In the course of its investigation into recent controversies, management at An Bord Pleanála received a correspondence that was deemed credible. This source alleged there was, or had been, a romantic relationship between personnel in the chain of the decision-making process. The revelation was considered to potentially be a “governance risk” to the organisation.

There is no formal code of conduct about such liaisons in An Bord Pleanála, nor in practically all organisations. Yet the dangers are obvious, particularly in areas where a quasi-judicial power is exercised, as is the case with members of An Bord Pleanála.

Take for instance, a scenario where a chief executive of a local authority is having an affair with a senior councillor. Or where a senior lawyer and a judge who have frequent interaction are conducting a covert relationship (here the power would obviously be judicial rather than quasi-judicial). The potential for, at the very least, the perception of bias is obvious.

The An Bord Pleanála report deals with this, pointing out that such relationships could “potentially give rise” to a risk of bias.

It also notes that there is a risk that a relationship could interfere with governance, including the segregation of functions in the planning body and recording of file movements.

All these issues take on a greater importance in an organisation that must have transparency in order to retain public confidence.

If such a relationship did exist in recent years in An Bord Pleanála it would have been conducted against a background in which there was a whole catalogue of lapses in governance that have in recent months drained public confidence from the planning body.

Many of these lapses have been reported in the Irish Examiner and other media, including The Ditch website which first broke the story.

The internal report, the contents of which are familiar to the Irish Examiner, involved examining 300 files generated over the last four years.

No names are mentioned in the report and there is no reason to believe incidents or trends of misgovernance or impropriety referenced apply to other than a small minority of board or staff members. The investigation covered areas where controversy has arisen in recent months, including conflict of interest declarations, allocation of files, two-person boards, and amendments to inspectors’ reports.

Issues of governance arose in all areas, but possibly the most serious was in relation to inspectors’ reports.

Inspectors within An Bord Pleanála are detailed to compile a report on a planning application or appeal. They act independently, visit the site, and correlate all relevant reports, such as those on environmental or traffic issues. They then present their report to An Bord Pleanála with a recommendation.

In this, the process resembles, to some extent, a garda presenting the facts of a case to a district judge.

The planning body takes the inspector’s report into account and also considers how an application sits with national planning guidelines and associated legislation. In around 90% of cases, the deciding board will accept the inspector’s recommendation. In some cases, a board member might request more information from an inspector or point out that a correction is required.

This is all procedurally correct and should be detailed in any final ruling.

That is the process. But the internal report found examples where “requests could be perceived as directions” and were made to inspectors to change their reports in “substantive and material ways”. These changes were not recorded in the files which are available to the public.

Taking the example of the respective roles of a garda and judge as outlined above, this would be similar to the judge, outside the court, having a quiet word with the garda to change the evidence to be presented in the court.

The internal report notes that the examination of files shows that such
requests were acted on by some inspectors. However, it also points out that these requests, originating with An Bord Pleanála members, can exert pressure on the inspectors to the extent that they might be “fearful” of not complying.

If the inspector’s report deviated from a board’s decision in a substantive way, questions would arise. The Irish Examiner understands the internal An Bord Pleanála report does not deal with any motivations for requesting changes to the inspectors’ reports.

What is clear is that such requests or directions completely undermine the basis on which the public believe that planning is governed in the State. If a member of the public cannot trust the system to progress an appeal or application as per the law and process, then the system is in deep trouble.

Another process unearthed in the report is the use of two-person boards. In 2009, legislation was introduced to allow for two-person boards to make decisions in certain types of cases.

Typically, the deciding body would have three persons and for major cases five. Yet in recent years the use of two-person boards was expanded without any apparent official change in procedure or legislation. And the report has found that, in a large number of cases, it was the same two An Bord Pleanála members who acted on the two-person boards, contrary to good practice and leaving open the possibility of “group think” in deciding cases.

The new revelations in the report add to the catalogue of issues that have arisen over the last six months. What emerges is a picture in which standards and governance fell into disrepute.

Prior to media exposure, the only hint that things were not going well was the high number of successful legal challenges against An Bord Pleanála. Most concerned strategic housing developments, but the worrying aspect was that the same issues arose repeatedly. In court, faulty processes were identified yet the same issues kept recurring.

The Irish Examiner understands the internal report deals with this issue, pointing out that a battery of external lawyers has been working for the board, providing expert advice and representation. Yet at board level, the same problems kept arising and were not dealt with in a manner in line with previous court rulings.

The internal report provides a shocking indictment of the manner in which An Bord Pleanála operated in recent years.

The lapses in governance collectively added up to a picture in which the most crucial cog in the planning system was not living up to the standards the public are entitled to expect. This month, on publication of a system investigation by the Office of the Planning Regulator, Housing Minister Darragh O’Brien set out a blueprint for the way forward for An Bord Pleanála. A case can be made that he should have waited for this internal report to be completed so he could get a fuller picture of what has been going on and what needs urgent attention.

From where things stand now, it will be a long way back to its former elevated position in the public mind.