Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Mar 1974

Vol. 271 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1973: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. E. Collins:

I have already welcomed the central aspect of this Bill which will speed up the consideration of planning appeals. This is a very welcome development and the way in which it is being done is very constructive. I have pointed out that the power of the board as regards vexatious references or appeals, in other words the power of the board to deal with what are, in effect, irrelevant or semi-irrelevant appeals, is considerable. I hope this is used in order to eliminate what I consider to be an unnecessarily high level of appeals in relatively minor applications.

Section 17 which deals with expenses of appeals is a different matter, and while I would not like to see small groups taking on large combines on appeal, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the expenses of appeal would not be great. I should like the Minister to spell this out in more detail. A valid point has been raised in relation to this. Nevertheless, by including a monetary aspect in relation to appeal it may help towards eliminating unnecessary appeals.

I suggested earlier that the central element in local planning was the development plan. I note here that the Minister has referred to this in detail It is my own opinion that if a proper development plan is established and is discussed properly, not only by the local authority but by outside interests before it is amended, this will reduce the necessity for appeal in a number of cases.

I was also pleased to note that the board, while keeping itself informed in relation to certain policies and objectives which the Minister establishes, national objectives, will maintain a good balance allowing the local development plan to be the central aspect under the Planning Act. This is a good thing.

The matter of oral hearings is dealt with quite firmly in this Bill, especially in relation to what one might call minor appeals when an oral hearing is unnecessary. I was pleased to see that under section 14 of the Bill the board has absolute discretion in this matter. I take it that the objective of the section is to eliminate oral hearings on what, in effect, are minor appeals.

The section which deals with the High Court prohibiting unauthorised development is a good one. There has been unauthorised development, some of major consequence. I hope the planning authorities will use the High Court in a proper way. I hope the planning authorities will not hesitate to go to the High Court in relation to a major unauthorised development. Either we are going to have the Planning Act working properly, and being seen to be working properly, or we are not going to have a good Planning Act. This device of the High Court is a good one if it is used properly.

I also agree with the limit of duration on planning permission. Section 25 which deals with this matter allows for a five-year period but I wonder if this period is too long. It should be borne in mind that the development plan in all areas is revised every five years and if permission is granted and it is not carried out within five years it is possible that developments in that area would have altered the situation. I suggest that the Minister consider a period of three years.

I hope the Minister will consider the question of providing an advisory service at local level and the availability of a highly-qualified consultancy service in Dublin.

Mr. Moore:

Like most Members, I welcome the Bill because the previous Act is ten years old. Living in this age of development, it is natural that any Act which is ten years old should be looked at in the hope that we can improve it. I should like to pay tribute to the Minister's predecessor for his work during his term of office which was a period of great development. I am sure the term of office of the present Minister will also be one of development.

The Minister, in his preamble, has adopted a reasonable attitude towards the Bill and what he would like to see himself. We can all join the general atmosphere on Second Reading of what we would like to see in the Bill ourselves or what we expect from it.

Any Planning Act, or control, is interpreted by developers, even the man putting an extension on to his house, as being somewhat repressive. He feels it should not be there. Yet, on reflection, one must agree that unless we have wise planning laws there will be absolute chaos. Planning laws affect every facet of our living, house building, the erection of offices, the environment and the preservation of green spaces. Therefore, we should give planning serious consideration so that we can fashion an instrument for good planning and worthwhile progress. With the experience we have had over the past ten years, we should be able to eradicate many things which were wrong and improve where possible. Having done that, we should ensure that the laws will be applied fairly and effectively. We can then save ourselves from the mistake which has been made in other countries. Even though they had planning legislation in other countries there has been a growth of frightful development in major cities. Beauty spots have been ruined because of man's selfishness.

The first incident of planning control was in the erection of the tower of Babel. Since that time planners, developers and elected representatives have had to contend with problems arising from and out of planning applications, rejections and approvals.

It is only right that in the preparation of this Bill the Minister should have placed so much emphasis on the planning board. From past experience we are all aware that although the laws are just there will be plenty of appeals against them either from those involved in development work or from objectors in the various sections of the community. I hope this Bill will result in the speedy solution of appeals. That is the intention but whether the result will be as intended is another matter. This measure may also have the effect of eliminating appeals being made by people who in many cases are merely being awkward. It may also prohibit a developer who has been granted approval for a project being in a position, either through ignorance or prejudice, of ignoring the plans and proceeding to carry out the work in his own way. These, then, are some of the major points of the Bill. In the age in which we are living the question of planning is of great importance. We are living in the era of the giant motorway and of a fast increasing population. Our population figures may never reach what they were, say, 150 years ago, but they are growing rapidly. Therefore, our planning laws must be designed so as to cater for all these developments. Mistakes have been made in respect of road construction, especially in the newer suburbs of this city where the roads are very narrow. At some time in the future a lot of money will have to be spent in widening them because they will not facilitate the increasing volume of traffic.

Perhaps the Minister would consider having one planning authority for the greater Dublin area and also for such places as Cork, Galway and Limerick. At present the position in respect of Dublin is that if the corporation wish to build houses in the county council area they must apply to the county council for permission. These other cities I have mentioned will also expand rapidly in the future.

Regarding the planning board, perhaps the Minister would spell out more clearly, first, the board's terms of reference and, secondly, the qualifications that he has in mind in respect of the personnel to be appointed to the board. I am not suggesting that there should be only architects or engineers on the board. The important point is that the members should have practical experience. Of course, the local government laws provide that a member of a local authority cannot be appointed to any such board, at least not for some years after retirement, but we must ensure that people of experience are appointed to the board and that these include a person who has had some experience of local authority work either as an official or as a member. Now that so much emphasis is being placed on the question of equality for women it would be a good idea to appoint to the board a woman so that her point of view could be brought to bear on development, particularly on development in urban areas. The mother of a family would be aware of the amenity requirements in her area. She would be in a position to put forward her views on what would make for a better environment both for mothers and for their children in so far as playgrounds and so on are concerned. Priority should be given to the preservation of open spaces and to the provision of playgrounds. It would be difficult to make a planning decision that would not draw unfavourable comment from somebody but we must do our best.

