Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I welcome Kathryn, Rosemary and Nicole, all of whom are from the Department for Infrastructure. Is the Committee agreed that the evidence session be recorded by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): In that case, I invite the officials to make an opening statement. As you will no doubt be aware, the Committee is undertaking a planning inquiry. We are in the final stages of that and are thankful to you for coming along to give evidence.

I am looking to you, Kathryn. You have up to 10 minutes to make an opening statement, and then you can expect some questions from members.

Mrs Kathryn McFerran (Department for Infrastructure): Good morning, Chair and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to join you. For those of you who do not know me, although I realise that I have been introduced, I am Kathryn McFerran, director of regional planning policy and casework in the Department for Infrastructure. To my left is Rosemary Daly, who is the chief planner and director of regional planning, governance and legislation, and to my right is Nicole Thompson, who is a principal planning officer (PPO). Nicole is one of the principal planning officers who leads the regionally significant team, which processes regionally significant planning applications (RSDs).

I am aware that the Committee has engaged with key stakeholders and invited views on the processing of planning applications for regionally significant developments. I will give some background to explain the process and give a high-level overview of the work of one of my teams. The Department is responsible for the determination of planning applications for regionally significant developments under section 26 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. The threshold for regionally significant developments is defined in the schedule to the Planning (Development Management) Regulations 2015, in which the thresholds for different types of development to which the Department may apply section 26 of the Planning Act are provided. If a proposed development exceeds the threshold, the developer must enter consultation with the Department on whether section 26 will apply to that particular proposal. That is called a "section 26 determination". The Committee may be aware from colleagues of ours who have been at the Committee previously that work is ongoing to amend the legislation as part of the planning improvement programme (PIP).

As part of a section 26 determination, the Department must decide whether the proposed development, if carried out, would:

If any of those criteria apply, the Department makes a positive determination that a section 26 determination should apply. Once it is determined that section 26 applies to a particular proposal, the proposal of application notice — also referred to as the "PAN" — as well as the application and any request for pre-application discussion (PAD) and environmental impact assessment (EIA) screening or scoping must be made to the Department.

The process for processing regionally significant applications is laid out in section 26 of the 2011 Act. It is slightly different from the way in which processing occurs for major applications in councils. As with councils, officials review the information, and we then make a professional recommendation to the Minister. At that stage, the Minister considers whether to take a decision on whether to cause a public local inquiry or to serve a notice in writing on the applicant and the appropriate council indicating that she proposes to issue either a refusal or an approval of the application. That is called a notice of opinion. Following the issue of a notice of opinion, the applicant or council can request a hearing before the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) or another independent person appointed by the Department. In making its decision, the Department can take into account any report of the PAC or person appointed by the Department for the purpose of a hearing or inquiry. The Department's decision is final. It is a target of the Department to contribute to sustainable economic growth by processing regionally significant planning applications, from the date they are deemed to be valid to the date of a ministerial recommendation or a withdrawal, within an average of 30 weeks.

Many of those applications are environmental impact assessment developments and are subject to additional requirements under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The Department has taken 28 decisions on section 26 applications since 2015 and is processing nine applications. They are unusual applications in their nature, scale and technical complexity, with huge volumes of information, huge numbers of objections and correspondence and high levels of consultation and reconsultation with experts. Some have been challenged through the courts, with one ongoing judicial review (JR). They include renewables, energy, transport and waste infrastructure.

Delays can occur for a number of reasons. Consultee response times and more complicated schemes typically take much longer due to the volume of information that we have to assess. Frequent submissions of environmental information lead to more rounds of publicity and more consultations under the environmental impact assessment regulations. In some cases, applicants can amend their schemes voluntarily, and that adds further time to the processing of those applications. The Department has again taken receipt of six applications that had been with the Planning Appeals Commission, because, in the time waiting for a hearing to be timetabled or for the PAC to hold a public local inquiry, applicants chose to amend their schemes or had to update the environmental information due to that passage of time. Those six applications are now back with my team in the Department, and we are reprocessing them.

I stress that the Department is committed to processing applications as quickly as possible to ensure that investment in regionally significant projects is not lost or delayed and that the planning system operates in an efficient and effective way. It is important that all parties — applicants, agents, local community, investors and interested parties that are opposed to development — have certainty in the system. The Department continues to work with stakeholders to improve processes and the performance and delivery of the planning system. Steps have been taken to increase staffing and to work with stakeholders to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. That includes regionally significant applications.

The Department is advancing the appointment of persons under existing powers in the Planning Act of 2011. That will allow the Department an additional option, which is to appoint independent inspectors to, in appropriate cases, carry out a report function for the Planning Appeals Commission. That is part of a wider body of work that the Minister is committed to through the planning improvement programme, in collaboration with councils, to identify measures to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the planning system.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to outline a high-level overview. We are happy to answer questions and want to engage with your inquiry. We are happy also to provide an additional written briefing, if necessary.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is great. Thank you very much, Kathryn. That was a useful briefing. Perhaps you could send it through to the Committee. There is interesting information in it, and it was helpful to me.

You said that nine applications are sitting with DFI, and you mentioned another figure of six. Are those six in addition to or part of the nine?

Mrs McFerran: Those six are part of the nine.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK. You had three and now you have an additional six, which makes nine.

Mrs McFerran: Yes, but that is one work stream, Chair. Those are regionally significant applications. The team deals with other work as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I get that. That is fine.

You mentioned the departmental target of 30 weeks for regionally significant applications. Is that right?

Mrs McFerran: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK. Is there a time frame for processing regionally significant applications? What was the average processing time in the past five years, or whatever metric you pick? If 30 weeks is the target, what is the average?

Mrs McFerran: You will be aware that the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) recently did a review, and there are statistics on that in its report. The average processing time since 2020 has ranged from 215 weeks to 362 weeks. However, that figure is skewed because of the complexity of the applications.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Did you say "weeks"?

Mrs McFerran: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Give me those figures again, Kathryn.

Mrs McFerran: Two hundred and fifteen weeks to 362 weeks.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Two hundred and fifteen weeks to 362 weeks. OK. Would it be fair to say that the figures that you just gave me are a little outside the Department's target?

Mrs McFerran: Yes. Again, Chair, there are a number of reasons for that. May I give an example of something that we had?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Go ahead.

Mrs McFerran: One application was with the PAC for two years and nine months. A lot of factors are outside our control — that is only one example — such as the length of time that it sometimes takes us to get consultation responses. In another case, we had to ask for further environmental information on four separate occasions, and the applicant chose to amend their scheme twice. Every time that that happens, we have to upload and review the information and go out to consultation again. There is a lot that we cannot control.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): We do not roast officials at this Committee; we scrutinise. I will not dwell on it. I understand that there is a range of reasons for the difference between the target of 30 weeks and the range of 215 to 362 weeks, some of which are procedural and not of your making. I get all that, but any reasonable person looking in would say, "That's a bit nuts".

Without dwelling on the numbers, I take two things from that, and I will ask you to comment on those. The first relates to the reasons for that difference — you cited one — and the second is the complexity of the system, which, in my view, is simply not for purpose. Our planning system is not even nearly fit for purpose. I will come back to that. It is about what you just described, Kathryn: the system is so archaic and so heavily driven by consultee responses and by reconsultation and so on. The basis for my fear and the reason why the Committee is doing this inquiry is our hearing weekly about potential investors in Northern Ireland, who had wanted to place businesses here, asking, "Why would we do that when we can go to the South or GB, where there is new planning legislation?". It is worth highlighting to the Department — I am sure that you guys are aware of this — that I fear, as, I am sure, do other members, that the system is creaking so badly that it discourages FDI and people in some of the sectors that you mentioned from locating businesses here. That means that we are not getting the jobs in construction and other sectors that would follow from that. Do you recognise that?

Mrs McFerran: There are a few things there to work through, if I may.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I know. Go ahead.

Mrs McFerran: First, you said that the system is archaic. I disagree with that: the system constantly changes in order to react to and take into account new legislation. Examples include the environmental impact assessment regulations and councils' local development plans (LDPs). Each time anything new happens, the system has to take account of it.

