Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I welcome to the Committee our witnesses from the Department for Infrastructure: Emer Morelli, permanent secretary; Kathryn McFerran; director of regional planning policy and casework; and Rosemary Daly, chief planner and director of regional planning, governance and legislation. You are all very welcome. Thank you for giving us your time to take questions on this important subject today. Also joining us at the Committee are Dorinnia Carville, the Comptroller and Auditor General from the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO); Tomas Wilkinson, Conor McGeown and Claire Turner from the Audit Office; and Stuart Stevenson, Treasury Officer of Accounts from the Department of Finance. You are all very welcome. Áine Murphy will join us shortly online, and Gareth Wilson will do so in person.

Permanent secretary, I welcome you and your officials to the Committee. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report, 'A Strategic Review of the Planning Appeals Commission', has highlighted significant concerns about delays and backlogs; weaknesses in governance and accountability arrangements; and strained working relationships. Those issues have wider implications for the planning system, particularly its ability to support economic development and provide certainty for investors in Northern Ireland. The Committee wants to ensure that the appeals system operates in a timely, effective and transparent manner while safeguarding the quality and independence of the commission's quasi-judicial decision-making role.

In evidence to the Committee last week, the chief commissioner outlined a combination of circumstances that had contributed to the delays and backlogs in the planning system. It was said that, taken together, those circumstances could be described as a "perfect storm". The chief commissioner outlined improvements that have been made since. However, while the reduction in the backlog is welcome, it does not, in itself, demonstrate that the underlying issues have been fully addressed. The Committee has also heard that the commission had been seeking a structural review since 2021, which is five years ago. That raises important questions about what action was taken in response and why a structural review has not been progressed.

The commission does not operate in isolation: it is a part of the wider planning system in which a number of organisations have responsibilities for ensuring its effective operation. The Committee's inquiry is therefore examining whether the organisations involved have fulfilled their respective responsibilities in ensuring that the commission operates effectively and delivers value for money. That includes consideration of its governance and accountability arrangements; the management of workloads and resources; and the effectiveness of relationships across the planning system.

Today, the Committee will explore the Department for Infrastructure's role and responsibilities, including its contribution to the pressures experienced by the commission, the effectiveness of its working relationships and the action needed to address the underlying issues. The Committee has agreed terms of reference for the inquiry, which have been provided, to examine whether all the organisations involved in the planning system have fulfilled their respective responsibilities in ensuring that the Planning Appeals Commission delivers value for money. Importantly, the Committee wants to understand what needs to change; who will take responsibility for delivering those necessary, essential and urgent changes; and how sustainable improvements can be achieved. The Committee has a number of important questions, many of which we raised with the commissioner last week. I am not sure whether you had the opportunity to see that evidence session; maybe you have watched it.

With that, I invite you to give us some opening remarks, after which I will open it up to members. Thank you, Emer.

Ms Emer Morelli (Department for Infrastructure): Thank you, Chair, and members of the Committee for inviting the Department to give evidence on this important strategic review of the Planning Appeals Commission. The Department welcomes the Audit Office report and its recommendations. I thank the Audit Office for the rigour and quality of its report and for the opportunities that it gave departmental officials to contribute during its preparation.

I begin by recognising the fundamental importance of effective planning outcomes. Planning plays a critical role in shaping Northern Ireland's future: creating better places; supporting regeneration and investment; and managing environmental impact across urban and rural areas. Given its significance, it is essential that the planning system is fit for purpose and delivers effectively for everyone. I fully accept the Department's leadership role as the regional planning authority that is responsible for the statutory and policy framework and the strategic oversight of the system's health and performance. I also recognise that the appeals process and the role of the Planning Appeals Commission are pivotal to effective functioning of the planning system. As an independent statutory body, the commission provides essential scrutiny of planning decisions, helping to ensure fairness, consistency and public confidence across the system.

The Department is no stranger to scrutiny of the performance of the regional planning system. We have built upon that scrutiny, the relevant reports and the work advanced through the planning improvement programme (PIP), reflecting an ongoing commitment to collaborate and continuously improve. We welcome the Audit Office's recognition, in its most recent annual report, of the positive impact that the programme is having in driving improvements across the planning system. It is, however, critical that all stakeholders and delivery partners recognise their collective responsibility for the success of the planning system. Meaningful and sustained improvement will depend on every organisation playing its part while respecting their distinct statutory roles. That includes the Department, councils, the Planning Appeals Commission and statutory consultees, as well as applicants, agents, elected representatives, the business community and interested groups and individuals with an interest or stake in the planning process.

Our approach to planning improvement has been based on using every available lever to find improvements and efficiencies in all aspects of the planning process — legislation, policy, guidance, practice and procedures — and on capacity-building, training and recruitment initiatives. We recognise that there is no silver bullet or single solution, but it is hoped that that collective package of actions and measures will help to deliver the improvement that is needed in both the quality and speed of planning outcomes. Progress also depends on sustained stakeholder engagement and collaboration across the system, for the reasons that I have outlined. We will be happy to explain that work in more detail to the Committee today.

I want to be clear that the Department recognises the specific importance of its working relationship with the commission, particularly on hear-and-report work for local development plans (LDPs) and regionally significant planning applications. I assure the Committee that we are working and will work with the commission to make those arrangements and processes as efficient and effective as possible. Planning operates in an often contested space. It is inherently complex, requiring difficult decisions that must balance economic, environmental and social considerations. Its delivery depends on effective collaboration with a number of organisations, each with a distinct role. DFI will continue to engage and work with the Planning Appeals Commission and all stakeholders to do all within its remit to improve the planning system for everyone.