I would prefer to see more than three members being appointed to the board. I would suggest also that as a gesture towards decentralisation the board, should not sit all the time in Dublin but be more like the Circuit Court.

Mr. Tully:

Can the Deputy say what virtue there would be in hearing a case on behalf of somebody from Donegal in, say Galway, instead of Dublin?

Mr. Moore:

I suggest this as a gesture towards decentralisation.

Mr. Tully:

I do not like empty gestures.

Mr. Moore:

Why does the Circuit Court go on circuit?

Mr. Tully:

Because there are a number of courts.

Mr. Moore:

The board will have to be enlarged in the future because of the number of appeals that will come before it. If the economy remains buoyant there will be more development and, consequently, more appeals. In order to speed up these matters it will be necessary to consider a diversification of the board's activities and to consider also their location. To have the board located in different areas would help to convince people of attempts being made towards decentralisation. We must realise that Dublin is not Ireland.

Now is the time to consider very seriously this question of the board and their activities so as to ensure that there will be no weak link in the part of the legislation that we are endeavouring to strengthen. The only reservation I have regarding this board is the question of whether it is possible to have a national planning policy when the Minister does not have complete control over the functions of his Department. It may not be in the best interest of the nation in the long-term that the Bill should be passed as it is now before us. It may well be that if it is passed in its present state it will result in damaging the national planning policy. The board that the Minister is proposing to set up will be very powerful. Unless the personnel appointed to it are selected very carefully, the board could be the cause of grave miscarriages of justice. If we do not ensure that this board is manned by people of high integrity and ability, it could turn out to be a Frankenstein in planning matters. I am glad to see in sections 21 and 22 that the Minister is taking power to stop unauthorised development. The bane of our lives in recent years has been the people who would flout all planning regulations if they could. I refer to the grave suburban problems caused by the conversion of good family single dwellings into multi family units, with up to nine people living in bedsitters in houses which were designed to accommodate three or four people. This has meant the destruction of entire suburbs because families left behind, grossly affected by noise and all-night parties, have been selling out at cheap rates and moving elsewhere. There has been a consequent destruction of entire suburban communities and there has been, as well, a general deterioration of property. This new way of life has been affecting English towns and cities and we have a lot to learn from it.

Local authorities must have sufficient trained personnel to enable them to stop this blight. I appeal, therefore, to the Minister to provide for more planning staffs for local authorities. In this city we have always seemed to be short of competent planning officers and the men we have are completely overworked. With our population approaching one million, there is a great need for more inspectors, not as punitive officers but as advisers on good planning. We need them particularly to see to it that there is no unapproved development. As I have said, we do not need these people to act as policemen but as experts who will give advice. This, in turn, would lead to greater development in our cities and towns.

So far I have concentrated on housing because it is so basic to good planning. Planning is also needed to preserve the amenities that we have or that we had up to a few years ago Because of industrialisation and less emigration, greater strain has been placed on our seaside resorts. You have a type of person who wants to build a house on the foreshore. The previous Minister ensured that there could not be development between a coastal roadway and the sea front. On the other hand, we must ensure complete freedom of access to the sea shore in every coastal area and we must safeguard private individuals against arbitrary actions by feudal lords and feudal laymen who would try to bar our people from access to the sea or charge them for that access.

Dublin Corporation have moved with Wicklow County Council to ensure that there will be free access to the sea in County Wicklow where the mass of Dublin people go for re-taxation. Now with our people becoming more affluent and having more leisure, it will be necessary to conserve further the open spaces in our countryside so that the natural beauty of our island will be preserved for the benefit of our people whose quality of life will thereby be immeasurably improved.

It may sound grandiose to be talking like this but I should point out that most of what has happened in the matter of bad planning has taken place in the last ten years. Up to the introduction of the 1963 Act it was difficult to stop people destroying an area or a street. The 1963 legislation did tremendous work and the Bill before us now is a measure to amend and to improve on the earlier Act. Through this Bill we can retain the best parts of the existing Act and add to it or amend it as necessary.

One of the great problems facing us is the disposal of city refuse. As city populations increase, the disposal of domestic refuse takes on massive proportions and the problem is whether it can be solved by incineration. I am glad to say that in the city here many of our old quarries which used to be death traps for young people have been converted into playing fields but we do not have an unlimited supply of these places. The local authorities, looking at their planning proposals for the future, will, in the next ten or 20 years, until we find a sophisticated way of destroying litter, have to plan to contain this rubbish somewhere. It is another headache which an affluent and developing society gives to us.

Therefore, in our local planning offices and by direction of the central authority, we should try to educate people into the higher concepts of planning. If we are going to have beautiful cities and towns and a beautiful countryside, this is probably the biggest problem facing society today. We may have a housing shortage but housing development has by no means been on a small scale. At least we have got rid of most of the slums in cities and towns. Although we will have a housing shortage for many years, the standard of housing is a lot better than it was up to this. Housing alone would keep any planning authority with enough work but housing is only one part of living. While it is a very basic need, we must ensure that planning will be of the highest order and strive not to create a lot of asphalt jungles but suburbs and towns of real beauty.

Mr. Tully:

I do not want to interrupt Deputy Moore, but I think he is missing the point. The planning board will not be responsible for planning policy. They will not lay down the policy but the planning officers of local authorities will still have to carry out their duties. It is only the appeals——

Mr. Moore:

That is quite true to a certain extent.

Mr. Molloy:

The whole question of the 1963 Act is up for review in this debate and not just the fact that the Minister is establishing a board.

Mr. Tully:

No, it is not.

Mr. Molloy:

Enforcement is in the Bill. Certain sections are changed in the Bill.

Mr. Tully:

Nobody is taking away the local authority's responsibility to carry out their normal planning duties. This is being overlooked by a number of speakers here and I think it is only right to put them straight before it goes any further.

Mr. Moore:

I see the point the Minister is making but let me say that up to this the Minister had the final authority in the matter.

Mr. Tully:

Yes.

Mr. Moore:

But he will not have it now.

