Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Dec 1988

Vol. 385 No. 8

Supplementary Estimates, 1988. - Local Government (Planning and Development) (No. 2) Bill, 1988: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Heretofore some developers were allowed to run riot and exploit taxpayers' money claiming compensation for planning permissions refused by local authorities. In my constituency the Red Rock site in Sutton is a prime example. This site is unique. It is one of the few unspoiled sites on the north side of Dublin city frequented by thousands of Dubliners. The scenic walks of the Howth peninsula begin from that site. The building of houses on that site would ruin the area forever and would open up the Howth peninsula to speculative builders and developers who do not give a damn about the environment. It would result in the rape of every green space in the Howth area, leading to a Hong Kong-type development in the area. This site was owned by the same person since the early fifties. Land in the area was fetching less than £500 per acre at that time. Sutton Park, not far from Red Rock, containing 82 acres, fetched £27,000 when put on the market in 1972. This site, containing under 10 acres, was the subject of a compensation claim for £2.105 million through a purchase notice served on Dublin County Council. Dublin County Council defended the claim and, when the case came before the courts, the developer dropped the price to £800,000. Dublin County Council were compelled to swop land with the developer valued at £600,000 and pay him £125,000 in cash. I hope the Minister can assure me that the provisions of this Bill will prevent these types of outrageous claims. If the Minister can give me that assurance, then I can welcome the Bill.

I welcome the provisions of section 14. However, I would encourage the Minister to amend the Bill, making the provisions of this section retrospective, in other words, to include all existing claims now before Dublin County Council. Under the provisions of section 25 an arbitrator cannot assume that services are available. I would welcome those provisions if the Minister could assure me that an arbitrator cannot disregard zoning or assume that sewers and other services are available.

I might take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Noel Treacy, on having made an order which establishes Baldoyle estuary as a nature reserve. This welcome order was made following strong representations from the Baldoyle Estuary Preservation Society, supported by Dr. Richard Nairn of the Irish Wildlife Conservancy and many other bodies, such as residents' associations, who wish to preserve fast-diminishing amenity areas. Following a motion I tabled in Dublin County Council, seconded by a councillor of the Minister's party, Councillor Liam Greaven, the council, by a majority vote, requested the Minister to make that order. I thank him for that. However, it will not guarantee 100 per cent protection of this amenity. The Planning Authority and An Bord Pleanála are exempted under section 12 of the Wildlife Act. What is now needed is a special amenity area order to fully protect this area.

The estuary was the subject of a planning battle with a developer who wished to build 2,500 houses on the old Baldoyle racecourse. That developer proposed a sewerage disposal or toll system which would run through Baldoyle estuary and discharge off Portmarnock beach. However, residents' associations and community groups combined, through objections to Dublin Corporation and a public hearing of An Bord Pleanála, defeated that outrageous proposal. We now need a special amenity area order to protect Baldoyle estuary and the Howth peninsula. Dublin County Council are considering a special amenity area order for the Portmarnock area. That should be extended to include the Baldoyle estuary and Howth peninsula. However, special amenity area orders take a long time to process. I would ask that the Minister would include, in planning legislation, a more efficient and faster method of processing such orders.

I should like to refer briefly to the lack of proper planning. Here I should like to instance the sewage disposal system which services the north side of Dublin city. The system to which I refer is the north Dublin drainage scheme. This sewer starts at Finglas and services every housing and industrial estate on Dublin's north side, discharging raw sewage at the nose of Howth. This sewerage finds its way onto Dollymount beach, Burrow beach and Sutton and Portmarnock beaches and Donabate strand. I understand that this is a screen system and, if we are to have clean water in Dublin Bay, it is imperative that a proper sewerage disposal system be incorporated in the north Dublin drainage scheme. A similar system has been installed on the south side of the city. I am aware it would cost a lot of money. But, if we are to have beaches which merit the European blue flag for clean beaches and not have the pollution witnessed on north side beaches this summer, we must find the money immediately to remedy this danger to people's health.

Another serious problem is the lack of a proper water supply on the north side of the city. Week in, week out residents of Howth village, Howth peninsula, Baldoyle and Sutton complain of interrupted full pressure water supply. This is caused because the present water supply system cannot adequately provide for the number of dwellings erected in the area over the past ten years. The Dublin County Manager proposes to submit a scheme shortly for the replacement of old, corroded mains. A new water pump was recently installed in the Sutton area. However, this poor infrastructure cannot cater for all dwellings in the area. Proper planning, with a special amenity area order, is urgently needed.

The scandal that has obtained in recent years in the area of compensation for refusal of planning permission has been well and truly documented. I compliment the Minister and the Government on having introduced this long overdue Bill.

The orderly development of our towns, cities and amenities is in everybody's interest. That was recognised as far back as the turn of the century when formal planning did not take place until 1934 by way of the Town and Regional Planning Act. That Act was subsequently amended and updated by more recent Acts. The rapid changes experienced since 1934 and the growth in our population have meant that that Act had to be amended. The orderly planning to be seen in this country is in marked contrast with the disorder abundantly evident in some major urban areas of the Third World. These Planning Acts should be updated constantly. Indeed where legislative weaknesses are being abused by individuals or organisations it is incumbent on the Minister for the Environment to introduce legislation such as this.

I am glad the Minister has agreed to accept amendments to this complex Bill on Committee Stage. He so intimated in the course of his remarks on Second Stage. The whole question of planning and of planning permission is one in which every public representative has an input. However, this Government must consider the abuses of section 4 of the County Managers Act. Some local authorities use this section a lot. I compliment the county councils and urban councils in general for the mature manner in which they used this section although certain county councils have abused the Act. I am not sure whether it comes within the ambit of the Minister in this Planning Bill to do anything about that but the whole question of the role of local authorities in relation to planning must be seriously looked at some time in the future.

I compliment the Minister for bringing this legislation forward and I wish it a speedy passage through both Houses.

Brevity seems to be the order today. Our spokesman on the Environment dealt extensively on Second Stage with this Bill as have other speakers so I will not delay the Minister in concluding this Stage. However, I must make a few comments since I would like to think that a Bill which I introduced in Private Members' Time in May last, moved the Minister in getting on with considering legislation in this whole area to the extent that the Minister has now produced a Bill. At the time, the Minister had promised a Bill in the following session which would have been a year ago. The Minister having rashly promised legislation at very short notice perhaps saw the difficulties of introducing a comprehensive Bill such as this. I do not take the Minister to task for not producing the Bill last year.

There are many difficulties in producing a Bill to amend and consolidate the law on planning compensation. Over many years Ministers have recognised the difficulties in this whole area and attempts to bring in legislation have withered because of the difficulties faced. At least we can give the Minister credit for coming in here with a Bill which attempts to tackle the problems.

Having read the Bill on several occasions I am of the opinion that we do not need to amend the Planning Acts with regard to the compensation provisions. What we really need is an amendment of the Constitution, specifically the part relating to property rights, so that the common good could be more specifically stated and social justice in that whole area would be underlined.

When one sees the escape routes allowable under this Bill to the speculators and get rich quick merchants one realises that it will not have the impact it was hoped it would have, in dealing with people who have over the years exploited the constitutional provisions relating to the ownership of property for their own benefit. People have the right to develop property but on all too many occasions the people who made the quick buck had no interest in this country, in its people or in the land. I hoped that this Bill would end the activity of such speculators, but having considered the Bill I feel it will not tackle the problems. It may produce some small additional obstacles but at the end of the day we need to go back to the population and seek an amendment to the property rights in the Constitution. In the long term it is the only way to deal with the areas this Bill endeavours to tackle.

This Bill certainly does not protect the local authorities against speculators in their already powerless financial positions. It will be somewhat more difficult for speculators to operate but because of the terms of the Constitution a Bill cannot stop the operations of speculators.

The main flaw in the Bill which has been adverted to on several occasions is in paragraph 9 of its Third Schedule. Paragraph 9 of the Third Schedule provides that permission may be refused without compensation where the development would contravene materially any development objective of the development plan which was in operation at the time when the applicant for planning permission acquired his interest in the land. This provision will apply to interests acquired in land otherwise than by inheritance or family settlement subsequent to 20 October 1988, the date of publication of the Bill.

That negatives a great deal of the thrust of the Bill in dealing with the problems I hoped would have been addressed, namely, the escape route for so many people who had acquired land in the past by exploitation and who can and will for many years to come continue that exploitation despite the operation of this Bill. A company in existence before 20 October 1988 with land to develop can continue in existence ad infinitum. As in the “Brook”, men may come and men may go but the company goes on for ever. The shareholders and directors may change but the ownership of the company continues and the entity continues. Well meaning people who bought land before October may for some reason be taken over and sold out, and a different set of attitudes may exist in the company and that may lead to exploitation under paragraph 9 of the Third Schedule.

Taking that into account and the fact that an inheritance or family settlement has no limit to it, this part of the Bill opens up the possibility of a way of getting around the good intentions of the Bill. This shows the weaknesses and the Minister cannot really bring in a comprehensive Bill on compensation under the Planning Acts unless the Constitution is changed. When we introduced our Private Members' Bill in May 1987 we were aware that there could be a constitutional attack on that Bill. The Minister refused to accept the Bill for that reason and suggested that the advice given to him by his legal advisers was that the Bill would not stand up to a constitutional attack on it.

In order to make this Bill acceptable under the Constitution, the Minister has had to make so many exceptions and allow so many loopholes that it negatives the real intent that we hoped would be there. The Third Schedule, paragraph 9, is an important area which flaws the Bill to such an extent as to make it a very pale shadow of what we expected to see before us. Even people who acquire land after 20 October can make use of some conspiratorial activity and to make very large sums of money certain individuals will go to great lengths in this respect. One can find that arrangements have been made with inheritors or owners of land which can be quite unknown to the planning authorities. Applications could be put in under original names with the real ownership and real benefit of planning applications after 20 October not being known, and compensation would be paid out.