Chair, that concludes my opening remarks. We are happy to answer questions.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thanks very much, Emer, and thanks for keeping your opening remarks concise. Am I correct that you indicated that you witnessed last week's evidence? You watched it online?

Ms Morelli: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. Do you agree with the criticisms of and conclusions on the Planning Appeals Commission in the Northern Ireland Audit Office report? What is your assessment of how the commission has been operating?

Ms Morelli: I recognise the challenges faced by the commission, which are set out very clearly in the NIAO report. It is important to address those as quickly and effectively as possible, given the hugely important role that the Planning Appeals Commission plays in the planning system. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt or comment on potential conclusions or solutions in advance of any fundamental review, but I am here to give the Department's commitment to work with all parties across the planning system to ensure that the system is working.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Emer, you are the permanent secretary. The Planning Appeals Commission is a key part of the planning system. It has been heavily criticised for significant delays, and, in turn, so, too, has your Department's planning division. What is the relationship like between the relevant part of your Department and the planning appeals commissioners?

Ms Morelli: The relationship between my Department and the Planning Appeals Commission has improved and is improving. I will turn to colleagues who are more closely engaged in the business-as-usual work. The quarterly meetings with the Planning Appeals Commission were reinstated in May 2025. They are ongoing and in the diary.

Mrs Rosemary Daly (Department for Infrastructure): In 2024, we took a look at the planning improvement programme. One of the key things was to work with all stakeholders across the board, from people who are looking to invest in Northern Ireland to our local communities and our local councils — not only the planners on the councils but elected members. It is about engaging with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE). The Planning Appeals Commission is another critical stakeholder.

I appreciate, as Kathryn does, the importance of regular updates. We know and respect the independent role of the commission. We know that its independence is vital to give confidence in the planning system. We are very keen to ensure that there is that quarterly update, which is really about programming work and giving the commission forewarned notice of what is likely to come on to its books, so that things do not just arrive without any notification and the Planning Appeals Commission can prepare. The commission is then able to resource and factor that work in and accommodate it in its allocation of workloads. That has been re-established.

At the outset, the Planning Appeals Commission was invited to be part of the planning improvement programme. My predecessor, Angus Kerr, wrote to the chief commissioner in November 2022 to advise her of the planning improvement programme and set out the actions. A copy of the programme was provided. She was asked for her comments on the programme and invited to add to any comments. The commission was invited into the programme at that stage.

Since then, there have been regular updates. In the same way that I update any head of planning on any changes, I update the chief commissioner. We work closely with the Planning Appeals Commission on the validation checklist and any piece of legislation that impacts on the appeals system. Because there is such different interaction at different stages, there are certain points when it is more appropriate to engage with certain stakeholders. The planning statutory consultee forum is a really good example of where other parts of the system do not engage directly with them, but we do. In the same way, there is an appropriate time and place to engage with the commission. Since Kathryn and I have been in post, that has been in place. I just want to assure you of that.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. An important point that I would pick out from what has been said is that the relationship "has improved and is improving". From what position has it improved? How was it? We are focused on the huge backlog that existed and the fraught processes that were in place. It is important to point out, for accuracy, that, last week, the commission said that it was excluded from some recent planning initiatives, such as the regional planning commission. Is that at odds with what you have said?

Mrs Daly: The regional planning commission is identified in the report. In actual fact, if you look at the membership of the regional planning commission, you will see that it is made up of all stakeholders that interact with the system. We always have to be very careful to respect the independence of the commission. If you bring the commission into a group, you run the risk of blurring the lines of its independence. Just to be clear: the interim regional planning commission was established in response to the previous audit of the planning system. That audit did not really home in on any issues with the Planning Appeals Commission at that point. The key, fundamental issue for the interim regional planning commission to look at was the two-tier system. That having been said, the interim regional planning commission invited the Planning Appeals Commission in to give a presentation, and it has been part of the report that the interim regional planning commission has presented. There are considerations in that report for improvements to commission processes as well.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK.

Mr Nesbitt: I want to expand on the relationship between the Department and the Planning Appeals Commission. Have you ever come across an occasion when the commission has said to you either, "We cannot discuss that issue" or, "We will not discuss that issue"?

Mrs Daly: Personally, I —.

Mr Nesbitt: As a Department.

Mrs Daly: To be fair, I have worked as a commissioner, so I came to the Department with an understanding of the importance of the commission's independence. There are times when engagement is not appropriate, especially if you are crossing the line into the decision-making of a professional planner or trying to influence how something should be done. After work has been programmed and a commissioner has been appointed to that specific piece of work, we do not influence the process.

I can only speak for my time in the Department, but there has never been a situation in which the commission has refused to engage on anything. There are a lot of capacity and training initiatives, and bringing commissioners into that space could risk it being perceived that there is a bias towards industry or people in the room, so they have to be very clear on that. We would never want to put the commission in a vulnerable position. We always give an open invitation that it is welcome to attend or not, but that is entirely a matter for the chief commissioner.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): If, following our consideration of the evidence sessions, the Committee were to recommend a fundamental review of the commission's governance and accountability arrangements, what would DFI consider should be the key priorities of that review?

Ms Morelli: We would welcome such a review. We would want it to look at a number of issues, such as financial sustainability; the governance structure; and, potentially, the function and where that rests. We would not want to pre-empt the findings of a review in any way, and I appreciate that it would be for the Department of Justice to set the terms of reference for a review, but we would be very keen to engage as closely as we can with all partners in making sure that it is a robust, fundamental review that ensures that we get the right solution.