Mr. Tully:

That is right. I have the final authority when it comes to an appeal but I have nothing to do with the cases that come up at local level, thousands of them, which will still be dealt with by the local authority.

Mr. Moore:

People will look at this and say that, in the last analysis, the Minister has the power to do this. As Deputy Molloy has said, we are reviewing the 1963 Act and our cities are growing so fast that, as I am sure the Minister realises, we shall have to put the very best into our planning legislation or else we will be ashamed in a few years' time that we did not take the opportunity of correcting some of the abuses such as unapproved development. If our legislation does not aim at the stars, then I cannot see the developers raising their standards very high.

I think the few points I put forward bear examination and possible rejection but the Minister should at least have a good look at this planning board before this Bill is finally adopted.

Mr. Bermingham:

First of all, I want to congratulate the Minister on the directive he has already sent out to planning authorities which has made things easier for a person who wishes to provide a house for himself and his family. I hope there will be an overall plan for development in rural areas. In some places the requirements for a man who may wish to build his own house seem to be somewhat different from those in other places. A person may have available to him a cottage plot belonging to his father, a large part of which is waste in modern times because it is not economic to use it for farming as in former years when horses were used to till the land. Therefore, the land which is lying idle is made available to a son or daughter who in the normal course of events would be expected to look for local authority housing but who, by means of local authority loans, is prepared to provide his or her own house. Our planning laws should be designed to facilitate the obtaining of planning permission in such cases.

The health authorities come into this matter of planning permission in rural areas in connection with septic tanks and so on and we find there are different criteria in every area. If people have the normal space in the plot in which to place a septic tank and if they conform otherwise with the regulations for grants and so on, they find that sometimes the medical officer or the health inspectors may be looking for half an acre for the house. This puts the ordinary person in the position that he cannot build on the site which has been so easily provided. In many cases this is unrealistic and unfair.

Enough cognisance is not taken of the fact that this person is building a house and is complying with the various regulations laid down by the Department about the distance his septic tank should be from that house and any other house. This man finds that a medical officer states that he must have a half acre of land for proper septic tank drainage. The type of drainage in the land on which this house is built is not taken into account. I wish to thank the Minister for all he has done in this direction. He has tried to get it across to local authorities that these applications should be looked at in a favourable light and that the regulations should not be made impossible for those people. We should bend over backwards to assist the person who builds his own house. We should ensure that a fair criterion is used in applying planning legislation and that we will not have people looking for half an acre for septic tank drainage in one case and a quarter of an acre in another case.

An Ceann Comhairle:

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but the Bill we are dealing with is seeking to establish a planning board which will deal with appeals. It will not take from local authorities the functions they still enjoy in the matter of planning.

Mr. Bermingham:

I take your point, Sir, but I submit that many of the people I have mentioned come to appeal at this stage. I believe this is one of the reasons the Department is cluttered up with appeals. I welcome this section which sets up the board to deal with planning appeals because, no matter what political party the Minister for Local Government belongs to, he can be accused of political favouritism if he has the sole power in regard to appeals. Clear directives should be laid down with regard to these matters so that a person will know when he is likely to win an appeal and when it is useless for him to appeal.

Something should be done about the case of a developer who goes into an area and gets permission under certain conditions to erect houses but after ten or 15 years we find that that area is not completed and the people who bought houses in the early stages of that development find they have no redress because the development is not completed. They are left for a long time without the amenities which originally were to be part of this development. People should have the right to force the developer in such a case to finish the scheme and provide the amenities to which they are entitled.

When a person goes to an appeal board it is like going to a court of appeal. If it was a legal battle you would know if you had a chance of success. When you go to a planning appeal board you should also know if you have a chance of success. I have a feeling that planning applications are not dealt with on an even basis throughout the whole area. Therefore many appeals come before the Minister which would not be necessary if we had a standard set of rules governing planning permission.

Mr. Timmons:

I welcome the principle which the Minister has introduced into this Bill to provide for an independent board to hear planning appeals. It states at the beginning of this Bill that it is a Bill entitled.

an Act to make better provision in the interests of the common good in relation to the proper planning and development of cities, towns and other areas, whether urban or rural and for that purpose to establish a body to be known as An Bord Pleanála and to define its functions and to amend and extend the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 and to provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.

I am a bit confused about that because I understood this measure was primarily to deal with appeals and not the overall planning of the country. What I read out would suggest that this board would be armed with powers to make for more comprehensive planning for the whole country. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point when he is replying.

I share the feelings expressed by previous speakers about the necessity of the Minister and the Government making appointments to this board which are free from all political coloration. When one has regard to appointments made by the present Government in other spheres one has an uneasy feeling that the appointments the Minister may make may not be in the best interests of the country as a whole and perhaps may be subject to ministerial direction. The Minister should have defined the qualifications of the people he proposes to appoint to this board. He has mentioned three people but it is strange that he should say that the chairman of the board would be appointed by the Government and that the Minister would later on appoint two other people. Perhaps names could be submitted by members of the Cabinet. We do not know because it has not been spelt out in this Bill. There could be public disquiet about this.

Mr. Tully:

What public disquiet could there be? The Deputy is making allegations since he got up. He is mumbling to himself. This is the way it has been done down through the years.

Mr. Timmons:

Having regard to the appointments the Minister and other members of the Cabinet have made since they took office——

Mr. Tully:

That is untrue. What is the Deputy talking about?

Mr. Timmons:

The qualifications have not been defined.

Mr. Tully:

The Deputy was dragged in at the last minute to hold up this debate. All he can do is make allegations. If he stopped mumbling we might hear what he is saying.

Mr. Timmons:

The Minister may not like what I am saying but there is public disquiet——

Mr. Tully:

The Deputy is saying nothing. All he can do is make allegations.

Mr. Timmons:

That is typical of the Minister's comments. There is public disquiet regarding the competence of the Government who have made appointments in other spheres. They have not defined in the Bill the qualifications of the people to be appointed and I am in order in seeking clarification from the Minister.

Mr. Tully:

If that is all the Deputy has to say, it is not very much.

