Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Jun 1963

Vol. 203 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1962—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In subsection (1), page 14, line 7, after "longer period" to insert "not exceeding two years".— (Deputy Jones.)

In dealing with this amendment on the last day, I sought to impress on the House the necessity for putting some limit on the time allowed for the making of a development plan. In the general intent of this Bill, there is a question of three years and such time as the Minister may allow. On the last occasion, the Minister saw the point I was making, that I was attempting to avoid a situation that could arise and that did arise in the past and that, to facilitate the making of development plans and to ensure there would be a reasonable length of time, we would confine the further period to two years. The Minister on that occasion said that if the amendment had been submitted for that purpose it had merit in it. I appreciate the fact that the Minister would not wish it to go out from the House that there would be any encouragement of postponements.

We can readily see from the discussion here to date that the problem that will face the country as a whole will be of some magnitude. The fact that the Minister has power to bring it into operation at different times in different areas might lessen the dangers of such delays occurring, inasmuch as the trained personnel would be available in different parts at different times, and it was with the desire of enabling this to come about that the amendment was put down. We could have a situation arising such as that which arose under the old legislation and resulted in a court case recently. I think the Minister appreciates the intention of this amendment.

I am at one with the Deputy in trying to ensure that the introduction of these plans, the bringing into operation of this legislation generally, will not be delayed longer than is absolutely necessary. While doing that, none of us can really foresee everything that may occur, all the difficulties that can conceivably arise, which might make the two year limit as proposed in the amendment unworkable in some isolated but perhaps very important case.

I advise the Deputy to have a look at amendment No. 55, an official amendment, which sets out the procedure which must be followed by any planning authority proposing to ask for an extension of any length of time over three years. It lies in the hands of the local authority, the planning authority, and then they must follow through with publication of their intention to seek a further period than three years. They must set out what further period they require and make it known to the public so that anybody interested may object to the granting of the additional time. I therefore think the official amendment does add some further weight, some further safeguard to what I have gone on record as saying regarding the purpose of this amendment—that these extensions of time will not be lightly given, nor indeed will we welcome them except in cases where they are absolutely justified. We may be tying ourselves up in knots which we cannot foresee at the moment but which could give us quite a lot of difficulty in the future. While the amendment may appear desirable in many ways, it could have adverse effects, and amendment No. 55 gives the safeguards which he is anxious to see included.

On the last occasion, I referred to the fact that the personnel of local authorities change every five years with elections. That could bring about reversals and there is also the question of the review within each fifth year. I wonder if the Minister has considered that difficulty.

I imagine such difficulties could arise but I cannot see how any change in personnel brought about by local elections every five years could reflect any radical changes in the outlook of any draft plan. I could not conceive that you would have any such changes in a council, but even if you had a substantial change in personnel, I cannot see that would bring about any great change of mind on the part of the council as a whole on the pattern or outlook of the plan for that area. I cannot foresee that being a real cause for worry.

It might become part of an election issue. I must say I would not like to see it.

I should not like to be depending on fighting and winning a seat in a council on the issue of a draft plan. I could be wrong, but I do not see that as a real fear. I do not think we need to worry ourselves in that respect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 51:

In subsection (2), page 14, line 11, to delete "plan" and substitute "map or sketch".

In this subsection, "a plan" is deemed to consist of a written statement and a plan. In the subsection, we have the word "plan" twice. It is very difficult to distinguish the sense in which the word "plan" here is being used. If we wish to avoid ambiguity in this subsection, is there any reason why we should not use the words "plan, which consists of a sketch or map"? The use of that phrase would indicate clearly what is meant. In the ordinary way, a written statement can very often be ambiguous, whereas a sketch can indicate what is intended in a development plan. In the case of any map in respect of any area, the amount of written material going with it is really of no benefit unless a person also has reference to the sketch or map. A written statement does not convey the same information as a sketch would convey. The use of the words "map or sketch" would avoid ambiguity. If the word "plan" in the second instance is regarded as a written statement there should be provision for a map or sketch indicating the development objectives within the plan. It is for that purpose that we have put down the amendment.

The ordinary individual reading subsection (2) and finding the word "plan" defined as "a written statement and a plan indicating the development objectives" will be at a disadvantage. The amendment, if accepted by the Minister, would avoid ambiguity.