The Minister will have an answer to my next question but I hope it will be adequate. There is a difficulty for local authorities who have to give planning permission which may attract compensation if a development covers land in the ownership of two or more people. Under this Bill, one of those owners may have been an owner before 20 October 1988 and one or more may have become owners after that date. Would the Minister explain to me and to the House what the situation would be if the person who had the land before October 1988 successfully claims compensation because of a refusal by the planning authorities or An Bord Pleanála whereas any other individual who came into ownership after that date cannot? Even with this Bill the matter may be open to constitutional attack. Perhaps the Minister will at least remove that doubt about unfairness from my mind.

I looked forward to this Bill because, among other reasons, it led to my introducing the Planning (Trees and Woodlands) Bill to which my party gave full support. We hoped it would help to stop the despoilation of trees and woodlands which had occurred in Coolattin. On that occasion the Minister was advised that the Bill would probably fail under constitutional attack and he could not accept it. He was not prepared then to take the chance of accepting the Bill but amending it. We waited to see what provisions he would introduce in this new Bill to meet the possibility of further erosion of the woodlands throughout the country. I must say that what we find in the Bill fails totally to deal with a situation like that in Coolattin. It may make it a little more difficult for Bridge Farm or companies like that to continue what they have been doing but I can assure the Minister that they will continue their operation. It has in no way solved the problem of Coolattin. This was a problem that the people of Wicklow and those from all over the country who were particularly interested in our woodlands had documented over several years. Those interests will be terribly disappointed with the provisions of this Bill.

The Schedule which points out how the Bill will apply is very weak, indeed. Section 21 deals specifically with trees and woodlands. In that section compensation may be claimed where the trees are declared to be of special amenity value or interest. As far as I know, trees included in that section are individual specimens or very small numbers of trees and not woodlands. Woodlands would have to be replanted. Preservation of a proportion of the trees comprising woodlands not being greater than 20 per cent is specified as an essential condition of the consent because of special amenity value or of special interest. The phasing of the felling or extraction of trees comprising woodlands over a period of up to 20 years is specified as an essential condition because of the special amenity value or special interest.

That does not at all take into account what we were discussing in May and June of last year. It certainly does not apply to the entire Tomnafinnsoge Wood with 67 acres of oaks, but to only 20 per cent of that woodland. The location of that percentage, apparently, can be decided on by the owners. They can reduce the woodland into little strips in order to take away 80 per cent of it. This can be done over 20 years, although that is an improvement. However, 20 years in the case of the replanting of oaks is a very short time indeed. There will be no apprearence of any plantation between those strips in the 20 year period if that is the decision made by the developer. I well accept that this is an area that could be amended on Committee Stage. Nevertheless, that whole area dealing with woodlands is a disappointment. Deputy Roche in the House in 1987 contended that the Minister would deal with the matter very comprehensively. In a Bill such as this he has found, as others have done before him including myself, that it is very difficult indeed to deal with the Constitution. To that extent the Bill is totally inadequate and the difficulties in dealing with that particular problem are well shown up.

In the Second Schedule dealing with, I think, section 15 of the Act, the provisions of sections 56 and 57 of the Principal Act are re-enacted, specifying classes of development in respect of which the refusal of planning permission will not attract compensation. One of these is development in an area to which a special amenity area order relates. If that was the solution to all our problems, if the passing of a special amenity area order would stop compensation having to be paid, surely this is worth considering further for woodlands like Coolattin and other areas of beauty which might be named for planning permission followed by a refusal by a local authority, thereby attracting compensation. Would the Minister please comment on that? It seems too simplistic a suggestion to apply a special amenity area order to stop development, or to stop the award of compensation. Would the Minister explain the meaning of that section?

One other section which interests me, a very small section, has not been commented upon by anybody else, to my knowledge. It is section 20 which provides for compensation for damages suffered when a hedge is removed or altered as a result of notice under section 44 of the Principal Act. We do not like to see hedges being removed as, generally, they have been there for many years. Hedgerows — the old English word — are a feature of my constituency and it is sad to see them being removed because of expanding agricultural activity. If a local authority requires somebody to remove a hedge to improve the view on a road, will they be required to pay compensation? Deputy Jacob and I sit on the same planning committee and we know that local authorities are endeavouring to make developers grow hedges to cover up developments which may intrude on the landscape. It is interesting to note that local authorities may have to pay compensation if, in the interests of safety, they order a hedge to be removed.

The Minister has tried, in the Bill, to collate planning laws in relation to compensation. There are many good provisions in the Bill but its main purpose is to amend and consolidate the law on planning compensation and to deal with the difficulties discussed by other speakers at great length throughout this debate. The Bill fails in this regard. In many other respects it is a good Bill and many of the improvements included in it are overdue. Perhaps the Minister was not as busy in the Department of the Environment as I was in office.

As I said, the main purpose of the Bill is to consolidate the law on compensation and in that respect it has failed. Deputy Quinn, our spokesman, said we will be opposing it. If the Bill passes Second Stage we will be tabling a number of amendments on Committee Stage to improve it. The Bill is a great disappointment considering the promises made in May and June 1987.

I welcome this opportunity to make a brief contribution to the Bill. I have been listening to the comments made over the last number of weeks. I noted that many Deputies were anxious to contribute. Their remarks were very constructive and proper planning control is very important. If there is not strict control, everything else falls out of line. Generally, I welcome the Bill although it does not solve all our problems. I am sure that amendments will be tabled which the Minister will take on board.

Many of the problems in our cities and towns in regard to development are caused by Government policy driving people into towns and villages when there is ample space in rural areas for them to develop, to build nice homes and to live in a clean atmosphere. Of course, services would have to be provided.

Section 13 refers to compensation. Speculators try to use the law to make a killing out of a local authority and that must be stopped at all costs. It has not spread to the country yet but, obviously, it is a problem in Dublin. One case involving a large amount of compensation is under appeal at present and, if successful, the rot could spread very quickly. There are no grounds for a development company being entitled to compensation if they are not allowed to connect to the local water and sewerage facilities. If a local authority provide these facilities, they immediately increase the valuation of the land. Unfortunately, some development companies see that as an opportunity of using facilities provided by the State and indeed they should be asked to make a contribution if they use the facilities. Too much is expected of local authorities in providing these services. It is hard enough to provide for their own housing needs. In my county, local authorities generally look at the overall development that might take place in the years ahead and the costs involved in providing services.

There can be a refusal of planning permission when building would cause serious air or water pollution or pollution connected with the disposal of waste. That is a major, serious problem and an industrial development company would not be entitled to compensation if they were refused planning permission on those grounds. I have evidence that we are not strict enough in applying the law in regard to pollution and disposal from industry. Industry is badly equipped to dispose of their waste products. They allow them to drain into rivers and streams in the afternoons and at night when the industry is closed. Our pollution officers should pay attention to this.

Planning permission may also be refused where the development would materially contravene the objective of a development plan which was in operation at the time the developer acquired his interest in the land. A development company could not expect compensation for a refusal where the local authority had a different plan for the area. The local authority must have full knowledge as to how their area will develop. This could be done in conjunction with the local elected representatives who know what people want in their area. It would apply to industrial development, housing or a green area which would provide parks and playgrounds, which are very important.

I listened with interest to Deputy Kitt the other evening when he spoke about a very famous football pitch in Dublin city about which there has been a lot of talk. I have no doubt that down the years many people put a lot of effort into providing that facility and it would be a pity to see somebody taking over that pitch to build houses or flats. How much better off and happier people would be if they moved into the suburbs or into the country where they would have more space. I do not understand this mentality of bringing people into the centre of our towns and cities.

Recently I was in Holland which has a population of 15 million. Amsterdam has a population similar to that of Dublin, and Ireland has a population of three and a half million people. Planning in Holland ensures that no one region will become stronger than another and all regions have the same input to development. That cannot be said about Ireland. Our capital city and our larger cities are getting major injections of capital funds for development but the west, north and north-east are being neglected and depopulated.

Paragraph 15 of the Fourth Schedule deals with planning permission without compensation relating to the preservation of buildings of artistic, architectural or historical interest. That is very important. For far too long old buildings which could never be replaced were knocked down. Many of these were of historical interest and could easily have been restored with a little thought and planning. They were replaced by what I would call plastic buildings which did not blend into the area. I see no reason the planning authority should pay compensation to anybody who is asked to restore a building to its original state. That is one aspect of this Bill to which I give my total support.

We had an instance of this in my county where the courthouse had fallen into disrepair. We decided to save the building rather than replace it with a modern single storey building. Now the work is nearly completed and many people who objected at the early stages and said the cost was prohibitive now realise that we took the right decision because the building is a great addition to the town.

Another area I am very interested in preserving is trees, hedgerows and plants. This is vitally important. At one time too many people were inclined to clear a wooded area and build there. Many architects and engineers put a lot of thought into developing certain areas. They built houses in beautiful settings ensuring that people there had a great deal of privacy. These far-seeing people did not bring in the chain saws to knock down in five minutes what it took 150 years to grow — oak trees, chestnut trees, sycamore trees and so on. Unfortunately far too many of these trees are disappearing from our countryside.

I was interested in what Deputy Kavanagh had to say about a local authority being liable to pay compensation if it was decided that hedgerows would have to be moved in the interests of safety. It is sad if hedgerows have to be moved but I can understand that this might be necessary to improve our roads. If hedgerows have to be moved or cut back, I see no reason why a new hedgerow could not be planted, and I would insist on that being part of the plan submitted to the council.