Mr. Timmons:

The Minister is entitled to his opinion, as I am entitled to mine. I agree in principle with the formation of an independent board but I should like clarification from the Minister on the matters I have mentioned. It is not stated specifically in the section that it relates only to appeals; it relates to developments generally and in my view the rest of the Bill is in conflict with that. When making appointments to the board I hope the Minister will go outside the sphere of political influence and patronage and seek the highest qualified people. Perhaps he would consult some of the foremost legal and planning experts to ensure that those appointed are fully qualified for their task.

The board have taken on a lot. The Minister has mentioned he is dealing with 4,000 appeals. He does not tell us whether the greatest proportion comes from Dublin or other areas. Between now and Committee Stage he might consider setting up a regional appeals board which could communicate with the board he intends to appoint, thus expenditing the hearing of planning appeals. The entire planning appeals system is being centralised in the Custom House, or whatever office may be designated, and this puts an unfair burden on people from the provinces who may have to travel to Dublin to give evidence at oral hearings.

Mr. Tully:

They will not have to do that. The Deputy does not know how it works.

Mr. Timmons:

I have attended at planning appeals.

Mr. Tully:

At Dublin appeals, held in Dublin.

Mr. Timmons:

The Minister has not spelled this out in the Bill. He is concerned merely with setting up the board. The Minister has not indicated what staff will be needed. Is it envisaged that a new planning appeals department will be set up and, if so, how will it be staffed? Whatever planning authority are responsible for Dublin city, some of us are distressed at the mutilation of the city, at the featureless buildings being erected which take away from the traditional architecture. Whoever is appointed to the board should be skilled in planning and architectural science and they should have a cultural tradition that would ensure the preservation of what is best in our society.

Mr. Tunney:

I should like to mention one matter in the proposed legislation that disturbs me. I am happy the Minister has introduced the Bill and I am content with practically everything contained in it. The point I shall make may seem strange in that I am on the record of this House as having advocated that there should be a fee for planning applications. I remember saying that if a person must pay a fee for a passport or for a birth or baptismal certificate I thought it strange, having regard to the amount of time and the expertise involved in planning applications, that no fee was charged.

Having said that it may seem rather peculiar that I shall now refer to section 17, under which it will be possible for the board to direct that a person who lodges an appeal against a planning permission may be required to pay the costs of the appeal. I am thinking of a working-class man who might find himself in a position where a powerful operator, a speculator or a developer, had got planning permission for a development which deprived him of his rights. If he wishes to appeal he will know that if the appeal runs for a certain length of time and if the developer, as he is entitled to, engages the best and most expensive expertise the man in question might be obliged to pay the total cost. Provision for that is made in section 17. I know the section says the board may decide that the appellant must pay the cost. That is bound to be very inhibiting in the case of a prospective appellant who could be reminded of the financial risk he was running if he dared appeal against a permission which has been granted to a company like Guinness, Esso or some other big monied company.

The Minister has the reputation of being concerned for the individual rather than for big business so I would appeal to him to have a second look at this section and to strengthen in some way the right the board will have to waive the collection of costs in cases where they regard the objection as bona fide and made by an individual who felt his rights had been trangressed, not just made out jealousy, annoyance or frustration. We all know the power of the dollar and the power of the pound and there is an obligation on us to ensure that a man's inability to pay will not deprive him of his constitutional rights. Section 17 appears to me to weigh in favour of the person who has the capacity to pay rather than in favour of the person on whose side right exists and I am suggesting to the Minister that he should reconsider the content of that section.

I should like now to refer the Minister to a communication from his Department directed to local authorities. It is dated 12 Samhain, 1973. It refers to what are described as planning control problems. The Minister in his customary industrious fashion was apparently concerned that in his office there was an accumulation of appeals. He was also mindful of the fact that the fashion had grown up in local authorities where, if there was any element of doubt, they rejected the application and informed the applicant of his right to appeal to the Minister and, because of that, there was an accumulation of appeals which could, perhaps, have been avoided. I wonder, however, if that justified what the Minister indicated as his policy in the document to which I refer. If planning refers to anything, it refers surely to the maintenance of high standards, not just high standards in high places but high standards in every place.

One of the problems of this age in which we live seems to be an almost chronic anxiety to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. I think that it is even happening in the case of religion. Whether the maintenance of the correct standards causes a certain botheration to a Minister, an individual or a public representative, the fact is that the price that has to be paid for the maintenance of high standards is never cheap and it would be unwise of us here to accept that we should at any time sacrifice perfection or high standards for speed or any other consideration.

I would be happier if on occasion the Minister came before the House and was accused of having before him thousands of undischarged appeals and he made the honest defence that the delay arose because of his concern that there should be no departure from the high standards to which local authorities and his Department aspired and that he was adamant that there must at no stage be any departure from them. If the Minister does not aim at the highest, there will always be the danger that those who might be regarded as his subordinates will adopt much lower standards. The local authority to which I have the honour to belong have already indicated to the Department that they should not, whatever the consequences, be asked to lower standards.

The final point I should like to make —and I do so very mindful of the fact that I may be foolish in inviting comment from you that I may be out of order—is to say how disappointed I am that this legislation does not contain provision for a matter which years ago may not have been regarded as directly affecting planning but which, to me today, should be included in any legislation aimed at preserving, protecting and raising aesthetically the standard of our environment. There are certain roads in every part of Dublin today, and roads on the perimeter of the city, where there is indiscriminate and scandalous dumping which, more than the worst type of planning application that might be allowed, tends to destroy that aesthetic appearance we would all like to achieve.