To step back a bit, as Rosemary reflected, the Minister is at the apex of all planning decision-making, albeit under the two-tier system. The Planning Appeals Commission plays a fundamental role in providing independent advice in that model. We would need to be careful that fairness, transparency and openness in decision-making are at the heart of a fundamental review.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Would you say that all those things are missing at present?

Ms Morelli: Not at all, but a review would demonstrate if there is any potential —.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): It is fair to say that the current system is not working though.

Ms Morelli: The planning improvement programme exists to bring about improvement, and continuous improvement in the system can only be a good thing. We welcome this Audit Office report, on the back of the 2022 and 2024 reports, because it gives an overview of the system in its entirety.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. Rosemary, you were nodding there.

Mrs Daly: I cannot remember the question now.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): It was —. I have forgotten the question now too. [Laughter.]

The system is not working well.

Mrs Daly: The 2011 Planning Act meant significant change for councils. Unfortunately, in hindsight, the review of public administration in respect of local councils did not focus enough on the functions of the Planning Appeals Commission. The commission was established in 1973 and has never gone through a real fundamental review. It would be timely to have a review, and I welcome that the Audit Office is looking at the issue. We need certainty in the system. We need to have all levers pulling together. It takes a lot of resource and time to get applications across the line to the commission. When those applications are ready to go to the commission, we need them to be delivered as quickly as possible.

I really do think that there is an opportunity to review. There are areas in which the Planning Appeals Commission could help out in the planning system, and there are areas in which things could be done much more efficiently. I assure you that we are looking at the overall situation. We very much encourage local democracy in the planning system, and, believe it or not, we all benefit from that to some extent. It is really timely that we look into how the commission could be more fit for purpose and deliver better outcomes.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I appreciate that, Rosemary. Emer, the permanent secretary, has rightly pointed out some of the obvious things that we would like to emerge. Rosemary, as the chief planner, you are the expert in the Department. It is OK to ask the Department of Justice to look at it, but, really, the expertise on the nuts and bolts of the operation lies in your Department. What key priorities would you like to see considered in such a review to ensure that it is effective?

Mrs Daly: The core of the planning improvement programme is efficiency and effectiveness. I attended an event with local government last week, and it was all about trying to save money. Why are we making the processes a lot more complex? We have to be very mindful that people feel that, in development plans, there is a duplication of roles. Let us try to slim that down. There is a role for DFI. What is the role of the independent body? It is about looking at efficiencies in the system. We have limited resources. We could modernise the IT process. People are used now to logging in. Legislation that was brought in in August 2025 means that applications are on websites before they go into the system. We can be innovative and make the processes much more accessible, more affordable and easier.

We are all concerned about the costs of delay. We are very aware of the costs of delay. There are many types of delay. It is not good for local communities to have major applications and decisions hanging over them. People want timely decisions, and they want the right decisions. In my experience, people find it much easier to live with a decision not going their way if they have been part of the decision-making process — if they have had the opportunity to give their view and their view has been taken into account. It is about looking at how we can be efficient. We are all part of the planning system, and we all have a duty to make it work. We must respect the independence in that space, but we also need to work together on the overall operation of the system.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I completely agree with what you have outlined, but the reform of local government in 2015 was supposed to streamline the planning system, with localised decisions etc. Are we now in a more or less bureaucratic decision-making situation for larger projects?

Mrs Daly: Oddly, the processes on larger projects are the ones in the system that perform best. Performance on major projects is better because of the quality of the applications going into the system: there will have been more pre-consultation work and more engagement with local communities. Those applications tend to go through the system much more efficiently. Unfortunately, regionally significant applications are less so. They are very complex. That is why the delay in hear and report is so critical. It is a small part of the process, but that delay is critical. Kathryn will explain the process.

Dr Kathryn McFerran (Department for Infrastructure): It was the Executive's will for planning — both local development plans and the casework — to be localised. My team deals with the regionally significant applications and the call-in applications, five of which have been taken back into the Department, because they sat for a considerable length of time with the Planning Appeals Commission and were not timetabled, and the information in them became out of date. We would like to see certainty. Rosemary mentioned the frustration of applicants and agents who are having to redo surveys and provide environmental information again. We are having to reprocess that information, and local communities face uncertainty about the decision-making process again. That is one of the reasons why the applications were brought back into the Department.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. Thank you, Kathryn.

Mr Boylan: I want to touch on some of the points that have been raised. Rosemary, I went through the progression of that 255-clause Bill, and I will never get that time back. It is what it is. At the time, we, as the Committee, were forensic and thought that we were doing the right thing. Now, we understand that other things could have been done.

While respecting the autonomy and independence of the Planning Appeals Commission in its decision-making, where do you see the commission's responsibility in the planning pyramid, with the two-tier system and all of that? Can you give a view on the commission's importance?

Dr McFerran: The Planning Appeals Commission is a very important element. It offers independent reporting. It takes forward the independent examination of our local development plans. From the Department's perspective, the commission takes forward the hear-and-report work and public local enquiries. It is an important element.

Mr Boylan: While the Planning Appeals Commission is independent for those reasons, it seems to be outside the system. That is how most people view it. We are carrying out this investigation and will provide a report, and we see the commission as an integral part of the planning process. It must be tied in to make sure that the right decisions are made. That is the context in which I ask the question.

Mrs Daly: A review could look at where it is appropriate for the Planning Appeals Commission to sit. It used to sit in the then Department for the Environment (DOE), and that was not appropriate because the DOE was making the decisions. The transfer of powers to councils built in an automatic separation in decision-making between the councils and central government. We are not involved in any local decisions; there is already a separation there.