It is not archaic in the sense that it is out of date; it is quite the opposite. It is trying to keep so up to date with everything that is going on that it has to take all of that into account.

The Minister has said that she wants to look at planning legislation and scoping. That is in hand. Officials are looking at scoping. As we have said a few times when we have been with the Committee, we, as professionals, want to work with everybody, but that is to our disadvantage. Since taking over this role, I know that we should have refused applications, or taken them through to refusal stage, far faster than we did. Over the years, we could have got a decision notice on some of the applications out the door, but it would have been a refusal. There has to be an honest conversation early on, particularly at the pre-application discussion (PAD) stage, before the applications come into the system. If you submit an application without going through a pre-application discussion with professional planners, you might not have the right site or it might not work with consultees. Over the years, we may have worked too hard with applicants to get something through the system.

The system is keeping up to date with all the information. We can receive 3,500 pages of appendices and supporting information, 200 drawings and a 600-page environmental statement. However, that is necessary because of the litigious planning environment. When we put that information on the portal, it is heavily scrutinised by consultees, who are experts in their field, so it has to recognise their legislation, as well as by third parties.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I do not dispute that. It is worth restating that my target is not necessarily the Department or, for that matter, the Minister; it is simply the process. We have to look at the outcome of whatever process there is. You set it out rather well, Kathryn. I will choose my words carefully because I am sure that journalists are watching this. The process certainly does not encourage exactly what you, I and members of the Committee want to see, which is investment in Northern Ireland. Businesses do not have the certainty to say that they are going to, for example, open a plant in Belfast, Londonderry or Newry. I have to reflect what I hear when I have such conversations with people, which I have nearly every other week in my role as Committee Chair. The private sector just does not have confidence in the system in Northern Ireland.

I called the system "archaic". Maybe that was not the right word. You called me out on it. "Archaic" suggests that it is very old and not responsive. However, if regionally significant planning applications, which should be processed in 30 weeks, are, for whatever reason, being processed in 215 weeks to 362 weeks, I do not blame the private sector. If I were in the private sector, there would be no way, on the basis of those figures, that I would say to my shareholders, "Northern Ireland's a good place to invest. It's cracker. You can get something through in 30 weeks". That is not the real world. It is not necessarily because of the timescales themselves. My interest is in how we manage to get the process down to 30 weeks, and I am not sure how we do that.

I apologise to the Committee. Normally, I do not ask as many questions. Everyone will get in, and there is already a big list. This is really crucial stuff. You said that the Minister was scoping legislation. That sounds to me as though it is pretty early days. You can correct me on that if I am wrong. What would be the timescale for legislation coming before the Committee to, for example, bring us into line with either the rest of the UK or the Republic of Ireland?

Mrs McFerran: I will start, Chair, and then pass to Rosemary, who is with the legislation team.

There is no perfect system. You referred to the South and to England. Rosemary and I sit on the British-Irish Council (BIC) and meet head planners all the time. There is no perfect system.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I agree.

Mrs McFerran: However, you are absolutely right: I am accountable to the Committee and to my Minister. We need to move the applications through faster, although I have said that there are extenuating circumstances for why some of them have sat for that number of weeks.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I accept that.

Mrs McFerran: On legislation, we are looking at what other jurisdictions have done. On the basis of what our English counterparts brought forward recently, we are trying to bring forward the singling out of economic development in applications. We are looking at what is happening in the South as well. That is all part of the wider scoping by officials in order to give advice to the Minister. Rosemary, I will pass to you.

Mrs Rosemary Daly (Department for Infrastructure): It is very important that legislative reform and improvement be embedded in the planning improvement programme. We are looking at where we can bring in efficiencies at this time. We are invested in a planning Bill. We recognise that we need to streamline areas such as local development plans in order to give more certainty to developers at the outset. We know that we need to introduce primary legislation. Given that, as Kathryn said, we have recently recruited and hope to bring in the resources to do that. We may need more resources, so, if the Infrastructure Committee can help in any way with that, please do.

I will go back to a few points that were raised, Chair. Everybody has a role to play. Kathryn set out the timescales. When an application comes in, it is as though the system constantly has to try to catch up. An application may come in, but the proposal in the application that comes out can be very different, and the system is always trying to catch up. One target was met, and that was because a lot of outside work was done with the Department to meet that target. That is how it should work. All the issues should be sorted before an application goes into the system, and, if those issues cannot be sorted, there are questions to be asked. We have a facilitating system that is almost like an MOT: when we put anything in, we know that it will go through the process, that it may have to be amended and that further environmental information and more consultations will be needed. That is confusing. We have to represent not just developers but the public interest, so it is very important that we carry out due process; otherwise, we will get challenges through judicial reviews. That is why we are cautious. We have to take our time to do the thing right. Even for a developer, if a decision is challenged after they get permission, they are back to square one. We get all of that.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): There is a JR, and the decision can be overturned. I understand.

Mrs Daly: On your question about the review of planning legislation, we are starting to line that up. We know and recognise that there are areas that we need to fix, and we want to do that. What we are afraid of is a fundamental reform of what we have, because, believe it or not, some things in the system are working quite well. Having local accountability is really good. The fact that councils make local development plans is very important. Political interest is very important, and our system was not used to that. It is a very focused review of things that need to be fixed and things that can be streamlined. We are keen that it not be about hearsay. I have seen some of your comments about that. It is a serious thing, and we are very committed to it. As Kathryn said, we work with other jurisdictions. We like some of the models that we have seen, but we have to use a model that is suitable for Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, these things take time.

On legislation, we are about to issue another consultation on the development management regulations. As you will be aware, that is the second stage of the development regulations, which looks at the thresholds. What has been indicated to us since the first consultation is that more of those applications should be major applications.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Rather than regionally significant applications.

Mrs Daly: Yes, so the thresholds will possibly come up. For example, some of the renewable energy projects that are sitting with the Department will probably not end up as "regionally significant". As you are aware, major applications are performing better in the system, so they should fall into that category. That is what we hope. A final, focused consultation should, hopefully, happen within the next few months. The legislation has been drafted. Rather than getting that wrong and getting criticised for it, we are doing a consultation, with a view to introducing the legislation as soon as possible.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): You used the phrase "as soon as possible", which always makes my ears prick up. What is the timescale or guesstimate on that? I agree with you. That could be looked at, given that applications at a council level are performing better. We want to try to rip out of regionally significant category as many of those as we can and place them in that major category. What is the timescale for that?

Mrs Daly: That is not within my control. It is on the Minister's say-so. You will have the opportunity to look at it as well. However, we would like to introduce that in late autumn, if possible, or even put forward a recommendation at that stage, following a very quick eight-week consultation over the summer.

We have already undertaken a consultation. We carried out really beneficial workshops with a lot of stakeholders last October. We have relooked at the thresholds and the schedule in the thresholds to set those out, and those are now finalised. As some things come through in the consultation, it is about getting it right, making it fit for purpose and giving people the proper opportunity to comment on it.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I accept that. As I said, process is important, but my view is that if we are getting those sort of figures, something is wrong in the system, not necessarily in DFI or in your areas of work, but something is wrong. My concern is the impact of that on Northern Ireland's viability, competitiveness and its ability to deliver infrastructure in a timely and effective way. I will shut up soon because there is a very long list of members who want in.

I have one more question at this point. There are nine applications currently in the system. Kathryn, in your opening statement, you referenced something; I tried to scribble it down but did not quite get it. The officials in the Department make a recommendation and send that to the Minister for sign-off. What is the average time between officials making that recommendation to the Minister and the Minister clearing it so that it can be sent out? If you do not have that information, you can get back to me with it.

Mrs McFerran: I do not have that, Chair. It will be done on a case-by-case basis. With some of the applications, the Minister will require more time, and there will then be meetings with officials to inform her.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Would you be willing to provide —? Do you know what I am asking?

Mrs McFerran: I know what you are asking, Chair. I will speak to the Minister's private office.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK. That is great. That is fine. The Clerk is writing that down.

