I welcome this discussion on the Bill before us in so far as it draws attention to the need for preparation in all aspects of our national life for the opportunities and challenges of the single market. This is a matter of particular concern to me because of my responsibility for planning and co-ordination of the provision of physical infrastructure to prepare the economy for 1992. This involves ensuring that our approach in this area is comprehensive, that facilities are not duplicated and that requirements in particular areas of infrastructure are met.
It is my responsibility to see that changes take place as rapidly as is economically feasible and that developments in the different areas of infrastructure are consistent with one another. While development of adequate infrastructure is a key area of our preparation, we must of course, consider our preparedness right across the board. Anything which serves, so to speak, to raise consciousness in this area is to be welcomed.
That said, I would have to query, without in any way wishing to detract from the proposer's good intentions, whether a piecemeal collection of legislative amendments of this kind would make any real contribution to our preparations for 1992. In the case of the main provisions of the Bill which affect my Department, sections 3 to 5 and section 8, I would have to go further and say that I consider them to be inappropriate or unworkable.
Before dealing with the Bill's specific proposals to amend the law on physical planning, I feel it necessary to engage Deputy Bruton on the nature and purpose of the planning system and planning control. In what was an original and interesting contribution to Second Stage debate on the Local Government (Planning and Development) (No. 2) Bill, 1988 last December, the Deputy posed a number of fundamental questions about planning. Unfortunately, time constraints did not allow me to respond to them on that occasion, but I do so now because I believe the issues involved are relevant to the approach to physical planning underlying the present Bill.
In the course of that contribution, at columns 2014 to 2028 of the Official Report of 15 December 1988, Deputy Bruton suggested that planning is intrusive and creates rigidities, and that we now have very unwieldy planning mechanisms. He suggested that the system involved the imposition of the views of the few on the many. Deputy Bruton argued that the primary objective of planning is to prevent developments which are intrusive or which cause nuisances to other people, and suggested that this might be achieved, in certain cases at least, by leaving regulation to be effected by means of restrictive private convenants between residents of an area and people operating commercial or other activities which could cause interference.
My principal reaction to this argument is that it involves an excessively negative view of the role of physical planning. Deputy Bruton emphasised the major purpose of planning as the prevention of development which is intrusive or which could cause nuisances. I, however, take a much more positive view of the purpose of physical planning. I believe that its job is to achieve the orderly development of areas, in accordance with acceptable standards and the requirements of the common good. I would not accept, as the Deputy seemed to suggest, that development can be left to the operation of market forces. There is a valid role for the public sector in regulating and promoting development so that it occurs in a wellordered fashion.
The existence of different forms of development control in all European countries is a clear indication that we are part of a broad tradition in believing that development must be subjected to certain public restraints and controls. Indeed, the key EC Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment, the purpose of which is to ensure that development takes place in accordance with acceptable environmental standards, presupposes the existence of development control procedures in all member states.
The Deputy argued also that planning is intrusive and creates rigidities. I do not accept that this is the case. Our planning system is generally based on the principle that permission for development should be refused only where there are serious objections on important planning grounds, and I am satisfied that this is broadly how it operates in practice.
It is also difficult to accept the Deputy's suggestion that planning involves the imposition of the views of the few on the many. Our planning system is an open one which allows public involvement in the formulation of development plans and in the determination of planning applications and appeals.
Section 3 of the Bill proposes amendments to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, which would reduce the time within which planning authorities must decide planning applications, and impose time limits also on the determination of appeals by An Bord Pleanála. The important balance involved here is between the right of a developer to a quick decision on his application or appeal, and the need to allow sufficient time for the proper consideration of a case, having regard to the requirements of proper planning and development and the common good. While I appreciate the desire for speed in planning administration underlying section 3 of the Bill, I consider nevertheless that it errs too much in that direction and could consequently inhibit proper consideration of cases.
Section 3 (1) would require planning authorities to decide planning applications within six weeks, instead of the present two months. This, in my view, is not acceptable. I believe that two months is a reasonable time for deciding applications, many of which are in respect of major and complex development. I would be concerned that a reduction of the period for decisions to six weeks could inhibit proper examination of the wide range of issues and questions raised by proposals. It is unacceptable also in so far as it could lead to developments obtaining permission by default, in accordance with section 26 (4) (a) of the 1963 Planning Act, if planning authorities found they could not reach a decision within the allowed time. I might add that in the UK the movement has been in the opposite direction to that suggested by the Deputy; the time for determination of applications has been increased from eight to 16 weeks in cases involving environmental impact assessment.
