I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of the Bill in the words of the Long Title is to make provision, in the interests of the common good, for the proper planning and developing of cities, towns and other areas, whether urban or rural (including the preservation and improvement of the amenities thereof). The Bill proposes to repeal the Town and Regional Planning Acts, 1934 and 1939, together with certain other statutory provisions which relate to the control of building and development. Some features of the existing law have been retained, modified where necessary, and many new features have been added.
At the outset, I think it right to say what planning is, what its aims are, and what it seeks to prevent, and why it is necessary to regulate in this way the conduct of people's domestic, social, commercial, and industrial activities.
The object of planning is to make our towns, villages and countryside better places in which to live and work, by improving their appearance, their public services and facilities and their opportunities for employment and recreation. This necessitates vigilance and constant effort. A community's needs and expectations are not static: they are growing and changing all the time. It is one of the tasks of planning to secure that current developments make allowance for this growth and for keeping up with changing or improving standards. Thus we must plan not alone for the community's present needs but also for its future needs in the light of prospective growth in demand. The future improvement of a street corner must not be made more costly, or perhaps rendered impracticable, by the shortsighted location of an expensive building. The ever increasing demand for access to the more remote beaches and lake shores must not be frustrated by developments which block the only convenient access routes.
Road patterns must be made efficient and safe for vehicles, but allowance must be made for prospective residential developments and for the need of pedestrians to travel to work, to shops or to school with a minimum of crossing of roads carrying fast traffic. On the other hand, costly road improvements must not be vitiated by permitting ribbon development of houses, shops, petrol stations and advertisement hoardings along the new frontages. Planning seeks to secure the redevelopment of central areas of towns which have become outmoded and congested, but in relation to new development whether in the form of flat-dwellings, office blocks or other types of high density buildings it is the function of planning to ensure that adequate allowance is made for the traffic likely to be generated by the development.
The avoidance of economic waste is one of the functions of planning. Property values must be conserved and where possible enhanced. Discordant development, including discordant changes of use of existing property, in, say, a residential neighbourhood must not be permitted if the amenities of the neighbourhood would thereby be materially reduced. In our countryside and coastline the conservation of amenities assumes prominent significance, both for the people who live there and for those who come there as visitors. Good scenery is the raw material of tourism and much damage can be done by disfiguring advertisement panels, poor fencing, shacks or other insensitive structures and by the destruction of trees and physical features of amenity value.
Planning has considerable significance in helping to foster economic development, especially in locations which offer prospects of becoming centres of commercial or industrial growth. Good environment is important to existing industry and it can encourage new industry. It has long been recognised in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark, and many other countries that industrialists are influenced by good amenity, by the appearance of a place and by the facilities which it offers for leisure. Planning authorities can give a lead in these respects, and the Bill now before the House is designed to facilitate and encourage them in that task. I would like to stress the point, that planning for a better physical environment is of national economic importance. We are trying to attract new industry and encourage expansion of existing industry. Our prospects of success will be enhanced if our towns are clean and bright and our countryside has a pleasant appearance. A good environment and prosperity are closely associated.
Planning of different kinds and degrees has, of course, been going on in this country for many generations, but that planning has too often in the past been spasmodic, unco-ordinated and directed towards short term aims or benefits. It is now universally accepted that planning is a necessary, continuous and co-ordinated process directed towards the good of the community. Improvements in communications, increasing urbanisation, rising standards of living and growing opportunities for both education and recreation, all generate demands, affecting so directly the physical environment in which people live, that there is no alternative but to have each individual make his personal contribution to orderly life in his environment. To advise on the principles and measures necessary for the proper co-ordination of development is the function of the planner.
Planning is not a luxury. The poorer the resources of a country, the greater is the need for careful planning. This is as true on the national scale as it is true of the individual citizen who must make the most of a limited income. Planning will pay dividends in economic and social well-being in the years to come. The implementation of planning objectives will, of course, proceed in stages, regard being had to existing economic factors and to the need to avoid overstraining central and local finances. In the field of urban re-development, for example, local authorities may already have on hands cleared sites which can be made available for re-development by private enterprise. Such re-development would be of direct value to the ratepayers because it increases the rateable valuation and generates local economic activity.
An adequate planning system must provide for a statement of policy by the planning authority as to how land is to be allocated to uses which are best from the point of view of the community. This is done by means of a development plan which includes a written statement of policy. Secondly, an adequate planning system must provide for the control of development so as to secure that when an owner wishes to develop his property or make material changes in its use, the new development or use is in accordance with the plan. Provision must also be made in the planning system for positive action to secure the objectives of the development plan. Good public relations are important and the planning system must ensure that the public, including the land owner, the tenant, the house owner, the shopkeeper and the developer, will be enabled to know with as much assurance as possible how the development of their area is likely to proceed and how that development is likely to affect themselves.
The Bill now before the House is designed to satisfy these requirements. Whatever suggestions are made in the House for the improvement of its provisions will be carefully examined. I am already indebted to professional and other bodies and individuals who contributed ideas and suggestions when it was announced that the existing code was under review. There is considerable evidence of widespread public interest in the need for a planning code more suited to modern requirements. Public interest in planning is, of course, nothing new.
As far back as 1907, a Town Planning Exhibition was organised by the Royal Dublin Society. Prior to that, the Public Health Acts, Housing Acts and Local Government Acts contained provisions for the regulation of building lines and the making of streets, the control of sky-signs and certain other forms of advertisements and the protection of amenities. These provisions were purely regulatory. The 1907 Exhibition led to the competition promoted by the Civics Institute from which emerged the prize-winning sketch plan for Dublin prepared in 1913 by the late Sir Patrick Abercrombie. This pioneering effort resulted eventually in the appointment of Messrs. Abercrombie, Manning Robertson and Kelly as Town Planning Consultants and it was they who prepared the sketch development plan in 1939 on which the Dublin Planning Scheme completed in recent years is based.
I need hardly remind the House that long before planning as such was given statutory recognition, Dublin had its Wide Streets Commissioners and its imaginative designers whose work produced the attractive streets and squares which gave the city an international reputation for good civic design. Elsewhere in Ireland, some of our towns and villages reflect the work of enlightened individuals whose standards of design and landscaping have left us examples of what good planning and development can achieve. It is our task to preserve this heritage insofar as it is desirable and practicable to do so and at the same time to establish the legal and administrative framework which will facilitate development in harmony with current standards of expectation and demand.
These aims are basically the same as the aims which inspired the Government and this House and all others who were responsible for the Town and Regional Planning Act, 1934. That Act attempted to provide a comprehensive system of planning, but it has been only partially successful. Its operation was dependent on a local authority adopting planning powers by passing a resolution deciding to make a planning scheme. By this resolution they bound themselves to make a planning scheme "with all convenient speed" and were authorised to exercise control over all structural work, where applications were made for permission to erect such works, in the interim period prior to the coming into force of the planning scheme.
Following the passing of the 1934 Act, the cities and larger urban districts and some county councils passed the statutory planning resolutions. The great majority of the urban district councils and a number of county councils held back until a new awareness of the necessity for planning powers became evident in the post-war years. The position now is that most of the urban councils have adopted the Act. Some county councils have not and in a few counties the planning resolutions relate only to a part or parts of the county.