Mr Stewart: Thanks, folks, for coming along today. It is always really useful. We had a session with you with at our joint meeting with the Agriculture Committee recently, which was really good. It would be remiss of me not to continue to place on record — this is not a take on you; it is about the process — that there are undoubtedly businesses and investors who basically look at Northern Ireland as being a no-go zone for investing. That is sad. They look at the process and think that it is so overwhelmingly burdensome and costly that they can get more bang for their buck elsewhere. I have people tell me that, and the Chair mentioned it as well. We hear that regularly, as I am sure you do. Some have the tenacity and bravery to stay in the system, but we see that, in 2022-23, regionally significant applications took, on average 362 weeks, which is more than 10 times the statutory period of 30 weeks.

This is my first question. At some stage, somebody somewhere thought that 30 weeks was achievable, and it then hit 10 times that. I know, Kathryn, that you said that there is no perfect system, but if you had a clean slate and were designing an almost perfect system tomorrow, what would it take to get back to 30 weeks or anywhere close to it? What would a system that delivers almost for everybody — for objector, applicant and Northern Ireland plc — look like when you take all the things that are successful elsewhere?

Mrs McFerran: There are a few things.

Mr Stewart: Crack on. You have the floor.

Mrs McFerran: I will start at the beginning and work my way round. You used the word "bravery". I would not say that people are brave for investing in Northern Ireland.

Mr Stewart: They need tenacity, though.

Mrs McFerran: We welcome all investment to Northern Ireland, no matter what it may be. When regionally significant applications come to the planning offices in the councils — I can only speak for the team — they are processed by a high-performing professional team in the sense that they are professional planners. As I said to the Chair, there are certain things that they cannot control, but they are getting a service through professional planners — I am looking at Nicole — who are excellent at what they do.

The other thing to say is this: speak to Rosemary and me. I say to those people who do not want to invest: please come and speak to me as the director. I have had —.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Leave us your number at the end, Kathryn, and we will take you up on that, if that is OK.

Mrs McFerran: Absolutely. I will leave my mobile number and email address.

Rosemary has been in her position for years, and I have been in mine for a year. We have an open-door policy, and we are constantly meeting investors. We want to work with them, particularly at the PAD stage, because, if necessary, we want to be able to say to them, "This will not work for you or your company. If you do certain things or front-load the system, this is how we could work with you on this". The other thing is that we have had two new regionally significant applications in the last wee while, so people are investing. It is really encouraging that they want to work with us.

On the question about 30 weeks, I will be honest with you: I do not know where that figure came from. We have wondered.

Mr Stewart: Was it pulled out of the sky?

Mrs McFerran: I do not know where the figure came from. It might have come from looking at other applications, thinking that they were more complex and putting in that figure. It is something that we will look at; it will require plotting from the point of validation through the different stages, while bearing in mind the time that it takes for a consultation and to gather further environmental information. I cannot give you a figure for that, but we will work with Rosemary's side when we are scoping that. At the end of the process, our Minister made a successful bid for £3 million from the transformation fund. Therefore, at the back end of the process, we have an additional resource so that there will not be a wait for timetabling for the public local inquiries and hearings.

Mrs Daly: There is a balance to be struck between timing lists and getting a decision. Whilst there are delays, nine times out of 10, people get the decision that they want. We are trying to fix the applications in the system. We take a lot of flak from the public and from you guys, and some of it is warranted. We do not disregard that, but we are keen to be as efficient as we can be. You could have a system in which the application is submitted and just refused. If that is the system that you want to move to, we could look at that.

Obviously, developers want certainty, but they do not want the cost of preparing an application or the time and work that the consultation involves. Developers try to invest where they think things are possible. Sometimes the decision is not right; some of the applications that are submitted would never be runners, which is why they take so long to fix in the system. In such cases, the scheme will be amended to try to overcome the issues that have been identified. It is about getting the balance between refusing an application and working with the developers.

In the South, it takes eight weeks, and the answer is either yes or no, and that is it. As Kathryn said, there is no perfect system; each has benefits and aspects that are not as effective. It is about striking a balance. The planning improvement looks at performance and how it should be measured. Is it about timeliness? Is it about outcomes? We are keen to work with the councils and the Department on that. Can we show better, tangible benefits of the planning system? Is it the delivery of housing applications or renewable energy projects? We are very focused on the timescales, and we are keen to be more reflective of what we can do to support investors in the region.

Mr Stewart: Do you want to come in, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Yes. Investors want certainty, and that is a problem. John made the point very well in his question: investors want a system that gives them a decision. I completely hear what you are saying, Rosemary: you try to get the application to the point at which it will be accepted. However, the timescales that we are talking about mean that investors, and those involved in making the FDI that we want in Northern Ireland, are shaking their heads and saying, "We cannot go through that". That is where the investors are at. To be clear, it is not necessarily about the FDI; the system that you work is the problem. Kathryn, how many pages of evidence on the environmental assessment did you have?

Mrs McFerran: The annexes alone were 3,500 pages.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is crazy. I accept the core concept of public consultation: people have to be made aware of planning applications and have the opportunity to support or reject them. However, we are looking for a reason why some applications take 362 weeks to process. My concern is that the system is not fit for purpose. Sorry, John.

Mr Stewart: First, any flak that you get does not come from me; it is never personal. I think that you do a great job in a failed system. I genuinely believe that the system is not fit for purpose. You are hamstrung by the system, as are the applicants, the objectors and everybody else. I spoke to a chief executive of an international company that has invested in every country in Europe, who said that, without doubt, Northern Ireland is the second most frustrating system they deal with. Rosemary is like a coiled spring waiting to come back on that. [Laughter.]

Mrs Daly: That is why we are looking at the legislative framework very seriously. It is not just about scope: we know that we need to improve the system to encourage investors. We want to facilitate applicants — that is a very helpful aspect of our system — but doing so comes at the expense of a lot of criticism about delay. We have talked to councils and even to others in the Department. We engage regularly with developers, and we try to give them as much certainty as we can.

Unfortunately, we cannot control the amount of information that someone submits. That is entirely a matter for them. You cannot say to someone, "Do not put that report in", and then refuse them permission because they did not get a chance to explain their proposal. You are absolutely right: the system has become cumbersome and complicated. We also have to think about the public, who need to understand why a decision is made, particularly where a decision is made on some technical information. I absolutely agree with what you are saying. The system needs to be streamlined and simplified and be much easier to use.

One of the pieces of legislation that we brought in last year was to do with web-based pre-consultation to help interested parties see what the proposal is about. They are more informed before the application goes in and can comment beforehand. The validation checklist is another measure. I know that everyone rolls their eyes at that, but it is starting to work. People know what they need to submit if they are putting in an application — they do not need anything more than what we have put in the checklist, so that should help.

We work with the private sector because it is in their interest to get things fast-tracked through the system. We are not looking at things on the horizon. We are very much invested in looking at reform, including of our policies on the regional development strategy (RDS) and all of that. It is not just about the legislation; it is wider than that.

Mr Stewart: That is really useful. For the record, I want to think that Northern Ireland is open for business. I try to encourage as many to come here as possible. However, as you probably know, I am just communicating the frustration of people who think that it is easier to go elsewhere. I will refer them on to you and the team, Kathryn, so that they can speak to you.

Mrs McFerran: Please do. I am happy to speak to anybody.

Mrs Daly: Just to reassure you, we have already had many conversations —.

Mr Stewart: I have no doubt that you have. My comments on that are never personal — I am just anti-process.

Turning to the private sector, you will know that the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) produced a very good submission. One of its improvement asks is about implementing streamlined and consistent processes to address the issues of inconsistent performance across council areas. It is not necessarily the Department's remit to get involved in that, but you accept that there are inconsistencies in that regard. There are frustrations that there is almost a postcode lottery.

It is also evident that some LDPs have moved on while others have not. We are 10 years on from the review of public administration (RPA). Do you share that frustration and do you think, as I do, that it would be useful to have that consistency so that people can have faith in the processes Northern Ireland-wide?