To illustrate how the system is operating in practice, I would point out that planning authorities received almost 32,000 planning applications in 1987. In only 689, or 2 per cent of cases, was it found necessary to extend the time for consideration of the application with the consent of the applicant. The time for making a decision was extended in some 7,500 other cases, but only because planning authorities found it necessary to seek further information from applicants. Nevertheless, 73 per cent of all applications were decided within two months. I would not accept that reducing the statutory time limit to six weeks would bring about any improvement in practice in the speed, or the quality, of planning decisions.
The remainder of section 3 is concerned with the imposition of time limits on the determination of planning appeals by An Bord Pleanála, — six weeks in a case not involving an oral hearing and 12 weeks in a case where a hearing is held. It is, of course, generally accepted that delays in determining appeals should be minimised. To this end, my Department liaise regularly with the board about their organisational performance in disposing of appeals, and I have emphasised the vital importance of dealing expeditiously with appeals on major developments, especially those with a significant employment potential.
The board are, however, the final arbiter in planning cases and are obliged to discharge their functions in accordance with the principles of natural and constitutional justice. This involves giving all parties to an appeal an adequate opportunity to make their case and to respond to the case of other parties. I have received legal advice that absolute time limits on the determination of appeals could prevent the board from respecting these principles and would to this extent be constitutionally unacceptable. I cannot, for this reason, agree to the limits which the Deputy has proposed.
I would point out that the board have in practice been making every effort to cut down delays in dealing with appeals. At the end of 1988 only 3.4 per cent of the appeals on hands had been on hands for more than six months, compared with 11 per cent and 7 per cent respectively in the two previous years.
Section 4 of the Bill would require all applicants for planning permission to erect a notice on the site of the proposed development giving details of the development. I might comment in passing that I do not see how this relates to speeding up the planning process, or to gearing up for 1992 for that matter. That aside, the Deputy's suggestion is not without merit. This whole area of public notice of applications has been contentious and warrants examination, and the Deputy's proposal sets down one possible solution.
I could not, however, accept section 4. A procedural provision of this kind does not belong in primary legislation; its proper place is in regulations under the Planning Acts, along with related procedural rules and requirements. I am currently reviewing those regulations with a view to amending and consolidating them, and I will be considering the question of public notice requirements. I assure the Deputy that his suggestion will be carefully considered in that context.
While I cannot accept the specific proposals the Deputy has made in relation to the planning system, I would hasten to assure him that I share his concern that the planning system should operate effectively and should deal expeditiously with applications and appeals. I will be keeping the situation under review, to ensure that Ireland is not put at a competitive disadvantage because of undue delays in the planning process.
I now turn to section 5 of the Bill, which seeks to impose a six-week time limit for deciding applications for building by-law approval. These by-laws are adoptive and, at present, only seven major urban authorities operate them. Applications for by-law approval must normally be decided within two months.
I have already dealt with the question of time limits on applications for planning permission, and indicated that I considered six weeks to be too short to allow the proper determination of applications. I hold the same view in relation to applications for by-law approval.
There is another matter which is relevant to section 5. The Building Control Bill — at present on Dáil Committee Stage — will enable us to replace the current building by-laws system with a national system of building and building control regulations. Essentially, the options for the resulting control systems will fall into two categories. The first option, a so-called full approval system would involve the submission of plans and specifications to the local authority whose approval would have to be obained before work commences. There would, of course, be an obligation on the authority to give a decision within a specific period of time. The alternative method of administering building regulations is by way of a "self-certification" system of control. Under such a system designers and builders of individual projects would, on their own responsibility, provide certificates of compliance with the requirements of building regulations. Reliance on this form of self-regulation by the industry would not involve the approval of plans by local authorities and the question of time limits would not, therefore, arise at all.
During the debate on the Building Control Bill I explained to the House that I have an open mind as to which of these systems should be adopted and that I will be asking the Building Regulations Advisory Body, to be established under the Bill, to advise me in this regard. I do not want to go beyond this at present but I expect that the advisory body will take full cognisance of the merits of the self-certification system of control including the facility for construction projects to get under way in the shortest possible period of time.
Before I conclude on section 5 I wish to repeat an assurance which I gave during the debate on the Building Control Bill. I intend to bring forward Report Stage amendments to ensure that local authorities are required to decide on applications for building regulations approval within a two month period.
