Last week, an example was given of how both systems have impacted on the crisis so far — and not in a good way.

The chair of Uisce Éireann, Jerry Grant, told a conference that the water and sewage infrastructure was in a “desperate state”, and would be unfit to meet the increased housing targets.

He gave as an example the proposed new wastewater treatment plant in Clonshaugh, North Dublin. Permission for the plant was received in 2019, but it has been held up since.

“That Dublin drainage project was estimated at around €650m in 2018,” he said. “Today, it’s €1.3bn. That’s the cost of delay, but it’s only part of the cost of delay.”

The figures are staggering and the delay will inevitably have a major impact on housing completions. So what happened? How could such a vital part of infrastructure be delayed six years — so far — and now cost double what it was budgeted for? Could it have been down to nothing more innocuous than a simple mistake? The fate of this unloved piece of infrastructure tells loads about the operation of the State and society today when it comes to planning.

The treatment plant is desperately needed as the only other major one on the east coast, in Ringsend, has reached capacity

This was forecast as far back as 2007, when a strategic plan set out that another plant would be required — preferably at the other end of the greater Dublin area from Ringsend. Clonshaugh was identified as the best location.

A comprehensive planning application was put together by Uisce Éireann. Naturally, there were objections from locals — up to 14,000 of them.

Among the objectors was local TD Darragh O’Brien — then his party’s spokesperson on housing — who was excoriating the Fine Gael-led government on its failures, before ascending himself to be minister.

In November 2019, An Bord Pleanála (ABP) gave the go-ahead for this vital piece of infrastructure.

Local opposition hardened and a group to resist was formed. This was fronted by local woman Sabrina Joyce Kemper.

At the time, she told the media that local people accepted that the sewage network was “under pressure”, adding that local people were “willing to help Irish Water find another solution — but this isn’t it.”

There was nothing unusual in Ms Joyce Kemper’s position, and it was undoubtedly expressed in good faith.

Every time there is an objection to infrastructure or housing, there is acknowledgment that development is needed — but also that it should be somewhere else.

A GoFundMe campaign raised over €40,000 for a judicial review, which was taken in the High Court, under a whole range of grounds.

This scattergun approach is standard fare in the legal business. The applicant need win on only one ground for a successful case. The approach also illuminates that there is no great environmental principle, or any other, at the heart of the objection.

All that matters is that the thing is stopped.

Among the grounds of objection in this case were:

• Pre-application consultation with public was flawed;
• The strategic assessment for greater Dublin strategic draining system was flawed;
• The timing of the planning application was flawed;
• The appointment of inspectors was flawed;
• The appointment of board members was flawed;
• An Bord Pleanála’s approach to the proposal was flawed;
• The public consultation was flawed;
• The statutory consultation was flawed;
• The reasons given for the decision were flawed;
• And the issues around transposing EU directives to national law were flawed.

That’s a lot of alleged flaws.

In November 2020, Judge Senan Allen found that none of these objections had validity — but there was a single issue in which An Bord Pleanála had erred and that was enough to grant the injunction.

The board had “failed to correctly identify and comply with the obligation imposed on it by Article 44 of the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007, to seek the observations of the Environmental Protection Agency on the likely impact of the proposed development on waste water discharges”.

The objection had been successful.

The next issue was whether the whole project should be returned to the drawing board, or whether An Bord Pleanála could simply try to rectify the specific issue identified by the judge.

The objectors wanted it all sent back to square one as, they claimed, it was “contaminated”.

Again, a number of grounds were presented to the judge to inform the case. Among the grounds of objection this time is that personnel, such as the planning inspectors and board decision makers, should not be part of the new application.

This would have, in effect, sent the whole thing back to square one

Judge Allen disagreed. He felt it could be remitted to the board at a point where the problem could be rectified.

He also acknowledged that the successful objection was based on a mistake that was “a misstep in the minefield of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the Waste Water Discharge Regulations 2007, which have been the subject of numerous amendments and revisions”.

The application was sent back to the board at the end of 2021, with the expectation that it would be processed and most likely given the go-ahead again by the middle of 2022.

Another issue was costs. Usually, costs are awarded to the successful party — in this instance the local people who were objecting.

Interestingly, the judge only allowed them 25% of the costs. This would have been to acknowledge that the victory was on a very narrow basis. Over three years on, there is still no result from the board.

The board has gone through scandal and restructuring, and this may have fed into the delay. Another factor was that the passage of time impacted on the conditions pertaining to the original application.

The board requested further information from Uisce Éireann in 2024, even though the water body’s input into the application was not questioned by the judge.

So six years down the line, it has all been a very expensive 'misstep'

Uisce Éireann has informed the Irish Examiner that it is “currently waiting for further details from An Bord Pleanála on the timeline for its decision”.

Those who didn’t want the plant in their vicinity were able to buy extra time — at least six years.

To dismiss the campaign as nimbyism would be unfair.

They were entitled to object to what they obviously saw as an imposition. If their objections were dealt with in a reasonable timeframe, there wouldn’t be an issue. However, the system doesn’t allow for that.

Instead, the planning — and legal — systems have ensured that most likely thousands of new houses have been delayed and €650m or so, which could have been spent further upgrading a creaking infrastructure, has been lost.

It might well be asked whether all of this is the optimum way for a State to act at a time when the provision of housing, and supporting infrastructure, is in severe crisis.