Some progress has been made by several local authorities towards the preparation of planning schemes. Consultants or salaried staffs were engaged and plans and explanatory documents were prepared. But 28 years after the passing of the Act only one planning scheme has been submitted for confirmation.
The operation of the 1934 Act has not been devoid of achievement. Patterns for good development were worked out and much undesirable development has been prevented. The administration of the Act has, however, thrown up some difficult problems. It was assumed that the interim period between the passing of a planning resolution and the coming into force of a planning scheme would be relatively short and that the exercise of interim control powers over structural works would be merely a temporary feature. That assumption has proved to have been wrong. Under the Act no compensation is payable to persons affected by restrictions imposed by the exercise of interim control powers until the planning scheme for the area has come into force. The Town and Regional Planning Act, 1939, gave scope for some relief where the interim directions of the local authorities involved hardship; but the main problem of compensation rights and the question of collecting betterment from persons benefiting from planning provisions continued to depend for settlement on a planning scheme being brought into force under the 1934 Act.
The 1934 Act had many defects. It laid down a procedure for the making of a planning scheme which was too lengthy and too cumbersome. The scheme itself once made would contain extensive powers to regulate development and control the use of land. The provisions of a scheme would, therefore, require the most detailed preparation, and elaborate investigations of the provisions would be an essential prerequisite to its being brought into force. It would require the Minister's approval and his approval could, in effect, be annulled by the Oireachtas or by the High Court. Once made, a planning scheme would have the force of law and could be amended only by a repetition of the procedure required for the making of the original scheme.
Since a scheme could not readily be adapted to changing circumstances, it should include all possible foreseeable developments. It would be impracticable to make a workable plan on this basis, especially in an era of rapid technological and social change such as the present. A planning scheme might entail a substantial aggregate of compensation liabilities as soon as it came into force. This would put a premium on timid and inadequate schemes. Even if the compensation liabilities could be met, there would be no guarantee that the provisions for development which occasioned them would ever mature. Compensation paid in respect of interim directions cannot be recovered. This means that a planning authority is more or less committed to including interim directions in the planning scheme.
The revenue from betterment charges payable to the planning authority by those whose property is increased in value arising from the planning scheme would be impossible to determine or collect. I understand that during the period of 15 years when provisions similar to our 1934 Act provisions were in operation in England, only three instances of the collection of betterment were recorded.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to the use of the 1934 Act as an effective measure to secure proper planning and development is the fact that the powers provided are largely regulatory and only to a limited degree enable planning authorities to undertake or secure positive development. A planning scheme might prevent bad development but it could not secure good development, because its main concern is with what development may be carried out, if and when someone is prepared to develop. The system is thus inadequate to secure the redevelopment of central town areas—a defect which is increasingly apparent with the growth of traffic and the urgency of reconciling the needs of transport with those of the pedestrian.
The principal purpose of the 1939 Act was to try to overcome some of the major defects of the 1934 Act insofar as those defects had then come to light. In particular, the Act sought to relieve the planning authorities of the obligation to plan the lay-out of the development of their entire area when making a planning scheme. It was thought that this would remove one of the major difficulties and make for greater flexibility, but in fact it made scarcely any impression on the basic weaknesses of the principal Act.
I have dealt at some length with these weaknesses because I am aware that there are those who think that the present legislation is fundamentally sound but that it has never been seriously tested. I cannot share that view. I understand that British experience of the working of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1952, to which our Act of 1934 was very similar, confirms my view. There is also the fact that in Northern Ireland where similar legislation has been in operation for very many years no planning scheme has been brought into force.
As I have said, only one planning scheme was submitted for confirmation. This scheme, as the House is aware, relates to Dublin city and was prepared within a restricted period as a result of a court order. Some 1,500 objections to the scheme reached my Department. After investigation, it became apparent that no amendment of the scheme could be devised which would overcome inherent weaknesses—weaknesses which stemmed from fundamental defects in the enabling legislation. The scheme itself contained much that is valuable in relation to the planning of Dublin, and the preparation of a development plan as provided for in the present Bill will be greatly facilitated as a result of the Corporation's research and projections for the purposes of the scheme.
Consideration was given to the question of amending our present Planning Acts but no satisfactory solution was found practicable in that direction. Fundamental changes are inevitable. These changes are urgently needed in the interests of both the local authorities and property owners. Interim control decisions are growing at an ever increasing rate while, at the same time, no prospect exists under the present law of an equitable reckoning of compensation rights and liabilities.
It is not in this respect alone that the problems are increasing. The marked improvement in recent years in our economy has stimulated development activities. Expensive housing development at low densities is in demand and there is a growing tendency to move from town centres with attendant risks of urban sprawl and depreciation of central town areas. More space is in demand for factory development. The growth of car ownership is making ever increasing demands on our street systems and the solution of this problem is basically a planning matter.
The welcome expansion of tourism carries the threat of damage to the amenity of our scenic areas and coastline, while at the same time it demands the improvement of the appearance of our towns and countryside and the provision of more facilities for recreation. Planning by the local authorities cannot be undertaken with confidence and authority under the present law. Many parts of our finest coastal and inland scenic locations are not subject to any planning control. Even where such controls are available, there is no assurance that insensitive and inharmonious developments do not occur, due to the uncertainties of the compensation position and the absence of up-to-date development plans.
The Bill now before the House seeks to remedy this situation. It provides that all planning authorities must make development plans and exercise planning controls over both structural works and material changes in the use of structures and other land. Provision is made for an equitable system of compensation in respect of both future and past planning restrictions.
The preservation and improvement of amenities is a prominent feature of the provisions of the Bill. This is intended to supplement and strengthen the very commendable work already being carried out by local authorities, by voluntary and State financed bodies and by individuals. I have found in recent years a growing public interest in curing the deficiencies in our physical surroundings. The Derelict Sites Act, 1961, and the associated Derelict Sites Clearance Scheme have been widely welcomed and are making a steady impact on a long-standing problem of visual disfigurement, while the scheme of grants for the provision of public amenities is producing encouraging results. Much remains to be done. In view of the economic significance of tourism in our economy, amenity has a real cash value for us and this Bill recognises that the protection and improvement of amenity must nowadays have a serious and special place amongst the responsibilities of local authorities.
The Bill contains important provisions in the field of urban renewal. During my recent study tour in the United States and Canada I found that this important subject is being grappled with at one stage or another in all the major cities, with the strong support of the federal governments. I found also that the absolute necessity of a master plan based on adequate technical and economic surveys is recognised in both countries. The Bill proposes to widen considerably the powers of planning authorities to acquire land for positive development activities. Provision is also made to replace the existing building bye-law codes by regulations which will permit of more flexible standards in harmony with changes in building techniques and the use of new materials.
Irrespective of whether or not the Bill becomes law precisely in its present form, it is clear that planning will become a major function of local authorities. Special measures are being taken to increase the supply of trained personnel and to afford as much training as possible to existing engineering staffs engaged on planning work. I am also arranging to secure some strengthening of the Department's planning staff.