With regard to development outside our towns, the Government should provide initiatives. I would put this on a par with a party, where, when the music starts nobody gets up to dance but when the first couple take the floor, others soon follow. If young couples were encouraged to move from our towns or cities and build bungalows in country areas, grants could be given. When the first bungalow is built, other people will be attracted to the area. In the past 15 to 20 years excellent group water schemes have been provided throughout the country. This means that sewerage facilities would not be a problem but there is a problem providing electricity. It is a scandal that a young couple with the initiative to move into a country area and build a bungalow would be expected to carry the total cost of providing electricity to their home — maybe five, six or seven pole lengths at a cost of from £1,200 to £6,000. This is a burden no young couple should be expected to carry. It is stipulated that any further development between the bungalow and the point of connection to the electric power would mean that compensation would be paid by the newcomers to the couple. It is wrong that that young couple should be expected to carry that cost. The State should step in and electricity supplies should be provided at a nominal cost.

Our county roads would not encourage a young couple to drive into the country to see a site, never mind build a bungalow. The Government will have to take their share of the blame for the state of our county roads.

In my view it would be wrong that the local authorities should be held up to ransom by speculators. I would not condone that. The local authorities should be given every protection because they do not have the finance to fight off this type of speculator. It would be a great pity if the local authorities, in case they might have to pay heavy compensation costs, did not provide proper planning in the areas for which they are responsible.

I compliment all the other speakers who made very constructive contributions which I hope will help to improve planning and development.

My contribution will be brief. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill which is long awaited and welcome because it brings all the elements and requirements of planning under the umbrella of one single piece of legislation. On this point alone, apart from the meritorious aspects of the Bill, the Minister is to be lauded and complimented.

For many years the provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts relating to compensation have given rise to considerable public disquiet. Many issues which have arisen have resulted in court decisions which have had the effect of weakening the efficiency of our planning legislation which was enacted in the interests of the common good for the proper planning and development of our living environment. Awards of compensation against planning authorities as a result of planning decisions have weakened the role of such authorities as guardians and planners of our amenities. Some of these decisions were taken by An Bord Pleanála who are not liable to pay compensation. It is quite equitable that the 1963 Act should contain provisions for the payment of compensation to protect the constitutional rights of property owners adversely affected by planning decisions. However, it is also necessary that there be limitations on the extent of protection afforded in view of the basic principle of the Act which I quote: "An Act to make provision in the interest of the common good for the proper planning and development...". It is the extent of the limitations in the 1963 Act which has resulted in numerous, often divergent, instances of case law.

The Local Government (Planning and Development) (No. 2) Bill, 1988 aims to amend and consolidate the law on compensation and to amend the sanitary services code so as to tie it in with the modern planning process. The Bill repeals the compensation provisions of the 1963 Act and relates these provisions with amendments whereby planning authorities may refuse or attach conditions to a planning permission without incurring a liability to compensation. Moreover, this is achieved having regard to the right of individuals, bearing in mind the need to act in the interest of the common good.

The main features of the Bill are as follows: (1) development may be refused without liability to compensation not just where water supplies or sewerage facilities are deficient but where capacity is required for prospective other development; (2) development may also be refused without liability to compensation if it is premature, by reference to any order of priority for development indicated in the development plan. The reason for this provision is that the exclusion of compensation under section 56(2) of the 1963 Act in cases refused through prematurity by reference to deficiency in existing services did not cover the situation where the capacity of existing services was required for prospective other development of greater priority, including local authority development; (3) refusal of planning permission which would cause serious air pollution; water pollution or pollution connected with the disposal of waste will be non-compensatable. This expands the existing provisions to take into account situations which have become much more prevalent than they were in 1963 and require specific listing as non-compensatable rather than relying on the more general public health grounds previously used; (4) compensation will be excluded where planning permission is refused because development would materially contravene an objective of a development plan which was in operation at the time the developer acquired his interest in the land. This provision will apply to land acquisitions arising after the date of publication of this Bill, with the exception of acquisitions by inheritance or by family settlement; (5) conditions may be attached to a planning permission without compensation in relation to the preservation of buildings or artistic, architectural or historical interest or features of such interest which form part of the interior of structures; (6) and this is an area in which I am particularly interested, tree preservation orders made embodying conditions without compensation, requiring a proportion of woodlands to be preserved or the felling of trees to be phased. This provision is essential for the preservation of our indigenous woodlands which are under serious threat as the present compensation situation has posed such a serious financial difficulty to planning authorities that they may have had to allow wholesale felling.

We are all too familiar with what has happened in my county to the famed Coolattin woods. In Wicklow, in the Shillelagh area, we saw in recent years the rape of our God-given heritage. We saw the great oak woods of Coolattin ravaged at the convenience and discretion of the speculator. We saw these great vintage oaks being indiscriminately felled and exported solely for the purpose of lining the pockets of individuals. We saw the complete absence of any sensible planned programme. We saw no properly rescheduled replanting for the benefit of posterity, for the wellbeing and consideration of the generations to come. We saw no economic spin-off for the Shillelagh hinterland, for the county of Wicklow, and we saw no consideration afforded to the national interest.

While this devastation was going on, while the great oak woods of Coolattin were being plundered, the local authority, namely Wicklow County Council, could do nothing but stand back and look on. They had to stand idly by and watch this wrong being perpetrated under their very eyes because they were rendered powerless to prevent it. The legislation at the council's disposal was so inept, so porous and so totally and completely inadequate that these so-called local powers that be had to cower back in trepidation. The big stick of compensation was held over their heads and the proper legislation which could and should have been at the disposal of the local authority was simply not there. Rather was it in the corner of and at the convenience of the speculator. I am glad to say one spring morning in 1987 our present Taoiseach and our present Minister for the Environment arrived into the village of Shillelagh in an effort to halt this carnage and between them they knocked a few heads together and perhaps, albeit temporarily, succeeded in setting some machinery in motion——

Had he an olive branch in his hand?

——to save these great oaks. That area is called Tomnafinnogue Wood. Now, thanks to the initiative of the present Minister, Deputy Flynn, section 21 will provide planning authorities with real power in this regard. As I have said, I am particularly interested in this part of the Bill. My County Wicklow colleague, Deputy Kavanagh, mentioned it when he was speaking. I am concerned and anxious to hear the Minister reassure me on that point later. This provision is essential for the preservation of our indigenous woodlands which are under serious threat as the present compensation situation has posed such serious financial difficulty to planning authorities that the wholesale felling has had to go on.

Another amendment in the Bill is the very necessary and overdue repeal of section 24 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1978. As a result, connection to public sewers will no longer obtain as a right of the person connecting. It will be subject to consent of the sanitary authority. The right of supply of water for domestic purposes will no longer obtain in the case of unauthorised development. Experience of planning authorities over the years has underlined the need for these amendments which will also assist in limiting cases where compensation claims could arise.

I welcome wholeheartedly this Bill which has such major implications for the future of our people in our beautiful country. I congratulate the Minister on his compilation and introduction of the Bill and I trust it will pass into law as expeditiously as possible.

Taking up on Deputy Jacob's remarks, if this Bill is to pass into law it will need major revisions on Committee Stage. Deputy Keating, on Second Stage, pointed out to the Minister that we on this side of the House are very unhappy with certain aspects of this Bill and, of course, intend putting down many amendments on Committee Stage to make it more meaningful legislation. At the moment in relation to the main substantive issue which this Bill addresses it is fundamentally flawed.

According to the Explanatory Memorandum the main purpose of the Bill is to amend and consolidate the law on planning compensation. The awarding of huge sums in compensation to applicants refused planning permission on the grounds that their plans contravened certain aspects of the local development plan was nothing short of a scandal. It is not right that such people should be entitled to massive sums of money. The Minister will acknowledge that the Progressive Democrats introduced a Bill last May to tackle the question of compensation. At that time the Minister suggested that we should withdraw our Bill on the grounds that he would be introducing a similar measure within a short time. He accepted that such legislation was necessary and, according to the Official Report, volume 380, column 214, he said the legislation he would introduce would remove the liability for compensation in any case where the refusal of permission was on the grounds that the proposed development would conflict with an objective of the development plan.

The Minister has not introduced measures that would underpin his promise in the House last May. Section 13 provides that compensation will be excluded where planning permission is refused because the development would contravene materially any objective of a development plan which was in operation at the time when the developer acquired his interest in the land. That provision will apply to land acquisitions otherwise than by inheritance or family settlement, arising after the date of the publication of the Bill, 20 October 1988. If that provision is passed the Minister will be recognising that a refusal by a planning authority of planning permission on the grounds that a plan contravenes a development plan should not be compensatable. However, the Minister states that a person who owns the land prior to 20 October last is entitled to compensation. That, in my view, makes a complete nonsense of the objective of addressing the compensation issue in a meaningful way. Not alone does that provision apply to those who own the land prior to 20 October but it also applies to their heirs and their heirs. That means that for many years to come the owners of such land will be entitled to compensation. That is a major loophole and it indicates that the Minister is not living up to the undertaking he gave in the House last May.

Companies who owned such land prior to 20 October will, in selling their shares, effectively transfer the ownership of the land to another party. We are all aware that most property development is carried out by companies and I do not see the Bill prohibiting them from obtaining substantial sums of money in compensation. In other words, the Bill is a farce because it does not guarantee that a refusal on the grounds of contravening an objective of a development plan will not be compensatable. That is not what we want and it is our intention to table an amendment to deal with it on Committee Stage. We will be urging the Minister to amend the section.

I acknowledge that there are useful provisions in the Bill. They are not tied to a time limit. Development may be refused without liability to compensation not just where water supplies or sewerage facilities are actually deficient, but also where their capacity is required for prospective other development. That is useful, as is the provision that development may also be refused without liability to compensation if it is premature by reference to any order of priority for development indicated in a development plan. Some of the claims for compensation would have been refused if those provisions had been enacted. I am glad those loopholes have been closed and that there is no qualification on them.

