Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I welcome to the meeting the following officials from the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC): Andrea Kells, chief commissioner; and Pamela O'Donnell, deputy chief commissioner. Also joining us today are Dorinnia Carville, the Comptroller and Auditor General, and her colleagues from the Northern Ireland Audit Office; and Stuart Stevenson, the treasury officer of accounts in the Department of Finance. You are all very welcome.

Commissioner, I welcome you and your colleague to the Committee this afternoon. We appreciate your attendance. The Committee, as you will be aware, is holding this inquiry following the publication of the Northern Ireland Audit Office report on the Planning Appeals Commission. The report has raised a number of significant issues about delays and backlogs in the appeals process, as well as about governance and the impact that those issues have had on confidence in the commission. The Committee considers those matters to be of considerable importance to our public. Having an effective planning system is fundamental to Northern Ireland, and the planning appeals process has an important role to play in supporting housing, infrastructure, investment and economic development, and in enabling strategic development to progress. Where there are significant delays in determining planning appeals, the consequences can extend beyond the individual case: they can create uncertainty for applicants and communities; delay development and investment; and have wider implications for economic activity and the delivery of strategic projects.

The Committee is mindful that, when the report was published on 21 May 2026, the commission issued its own public statement in response, in which it made it clear that it did not agree with the report, expressing concern about its narrative, conclusions and recommendations. The commission also pointed out that the Northern Ireland Audit Office assessment related to a particular point in time and stated that that position had since changed, including that the backlogs and long delays referred to in the report no longer existed.

We, as a Committee, want to understand fully what the position was during the period examined by the Audit Office: what led to the delays and the accumulation of cases; and what governance and resourcing issues contributed to that situation. We also want to understand what has changed since that period, including what actions the commission has taken to address the issues that were identified, and whether the improvements described by the commission provide assurance that the underlying problems have, indeed, been addressed. In particular, where there are differences between the conclusions or assessments of the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the position of the commission, the Committee will want to explore those differences and the underpinning evidence.

This is not simply about looking backwards. It is about understanding what happened; what lessons have been learned and what has changed; and what assurance can be given about the future effectiveness, governance and accountability of the commission. Given the importance of planning to Northern Ireland's economy and the delivery of development, the Committee will want to ensure that the appeals system is capable of operating in a timely, effective and transparent manner, while maintaining the quality and independence of the commission's quasi-judicial decision-making.

Commissioner, I invite you and your colleague to make your opening remarks to the Committee. I ask that you keep those remarks as concise as possible, because members have a lot of questions. Following that, I will open it up to members to seek out some information about the issues that have arisen. Thank you again to you both for being here. I ask you to now address the Committee.

Ms Andrea Kells (Planning Appeals Commission): Thank you, Chair. I am here in response to the recent Audit Office report, which I was unable to sign off on due to concerns arising. The report did, however, recognise the important role that the commission plays in the planning system, and it has shone a spotlight on the challenges that we face. I acknowledge that performance was poor at a point in time, but there were reasons for that. In response, appropriate actions were taken, and performance has improved. The recommendations put forward in the Audit Office report are welcome, as I want to realise better planning outcomes for not just the commission but all involved in the planning system.

Members will be aware of the fundamental reform of the planning system that took place in 2015. When I took up post in early 2017, it was clear to me that the organisation was not equipped to address the challenges that that new system presented. The number of commissioners was below the number required to accommodate the new workstreams arising, which were planned at a point in time when the commission had 21 full-time equivalent commissioners and an additional number of panel commissioners to draw from. At point of transfer to the Department of Justice in 2016, there were only 15 commissioners in total in post, and there were vacancies in the senior management team. In addition, at that time, all the commission's work was carried out using hard-copy material. Given that, I set about developing a programme to ensure that the commission was better equipped to address the challenges that lay ahead. I engaged with stakeholders, including our sponsor Department, to ensure that the commission was resourced sufficiently, and looked at different ways of delivering our services, including our having the ability to undertake work electronically. That took time, but change does not happen overnight. Throughout, the commission continued to do the best it could with the resources that were available.

The commission is currently in a positive overall position on output and performance. The details are found in our annual review for 2025-26. I understand that you have all been given a copy of that. In the most recent financial year, we witnessed the culmination of the investment in commission resources over the past few years. Median times for issuing an appeal decision are in the region of 22 weeks, down from the 75 weeks referred to in the report. At the end of the financial year, the commission had only 126 cases in hand, which was down from the peak of 379 cited in the report. Only one long-standing case remains in the commission under the appeal workstream.

It is important to note that only around 20% of the overall decision-making time in respect of regionally significant applications rests with the commission. In many of those cases, the referral body's opinion is to refuse, hence the reason for referral to us. In addition, although the commission's role is a critical component of the process, it differs significantly from the other jurisdictions that are referred to in the Audit Office report — our so-called equivalent bodies — as they process the planning applications, which we do not do. The backlog that once existed was due to an unprecedented level of work being referred to us. That took place despite referring authorities being made aware of the resourcing issues in the commission and those authorities' having other options available. The commission has since progressed all such applications that were referred for hearings and public inquiries.

We delivered six reports after conducting independent examinations of plan strategies. That was a challenge for the organisation, given that it was an entirely new system for plan-making in Northern Ireland, which was rolled out to all 11 councils at the same time. The impact on commission resources of undertaking that work was significant. The commission also had to respond to our stakeholders and their plan programming to accommodate their resourcing challenges. That inevitably impacted on commission timelines, but the plan strategies have now been adopted and are guiding planning decisions in six local councils.

The factors that led to the time-bound backlog cited in the report included reduced capacity due to the loss of experienced commissioners and admin staff; delays in appointing and training new members of the workforce; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; the introduction of a new IT system; and the overall effect of dealing with new workstreams.

As a quasi-judicial body where appellants seek access to justice, the commission cannot compromise on the quality of our decision-making. In the circumstances just described, it took additional time for decisions and recommendations to be made, given the resources that we had. The Audit Office's conclusion that the commission had not been delivering value for money was difficult for us to reconcile with the evidence that we had provided to it. With an annual budget in the region of £3 million, and operating below full complement for most of the time over the past five years, the commission has produced 1,096 appeal decisions, 19 reports on environmental impact assessment determinations, five reports on regionally significant applications and six reports after conducting independent examinations of plan strategies.

I have always been open with stakeholders about the capacity of the commission to progress casework. At the start of the Audit Office process in early 2024, the commission was hopeful that the review would look to explore and advance options for enhancing the strategic effectiveness of the planning system. It has hinted at some of the changes that are required, including legislative amendments and resourcing of all parts of the planning system. It is worth noting in all this that the commission itself has been asking for a structural review since 2021. It is hoped that that recommendation will be instigated promptly, and we look forward to participating in that process.

I place on record that the improved performance is testament to the hard work and dedication of commissioners and our administrative team, and I take this opportunity to extend my gratitude to everyone in the commission who has contributed to it. I also thank the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you today, as it is in everyone's interest to deliver positive outcomes for the planning system overall. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you, commissioner, and thank you for keeping your opening remarks concise. A number of questions will have arisen naturally from those remarks. Members will pick up on those to seek clarification, and I will do the same later.

Commissioner, the Audit Office report concludes that the significant delays, backlogs and weaknesses in governance have undermined confidence in the Planning Appeals Commission and affected projects of strategic importance to Northern Ireland. Do you accept those conclusions?