At first sight it would appear that the use of the word "plan" in two places in the same subsection would confuse but there is no ambiguity about what it is intended to mean. As to the use of the words "map or sketch", a map would depict what exists at present. In other words, it would be a factual record in a drawing to scale of what exists. Therefore, it is felt the use of the word "map" here would not be appropriate.

"Sketch", then.

A sketch could be a free-hand drawing which would not necessarily be accurate. Although it might give a very real picture of what was in mind, there would be no guarantee that any particular part of the sketch was accurate or factual. A plan, undoubtedly, would be an illustrated plan, not just a written document stating what the planning authority had in mind. This illustrated plan and the written statement would be complementary to each other and would be for the guidance of all concerned so as to make more readily understood the overall intention. The illustrated plan, as distinct from a map or sketch, would be projecting into the future what was intended. That word has been used in this context in the past. It may well be that some new word may be coined that would even more suitably fit the bill but I am not aware of such a word. For the reason I have given, I do not think either of the words proposed by Deputy Jones would improve the subsection. I would be afraid that they would disimprove it and would create ambiguity as to what subsection (2) really means. I have not yet been shown that either of the words suggested by Deputy Jones is more appropriate than the word I am proposing to use. If I could be shown that either of them was more appropriate I would be quite happy to accept it but that has not been demonstrated and I do not think it could be demonstrated that either of these words would be better than the word I am proposing.

The ordinary designation of a plan is a type of drawing which can be to scale or not to scale. In this section it is proposed that there will be a plan which shall consist of a written statement and a plan. Generally, in the case of a house, there would be reference to plan and specification, the specification being a written document indicating what would be carried out in relation to the plan. I take it that in the ordinary way the planning authority, with the aid of its consultants, will obtain an ordnance survey map or a series of maps of the areas and on those maps would indicate what they thought should be done in regard to development in the areas under their control. The plan could then be consulted at any time by interested persons. There will be a written statement indicating the various lines of development. They may indicate that, for instance, the shaded portions are to be residential areas, industrial areas, green belt areas and so on. I presume there would be shown in colour new roads, parks and parking places. There would be a written document to elaborate what was shown in the plan or sketch. The plan would indicate underground services. Such subterranean developments are generally shown by dotted lines. That is my idea of a sketch. In the section the word "plan" occurs in two places. According to the Minister, the words indicate two different things. We suggest that in order to avoid ambiguity, the second word "plan" should be deleted and the words "map or sketch" substituted. Whichever word is used will certainly have reference to the written statement.

Subsection (2) (a) says:

with respect to county boroughs, boroughs, urban districts and scheduled towns—

(i) for the use solely or primarily (as may be indicated in the plan) of particular areas...

Can you indicate in a written statement what you are going to do in regard, say, to a town? You can, by reference to well-known landmarks but otherwise how can any individual know what is intended? Whereas if a sketch or map is there, it is recognised procedure by which a place may be indicated or pinpointed. It is for that reason that we put down this amendment. We think it would make the intent more clear and it would convey, if you like, what the Minister has agreed will be done by this type of document about which he speaks, with different colours indicating the stage of development and of proposed development in any area. It was to avoid any ambiguity about the use of the word "plan" twice, that we put down the amendment.

The difficulty seems to be that both of us want the same thing but it is a question of how we are to get it.

Exactly.

Naturally, I am as anxious as Deputy Jones to get into the Bill what the intent is. We are both clear as to what the intention should be, and I had hoped it was clear so far as the Bill was concerned. Deputy Jones still feels it is not clear. I go with him to this extent. The use of the word "plan" twice in the subsection could, in a different context, seem to cause some confusion, although, as I said earlier, I still feel it does not cause any ambiguity. Deputy Jones outlined the likely procedure for the planning authority to adopt: to get a map and superimpose on that map their wishes for the future. That is exactly the intention of a written statement and a plan. The map would very likely have superimposed on it the intention for the future and it would explain more fully, or possibly illustrate in a clear way, what may be written at some considerable length.

We both know what we want. It is very likely that the planning authority will present a plan together with the written statement. At a later stage, in Section 23, I think, the Minister for Local Government will have power to issue model plans. We would intend to issue therein something such as Deputy Jones has outlined, a map coloured for this, that and the other thing, and the finer and further points would be explained in writing. The fact that we mention a written statement and a plan would immediately be accepted as ruling out any possibility that the proposals would be in writing only. A written statement might be confusing and might not be too easily understood.