Again, Sir, I am glad you anticipate that I am not anxious to do any more than comment on it. I know too, that the Minister, as he journeys into the city, may have noticed the appalling situation obtaining. I suggest that perhaps some morning as he drives in, whether it be the Navan road or the Ashbourne road, he might turn right or left and travel a mile or two of the secondary roads to see what is happening to the surroundings and environment. Perhaps he intends catering for it. under some other legislation. Perhaps in this legislation he might give power to the local authority for the moment and, later, to An Bord Pleanála to deal with all people, individuals and firms, guilty of this appalling practice in a fashion which would prevent its recurrence, its growth and, above all—apart from appearances sake—safeguard the people of this city and of other areas where it occurs against the inherent dangers in the matter of good health.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully):

I should like to thank the Members of the House who took part in the debate for the way in which they dealt with the various items, whether or not some of them —like the last made by Deputy Tunney—were slightly away from what I would consider to be normal planning. I am not blaming him; I abhor as much as he does the practice of indiscriminate dumping. Again and again I have called upon the local authorities, who are directly responsible for dealing with this matter, to give it their earnest attention. Many of them have done so. As a matter of fact, Deputy R.P. Burke some time ago rather abused me at a meeting of Dublin County Council for having the temerity to suggest that that council were not doing everything they could about this sort of thing, that they did not need any direction from me. Deputy Tunney has just said—and I agree with him—not alone do Dublin County Council, but many other local authorities require reminders that they are solely responsible for seeing that this sort of thing is looked after. As a result of what Deputy Tunney has said I hope to send a further reminder. Coming into the summer we do not want to have a continuation of this. I apologise for dwelling on it but, since it was raised and is an important matter, I merely wanted to make that comment. I am not objecting to the fact that Deputy Tunney raised it because it is very important.

I am sorry that Deputy Timmons adopted the line which he did adopt. He was the only Deputy who did so. As a matter of fact, I am sure he felt like "our Johnny" because everybody was out of step except himself. The charges which he made against the Government and against my Department of having made certain appointments, about which he was making allegations, I would like him——

Mr. Timmons:

On a point of order, I did not make any allegation against the Minister personally or his Department. My charges were against the Government.

Mr. Tully:

The Deputy said various Departments, including my own.

Mr. Timmons:

Yes.

Mr. Tully:

Unfortunately, he did not take the trouble to read the Bill or even the explanatory memorandum attached to it. Nor did he read the 1963 Act because what he read out was the long title of the 1963 Act with the following: "For that purpose to establish a body to be known as An Bord Pleanála." That was the only addition to it and if he took such great exception to it in this Bill, why did he not take exception——

Mr. Timmons:

Because of my fear of the appointments.

Mr. Tully:

Why did he not take exception to it in the previous Act? He did not and I am sorry that he should have introduced this note because it was not present in any of the remarks made by other Deputies.

Mr. Tunney:

A simple and understandable explanation is that, as a member of this party, he had more faith in his own party.

Mr. Tully:

I am sure he realises how mistaken he was. Perhaps the light dawning on him now has compelled him to bare his soul in front of the House. I am very happy and indeed comforted by the way in which the Bill has been dealt with on Second Stage. Deputies, generally, welcomed it. They had criticisms of one or more provisions of it.

I said at the commencement of my Second Reading speech and I repeat now: This is a Bill which, in my opinion, is an ideal Committee Stage Bill. If there are numerous amendments submitted by Deputies from any side of this House—and, following upon what has been said I may have amendments to introduce myself—I will welcome them and we will have a civilised discussion, as we had on the previous Bill. I am quite sure that the Bill, in its final form, will be a very useful instrument.

Mr. Molloy:

Is that the Constituency Bill to which the Minister is referring?

Mr. Tully:

The Constituency Bill is all right and I know the Deputy will be letting it through without any further difficulty. The Deputy realises now how fair minded I was when I drew it up.

I think it was a little unfair that some Deputies went through the Bill section by section. That is for Committee Stage. I realise that Deputies wanted to make a contribution and they adopted this way of doing so. But, in my opinion, it is not the proper way to deal with a Bill of this kind because that is purely a Committee Stage matter.

Mr. Molloy:

The Minister has said it is a Committee Stage Bill.

Mr. Tully:

Yes.

Mr. Molloy:

How does one speak on a Committee Stage Bill, on Second Stage, unless one deals with it——

Mr. Tully:

One deals with general criticisms but one does not read section 1, section 2, section 3, section 4, and so on, as was done by some Deputies who went through it in this manner as if they were dealing with it on Committee Stage. I am not objecting. In most cases, the criticism was constructive. But it would have been better for all concerned had they made general comments and left points they felt they would have to make again on Committee Stage. Some of the points were very valid. Most of the criticism centred around the board and fell into three main headings: provision was not made for a large enough minimum membership of the board; the qualifications of the members of the board and particularly of the chairman; and the independence of the board. Deputy Molloy said that the Minister should consider having a minimum of four members. He said that if one of the members of the board of three was ill the two left could be swopping each other's recommendations. That is not very complimentary to the members. The Deputy meant that if two members were left they could say to each other "If you let this one through, I will let your one through". I do not think they would do that. The Deputy also made the point that in the case of small boards one member might be dominant.

Mr. Molloy:

I did not imply that either of the two members in such a situation would have any personal interest in the appeals before them.

Mr. Tully:

Why would they be swopping?

Mr. Molloy:

I said they would be approving of each other's recommendations.

Mr. Tully:

"Swopping" was the word used by Deputy Molloy. If the Deputy had said "approving" it would be a different thing altogether.

Mr. Molloy:

The Minister may not be aware that I used both words.

Mr. Tully:

It was not a happy choice of words.

Mr. Molloy:

I used both words.

Mr. Tully:

Which did you mean?

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Molloy:

If the Minister reads my speech——

Mr. Tully:

If Deputy Molloy said "swopping" recommendations that would mean doing one thing and then the other, and that is something I would not like to have thrown against members of a board even though that board are not yet appointed. The Deputy said that one man might be dominant on a small board. This is a valid point. Deputy F. O'Brien thought the board should be a fairly large one. A board of four or possibly six members was advocated by Deputy R.P. Burke. He also said that he did not think it right that two people should control the development of an area. Let me repeat something I said. This does not take away from the right of the planning authorities to decide on the planning applications in their own areas. From what a number of Deputies said it appeared that they felt that the board would deal with all the planning applications. They will deal with planning appeals. Anyone who came in and heard that being said might get an idea that that was so. Deputy R. P. Burke was here all the time. Perhaps I misunderstood him. By no stretch of the imagination could two people be dealing with the whole development of an area. The board would be dealing only with appeals.