We all have heard of the massive claims lodged with local authorities arising out of a refusal to grant planning permission. Many of the claims do not succeed and I understand that in the region of £100,000 has been paid out in the greater Dublin area on foot of such claims. However, local authorities confronted with claims for compensation are forced into granting an applicant the permission he is seeking in the first instance in order to ensure that they will not have to make major payments. Under the present law most of those claims for compensation would succeed. I am sure the Minister will agree that that is not an orderly or proper way for planning and development to proceed. It is equivalent to having a gun to the head of a planning authority. It is unfortunate that as a result of that predicament there have been major contraventions of development plans and a hotch-potch approach to the whole question of planning and development. There is not much point in setting down standards in a development plan if a person is able to drive a coach-and-four through them.

I should like to refer to a number of provisions that were included in the Bill produced by the Progressive Democrats but have not been written into the Minister's Bill. In our Bill we dealt with the problem of unfinished housing estates. There is no mechanism to deal adequately with such estates. People have great difficulty in getting a builder or developer to comply with the terms of the planning permission and complete the roads, footpaths and open spaces in those estates. Many young couples who have moved into new houses in estates in the Greater Dublin area, and other centres of population, are exasperated by the failure of builders or developers to comply with the obligations set out in the planning permission. Some builders have been required to lodge a bond with the local authority to ensure that they complete the development, but although there is a threat that the bond may be used to complete the work, we still have a situation where an estate can remain in a status of not being taken in charge. The bond has not been called into play, it has not been utilised and the frustration of the people in such estates goes on and on.

There must be a way of addressing this problem. In my experience the bond or money that is lodged with the local authority to ensure completion of an estate is normally not called upon, except in circumstances where a builder goes into receivership or liquidation. Very often the amount of money that the developer lodged originally with the country council is totally inadequate to cover the costs of the outstanding works that need to be completed. At the time the permission was granted — it could be several years old — the amount of money provided could be inadequate some years later. In any event, there are major problems in this area and some provision should have been included in the Bill to cover the difficulty in which people find themselves.

In our Bill, introduced last May, we had provided for a mechanism that, in our opinion, would assist greatly in this difficulty. We felt it would be appropriate that a court, where it was considered reasonable that a developer should have completed the outstanding works on an estate, at a particular point in time, could appoint a planning receiver. The receiver would then be entitled to sell off the assets of the developer and, indeed, to enter on the land, take possession of it, sell off the undeveloped portion or whatever assets he so wished and apply the proceeds to completing the outstanding works. These works tend, in the main, to be footpaths, street lighting and open green spaces. Environmentally the estate is in an appalling condition if these matters are not put in hand.

If people want to sell their houses, having occupied them for several years, they have great difficulty in doing so. It would be appropriate that at conveyancing stage, when the documents relating to the sale of the house are being sold, that certification should be produced confirming that the builder has complied with all aspects of the planning permission and, in particular, with the aspects of the permission that relate to the completion of the estate.

Phased development is another factor that should be introduced more regularly into planning permissions. If a large estate is completed section by section there is at least a prospect of ensuring that the sections of the estate are completed and brought up to the standard required before the balance of the estate is completed. That was a provision we had in our Bill in May. I am disappointed that the Minister has not addressed that issue. He seems to be happy with the position which prevails at present. As I have outlined, it is a chaotic situation and is causing great hardship and difficulty for many couples. When the Minister is introducing legislation relating to the whole planning area it was an ideal opportunity for him to incorporate into that Bill the measures we had provided in our Bill.

In relation to planning matters there are a few other items I would like to mention briefly. We have what are known as section 4 motions passed by members of local authorities. They can instruct the county manager to reverse a decision he had made in relation to any particular planning permission. Unfortunately, these section 4 motions have resulted in some very poor developments in rural areas where there is now a lot of ribbon development which is highly undesirable and, of course, it would have been far better if that development had never taken place. In many cases these are the direct result of section 4 motions having been passed by the elected representatives of the particular planning authority. We are not suggesting that elected representatives of a local authority should not have such powers. In order to ensure that there is more consensus about the way development occurs in rural areas we would recommend that the mejority required to pass a section 4 motion should be increased to a two-third majority of the elected representatives. In that way there would be less prospect of bad decisions being arrived at as a result of that form of obtaining planning permission and it would be more representative of the views of local representatives in any given area.

We are also keen that there should be de-exemption. At present the State, its agencies and, indeed, local authorities are exempted from applying for planning permission. We feel that all development here, irrespective of who is undertaking that development, should be subject to the same laws. Individuals and companies have to go through planning procedures, comply with the planning requirements and, indeed, with the by-law requirements, and State agencies and local authorities should similarly comply. It should be compulsory for them to apply for planning permission in any developments they undertake. The only exceptions that come to mind regarding the State would be facilities that are required for security or defence purposes, but above and beyond that all State agencies should have to comply. I cite here in particular the ESB. There is no obligation on the ESB to apply for planning permission to erect pylons. They are a major scar on the countryside and environmentally they are causing a major problem. I am instancing the ESB as one of the State agencies that does not have to comply with the procedures of getting planning permission, having it vetted and having conditions applied.

In the last 20 odd years, as we are all aware, there has been a major expansion in the Dublin area out into the western suburbs. This expansion has brought its own problems. We have heard about them many times in this House. The Labour Party, some weeks ago, had a special motion in Private Members' Time addressing specifically the difficulties that are faced by the community who live in Tallaght.

In the sixties, as a result of studies which were carried out by Professor Myles Wright, a decision was made that there should be three satellite towns on the western fringes of Dublin, namely, Tallaght, Clondalkin-Lucan and Blanchardstown. There are many people who are convinced that Professor Myles Wright actually got his miles wrong when he made that decision and we are living with the adverse consequences of that decision ever since. As we are aware, infrastructure development is still lagging very far behind, even though the houses have been provided in the towns I have mentioned. The whole planning process in relation to those developments has been disastrous and people are forced to live in an environment that is highly unsatisfactory, where there are very few infrastructural resources available to them.

It is my view and the view of my party — perhaps it is too late in terms of what needs to be done — that it would have been far better to concentrate expenditure on developing the city centre where the infrastructure exists, without going out into virgin countryside and displacing all the people from the city centre and having huge costs imposed because of extending infrastructure into the peripheral areas. We will be supportive of any plans to restrict the growth of Dublin outwards. In other words, we will be very supportive of the schemes which provide incentives to undertake development in inner city areas. We would like to see these schemes extended so as to allow residential developments, as distinct from commercial development alone, take place. Perhaps it is too late to talk about this aspect in the sense that a lot of development is already taking place, but to bring back life to the inner city, any housing to be provided in the future should be provided within the environs of the city and we should restrict the growth of Dublin outwards.

I would now like to refer to the bureaucratic hurdles one has to jump when one applies for planning permission. Most developers approach the planning process as if it was an obstacle course. It is very unfortunate that they should approach that process in that frame of mind. It really boils down to a question of the way in which the planning process is administered. It seems to generate its own meaningless requirements. My party feel that if an area is designated for housing, for instance, the developer should be allowed to design suitable house types, and that a passive approach should be adopted to any changes the developer may like to make in the design of the house type given the fact that the area in which he is building has been designated for residential development.

If a builder wants to make a relatively minor change to the plans he submitted and received approval for, he effectively has to go through the whole planning process all over again. The planning process can be very time consuming. The builder must receive a reply within two months but one also has to take into account that a third party may object and as a result it may be necessary to have an appeal heard by An Bord Pleanála with perhaps a six months delay before the builder finally receives permission. This is nonsensical where it has been clearly established that the builder is building in accordance with the objectives of the development plan in a certain section of the city which has been designated for residential development. There could be up to a six months delay before a builder gets permission to make a minor change in the house type. The same applies in the case of by-law approvals. In the case of by-law approvals one has to submit their plans and specifications for approval and this is extremely time consuming and adds to the expense of the end product. Consequently, the consumer is lumbered with that also.

At least it can be said of our built environment that we can undo it if it is quite disastrous. Perhaps the much maligned bulldozer can be used creatively in the future to eliminate some of the abortions which have been erected but we cannot undo the damage which has been caused to the natural environment as a result of pollution. The first and foremost objective of any planning legislation should be the protection of the natural environment. We can undo any damage caused to the built environment although there are many examples where we have failed to do this.

In conclusion, the substantive issue dealt with in the legislation introduced by the Minister is the compensation issue. In other words, this legislation would prevent the payment of compensation in circumstances similar to those where compensation was paid heretofore. While there would be some improvements in the present position as a result of this Bill it does contain one major flaw which I dealt with at some length in the earlier part of my contribution. People would still be allowed to seek the payment of compensation where local authorities refuse to grant planning permission on the grounds that a development breaches the objectives of the development plan. Those who owned land prior to 20 October last, and their heirs, would still be entitled to claim such compensation and because of this the Bill is fundamentally flawed.

Like other Deputies I welcome the introduction of this Bill and would like to seek clarification from the Minister in respect of a number of sections. In general, the main purpose of the Bill is to amend and consolidate the law on planning compensation. The Bill also seeks to amend certain provisions of the sanitary services code so as to regulate connection of premises to public sewers and water supplies in a manner more consistent with the modern planning processes. I would like to remind the Minister that many of the local authorities have not adhered to that objective. We have seen modern sewerage schemes erected in towns all along our seaboard but despite this sewage has been deposited into our bays without having been treated in a treatment plant. Is it the Minister's intention to make it mandatory that all modern sewerage schemes be eligible for funds which are available from his Department to ensure that plants are erected for the treatment of raw sewage? Enormous problems have been caused throughout the country in this respect.