Ms Kells: We have to look at the overall planning system. The commission can accept responsibility for a number of the delays in the process, but we made the reasons for delay very clear from our perspective. I will put it in context. We need 10 full-time equivalent commissioners to deliver our workloads in the appeals workstream. We have worked below that number for a significant number of years. In addition, we need commissioners to deliver the Hear and Report casework. We had a shortfall in that resource — that was identified in 2017 — and we worked with our sponsor body, the Department of Justice, to increase the number of commissioners at that grade. That took time to bed in to the process, so, unfortunately, we had a perfect storm of not having the resources available when the referrals came across to us.

Obviously, we took action within our remit to train commissioners as best we could to deal with that. We also escalated at the earliest opportunity the issue of the number of referrals that were coming our way, but, unfortunately, they continued to come despite the lack of resources. We were then very open with stakeholders about what could and could not be done, because we could not deliver what we had to with the resources that we had available. I am glad that that early escalation ultimately led to the independent inspectors being appointed by the Department for Infrastructure, and I hope that that will prevent the same situation arising again.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you for that. You said that you need 10 full-time equivalent commissioners but have been operating under that level for a period. How many were actually employed and operating?

Ms Kells: In essence, that is 10 full-time equivalents being available for appeal work only. That assessment is based on historical workloads and so forth. In 2020-21, for example, we were operating with 5·4 commissioners on appeal work, and we had assigned 5·8 commissioners to the Hear and Report work, which was the independent examination of local development plans.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): What was the key reason for the lack of the staffing complement that you needed?

Ms Kells: There were a number of factors. As I outlined in my opening statement, the plan for accommodating all those workloads was based on a 2011 presumption of 21 full-time equivalent commissioners being in post. We had only 15 at the point of transfer to the Department of Justice. That issue was raised and escalated to the Department of Justice. Two business cases were prepared: one to fill the vacancies that existed at the point of transfer and then —

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): For clarity's sake for the public: what year was that?

Ms Kells: That was 2017-18. It took some time to gather the information on the local development plan business case. That was an entirely new area of work in Northern Ireland, so I had to consult with not only bodies in Northern Ireland but my counterpart organisations throughout the UK in order to make reasonable planning assumptions. That is when the business case for the additional three senior commissioners was put forward, and, ultimately, approved by the Department of Justice. There was a time lag in getting that approval and the resource in place. Our first appointment was in 2020, just as we were going into lockdown for COVID. There were further appointments in the following years.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Why was that process so drawn out? You mentioned 2017, and we are heading for 2027. Why are we sitting, 10 years later, with a situation that you would probably describe as being "almost" resolved? Why has the process taken so long?

Ms Kells: We do a forward planning exercise for the resources that are required. That now sits at 20 full-time equivalent commissioners. When the recruitment process launched for the additional three commissioners, we could fill those posts. The other vacancies arose due to retirements and other parties leaving the commission, and we filled those posts as and when required. To put it in context, I think that the Department has run 12 recruitment exercises since 2017.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Do you accept that it is unacceptable that that process has been drawn out over a period of almost 10 years? Do you accept the consequences of that for the various reasons that I stated in my opening remarks?

Ms Kells: Yes, I can take that on board, because it is the challenge that our organisation has faced. We have been open about that, because the delay in appointments has a knock-on impact on our capacity to do the work. All we can do about the issue is identify the problem, escalate early and then work to resolve that. Unfortunately, we are working in a system in which recruitment processes take a significant time to deliver, especially in the public sector, so we are constrained by the time factors there. My understanding is that, from when we advertise, it can take six months to get a person in post. Before that, there is a period in which the Department of Justice has to seek approval for the business case to fill a resource, and that takes time as well.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I am under no illusion about the recruitment challenges that face the public sector, but I still struggle to comprehend how it has taken almost 10 years to get to where we are today. Surely that is a forward-planning issue at the commission. You said that you highlighted the issue early, but I do not see any indication of urgency around any of those processes.

Ms Kells: I can only put it to you as I did in the evidence that we gave to the Audit Office, which is that it was in 2017 that we identified the initial factors regarding the need for additional resources. As I said, it has gone through the business case approval process from that point, and there have been business cases for each of the subsequent 12 recruitment exercises.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. The report records that, as commissioner, you challenged the Comptroller and Auditor General's conclusions about the Planning Appeals Commission. Your website stated — I found this very strange — that the report did not have your "seal of approval". That response is unusual, and it leads the Committee to raise questions. Can you assure the Committee that your organisation is genuinely open to external scrutiny and challenge rather than seeking to dismiss criticism? I put that to you because some of your opening remarks contradicted that position in that you acknowledged and welcomed some of the recommendations.

Ms Kells: Yes, that is very true. We were very open to the criticism where it reflected that point in time. This was our difficulty: when the Audit Office started to look at that in 2024, our performance was not where it needed to be, but, by the point of publication, we were in a very different space. Whilst the Audit Office report touched on those improvements, it probably did not reflect where we actually were as an organisation. We felt that the narrative did not reflect the hard work and effort of the commissioners and the admin team to get us to that point, and that gave us a concern. I was also conscious of the challenge that the Audit Office had in comparing us with bodies in other jurisdictions, and I am sure that we will touch on that in discussions later. We work in different regimes and have different obligations than the bodies in other jurisdictions do. However, at the end of the day, the Audit Office had done its job and had a report that needed to be published. I welcomed the recommendations, because anything that leads to improvements in the planning system has to be a good thing for everyone involved.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. I will make a number of points before I go to other members. You said that the report did not reflect where you are today, but you have also referenced the fact that the initial process began in 2024. Was it not the case that the Audit Office met delays in getting responses from your office at that time and that those delays led to it being such a prolonged period?

Ms Kells: I do not believe so. From recollection, we had initial meetings and conversations in April or May of 2024. Our initial request for information was in, I think, the November. Apologies: I may not be getting the dates completely correct for you. That request was responded to in December 2024, and we had various meetings with the Audit Office that December. Whilst I cannot touch on the personal reasons, there was a delay on the part of the Audit Office when it came to moving forward with the report. Work started again in July or August 2025 or thereabouts, when, again, we provided information to the Audit Office. Within four to six weeks, we got the draft report — that was in October 2025. There has been toing and froing on different versions of the report since that time. I would not say that there were any extensive delays on our part. When the initial versions came through, significant time and effort was required on our part to go through the report to check and correct the facts. That took a lot longer than we had expected, but we wanted the best report to be published at the end of the day.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. Thank you. Do you, as commissioner, and your office respect and understand the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the fact that that office is an independent body and is there to do its job?

Ms Kells: Yes, I do, because we are in a very similar position. I understand that it is a challenge.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Why, then, would your organisation put on its website that an independent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Northern Ireland Audit Office did not have your "seal of approval"? What sort of signal do you think that sends?

Ms Kells: As we outlined in the publication on our website, we have a right of reply to the report. We very much wanted to reflect where the organisation was at the point in time when the report was published, and it is only fair that we did that.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): It is fair to say that most government organisations do not accept some of the criticisms that the Northern Ireland Audit Office makes during its important and diligent work, but seeing on your website that you do not give the report your "seal of approval" is, in my opinion, not satisfactory, nor does it acknowledge the important role of the Audit Office and its independence.

You have outlined your reasoning behind that, however. I will now bring in members to ask questions.

Mr Nesbitt: My point is on the timeline. Stop me if I am being factually incorrect, Andrea. You joined the commission in 2017.

Ms Kells: Yes.

Mr Nesbitt: You identified a programme of work that you felt was necessary in order to make the commission more fit for purpose.

Ms Kells: Yes.

Mr Nesbitt: It was going to take time. Let me go forward two years to 2019-2020 and look at the hear and decide cases, which are smaller than the hear and report cases. The average time to reach a decision in those cases was 21 weeks in 2019-2020. The next year it was 38 weeks, then 50 weeks, then 59 weeks, then 71 weeks and then 73 weeks. What does that say about the efficacy of your programme for work?