That is the manner in which we approach this. We have to rely on the draftsman's office to put into legal phraseology our ideas and what we presented to him perhaps in woolly form. I am satisfied that what is in the Bill can be accepted without quibble or question as what Deputy Jones thinks should be there.

Is the word "plan" in subsection (2) (a) (i) equally to be taken as referring to both a written statement and a sketch or map?

It will be the same?

In the light of the Minister's statement, I do not wish to press the amendment.

The Deputy can withdraw the amendment and between now and Report Stage, he and I can have another look at it, and if we find a way to improve it, I shall be glad to do so on Report Stage.

I am satisfied with that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 52:

In subsection (3), page 14, line 30, to delete "subsection", and substitute "subsection and subsection (5) of this section,".

The intention of this amendment is to clarify that matters in the Third Schedule may be put into the partial plan. It seems to be more elaborate than it is. It is really a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 53.

In subsection (3), page 14, line 32, to delete "Act." and substitute "Act and, with respect to areas other than county boroughs, boroughs, urban districts and scheduled towns, objectives for the use solely or primarily (as may be indicated in the plan) of particular areas for particular purposes (whether residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural or otherwise)."

This, again, is a drafting amendment. It is to ensure that a plan may be utilised or operated in areas other than cities and towns to which it would be confined specifically if the Bill were to remain as it is now.

Does this bring in rural areas not covered by the description of county boroughs?

Yes. It brings in suburbs of cities that are not in the boroughs.

It is the intent to bring them into the detailed town planning?

It does not mean that solely. It means that if we have reason to think it is desirable that it should be done, it may be done.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 54:

In subsection (4), page 14, line 35, after "fall" to insert "in part".

Subsection (4) reads:

Where a planning authority propose to include in a plan under this section any development objective the responsibility for the effecting of which would fall on another local authority, the planning authority shall not include that objective in the plan save after consultation with the other local authority.

This amendment is to ensure that an area of a local authority for which another local authority is the planning authority comes under the jurisdiction of the planning authority for the purposes of the Act. As we have said on numerous occasions, the making of the development plan is something which is being reserved to the elected representatives. I did mention on previous occasions that a situation could arise where this authority might be taken from them. I asked the Minister on previous occasions—but I did not press him—under what circumstances might the making of a development plan not be the function of the elected representatives?

As we know, there might be two contiguous planning authorities. A dispute might arise between them and in that case it falls to the Minister to decide the issue between them. What I would like to have clarified in regard to the taking away of the authority from the elected representatives is in what circumstances would the making of a plan no longer be a function reserved to the elected representatives. What we seek in the amendment is to ensure that where another local authority is the planning authority the area concerned will be brought within the jurisdiction of the planning authority for the purposes of the Act.

There is a slight misunderstanding on the part of Deputy Jones as to what subsection (4) is intended to cover. He has mentioned the possible difficulties in adjoining or contiguous areas and this amendment is proposed with that in view. Although it may not be very clear, this subsection does not deal with that sort of problem. It really deals with the problem where, for instance, a county authority would be responsible for the main road through an urban authority. The purpose of the subsection in those circumstances is to preclude the planning authority, that is, the urban authority, in such an instance from including in a development plan any development objective which would interfere with the road, say, realignment or something such as that, which road was the responsibility of the county. They could and would only do that and plan for that after consultation with the county authority whose responsibility this road was. This has nothing to do with contiguous or adjoining areas or problems arising therefrom. It is this other kind of problem and the most likely problem is that of a county road in an urban area.

That certainly clarifies the intention of the section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 55:

Before subsection (6) to insert the following new subsection:

"(6) (a) The making of an application to the Minister for the allowance of such a longer period as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section shall be a reserved function.

(b) Where a planning authority have applied to the Minister for the allowance of such a longer period as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section, they shall cause notice of the application to be published in at least one newspaper circulating in their area and in the Iris Oifigiúil.

(c) A notice under the foregoing paragraph—

(i) shall specify the longer period applied for, and

(ii) shall state that objections with respect to the application made to the Minister within a specified period of not less than one month will be taken into consideration before the grant of the application (and such objections shall be taken into consideration accordingly)."