In explaining the purpose and content of this Bill, I do not propose to cover exactly the same ground as the explanatory memorandum which gives a reasonably clear exposition of its provisions and which is available to supplement what I have to say now.
The main objects of the Bill are:
(1) To set up a new and more flexible planning system to be operated by local authorities throughout the country.
(2) To enable local authorities to facilitate industrial and commercial developments and to secure the re-development of these parts of built-up areas which have become outmoded, uneconomic or congested.
(3) To secure that the amenities of town and countryside are preserved and improved.
(4) To relate compensation to property owners to the restrictions imposed on them by individual planning decisions rather than to provisions in planning schemes and to end their liability for betterment charges.
The Bill is divided into eight Parts and contains five Schedules.
Part I of the Bill is concerned with preliminary and general matters. Since it has such an important bearing on the scope of the Bill the definition of "development" is highly important. It embraces first of all the carrying out of any works on land and "works" is defined as including any act or operation of construction, excavation, demolition, extension, alteration, repair or renewal. Apart from exempted development, the general position will be that planning permission must be obtained for any structural works.
"Development" will include the making of any material change in the use of any structures or other land and in this respect goes further than the corresponding provisions in the 1934 Act which did not control user. A material change of use of structures or land may substantially affect the character of the neighbourhood and may seriously impair its amenities. There are many examples of residential areas which have suffered from the conversion of houses and other structures into factories and work-shops or from the front room or ground floor being given over to use as a shop regardless of its unsuitability for such purpose and its impact on the amenities and value of neighbouring houses.
The omission of use control in the interim period under the present law is an anomaly which may be attributed to the expectation that the period which would elapse between the decision to make a planning scheme and its coming into operation would be relatively short. It was assumed that securing the cessor of a use would not present the difficulties which would arise in the case of a building contravening a planning scheme. In other words, the establishment in the interim period of nonforming uses would not be likely to prejudice the efficient and economical execution of a planning scheme since they could be readily terminated. As matters have turned out, the interim period has been protracted and, not only has much harm been done, but it is quite improbable that the position can be remedied as simply as was envisaged. It would, of course, be unreasonable to attempt to regulate every change which occurs in the use of land or other premises. It is only a material change which will constitute "development" and will thus require planning permission from the planning authority.
The phrase "material change of use" is not defined in the Bill because it would be impossible to cover satisfactorily the varied circumstances to which it may apply. A broad classification of uses is possible under such headings as residential, commercial, industrial, etc. and it is on this basis that use zoning is usually carried out. In most of the American cities which I have visited zoning ordinances prescribe or regulate uses in about six zones of this type. It is common in other countries to have similar zoning laws and the principle is also embodied in British Planning Legislation. It is intended that the regulations to be made under subsection (2) of Section 4 will have the effect of classifying uses along these lines and that, in general, no permission will be required for any change of use within a use class. The effect should be to simplify the control of user and restrict its operations to the minimum found to be essential.
In order to put beyond doubt any question as to whether control may be applied to certain matters such as the use of land for dumping, camping, storage of caravans or exhibitions of advertisements, it is specifically provided that such uses of land shall be deemed to involve a material change of use. Specific provision is made, on the other hand, for the exemption from development control of the use of any land for the purposes of agriculture or forestry, the use for any of these purposes of any building occupied together with land so used, and the use of any structure or other land within the curtilage of a dwelling-house for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such. These exemptions could have been made under the Regulations which I have already mentioned but these are safeguards of sufficient importance to warrant their being written into the Bill itself.
Other types of development which will be exempted by Section 4 are mainly in the nature of maintenance works and works under the Land Reclamation Act, 1949. There is no need for me to comment in detail on these matters but I should like, in passing, to refer to the exemption of development undertaken by planning authorities themselves. Under Section 22, a statutory duty is placed on each planning authority to take such steps as may be necessary for securing the objectives contained in its development plan. Furthermore, Section 39 provides that they shall not effect any development in their district which contravenes materially the development plan. Finally, Section 77 provides for regulations requiring public notice to be given by planning authorities before carrying out certain types of development and requiring the consent of the Minister to be obtained in the event of there being objections by any interested persons.
Before passing to Part II of the Bill I would like to make some comment on the definition of "planning authority". Those who are familiar with the Act of 1934 will note that no change is being made in this respect and that the Bill proposes to entrust full planning responsibility for their districts to the councils of counties, county boroughs, boroughs and urban districts. I am aware that in Britain the primary planning unit is the county and that following the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 the number of planning authorities in England and Wales was reduced from 1,441 to 145. It may well be true that a multiplicity of small planning authorities each operating in its own local interests militated against effective national planning and that it was essential to have units which would enable a broader view to be taken. It seems to me, however, that this argument might have been used more effectively in support of regional planning, and that the solution adopted is not altogether satisfactory. On the one hand we have heard of the abandonment of the regional planning offices of the Ministry and on the other of the extensive delegation of planning powers to borough, urban and rural councils.
In deciding to retain the present planning organisation which we have had under the 1934 Act, I am not unmindful of the fact that it is in the urban areas rather than in the counties that planning has hitherto been attempted and that there is experience of dealing with urban planning problems.
In so far as county planning is concerned, we have in this country special advantages deriving from the management system and the fact that not infrequently the county engineer or members of his staff also act as town surveyors. In the Dublin Metropolitan region it has been possible to arrange that a single planning officer would advise all the separate planning authorities. I think it is very important that development plans should be coordinated on a county basis and there is specific power in Section 22 of the Bill enabling the Minister to require co-ordination of development plans. While I see no reason why any undue difficulty should arise in planning authorities co-ordinating their proposals within the county framework, it would be my intention to make full use of the powers proposed in Section 22 should it be necessary to do so.
As regards national planning, I am fully in favour of the maximum possible degree of leadership, advice and assistance being given by the central authority. It is my intention to have my Department make a much more positive contribution to planning in this country than has been possible under the Act of 1934, in which the requirement that the Minister for Local Government must approve each planning scheme restricted the Department's participation in the preliminary work of local planning authorities even where interests of national planning were concerned. This Bill does not provide for Ministerial approval of development plans in the future.
Section 10 provides for the making of regulations by the Minister and for the laying of the regulations before each House of the Oireachtas. The preparation of draft regulations is in hands and I will be in a position on Committee Stage to indicate, where necessary, the principles of the provisions which will be included in the regulations.
The financial provisions set out in Part II of the Bill require scarcely any explanation from me, but I should like to draw attention to the provisions of Section 14. One of the primary objects of the Bill is to facilitate the development of amenities which may benefit our people directly by the satisfaction of their aesthetic and recreational needs, and indirectly by providing or preserving attractions which are important to the tourist trade. In this field local development associations, local development companies, archaeological societies and other voluntary organisations and, indeed, individuals, can play a leading part and many planning authorities recognise the value of their work and would be glad to assist them. This Section provides the necessary power but its exercise is a reserved function in any case where it is proposed to give assistance in the form of a grant of money.
