Viewpoint: The planning Poker Game

The recent successful appeal by residents and businesses against a grant of planning permission by Kildare County Council for the proposed recycling and ELV facility at Knockbounce Business Park was generally welcomed across the community, writes Brian Byrne.

But the issue highlights a serious inequality in the whole planning system. Deep pockets are necessary to process an application for permission. On both sides. The inequality is that a community which appeals a planning decision it believes to be wrong must do so knowing it has no chance of recouping its expenses even if it succeeds.

That's a big gamble for any individual, community group, or even a business which goes down that road. It's a poker game. And a bad one.

If the Planning Appeal Board agrees that the relevant permission should not have been granted, the planning authority still gets to keep the fees which the objectors had to pay in the first place. The Board also keeps the significantly larger fees which pertain for the appeal process.

And, of course, any experts who might have had to be employed by the appellants are, rightly, properly paid for their services and professional expertise.

On the planning application side, substantial fees are incurred too. But the proposers of the project are going into the process with their eyes, and wallets, open. Seeking a business opportunity which could return the investment with substantial profit. They're putting a considered bet on the table.

Those defending themselves against something they see as being seriously problematical for their lives, families, and their environment haven't asked for the situation. Indeed, they could reasonably expect that the planning authority would be fairly disposed towards looking out for them. After all, the same authority is there to serve all equally, individuals as well as corporate taxpayers.

A planning authority can, of course, make a mistake in good faith. It can be wrong for no bad reason. In most other walks of life, those shown to be wrong can try and make up for it when the wrong is decided. So it seems reasonable that a local authority found to have been wrong in a planning decision, by the ultimate 'court' of appeal in the planning process, should make good the expenses involved by those who have the courage and the conviction to take the matter forward, and win.

After all, in our judicial system, there's provision for winning appellants to be granted their costs against the loser. But not, it seems, in our planning system. In this case, the promoter's stake in the project is all that's on the table for them. The other side, in this case the community and the local businesses, can win the game but lose their stakes.

There's an old adage, the house always wins. But should it? In this most recent case there were two appeals. The existing businesses in the Knockbounce park paid serious money to consultants to make their case. In the case of the residents they had amongst them the required expertises, otherwise they'd have had to fork out a similar amount, if they could have raised it. And both won't get their money or its equivalent back for deciding to see the cards of the player with the deepest pockets.

It's manifestly unfair. The poker game is rigged. And unless we all make it clear that we won't allow that in the future, it's going to continue that way.

Your councillors are up for re-election next year. Let them know you want them to work for a straight-up planning game table in the future. That's where change starts. They did commit to being on your side in the early part of this contest, but that was easy when they didn't have to put their hands in their own pockets or political positions on the line.

Now it's their turn. Tell them. Regularly and often, until they do the job and begin the change back to fair play.