This is the new subsection to which I adverted when I was speaking on amendment No. 50 and it is the paraphernalia, so to speak, which we are imposing on planning authorities who may wish during the currency of the three-year period stipulated in the Bill and within which they will be required to prepare their plan. It is intended to ensure that only genuine and good reasons will be brought forward to support a case for an extension of the three-year period for any additional period, whether it be a month or twelve months. Before the elected representatives come forward with this application to the Minister, they will naturally discuss it at some of the meetings and the reasons for which they must get additional time for their plans will have to be aired publicly. They will then be required to publish this intention to apply to the Minister for extended time, stating the additional time they are seeking. This will be an assurance that additional time will not be needlessly sought and will be requested only where a good case can be made for it.

This helps to clarify the situation to which we referred earlier. In regard to the requirement to publish the notices in at least one newspaper circulating in an area and in Iris Oifigiúil, the Minister, I am sure, appreciates that in the rural areas, in particular, the people pay far more attention to the weekly papers that circulate in their area than to daily papers, and certainly the week-end is a time when the countryman gives attention to these documents or notices from the local authority which generally appear in the week-end editions of papers circulating in their areas, notices in regard to the erection of houses or contracts for various types of work to be carried out by the local authority. I would like to be assured that it is not the intention to confine the advertisement to one newspaper circulating in the area. In regard to daily papers, in most areas there will be perhaps three or four morning newspapers circulating. Furthermore, Iris Oifigiúil is a document which people in the legal profession may be expected to buy but I would venture to suggest that the general public do not buy such a paper. Therefore, I should like the Minister's comments on the wording of this amendment, which occurs at other places in the Bill. I suggest the phraseology should be altered from “in at least one newspaper”. The public, in rural areas, are entitled to notification in the newspapers circulating in their area. If we are to bring to the notice of the rural public the intent in regard to these matters, it is necessary that such intent be published in the weekly Press as well as in the daily Press.

I am not quite clear as to what is the object of the Minister's amendment. In most country districts or most county council areas, more than one local newspaper is published and as a result any of the newspapers may miss out on a specific portion of an area which is covered by the local authority. Even if it did, is it suggested that because of the fact that it must be published in the newspapers the officials would have to put up a better case than the elected representatives, who must be satisfied that it is necessary to make representations to the Minister for an extension of the time, or otherwise the representation would not be made? I am not too happy about the amendment. If the public representatives in the local authority are doing their job, they are the people who must be satisfied. Any crank can write in and say that he is not satisfied that there should be an extension and is the Minister to take it that the opinions of cranks are to bear more weight than those of the local authorities when they meet in council?

We have already been admonished that we must have regard to the cranks and in a slight way we are doing that in this case but this is not really to cater for the cranks. To deal with Deputy Jones first, the amendment is in keeping with other parts of the Bill. The notice must be published in at least one newspaper. In this particular instance, I have no doubt that the elected representatives dealing with the actual approval of the request to go to the Minister will themselves consider how best this might be circulated. I am quite sure that there will not just be the selection of one daily newspaper to the exclusion of all local papers. I do not think there is any danger of that happening. It is also true that we ought not fetter the local planning authority by providing that they should publish it in all newspapers circulated there. We are laying down a minimum to ensure that it will be published in at least one newspaper circulating in the area. If the elected members of the local authority feel that one newspaper is not sufficient coverage, I am sure they will bring that to the notice of the other members and the decision will be to publish it in all newspapers or a selected few.

I think it is quite safely left in their hands in this case to ensure that what is intended, that is, that the public should learn what the intention is, will be carried out. This, no doubt, will be subsequent to reports in the local newspapers of the council's proceedings when they discuss this matter before agreement is reached.

In so far as Deputy Tully is concerned and his doubts about the necessity or desirability of this section, the whole purpose in publishing the intention to apply for an addition to the time within which the plan must be prepared is in order that objections should be made. That is the whole intention. Those objections will be made, and, having been made, will be considered in conjunction with the application to the Minister for consent. It is to give everybody a fair chance of having his say and if good reasons are put forward which might counteract the case made by the council, both sides will be before the Minister before he decides to give three months, six months, or 12 months, or any additional time at all.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 56:

Before subsection (7), to insert the following new subsection:

"(7) Regulations may make provision with respect to the making available for purchase by the public of printed copies of development plans and extracts therefrom."

Provision is being made in this amendment for regulations which will make it possible for the local planning authority to provide printed copies of development plans, or extracts therefrom, for sale to any interested member of the public who may need them. It is a facility which we feel is desirable and necessary.