How can the Minister expect private individuals to adhere to the objectives the Minister has set out in this Bill when his Department will not answer the demands made by local authorities for funds to be made available for the erection of treatment plants, where necessary, in the major towns all along our seaboard so as to tackle the very serious pollution problem in our bays as a result of raw sewerage being deposited into our bays? If the Minister is genuine in his attempts to streamline this planning and development Bill he must first and foremost start in his Department. When the Minister is replying to this debate I should like him to respond to this request. I know only too well the serious damage which is being caused by major sewerage plants which have been set up all over the country but which have no treatment plant attached to them. We cannot allow this practice to continue because if we do we will kill off the attractiveness of bathing, fishing and living in many areas.

Planning decisions can be very controversial, particularly those in relation to commercial and private developments. The Minister must take steps to ensure that no matter what happens every application will be dealt with on its own merits. No matter what type of pressure is put on him by individuals, and even by prominent individuals in his party, he must ensure that a very definite ruling is given in respect of every development.

Environmental issues must be taken into account but there is a limit to conservation. We must remember that we cannot live on fresh air and cold water. I know they are the basic ingredients for living but we must have something else as well, otherwise our youth will have to emigrate. I come from a constituency which has been devastated by emigration and where the old are dying out and the young are flying out.

The Minister must have liberal aspirations so far as industrial development in rural Ireland is concerned. It is a well known fact that industries have been centred in built-up areas — this is the policy that has been pursued for the past 20 years — such as Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway. What has been the result of over-industrialisation in those areas? The result has been a complete denuding of the population of rural Ireland — an exodus from rural Ireland to the bright lights of those towns and cities. Satellite towns have sprung up overnight in those major cities and desolation has sprung up in rural Ireland. That is poor planning in any terms. What has been the result of this planning? There are smog problems in Dublin and Cork and atmospheric problems in every major city. There are no atmospheric problems in rural Ireland because there are no industries there. If industries were evenly channelled out, as they should be, between the western and eastern seaboards, between towns in the south-west and west and Dublin city and Cork we would not have the problems we have today. This was bad planning on the part of successive Governments who failed purposely to arrest it and I am afraid the present Minister is also feeble in his efforts to arrest the problem.

Deputy Sheehan will appreciate that this legislation refers to planning compensation.

I am coming to that point. Funds should be made available to correct deficiencies or damage by local authorities in promoting over-industrialisation in any area. If this is not done I believe the purpose of the Bill will be defeated. Section 21 provides for the replanting of woodlands as a condition of felling. I agree with that provision. I do not see why mature trees should not be cut down if the same species of tree or a similar species is replanted in their place. Because of our geographic situation this country is ideally suited for the growing of trees and we could grow some of the best timber in the world if the trees were planted. The Minister must insist that whenever a mature tree is felled it is replaced by a sapling of the same species. In that way the next generation will be able to avail of proper planning, in other words, compensation for trees which have been felled.

State-sponsored bodies should be obliged by law to restore to its original description any property which has been damaged. Like Deputy Pat O'Malley, I believe that the Electricity Supply Board should not be allowed to place pylons or electricity supply poles in scenic areas. It is important that underground cables should be used as far as possible. No State-sponsored body should have the prerogrative of going ahead with their plans without first getting planning permission from the local authority. It is vital for the preservation of Ireland that we ensure that State-sponsored bodies have to apply for planning permission on the same lines as an individual. If there are objections to a development there should be a speedy process which the Minister can use in dealing with these objections. The Minister should know only too well the vacuum which has been left by another State-sponsored body, Bord na Móna, who have left cutout bogs in the midlands which are now full of weeds. If obnoxious weeds are growing on a farmer's land he can be prosecuted but Bord na Móna have not replaced, as they should have, the cutout bogs and restored the area to the way it was before they entered it. The Minister should ensure that as a State-sponsored body they are required to replant that area with trees, if possible, to make it more attractive for visitors and get rid of the briars, nettles and obnoxious weeds which are growing there at present.

I should like to direct the Minister's attention to section 15 which provides that notwithstanding the provisions of sections 13 and 14 the Minister shall have discretion, subject to certain exceptions, to make an order enabling compensation to be paid if he is satisfied that it would not be just and reasonable in the particular circumstances that payment of compensation should be prevented. This decision is not a good one and I maintain that the Minister should delete the provision. It should be left to the planning authorities to decide. Although I have the greatest esteem for the Minister, I do not think any Minister should have the capacity to establish the compensation to be paid.

This Bill is a step in the right direction. Let us hope that we can eliminate the anomalies in planning administration. We must make sure that proper planning laws prevail.

Deputy Sheehan referred to the smog problem in Dublin. I am very proud to have been directly responsible, as a member of the then Government, for the decision to bring natural gas to Dublin. It was done against very vigorous opposition and at considerable political cost to that Government. History will show that my decision was a valid one. Although many critics offered various analyses of the cost structures involved in the deal to bring natural gas to Dublin, the cost of not having natural gas, which is a smokeless fuel, and of having infinitely more smog would be far greater. These considerations put that decision in its true context as one of the most important decisions of this decade so far as environmental planning is concerned. I belive it was one of the best and most courageous decisions of the Government of which I was proud to be a member between 1982 and 1987. It is important in introducing a contribution on a Bill of this kind to refer to the history of planning legislation. There did exist a time before there was planning legislation. Some of the best and most architecturally pleasing towns were planned before there were planners or planning departments in corporations. Georgian Dublin is essentially the result of private arrangements made by people without the requirement to obtain planning permission, yet it is a beautifully symetrical development which puts into the shade many of the results of the centralised planning operations we now have.

Planning did not essentially come in until the late 19th century when it was used to regulate the height and width of streets. The Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909 enabled county councils to make development plans and it became obligatory under the 1919 Act in respect of towns with a population in excess of 20,000. Planning has become more and more intrusive ever since and we now have very heavy planning mechanisms.

This Bill regulates the paying of compensation to people who did not get planning permission. Let us consider that if there was not a requirement to obtain planning permission, if we did not have this tremendous State-imposed regulation of building, there would be no need to give people compensation for not getting planning permission. We have the odd situation that the State has to pay out substantial sums of money because of controls which the State itself decided to impose.

It is accepted that we should have planning regulations and I would have to admit that I have not studied the subject in sufficient detail to be in a position to state categorically that we could do without our planning controls. In a debate of this kind, should we not stand back and adopt what is known as a zero budget approach? This they have done in the United States. We start from the bottom line and consider whether, if we were doing the job all over again, we would start from here. There are serious questions to be asked as to whether planning, as we conventionally understand it, is the right way to deal with environmental problems.

There are substantial delays involved in obtaining planning permission and our system is one of the slowest in Europe. We will be competing in the post-1992 era with every other economy in Europe. Our service sector, just as our manufacturing sector, is competing directly with the other economies in Europe. One amendment which might be introduced to this Bill would require the Minister for the Environment to report annually to the Dáil on how delays in obaining permission for commercial developments in this country compare with delays for similar developments in other member states. That would give some comparative data on how we compare in terms of speed in coming to a decision about planning matters. I understand that it takes about four or five months to obtain planning permission for a major commercial development.

It takes less than six weeks to obtain planning permission for a commercial development in Belgium. In the United States it takes about five weeks, while in Canada a decision will be given in four weeks. These figures are based on a 1979 study of industrial development published by Slough Industrial Estates. At that time it took eight months to obtain planning permission in Britain. The British authorities have since done something to speed up the time in which planning permission will be granted for commercial developments. The Minister should undertake a major study to determine how well we compete as a planning administration — I speak collectively of the local authorities and Bord Pleanála — with other countries who are competing with us for service and manufacturing industry. If the period of four months here is compared with six weeks in Belgium, then undoubtedly a business which wants to become established quickly in Europe will tend to want to go to Belgium rather than Ireland. This is a problem which needs to be addressed throughout the country. It is not good enough to say we will do something in respect of certain designated areas in Dublin or other urban areas such as down town Castlebar. It is equally important that commercial development anywhere in the country should be facilitated speedily.

Because of the operation of planning controls there is a certain professional élitism involved in the way in which people must go about obtaining planning permission. People who are qualified in planning are the people who run the planning departments of corporations and county councils. Therefore, people who want to get planning permission tend frequently to have to use the services of other people who are also qualified in planning activities and who previously may have been employees of planning departments of county councils or corporations. That creates a situation in which there is a planning élite talking the same language and there is an artificial advantage for people who use the services of those who are qualified in planning. In essence a sort of planning industry is created, which lives off the rest of the community. This arises because of the professionalism that tends to dominate the minds of those who have been trained in planning.

Given that this is a very heavily engineering-based profession, I do not think this is necessarily the best way in which decisions should be taken. There is a danger here, as there is in other professions, of creating a dominant élite who are in a position to make a very good living for themselves because they control the access to certain rights of people and they have an exclusive competence in regard to particular types of information. It should be a matter of concern to anyone who wishes to be a critic, as I think we should all be, of any existing arrangements which cost money that there may be a dominance of this kind.

There are a number of alternatives to planning controls which might be considered. I am not making a systematic presentation as to how exactly this might work, nor am I suggesting that the entire planning Acts should be thrown out simply because I am suggesting alternatives but I hope the Minister and the Department will look at alternative ways of achieving the objectives of planning. Before outlining these I should mention what I understand to be the objectives of planning. The main one is to prevent developments that are intrusive or cause nuisance to other people. The other objective would be to maintain a certain aesthetic merit in the environment in which people live. The main concern of planning legislation is in regard to nuisance caused to other people either by pollution, by interfering with their ancient lights or with any of their other rights such as access to their premises and so on.