Deputy Molloy thought that the Minister should make provision that the qualifications of the various members of the board should be regulated at least by regulations made under the Bill. He referred to the qualifications which the Minister lays down for managers. Deputy R.P. Burke thought that members of the board should go before the Civil Service Commission. Deputy F. O'Brien and Deputy R.P. Burke thought that the chairman should be a judge. Deputy Callanan did not share that view, but turned his face against faceless people deciding people's appeals. Deputy Callanan would prefer a Minister who would be responsible to the people. This view, which seems to be on all sides of the House, shows that the Bill was being approached by each Deputy as he saw it. I would like to hear comments because this is the way to ensure good legislation.

Deputy Moore thought that the board should include a woman whose outlook on urban development might be useful. Her outlook on any development might be useful. Deputy Timmons found something wrong with the suggestion that the chairman of the board should be appointed by the Government while the Minister would appoint the members.

Mr. Timmons:

Suspect.

Mr. Tully:

Deputy Timmons does not know that every board like this since the State was founded has been appointed in that way. This is the normal practice. There is no ulterior motive in the wording of this section. It is like the wording in many other Bills which I have introduced, where I fell back on Fianna Fáil wording and Deputy Timmons did not find anything wrong with that. I believe the wording is right. The decision of the last Government, the present Government and future Governments to do things like that is correct. The wording in future Bills will probably be "the chairman will be selected by the Government and the members will be selected by the Minister" if the Minister has that right.

Mr. Molloy:

There are very few——

An Ceann Comhairle:

Interruptions should cease. If Members have legitimate questions to ask they can do so at the end. That is the best procedure. The Minister must be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Molloy:

The Minister welcomes our comments.

Mr. Tully:

Perhaps I have invited them. I will try to keep it on a one-man basis from now on. The Minister is responsible to the House for the appointments. There are many boards which I do not want to mention which have quite an important effect on the living standards of our people and they have been appointed in this way. The most recent was the board concerned with nuclear power. That Bill went through without criticism. It only happens to be wrong here because Deputy Timmons says it is wrong. It was said by various Members that sections 4 and 5 took away the independence of the board.

Deputy Tunney referred to changing standards. With the exception of Deputy Molloy and Deputy Tunney, everybody else thought that the circular of the 12th November was the greatest one that had been issued with regard to planning since the Planning Bill was introduced. Deputy Tunney said I had lowered standards. If the Deputy reads the circular he will find that no effort was made to lower standards. The circular suggested that common sense should be used. This was not the first circular which went out from the Department of Local Government. My predecessor, Deputy Molloy, and his predecessors had written to the local authorities suggesting that there should be a relaxation of the way in which they were dealing with planning applications and no attention was paid to them.

I followed up my circular by having county managers, planning officers and county engineers up to the Custom House where we had a frank discussion of what they thought was the proper way of handling this. They agreed that the circular was something they needed. The instructions they got were something they had been waiting for and have been carried out. Far from lowering standards the opposite is the case. In certain cases people who were getting away with things have been prevented from doing so. The planning officers know where they stand. There is no ambiguity. Instead of preventing some fellow who found it difficult to get a site and for some flimsy reason turning him down, they can now give permission. They understand that is so. If a big developer attempts to put 120 houses where he got permission for 100 houses he will not be allowed to do so. The circular told local authorities what was expected of them. They were glad to get the information and have acted on it since. The results are there for all to see.

Deputy Hegarty spoke about the need to help people provide homes for themselves and a number of other Deputies, including Deputy Callanan and Deputy Crowley, made this point also and they, in fact, welcomed the circular. I thing Deputy Molloy was being a little inconsistent when he queried the words "absolute discretion" in section 14 which gives the board absolute discretion to hold an oral hearing on an appeal. He thought this deprived people of their rights and that the board should not be able to discriminate between one citizen and another. Without committing myself in any way I should point out that practically every decision of the board will be a decision as between one citizen and another or between one citizen and the local authority. However, the Deputy's point will be examined. I think he was having an each-way bet and I would again point out that there is no question whatever of doing what he says. If instead of putting in "absolute discretion", we say that the board should have the right to decide whether an oral hearing was necessary, or something like that, I am sure Deputy Molloy would agree this would be quite reasonable but because the words "absolute discretion" are there he feels perhaps this was a stronger way of putting it and going a little too far. I do not think it is.

Mr. Molloy:

I think the section is too open as it stands.

Mr. Tully:

I shall have a look at it; I do not think it is. I believe the section, in fact, allows the board to decide whether an oral hearing is necessary or not. As Deputy Molloy must remember—and as I know now —many times people will appeal, particularly in the case of third party appeals, and when it is almost at the point of decision the third party will ask for an oral hearing for no reason except to hold up the appeal. There are cases on record, even in my short time of 12 months, where people having asked for an oral hearing at the last minute when the oral hearing was set up, did not even turn up. But they effectively prevented a decision on the appeal for periods of up to 12 months. If we have a decent board, as I believe we shall have, they should have the right to decide, if something like this was happening, whether or not to allow an oral hearing. It occasionally happens that one business man wants to do something and another also wants to do the same thing and appeals in an effort to prevent the first fellow from getting a head start. This occasionally happens. In the case of housing, it is not unusual to find if there are two housing schemes in an area, one scheme having got permission, an appeal from a third party arrives, a third party who appears to have no connection with the matter at all. He is entitled to make an appeal and can ask for an oral hearing and at present can hold up the whole scheme for an indefinite period although he has no right to interfere, having no connection with either one scheme or the other and in many cases does not even live in the district. This is a sharp practice that should be abolished and I believe this is the way to do it.

Deputy R.P. Burke did not seem to share the views of other Deputies as to the independence of the board He thought there should be control over the board by members of the Oireachtas and asked me to provide for this by amendment of the Bill and perhaps provide that there should be an annual debate on the work. Instead of the power of the Oireachtas actually to fix the schedule which gives the Government power to remove a chairman and provides that it must lay before each House a statement in writing of the reasons for the removal, Deputy Burke thought the removal of a chairman should be debated on a motion before the House. These are the divergent views of Members even on the same side of the House. It is well that these views should be expressed and I have no objection to it.