Ms Kells: In part, that comes down to retirements in the organisation and to the time lag between the appointment of commissioners and their getting to an operational level. The resources that were available for that appeal work were also a factor. In 2019-2020, 8·4 full-time-equivalent commissioners were working on appeal work. The following year, we went down to 6·4, while the year after that, there were 5·4 full-time-equivalent commissioners. The number has been creeping back up since then. It is balanced against the assignment to the hear and report work, which was done by 2·2 full-time-equivalent commissioners in the first year to which I referred. That then increased to 2·3, and then we had 5·5 in the big year in which we dealt with all the independent examinations.

Mr Nesbitt: Were the retirements unexpected?

Ms Kells: No.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I will follow up on a point that you raised in response to me earlier. Why do you believe that the examples from other jurisdictions that the Audit Office used in its report are not a fair comparison? Although you may disagree with the direct comparison, do you believe that there are lessons to be learned from the operations in other jurisdictions?

Ms Kells: Yes, without a doubt. That is one of the key messages that we spoke to the Audit Office about, and it is a good conversation piece to have for the fundamental review. One of the expectations of us is that we are there to facilitate development, and that is not really our role. We are a tribunal body. We have to look at various factors, including the environmental impact, the economic impact and the social impact. We cannot focus on one particular aspect, and that is the difference between the Planning Appeals Commission and the other bodies to which I referred in my opening statement. For example, the Planning Inspectorate has a specific role, and it has been identified as dealing with nationally significant infrastructure projects. A decision was made a number of years ago that it would process those planning applications from start to finish. That role is probably equivalent to that which DFI has for regionally significant applications, but the Planning Inspectorate has been funded and resourced to carry it out. It gets the application fee and has the role of an enabler for economic development. That is very clear to all parties involved in the process. That is one of the conversation pieces that we want to see happen, because we have had a number of cases referred to us that have had delays. We accept that, but that is because of the role that we have. We have to look at appeals, public inquiries and significant applications. If we are there to facilitate economic development, that needs to be made clear, and we need legislative change in order to deliver on economic development.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): That is an important point. Nonetheless, you mentioned delays, and I appreciate your honesty, but they are not just delays but significant and protracted delays, as Mike outlined to you. What are the consequences your office's serious delays for the Northern Ireland economy and for the public? We are looking at achieving value for money, and the knock-on effect of the delays caused by your office has profound consequences for the Northern Ireland economy.

Ms Kells: The important factor to consider is that the majority of cases come to us because of our tribunal role. We are not there to facilitate economic development.

A lot of those cases have come to us along with a professional planning officer's report to refuse the development. There is therefore no promise that it is going to be delivered. It is only through our reviewing the case and adjudicating on the evidence presented to us that perhaps at the end of that process the reasons for refusal that were put forward might not be sustained and the development could therefore be delivered. I accept that that does not give certainty to developers, but that is a measure of how the planning system is.

Ms Pamela O'Donnell (Planning Appeals Commission): It is important to note that those cases are with us for only 20% of the overall decision-making time frame. That is an important consideration, as is the appetite that there is for judicial review. When the decision is made, the impact of a potential legal challenge would also have an impact on Northern Ireland plc and on schemes being realised.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Yes. I am pointing more to the role that you play and the control that you have over delays. The criticism of the Planning Appeals Commission that I have heard is a simple one. People just want a decision one way or the other. The frustration is with the lack of clarification and the often protracted period for which cases sit with your office and, indeed, with DFI. Do you accept that Northern Ireland has lost investment opportunities as a result of such delays?

Ms Kells: I would not attribute that loss of investment to the commission. That is, as I said, because of the role that we play. We —.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I am talking about the delay.

Ms Kells: The delay, yes. I can accept that.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): For an investor, time is critical. Do you accept that the delays, some of which are protracted and some of which are unacceptable, have led to a loss of investment in Northern Ireland?

Ms Kells: That is entirely possible, because that is the investor's decision. As I said in my opening statement, we made all parties aware of the issues that we had. In fact, we made the recommendation to the Department for Infrastructure that it look at the alternative option that was available to it, which was to go down the independent assessor route, to try to expedite some cases, because we knew that we did not have the resources to deal with the casework. All that I can give you is an assurance that, when we got the resources to do that work, we progressed the cases at the earliest opportunity. That is all that we can do, because that is all that is within our control.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK.

Mr Gildernew: I am not sure why the fact that the situation has greatly improved should take away from what the situation had been and why you felt that it was not valid for the Audit Office to set out its concerns.

I will pick up on Mike's point about retirements, because you are still a fairly small cohort. If retirements had that impact at that time, what has changed since to mean that retirements would not have a similar impact were they to occur now?

Ms Kells: We have a very different age profile in the organisation now, so are not expecting the same number of retirements that we had over a number of years. I should say that we did not ignore the fact that retirements were coming. They helped formulate the business planning exercises, because we always alert the Department to retirements. The difficulty is that we cannot fill a post until a vacancy becomes available. Where we see a retirement coming down the line, we take opportunities to head it off and resolve it early. For instance, I am currently sitting with 2·6 vacancies, and the 0·6 is due to a retirement. We put the case to the Department to increase it to 1·0, with a view to the 0·4 falling away at a later date. That proposal, however, was not fit to be approved, because of funding constraints, but we are alive to the issue.

Mr Gildernew: That you could not replace staff seems not to be great planning. Would you not have had a parallel process in place for a planned retirement? That aside, how long on average did it take to fill posts when it was known that people were going to retire?

Ms Kells: I honestly cannot give you the dates. To give you the live example that we have, the first vacancy that we are looking to fill arose in March 2026. We have been assured that that recruitment process will go live soon.

Mr Gildernew: The person retired in March 2026, and the process has not even started yet.

Ms Kells: They left in March 2026.

Mr Gildernew: What is the cause of the delay?

Ms Kells: As I understand it, it is largely down to business case approval.

Mr Gildernew: You are replacing someone. You are not expanding by a post but simply replacing a retiree.

Ms Kells: That is true, but that is one of the difficulties that we have. That decision is outside of our control. Decisions about resourcing the commission, and appointments to it, fall within the remit of the Department of Justice and the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS).

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Mike, you look as though you have a burning question. Do you?

Mr Nesbitt: No.

Mr Wilson: I want to get a feel for how you view yourselves in the planning system, because you are part of the planning system. Do you feel a connection to government in any way when it comes to how the Province moves forward with investment? Do you feel a connection to the public, who have paid good money into the planning system thus far and then found themselves arriving at your door? Do you feel that there is an onus on you in any shape or form to perform quickly, efficiently and reasonably? If that is the case, how do you explain the clear failure to clear the escalating backlog? I am therefore interested in how you view yourselves. I feel that there is potentially a bit of aloofness from your organisation. You enjoy some privilege in that regard, because people are not battering down your door. I spent 10 years on Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council's planning committee, and people battered down our door. They came to meetings and made their views very firmly known I am curious about how you view your organisation, where it sits in government and how connected it is to the general theme of moving Northern Ireland forward.

Ms Kells: We are now in a very different space, and that has to be acknowledged. It largely comes down to the tribunal role that we perform. Through that role, we have a really good understanding of the planning system overall, including the challenges that are presented and faced. When the work on the independent examination of local development plans came to us, it was assigned within three to four months, which is a normal lead-in time. Essentially, it was prioritised. Councils had just taken ownership of that process in 2015, and we were able to progress the local development plans at the earliest opportunity so that councils had their own plan in order to frame decisions at that local level. That is now paying off for the six councils that have adopted their plan.