Let us remember that people were anxious to ensure that their ancient lights are not interfered with or that their environment is not polluted long before we ever had planning controls. There were methods in law, long before planning controls ever existed, for dealing with problems that people have with their neighbours. That legal method of dealing with such problems was the law of nuisance which is part of the law of tort. Perhaps what the State should be trying to do is to facilitate private individuals to exercise their rights under the law of nuisance, to be able, if they think a nuisance is likely to be created by a particular development, to take legal steps vis-á-vis the person who is proposing to do so and to enter into private covenants with that person that he will not do things that would interfere with them, which private convenants would be capable of being enforced by means of the normal law of tort without any direct involvement of the State. That would be a much more flexible arrangement in the sense that it would allow private arrangements to be entered into.

The Minister might say that this is impossible, that it never happened, never could happen and never will happen anywhere in the world. It would not happen unless the Government took some steps to facilitate it by arranging certain changes and clarifications in regard to the law of nuisance as it applies at present and making assistance available to local community groups to obtain the necessary information and legal advice so that they can enter into private covenant arrangements with the people who propose to make developments in their area. Certainly it would not happen spontaneously without some assistance.

There are a number of cities in the United States where there is no planning department or planning control and where planning permission, as we understand it, is not required but there are restrictive private covenants in existence between the residents of the area and people operating commercial or other activities of a physical kind which could interfere with them. For example, Heuston, Pasadena, Beaumont, Wichita Falls and Laredo are towns in the United States where such arrangements operate. The largest of these is the city of Heuston which, I think everybody will agree, is a very big city. There is a mixed use pattern of development in that city. Private restrictive convenants are entered into by residents of the city with developers, amounting to 10,000 covenants covering two-thirds of the entire city of Heuston. There is planning control in Heuston but it operates without the need for a planning department or for civil servants to make decisions on the basis of what is good for the people. The people themselves make arrangements with other people, under the law of nuisance, and decide on the appropriate method of dealing with the problem.

Given that planning and planning delays cost money, given that the State should only interfere when it has to in the normal private arrangements that people make, and given that planning introduces rigidities and provides for the views of the few being imposed on the many, we should be prepared to look at alternative arrangements in respect of certain categories of activity rather than operate under the present arrangements. I hope the Minister will respond to those comments. Needless to say, I am not expecting him to announce that he will take such radical ideas on board straight away. Knowing the Ministers concerned as I do — I speak of the Minister present and of his immediate political superior, both of whom are prepared to consider new ideas — I hope they will consider this idea. They should not accept that this is impossible or that there would be problems with the planning authorities as regards what the people in the planning department of Dublin Corporation would do if there was no such thing as planning control. That argument should not put the Minister off if such arrangements can be made.

Having made that more radical critique of the planning regulations and planning law I will return to the more mundane concerns in regard to the law as it stands. I want to make two points before referring to specific provisions in the planning Acts. In regard to my own county of Meath, I have been very concerned about the fact that a number of people have been unable, perhaps because of over-development in that county in the seventies, to get planning permission to build a house close to their parents. I am thinking in particular of farming families where a son or daughter is working in farming and wants to live near their parents who are continuing to work in farming. It makes no sense at all to tell a farmer's son to go and live in a town, because he will have to drive out every day to the farm whereas, if he can get permission to build a house on his father or mother's farm, there will be less traffic, when the objectives of planning legislation — which are to reduce traffic and nuisance — will be achieved. The Minister, as should county councillors, should urge the planning authority to do everything in their power to facilitate people living on their own farms.

I might also make the more general point that it is extremely important that young people be facilitated in living as close as possible to their parents when they marry, or at least to the parents of one of the spouses. Increasingly we are affected by the circumstances of elderly people living and, frequently, dying alone, dying undiscovered for quite some time because their family are not living close to them because they could not get a house sufficiently close that would be suitable on account of a variety of restrictions in the housing area. There is, first, the fact that new county council or city corporation houses are being built only on the outer suburbs whereas parents are living in the inner city. The second reason is that the market in second-hand houses in the inner city is artificially depressed by the fact that we apply heavy stamp duty to sales of houses in the inner city. Houses in the inner city do not come on the market because they are artificially penalised, whereas we have stamp duty exemption on new houses in the outer suburbs. Therefore, there is an artificial subsidy drawing people into the outer suburbs away from inner cities because of the discriminatory application of stamp duty as between new and old houses. If we had an equalised stamp duty application as between new and old houses we would have a more vibrant housing market in areas where older people are likely to be living, when their children would be afforded a better opportunity of buying houses in those areas suitable for them and be capable of living close to their parents. Many people could be kept out of institutions, a lot of money saved by taxpayers and health boards if people could be facilitated in living close to their parents. That should be a specific objective of all planning legislation.

If we are to have planning legislation we should endeavour to use it to create an integrated society here. I am very worried about the fact that, over the last 25 years — which is evidenced in the recent developments in regard to differential developments in house prices— we have two Dublins. We have one part of Dublin where everyone wants to live, where house prices are shooting up; where, if you like, the well-off can live in a ghetto, where the only other people they meet are others who are well-off. They can live their entire lives from morning to night without ever meeting anybody from a substantially different social background to theirs. That is replicated in other parts of the city where large corporation or county council estates have been built. The only people who live there are people who come from a social background which is such that they have not sufficient money to buy a home of their own and have to rely on the local authority to provide them with one.

What are we doing? We are creating two Dublins. We are creating circumstances in which the natural co-operation that exists between people of various social backgrounds is being eroded. This obtains in the Minister of State's constituency as it does in mine. People mix together in community organisations, in the GAA or in a community council, so that if they want to build a hall or initiate anything else, there are people of all backgrounds and expertise each of whom has something different to contribute to their community. For example, I would imagine that in some of the more expensive suburbs in Dublin, if one wanted to get people together who had experience in, say, carpentry or in the building of houses, one would find it difficult to find them among the inhabitants of the area unless they happened to be people who were very interested in do-it-yourself work because it was their hobby. That would not be a problem that would obtain in rural Ireland because of the blend of different social groups.

I do not know whether it would be appropriate to use the provisions of planning legislation in any way to deal with that problem. Certainly it is a major problem in this capital city and country generally, in that we are insulating people from one another. It is no wonder we see these very polarised debates, for example, about taxation because people do not meet people from other groups. It is very easy to stigmatise people from other groups as either the rich or as people who do not want to work, both of which are distortions simply because people do not live close to one another.

Perhaps one way in which one might deal with this in regard to planning permission would be to endeavour to ensure that permission was granted only on a basis that would ensure a mixture of house types, of public and private housing, in various developments so that we did not get this "ghettoisation"— if that is English; I am not sure it is — in our major cities. In that regard the planning legislation does have the capacity to address some of the fundamental problems of poverty in our society. Poverty in our society exists for a variety of reasons. I suppose it would be fair to say that the biggest reason for its existence is people not having enough money. It is also aggravated by the fact that they do not have access to educational opportunities, to people with other lifestyles who could provide them with information, motivation and assistance to break out of the moulds in which they find themselves. To some extent I think the problems of poverty here are aggravated by the fact that people are living in housing developments where all the other people are in the same position as themselves and do not have the opportunity or the leadership to deal with their problems. I know that is not the main reason for poverty, I am not making such a claim, but it is part of the problem and that part of it at least is traceable to housing and planning policy in regard to the creation of ghettoes in our major towns.

Speaking here, as I do, in the presence of two members, or former members, of local authorities, one of whom at least, sitting closest to me, probably has been wrestling with this problem for most of his political life, I am sure there are many qualifications he would wish to add to the rather general statements I have been making about this city. For that reason I am glad he has already spoken and does not have the opportunity to contradict anything I have said. We should have a debate about the contribution of planning to "ghettoisation", stigmatisation and poverty in our major cities.

There are a few question I want to pose arising out of the provisions of the legislation. Under section 4 of the Principal Act a large number of types of development are exempted from planning permission, that is development by a county council, corporation and so on. I would think those exemptions should be abolished. It might sound somewhat ridiculous that a county council would have to apply for planning permission to themselves to do certain things. But we should remember that the planning process is not simply a question of getting permission. It is also a question of giving notice, of allowing people to object and of hearing those objections. The very fact that a county council do not have to apply for planning permission means they do not have to anticipate these sort of questions in their original plans, as would an individual from the private sector wishing to make a planning application. If we are to have planning controls at all there is no reason there should be an exemption for local authorities from the requirement of obtaining planning permission. Of course, the State itself is also exempt from planning permission. That, too, is something that should not continue.

Section 39 of the Planning Act, 1963 says that the council of a county shall not effect any development in their county health district which contravenes materially the development plan for that health district. I pose the question: who is there to enforce that provision? I cannot see section 39 being enforced by a county council against themselves. They will hardly take themselves to court for breaching their own development plan. There is a lacuna in section 39 in that the Minister should be given power under section 39 of the Principal Act to take action against a local authority who breach their own development plan.

There is a provision also under the Act for a co-ordinated development plan to be entered into by a number of local authorities in respect of a particular area and the Minister may require the plans of two or more planning authorities to be co-ordinated in respect of matters specified. Will the Minister give some information in his reply as to how many instances have existed in recent years in which the Minister has taken the initiative of requiring local authorities to coordinate their plans under the provisions of section 22 of the Principal Act? It would be interesting to see whether or not that section is consistent with the other. There is a case for the Minister to make such an order with regard to planning arrangements as between Dublin County Council and Meath County Council. Dublin County Council are building houses right up to the county boundary: they are building major urbanised areas and on the other side of the boundary Meath planning authority are saying there should be virtually no development. This is one area where there is need for a co-ordinated approach between the planning authorities in the two counties to ensure that nothing untoward happens and that the accident of administrative geography as between Meath and Dublin does not cause incorrect decisions to be made.

Section 48 of the Planning Act, 1963 gives a planning authority power for the compulsory creation of public rights of way over land. I am referring particularly to public rights of way for walking. In Britain short and middle distance walks in the country are becoming very popular with tourists. One of the most attractive features of Britain as a country to visit is the availability of rural walks which are integrated right across the country. In any part of rural Britain one sees signposts indicating public walks and rights of way and people can get maps to follow them.