Mr. Molloy:

I think I expressed fairly similar views.

Mr. Tully:

No, not exactly. Deputy Molloy suggested that there was too much control by the Minister and that he could interfere because of the way in which it was framed. Deputy Burke said the direct opposite, that there was not sufficient interference by the Minister and that the Minister should have no authority and that the House subsequently should have the right to debate the matter.

Deputy Moore thought the board might turn into a Frankenstein dominating the lives of the people and he spoke about the national planning policy. That policy will, as always, be laid down by the Government and will be carried out without interference by this board when it is set up.

Another Deputy said he had listened to the speeches and was surprised that they merely dealt with the setting up of a planning board. As I said in my opening speech, and as any body who read the Bill will understand, the Bill falls into three main amendments of the existing Act, those relating to the establishment of new machinery for dealing with planning appeals and similar matters; those for strengthening the provisions of the Act of 1963 relating to unauthorised development and miscellaneous amendments some of a relatively minor nature. The amendments relating to the establishment of machinery to deal with planning appeals are the most important part of the Bill. This is what I said at the beginning and this is so. It is not true to say the Bill simply dealt with one aspect of the problem.

Quite a number of people suggested different qualifications for membership of the board. I have an open mind on this. It has been suggested that the chairman should be a judge and it was also suggested that he should not be a legal man and that if we had too legalistic an approach we might spoil the whole idea. I have laid down that Members of the Oireachtas or members of local authorities cannot be members of the board. I think this is right and that they should at least have that freedom. But some Deputies have asked that ordinary people with a knowledge of local authority work should be included and somebody referred to the possibility of using ex-members or ex-employees of local authorities. I should like to hear this matter debated further on the Committee Stage. We want a Bill that will work and when it becomes an Act do the job it was intended to do.

I am sorry I was not here for it, but I think Deputy Molloy did say that this was his Bill. At least somebody said that this was the Bill which Deputy Molloy had prepared——

Mr. Molloy:

The Minister should read what I said.

Mr. Tully:

Lest I misquote the Deputy, I myself afterwards heard him say that he was criticising the Bill; obviously, it was not one he prepared. I should like to put on record, because I think it is important, that in 1967 a Private Members Bill-I think it was a Fine Gael Bill—was before the House. It was withdrawn on the promise of the then Minister for Local Government that he was about to bring in a planning Bill to amend the 1963 Act. He was there for a considerable time afterwards and was followed by Deputy Molloy but no Bill was debated. This day 12 months ago I became Minister for Local Government. That may seem a long time ago but the Bill is now before the House and while a considerable amount of work had been done on it in 1967 and 1968, after that nothing was done until last year when I asked to have it brought up to date. Portion of the Bill now before the House was, in fact, dealt with by a previous Minister but it certainly is not Deputy Molloy's Bill and a Bill was not introduced, as it could have been many times over the last four or five years.

Suggestions have been made from time to time that in some way we are at present rushing planning appeals and because we are dealing with a big number—nearly 600 as against 120 which was the average a few months ago, or certainly less than 12 months ago—that we are rushing to get some out before the appeal board was set up. As far as I am concerned the planning appeals coming before us are being dealt with as quickly as possible. There were far too many there when I took office. For some extraordinary reason appeals, some difficult, some not so difficult, were left to one side and were not finalised. We are trying to clear this up and when the new board are set up we will be able to hand over a reasonably clear sheet. When the board come into being any appeals still outstanding in the Department will be handed over to them. I assure the House that any planning appeals are being dealt with on their merits and I am sure the new board will continue to do that.

Mr. Molloy:

Will the Minister check with his officials on the statement he made in relation to the former Minister, Mr. Boland, and the Fine Gael Bill in 1967? If he checks on the facts as he presented them he will find that the statement he made is not quite right.

Mr. Tully:

It was because of a check I made that I am making this statement. I want to put it on the record of the House that this is so.

Mr. Molloy:

What the Minister said is not true.

Mr. Tully:

It is true.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Let us not argue.

Mr. Molloy:

I do not want to delay the debate but I want to get on record that what the Minister said is not correct. I will give him an opportunity to correct it later on.

Mr. Tully:

I am making a statement of fact.

Mr. Molloy:

I do not accept it.

An Ceann Comhairle:

We must get on with the business of the House. This point may be debated on Committee Stage.

Mr. Tully:

Deputy Crowley suggested that evidence should be available as to why planning appeals were turned down and that the new board should continue along those lines. The law says that reason must be given for refusals. I assume that this will continue to be so.

Deputy Callanan asked for a definition of "amenity". There is no statutory definition of "amenity" in the planning code, but the Third Schedule of the Planning Act, 1963, indicates what is meant by "amenities" for the purpose of the Act. This is rather technical but if anyone likes to go through it he will find that it is covered fairly well there.

I have covered as briefly as I could the various items mentioned by Deputies. I am sure there are a number of points which were mentioned which I have missed out. A number of Deputies repeated what others have said earlier. Firstly, I believe the Bill is one which can be improved on Committee Stage. Secondly, I will welcome amendments by Deputies from any side of the House. If Deputies feel that their amendments will improve the Bill we can debate them. Thirdly, the setting up of the board is a very serious matter. Serious consideration should be given by every Deputy as to what he thinks would be the ideal board and the way in which they should work.

I want to emphasise also, that this is a Bill setting up a board and it is not interfering with the existing power of the planning authorities at local level to carry out their work. In fact, it gives them more power. I was surprised that this point did not get more attention from Deputies. From time to time, people have complained that there were no teeth in the 1963 Act and law breaking was not being dealt with in the proper way. We are putting teeth into this legislation and are suggesting fairly harsh penalties. Deputy R.P. Burke felt that a £100 fine was not enough. He omitted to say that it was £100, or six months, or both, and I think this is a substantial penalty.