Mrs McFerran: You cannot have a one-size-fits-all solution. We have 11 autonomous councils; some are rural and some are urban. Some councils have unique issues in their areas. They apply the policy according to the material considerations of the case before them. When it comes to the consistency of the work, the planning improvement programme stemmed from the NIAO and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reports in 2022. We have done a huge amount of work since then and are now in phase 2. Working with councils, we are doing everything that we can, within our remit, to make the system more consistent. However, you have to bear in mind that those decisions are taken at council level.

We are 10 years into the LDPs. We have published six strategies, and we are working very closely with councils on the rest of the strategies. Hopefully, two more will be published this year. Councils are at different stages because, 10 years ago, at the point of transfer, some of them adopted a plan that was very new, so there was no urgency there. Again, on a case-by-case basis, some councils have unique issues, which take up more time and research. However, as Rosemary mentioned, one of the planning improvement work streams looks at the two-stage process of an LDP to see where we can improve that.

Mr Stewart: I totally accept that there are 11 autonomous systems. However, that is not the point that they were making. You can be autonomous while also being consistent and a good performer. I do not know whether all councils are given the same level of investment and focus. The Department had said originally that, ideally, 2019 was the deadline for the LDPs. We are now in 2026, and we are only just over halfway there. Some are not really much further on. That does not strike me as consistent. It does not strike me that councils are fully focused on doing that. That may be their point, but consistency is key. You can have different approaches to things but be consistent in how you prioritise planning and invest in the services that are delivered.

Mrs Daly: John, I want to reassure you to some extent. Planning improvement is a joint programme. We have made really good efforts. You will be aware of us talking about the second phase, which is all about embedding good, collaborative working. That is happening. It has taken some time, recognising that the Department cannot go on with improvements without having the councils represented to make sure that the improvements are effective and cut across all councils.

You are absolutely right that we have to respect individual councils, but we have one planning system, and we need to make it work. That is the approach that we are taking. With any improvements that we make, the more consistent they are, the more effective they will be. We even have a work stream with our elected members to make sure that they are brought into the process and understand the efficiencies that we are trying to make, not individually and not to take away any local autonomy but to help them do their work as well.

We are looking at all areas. We have the statutory consultees and a number of work streams. We can share that with the Committee so that you can see the different work streams that we are working collectively on and see that the councils are key partners on those work streams, if that would be helpful.

Mrs McFerran: In addition to the planning improvement programme, which is absolutely a collaborative piece, and has been since its foundation in 2022, we meet the heads of planning through the strategic planning group. We have just looked at its terms of reference again to make it more strategic so that issues and concerns that affect all the councils are brought to bear on it. As part of that, we have brought forward bespoke training on certain things: renewables training is ongoing, and we have just had a really successful second AI workshop. We are looking at a particular topic space to support everyone.

Mr Stewart: That is useful. Again, it is not a criticism of councils; it is perhaps more a criticism of inconsistency. A decade-plus on from RPA, it might be worth doing a 10-year review to see how councils have adapted to their new powers. Some seem to be doing it well, while others may not be as consistent, in my opinion. That may be because every pound is a prisoner at council level. When it comes to striking the rate, is it a priority to make sure that planning is given the resource that it needs, so that the right number of planners are in place and the right amount of investment is made in members who sit on planning committees so that they understand the applications? It may well be. I do not know. We could probably have a conference on that alone.

I have one more point to make, if I may, Chair, which is on the statutory consultee responses. You told us that they are part of the reason for the delays, and we understand that: there is a lack of resources, and applications are complicated. Is there merit in enforcing the time limits on the statutory consultees and saying, "If the response is not in by a certain date, it will not go in"? To say, "Knock yourselves out, guys. You have three years to get that back to us" — I am not saying that you say that, but, by not enforcing the time limit, you are, in effect, creating the opportunity for that to happen. I know that there are complexities, but if you could say, "We will enforce it", would that add more focus?

Mrs McFerran: Thankfully, we have never had to wait three years for a response. It has never been that extreme.

Mr Stewart: What is the longest that you have had to wait?

Mrs McFerran: Probably under a year. Maybe about nine months.

Ms Nicole Thompson (Department for Infrastructure): About a year.

Mrs McFerran: Again, it is about recognising that each of those departments has massive resourcing and staffing issues. A lot of the applications with environmental statements are incredibly complex, so they go to specialists, of whom there may be only one or two and, if they move on to somewhere else in the Civil Service, it is very hard to recruit replacements.

I have forgotten your question; apologies.

Mr Stewart: It was more about enforcement. Obviously, there are statutory time frames. Is there any merit in enforcing them so that people know that something will come back by that stage? Would it focus minds in a department to think, "We have got to get that in within the next week, otherwise it will not happen"?

Mrs McFerran: Planning is not just about economic development; it is about sustainable development, which means that it is also about the impact on the environment and on society. There is nothing to stop a decision being made without a consultee's coming back. We can do that, but it will end up in court. We require the expert, particularly for something that is specialist or unique, such as a unique technology. As I said, we have an application to do with energy from waste and we have one for a quarry and one involving solar. The rest are for wind farms. They are very technical. Those applications get so much scrutiny by interested parties, and rightly so, because they will have a real impact on their area. It is right and proper that we wait for the consultees to come back.

Mr Stewart: That sounds like a no, which is fine. Is it fair to say that more investment in those individuals who respond would give a better opportunity to get consultees to come back more quickly?

Mrs Daly: There are many steps to be taken before you would get down to statutorily enforcing something, because, even when you do that, it can go against you when you actually need that information to make the right decision. You are aware from the last meeting that there are areas around the planning approval programme with certain consultees. You know about the statutory consultee forum. On the whole, it is working well. There is an appetite to do things better.

We will run a workshop with planners and statutory consultees in the autumn on when to consult and even, first of all, when you do not need to consult, to try to alleviate and take the pressure off statutory consultees. There are lots of steps that we can take. We are very open-minded about that. If we feel, when looking at the legislation, that there needs to be more rigour regarding the statutory consultees and their responses, we will consider including that.

Mr Stewart: As a Committee, we are more than happy to play a role in doing whatever it takes, whether that is more investment or finding the right people. The question was just about whether that was an option, and it is probably not. We will look to options for assisting with that. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, folks, for your presentation. I echo some of the comments about confidence in, and frustration with, the planning system. As MLAs, we hear about those issues regularly. In February 2026, the Institute of Directors (IoD) produced a report and action plan with important recommendations. I want to touch upon some of them. Eighty-nine per cent of respondents said that their business had been impacted by planning delays and/or by a lack of delivery of infrastructure in Northern Ireland. I suppose that that reaffirms the comments that have been made so far.

The institute made a number of proposals, and I am keen to hear your thoughts on them. Some have already been touched upon. We are looking at the judicial review issue, which touched upon shortening the time limit. We looked at that in our review session several months ago. It proposed amending the time limit from three months to six weeks for infrastructure or planning-related issues to try, I suppose, to streamline the judicial process and, ultimately, the delays. Has the Department any thoughts on that? Could that come forward in any future planning Bill?

Mrs McFerran: First, we are aware of the IoD report. We have received a number of reports on how to improve the system. The judicial review process can create uncertainty in the system, particularly when you get right to the end and your application is approved, and then they come in for a discharge condition, a judicial review happens and the application is stalled again. Three months is not a huge period for somebody to wait. I am not sure how much evidence there is that somebody would not take forward a judicial review if the period were reduced to six weeks. If somebody is passionate enough to take forward a judicial review — they are costly and can be lengthy — they will probably still do it within six weeks. However, we can talk to our colleagues in DOJ about it.

Mrs Daly: Shortening the period could mean even more judicial reviews, because people do not get the time to reflect. There is a balance to be struck. In fact, the last legislation changed the right to appeal from six months to four months. Changing the timescales could encourage people to raise more challenges because they have only a short window in which to do so. You have to look at the balance. However, looking at that process would be very helpful.

Mr Dunne: Yes. Nine out of 10 respondents to the IoD survey thought that there should be some change to the legislation. It is something to keep on the agenda.