You have to understand that, when people appeal decisions, it is not all about hear and report. If a fundamental review of the commission is undertaken, the importance of that existing separation must be recognised. An appeal is a first step when someone feels aggrieved, disagrees with an interpretation and wants to test it. We all know that planning is subjective, and you may not necessarily agree with the final decision. There needs to be a built-in process whereby you can appeal. Sometimes, we find that the courts are used as an appeal mechanism, as opposed to the actual appeals process being used. We want to avoid that. We want to make things much simpler for the public. We want to streamline and make efficiencies where possible. Where the Planning Appeals Commission sits would be an important matter for any review. One side will say, "No, we need to maintain that level of separation". However, there could be other practical reasons for saying that it is important that the Minister sits over the planning system, not necessarily in making decisions but certainly in programming work or identifying priorities for the region.

Mr Boylan: There are two main points that I want to pick up on. The report identifies weaknesses in communication. Where are we in relation to that? You touched on how those relationships have been improved and the measures that have been put in place.

How confident are you that the Planning Appeals Commission can deliver with its current structure? You keep saying that there needs to be a review. What should that review entail in order to get things right and ensure that the commission is properly resourced, is properly structured and can deliver for the future?

How is your engagement with the commission now? What progress is being made on that? How do you see the commission going forward?

Ms Morelli: As I said, there are formal quarterly update meetings with the Planning Appeals Commission, as well as our ongoing business of day-to-day engagement. You touched on what would be the key strands of a fundamental review. It should be about the financial sustainability of the organisation. It should also be about the commission's agility. Planning cases do not come in a steady stream; they come in peaks and troughs. Indeed, in the past two or three years, we have been in a peak. Again, on the basic point of value for money, we need to make sure that we do not have an organisation that is stagnant for a number of years and is then asked to step up very quickly to meet demand. All those issues need to be looked at. Learning from best practice elsewhere is key. We have our local planning system, but there are many other planning systems that we can look to. The fundamentals that a review should consider are resourcing, finance and the statutory function that the commission is required to deliver.

Mr Boylan: I have a final question, Chair, which is an important one. Do you believe that the tools are there and that we will not need legislative change? Is there enough there, by way of policy and everything else, to address the concerns without having to look at a legislative process?

Mrs Daly: I was in the Planning Appeals Commission when the powers were transferred from the then Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). There was no legislative change. The changes could come about through a review.

That having been said, we are open-minded. We know that there are areas in which the legislation needs to be fixed. A fundamental review is not needed to the extent of that which you, Cathal, have experienced before, however.

Mr Boylan: Absolutely not.

Mrs Daly: We know that areas of the legislation could be better. We are well aware of that. In fact, the Minister before Minister Kimmins, Minister O'Dowd, said that we really need to look at the LDP process. Any wider fundamental review of legislation could look at whether we need the Planning Appeals Commission to be involved. We need to ask whether it is the right body. We can be very open-minded about that.

You mentioned being assured of communication. It should be understood that the independent inspectors represent extra capacity. The Minister and the perm secretary have gone to great efforts so that we can benefit from transformation funding. That funding is there so that we can appoint independent inspectors. The appointments process will be done in coordination with the Planning Appeals Commission. It is not a case of them and us. It is not the Department's role to set up the appellant function.

The legislation was drafted at that time — perhaps you were involved, Cathal, although I do not know — to allow the Department to appoint independent inspectors to overcome issues in such scenarios. As Emer explained, the planning system has to be reactive and agile. Agility has to be built into the system so that, were we to need extra capacity, we could use that process. In that, our relationship with the Planning Appeals Commission becomes critical, because we will have to schedule work at a certain time and look at how to deliver it efficiently. That is very much to be welcomed. We are aware of the process from our conversations with not only the Planning Appeals Commission but DOJ. DOJ has been very supportive towards us in helping us understand how the review will impact on the Planning Appeals Commission.

Mr Boylan: I can neither confirm nor deny that I was part of that legislative process.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Perhaps you were part of the problem, Cathal. [Laughter.]

Mr Boylan: If you want, I can leave now, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you for that. It leads me on neatly to a follow-up question. You will have noted that, last week, the chief commissioner expressed support for transferring functions to an agency in the Department for Infrastructure. You have touched on a number of aspects that are relevant to that. In line with approaches adopted by other jurisdictions, which Emer cited, has the Department explored that option here? If so, what assessment has it undertaken of the potential benefits, risks and implications, including experiences and best practice in other jurisdictions?

Ms Morelli: That is where the findings in the Audit Office report are very useful, Chair. Again, that is why we are so supportive of the fundamental review. To act in advance of it would be premature. We are therefore keen to contribute all that we can to the fundamental review to make sure that the right solution is found. Our main goal is for the overall planning system to be effective, so if any recommendations are made that will improve its effectiveness, the Department will not be found wanting. Ultimately, it will be a decision for the Minister, but that decision will need to be informed by the evidence that comes from the review.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): There is a wide recognition that the situation needs to be fixed. Is it safe to say that the action of putting inspectors in place has already put a foot in the door?

Ms Morelli: No. As Rosemary explained, it is a legislative tool, and that lever is available to us. Any model that can address unexpected peaks or a capacity need can only be helpful, because planning is an ongoing issue while we await the outcome of the fundamental review.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. Thank you.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, folks, for your presentation. You all attend the Committee for Infrastructure regularly, and I appreciate your updates. On a wider point, there is no doubt that the scale of delays across the planning system has had, and is having, a detrimental impact on our economy. In our role as elected representatives, we are reminded of that reasonably regularly. Delays cause a negative impact by putting off potential investors from coming to Northern Ireland. Has your Department ever done, or will it do, any work on quantifying the economic impact of planning delays, particularly on the regionally significant projects on which we have focused, including for housing developments and renewable energy?