The regulations will be made by the Minister?

Yes, to enable the planning authority to do this.

Who will fix the price?

The cost will first have to be determined, I suppose, and only at that stage would it be fair to think about price.

There is a question somewhere of 10/-.

That is a different matter. That is the extract of a copy of an item from the register for production, say, in court or elsewhere. This is not quite the same thing. You could not determine whether it might be 10/- or £10.

It is to be assumed that it will be the cost of production and that there is not to be a profit, that the cost will not prevent people from looking at it?

I would not ask that the local planning authority should lose and neither am I going to say that they will make on it.

They cannot, of course, according to the Minister's regulations.

That is a different day's work.

Is there any danger that once this section becomes law development of any kind can be held up pending the making of the plan?

The Minister is satisfied that it cannot be so construed?

We had a section dealing with this.

I did not see it; perhaps it is there.

Subsection (7) of Section 2 is the one with which we dealt.

We dealt with interim control.

That is right.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.

I move amendment No. 57:

In subsection (1), page 15, line 21, to insert "the Iris Oifigiúil and in” before “at least”.

This amendment and possibly No. 62 might be taken together.

Yes, they are cognate.

In both amendment No. 57 and amendment No. 62, the intention is to add the words that the notice of the publications must be put into Iris Oifigiúil in addition to the one newspaper already specified in both the subsections we propose to amend.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 58:

In subsection (1) (c) and (d), page 15, lines 26 and 30, to delete "the preparation of".

As the subsections stand, they read:

(c) where the draft includes any provision relating to any structure proposed to be preserved because of its artistic, historic or architectural interest, they shall serve notice of the preparation of the draft on the owner and on the occupier of the structure, (d) where the draft includes any provision relating to the preservation of a public right of way, they shall serve notice of the preparation of the draft on the owner and on the occupier of the land.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the owner of the property will have served upon him a draft of the development plan which will interfere with his property. There is very little use in serving upon a property-owner notice of preparation of a draft. He would be interested in the actual draft of the development plan and the manner in which the plan would preserve, for instance, an alleged public right of way over his land. Furthermore, since the landowner will be entitled under subsection (2) to appeal to the Circuit Court he will require to have a copy of the draft development plan. The right to inspect the draft development plan would be useless when it would come to considering his rights with his legal advisers.

In these two subparagraphs of subsection (1) of Section 21 the Bill seeks to interfere with rights to property and, because of that, we on this side of the House are anxious to have the fullest cover given to the owner of property. The interests of the individual ought to be of paramount importance. It would not impose any undue obligation on the local authority to serve on the owner of the property a draft of the development plan and not just a notice saying that a draft had been prepared.

On an earlier section we dealt with the question of a written statement accompanied by something in the nature of a map or a sketch. In so far as the two subparagraphs here are concerned, we should seek, from the point of view of clarity, to provide that where the draft includes any provision relating to any structure proposed to be preserved because of its artistic, historic or architectural interest, they shall serve notice of the draft on the owner and on the occupier of the structure and, furthermore, where the draft includes any provision relating to the preservation of a public right of way they shall serve notice of the draft on the owner and on the occupier of the land. The individual whose property is being affected is entitled to protection from this House in respect of this type of legislation which may interfere with the rights of the individual.

At first sight, the amendments would appear to be acceptable but, having listened to Deputy Jones, I realise that, though we might accept the amendments, they would not attain the ends for which they were drafted. The deletion of the words "the preparation of" would not confer on these few owners —they will be few, of course—the right to have served on them a draft of the plan.

It would probably be wasteful, and what not, to have a draft of the plan served on these people in circumstances such as we are discussing in these subparagraphs when only a very small part of the draft would be of any interest or concern to them. I have no real objection to acceptance of the amendments but the intention of the Deputy would not be attained by them.

A draft, in so far as it concerns the property of these people.

The section would then read that the people will be served with notice of the draft; they will not be served with the draft but with notice of it. We propose to serve them with notice of the preparation of the draft. In so far as the words "the preparation of" are concerned, I am quite prepared to forgo them because it does not seem to make any difference whatsoever. The amended form, which Deputy Jones desires, would seem more sensible and would cut out some of these superfluous words but it will not attain what the Deputy has said he believes it will attain.