Section 15 provides for contributions to the funds of any body providing for training and research in relation to planning. Although I have no definite proposals of this kind in mind at present, I think it desirable that the Bill should contain such a provision. The Town Planning Institute would be an appropriate body and the training and research which it may carry out with the help of local authority contributions might well result in lasting benefits to this country.
The grants at present payable to local authorities and other bodies by the Minister for Local Government for the development of public amenities including the clearance of derelict sites will help to further the amenity objectives of the Bill. The portion of the development plans relating to public works will, of course, rank for State assistance as at present. Road improvements and carparks, housing schemes and sanitary services, libraries and institutions are examples of works and services which may be provided for in development plans but the cost of which is not ascribable to planning as such.
In relation to Section 16, local authorities have readily availed of the agency powers conferred on them by Section 59 of the Local Government Act, 1955, and I anticipate that they will readily avail themselves of this provision for sharing the cost of the performance of planning functions. The section also enables a planning authority to bring disagreements on questions of cost before the Minister and to have the cost apportioned by him. It is, of course, not my intention that any obligation should devolve on a planning authority in respect of works carried out without their consent by a neighbouring authority unless the latter has an absolutely compelling case. A particular example which I have in mind is the development of Portmarnock as a seaside resort. Dublin County Council have long urged that such development would be mainly in the interests of the citizens of Dublin and I believe that this has been accepted in principle by Dublin Corporation.
Section 18 enables the Minister to award costs against the planning authority in the case of an appeal under the provisions of the Bill and, if he thinks fit, to specify a sum to be paid to him as compensation for his expenses in the matter. In order to obviate frivolous appeals, costs may also be awarded against the appellant. These provisions are related to those of Section 80 which provides that an oral hearing may be requested by any party.
Many people are content with the present system of appeals against interim directions under the Act of 1934. They need only write a letter, addressed to the Minister or his Department in order to put the machinery in motion. The appeal is considered on the basis of written representations submitted by the parties and if any objection is raised by the planning authority which was not disclosed initially, or if it is represented to the Minister that there are objections other than those indicated by the planning authority, it is the practice to afford the appellant an opportunity of submitting further representations on these points. The site or the works are inspected and a report is made which is considered by the Minister together with the written representations before he determines the appeal.
This procedure has the great advantage of being inexpensive and flexible. The appeals which are received vary from a simple letter from the appellant himself to submissions prepared by senior counsel. They all receive my personal attention. Because of the rise in the number of appeals during the past few years and, since the issues arising on modern development proposals are often very complex, it is increasingly difficult to keep abreast of the flood.
Nevertheless there is some demand for oral hearings: I recognise the justice of this demand and suitable provision is accordingly made under Section 80. The old system will continue to operate but, if many persons choose to request oral hearings, the cost of appeals is likely to be increased not merely in relation to the expense occasioned to my Department but also in the demand on the time of my inspectorate.
The regulations which I am empowered to make with respect to oral hearings will give full facilities for legal representation, for the taking of evidence, for cross-examination of witnesses, etc. but it is my earnest hope that it will be possible to conduct such hearings with the minimum of formality and cost. I do not intend that expenses should normally be payable to me by either party to an appeal. Neither do I wish to see costs imposed on either party if the case which they submit appears reasonable. I hope rather that Section 18 may discourage frivolous appeals, lessen the demands on the time of my inspectors and the staff of planning authorities, and encourage a procedure for oral hearings which will be informal and expeditious.
Part III of the Bill deals with the machinery of planning. Section 19 requires every planning authority to make a development plan within three years or such longer period as may be allowed by the Minister. A development plan will consist of a written statement of development objectives for the area and a plan to illustrate these objectives. Certain minima are prescribed and, in the case of cities and towns, these are—
(1) Zoning of land used for particular purposes whether residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural or otherwise.
(2) Securing the greater convenience and safety of road users and pedestrians by the provision of parking places or road improvements or otherwise.
(3) Development and renewal of obsolete areas.
(4) Preserving and improving amenities.
In county areas the plans must include objectives under the headings of—
(1) Development and renewal of obsolete areas.
(2) Preserving and improving amenities.
(3) Provision of new water supplies and sewerage services and the extension of existing supplies and services.
In addition to these minimum requirements, a development plan may indicate objectives for many other purposes related to the size, density, layout, etc. of structures such as houses and other buildings, and for the provision of schools, shops, churches, recreational facilities, and other aspects of community planning. The purposes are listed in more detail in the Third Schedule of the Bill and include under the heading of amenity the reservation of land for open spaces, parks, etc., the preservation of scenic amenities, of trees and woodlands, and of public rights-of-way, the restriction of advertisements and the control of dumping and pollution.
No doubt it will occur to Deputies that these provisions will enable a very considerable variation in the scope of plans made by different planning authorities. That is, in fact, done deliberately having regard to the wide variation in the size, needs and circumstances of the areas which fall to be planned. County councils will be required to prepare separate plans for the towns in their area which have Town Commissioners and for other towns of about 1,000 population or upward which have no separate local government authority — these towns are specified in the First Schedule.
I am sure that the House will agree that small towns of this class deserve the special recognition which is given to them in the Bill. No county planning can ignore the role of its towns and villages and, indeed it is a basic requirement of proper planning and development to survey and decide the particular function which each town has in the community structure of the county. Furthermore, small towns have their own problems including the ever-growing problem of traffic and the need for redevelopment which, even though the scale is smaller, are important to these communities. While the Bill does not make it compulsory to prepare plans for towns of less than 1,000 population I expect that county councils will find it convenient and, in many cases, imperative to prepare separate plans for smaller towns and villages, particularly for centres that reveal growing development potential.
The plans required for small towns may be relatively simple, containing few provisions other than those prescribed as appropriate, whereas the city authorities will require to state objectives for a greater variety of matters and will accordingly have more complicated plans. In order to simplify the matter, provision is made for the preparation of plans in instalments; plans may be made for part of an area or to show particular objectives such as densities or zoning.
I have recently heard planning defined as "making the best of what you've got". The first step, then, is to find out "what you've got"—to make a survey of the physical features of the area and matters such as suitability of particular land for various purposes for which there might be demand; to investigate population trends, the likelihood of industrial development and the provision which should be made for expansion of existing industries and for housing, open spaces, and public buildings. Regard must be had to the restrictions which may be imposed by limitations of sanitary services and the survey must take account of development projects by local authorities, public bodies and other agencies whether public or private.
A survey may be compiled from existing data as well as from fresh inspections and it should be sufficiently informative to enable plans of a realistic and practical nature to be prepared. It may be that simple surveys will suffice in many cases and that in others it will be necessary only to bring up to date information already collected for the making of a planning scheme under the Act of 1934.
Needless to say, much of the preparatory work for a development plan can be undertaken by persons who are not qualified planners. Extensive use can clearly be made of the professional and administrative skills which are found in every local authority establishment. The engineering and architectural organisations in the various local areas have done excellent work over the years in the planning and execution of various structural programmes as well as the work specifically referable to the provisions of the Planning Acts. I have every confidence in their ability to respond to the demands which the new Bill will make on their experience and co-operation and I repeat my assurance of Departmental advice and assistance in these new tasks.