Dr McFerran: I will take that one, Emer. The first thing to put on record is that the Department recognises the importance of timely decision-making, particularly for those regionally significant applications and also call-in applications. In the past, we have not been where we wanted to be, and that is where the planning improvement programme has been so important, because not only does it identify work with councils but it involves the Department looking at itself to see where it can make improvements.

No, there has not been a review of the economic impact of those specific applications. You could say that about wider planning as well, because it has an impact on social and environmental aspects. Planning is holistic. There has, however, been an impact from the team's putting those five applications back into the system, and there has certainly been an economic impact on applicants and agents, who have had to go to some expense to redo surveys and resubmit information. In my team, those applications took a long time to process to get them up to a point in time. There were reiterations, environmental information and other information going up and being processed and advertised. Moreover, we needed time with the Minister to refer those applications or make a decision on them. That will all have to be done again. In that sense, there will be an economic impact, but it has not been quantified.

Mr Dunne: Do you think that, potentially, down the line, you will ever be in a place in which that impact will be quantified? Is it not a priority to try to quantify it?

Dr McFerran: At the minute, my priority is to get those applications —

Mr Dunne: I know, yes.

Dr McFerran: — moving through the system as quickly as possible. Since they have been taken back, those conversations have happened with applicants and agents. Some applicants or agents have chosen to amend their scheme — a renewables scheme, for example — because, given the time that it has taken, sometimes technology has changed or the environmental information has been updated. We therefore keep in regular contact with them. My priority is to get those applications through the system and to the Minister again.

Mrs Daly: Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system is a core part of the planning improvement programme. We operate in a facilitating role in the planning system. The same applies with regionally significant applications. Those are a small number of applications at the top of the system. Investors will make a decision to come to Northern Ireland and then say that they are going to build a wind farm, a solar farm or whatever it may be. They make that decision and submit an application, and our system will then facilitate a change, an amendment or an update. We also get requests from those who are investing to ask, "Can you hold off on making that decision while we correct something?". That happens across the board. That is how our system works, and it is why we end up with an almost 95% approval rate across the system. It is systematic to the work of the councils.

We could make decisions much quicker. We could refuse approvals because the information is not right, but we do not do that. We choose, however, to work with people who will invest in our economy. We choose to try to get the proposal right so that we are in a position in which we can possibly recommend an approval. Not very many approvals are refused. Kathryn's team works very hard to make sure that the applications are processed procedurally correctly. That takes time, because, ultimately, a judicial review challenge could mean that we go back to square one over and over again. That is why we are very cautious and take our time. We are prepared to work with agents, applicants and investors in our system. It is important to recognise that. Councils go through the same process.

Mr Dunne: OK. Thank you. I appreciate the improvements — pardon the pun — that have come from the planning improvement programme, and I know that you have spoken before to the Infrastructure Committee about it. That is certainly welcome. Do you feel that anything more needs to be done, or do you view the PIP as being a silver bullet-type programme?

Mrs Daly: Thank you, Stephen, for that. There is no one solution. The Planning Appeals Commission is an issue, as are statutory consultees. There are so many levers that we are pulling. There is the pre-application consultation. There is community engagement. We now have a work stream to work with elected members of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) on training and capacity. It is about bringing in every element of the process so that we are all pulling together in the same way. Doing that is core to the planning improvement programme. Kathryn and I are very open to facilitating any discussion, and we are open to meeting anyone who has an issue that we have not thought about. No offence, Emer, but Denis used to talk about doing a collaborative diagnosis of the system, and we have done that. That is in addition to what we have done with the findings of the Audit Office report. We are well aware of all the problems. It is now about getting the solutions into play so that we can make things better. If we cannot fix the issues with the current legislation, we are open to looking at introducing legislation.

Mr Dunne: OK. Thank you.

Mr Nesbitt: I will follow on from what Stephen said. Emer, I think that I heard you say in your opening remarks that there are three factors to be taken into consideration: economic, environmental and social. From a policy perspective, should all three be given equal weight, or would it be appropriate for a Minister, or, indeed, the Executive Committee, to say, "We want to give additional weight to the economic factor" and presume that planning that will have a big economic impact goes ahead with a sort of "Yes, but" attitude?

Ms Morelli: That is a key political question. The Programme for Government (PFG) would be the place in which to have the policy intent. At the moment, the balance is broadly between how we are developing our social housing infrastructure and how we are developing our economic corridors and road network. To my mind, that is a broader political question for the Executive.

Mr Nesbitt: Have you had a policy direction from the current Minister?

Ms Morelli: As it stands, our planning system is based on the legislative framework in which it was set up. That is where, as officials, operate.

Mr Nesbitt: To be clear, do you attach equal weight to the three factors?

Dr McFerran: Every case is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Not only officials but experts, consultees, third parties and interested parties also review the information. That is a very important part of the system. That is why planning is such a contested space. Sometimes, getting the decisions right is quite complicated. It is why we are criticised so much, regardless of whether we approve or refuse, or even if we take an application to a public local inquiry. In the end, it is all about getting that balance.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you for coming to the Committee. We heard in evidence last week that DFI withdrew five applications in July. Kathryn, you have mentioned the hear-and-report cases, and the hearing requests that were withdrawn. Why were those applications withdrawn?

Dr McFerran: To clarify, the chief commissioner said that the applications were taken back potentially to be given to the independent planning inspectors. That is not the case, and that has been relayed both verbally and when Rosemary's team has held workshops. They were taken back either because the information became out of date or because the applicants chose to amend the scheme. That was done in the interests of clarity, consistency and good practice. If one is an interested party, it is very difficult to know where those applications sit. The Department therefore showed leadership by taking them back to be relooked at and reprocessed so that there would then be clarity in the system.