Now that we know what he is after, I suggest he withdraw these amendments and, on Report Stage, I shall introduce a further amendment or, if desired, a new amendment to the effect that an extract of some description or specific information relating to a particular property or building, or whatever it may be, would, on completion of the draft plan by the planning authority, be notified to the person or persons affected under this section. It would not be a good idea to say that the draft of the whole area should be sent to each person. It would be better to inform people who would be affected that a draft plan had been drawn up and to give them a rough outline of it in writing or otherwise. They could then specify any objections they might have.

It is difficult to understand the Minister's reasoning. Earlier, he said he wanted the public to get all the information possible. Now he objects to the giving of the draft plan to the people who would be affected by it. Surely it would be simpler to get a copy of the complete draft plan than to have a section of it specially made for those people who would be affected? The Minister may be worrying about the cost to local authorities.

This is slightly out of context. We have a section and we have a proposed amendment which, on its explanation by its proposers— not Deputy Tully—would not achieve the purpose they wished it to achieve. I am trying to meet them and at the same time keep in line.

But Deputy Tully has a vote on this just as have those who introduced it and, therefore, he is entitled to have his say.

Certainly.

Then, perhaps, the Minister would listen for a moment. If the draft plan is going to be submitted, surely it would be more reasonable to give the complete draft which would be easier to copy? If the Minister is sincere in saying, as he did on a previous amendment, that he wants the public to be aware of what is being done so that they may lodge objections if necessary, surely they should be allowed to have all the information, particularly those directly concerned?

The Deputy seems to forget that the few cases in which this kind of problem may arise——

Why "few cases"?

You will not have rights of way affecting everybody's property.

Almost everybody.

You will not have historic buildings on everybody's property.

If there is compensation going there will be a lot of people interested.

Yes, but they will not have the property on which the historic building is placed. There will be relatively few cases. The general public are being catered for en bloc in the publications and notices of plans that will appear and the display of the plans. This section is intended to apply where people are specifically concerned in operations aimed at preserving historic buildings or dealing with rights of way where personal property is involved and only in such cases is this procedure envisaged. I am trying to give the proposers of the amendment what they want even though by accepting the amendment they would not get it. I propose to do that on the next Stage. I have no objection to the provision but to issue the whole plan for a county planning area to each person who might have a right of way or historic building or an ancient monument on his property could be wasteful. I think the situation will be fully met provided we indicate to such persons what is going to be done and that it is in their interests to see about it. We would probably have the planning authority writing a letter telling the affected owners how they are affected. If they wish, they can follow up that and I am sure the local authority will be helpful in providing more details if required.

I am grateful for the Minister's point of view. In proposing the amendment we wanted to ensure that owners would be aware of development that would interfere with their property. We are not thinking in terms of development for the whole area but only so far as it would affect the right of any individual in any particular case whether in regard to a building or right of way. We thought by taking out the words "the preparation of", such people would have notice of the draft itself and not just notice of the fact that a draft had been prepared. We did not intend that an individual would get a copy of the draft plan for a local authority area or even for a large section of it such as a rural district but that he would get as much as concerned his own property. However, the Minister is bringing in an amendment, I understand, on the Report Stage.

If the Deputy and the House are satisfied with this amendment I would be prepared to accept it but we could probably do a more exact job by leaving it over to the Report Stage. I fully agree with what the House wants.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 59:

In subsection (2) (a), page 15, line 35, to delete "three" and substitute "six".

The purpose of the amendment is to extend the period of three months to six months within which objection may be taken to proposals which will affect a person's property under the development plan. Previously, I said that three months could be a short time in which to make an objection if one felt one's rights were involved and I instanced the sort of circumstances that might arise, a death in the family or the death of a legal adviser. We want to ensure that a person would not be precluded from making an objection where a question of property rights being interfered with would arise. I think an extension to six months would not affect the matter seriously from the development point of view and might avoid cases of hardship which could conceivably arise.

We should keep in mind in regard to this subsection that the three months is a minimum term. At least three months' notice must be given. The planning authority may make that six months or more as the section stands. We do not specify how far they may go beyond it but we insist they give at least three months' notice. We should also keep in mind that whether it is three months or 12 months that period will be within the three years which is already set out in the Bill as the normal time within which the planning authority will be required to have their plan prepared.