There is very little engagement that we can do on the remaining areas of work in the appeals process, and that is because of the perception of bias that that may bring about. We therefore have to be very careful about how we address that, but we engage where we can. We recently held some stakeholder engagement sessions on our work and what we do. They were really well attended by councils. We also did engagement sessions during the planned process. It is not that we are completely divorced from the planning system. We do engage where we have the opportunity to do so.

Mr Wilson: Did you take the Audit Office report as an unfair slap in the face, and is that what prompted your vocal response to it? That was slightly abnormal, but you obviously felt that you had to defend something.

Ms Kells: Yes.

Mr Wilson: I am just trying to understand your position.

Ms Kells: Too many people had put in too much hard work to let the Audit Office report go unchecked.

Mr Wilson: Your response was feisty.

Ms Kells: I put forward the case for the commissioners and the admin team, who, over the past few years, have met challenge after challenge. They has put in the effort and had delivered results, but that was not being acknowledged. As far as I am concerned, if nobody else was going to acknowledge them, it was my role to do so.

Mr Wilson: Was it your decision to do that, or were you presenting the Planning Appeals Commission's view through your defence of how things sit currently, as opposed to the time frame covered in the report, which does not make for good reading?

Ms Kells: Ultimately, it was my decision. As I said, although we were willing to accept criticism, if the report had been time-bound and had had a lot more in it about the updated nature of where we were at, I probably would not have felt the need to put out that comment.

Mr Wilson: This may stray back into what you said about the commission remaining removed from decision-making and the setting of policy in the planning system, but you then suggested that the Audit Office did not come up with suggestions for changing the planning system. Do you not accept that each of the 11 councils is responsible for the delivery of the policy as it sits? It is up to the councils to do that. I put my local council under pressure, because each council area is in competition with other council areas, so it is important that its procedures be of a top level. Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council drew as much investment into the area as possible, because, for building trade, rates and everything else, that then reflected positively. That being the case, do you not accept that the commission is part of the planning system? Surely you have a wealth of knowledge and experience to pass on about where you see councils failing in decision-making or where policy failings are apparent, because you handle queries about plans at the stage at which there is a last-ditch attempt to rescue or bury them.

Ms Kells: Yes, and I understand that. Our decisions give direction or support to councils depending on how we see things moving forward. I did not criticise in any way, shape or form the Audit Office in that respect. One of the things that we had done as part of the process was to identify significant change that probably falls outside even councils' remit, and that was legislative change to bring about improvements, such as that conversation piece about direct applications to the commission or issues to do with environmental impact assessments and the frustration that they can cause through the need to update processes. It was therefore about the legislative change that is hinted at but that probably needs somebody to shout a bit louder in order for it to be driven forward. That is why we viewed the report as a missed opportunity. It was not a criticism per se.

Ms O'Donnell: The Audit Office asked us to produce a utopia paper outlining where we saw the commission in the future and what changes could be achieved in the interim. Most of our proposed changes were legislative, as Andrea said, and got into issues such as cost recovery, on which the Audit Office report touches. A lot of work was put into that, so then not to see the fruits of that labour in the report was a bit disappointing, unfortunately.

Mr Wilson: I am gathering that you vocally rejected elements of the Audit Office's approach. Are you able to learn lessons, given that you batted back a lot of criticism? Your position suggests to me that there is a disconnect between what was perceived to be poor operation for a number of years and where you feel that you at are now. You back that up with stats, but are you in the space to learn from the report?

Ms Kells: We have always been in the space to learn. That has driven some of the things that we have been delivering as an organisation. The Audit Office report does not go into a lot of them, but they include our getting into electronic working, which came about through requests from stakeholders such as councils. There have been other things, such as facilitating hybrid hearings and developing our long-term business model. When we have engagement, we therefore take on board what is said. I did welcome the Audit Office's recommendations, because they provide another opportunity to learn and take the organisation forward. It is important that we recognise that. As Pamela said, part of our frustration was that we had put a lot to the Audit Office that we would have liked to see in the report, because that would have assisted us to deliver a lot more. We have spoken this afternoon about some of the funding challenges with the DOJ budget, for example. We tried to make the case for hard charging, because that would give us a lot more flexibility to make the case for things that would benefit the commission and the planning system.

Ms O'Donnell: I can fully appreciate your point about the commission's aloofness. Having worked in the private sector, the public sector and, before that, the community sector, I can see from where you are coming. I was chatting to someone recently who likened the commission to Switzerland. That is a good analogy, because we are neutral, and that is very important to us. We cannot be seen to be in favour of one particular party, be it the appellant or the council. We therefore have to take that step back. If that comes across as aloofness, that is the way in which we have to be, because we have to be very careful that we do not come across as being biased or even that we could be perceived to be biased. Following the Human Rights Act 1998, we were set up as a tribunal body to make sure that people were given a fair and impartial hearing by an independent tribunal. Commissioners therefore have to be judicious in how they act and speak.

Mr Wilson: Do you not agree that that can sometimes create a safe space in which for you guys to operate and that that provides an excuse to maintain that disconnect? There is work that you could do to improve that connection.

Ms O'Donnell: We engage in lots of stakeholder events, as Andrea said. There was one last week and one back in June. I have gone out to various other places. We engage with the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA). Ultimately, however, it is not an excuse but a fact. We cannot be seen to be talking in back channels with appellants and suchlike.

Mr Wilson: That is not what I am suggesting at all. When I was on the council's planning committee, we were briefed routinely by senior legal officials that we had to remain impartial but that did not prevent the public understanding our role to the greatest effect, which, in turn, can only but help people understand the remit of planning from start to finish.

Ms O'Donnell: As I say, we are carrying out stakeholder engagement, and we can increase that, if you feel that we should be doing so.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I will bring Mike in, but, before I do, it is important that I point something out. Although we can respect your quasi-judicial role and, as you put it, the importance of your neutrality, I remind you that you are funded out of the public purse and are therefore accountable. I do not believe that the commission accepts that. That is very clearly stated by your saying that you do not offer your "seal of approval" to the Audit Office report. I find that completely shocking. The Committee will compile a report, and I sincerely hope that, whatever recommendations come from our evidence sessions, we do not see such a response, because we represent the public in Northern Ireland, who are the taxpayers who fund your organisation. I will be very clear: at this stage, you are entirely an accountable body, and hiding behind neutrality or anything else is not acceptable. The Comptroller and Auditor General is accountable. The role is scrutinised each and every month of every year, and you are no different. I want you to understand that, and I hope that all your commissioners understand that, because I am quite alarmed by what I am hearing, to be honest.

Mr Nesbitt: Do you accept the criticism that you have turned independence into isolation?

Ms Kells: I can see why you might say that, but it is really important for me to say that we are not isolated, because we engage with other parts of the system. We have good oversight of everything that happens in the planning system throughout Northern Ireland. The challenge that we have is how we perform that role, given the changing expectations around engagement. Historically, the commission was very inward-looking. To put it in context, when I joined in 2017, my first aim was to try to get some stakeholder engagement sessions set up. Two people turned up to them. We have spent a lot of time going above and beyond that to have conversations with individuals. Engagement has improved.

Mr Nesbitt: Your website records that you issued a stakeholder engagement questionnaire four years ago, in December 2022. You said that it was the first part of what was to be an "engagement process", and the aim was to align:

What was the outcome?

Ms Kells: That 2022 questionnaire led to in-person events in 2023.

Mr Nesbitt: That is just more engagement. What was the outcome in terms of changes to the future operating model?