It is fair to say that there is some confusion about the Planning Appeals Commission's accountability and its sponsoring Departments. Justice has a role as does, I suppose, Infrastructure. I am keen to hear from you, as senior officials, about the role of your Department in the Planning Appeals Commission. What role, if any, do you have in the commission?

Mrs McFerran: As you say, its sponsor body is the Department of Justice. The commission is used as a vehicle for independent examination by the Department through local development plans or through hearings or local public inquiries at the end of the process. We are aware of the Northern Ireland Audit Office's recent publication.

I have read the report, as have many of my colleagues. It is not appropriate for me to comment on it, because it is for DOJ to go through that process, if it goes to the Public Accounts Committee, and it is for the Minister of Finance then to comment on any recommendations. We have to go through that due process. Rosemary and I have engaged with the PAC and set up quarterly meetings. We welcome engagement with everybody, not just the PAC but all interested parties in the planning system, because the whole system has to work together properly.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate the importance of the independence, but given how central it is to planning and infrastructure, is Justice the right place for it to sit?

Mrs McFerran: Again, I come back to the independence of the report and its process through the Public Accounts Committee, if it goes to it. One of the recommendations is a review, which is being taken forward by DOJ. We await that, and we will absolutely give our input as and when it is required.

Mr Dunne: Yeah, OK. Thank you.

I will pick up on a point that John mentioned about the statutory consultees. This is raised regularly as an issue across all Departments, and we regularly hear frustration about that from both business and domestic —. Will you touch on the time limit thing again? The 28 days, use-it-or-lose-it approach has been suggested by a number of bodies recently. What are your thoughts on that?

Mrs McFerran: I reiterate what I said to your colleague beside you. We do not have to wait for the consultation to come back, but, in many cases, it is very important that we do, because we rely on the valued and professional input of those consultees in order to make a sustainable decision and to have sustainable planning.

Mr Dunne: Again, there is huge frustration out there. Improving consultee response times should not be insurmountable.

Mrs McFerran: It is certainly something that we have looked at in the regionally significant development team. We have high levels of consultations. Some of our applications could have 36 consultees and there could then be a reconsultation. We only ever consult them if it is absolutely necessary to do so. We are very careful that we do not overconsult or consult just for the sake of getting their opinion.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate that.

Mrs McFerran: We will read the environmental statement and the annexes, and only then will we consult them.

Mr Dunne: My final point has been touched on. It relates to the fact that there are 11 different councils and 11 different approaches and systems, as this Committee has said for years. Applicants point to the variation. A good point was made that there need to be regional differences to reflect the geography of areas and so on. I am keen to establish the level of engagement that you, as senior DFI officials, have with the 11 councils about keeping uniformity and so on.

Mrs McFerran: I can reassure you that there is lots of engagement. I referred to the strategic planning group. We meet the heads of planning, and we bring interested parties to that as and when. The planning improvement programme has been going on since 2022, and it is multilayered. It is right at the top with Rosemary, but it also has layers to do with the local development plan and development management or policy. We have subgroups within that at official level, and Rosemary and I have multiple meetings with them on an ad hoc basis. Again, when it comes to the local development plan, we meet the relevant councils if they have queries about the system. There is a lot of engagement.

Mr Dunne: When it comes to the performance and processing times across the 11 councils, how closely do you look at that?

Mrs Daly: There is a key workstream in the planning improvement programme which is about development management. Fundamentally, it looks at the different areas that can be improved. There is a very close, established working relationship with the councils. The heads of planning have identified two or three members to sit on that. We look at ways to implement and make improvements. I can provide you with that list, and you will see the other areas.

There is a workstream to do with the local development plans as well. The workshops that we deliver are done in partnership with councils. For all the other aspects — for example, the consultations and the development management regulations — the workshops involved bringing all the councils in. The training on renewables is done in partnership with the councils. Things have really got to a better place in that regard. There is an appetite for those involved with the planning system to work together, instead of as individual bodies.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Just picking up one point that Stephen made about judicial reviews and the option to reduce timescales, the other option would be to limit the number of judicial reviews that could be taken on any given application. Would the Department be supportive of that?

Mrs Daly: Yes, 100%. We do not want any JRs. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I appreciate that. You were talking about legislation. I do not know, Rosemary, whether you have the vires for this or not, but would the Department support bringing forward planning reform legislation that actually changes the law to permit only one judicial review of any given application?

Mrs Daly: I think that that is something that the UK is looking at, and we are keeping a close eye on the situation just to see how they can implement that. They are looking at it in the South as well, so it will be timely and interesting to look at that. We dread the uncertainty that comes with JRs. They are not helpful in any arm. They also affect councils at a local level, not just the Department. It is a fundamental part of the reason why some cases are delayed, and maybe there are different ways of avoiding them that we could look at. The best way that we can avoid them at the moment is to do due process properly. You cannot judicially review a decision because you do not like it. It is about something —.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): It is about the process.

Mrs Daly: Yes, so that is why —.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Although our process is quite long.

Mrs Daly: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Let me be clear in terms of vires for this. You seem to be reasonably supportive of that indication from me about the law being changed to limit the number of JRs that could be taken on any given application to one. Does DFI have the vires for that, in terms of planning reform and primary legislation, or would DOJ hold them? Do you want to think about that?

Mrs Daly: It is about justice, so it is with DOJ, really. You cannot limit participation in anything that you feel has not been done properly.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Do you feel that you would not have the vires to take that forward in primary legislation, even though the way in which the legislation was drafted would apply to only planning? Do you think that that is maybe for DOJ?

Mrs McFerran: We would need to look at that, Chair, and seek some advice.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK, I am happy for you have a look at that and maybe get back to us.

Mrs McFerran: It comes back to the fact that people do not take a judicial review lightly —

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I understand that.

Mrs McFerran: — and we —.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): It is the number. These things can be judicially reviewed and judicially reviewed. Others members have decided what some of the issues are, but that is one of them.

Mrs Daly: Different people can take a JR. It is not that there is just one JR: you could take one and someone could take one, so how can you limit it to the first one?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): You change the law. You change the primary legislation so that it then states that, on any given planning application, there can be only one judicial review. That will mean that if Kathryn takes one, I cannot. You do that through primary legislation. I am more than happy for you guys to get back to me on that, but I am just not sure whether you feel that you have the vires, Rosemary, if you are bringing through some sort of planning reform.

Mrs Daly: I do not think that we would have the vires to interfere in justice. There are lots of issues in the background as to why legislation is like that. At this stage, whilst I would welcome such legislation, as, I am sure, would Kathryn and probably most of the councils, I do not think that we can bring it in. We cannot put —.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): All I am looking for is clarity from you on whether you feel that you have the vires to do it or if DOJ would need to bring that forward.

Mrs McFerran: We will come back to you on that in writing, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is fine, Kathryn, and thank you.

Mr Harvey: Thank you Kathryn, Nicole and Rosemary. It is good to see you again. I think that you touched on a wee point, Rosemary, that there is always a way. You said that when applications are looked at, you do not issue a direct "no". Would you say that some applicants are poorly advised, which leads to poor applications, and that that really slows up the process?

Mrs McFerran: Regionally significant applications are the most complex and the largest, and they are very costly with regard to fees for applicants. Anyone who is putting in an application will be very confident that they are making the right decision, because you would not put an application in without doing your homework. That said, there should be much more front-loading of the system through the pre-application discussions. The one application that met the 30 weeks had been through nine months of pre-application discussions with officials, so we were able to advise through the process on policies and on what the application would look like. It is important that people pick up the phone and speak to us as early as possible, even before they put an application in, if they are minded to do so.

Mr Harvey: I agree 100%. The most important thing is front-loading and having those conversations beforehand. That way, things can be ironed out before the application goes in. Another question that I had was about the guide that people are looking at, but it is a good thing if that can take place.

I feel that you ladies could fix this, if you were given a free hand. Do you ever feel that your hands are tied somewhat?