When it comes to the point of making a decision, a board will provide clear governance on whether those applications go to the Planning Appeals Commission or to the independent inspectors. That has been reiterated and advised.

Mr Honeyford: They were not withdrawn because they were no longer needed or simply to relieve pressure.

Dr McFerran: No, they were not withdrawn. When the Northern Ireland Audit Office spoke to a lot of stakeholders, there was a flurry of timetabling, and a lot of applications were timetabled. Prior to that, however, I wrote to the Planning Appeals Commission to ask for dialogue, as I knew that some of those applications could not be taken forward, because their information was out of date or because we knew that some applicants wanted to update their scheme. They were therefore taken back. There were six applications at one stage, but one report has been given back to the Department. Three relate to an ongoing public local inquiry. As I said, the applicant in the sixth case withdrew the application, and the five are now back with the Department for us to reprocess.

Mr Honeyford: It is not the case that they will end up back at the commission, where the process will start all over again.

Dr McFerran: They may end up back at the commission again, depending on the decision, for a hearing. One case is a public local inquiry, but, again, we have to work through that process, as well as through the statutory process in DFI.

Mr Honeyford: No problem. The commission told us last week that it had warned DFI that it could not cope with the workload. Did that happen?

Dr McFerran: Yes, we are aware of correspondence from the commission to a former chief planner stating that it had resource issues. As Emer said, the Planning Appeals Commission has a statutory duty in the regulations, of which public local inquiries are one element. If the Minister approves or refuses an application by way of a notice of opinion, an applicant or agent can ask to appear before the Planning Appeals Commission. It is mandatory that they go to the Planning Appeals Commission. There was an awful lot of work done to get those applications up and out through our Minister. We cannot just hold them in abeyance. They have to keep moving through the system.

Mrs Daly: You asked a really good question last week, David. Every organisation has resource issues. Processing applications is a statutory function of the Planning Appeals Commission. That would be like Kathryn saying, "I can't take in any new applications. We can't process them, because we don't have resources". Planning system resources are key, hence the reason that we have the trainee planner programme and independent inspectors. It is not a case of our being innovative in how we programme our work. Resources are key. We cannot just pull down the shutters and say, "We've no resources to deal with these things". Instead, we have to find a way in which to get work through the system. You asked a question about that last week, David, and it was pertinent of you to recognise that everyone has resource pressures.

Mr Honeyford: That is what I am trying to tease out now. With all planning, people's biggest frustration is that their application gets stuck in the process at whatever level and then goes to consultation. They do not see movement. Will you clarify that it is the Planning Appeals Commission's role to process applications and that your role is to send applications on to the Planning Appeals Commission not to be a stopgap or to cause a delay? Your role is simply to keep passing on applications, and the commission's statutory duty is to process them. Others will pick up on resource, but it is the commission's job to process applications.

Mrs Daly: Hear and report is a function of the Planning Appeals Commission. Some applications will not need to be subject to that rigour. The Minister will make a decision on whether she wants to go to a public local inquiry. Not every case gets to that point, but there will be reasons why applications should go through that process. The only body that we go to at the moment is the Planning Appeals Commission, so that is part of its statutory function.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Rosemary, you said that you responded to what the commissioner said last week and outlined resourcing challenges generally, and you are right to point out that the Planning Appeals Commission has a statutory responsibility. Last week, the Committee, specifically Mike and Colm, picked up on a strange situation, and no doubt other members will ask about it before the session is over. There does not seem to be any forward planning for staff resourcing in the Planning Appeals Commission. If someone announces that they are retiring now, the commission does not follow up on that until the person is out the door. We will raise that with Mr Widdis later, but there is an issue there.

Ms Morelli: That is very firmly an operational matter for the Planning Appeals Commission.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): It is a strange one.

Ms Morelli: We are all finding ourselves in peaks and troughs. That is why the legislation that came into effect in 2015 to provide the ability to bring in extra capacity was very welcome. As for the review, the financial sustainability piece is a key work stream.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): That links directly to what I am saying. The Planning Appeals Commission is arguing that it does not have the resources to deal with what you are giving them, but, ultimately, its own operation is not ideal.

Mrs Daly: With all due respect, we can comment only on our resources, and we can report that we are in a very good position. Thank you, Emer.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I know that you cannot comment on whether you would give the Planning Appeals Commission your seal of approval this term. That is grand

Mr Wilson: I am encouraged by what I have heard from you about the whole planning journey. I am sure that you agree that no body involved in planning can operate in, or enjoy, isolation. Some bodies enjoy isolation at times, but, in the planning sector, no single body should enjoy isolation. Although we can respect their independence, bodies should not operate in isolation. That goes for building control, DFI Planning and the Planning Appeals Commission. It is useful to hear that you agree with that.

I was on the planning committee of Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council for 10 years. I remember departmental officials sitting in on meetings. The council largely fared quite well out of that review process, which was great. In your work, have you noticed any patterns arising from decision-making across the 11 councils that meant that you could predict, "This will just go to the Planning Appeals Commission?". From that, was any learning delivered to councils to tell them that they are more likely to experience an application going to the Planning Appeals Commission? I say that from the perspective of encouraging a holistic view to be taken of the planning journey to try to reduce the possibility of that happening.