Ms Kells: I will take you to that now. Due to the outcomes of the questionnaire, we touched on various things in those engagement sessions to better understand the needs of customers. Things that were brought through to our business plan from that stakeholder engagement included ensuring that we embedded hybrid hearings in our future operating model. That had not been envisaged. That was a response to COVID, and we wanted to make sure that that was what customers wanted us to do. It was, so we took that forward. We had suspended accompanied site visits during COVID, and we had a conversation with customers to say, "Right, we are here now at a point when we can re-engage with accompanied site visits. Is that something you want us to do?". The response was yes, and that was when we reimplemented our accompanied site visits.

So there were lots of things that came out of the stakeholder engagement that we brought into our business planning. Quite a lot of that was around IT. A more recent questionnaire in March/April this year gave us some new things to think about as we prepare our corporate plan for 2028 onwards. I am expecting that we will be entering another period of stakeholder engagement in person to get an understanding of customer needs so that we can at least set the strategic priorities for the coming years.

Mr T Buchanan: Regionally significant applications have remained within the PAC for many years, not least in my constituency of West Tyrone, where one sat for years and one is going through the appeals process. Projects have been delayed or even abandoned. Your table shows that six were withdrawn: three for renewal energy, two for housing developments, and one that may well have been an environmental project for Lough Neagh. Those are significant applications for the economy of Northern Ireland as a whole, and they have been withdrawn. Communities and investors have faced prolonged uncertainty. Who needs to be held to account for those consequences, and what do you say in response to criticism that the PAC has not fully appreciated the real-world detrimental impact of its performance on Northern Ireland's economy and on development?

Ms Kells: Mr Buchanan, it is important for me to clarify at the outset that in five of those cases — you are making me aware that our website might not be clear enough — it is not the case that the planning applications have been withdrawn. It is the request for a public inquiry or hearing before the commission that has been withdrawn by DFI, so those planning applications are still live and with the Department for Infrastructure. I am aware that you are speaking to DFI next week, but it is probably so that the Department can, perhaps, choose to take those applications down the independent inspector route. I just want to make it clear that they have not been withdrawn from the system. As a former consultant, I understand the challenges that the planning system in Northern Ireland presents for making informed decisions with regard to investment, economic development etc. That comes largely from uncertainty, which is why, when we knew that we were not going to have the resources available we at least attempted to give applicants and potential applicants clarity on when we would be able to deal with those cases so that they could make informed investment decisions. That is just making the parties aware so that they can make decisions and look at potential alternative opportunities to progress those cases.

Mr T Buchanan: The Northern Ireland Audit Office found that none of the "hear and report" cases referred to the PAC since 2021 had been completed by the time of its review. Why were those delays not addressed a lot sooner?

Ms Kells: Ultimately, we did not have the resources available to deliver on that. The Belfast City Council plan strategy was referred just before COVID. We were able to progress that case despite having to figure out how to do things online etc. We saw a drop in referrals in 2020-21, but we then received four independent examinations in a four-month period. Everybody in the process knew that each of those independent examinations was going to take a commissioner resource for a minimum of one year. Yet, that September, we got the Dalradian conjoined inquiry referred to us, which is the biggest planning application that Northern Ireland has ever seen, with its seven associated planning applications. We had already escalated the issues that we had with resourcing, but then we got another regionally significant application, another independent examination and a further seven or eight cases of regional significance referred to us. We just did not have the resources to deal with that.

We dealt with the independent examinations, and we published the reports. We assigned a resource to the conjoined inquiry to get to grips with the issues that were raised by that parcel of information, and we moved that as best we could. We were quite open with everybody else in saying, "I'm sorry, but your case is going to have to sit until we have a resource available". We got to the point at which resources became available, and we then moved to assign hearing dates in all those cases apart from one in order to expedite them. That really brought home some of the other challenges in terms of the environmental regulations etc and the legal recommendations that we thought we needed to look at. That is why they were included in our submissions to the Audit Office and have been hinted at in the final report. However, we did what we could with what we had available. We alerted everybody to the situation, and we did what we could. That is the best way to sum things up.

Mr T Buchanan: In 2024-25, it took 73 weeks, and in 2025-26, that reduced to 22 weeks. Within a year, you dropped by 51 weeks.

Ms Kells: Yes.

Mr T Buchanan: Will we see a trend like that following on for 2026-27?

Ms Kells: You will not see a trend like that.

Mr T Buchanan: Not to that extent, but can we still see a trend of reduction?

Ms Kells: The 77-week delay mentioned in the report was so bad because of the number of cases that we had in the system. That was largely brought about by a few remnants of COVID, but also, when we implemented our IT system, there was a delay in registering and progressing cases because we were without a system for 12 weeks, and that had knock-on implications. In that year, we delivered decisions on cases from 2022, 2023 and 2024. We are now at the point where we are not delivering long-standing cases any more. We are now at the 22-week median delivery time, and I would like to at least maintain that. We may be able to better it slightly in terms of some of the functionality, such as written reports, but if we can stabilise at that rate, it will be a good indicator of a model that we can work with.

Mr T Buchanan: What measurable targets have you in place to deliver future "hear and report" cases?

Ms Kells: At the minute, our KPIs are set at delivering 80% of enforcement cases within 34 weeks, informal hearings within 30 weeks, accompanied site visits within 28 weeks and written representations within 26 weeks. Obviously, our median times indicate a better performance than that, and we will measure ourselves against that going forward.

Mr T Buchanan: You do not see the 22 weeks being reduced much further from that?

Ms Kells: It is probably unrealistic to expect that, largely because, when we get a case, it has to go through a number of processes. We have to get the case in, validate it, advertise it and give individuals a period to respond to the advertisement. Once that is done, the case is allocated to a commissioner. In parallel with that, we then request statements from parties to the process and rebuttal statements, after which the case will be referred to a commissioner to prepare for proceeding. That generally takes 16 weeks to 18 weeks. The commissioner then has to consider the evidence, perhaps undertake a proceeding, and write up the decision thereafter. So 21 weeks might be very optimistic, but I think that 22 weeks is reasonable.

Mr T Buchanan: Can you assure the Committee today that the amount of time for decisions to be taken will not increase again, as we have witnessed in the past?

Ms Kells: Unfortunately, I cannot give you that assurance, because of the issues that I alerted you to earlier. We are currently sitting with 2·6 vacancies. Our mid-year figures indicate that we are likely to deliver on a par with the 22 weeks of last year. The problem is that we are very much demand-driven. It would be difficult for us to react to getting in a significant number of appeals that we were not expecting. That is why we have to monitor things and have discussions with the Department at an early stage if we see patterns developing, so that we can inform business planning. Part of the challenge is that not only are we demand-driven but we get additional workstreams without additional resources. As I said in my opening statement, there are lots of things that came through from the review of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, such as the cost claims that we have had to deal with, which we have absorbed into our work. The non-validation checklist has also been absorbed into our work. The Department of Justice funded additional commissioners for work on the local development plan side of things. In addition, we are looking at future challenges. Although the development management regulations are currently only out for consultation, they are up for review. That may have knock-on implications for the work that the commission has to do. Although I would love to be in a position to say, "Yes, I'm going to commit long-term to delivering within 22 weeks", I cannot give that promise, because I cannot give an assurance that we can deliver on that.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): For the sake of the public record, do you have a statutory obligation when it comes to a time frame? I understand that it is 18 weeks in the South of Ireland.

Ms Kells: That is for certain areas of work. I think that that is part and parcel of the equivalent programme that I was talking to you about for nationally strategic infrastructure projects. There are time frames for doing certain work that is funded and resourced. That is a conversation arising out of various different reviews of that body in the South.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): How would you feel about having a statutory time frame put on the commission?