I will deal with fees for applications and appeals. I envisage that fees would be nominal. The opinion held by a number of Deputies is that there should not be any fees. If this is debated in the House and it is the opinion of the majority, I am prepared to accept it. I believe it would help if there were nominal fees included.

Deputy Tunney referred to the payment by somebody who makes an appeal, particularly a frivolous appeal.

Mr. Tunney:

A serious appeal.

Mr. Tully:

A serious appeal does not matter. There is no danger whatever because this is provided for. Section 17 deals with frivolous appeals. Section 18 of the 1963 Act deals with the same matter. That provision has not been used very much, if at all. When that Bill was going through the House, Deputy Blaney who was then Minister for Local Government, made the comment that he felt sure that if there was any reasonable approach made by somebody who had an appeal in, he would not be stuck for damages as suggested. The same applies here. When we come to Committee Stage we will see that this is not a Draconian section which was put in to punish the small man who is having "a go" at the big man. I would deplore that very much and will do what I can to ensure that that cannot happen. There should be some way of dealing with frivolous appeals.

In my time I have seen too many cases coming before the Department in which the appellants do not bother to turn up when the appeal is being heard. They have wasted the time not only of the people they are appealing against but also of the Department and the officials.

Deputy Moore and Deputy Timmons mentioned moving the board around as is done with the Circuit Court. At present appeals are heard in convenient places. They are not all heard in the Custom House, as Deputy Timmons thought; they are heard there for the Dublin and surrounding areas because it is a convenient place. If it is convenient for the people from the country to come, as they often do, to Dublin, then the appeal will be held in the Custom House. Appeals are held in various centres throughout the country. If the number of appeals continue as they are, we could find that we would need more than two or three courts until they are cleared. This would be very expensive. This matter will have to be discussed on Committee Stage.

Again, let me thank the House for the manner in which they have dealt with the Bill. I hope the discussion right through to the final stage will be on the same level as it has been today.

Mr. Molloy:

I have a few questions to ask the Minister. He made no reference in his reply to the points I raised about the special consideration to be provided by way of amendment to this Bill for development in Gaeltacht areas. Why did the Minister not consider this worthy of inclusion?

Mr. Tully:

Deputy Molloy must know that this will be dealt with in the development plan for the Gaeltacht areas. The Department of the Gaeltacht has been discussing with the Department of Local Government certain changes which will be in operation very shortly. Deputy Molloy can be assured that the matter is being well looked after.

Mr. Molloy:

I am surprised at that because I understand that the only legislation controlling development is the Planning Act and that we will need to amend the Planning Act if special consideration is to be given to the Gaeltacht areas. I do not see how any Gaeltacht development board or any arrangement between such a board and the Department could overcome the difficulties that we foresee unless there is provision made for it in the Planning Act. If they are planning matters surely they come under the aegis of the Planning Act?

Mr. Tully:

Deputy Molloy is again missing the point. Galway County Council, for instance, have responsibility for the Gaeltacht in the Galway area. They are entitled in their planning and development to make their own arrangements and this is not a matter, any more than what is going to happen in Meath or Dublin or anywhere else, to be dealt with specifically in this Bill, which is a national Bill. The planning authorities have the authority to do this and will, in fact, be able to deal with it. Deputy Molloy must be aware that there was no reference to the Gaeltacht in the portion of the Bill which was in the Custom House when I took over.

Mr. Molloy:

The Minister is wrong again on that point. I do not know what they showed him but that is wrong. I am not satisfied with the reply. Obviously the Minister does not understand the problems that can arise. I will have to raise it on the Committee Stage.

Another point I raised to which the Minister has not referred is whether or not he considered including certain types of agricultural buildings under the provisions of the Planning Act, especially in view of the serious water pollution that has been caused by certain agricultural developments such as silage pits, slurry pits and intensive pig production.

Mr. Tully:

On the Deputy's first point, I do not want to have linguistic matters dealt with in this Bill. I do not think they should be. With regard to the second point, we are discussing this aspect with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. We feel, as I am sure Deputy Molloy does, that the complete freedom which has allowed slurry pits to run straight into streams is entirely wrong. Many other matters relating to agriculture and the absence of the necessity for permission have got to be tightened up. I propose on Committee Stage to go very fully into this. There is the question that was raised by Deputy Burke of whether local authorities and, indeed, State boards should be completely free to do what they want without any reference to the planning for their area.

Mr. Molloy:

So the Minister intends to bring forward an amendment to deal with this problem which arises in regard to certain agricultural buildings? He will have our support if he also brings in an amendment to bring, in some way, to the notice of the public the intentions of local authorities and public bodies in development.

Another point I expected the Minister to refer to——

An Ceann Comhairle:

I hope the Deputy will not take an unfair advantage of the Chair in respect of a number of questions I permitted him to raise. He is now elaborating on questions and going on seemingly indefinitely. This is unusual at the culmination of a Minister's reply.

Mr. Molloy:

I am doing it at your invitation. You asked me to wait until the Minister had concluded.

An Ceann Comhairle:

I am asking the Deputy not to abuse that privilege.

Mr. Molloy:

I will not abuse it. Will the Minister make any comment on my remarks in relation to the section dealing with open space and the question of the local authority being obliged to purchase such open space?

Mr. Tully:

Again, this is a matter which I would prefer to deal with on Committee Stage but I would like to make one thing very clear. I believe that over the years proper provision was not made for open space when building local authority housing schemes and I believe that local authorities and, indeed, private builders have been getting away with murder by simply saying they were providing X number of acres of open space and in many cases it turned out to be little corners at the end of schemes. In a number of cases that have come to my notice builders were allowed to use land which they did not even own as open space.

Mr. Molloy:

We want to catch those.

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Chair feels we are moving into an area similar to Committee Stage.

Mr. Molloy:

I have received no replies to most of the points I brought up in my speech.

Mr. Tully:

There is a very complicated provision in the Bill dealing with this matter and if it is worked properly it will do what Deputy Molloy suggests. On Committee Stage we can discuss it very fully and if he thinks it has to be altered and if we are satisfied that that is correct, then we are prepared to alter it. I think the provision being made will meet the requirements.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 27th March, 1974.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday 14th March, 1974.