Ms Thompson: Working in the team, we share a lot of those frustrations about delays, particularly with consultation responses. It would be very difficult to fix it, as we are working within the current system. I can give you the assurance that, in the casework team, we engage with consultees, keeping up to date with them regularly and engaging with them on a personal level to try to get responses quicker. We have those relationships with our key consultees, but there are problems in those organisations that are beyond our control.

Mr Harvey: But you feel that you are being listened to?

Mrs McFerran: Yes. Something that we welcome and are excited about is the fact that we are bringing more resources into the team. Nicole is a principal planning officer, and we are bringing in two further substantive principal planning officers. At the minute, we have people acting up into those positions and doing a great job, but we are running boards to fill those roles substantively. We have finished the principal planning officer boards. The higher planning officer boards are ongoing, and then there will be senior officer planning boards. It is absolutely phenomenal and brilliant that, after 10 years, we are able to resource our teams with people in substantive grades.

Mr Harvey: Would you like to add anything, Rosemary?

Mrs Daly: I think that there is a willingness from everyone to make the system work. As I said, there has been such a change in 10 years. We talked about bedding in, and we are now starting to understand what we can fix, so we are getting to that point.

For every unfortunate negative, there is an opportunity to fix things. Again, that has to be done collaboratively. We cannot go off on a tangent and think, "Well, this is what will sort it out". At the end of the day, front-loading is working well with the major applications. That process has to be carried through, as much as possible, to all other types of applications. Front-loading also takes resourcing from the consultees, as well as planning officers' time. No one gets the recognition. There are some things that are quite good. You have to remember that we are trying to enable people to participate in the planning system. We have worked very hard. There are really good processes that happen in planning now that would never have happened when I started out in planning, and those are to be commended. There is, however, an opportunity to try to make things better, and we are very much up for the challenge.

Mr Harvey: I understand. Front-loading seems to be the way to go. As you said, that approach could be transferred to all applications, but there is an awful lot of batting to and fro, which is what takes the time and resource. It would help if people could be better advised on their applications. Thank you very much, ladies.

Mr McHugh: Tá fáilte romhaibh uilig. Is deas bualadh libh anseo inniu.

There is an old adage that, in a sense, all politics is local, so l am doing to refer to issues in Derry City and Strabane District Council area, where I live. The council has experienced significant and ongoing delays and a lack of information on the progress of applications referred to DFI to consider under section 29. There are two projects, one of which has been with DFI for six years, having been called in by Nichola Mallon, who was the Minister at the time. The council is totally frustrated about the lack of information, which I am sure is not unique to the Derry City and Strabane District Council area. What are you doing, as a Department, to improve communication when a project has been called in to keep people informed and updated, particularly when there is a delay as long as six years?

Mrs McFerran: OK. I will take that one, and Rosemary can maybe talk about the call-in process in general. I think that you may be referring to a retail application that has been with the Department. I was up in Strabane and Derry last week, and I met councillors about the local development plan process. We have an open-door policy and are very happy to meet councillors to talk to them about any matters, including call-ins or local development plan matters. When that application was called in, a retail impact assessment by an independent expert needed to be done, and that took time. The application is in its final stages, and we are very hopeful about having a decision on that shortly. That has taken time, but, again, we very much have an open-door policy, and, if councillors or planners in the council contact us, we update them. There has been a lot of correspondence on that, and there have been a number of questions for written answer; we have been very open about it.

Ms Thompson: There certainly has been a lot of correspondence and requests for updates, and we always respond in writing. A lot of representations come in on the planning portal as well. We respond to requests for information and updates, and we publish information through the portal so that people can follow an application through the planning process.

Mr McHugh: Nichola Mallon also called in the application that related to Strabane Athletic Football Club. Do you want to comment on that?

Mrs McFerran: That went to the Planning Appeals Commission, and we received a report on it before Christmas, which we are carefully considering that. As part of that, the Minister also has to have time and space to consider it. We are also in the final stages of that application.

Mr McHugh: Consideration of the applications and so on aside, the frustration that has been expressed is about the lack of communication. I know that the Minister has recently appointed an independent inspector in the planning system. Will that improve communication between planners and councils?

Mrs McFerran: That is an alternative to the PAC; it is an additional resource at the back end of things. When a decision has been made and it goes to a public local inquiry or an appeal, the independent inspectors will take that forward. You are right that resource of £3 million has been put into the system, but that comes into it after a decision has been made on an application.

Mr McHugh: You mentioned the staff resourcing issue. Is that having an impact on regionally significant applications?

Mrs McFerran: Neither of the applications that you referred to — the retail one and the one involving Strabane Athletic — was a regionally significant application, but you are right in saying that they were called in. There have been challenges on the team over the years. As I said, until Monday of this week, nobody in the team was substantively in their post; everybody was acting up, having been brought in. We are delighted to have been able to run three boards in the past three months, so we will be able to substantively fill those posts, which will make a massive difference to our resources.

Mr McMurray: We have gone over a lot of the issues, and I do not want to dwell too long, but some points were made about investors in Northern Ireland. Ironically enough — you touched on this — developers, investors or applicants sometimes just want a yes or a no. Mrs McFerran, you made a point about getting the decision notice out of the door quicker. There was also a reference to applicants changing or adding to their scheme and all the rest of it. Sometimes you get the impression that there is a bit of trying to fit round pegs in square holes going on. Can you expand on what you said about getting the notice out the door quicker? I do think that that would help, but how can that be done?

Mrs McFerran: I will speak first, and maybe Nicole will come in to talk about practical experience. Getting the decision out the door quicker might mean a refusal, as Rosemary said. Developers may want certainty, but we allow them to amend a scheme twice during the processing of an applicaiton and then submit four rounds of further environmental information. If we did not allow them to do that, that would mean a refusal. We have to look and see. At the end of the day, we get one fee at the start — in some cases, a substantial fee, but one fee nevertheless — but if an application takes considerable time because we let someone change the scheme or submit further environmental information, that uses my team's resources on the basis of that single fee. That said, as professionals, we want to work with people. If there is a way to get a scheme out the door as an approval, we will try to work with the applicants, but there has to be a balance. We cannot be criticised for taking too long if the end result is an approval but also get criticised if the end result is a refusal. There has to be a balance.

Mr McMurray: I appreciate that. Sorry, I did not mean to cut across you. Go ahead, Nicole.

Ms Thompson: My experience over the past 10 years has been with these massive applications and the massive amount of information that goes with them. You undertake one round of consultation, and by the time that is complete you are not far off the 30 weeks. You then have to decide whether to go straight to a refusal or follow the advice of the consultees and request further environmental information. If you do not do that, you are in a position of refusing the application, but some of the reasons for the refusal will relate to insufficient information rather than actual knowledge about the environmental impacts or whatever. In some cases, you are making a decision based on insufficient information. It is a decision that has to be made at that point. We communicate regularly with applicants and agents, and they often request and lobby for the opportunity to amend their scheme or put in further environmental information. Given the significance of the application, it is very hard to turn that opportunity down.

Mr McMurray: Thank you. There has been reference to JRs. From memory, the bar below that is the call-in process. Does that process need to be reviewed? Do the criteria for that need to be changed in any way? At the same time, you are trying to balance the ability to engage with the public with the politics of it all, if that makes sense. Yes, there is an issue with judicial reviews, but is there an issue with the call-in process as well? Could that process be strengthened, tightened or looked at? Does it even play a role in prolonging the process?

Mrs McFerran: I am looking for my statistics. The Minister has not called anything into the system over the past three years. The call-in is an important oversight mechanism. We get a lot of correspondence from third parties who want us to call in things, and we have to carefully consider that. A lot of people will want a certain decision to be made by the Department or the Minister.

Mr McMurray: That is interesting. A lot of the applications that are stuck in the system and have prolonged times are regionally significant renewables projects. You mentioned changing it from "regionally significant" to "major". You have referenced that already, but just expand on it a little bit. Are there more views on that?

Mrs McFerran: We have nine regionally significant applications. Six of those were with the Planning Appeals Commission and are now back with us to reprocess. The £3 million funding for the additional alternative to the PAC will be very helpful. The applications came back to us because the environmental information became out of date — again, these applications are very complex — or the applicant decided to amend their scheme.