Ms Kells: I have no view one way or the other. What is key from our perspective is that we are realistic about it and we manage expectations. It is about ensuring that we have the resource in place to deliver on that statutory or non-statutory objective — whatever it is.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Do you think that, from an accountability and efficiency point of view, it would improve things?

Ms Kells: Again, that would be tied to the resourcing side of things, but —.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Yes, but it would be in legislation.

Ms Kells: Yes, but, again, regardless of whether it is there, whether you meet it or not is an entirely different thing.

Mr Honeyford: Thanks for coming in. The report shows us that you prioritised ordinary planning appeals over major strategic development, which means jobs, major infrastructure, major investment here and economic growth. Who made that decision?

Ms Kells: You have touched on one of our concerns about the report. That is the implication of what the report states, but the reality is that that was down to the resources that we had available. And —.

Mr Honeyford: Somebody still made a decision.

Ms Kells: Pardon?

Mr Honeyford: You have resources, and you made a decision —

Ms Kells: Yes.

Mr Honeyford: — to do that, so —.

Ms Kells: We have resources available. At that point in time, as I have alluded to, we had that crunch piece. We had a number of new commissioners who needed to be trained. The place to do that is on the planning appeals work, because that is the framework for starting to understand the quasi-judicial role. Once that is understood and developed, it moves to dealing with the "hear and report" work. There is greater public interest in those, which I accept, but there are more legislative challenges, and until you have the skills in that quasi-judicial role, you cannot take that on. That is where the crunch came for us.

Mr Honeyford: The question is who took that decision.

Ms Kells: Ultimately, myself. When we had commissioners in place, we assigned the independent examinations, and that was —.

Mr Honeyford: You were explaining the training that they needed, but was any assessment done on the effects of that delay to the economy?

Ms Kells: No, because as I explained, we do not have the information to do that. We knew that we had the resource for the local development plans side of things, and that was an important driver for us. Councils had put the work into their local development plans after just taking ownership of them. The decision was made, based on capacity, to prioritise that over other regionally significant applications. At one point, we sought guidance from the Department for Infrastructure on the back of some of our stakeholder engagement. The Department's position was that everything was a priority, so we were no further on and we just dealt with applications in the fairest way we considered possible, which was by the date on which they were referred to us.

Mr Honeyford: I get the resource bit, but every Department has a resource issue. That is where I lose a little bit of sympathy, because that is the case across every sector. What we are hearing is that the major stuff has not been done. It sounds as if you are trying to improve your own figures but are actually making the whole system worse, so it is not for the greater good. It is for you own data and figures that go out on appeals rather than for the greater good of the people. Is that fair?

Ms Kells: To be honest with you, I would not accept that. We split our work 50:50 in that critical year between appeals and "hear and report" work. That was as a consequence of the resources that we had, and that led to backlogs in the appeals process. That has ultimately led to issues on that workstream, but we have taken appropriate action to move that forward. We have also expedited the "hear and report" cases when we have had the capacity to do so.

Mr Honeyford: We have had major applications that have left the system because they were not dealt with, some due to environmental reports that are now out of date, which sounds extraordinary. If those projects come back, has anything changed?

Ms Kells: We now have fully trained commissioner resource, so I can now make informed decisions to assign that workload without the restrictions that I had at that point in time. That is a welcome development from my perspective, because I am not making an assessment based on whether I have a suitably trained person. Everybody has now gone through that process, and that trained resource is available to us.

Mr Honeyford: The resource is there, but who pays for the wasted time and reports? I was in construction in my previous life and putting in planning applications. Multiple times, all the reports that we paid for timed out. A business spends money on an application and all the reports to go with it for that to be revisited. Has anybody calculated the cost to companies that applied for planning that you have just dismissed because there was no resource? Has that ever been looked at?

Ms Kells: I cannot answer that, because, due to our role, we do not enter into just the economic impact of decisions. From a private-sector perspective, which is where I once worked, I can understand the impact. That is why we put forward some of the recommendations that we did through the Audit Office on how the environmental regulations could be changed to make the process easier for applicants, because I am conscious of the impact of that.

Mr Honeyford: Being "conscious of" it does not pay for the reports that have to be done for the businesses. It does not pay any of that for the companies that are out thousands of pounds because the Department and the commission are not doing what is expected of them.

Ms Kells: Yes, and I have explained the reasons for that, and you have accepted those in certain ways. That is why that conversation took place with DFI to say, "You have another avenue to try to expedite these cases. Can you please move that forward?" Ultimately, that did move forward, and we are now in a very different space, which is good to see. If we are in a place again in the future where we do not have the resources available, there is an alternative mechanism to expedite cases. There are no guarantees, but, hopefully, going forward, we will all be in a much better place with the planning system.

Mr Honeyford: You said earlier that the backlog had been cleared, which is really welcome, but how many of those cases have been cleared because you have completed them and how many have just withdrawn? Those two things are very different.

Ms Kells: Yes, indeed. Of the 10 that were referred by DFI, three are in the process of a conjoined inquiry, one has been reported on and one has been withdrawn from the planning system. With the other five, the request for the hearing or public inquiry has been withdrawn, and they are now sitting as planning applications with DFI. Of the referrals from the other bodies, 10 are in appendix 2 of the report. Seven of them are part of that conjoined inquiry. One is very strange, because it is an environmental impact assessment hearing determination, but it has been held up because of a legal challenge elsewhere in our system. We cannot do anything about that, but the rest were reported on.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you.

Mr Gildernew: Before I go into my next couple of questions, I will ask this. We have heard, on a couple of occasions now, explanations for why deficits occurred, but that does not take away from the fact that the deficits occurred in capacity or delayed timings or whatever. Do you recognise the right of the NIAO to audit what you are doing?

Ms Kells: Yes.

Mr Gildernew: Therefore, do you recognise why it is concerning that — and, as the Chair said earlier, it remains so — there is an indication that you have not given your "seal of approval"? That is not an appropriate phrase. Do you, or should you, have a "seal of approval" when it comes to reports from an independent reporting body?

Ms Kells: I do not think that we are going to reach agreement on that point. I spoke to that earlier. We will accept criticism where it is due, but, by the time that report was published, the criticisms were levied at a different period of time and were not reflective of where we were. That was my main concern.

Mr Gildernew: I can see why you could make that point, but I do not know whether that amounts to a "seal of approval" or otherwise. That is for you to reflect on.

More substantially, the report concludes that the PAC's governance arrangements have not provided sufficient accountability or challenge in relation to operational performance. Given that, as far as I am aware, there are no statutory performance targets, how do you objectively assess whether the PAC is operating effectively and delivering value for money? What template do you use for that assessment?

Ms Kells: One of the concerns was because of the implication that we are not accountable, and I think that we very much feel accountable to the Department of Justice when it comes to what we do, how we spend the money and how we are performing. They are key discussion points at the liaison meetings. Throughout that period, we have been in discussions with the Department about the resourcing and capacity issues; we will not rehearse those. Throughout that, whilst we knew that we were not going to meet our key performance indicators, which I have alerted you all to — we set interim objectives, such as clearing those 2022 cases by the end of a specific calendar year and clearing other specific cases by a certain point in time. We have set key milestones, which we have published in our business plans and annual reports, and we have been assessed against those. That is all that we could do in the period that we were in.

Mr Gildernew: Do you think that statutory targets would assist you in making business cases etc?

Ms Kells: They might well assist us in making business cases, because, as I have outlined, whether a target is statutory or non-statutory, it is still the target. Whether you can deliver on that is another thing.

We have been very clear that we need resources in order to deliver, so it would help if that were a statutory obligation.