Under Section 22, it will be the duty of planning authorities to take such steps as may be necessary for securing the objectives which are contained in their development plans, and if they seek the good of their districts, they must ensure that the plans which they make are not merely collections of coloured maps. Planning authorities should bear in mind that their task is to make "the best of what they have got", and to ensure that the developments which must in any event be carried out as normal local government functions will in fact work well and look well as a result of their pre-planning and foresight.
Provision is made in Section 21 for public notice of the making of draft development plans (and draft variations thereof), for inspection of the drafts by the public, for the sending of documents to the Minister and to authorities to be prescribed by him and for notification of owners and occupiers of artistic, etc., buildings which are listed for preservation in the draft plan. Planning authorities must take into consideration any objections or representations made to them within the period (at least three months) that the draft plan is available for inspection. Copies of the final plan must be kept available for public inspection.
Section 23 empowers the Minister to prepare and publish general instructions in relation to the preparation of development plans. Before I leave the question of the procedure to be followed, I would like to draw attention to the special provisions of Section 21 in relation to public rights-of-way. Alleged obstruction of public rights-of-way has recently been in the news. Where it appears to a local authority that such a right-of-way exists, and that it gives access to seashore, mountain, lake shore, river bank, or other place of natural beauty or recreational utility, they may in reliance on paragraph 13 of Part IV of the Third Schedule, include in the draft development plan a provision relating to the preservation of the right-of-way. Notice must be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land and must state that a right of appeal to the Circuit Court exists.
If, on appeal, such court is satisfied that no public right-of-way subsists, the court shall so declare and the provision may not be included in the final development plan. On the other hand if the court does not so declare, the provision may be included. Then, under Section 49, the planning authority become responsible for the maintenance of the right-of-way and any person by whom it is damaged or obstructed or who hinders or interferes with the exercise of the right-of-way becomes guilty of an offence. The planning authority may prosecute such person and he will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 and to a further penalty in the case of conviction for a continuing offence.
From the point of view of local authorities' powers to protect public rights-of-way, I think that this will be a considerable improvement on the present legal position. Furthermore, Section 47 and Section 48 of the Bill confer powers on planning authorities to create public rights-of-way by agreement or compulsorily. If a serious problem exists or is threatened, planning authorities should be in a position to overcome it with the aid of these powers.
Another important matter in Part III of the Bill is related to my earlier statement that planning and development is a continuous process. In modern times it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the forces, changes, pressures and influences which will affect our towns and countryside in the relatively near future. At the same time, it is not only prudent but essential that we make plans to guide development and to profit from past mistakes. If, as an alternative to the static, rigid type of scheme envisaged by the Act of 1934, we are to have flexible planning which will take account of current trends and new developments, then we must provide for periodical review and variation of development plans.
I do not accept the view that this will seriously inconvenience or tend to frustrate the property owner or the prospective developer. On the contrary, the ability of planning authorities to amend their plans without having to go through a tedious, long drawn out and complicated procedure, will discourage them from attempting to include in their plan any unnecessary or unduly long-term objectives. The effect can only be to reduce the incidence of planning blight—in other words, the value of property will not be depreciated by long-term threats of acquisition or disturbance, and prospective developers are less likely to be obstructed by provisions for remote planning contingencies. This is not to say that development plans can be purely short-term projections. Clearly, the plans must in respect of some major aspects of planning look ahead 15 or perhaps 20 or more years.
As I have already explained, the Minister's approval is not required to development plans: he is, however, one of the prescribed authorities to whom copies of development plans must be sent. The other authorities to whom it is intended to prescribe and who must be furnished with prescribed documents include: (1) An Chomhairle Ealaíon, (2) An Taisce, (3) Bord Fáilte Éireann, (4) the National Monuments Advisory Council, (5) the Minister for Lands, (6) the Minister for Industry and Commerce, (7) the Minister for Defence, and (8) any local authority affected.
The purpose of this provision is to enable these bodies to scrutinise the proposals of planning authorities and to make representations for the consideration of the planning authority before making their final plan. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to the work in the field of amenity of An Chomhairle Ealaíon, Bord Fáilte Éireann, An Taisce, and the National Monuments Advisory Council, and to thank them for their agreement to co-operate in the administration of this Bill.
I have already referred to my intention to provide as much guidance and assistance as it may be possible to afford to planning authorities. I have also mentioned my belief that a good deal of national planning may be done in this way and that there should not be any excessive difficulty in securing co-operation between planning authorities themselves. It is desirable, however, that the Minister should have specific powers in this regard and, accordingly, Section 22 enables him to require planning authorities to coordinate their plans with those of other planning authorities or to vary their plans as may be specified by the Minister.
Part IV of the Bill sets up the machinery for control of development and for the enforcement of such control. I have already dealt at some length with the question of what constitutes development. The control procedure is not substantially changed from that existing at present. I would draw attenion to the provision in Section 26 that in dealing with applications for permission the planning authority will be restricted to considering the proper planning and development of their area (including the preservation and improvement of its amenities), regard being had to the development plan, to any special amenity area order and to any other material considerations. Where permission is refused or conditions are imposed the reasons must be stated. Appeals against orders and decisions may be made to the Minister by any person and the criteria governing the determination of applications for permission will apply also to the determination of appeals.
There has been some confusion in relation to the terms "general permission" and "special permission" and the distinction is not being continued in the Bill. It is desirable, however, that developers be facilitated if they wish to ascertain whether development would be permissible if it were carried out in a certain manner or on a particular site. Such inquiries are frequently made at a stage when the project is too uncertain to justify the preparation of detailed plans and the decision required is one of principle only. Under Section 25 it is proposed that Regulations shall be made enabling planning authorities to deal with such outline applications and when giving permission, to reserve the right of approval of the details until a further application is made.
I would like in particular to draw attention to other matters for which provision is made under Section 25. Regulations may require applicants to publish notices with respect to their applications for planning permission. This could be done either by posting a notice on the site or otherwise. Planning authorities may also be required to furnish to any specified persons information with respect to any applications and the manner in which the applications have been dealt with. The regulations may also require planning authorities to publish any specified information with respect to any applications or decisions on applications.
I might point out also that under the Bill every planning authority will be obliged to keep a register in which they will note applications for planning permission, planning decisions and particulars of compensation paid for planning restrictions. For a fee of 10/- a certificate of any entry in the register will be issued. Under Section 41, the entry of particulars of planning applications and decisions must be made in the register within seven days. The register must be kept available for public inspection.
These provisions are designed to remedy what I consider to be an unsatisfactory lack of public information in the present planning control system. I am considering a further procedure of making decisions of local interest available through the local public representatives on the planning authority. It may also be found possible to have extracts from the register made available at the post offices, which would contain entries of local interest.