What I am saying, therefore, is that even if an approval type system is put in place, applications will have to be dealt with within the same two-month period as applies to planning permission. As I have explained, however, the question of time limits will not arise if the concept of self-regulation by the industry is adopted instead.
Section 8 of the Bill proposes to confer on the Minister for the Environment the statutory power to establish, by regulations, a National Roads Authority. This would not be the appropriate way to establish a body with such wide-ranging powers as those envisaged for the NRA.
When I established the interim NRA last July, I indicated that I intended to wait some months before commencing the detailed drafting of the Bill to set the authority up on a statutory basis. This was designed to give us all, including the interim board of the NRA, a better feel for the specific legislative measures which should be included in the Bill. I intend to have the general scheme of a Bill to establish the NRA on a statutory basis prepared by the end of May and a Bill brought before the House as soon as possible after that. The NRA have made recommendations with regard to the scope of this legislation.
The top priority in the roads division of my Department at present is the preparation of an operational programme for roads which I will be submitting to the EC, in the context of the revised Structural Funds, before the end of this month. This operational programme will be the channel through which work on our national roads can be accelerated. Following completion and submission of this programme, top priority will be accorded to the NRA Bill.
I have informed the interim NRA that, pending the enactment of the legislation, it has a significant role to play in the operation of the roads programme. In particular, they now supervise the development programme for national roads, within the context of my responsibility for policy and finance; they promote private investment in national roads and process all new toll road proposals for such roads. My Department will conclude negotiations on the possible tolling of the Dublin Ring Road and Newbridge/Kilcullen, in consultation with the Authority; they are developing proposals for loan-based investment; they will promote the case for EC aid for national roads, following submission of the operational programme; they will carry out annual reviews of the operational programme for national roads; they will prepare and submit to the Minister for approval future medium-term plans for the development of the network of national roads and they will recommend the annual State road grant allocations for the improvement and maintenance of national roads, having regard to the blueprint and future approved road plans.
The NRA have already provided valuable comments on the draft Blueprint for Road Development which has been prepared by my Department. They are also being consulted on the operational programme. Fifteen administrative staff and 13 professional staff of my Department are now providing services to the Authority.
When the Authority have a statutory basis, they will, in addition to the functions I have already mentioned, also be empowered to: pay approved grants for national roads; arrange for the design of road improvement projects on national roads; place contracts or secure the placing of contracts for improvement works on national roads and charge tolls in respect of road projects attracting private investment.
This country badly needs an improved network of national roads. Transport costs for Irish exporters to mainland Europe are approximately twice those incurred by Community countries trading with one another on the mainland. Our problems will be exacerbated when all trade barriers are removed in 1992. The total cost of bringing our road network up to an acceptable standard has been estimated at £9 billion, £3.3 billion of which should be spent on national roads and access routes to ports and airports. The new partnership of the State, local authorities, the NRA, the EC and the private sector can deliver the required road network. I intend to publish the blueprint within a few months, taking into account the views of the EC on the operational programme. The blueprint will serve as the benchmark for the NRA.
The policy has been settled, the financial prospects are bright and the programme is gathering momentum. The total State road grant this year, at £194 million, is the highest annual amount ever provided, in real terms. This year is, in effect, the first year of a strategic programme to improve the road network. The National Roads Authority will have as their main focus the development of the network of national roads and the access routes to the principal ports and airports. Their task will be to ensure that the job is done within the shortest possible time and in the most cost effective manner.
In conclusion, I must firmly reject any impression which might be given by this Bill that environmental controls are something to be abandoned or relaxed in the context of the completion of the single market. The Single European Act expressly lays down the objective of harmonising environmental standards, but on the basis of a high level of environmental protection. Far from espousing a policy of deregulation on planning and environmental matters in prospect of 1992, the EC is intensifying and strengthening environmental controls.
The reasons for this are simple. The Single European Act emphasises action at source to prevent pollution, rather than remedying of environmental damage after the event, as the best way of dealing with environmental problems. High environmental standards, guaranteed by planning and other controls, are critical to the achievement of the single market. More and more, consumer demand, within the EC and beyond, is for state of the art, environmentally friendly goods. To the extent that the Community as a whole, or we in Ireland, fall behind this demand, we will be harming ourselves economically and allowing our manufacturing base to slide into obsolescence.
For these reasons, I reject the thrust of this Bill's proposals, particularly as they relate to environmental requirements. Preparation for 1992 will have to proceed on a broader front and on more enlightened principles than are represented in this Bill.