Mr Gildernew: OK. Do you consider that the PAC delivered value for money across the period — I mean the entire period — that is under review?

Ms Kells: Yes. That is the position that we took in our news release. I found it difficult to join the dots in the Audit Office report. I understand that we can all look at it through a different lens. It seems to me that on account of the time and effort that we put into delivering what we had done, it took a little time to say that what we are investing is leading to the outcomes that we want to see. Ultimately, we got those outcomes, so, for me, it was value for money, but I can see —.

Mr Gildernew: Does that include the period when it took 77 weeks, as Mike set out? Do you think that that was value for money? I take on board what you say about being in a much better position now, but I am asking specifically about whether there was a period during which there demonstrably was not value for money.

Ms Kells: When it was 77 weeks, we produced something like 309 decisions that year. That has to be weighed in the balance. Although we dealt with the time lag in resources, we increased the quantum of cases that we delivered in that period.

Mr Dunne: Thank you for your presentation, folks. You, as the commission, have argued that your performance problems resulted largely from insufficient resources. You covered that this afternoon. However, the report identifies a range of other factors, including workforce planning failures, poor case progression, weak engagement and governance shortcomings. We are keen to establish what you, as chief commissioner, did to address the key organisational failures that were reported on. Will you outline that? Importantly, do you feel that enough was done? With hindsight, do you feel that you could or should have done anything differently?

Ms Kells: Could you cover those issues again for me?

Mr Dunne: Yes. Beyond resources, some of the key issues that were identified in the report were workforce planning failures, poor case progression, weak engagement and governance shortcomings.

Ms Kells: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that I covered those for you.

We touched on workforce planning earlier in the session. We continually review that and look at what impact things will have. That is why we welcome the recommendation in the Audit Office report — I think it is recommendation 4 — that says that any new workstreams coming our way need to be properly evaluated and funded before we can take them on. That will put us in a good space to look at what the future holds and to take a longer-term view of what is needed to fund and resource the commission. Part and parcel of that will be the review of how that is funded, which does not sit with us but with the Department of Justice and DFI. That will feed into workforce planning. Unfortunately, we are restricted by the recruitment processes and timelines, because we follow Civil Service protocols. That is one of the constraints.

We will do our best to maintain our current position on case progression. As we outlined, there is currently only one long-term case in the system under the appeals workstream. On the hearings report side, one case has been held up by the legal case. We will progress those at the earliest opportunity. There are no major impediments to case progression right now, apart from what we have alerted you to today.

Engagement is the one piece that we want to pick up on going forward, including some of the issues that the Committee raised today. We will have to have a think about how best to do that. The Audit Office was very keen that we do that and acknowledged that that has led to delays in progressing cases. We think that we are being clear on what we need, but, if a referring authority, an appellant or somebody else thinks that we have everything that we have, that is what we have to deal with. We deal with things in the evidential context; we are not there to request something if it does not exist. However, that is the piece we will take forward under one of the recommendations, and we will give serious thought to building on the stakeholder engagement that we are already doing.

Although the Audit Office has drawn its conclusion on governance, we feel accountable to the Department of Justice and the public for what we do. That is why we have put so much time and effort into investing in the organisation, including the commissioners and the administrative team, to get us to the place we are now.

Mr Dunne: Finally, would you have done anything differently?

Ms Kells: We have been as proactive as we can be about what we can control. The reality is that hindsight would tell us to be a bit more vocal about the things that fall within the remit of the other organisations. I do not want to sit here and be very critical, but the reality is that cases were referred to us in the full knowledge that we did not have the resources and that applications would be delayed in the system. That does not help planning; it is not helping the commission, and it did not help anybody, but that is what we were faced with, and it was unfortunate. However, as I said, we have now reached a point where there are independent inspectors, and the key messages have been listened to. Hopefully, that will improve things.

Mr Dunne: It is not unique. Many public bodies face resource problems, pressures and challenges. Were those issues escalated to the Department of Justice and the Courts and Tribunals Service at the right stage? What level of response did you get from those bodies?

Ms Kells: I escalated the resource issues to the Department of Justice when we became aware of them. That may have been done through regular engagement at the liaison meeting. The notification of a retirement or something like that, if we knew that it was coming our way, may have been through an email. The resource issues were escalated early, but unfortunately, there was an approval process thereafter. Again, as I understand it, the Department's hands are tied because of funding and the various approval processes for business cases. I am conscious that the Department will be here next week.

Mr Dunne: Finally, you touched on the issue that 11 experienced commissioners have retired since 2017. Was there enough succession planning? Could better succession planning have reduced the impact of the gap?

Ms Kells: There is a careful balance. We were always quite proactive and upfront about expecting retirements, and we have done that continually over the years when putting the initial outline business case through to the Department. The constraint is that if somebody is in the post, you cannot move to increase the spend on that post until the person has actually left.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate the balance. Thank you.

Mr Boylan: Thank you for your responses, and you are very welcome to the Committee. Most of the questions have already been asked. Do you believe that your organisation is part of the broader planning mechanism right across the North?

Ms Kells: Yes.

Mr Boylan: You accept that?

Ms Kells: We are a small part of it.

Mr Boylan: One hundred per cent: a small but big part of the process. Mike touched on stakeholder engagement. I cannot let you out of the room without trying to do our report justice. Leaving aside your neutrality, autonomy and independence, which we respect, you must accept that you have to engage with others to make sure that the broader planning system works for the economy and all other areas it impacts. The economics are not your responsibility. Stakeholder engagement and isolation have been clearly highlighted in the report. The words used might have included, "there's a wee bit of coldness". How can we introduce measures to improve the working relationships and communication? We sit up here and blame the operation of each Department in isolation. We are going to go nowhere unless we work as a partnership, and I am using the same theory and principle with your organisation. How can you improve the working relationships and communication?

Ms Kells: The Audit Office picked up on that as well. It is about recognising the importance of our role in the system, and we have discussed the issues. However, we have been excluded from a lot of the work that has gone on to improve planning processes, perhaps because of the role that we play. We are the adjudication body at the end of the process, rather than a body that is included to help inform decision-making. When we were asked to attend the interim planning committee meeting, we were more than happy to go along and talk to the committee and put forward some of our suggestions. The reality is that if we are included in the planning improvement programme, we are more than happy to offer our advice and guidance in so far as it affects the work of the commission. We have observed the process across all 11 councils from the appeal work that we do.

Mr Boylan: I appreciate that. As I listened to the questions, I remembered PPS14, when it all started out; PPS21; the new councils and the transfer of powers. The new planning system was transferred to the old Armagh City and District Council that I sat on, and we are sitting here 20 years later. I respect your independence, but you have a part to play. We are doing a report, and we have done numerous reports. Everybody plays their part, but they play their part in isolation, and that is the way that it comes across.

How can we pool the scarce resources across the board to deliver for the North of Ireland? We need to look at what we can do better. You mentioned the figures, and we want to do justice to the report that we are bringing forward that will contain recommendations. I am trying to get the best information that I can from you, and this is your opportunity to relay a message to us.

Ms Kells: We fully appreciate the resourcing and funding of the public sector, and we appreciate the challenges that come with that. That is why we have put forward the case for different funding models. If some of our work could be put on a par with that in some of the other jurisdictions, we could work on a cost-recovery basis.

Again, picking up on the recommendation of the Audit Office's report, we will look at that — it could give us a better model to work from. As I outlined, we know what we need for the appeal casework. The challenge is that the "hear and report" work is very much demand-driven, and that is hard to figure out. However, over the coming years, we want to be in a position where we can deliver very much on the local development plan process because the Department of Justice has given that commitment to us. With the other workstreams, we have to figure out how we can continue to do that work. If we have direct funding for those workstreams, we will have a mechanism to do that.