The provisions of Part IV are readily understandable from the Explanatory Memorandum circulated with the Bill. Detailed discussion on them will, perhaps, be more appropriate to the Committee Stage. One provision of general interest, however, relates to the question of enforcement in relation to suburban housing estates which have been left by the developers in an incomplete and unsatisfactory state of development. The difficulties experienced in this regard have created a most unsatisfactory position in many suburban areas. The anxiety of many persons to secure houses in a time of scarcity led them to accept uncritically what might merely be implied from advertisements and plans. Many houses were provided by builders working under a building lease who were not in a position to give any warranty for any other part of the estate development. In other cases the developer was a man of straw or an incompetent businessman who had not the resources or the capacity to carry through the complete development proposed in his plans. Other failures may be attributed to the death or illness of the developer or to the liquidation of his firm. These failures may be understandable but there is considerable evidence that a large proportion of cases were due to the irresponsibility or unscrupulousness of the developer.
It has been made amply clear to me in reviewing many such cases that householders need legal protection in this regard. The Bill will confer on local authorities for the first time powers and duties to remedy a serious deficiency in the existing legislation. They will no longer be dependent on the exercise of pressure on developers by refusing to take in charge any road, grass verge, footpath, open space or sanitary services which did not comply with their requirements. Steps such as these were necessary to protect the ratepayers as a whole from being saddled with the liabilities of unscrupulous developers but, unfortunately, it also left the householders involved without the necessary services.
It has been suggested that persons in receipt of ground rents from housing estates should be made responsible for the proper carrying out and completion of the development works. In practice, the interest of the ground landlord is often too remote from that of the developer to justify such a provision. On the other hand difficulty arises where the occupiers of the houses become owners of the land. Consideration has been given to the possibility of enabling a planning authority to charge their expenses for completion of unfinished estates on such interests as they considered appropriate. This course might, however, be constitutionally objectionable, for example, where the interest of the owner of a house on one part of the estate would be charged with the expenses relating to works carried out on another part of the same estate.
It is possible, of course, that the suggestion for attaching ground rents is intended only as a partial solution of the problem. For instance it might be restricted to places where the developer was himself in receipt of the ground rents but, even in such a case, there is the difficulty that the provision could only apply to development taking place after the coming into operation of the Act. Any retrospective application would have a penal effect and could not be defended.
As drafted, Section 35 of the Bill has the advantage of enabling the planning authority to place responsibility on a developer, to make it an offence for him not to discharge his obligations, and to recover from him any expenses which they incur in making good his default. If the planning authority fail to serve an enforcement notice under the section they may be compelled to do so by the Minister. If the developer is in receipt of ground rents, they may be attached for the purpose of recovering expenses if such is necessary. The most important aspect of the section is however, that it will be possible to apply it not only to future cases, but to many of those currently being dealt with. This is because Section 89 provides that a permission for development granted under the Act of 1924 shall be treated as a permission granted under the Bill.
As regards future estate developments, it is proposed that the planning authorities should have further power in addition to the power to serve enforcement notices requiring the development to conform with the relevant planning permission. This further power is contained in Section 26. Under that section the planning authority may in granting permission for development attach a condition requiring security to be given for the satisfactory completion of the proposed development, including maintenance until taken in charge by the local authority concerned of roads, open spaces, car parks, sewers, watermains or drains.
Part V of the Bill makes positive provisions not alone for the preservation of amenity (including trees, woodlands and other flora and also fauna) but also for improvement activities and for the provision of new amenity features. Areas of special amenity are dealt with in Section 42. An area of special amenity by reason of its natural beauty or scenic or other amenities (including recreational utility) may be made the subject of an Order by the planning authority under this section. An area of this kind may over-lap part of a contiguous planning district and accordingly provision is made that either of the planning authorities may, with the consent of the other, make an Order in such circumstances. Dealing with an area of this kind, it is likely that a single Order would be preferable since there is an elaborate procedure for public notice, objections, the holding of a public local inquiry, confirmation by the Minister, and the laying of the Order before each House of the Oireachtas. An even more compelling reason, I should think, is the fact that it is desirable that in such an area, there should be no disparity between the regulations affecting different parts of it.
The making of an Amenity Area Order is a reserved function. The Order comes into operation on being confirmed and may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Order. Subsection (5) of Section 42 requires the Planning authority to review the matter from time to time and at least once in every period of five years for the purpose of deciding whether it is desirable to revoke or amend the Order.
The purpose of an Order under Section 42 is to establish for the information of land owners, developers, and the public generally, that a particular area of land is under control of a specified nature. The Order may provide for no development or for specified development only being permitted under the Act, or may restrict development to a limited part of the area. Alternatively, the Order may impose limitations on the number of structures of any specified class which may be erected in any part of the area.
The Order may be employed to preserve the areas of great natural beauty which are now threatened with development. Areas of this kind are national—indeed one might say international—assets and are of prime importance to our tourist industry. Spoliation, whether by haphazard erection of inharmonious developments such as buildings, filling stations, advertisement hordings, or use for temporary huts or caravans, must be discouraged and, as far as possible prevented. Accordingly, it is considered that areas of natural beauty should be capable of preservation without liability for compensation and Section 56 (1) (h) provides accordingly. An Order under this section may also be utilised to establish the precise boundaries and nature of development control in a green belt area. Some of the objects of a green belt are:—
(1) To secure economy by encouraging priority in the development of land in the area within the inner edge of the green belt and by preventing ribboning and unlimited sprawl (with consequential lengthening of lines of services and communications).
(2) To provide city dwellers with readier access to open country and to recreational areas, and (3) To provide sites for institutions needing substantial grounds.
Pockets for development must be excluded from green belts, for example, around existing towns or villages in order to relieve pressure for intrusion into the green belt proper, and to secure maximum use of services in the towns and villages. In the green belt itself permissible development might include residences subject to the preservation of a density of not more than one house to five acres. It might also include ancillary, domestic or agricultural outoffices. Under Section 26, conditions requiring planting and landscaping may be attached to the grant of permission. Amenity area orders must be reviewed at intervals in justice to the persons with land interests in the area, and also to allow of any peripheral expansion of built up areas that may be found to be essential. It is also the case that the present concept of what is an amenity area may alter with the growth in motor traffic and the consequential greater mobility of people.
Part VI of the Bill deals with compensation. The 1934 Act contemplated that the main awards of compensation in respect of Town Planning would be disbursed soon after the making of a planning scheme. The Act provided that claims for compensation in respect of restrictions imposed by the planning scheme should be made on the local planning authority within 12 months of the coming into operation of the scheme, or such longer time as the scheme itself would provide. Apart from other difficulties inherent in the Act itself, this single provision was sufficient to cause many local authorities to hesitate about making a planning scheme. They were caught between the natural inclination to make a scheme which would provide for as many of the foreseeable developments in their areas as was practical and on the other hand risking that compensation claims beyond the means of the authority to pay would be submitted. There are it is true considerable escape clauses in the Act but it is obviously unsatisfactory that a public body should go through the long procedure necessary to make a planning scheme, and then have to dodge the issue because at the last minute it found that the cumulative cost might be greater than it could afford to pay.
It may be supposed that a planning authority could anticipate the likely compensation which would be payable in respect of a planning scheme but the widely differing figures which are frequently reported in the Press as the prices paid for individual properties in our towns and countryside show the impossibility of forecasting with any reasonable degree of certainty what compensation would amount to in respect of a comprehensive planning scheme.