Mrs Daly: The rigour of a planning appeals function is needed in the system, as it gives accountability. As planning professionals, it is sometimes helpful for us to have the Planning Appeals Commission set out a clear direction. From my knowledge of the system, I can say that the transfer of powers to councils resulted in quite a reduction in the number of appeals. I always say that the number of appeals in the system is a good benchmark for looking at the performance of the system, because they show how many enforcement cases are coming through and what has been appealed. A lot of appeals relate to single houses in the countryside and that sort of thing. It is therefore always good to be aware of that.

Since powers were transferred to councils, a lot of this has been negotiated and sorted out at council level. There has therefore been a reduction in the number of appeals, which is positive for the appeals system. Delays to appeals may have resulted in people viewing the appeals process as not being a viable or attractive means and thinking, "We would rather go back and work with the council on a different proposal than take the application to appeal". That situation may change. There are always cycles, so it is hard to predict what the system will be like. That goes back to your point, Gareth, that it is important that we all work as a system, because we can learn a lot from the nature of the things that are appealed. It can show what councils are getting right and getting wrong and how we can go through an application again. We want to keep planning out of the courts as far as possible, and that is where the appeals function is very important.

Mr Wilson: Yes. We quite regularly see cases of Planning Appeals Commission decisions setting precedents for subsequent applications. Has there been learning from that for how you set policy, based on the commissioner's view? If that is the case, does the commissioner enjoy slightly unrestrained power when it comes to how you set policy?

Mrs Daly: The commissioner's function is to clarify. Commission decisions go into a lot of policy interpretation and try to define what was meant by the policy. It is a learning thing. I do not think that anybody should be offended if someone appeals a council decision. The appeals function is there to build rigour in the process, so it is very much needed. Yes, there is learning to be had if the Planning Appeals Commission says that it believes that a policy should be interpreted in a certain way. My colleagues and I have gone around elected council members, and they do take account of commission decisions. They take their role very seriously and do not like to lose decisions. They try to build in those lessons when they next make a decision on a similar issue. That is when the system works really well.

Mr Wilson: From evidence at our session last week, it came across as though DFI advises Planning Appeals Commission that everything is a priority. How does the commission therefore decide what really is a priority? Could you improve that in some way by benchmarking and saying, "Here's our system of prioritisation"?

Dr McFerran: That goes back to what Emer said about there being a balance in the system. If, say, economics was going to be prioritised over something else, a ministerial direction would be required. DFI Planning has always taken the view that all applications are important, so we will try to deal as expediently as possible with whatever is submitted. There is already prioritisation as a result of where an application is at. Further environmental information or more statutory stages may be needed if it has to be re-advertised or if information has come up for third parties. There could therefore be applications that, although they come in later, are taken forward faster, because they do not need to go through those additional stages. I wrote to the Planning Appeals Commission, as did the former chief commissioner at a point in time, to ask for a pragmatic approach to be taken to the applications that are in the system by looking at where the applications were, knowing that some of the information might need to be updated and asking whether we might have a conversation about what applications could be taken forward. Overall prioritisation, however, is a matter for the wider Executive.

Mr Wilson: OK. Thanks.

Mr Gildernew: The report highlights the fact that the Department has secured an additional £3 million:

Why was that intervention considered to be necessary now? Why was it not pursued earlier, when concerns about the Planning Appeals Commission's capacity were already apparent?

Ms Morelli: That money was secured from the transformation fund and was subject to being developed, going through that process and securing that funding. Again, back to the peaks and troughs. We have been facing the peak period that we are in probably in only the past three years. I do not mean to be dismissive of a three-year period. It is significant, but, to be brutally fair, we did not necessarily have all the evidence available to us to secure the transformation bid funding. We now have secured that money. The Department's overall budget position —. Those of you who are on the Infrastructure Committee will understand the pressures that we are under. Securing that additional money has allowed us to move quickly to test what can be improved and how we can do it. We have only three years of the transformation funding available to us, and we have to move really, really quickly to get lessons learned, to get that evaluation and to understand the value-for-money aspect, too, of this additional capacity lever and whether it is value for money to have the two concurrent systems in place. With the peak that we are in at the moment, the value for money is there because we do need the capacity now, but it is back to that wider financial sustainability piece and a true value-for-money assessment of the Planning Appeals Commission's operation and the cost of an independent assessor as well.

Mr Gildernew: In brief, what does the need to appoint the independent inspectors say about the Planning Appeals Commission's ability to fulfil its existing role? More importantly, how do you see the respective role of inspectors and commissioners operating in the short term? How, in your view, will that develop over the longer term?

Ms Morelli: It is a really important legislative lever to have an agile response to a system where you cannot be certain of the number of cases coming in on an annual basis. Whether or not the full capacity of the Planning Appeals Commission has been invoked — that is part of a fundamental review. Whether or not the independent assessment model sitting concurrently with it —. That will be part of our evaluation of the transformation moneys and what we are doing with it. However, we need a model that is more flexible and more agile because of the key role that the Planning Appeals Commission plays in the overall system. That is why it is being prioritised. We were one of six successful transformation bids, and it is so key to so much of what the public sector and Northern Ireland plc needs to get planning right. We are in no way stepping back and saying, "It will work out" or "It is all someone's fault in the system". We are very clear: DFI is in the lead for this, and we will look at everything that is available to us to move it forward.

Mr Gildernew: Finally, on a slight tangent, you mentioned the three pillars, one of which was social. Social licence has been discussed here previously in relation to public procurement. I am thinking of the A5 and critical projects like that. Does social licence need to play a greater role in how we prioritise major projects going forward?

Ms Morelli: Social licence is very important for any planning decision. The local nature of planning — that is why the transfer of powers to councils was so fundamental in its own right. People need to be content with the infrastructure that is coming into their local communities. I will let Rosemary speak to the wider point, but, yes, social licence is a key element.