In this country, although we have well established walking routes in the areas of high scenic value, like Killarney and such other places, we do not have such an arrangement with regard to the more settled rural areas, which means that the only people who have any right of access to rural parts are the landowners or farmers. As a farmer, I can appreciate that farmers do not want people tramping all over their land because of the dangers to stock, as a result of gates being left open, and because of damage to crops if they are trampled on. However it is important in the light of recent statements that have been made about the development of agriculture in the world at large to recognise that we are now moving into an era in which farmers in rural Ireland will have to rely to a greater extent on tourism as a means of providing at least a proportion of their livelihood. The attraction of Ireland for tourists will be greatly enhanced by the availability of pedestrian rights of way over various rural areas.

Will the Minister report to the House on the use that has been made of section 48? I note that it provides that rights of way should be entered into a register. It would be interesting to know from the Minister how many local authorities have registers of rights of way that have been created under section 48. The Minister might discover that many local authorities have not created any right of way under the provisions of section 48, perhaps because it costs too much money. If the Minister and the Government are interested in developing rural tourism it might be appropriate to use some of the money being made available by the EC authorities for the development of rural tourism as part of an integrated rural development programme to enable local authorities to purchase rural rights of way so that people would have the opportunity of seeing a larger part of Ireland than they can now see from our busy roads. At the moment many tourists find that they can only look at rural Ireland by stopping their car on a busy road, where somebody might run into the back of them, and looking over a hedge. That is not as it should be if we want people to appreciate rural Ireland. I hope the Minister will take seriously the difficulties in regard to the lack of implementation of section 48 of the Planning and Development Act, 1963.

I referred earlier to the fact that State companies of State bodies did not require planning permission, as mentioned by Deputy P. O'Malley. The Electricity Supply Board are exempt from planning permission. Is that correct?

The ESB and certain other companies have exemptions. Other semi-State bodies would have to apply to the local authority.

Thank you for that clarification. My point still applies but not as widely as I thought it might. The State does not have to apply for planning permission?

That is correct, and strict guidelines have been drawn up.

The Department of Defence, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment, for example, do not have to apply for planning permission. I contend that that is wrong. They should be required to apply for planning permission in the same way as others, allowing other people to lodge objections. No doubt the Minister will come back and give his or others' views on that subject. I refer specifically to section 84 of the 1963 Act under which before undertaking the construction or extension of any building a State authority

(a) shall consult with the planning authority to such extent as may be determined by the Minister, and

(b) if any objections that may be raised by the planning authority are not resolved, shall...consult on the objections with the Minister.

The Minister has the power to lay down rules in regard to the undertaking of any building by a State authority in regard to consultation with the planning authority and dealing with any objections which may be raised by the planning authority under section 84 of the Act. Under section 84 of the Act those who are required to comply here, are, a member of the Government, the Commissioners of Public Works and the Land Commission. Is this done publicly? Does the Minister lay down in public the criteria which he used in outlining the extent of consultation which must take place with the planning authority by a State agent or by the State itself? Are the criteria available in any public place where they may be consulted by members of the public? It is important, if the Minister for the Environment is exercising powers to regulate the activities of his fellow Ministers and other State authorities in regard to this matter, that the public and the Dáil should know exactly what are the rules and regulations in practice under which he does this. Could the Minister in the course of his reply give examples of the use he has made of section 84 to regulate major developments undertaken by State authorities?

Perhaps this legislation has been amended subsequently but it seems that section 84 is a case by case section, in other words, the Minister must lay down rules for consultation in respect of each individual development by an individual Government Department. If that is the case, I imagine it is probably not implemented in practice because there are so many developments undertaken that it would be impracticable. If it is not the case, if there is a general guideline laid down by the Minister under section 84, I will be interested to know and have made available to me the contents and text of such a general requirement.

Under section 18 of the 1963 Act the Minister may require a local authority to pay money to somebody who has appealed against a decision of a planning authority. Is that the section with which we are dealing here, or is it other sections in regard to compensation? I will be interested to know if there have been any cases in which a Minister has made a direction requiring payment under section 18 of the Act, or does this occur under other sections in regard to compensation elsewhere in the Act, section 56, 57 or so on? If these latter are the sections used for compensation, what is the point of and the context for the use made of section 18?

I should like to thank the Deputies for their contributions to the debate. These have ranged over many important issues of policy and of principle. So far as possible I shall try to respond to them. Some Deputies have also raised quite detailed points on the drafting of the Bill or on its application to very particular cases. I have noted all these points but do not think it would be appropriate for me to deal with them at this stage. We all agree that the Bill will benefit from amendment on Committee Stage. I see that stage as the natural stage for discussing these matters in greater detail.

The Bill has the limited but important purpose of revising the law on planning compensation. While its long title is wide enough for accommodating amendments about other planning matters, as a matter of policy we should resist the temptation to defuse the central purpose of the Bill in this way. I hope to present separate legislative proposals on environmental impact assessment within the next few months and a miscellaneous review and updating of other aspects of planning legislation could be appropriate for a further Bill some time after that. I am not therefore attempting to deal with the large number of points raised by Deputies on very general planning matters.

This Bill is concerned with compensation and we would like to keep it to that. It has been deliberately designed and brought forward quickly to deal with what we all perceive as a pressing problem of compensation. My view is that, by and large, we should stay within this framework. On this basis I have regard to a number of important comments from Deputies as falling outside the scope of this Bill. Deputy Shatter, for example, mentioned the need for greater co-ordination of the development plans of the three Dublin planning authorities. As he himself acknowledged, this is a very wide question involving, ultimately, the structure of local government overall in the Dublin area. I accept the importance of the issue but not its relevance to the present Bill. The Deputy also asked for assurances about the capacity and expertise of local authorities to operate environmental impact assessment requirements. I have full confidence in the ability of local authorities to discharge this requirement which I notified to them through circulars of July 1988. However, as I have said, full treatment of the subject of environmental impact assessment is for another day in this House, when, as I have said, I hope to introduce a separate Bill to deal further with this matter.

Deputy Quinn spoke knowledgeably and at some length about the history of the building or development land question. As he himself expressed it, this issue is a first cousin only of the compensation question which this Bill sets out to address. It relates to local authorities pursuing an active land acquisition policy by themselves, buying up land and promoting development, either in green field or inner city situations.

This Bill deals with a different set of circumstances where typically a planning authority is trying to restrain rather than promote development. The key issue of the Bill is not the terms on which local authorities should be enabled to acquire land, but on what terms should they be allowed, in the common interest, to prevent or restrict development of land by others.

So while I am grateful to Deputy Quinn for his very able exposition of the background to the building land question, I have to regard the issues at stake in this Bill as somewhat different. I am not minimising the knowledge I know Deputy Quinn has in these matters and, indeed, it was educational for us all to listen to what he had to say from his wide experience in the matter and all matters relating to land, architecture and so on. However, I would ask him to bear in mind that some of the matters raised were somewhat different and not appropriate for this Bill. They may well be very appropriate in other circumstances. I accept, of course, that in the rules for determining the amount of compensation there is overlap between these two questions, and I will be returning to this later.

Many Deputies spoke broadly about problems of planning in their areas, whether urban problems, as dealt with by Deputies Kemmy, Flood, Kitt, Quill, Lawlor, Kavanagh and Pat O'Malley this evening or rural problems, as dealt with by Deputies Dempsey and Durkan. I have taken note of the many general points involved in connection both with possible advice to local authorities and with a review of miscellaneous provisions in planning legislation. I should mention that work on revising and consolidating the extensive body of planning regulations is already under way in my Department.

Deputy Shatter, Dennehy, Farrelly and Pat O'Malley this afternoon all mentioned the specific problem of unfinished housing estates. I had to argue, reluctantly, in May of this year that the provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1988 — sponsored by Deputy Keating, would not give an effective solution to this question. I regard the problem however as a real one. It is something that must be addressed and I will be considering urgently whether new legislative and/or administrative measures should be deployed to deal with it. It is hoped that it will be dealt with in the latter way because then we could perhaps get the matter cleared more quickly, but certainly it must be dealt with. I am willing to take advice in the matter from Deputies on all sides of the House in this regard. It is a problem that has continued to all our knowledge in every part of Ireland, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the effectiveness of local authority administration one way or other for quite some years. Many administrations have failed to come up with the solution that covers the whole matter. If it requires legislation to deal with it, so be it. However I would hope that it could be dealt with administratively. If not, then the other course will have to be taken

Two broadly different kinds of view were offered by Deputies on this Bill. The first set of views, represented by the Government side, and by Deputy Shatter and others, supported the general thrust and principles of the Bill, subject to varying views as to the degree of amendment which would be desirable on Committee Stage.

The second set of views opposed the Bill. Deputies taking this line wanted the Bill is impose even greater restrictions on the circumstances in which compensation should be paid. Deputy Keating was outright in his opposition but Deputy Quinn was considerably more qualified in his opposition. Deputy Keating gave the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he did not very much care if planning compensation was completely abolished. He referred to the spurious notion of a land owner suffering a projected loss due to a planning application being turned down. He also said that it was as logical for a planning authority to have to pay compensation for refusing planning permission as for the IDA to have to pay compensation for refusing an industrial grant application. These are forthright views but ones which will not commend themselves to responsible opinion in this House.

Deputy Keating professed to see little merit or importance in the many provisions of the Bill, other than the Third Schedule, paragraph 9. According to the Deputy, these other matters were peripheral or ones which should have been dealt with long ago. I regard this position as extraordinary and I am content to note that it was not widely shared among the Opposition speakers who contributed.