I think from what Deputy Jones said that it was not so much the danger of the three months being too little within which people could make objections that worried him but rather that he was afraid that even having known within the three months that there was something against which they wanted to appeal, for some reason or other they might be prevented from taking the proper steps within the period. The appeal must be made within the period laid down, during which the planning authority will have the plan on view for all to see. It appears to me that it is the time for making an appeal arising from what may be seen during the display of the plan that really worries Deputy Jones. With that point of view I have some sympathy, even if it were only to extend the period by a month beyond the three months which is allowed for making an appeal as distinct from the period during which a person may find out if he has anything to appeal about. Whatever that minimum would be, it might be well if in the later section connected with this some additional time beyond the three months were allowed for the lodging of appeals.

It appears that one could conceivably come to examine this plan in the last hour of the last day of the third month. According to a later section, the appeal of an aggrieved party would then be too late because, according to that section, it must be made in the same period. If I am right as to what Deputy Jones has in mind. I should be inclined to ask the House to leave the minimum three months, and we might extend the time beyond that three months by a fortnight or a month within which appeals of aggrieved parties may be made to the courts. If that meets with the wishes of the House, I would ask that this proposal for a six months' extension be withdrawn and undertake on the later section to extend the period beyond the three months to allow for appeals to the court being made by aggrieved parties.

I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 60:

In subsection (2) (b), page 15, line 41, after "consideration" to add "and the plan or variations altered".

Subsection 2 (b) states:

that objections or representations with respect to the draft made to the planning authority within the said period will be taken into consideration before the making of the plan or variations (and any such objections or representations shall be taken into consideration accordingly),

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that representations and objections will not only be considered but will be given due weight, leading, perhaps, to an alteration in the plan. It is only fair to assume that if a person makes an objection of this type he should feel that it will get due weight. If his representations are well founded, the plan should be varied or altered accordingly.

As the subsection reads at present, it says that objections and representations will be taken into consideration. I want to ensure that if a person successfully makes representations, the plan would fall to be altered or changed accordingly.

Quite honestly, I cannot see how we can more clearly and without causing confusion and ambiguity give to interested parties the right to make representations. As to how effective these representations will be will surely depend, first, on the case itself and on their ability to make that case. When they have made that case to the best of their ability, it will, under this section, be taken into consideration. That implies looking into the case and examining it. But, having done so, they may by the weight of the argument advanced alter or completely change the plan to meet the wishes of the person who made the representations.

To accept the amendment would appear to copperfasten the situation, but, in fact, it will do no such thing. I am informed it would turn the whole Bill haywire. If we were to accept this amendment, every representation or objection made would have to be accepted. We would undoubtedly have contradictory claims being made and we would finish up with nothing whatever. I know that is not the intention of the proposer of the amendment. I have had this looked at very thoroughly and it is quite clear that, if we accept the amendment, that is what would happen.

I am satisfied that representations and objections are covered in the subsection as it stands. I do not think they can be covered to any greater extent. Consideration does not mean merely looking at objections and throwing them into the wastepaper basket. It is to see if they have any merits. If they have, it would be a foolish person who would not have regard to them. That is the whole intent of the subsection. We could not accept the amendment because it would put the cat among the pigeons and bring about the situation that every representation and objection would have to be written in.

I agree with the Minister that the section, as it stands, covers the point and that the amendment would do exactly what the Minister says—make it obligatory on the planning authority to carry out whatever was suggested. I do not think that is the intention of Deputy Jones.

I would refer to the previous discussion we had in regard to an alleged right-of-way which a person might successfully prosecute by way of representation to the local authority, in the first instance, or by way of appeal to the Minister. If this is successfully done, a draft is prepared showing the proposed right-of-way or, perhaps, a public building to be retained in the interests of the public at large. The fact that a person could successfully prosecute such an objection would cause the plan to be amended. We wish to have this amendment accepted to ensure that the plan would be altered to show that. If a person can successfully prosecute such an objection to the local authority, or by way of appeal to the Minister, the draft plan should be altered to show the effect of that type of representation. That was what we wanted to ensure.

I am afraid that could not be covered in this subsection. The amendment, as before us, could not possibly be accepted.

The assurance given by the Minister in the course of the discussion has been useful in that it has clarified that representations will receive something more than consideration and will be given due weight.

If they are good and the case is well founded.

An alteration will be made?

Certainly; that is the whole purpose of it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 61:

In subsection (3), page 15, line 48, after "person" to insert "claiming to be affected by or having an interest in such inclusion".

The phrase "any person" could include the type we have been referring to as professional troublemakers.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share