Mrs Daly: The impact of any development is a key consideration on societies and communities, as you are aware, Colm. It is recognising how suitable infrastructure can be implemented in these areas and understanding the social value of projects. One of the really good case studies for that, if I dare say — I hope that Kathryn does not mind — is the transport hub and the loads of spin-offs and the value that that brings to areas. Whilst it is not without challenges in the planning system, it still brings a lot of really good social value in those communities. Any project will bring good value, but actually upping that in the assessment —. We are open to looking at the policy framework for planning. Certainly, social considerations are key, because, if you do not get that right, you will not get your project on the ground, end of, so that is a very important part of it.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Dorinnia, would you like to add anything?

Ms Dorinnia Carville (Northern Ireland Audit Office): No.

Mr Boylan: Kathryn, an interesting terminology is "contested space". It is actually

planning. I was just thinking as I was listening to some of the answers that the legislation that was introduced is a good piece of legislation when it is properly implemented. Certainly, the transfer of powers to local authorities was a challenge, but, some 10 years in now, we are in a good space. The thing for me — I will ask the question in this context — is looking at those three parts. I am talking about DOJ in relation to this inquiry. How will we marry those together going forward? That is a very important thing. When we do a report, we always hear about Departments operating in isolation, in their own wee bubble, with their responsibilities and their autonomy. Nobody is arguing that point. For ourselves doing this work, where do you see it? We have talked about a review and about resources. Where do you see it going forward in terms of lining those three parts up as part of the planning pyramid, as I call it? Following the review, where can we go forward and make changes that will help us to progress? I know that progress has been made, but where do you see that going? I have heard different MLAs talking about —. They are fighting every day, and councils are fighting every day for decisions, and I have been a part of that. It is a contested space, but it is a very difficult thing to get right at times, and it is about decision-making. Where do you see we can get this right? That is a difficult question.

Dr McFerran: I hope that I understand the question. First, there is a lot of criticism about planning working in silos. I can only speak for planning, but since Rosemary and I have come in, we feel that that has not happened. We work really hard not to do that. As a result of the recent recruitment that Rosemary and I were involved in, planners came from that and went to other Departments. We are working hard with our colleagues in DOJ as well. Planning, by its nature, is going to be like that, and that is what makes decision-making so challenging with regard to those three elements. Planning improvement, while it was formalised after the NIAO and Public Accounts Committee reports, was the start of a journey. Rosemary's team is the second iteration; we are looking and learning. As Rosemary said, we have an open-door policy. If there are things that local councils or other Departments feel we could be doing better or introducing, we are very willing to have those conversations.

Mrs Daly: Cathal, as professional planners, Kathryn and I see planning as the golden thread through everything. There is not one area that the planning system has not been asked to react to. We work very closely with the Department for the Economy and with DAERA. We are about protecting the environment, and we take those considerations into account. We look at the economics. There is definitely a good alignment between ourselves and other Departments; Emer is very aware of that as well. We also work closely with local councils and communities. The key is that we recognise that we do not work in a silo. What happens on the ground in our local towns and cities has an impact on local people. Therefore, we have to be very clear that we are trying to take into account all perspectives. We want to encourage the right investment and we want applications to be considered properly. If that means that we have to lean on expertise from other Departments or stakeholders, that is what we will do.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I can tell that you are quite passionate about that, Rosemary.

Mrs Daly: A little bit.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I have one final question. Last week, the chief commissioner took the decision to direct resources to "hear and decide", as she outlined, which may have come about as a result of the Audit Office having looked at the stats. Given that you have had to pull back six cases, as members referenced in their questioning, because they went out of date, was the commissioner right to divert resources towards what are, arguably, easier cases?

Dr McFerran: Timetabling and resourcing is a matter for the chief commissioner. We recognise that the chief commissioner and the commissioners took forward six independent examinations for the Department. In addition, there is an ongoing public local inquiry. You are right; there are six cases where the information became out of date. One of those was for a wind farm, which the applicant chose to withdraw, and the other five have come back. I have said that that does have resource implications, not just for the Department and for applicants and agents, but even other Departments and statutory consultees that will have to look at that information again and reassess it. Our Minister will need time to look at the information and make a decision as well.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): It is amazing what moves when the NIAO spotlight appears in certain directions.

Ms Morelli: May I comment on that, Chair? It has been very helpful to bring the Planning Appeals Commission into the wider review. On your question, Cathal, we can do a fundamental review, restructuring or legislative change. Everyone has a different perspective on planning, and it is about recognition of those different perspectives. It has been really helpful for the Department to understand the perspective of the Planning Appeals Commission and other evidence that will come through here. Not to use this trope, but maybe a cultural change in how we engage and work together —. Maybe we do not always need a statutory basis but rather a willingness to find a solution. The Department, the very passionate planning professionals and the Minister are committed to doing all that we can to improve planning, but there is no silver bullet, as we have all found today. Maybe it is about working more closely.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Yes. I appreciate your saying that, Emer. Stuart, do you have anything to add?

Mr Stuart Stevenson (Department of Finance): Nothing from me, Chair, at this point. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): You are very quiet today, Stuart. Dorinnia, are you satisfied, yes?

Ms Carville: Yes, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. Thanks very much. I thank the three of you for being with us and answering our questions so openly and honestly and for recognising the core problems that we face. Each of you has an important part to play in fixing this in the wider public interest and, of course, when it comes to achieving value for public money. We may have further questions for the Department following the next session and as we proceed. If we do, we will certainly be in touch, but, for now, thank you very much to the three of you for being with us.