Mr Boylan: I have a final point about the development plan, Chair. We have waited a long time for the development plan. You have a job and a role to play, and we need to move that process forward. Thank you for your response.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): You touched on a couple of points, and I will mop up what the other members have said. I am interested in Cathal's point about improving the relationships, which is important because there are clearly some barriers that we hope to get to the bottom of when we conclude our evidence sessions. How can you, as the commissioner, and your organisation work better with DFI and the Department of Justice to maximise the limited resources to benefit the public and ensure that there is value for money in those situations?

Cathal touched on the fact that there is a critical role for you. We have all experienced the magic roundabout effect, whereby one organisation blames another. This is a question that will be posed to the other witnesses: what can you, as commissioner of your organisation, do to prioritise scarce resources to ensure maximum benefit to the public?

Ms Kells: There are probably two things. The first is to put in place the protocol that has come out of the Audit Office's recommendation on looking to the future workstreams. There is also the conversation piece: we may need to be a bit more aggressive in discussing prioritisation, because we need guidance on that. If that comes from the referring authority, we can take that on board and prioritise those workstreams. Those are the two key things when it comes to working with our scarce resources.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): There is an opportunity for you, as commissioner, and your organisation here. We are delving into this and will look at the various other relevant bodies over the next few weeks. Ultimately, once we publish our report and furnish you and others with recommendations, we will chase them up, so any particular hurdle will become apparent to us at one point or another. There is therefore an opportunity for you to fix some of the challenges with communication and lack of understanding around resources that you have outlined. I hope that you maximise that opportunity as and when it is presented.

You referred to the need for legislative change. That is important. What specific changes do you consider necessary to improve the commission's governance and performance, and how would those changes address the problems identified in the NIAO report?

Ms Kells: The legislative changes that we talked about are not related to the governance of the commission per se. They are ways to improve the planning system, looking at changes to the environmental regime etc, as I mentioned, to remove some of the blockers that exist in the legislative regime. They can also be brought through the local development plan process.

On the governance side, we have been set up as a tribunal non-departmental public body (NDPB). The Audit Office report has alerted everybody to the challenges that that brings in the context of today's framework. It is a timely and welcome opportunity to look at that and to figure out what the change will be. I am not sure what legislative requirement there will be, but that will come out of that fundamental review.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you.

Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry to say that I am still not clear on the issue of retirements. If a commissioner were to say to you this morning, "I'm retiring on 31 March 2027", what actions would you have taken by the close of business today?

Ms Kells: I would have notified the sponsor body that we are expecting a retirement on that date.

Mr Nesbitt: Would you have recruited somebody by 31 March 2027?

Ms Kells: Given the timelines that we have looked at from May/June of this year, it is highly unlikely that we would have somebody in place by that date.

Mr Nesbitt: Why not?

Ms Kells: Again, I can speak only to the fact that we alert the Departments of the vacancy's arising at the earliest opportunity. They have to go through their approval processes for the business case for recruitment to fill the vacancy.

Mr Nesbitt: As Colm has said, there already is a business case. In that example, it is a replacement, not an addition. I chair a board of governors of a school. When the principal announced that he was going to retire, we had his successor lined up to start the day after he retired.

Ms Kells: I appreciate that. That would be the ideal situation for me. Unfortunately, it is not in my gift.

Mr Nesbitt: I would like us to explore that.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): We will certainly follow up on that with the Department of Justice officials at our next evidence session. Hopefully, that will provide clarification. It just feels that you are constantly having to face a cliff edge, which, ultimately, adds to problems.

Mr Gildernew: I note the example that you gave of someone who retired in March 2026.

Ms Kells: They did not retire; they left the commission.

Mr Gildernew: But is there still no process to replace them? Six months later, there is just a process or not even a process?

Ms O'Donnell: There is a process in place.

Ms Kells: We have been given an assurance that that recruitment is moving forward.

Mr Gildernew: Six months later.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): That will come up at the next evidence session.

Ms O'Donnell: The age profile at the moment is such that we do not foresee many retirements in the next five years, but we can see that, potentially, some people will leave. We just do not know.

Mr Gildernew: That was clearly a resignation rather than a retirement.

Ms O'Donnell: Yes.

Mr Gildernew: So, you will have those no matter what the age profile is.

Mr Boylan: Maybe after today's session.

Ms O'Donnell: Only one month's notice has to be given, so that is quite a constrained time frame. As Andrea said, the recruitment process is very long.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Clearly, lack of resilience and planning need to be weeded out and dealt with. Losing people in such a way and leaving a vacancy for such a long period with the workload that you have outlined puts further pressure on the existing workforce. I assume that it would not be an ideal environment to be in, given that you are already very busy.

Ms Kells: Indeed, and I hope that it helps you to understand why I had to take the decisions that I did regarding all the work that the team on the commission side and the admin side put into not only maintaining performance but getting us to where we are now. It is down to their hard work and efforts that we have seen the change.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): We will certainly be seeking clarification on that at the next evidence session. Dorinnia, have you anything to add?

Ms Dorinnia Carville (Northern Ireland Audit Office): Yes. A point was made about things that the commission wanted to see in our report but are not in it. Some of the examples given were legislative changes and machinery of governance changes. I want to make two points, of which the Committee is aware. The first is about the independence of my office and our reporting. The second is that matters of policy sit firmly outside my statutory remit. Whilst that was explained, that is why we arrived at our recommendation 1, which is for a fundamental review by those whose statutory remit means that they could bring forward any such changes. It is important for the public record to close off that point.

Mr Stuart Stevenson (Department of Finance): I have a point of information on the handling of media protocols. Our guiding principle is that it is inappropriate to comment in detail on any Audit Office reports, certainly while they are being published and even until the relevant Assembly process is complete, which includes these ongoing hearings, and the Public Accounts Committee finalises its report.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you, Stuart.

Given what the Treasury Officer of Accounts has just said, how do you feel about the approach that you initially took in response to the report?

Ms Kells: It was warranted in the circumstances that I described.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Even though the guiding principle is that it would be inappropriate?

Ms Kells: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): That does not point too well to lessons being learned, but I certainly hope that, after what you have heard in this room today from members of the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury Officer of Accounts and others, you will adhere to that advice and guidance because, as Chair of the Committee, I found the response very strange. I have had a number of sessions with the Committee on the Planning Appeals Commission, and our findings and recommendations will reflect the evidence that we have received. I hope that the guiding principles outlined by Mr Stevenson are understood.

That concludes the formal evidence session. I thank you both, commissioner and deputy commissioner, for your attendance and for sharing your views and experiences. The Committee appreciates the time that you took to engage with the inquiry and your agreeing to attend, which has providing us with a perspective on the findings of the Audit Office report as well as on the work undertaken by the commission since the period examined by the Audit Office. You have welcomed the recommendations, and that is noted.

Clearly, Committee members have picked up on a number of issues, which we will need to consider carefully as we take forward the inquiry. We may have further questions for the commission as our work progresses. If that is the case, we will be in touch, but, for today, I thank you for being with us, sharing the information with us and explaining some of the hurdles that exist. The clear message from the Committee is that we want to see more collaborative working with the relevant Departments. We are here to ensure that there is value for public money, accountability on the part of the organisations that spend that money and benefit to the public from that investment. The reason why there is a report from the Audit Office and why we are having the inquiry is that there are concerns that need to be addressed. Hopefully, by the conclusion of our sessions and the publication of our recommendations, we will be moving in the right direction, but, for today, thank you both.

Ms Kells: Thank you.

Ms O'Donnell: Thank you.