THREE recent high-profile planning appeal verdicts by An Bord Pleanala appear to highlight an increasing trend for decisions to strike a balance between national commercial and employment objectives, and the physical impact of a development on a local basis.

The recent decision by the planning board to refuse permission for a large-scale housing development near Delgany, Co Wicklow, suggests the board places greater importance on the physical impact of a development locally when it has little implication for national commercial and employment objectives.

An Bord Pleanala is an independent and quasi-judicial body. Whereas the public has very extensive rights of participation in planning procedures, and can make submissions and observations to the board as part of the appeals process, ultimately the board is not accountable for its decisions.

The courts have shown they will not interfere with its decisions, other than on technical points of law, or where a decision flies in the face of fundamental reason and commonsense.

The decisions the board make must be for the "proper planning and development of the area" to which the application relates and frequently it confines itself to that wording when explaining its decision to grant permission.

Last October, An Bord Pleanala granted permission to Masonite Corporation of Delaware in the US for a five-hectare fibreboard manufacturing plant on the banks of the Shannon. This was in the face of vociferous objections from local and national bodies to the earlier decision of Leitrim County Council to grant permission.

The board said the development would create significant employment opportunities in the region, and that the proposed development would be in the interests of the common good and of the proper planning and development of the area.

The board declined to accept the recommendation of its inspector who, while acknowledging the desirability of a sawmill and wood pulping plant in the area, concluded this was not the appropriate site due to the visual impact on the landscape, and the adverse impact on fishing and tourist amenities.

It was suggested at the oral hearing that unless planning permission was obtained, the likelihood was that Masonite would not pursue the development in Ireland. The inspector concluded the site appeared to have been selected on the basis of availability and time constraints.

While accepting the proposed development would be of economic and social benefit to the area, he considered the site inappropriate and it had not been demonstrated that a more appropriate, alternative site was not available.

The importance to the national forestry industry of having a wood pulping station was made in submissions to the oral hearing, and was accepted by the planning appeals inspector.

It would appear, therefore, the board felt the national importance of the project counterbalanced the objections which the inspector had to the site.

Earlier this year, the board had to consider an application for the extensive development of the Phoenix Park racecourse, including a national stadium and international conference centre, as well as a hotel, casino and multi-storey car-park.

Fingal County Council had refused planning permission and the developers appealed to the board.

Fingal County Council cited the desirability of maintaining the visual break between Blanchardstown and the city, which. the racecourse provided. The objective of retaining this break had previously been recognised by An Bord Pleanala in 1983 when it refused permission for a large housing development.

At that time, it concluded that "the proposed large-scale development would significantly militate against the preservation of the visual break between Dublin city and Blanchardstown and, thereby, be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area".

The reason given by the hoard this year for overturning the decision of the local authority and deciding to grant permission is interesting. It decided "the site is an appropriate location for the development of the nature and scale proposed".

The implication is the hoard recognises the desirability of having a national stadium and international conference centre from a national perspective and was concerned to decide whether this was an appropriate location for these facilities.

The board's inspector concluded that while the development would have an injurious effect on existing amenities of adjoining properties, this would not be seriously injurious. He said the scale and nature of the proposed development required that it be considered from a macro-national level as well as a micro-local level. Given the scale of the proposed development and its nationwide function, the site had advantages not available elsewhere in Dublin, he said.

It is not possible to say what weight the board attached to these comments, but it seems reasonable to suggest national considerations are construed by the board as being a valid part of proper planning and development for a particular area.

Contrast these decisions with the board's refusal last August to allow 296 houses at Delgany. The local authority's decision to grant permission was appealed by a large number of local interest groups and residents.

The board said the development would be premature due to the deficiency of the road network in the area and would constitute a traffic hazard. Wicklow County Council, on the other hand, had been satisfied, provided its conditions were met, the scheme would be acceptable and would not have constituted a traffic hazard.

It would appear in this instance, where no issue of national importance arose, local considerations were given supremacy.

One of the major issues for companies contemplating establishing in Ireland is the degree of difficulty, time and expense involved in obtaining the necessary licences and consents to build their facilities. Until the early 1990s, the perceived (and, in many cases, actual) difficulty with these matters had a negative effect on efforts to attract greater investment.

It was primarily for that reason the 1992 Planning Act was introduced, streamlining the planning appeals and reducing the time for decisions by the board to four months or less in the vast majority of eases.

It would appear the board is prepared to play its part in the commercial and industrial development of the State (with the attendant economic benefits) and will adopt a dynamic and pro-active approach in its decisions, recognising the national interest and the interests of "the common good" while balancing these considerations against local interests and concerns.