Part VI of this Bill has been drafted to avoid these difficulties and to remove the uncertainty in which the private property owner or developer is left as to when he is likely to be compensated.
Section 55 of the Bill provides for compensation in respect of planning restrictions as they arise, that is when the planning authority refuses permission or grants conditional permission for development. A very considerable advantage to property owners is the fact that a claim may be made without having to wait for any over-all plan or planning scheme to come into operation. The section provides that a claim may be made within six months of the relevant decision or such longer period as the Minister may in any particular case allow. The Act of 1934 did not provide for compensation on foot of interim control directions; the Act of 1939 allowed some concession in cases of hardship but otherwise, as I have said, a planning scheme had to be in operation and claims had to be related to the restrictions imposed by such a scheme. The basis of compensation was the reduction in the value of the claimant's estate or interest in the property and, in the case of an occupier of such property, the damage (if any) to his trade, business or profession, occasioned by such restriction. This basis is preserved in Section 55.
Subsection (2) sets out generally accepted principles for the purpose of removing any doubt which might arise on these points. The effect of a refusal of permission for a particular development project need not be to sterilise the site completely. Accordingly, in determining reduction of value, regard must be had to any alternative development for which permission is available or which the planning authority undertake to permit. Regard must also be had to the fact that exempted development may be carried out without permission. On the other hand, reasonable allowance must be made for the fact that certain minimum requirements and standards would have to be complied with if the development were permitted — these are covered by the reference to paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 6 of Part II of the Third Schedule.
The section also provides that compensation shall not be payable thereunder in respect of any interest in land which it is the duty of the planning authority to acquire under Section 29. This duty arises only if the owner claims that the land is incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state and elects to serve a purchase notice; in other words, he has a choice of claiming for loss of value or, if the land is quite useless, of disposing of it to the planning authority.
Section 56 sets out a number of matters in respect of which planning restrictions may be imposed without liability for compensation. It has long been recognised that it is not in the public interest that property owners should have unrestricted right to use, develop or exploit their property as they see fit. Property carries obligations as well as rights and the Constitution, while recognising rights of private property, provides that such rights may be delimited by law.
Existing legislation provides that a planning scheme may contain declarations that no compensation shall be payable for a wide range of planning provisions included in the scheme. The Bill does not propose to extend materially those restrictions on compensation. I should point out that Section 56 will not operate so as to prevent payment of compensation where permission is refused for the replacement of structures demolished or destroyed by fire in the two years preceding application.
Section 57 further restricts the liability of a planning authority to pay compensation in respect of the refusal of permission for development, if, when a claim is made for compensation, the planning authority undertake to grant or have already granted permission for development of a residential, commercial or industrial character, or any combination thereof. This is really an extension of the provisions in regard to zoning, for example, if an area is zoned for residential purposes, no compensation would be payable in respect of a refusal of permission for the erection of, say, a factory in such zone.
Where a planning authority give an undertaking to grant permission it is assumed for the purpose of this section that the only conditions which will be attached would not be such as would attract compensation—if other conditions are in fact later imposed that decision will itself enable the making of a fresh claim for compensation.
If a permission is revoked or modified under Section 30 compensation may be claimed under Section 58. Compensation is payable on the same basis as if the permission were refused in the first instance or, where the permission is modified by the imposition of conditions, compensation is payable as if the condition were imposed when the permission was granted originally. In either case if the revocation or modification renders abortive works already carried out in pursuance of the permission originally granted, this section requires that the planning authority shall pay compensation in respect of the expenditure incurred. The claim under this head may include expenditure reasonably incurred in the preparation of plans or upon other similar matters preparatory to the carrying out of the works. As an alternative to a claim under this section, a purchase notice may be served under Section 29 and, if the notice is confirmed by the Minister or accepted by the planning authority, no compensation will be payable under the section.
Section 59 deals with compensation for the removal or alteration of any structure under Section 36, that is a structure other than an unauthorised structure, and Section 60 with compensation for damage suffered by the depreciation of any interest in land as a result of the discontinuance of any use of land consequent on a notice under Section 37. Compensation under Section 60 may also be claimed in respect of compliance with conditions imposed by a notice under Section 37. Other compensation provisions are made in Section 61 which relates to the removal or alteration of hedges consequent upon a notice under Section 44, Section 62 which relates to the compulsory creation of a public right-of-way, Section 63 which relates to powers of entry on land and Section 64 which relates to cables, wires and pipe lines passing through or over land other than a public road.
Section 65 provides for claims which may be made for compensation in respect of planning restrictions imposed under the present Acts. The existing position is that no liability falls on the planning authority until they have brought a scheme into operation. Affected property owners may then make their claim under Section 61 of the 1934 Act in respect of the covering provisions in the scheme. If the scheme contains no covering provisions for the interim directions, compensation may be payable under Section 64 of the 1934 Act for unnecessary refusal of permission or making of a prohibition. Compensation might also be claimed under Section 60 of the 1934 Act in respect of any reduction in the value of property arising out of compliance with any condition attached to an interim direction.
Section 65 aims at preserving the rights which have accrued under the 1934 Act. Subsection (2) (a) covers cases arising under Sections 60 and 61 of the 1934 Act while subsection (3) covers cases arising under Section 64 of that Act. The rights so being preserved are made subject to the restrictions and limitations on compensation which are contained in the 1934 Act. A planning scheme may contain a declaration that no compensation is payable on account of the coming into operation of provisions relating to matters specified in the Acts of 1934 and 1939 but the 1934 Act also provides that the Minister is not to approve of a planning scheme containing any of these declarations unless he is satisfied that it is just and reasonable.
The method proposed for continuing the position under the 1934 Act is to assume that a planning scheme has come into operation on the date on which this Bill comes into operation. Claims may be made within a period of twelve months from that date. Compensation will then be payable by the planning authority unless they decide that it would not have been payable under the presumed scheme by virtue of the Act of 1934. The amount of compensation is to be the like amount as would have been appropriate to be paid under the Act of 1934. Accordingly, subsection (4) provides that the amendment of the Act of 1919 affected by this Act shall be disregarded in the event of compensation under this section being determined by arbitration. It is to be expected that a planning authority will endeavour to avoid payment of compensation in any case where it appears to them that their planning scheme might have included a declaration excluding compensation for the particular restriction involved. If a scheme were really to be made, it would be for the Minister to decide whether such declaration was just and reasonable before confirming the scheme. Accordingly, provision is made in this subsection whereby an appeal may be made to the Minister within one month of the decision of the planning authority and he may either refuse the appeal or annul the decision.
Subsection (2) (c) requires the Minister in deciding an appeal to have regard to the same considerations that he would have had regard to under Section 30 of the 1934 Act in relation to a declaration in the planning scheme prohibiting compensation. He must be satisfied that, having regard to local circumstances, it is just and reasonable that the provision should be enforced without compensation. He must also be satisfied that compensation for loss or injury is not excluded where a scheme would prevent maintenance or continued use of a building or structure or the making of reasonable alterations or additions thereto, or the replacement of a building or of a structure within two years after it had been demolished or destroyed by fire or otherwise.
