The benefits of building faster and fairer! Who benefits exactly?

Conor Skehan's article in the Irish Independent yesterday had me thinking of two things immediately when I saw the article headline. Who is his radical 10-point plan geared towards, and secondly, where are the budgets, staff, and streamlined work processes and practices to implement these ideas going to materialise from?

I think simplifying the planning laws that have been in existence since the foundation of our state will not be an easy process to fix if rushed. Yes, it might make the system more accessible and understandable to the average student of construction, engineering, and architecture, but it may not make things any more understandable for the public or community organisations that end up raising concerns over poorly thought-out developments where engagement and consultation have been flawed and weak.

The oversimplification of a new process could have the opposite effect of weakening the planning system further and seeing a greater number of poorly considered developments get approval. Limiting the number of appeals might seem like a good idea, cutting down on delays and issues, but the potential to further undermine public engagement and participation in the process could see harmful, ill-thought-through developments impacting areas on a scale that wasn't considered or understood before the process was initiated.

The oversimplification of this process could weaken the planning system further

Fast-tracking certain types of developments, as we have seen in some of our planning cases, has led to corners being cut and the proven inference of alleged corruption on the part of some of those given the trust of higher offices in our planning systems. The need for greater scrutiny of decision-makers must be weighted heavily against the potential consequences of bribery, corruption, and justice.

Clearing up the guidelines in planning could reduce any ambiguity and might make it easier for developers and builders to understand exactly what is required of them But if we set those rules rigidly, they may not be flexible or adaptable enough to the unique or innovative projects that the country may need to deliver on time.

As for launching new streamlined IT/IS systems in public bodies, anyone will tell you, from a clerical officer to SEO, that the implementation of a new IT/IS system can take years to roll out. From initial tendering to full rollout, it takes years. I am all for driving the use of cloud and dynamic technologies, but linking these up to a national, universal, single system that local authorities can manage is a huge task. The costs involved would be massive, and the timeframe for retraining staff across multiple organisations and locations has yet to be proven successful in any major government department. I am all for pre-engagement consultation initiatives that bring the public into the discussion as early as possible. I believe that if you offer this early on and get public buy-in, you will see a natural drop in objections to the planning process.

Those involved then, speak positively today of the huge importance that the The 4 cities project had in shaping their understanding of the planning system in the respective cities.

Some 20 years ago, Dublin City Council engaged with the South West Inner City Network in Dublin 8 to offer residents a chance to take part in a programme called the Four Cities Project. Funded by the EU. The cities of Dublin, Belfast, Liverpool, and Brussels all took part. These cities had major urban renewal projects happening at the time. The Dublin one was located in the Liberties area. An area that has today seen massive impacts from the current planning system and not all of a positive outcome for those people who still live in the area today. The course was supported by Maynooth University and looked at the shared experiences of those people in the group dealing with the effects of planning as they impacted the communities they came from.

Those involved then speak positively today of the huge importance and learnings that the 4 Cities Project had in shaping their understanding of the planning system in the city. Having a greater understanding of our city development plan system and the benefits of having wrap-around access to construction and planning specialists who could answer the questions that the participants raised about the major regeneration of their area at that time. It gave a level of detail and knowledge that had not previously existed before and a level of engagement and upskilling that has not been seen since in Dublin. This type of initiative was hugely successful but was never supported with continuing funding or built on.

Good governance and communications can lead to greater action, accountability, and transparency in decision-making.

It also highlighted that, through the process, good governance and communications can lead to greater action, accountability, and transparency in decision-making. I think that's all the public wants to see. They don't want to find out that loopholes continue to exist and only a select few benefit financially off the backs of everyone else. Implementing greater governance, transparency, and accountability can only be a good thing for a democratic society.

The world as we know it is now all about promoting sustainability across our environment, and that includes the built environment that makes up our communities. While the initial costs of pursuing such strategies are high, the long-term effects benefit future generations. Continuing to see developers reap the short-term rewards from selling and flipping developments does nothing to build sustainability in our cities, towns, villages, and society as a whole.

Behind all this must be a robust legal framework that can ensure that planning decisions are fair, transparent, and enforceable, but an overemphasis on legal frameworks might complicate the process and increase costs for those trying to deliver stock.

While Conor's ideas are aimed at trying to suggest a faster and fairer planning system, the balance between speed and thoroughness, as well as between developer interests and community societal rights, is critical. I've heard many of Skehan's interviews on TV and reviewed some of his articles in papers like the Indo. It is easy for the reader to get a sense that his "radical proposals" might overly favour developers and investors while further reducing the desire to see fair and balanced community input, potentially leading to less sustainable and community-focused outcomes. I think that is sad!

I also think it is essential that developers and investors stop seeing communities and their leaders as the enemies of their plans and start embracing that input, knowledge, and experience at the design and concept stages to deliver truly unique and sustainable partnerships and developments in the years to come.

It's time to shed the old ways of the past and develop new ways of moving forward in partnership. I look forward to seeing what develops in this area after the next three or four general elections.