Mrs Daly: Currently, the threshold is 30 MW, and anything above that comes to the Department as regionally significant. With the amendment of the proposed development management regulation thresholds, that could go up to 70 MW. We have not finalised that yet. It also reflects the fact that technology has advanced since the legislation was initially brought in, and turbines are now more efficient. We are trying to take that into account and project forward, so that we are not in this scenario again in five years' time. Most of the renewables applications come to the Department because of the threshold. Does an application for a wind farm in a local area need to go to the Department or be deemed regionally significant?

We are hopeful that the legislation will mean that, going forward, they will not be deemed as such and will sit with local councils, unless there are other reasons to call them in. There could be other regionally significant factors concerning a development.

Mr McMurray: It relates to renewables but also to telecommunications infrastructure. What role could permitted development play in streamlining some of these processes? How do we compare with other jurisdictions when it comes to permitted development in that regard?

Mrs Daly: Legislation on permitted development falls under my remit. We keep up to date with that. In fact, we are undertaking a review of telecommunications and what we can do to streamline it. Telecommunications sits mainly with councils. We rarely have anything to do with telecommunications, unless it is a massive mast that supplies a region. We keep up to date. We have just brought forward legislation for reverse vending machines. We reflect what is going on, and we are very much in line with England and Wales.

Mr McMurray: OK. Cheers.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Rosemary, I want to pick up on the uplift from 30 MW to 70 MW or whatever it was. I will not hold you to it, but, just to be clear, is the Department looking at that?

Mrs Daly: That is the next stage. We are in the consultation. That is the next stage of the review of the Planning (Development Management) Regulations. It is only a draft at the moment.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is OK.

Mrs Daly: That is just what came back from the initial consultation. It may change, subject to people's views. I am trying to give you a sense of that. It covers other aspects, not just renewables.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is very positive. Andrew took a really good line on that. In the Northern Ireland context, while we try to focus more on renewables, clean energy and all of that, we do not want to put barriers in the way of our being able to generate as much renewable power as we can. That has been an issue, and I thank Andrew for raising it. I am really glad that the Department has taken that on, and the Committee will keep an eye on it. It is in the consultation phase, Rosemary. Can you give us an idea of a generic timescale?

Mrs Daly: Subject to the Minister's agreement, we plan to issue another targeted consultation on the matter. It is so important to take an extra few weeks in the process in order to get it right, rather than putting something out that the industries or sectors are not happy with. Subject to the Minister's agreement, we plan to get that out before recess.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK. That will be, as you described it, a more targeted consultation.

Mrs Daly: Yes. We hope to issue, alongside the consultation, a draft containing what the schedules will look like. That will allow people to read across and see that it makes sense. It can then be understood in the context of regional, local and major applications.

Mrs McFerran: It builds on the work that the Minister brought forward with edition 2 of the strategic planning policy statement (SPPS) on low-carbon renewables. There are amendments to the SPSS as well, taking into consideration the importance of climate change.

Mrs Daly: In the area of permitted development rights, we have an ongoing work stream on air-source heat pumps to make things easier for domestic users. We are very alive to all that. We work very closely with the Department for the Economy on all of those regulations. We try to match what DFE brings in.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is super; thank you.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, ladies, for your evidence, which has been enlightening on many fronts. Have you read the FSB's letter to the Committee on planning and major developments?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I do not think that the officials will have had sight of that, Justin, to be fair.

Mrs Daly: No, we have not, Justin. Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): If there is something that you want to highlight, Justin, you can read it out.

Mr McNulty: I will read certain elements from said letter:

That is pretty damning. The letter continues:

the North. I could go on, guys, but it does not get any better. What is your view on the direction of travel that is needed to make improvements on that front? We are not hearing much evidence of it. This is not just about small businesses and entrepreneurship; projects of a significant size and scale, regional projects and infrastructure projects are all caught up in it. How do you respond to that?

Mrs McFerran: It comes back to the fact that we have not just started a journey to improve. The planning improvement programme was put in place in 2022, and that formalised improvement that had already taken place, whether it was a review of policy or a review of best practice. We are now at phase 2, and, as Rosemary said, we are working very closely with all stakeholders, including local government and the consultee forum, to improve the whole system. I do not have the letter in front of me, but I would be very happy to meet FSB, as Rosemary would be — we do that regularly — to listen to its concerns and see how we can assist. We can look at whether that is about a specific application that is with the Department — I do not think that it is — or if it is about a more general processing issue.

Mrs Daly: Justin, it would be really helpful if FSB could provide us with examples of where it finds the delays. That is very sweeping and general, but, equally, someone else with a different perspective could come out and say, "Well, actually, at a local level, I have had a brilliant experience". We have heard that as well. There are good examples of that in major development, in particular. If you are taking timeliness as a measure of performance, our majors are doing pretty well, and there are signs that they will get better. That is because of the good processes and efforts put in by local planning officers. We have to recognise that.

That is a very general statement. That view almost always comes from the economy and investment angle. We are very open to that, but you have to remember that projects are going into local areas and that local people need to have their say. The planning system is about protecting those interests. I appreciate that. What FSB is saying is no different to what the CBI or the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry is saying. All those reports say the same thing, but you have to step back and recognise that investors need to ensure that their applications are right in the first place so that we can consider them. They need to make sure that the applications are balanced. We have put public consultation processes in place, but some applications come into the system and those processes have not even been carried out properly. That is a delay, but it is not a delay in the Department or the planning system; it is because someone has not carried out the processes properly. We are available to advise on how those processes can be carried out properly. We can offer that assistance at any time, but sweeping statements like that —. I cannot disagree with the FSB, but it would be really helpful if FSB could give us particular examples, because we could then drill down into the issues and give a more reasoned and balanced response, Justin.

Mr McNulty: OK. Obviously, it is not me saying that; it is the FSB saying it. I just want to be clear about that. The importance of effective infrastructure cannot be overstated when it comes to the impact on the North's productivity, which is a major element of this as well.

You mentioned working with councils on the local development plans. What is the status of those? Has a timeline been agreed by the Department and local councils for delivery of LDPs? If LDPs are well out of date, that is another potential barrier to development. Councils are responsible, but, ultimately, the Department for Infrastructure is the overseeing Department on that front. Has the Department agreed a timeline for the completion of local development plans with each council? That is the Department's statutory duty.

Mrs McFerran: Six councils have published their planning strategies to date, and we expect another two to do so this year. As I said to your colleague, they are all at different stages because, at the point of transfer, some had very recently adopted area plans. There was no need for them to prioritise a review because the plans were relatively young when they went into the system 10 years ago. We have two roles: a statutory role, and a role in engaging with councils individually and collectively. LDPs are very much council-led programmes. The data and information that goes into those programmes depends on each council. If there is a retail element or an industrial element, councils will put different research into those LDPs. That takes time. Those are local plans for local areas, and councillors and local people want to have their say. We have indicative timetables with each council. The LDP team that works under me regularly meets councils. As I said, we were up in Derry last week, meeting our colleagues. We regularly meet them about issues and their timetabling.

Mr McNulty: Can a copy of that indicative timeline be sent to the Committee, please?

Mrs McFerran: Yes. We have set out each stage of the indicative timeline in response to questions for written answer, but we will certainly furnish the Committee with that information.

Mr McNulty: Thank you.

We all deal regularly with planning offices on multiple fronts about multiple applications, some of which are complex and some of which are simple; there is huge variety. Planners work hard, but they are under-resourced and they work in offices that are not fit for purpose and are not conducive to a collegial approach to planning applications. Planners need to bounce ideas off each other and ask questions of each other, but the offices are not built or set up for such. Planners often work in temporary accommodation. To what degree are planning officers working in inadequate and under-resourced environments? What is your take on that?

Mrs McFerran: I can speak only about the offices that we work in, which are beautiful. We are very thankful: we moved out of Clarence Court and are now in James House. I cannot speak about the 11 council properties; that is a matter for the local councils. I cannot speak about their accommodation, as that is not a matter for DFI or me, as director of planning.

