultees that sets out what involvement and support is required for them to support an effective and efficient planning system. I am also delighted that my Department's bid for the transformation board funding for planning has progressed to the next stage. A successful bid would allow the Department to improve its consultee response times and to appoint independent persons to deal with major hearings and report work that is currently passed to the Planning Appeals Commission. In short, I made a bid for independent examiners, and it is progressing to the next stage. It would also allow us to progress proposals for the four wind farm applications currently in the system and sitting with the commission for one or two years. There is a significant delay at the Planning Appeals Commission, and I am trying to step around that to ensure that those important planning applications that are being delayed are dealt with. I also understand that the Audit Office is undertaking a strategic review of the Planning Appeals Commission. Members will recall that I addressed the Chamber on planning earlier this year, and I do not intend to rehearse the debate. However, I do think that, in the context of the current motion, it is important to remind Members of some key points. As I have said, under the review of public administration, the Executive and the Assembly agreed to transfer significant planning functions and decisions to local government. That allows local communities to hold their councils accountable for how they discharge their planning functions. Councils, as individual, sovereign political authorities, have hugely important leadership roles in delivering the main operational aspects of the system, including taking decisions on 99% of all planning applications, producing local development plans fundamental to the reformed plan-led system and the effective enforcement of planning control. As I already said, the planning authorities also rely on the expertise of statutory consultees to ensure that important public interest issues, such as road safety and environmental impact, are properly taken into account in planning decisions. Many of my ministerial colleagues will therefore also be directly contributing to the effectiveness of the planning system. That is an important point.

When we talk about planning, it often can be a broad-brush statement. It is often seen that we are talking about planners. Yes, planners have a crucial role in the delivery of an effective planning system, but all the cogs of the wheel that make the job of the planner more effective and efficient also have to be oiled and turning. As I said, I have already made bids to the transformation fund around the statutory consultees and will continue to do whatever I can to support them. Through the transformation fund, I am looking at the Planning Appeals Commission. The other element is also the quality of the original planning application that crosses the desk or, more often now, is emailed to the planning system. That includes major green planning applications. The quality of those applications is not always what it should be. When people say, "We have to consult" or, "We had to go back on consultations", I find that, in discussions with some of my departmental colleagues, that means that my Department has gone back to the applicant to say, "This is not right. We need this information to move this project on", and then we are criticised for delays. We are trying to give the applicant an opportunity to present as full a case as possible to the planners so that they can make an informed decision. I have jokingly said to my planners that perhaps we should say, "That application is not correct. Take it back". My planning performance figures would go through the roof. I would be outperforming everyone. That is not — well, it might be the way to go.

These debates are useful, and we can have an informed debate about these things. You have to dig deep into some of the issues to fully understand the different contexts of what is going on and what can cause delays. Often, we find it difficult to get a response when we go back to some applicants and say, "We need you to correct that" or "We need that information". It may take weeks or months for them to come back to us, but we face the criticism for it. I have no doubt that our councils have a similar experience. I recently addressed the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), and we had discussions. It has been said that planners are people. They are members of our community. They work and live in our communities and want the best for our communities. Some of the criticism that they face on social media and elsewhere is totally unacceptable and has an impact on them. In fairness, I have never known it to happen in the Chamber. We live with the rough and tumble of politics, and we face those things, and they have an impact on us too. I appeal to those who feel that it is appropriate to make certain comments on social media and elsewhere about our planners to desist and remember that they are talking about their neighbours or their family friends. Those people are dedicated to our community. They want to do their best for our community, and they are working to do the best for our community. I fully support them and endorse their campaign for well-being and support for their fellow professionals. Now is not the time for a fundamental reform of our planning system. I accept that the motion has come forward in good faith. We want to move forward the green agenda, and we will certainly support that. We also want to move forward the planning agenda, and we will work together on that. Working with councils and others, I see progress being made. We have a huge hill to climb, but fundamental reform will delay the changes that we require in our planning system. At a later date, if the Assembly or Executive wish to bring forward fundamental reform, it will open up a can of worms, and some of your council colleagues may not be too keen on you suggesting that we take powers away from them. Just be careful what you wish for.

2,158 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:11 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