The Bill's provisions on water supply and sewerage address real constraints on local authorities which have arisen from well publicised court judgments. Similarly, section 14 is designed to deal with the so called "undertakings" procedure of the 1963 Act which was found unsatisfactory in the Grange Developments case. The shortcomings of the "undertakings" procedure which, incidentally, were not addressed by Deputy Keating's Bill, were the immediate reason for the award of the £2 million against Dublin County Council in that case.

Deputy De Rossa made it clear that his aspirations regarding public control of land go beyond what would be permissible having regard to Articles 40 and 43 of the Constitution. Without wishing to comment on these aspirations in themselves, I have to remind the Deputy that Article 15.4.1º forbids the Oireachtas to enact any law which is, in any respect, repugnant to the Constitution or any provision thereof. Deputy De Rossa, however, reserved his position on the Bill so that he could wait to see what my attitude was to the points raised in the debate. I will deal later on with the main issue of concern to him and Deputy Quinn in a way which, I hope, will allow those Deputies to support the Bill. I should like all sides of the House to support the Bill. Its principle was accepted by all Deputies.

Deputy Flood spoke convincingly about the practical virtues of this Bill for planning authorities. He and Deputy Dennehy emphasised the importance of using the physical planning system as constructively as possible to encourage development. Deputy Dennehy also made the valid point that sensible administration of planning law by local authorities and An Bord Pleanála was essential. It is certainly true that, in the area of compensation, the law alone cannot guarantee full protection to local authorities. The law needs to be complemented by good administrative judgment and practice.

A number of Deputies referred to the report on planning compensation which was circulated by the Irish Planning Institute in mid-October 1988. I should explain that the Bill was on the point of publication when I received this report — in fact, it was at the printers — and its provisions cannot, therefore, directly reflect the influence of the IPI report. Despite this, I am satisfied that there is reasonable convergence on many issues between the Bill and the IPI report. There are also differences on the extent of the force to be given to zoning and on the approach to determining compensation, which I will deal with in a general way later on.

Deputy Quinn asked me to comment specifically on the IPI recommendation that zoning should be made mandatory for rural as well as urban areas. The present legal requirement is that development plans must embody zoning objectives for urban areas, but that it is at the discretion of county councils whether and to what extent to include zoning objectives in development plans for non-urban areas.

I would like to observe, first, that this issue is fairly independent of the question of planning compensation. If zoning is to be made mandatory for all areas, then one would want to see this justified in overall planning terms and not just because of its possible relevance to compensation issues.

The case for mandatory zoning of non-urban areas fails this test of coherence in overall planning terms. Assigning objectives to every piece of land in the country for use solely or primarily for a particular purpose would be a huge administrative task and would be demanding on scarce personnel resources. In respect of many areas, this zoning would be an unnecessarily detailed and restrictive exercise, since the land would be compatible with a wide range of uses. It is significant that even in the UK, where pressure on the countryside is much greater than in Ireland, zoning is not mandatory for, and is not applied to, all rural areas.

Deputies Shatter and Farrelly were concerned about the inclusion in the Bill of section 15, which empowers the Minister for the Environment, in certain circumstances, to direct that compensation should be paid. I can assure the Deputies that there is no ulterior motive for including this provision. It wholly restates existing law, under which ministerial directions to pay compensation have only twice been issued in the 24-year history of the 1963 Act.

I can, of course, appreciate the Deputies' misgivings about the discretionary power conferred on the Minister for the Environment by section 58 of the 1963 Act and proposed by section 15 of this Bill. If policy considerations were the only thing at stake, I would have a preference for dropping this provision. I would ask Deputies to accept, however, that in including this provision I have only acted bona fide on the legal advice that it will strengthen the constitutionality of the Bill. That was appreciated by Deputy Kavanagh on two separate occasions in his contribution's but I must refer to this element of it which was addressed by other Members.

A number of Deputies argued that noise should be added to air, water and waste pollution as a non-compensatable reason for refusing planning permission. Noise is mentioned in the Fourth Schedule, paragraph 25, as a matter which may be regulated by planning conditions, without compensation. In general, one would expect the noise aspect of a proposed development to be satisfactorily controllable by planning conditions rather than by itself to require outright refusal of permission. However, I will have the point examined between now and Committee Stage, and if it stands up to scrutiny, so be it. I would not go to the stake on it, but Deputies might reflect on what I have said as may be a means of catering for it without necessarily having it added in. We will see.

Deputy Roche and others welcomed section 21 which will strengthen the hand of planning authorities in securing preservation of woodlands. I will look at Deputy Roche's drafting suggestions with a view to Committee Stage. Understandably, Deputies focused strongly on the provisions of the Third Schedule, paragraph 9. Opposition speakers were concerned about the possibilities of circumventing this provision and I am certainly open to suggestions for strengthening it on Committee Stage. I indicated that earlier and I am confirming it now. Let me say, however, in a general way that I am convinced this provision will make its mark.

As regards the possibility that company ownership of land would not be adequately caught by paragraph 9, we will have this further examined at the highest level. Deputy Keating asked me to do that, and it will be done. This would only of course be an issue in the minority of cases where land immediately prior to 20 October 1988 was in company ownership. I will look also at the merits of placing an invalidating prohibition on contracts between an eligible owner of land and a developer with a view to sharing out potential compensation arising for the landowner.

I am pleased to note that Deputy Shatter, as spokesman for his party, is able to accept the structure of the solution proposed by paragraph 9 of the Third Schedule, subject to possible loopholes being tightened up on Committee Stage.

I take some encouragement also from Deputy Quinn's helpful statement of his party's position. He also has made it clear that he could accept the structure of the solution proposed by paragraph 9, provided that the commencment date of 20 October 1988 is removed from it. I will consider this suggestion closely between now and Committee Stage. I must tell the House honestly however, that after a preliminary examination which I had carried out while the Second Stage was in progress, I see serious problems with it.

The fact is that, in the 25 years of operation of the 1963 Planning Act, the status of zoning objectives has only been an indicative one. Zoning objectives have never been, in themselves, a non-compensatable reason for refusing a planning permission. This was the situation intended by the Legislature in 1963 and it has not been revised up to now.

For reasons which I have argued in detail in my opening speech, I am not prepared to accept that compensation should in every possible case be precluded where a development proposal is inconsistent with zoning. Zoning can, and is, frequently revised by local authorities and I would regard it as excessive that a landowner purchasing land on the basis of a development zoning could be denied all prospect of development by a subsequent non-development zoning without any access to compensation. I ask Deputies opposite to appreciate that as the basic thinking for the Bill as so framed.

Deputy Quinn's proposal is different. He is suggesting that I retrospectively apply the principle that where land was acquired under a certain zoning, and that zoning remains in force, then any proposal to contravene that zoning should not attract compensation. The problem with this proposal is that it would retrospectively make the objectives of development plans relevant to the question of compensation, despite the fact that when the landowners acquired their lands, these objectives were irrelevant to the question of compensation.

This proposal would also have somewhat arbitrary effects. It would exclude landowners from compensation where the zoning of their lands had remained unchanged, but admit landowners to compensation where this zoning had been changed. It would be very hard, in equity, to defend this different treatment to existing land interests, given that zoning was not intended, prior to this Bill, to affect the right to compensation.

Deputy Kavanagh recognised the limitations in what is possible with due regard to the provisions of the Constitution in this area. Indeed, many Deputies have referred to aspects of constitutionality in this whole question of planning compensation. The present Bill, having been certified by the Attorney General, carries the presumption of constitutionality for all its provisions. In saying this I am not ruling out that there may be other possible solutions to the problem at hand within the constitutional constraints, but as Deputies have said, the constitutional provisions on property have a relevance in this area and we should try to bear this in mind when framing Committee Stage amendments.

Deputy Kavanagh was also concerned as to the adequacy of the Bill to guarantee the protection of trees and woodlands. I recognise his legitimate concern here. Deputy Boylan and Deputy Jacob also expressed great interest in this area. As I indicated in my Second Stage speech, I do not believe planning legislation is competent to handle all the issues involved but the Deputies will recognise that the two new provisions in section 21, that is, the provision for the preservation of up to 20 per cent of trees in woodlands and the power to phase the felling of trees in woodlands without compensation, will bring about a significant improvement in the legislative power to protect and preserve trees and woodlands. That was generally accepted by all who contributed on this very important issue. Deputy Kavanagh's involvement pressed the matter along at some speed——

I would add another ten years if I were the Minister.

That matter could be considered because of the reference the Deputy made to certain species of trees. In general, the Deputy will agree that what was proposed at the framing stage might have seemed adequate, but we can talk about it.

I will consider very carefully and sympathetically any amendments the Deputy might bring forward in that area, and in all other areas, too, because I would like us to get a consensus. To my way of thinking planning legislation should be passed by the House collectively, and the House should not divide on certain aspects because planning applies to all and sundry. I will seek a consensus in this and in other regards.

I have made clear my willingness to consider seriously Committee Stage amendments to this Bill. It is reasonable, as a condition of this offer, that I should ask Deputies to table any substantive amendments as soon as possible. In that way I would have reasonable notice of them before deciding my position on Committee Stage and with a view to getting expert advice from a legal, administrative or whatever source necessary to give good opinion to the House by way of advice, direction or assistance in these matters.

That said, I thank all who contributed. It was a good debate which brought forward many interesting points which I am prepared to consider further on Committee Stage next term.

Is the question agreed?

Could I say one thing to the Minister?

You may put a question to the Minister.

Would the Minister accept that, whereas he has given assurances, the principle that we oppose the Bill still stands and I will have to oppose it on Second Stage?

I have to put it in the form of a question. We accept his assurance but since we have considerable difficulties with it we will oppose it.

Question put and declared carried.

Could we get an indication of a day and date for Committee Stage?

Before the general election.

It will be taken on the first sitting day after the Christmas recess subject to agreement between the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for the first sitting day after the Christmas recess.
Top
Share