Mr McNulty: I am not sure whether you will be able to answer this question either, then: to what degree are planners hamstrung by the reality of the barriers to development that are caused by the inadequate water and waste water treatment capacity and system?

Mrs McFerran: Again, that is an area of huge public interest. It is regularly brought up in the Assembly. We have Department for Infrastructure colleagues who work on that. All that I can say is that, when regionally significant applications come before us, we engage widely with our consultee in NI Water, but you will be aware that there are certain pockets of Northern Ireland that are more under pressure than others, so the developments that come forward are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Mr McNulty: I have one last question, Chair, if you will indulge me. The infrastructure commission was agreed in principle by the Executive many years ago. Where are we with the infrastructure commission when it comes to the development and progression of not just major infrastructure projects but regionally significant planning applications?

Mrs McFerran: Is that the infrastructure commission that was brought forward in a report by former Minister Nichola Mallon?

Mr McNulty: Yes.

Mrs McFerran: It is my understanding that the Executive Office assumed responsibility for that, post-COVID, and is looking at it. We have the independent inspectors' project for the public local inquiries, which, again, is at the end of the system, but responsibility for establishing the infrastructure commission is not with the Infrastructure Department or the Infrastructure Minister.

Mr McNulty: OK. I appreciate that.

Ms Ennis: I thank Kathryn, Rosemary and Nicole.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are clearly issues and pressures in the system, and that there are better ways of working, I really think that, throughout this conversation, we have to remind ourselves that we are talking largely about — [Interruption.]

Sorry. My dog has just spotted something outside the window. We are talking about regional —.

Mr Stewart: This will make 'Newsline' tonight.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): What is it?

Mr McMurray: I think that it is a sausage dog.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): A sausage dog? One of those small —?

Mr McMurray: It is like a dachshund thing.

Ms Ennis: Sorry, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is all right, Sinéad. What sort of dog do you have?

Ms Ennis: It is a miniature dachshund, and it is very sassy and reactive, so pardon me, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): "Nasty"?

Ms Ennis: It is very sassy.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Right. OK.

Ms Ennis: Pardon me. Thank you for allowing me to put the dog out.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are clearly issues, we have to remind ourselves that, in large part, we are talking about regionally significant applications. We are not talking about single dwellings in the countryside, loft conversions or run-of-the-mill applications. We are talking about regionally significant applications that will have a huge impact economically, structurally and environmentally on the communities in which those developments will be built. Rosemary, I think, made the point that we are looking at this purely through the lens of the developer. We have not given sufficient time and consideration to the fact that the communities in which such developments are being built need protections, and the environment needs protections too. People in those communities will be heartened to know that, when an application goes in, there are safeguards in the system.

You guys quoted the fact that, nine times out of 10, an application will be approved. I am convinced that developers, knowing that an application will be approved in the end, would rather wait and work through it properly, because, if the necessary safeguards and checks have been put in place, it will hopefully be beyond judicial review. I think that they would rather wait and have the approval in their hand than the decision being subject to a JR and rejected out of hand. If we asked developers, I think they would say that they would rather that way of working. Yes, I am sure that they would rather we did it quicker, but I personally think that it is much better to take a little bit longer and get the application right, ensuring the support of the community in which a development is being built, than to do it quicker and get it wrong.

My takeaway from this conversation is that applications are in the system for that length of time in order to ensure that decisions are legally sound; am I right in saying that? That is probably the number-one consideration. We know that the Minister has increased staff resource to look at regionally significant applications. That is a positive. We know that the Minister recently appointed experienced independent inspectors to look at the planning system. That is positive as well. You mentioned the planning improvement programme, too. Outside all those things that the Minister is already doing to try to improve the system, is the Department considering anything additional?

Mrs McFerran: Thank you. You are absolutely right: planning is multilayered, and, if any cog is slowed down, the whole system can slow down. We as professionals stand over our decisions. We as professionals want to make the right decisions and make sure that they are legally sound so that we advise our Minister in the right way. Decisions have to be balanced. You are absolutely right, Sinéad, to point to the interested parties and the people in the local area who will potentially object. Some applications receive thousands, if not tens of thousands, of submissions, and I assure you that they are all read. That takes officials a huge amount of time, but that is done because we really respect the opinions of people who write to us and flag up issues to the Minister. We then look to see whether consultees need to be informed about any matters. That shows the level of detail that we go into and the level of respect that we give to the consultations.

On the consultations with the local community, it is worth bearing in mind that the Minister brought in a pre-application community consultation process last year. There is now a 12-week mandatory period before an application can be put in. In that time, there has to be a website to maximise the amount of information that people can view and a face-to-face meeting. That front-loads the system, but it is about making sure that people are very informed about what is going on with developments in their local area.

Bar resourcing and looking at what we can do working with consultees, as Rosemary mentioned, we are taking a full-system approach through scoping for legislation and looking at our policies. There is a multi-pronged approach that started before the formalisation of the planning improvement programme and the NIAO and Public Accounts Committee reports. Bear in mind that we also have our day job to do in getting information out the door.

Mrs Daly: It is very important to remember, Sinéad, that, where there is a challenge to any regionally significant infrastructure application, it is the interested parties in the area that have brought that challenge, so they must be part of the process. People can give their opinion. You do not necessarily have to agree with that opinion, but, from my experience in planning, as long as they had the opportunity to express their concerns, they can live much easier with the outcomes. There is always a decision to be made. In planning, we have to make difficult decisions. Elected Members are in that position as well. There is always a fine balance to be struck. It is not tipping the balance to being too focused on society. It is more about getting the right balance between the three strands of sustainability — economy, environment and society — so that you meet everyone's needs. If one is tipped out of sync, problems start to arise. It is important to engage everyone in the process. There is a role for us all to play. We are certainly open to looking at streamlining where we can but not to cutting corners and excluding people from participating in the system.

Ms Ennis: Yes, that is right. In my constituency, there was a significant application for a huge wind farm that was proposed for the Mournes. That caused great concern and consternation, so there was engagement with the community. It is only right that all the mechanisms are there for the communities in the areas where there are such applications and proposals, and that we do not cut corners or skip issues. Planning policy is there for a reason. If people disregard that, we will not get very good or sustainable planning applications on the other side of it. There is a balance to be struck in all of this. A rush to reduce the times may not be the best way to get good planning applications at the end of it.

I will leave my comments there, Chair. Thanks very much to the witnesses.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Thanks very much, Sinéad. I hope that that dog is now behaving itself.

Picking up on a theme that Sinéad mentioned, it is fair to say that no one on the Committee is suggesting that things should be rushed. As Sinéad pointed out, we want to have proper procedures in place. I think it was Rosemary who mentioned the economic, environmental and social aspects of planning, all of which are important. As constituency MLAs, we represent constituents in planning applications weekly, talking to planners and looking at planning issues. That consultee aspect is important to us. The systems and procedures that we have at the moment do not lend themselves, certainly in regionally significant applications, to an expeditious blend of those three aspects.

I will not go over old points, as Committee members have all made them well. However, I will say that it is not a case of wanting to rush things through or ignore people who have genuine concerns. Sinéad gave the example of a wind farm, and, of course, people need to have their views heard on a proposal for a large wind farm to be placed near them or in the constituency where they live. It is about how we incorporate and gather those voices so that they are heard within a more expeditious planning system. That is the key. This is a note to developers: better pre-applications are always helpful. What I heard from you ladies today is that the better the applications that are fed into the system, the more helpful that is, because, then, you are not starting that back-and-forth process of improving them.

Thank you very much for coming in. Some of your compatriots have been in for quite a while, but you might now hold the record for being in the longest. You can go back to the Department for Infrastructure with that badge of honour. Your evidence was really good: it was honest, sound, and professional. I thank you for coming in and sharing it with us. I have learned a lot about where the Department is moving to on this, and that has been very helpful for me. Thanks very much for your time.

Mrs Daly: You are welcome. Thank you, and any time.

Mrs McFerran: We will follow up in writing on the few things that you asked about.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): We will clear that with the Committee Clerk. Thank you.