It is not possible to make any assessment of the likely amount of compensation payable by planning authorities. Interim control is in operation in the great majority of planning districts and there must be many cases where permission was refused or was granted subject to conditions. In theory these cases will now be eligible for consideration under subsection (2) (a) but the likelihood is that alternative development has since taken place in many cases. Even if a claim is made the planning authority may be able to show that it would be just and reasonable not to allow compensation. In many cases, also, changes of ownership will have occurred and the present owner may be interested in some other use or development of the land and may not enter any claim.
The purpose of subsection (3) is to continue the provisions of Section 64 of the 1934 Act but, in view of the provisions of subsection (2) it is difficult to visualise what cases will arise. The original section appears to have been intended to cover a case where permission was refused or a prohibition order was made in respect of work which it transpired was not subsequently restricted or prevented by a provision in a planning scheme. Compensation for loss was to be allowed unless in the opinion of the Arbitrator the doing of the work would have prejudiced the efficient and economical execution of the planning scheme. It is now proposed under subsection (3) (a) that an appeal should lie to the Minister if a claim of this kind is refused by the planning authority on the grounds that the work would have prejudiced the efficient and economical execution of the planning scheme.
I have explained Section 65 at some length because I think it is important to make it clear that as far as it is possible to do so, provision is being made to preserve the rights of any persons who might have obtained compensation under the Act of 1934. The remainder of the compensation provisions appear to be self explanatory but I will refer briefly to the provisions of Section 71. The purpose of this section is to enable the planning authority to recover compensation if, within a period of fourteen years, the land in respect of which the compensation was paid is developed for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, or any combination thereof, or in such other manner as would make recovery reasonable. The section is based on recognition of the need for elasticity in planning and that, as the planning objectives may have to be adapted to changing circumstances, planning authorities may from time to time change their minds about the type or extent of development which is permissible on particular lands.
The object of Part VII of the Bill is to give planning authorities positive powers to secure, facilitate and carry out development. Hitherto, planning authorities have tended to concentrate on the restrictive aspect of their functions. This Bill envisages, however, that in the future planning authorities will play an active and indeed a leading part, in the fostering of rural communities, the resuscitation of our country towns, and the re-development of obsolete areas in our larger towns and cities.
Planning authorities have power under Section 11 of the Local Government (No. 2) Act, 1960, to acquire land either by agreement or compulsorily for the purposes of any of their functions. Without prejudice to that power Section 72 sets out a number of purposes for which land may be acquired by a planning authority. The purpose of the section is to make explicit the right of planning authorities to engage in the development or re-development of land in the interests of orderly and economic development. These provisions are extended by Section 76 which enables sites to be acquired for a variety of purposes including industry and for the provision of factory buildings, offices and other premises, together with ancillary services. Under Section 74 planning authorities may sell, lease or exchange any land acquired or appropriated by them for the purpose of securing the proper planning and development of their area. The Minister's consent will not be necessary unless the price or rent is not the best reasonably obtainable or the development proposed for the land would materially contravene the development plan.
These provisions of the Bill will enable planning authorities to undertake urban renewal. Hitherto, planning had been hampered, especially in the central areas of towns, by the fact that land is split up into a great many parcels in different ownership. As a result private re-development tends to be piecemeal, freezing for generations ahead the existing street pattern which is becoming increasingly outmoded by a mounting volume of car traffic and the needs of a developing economy. Re-planning and re-building on modern lines requires the assembly of sites, and this can often be achieved only if the planning authority acquire the area.
Part VIII of the Bill contains a number of miscellaneous provisions, some of which I have already mentioned. I would like to draw attention to the fact that recognition of the importance of planning is such that specific provision is made to bind State authorities not to carry out the construction or extension of any building without such consultation with the appropriate planning authority as may be determined by the Minister for Local Government, and, if objections raised by the planning authority are not resolved, the Minister himself must be consulted.
Section 83 enables a planning authority to run cables, wires or pipelines over land not forming part of a public road or through such land. It also provides a procedure to deal with the case where the consent of the owner or occupier is unreasonably withheld. These powers may usefully be employed in dealing with modern developments in relation to relay television services or the transport of commodities by pipeline.
The new building regulations envisaged in Section 84 will provide in a more flexible, modern and comprehensive form, a uniform building code which will operate throughout the whole country. Not only will this code be more easily revised than the numerous and varied existing bye-laws, but it is hoped to incorporate sufficient flexibility to meet the frequent criticisms by architects that existing bye-laws restrict or prohibit erection of structures which take advantage of the advances made in design and materials. Provision is made for standards to be expressed in terms of performance, types of material, methods of construction or otherwise and such standards may be made in relation to all or any of the matters specified in the Fifth Schedule. As a further measure of flexibility, provision is made in Section 85 for relaxation of building regulations in certain circumstances, and Section 86 provides for an appeal against refusal by the planning authority to relax building regulations.
Section 87 deals with the licensing of structures on public roads and enables regulations to be made prescribing the amount of the fees to be paid for such licences. Similar provisions already exist in various statutes in relation to petrol pumps, hoardings and scaffolds but these are being repealed.
Finally, transitional matters are dealt with in Section 89.
I shall welcome the fullest possible discussion on the provisions of this far reaching measure and I am very conscious of the great responsibility which rests on me in respect of its contents. I have taken steps to familiarise myself with modern thought and practice in the sphere of Town Planning in Britain and in America and have recently had an opportunity of visiting the United States and Canada. What I have seen there has fully convinced me not only of the desirability of planning but also of the absolute necessity of making our legislation more up-to-date and effective if we are to adapt our environment to modern living.
The preparation of the Bill has also involved detailed research by officers of my Department in the planning laws of many other countries and attendance and participation in summer schools, seminars and conferences dealing with planning and urban renewal, both in this country and abroad. I have also had the benefit of the views of professional bodies and local authority officials, in particular the officials of the Dublin and Cork Corporations who have had considerable experience in the administration of the present Planning Acts. I have recently arranged, with the co-operation of the Irish Branch of the Town Planning Institute, to have the senior local government officials from every local authority in the country attend an appreciation course comprising lectures by the President and other leading personalities of the Institute. It is my belief that these lectures were so valuable in explaining the purpose and methods of planning that it would be well worth while making special arrangements to enable local representatives to hear lectures of this kind. It gives me great pleasure to be able to say here that I found these eminent and busy planning experts very helpful indeed and that I have arranged to avail myself of their generous offers of further assistance.
Legislation may provide the machinery for planning and development, but its ultimate effectiveness will depend on the interest of public representatives both central and local and on action by the authorities charged with responsibility for administering the legislation. Local development associations and other similar bodies can also play an essential part and I would welcome their fullest co-operation in the task of improving the quality of environment in our towns and countryside.
I now commend the Bill to the House in the belief that it constitutes an effective medium through which we can carry out major and far-reaching improvements in our environmental conditions and preserve our Irish heritage of natural amenities for ourselves and for our descendants.
