Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Feb 1992

Vol. 416 No. 2

Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. J. Mitchell

It is an unfortunate feature of much of the legislation we have passed in this House that it remains on the Statute Book, largely unenforced. We have just had exchanges on the Order of Business in relation to the Child Care Act which is a case in point. It was enacted by this House in special committee with great attention but it remains, except for one section, unenforced. I greatly fear the Bill before us, when enacted, will largely remain unenforced because this House has no control over resources of staff and finance we make available to the local authorities or to An Bord Pleanála. Some of the grandest schemes can be set at naught by the Department of Finance and by the Government's financial policies. It greatly concerns me that the same plight will meet this Bill as has met others. It is full of good intentions in relation to planning matters but it will remain largely unenforced.

I reiterate the point that the key question of the control of staff resources in Bord Pleanála must be addressed in the context of this Bill. The Minister when replying might confirm that he will propose on Committee Stage a section dealing with the staff and resources of Bord Pleanála so as to ensure their capability of meeting the deadlines in this Bill. Otherwise planning permissions could be achieved by default. This is a very significant danger and it would be utterly inimical to good planning.

I said last week that this Bill as it stands could be unconstitutional and that it may need some refining on Committee State to remove any constitutional doubt. It is well established that persons affected, and third and fourth parties, have a right to have their objections to planning applications heard and fully considered. In some cases, because of the complexity of some planning proposals, it may take somewhat longer than provided for in this Bill. The average planning application may even take a little longer than is provided for unless there are some refinements to the Bill. These include ensuring that on the day the decisions are made by the planning authority in the first place and secondly by Bord Pleanála, the decisions are communicated to each other.

The local authority should have the information immediately to hand so that they can start the necessary research to provide the board with all relevant data required for a decision on planning. If the decision is communicated through the post, there could be a delay in posting in the board or in An Post and the local authority may not receive the queries from Bord Pleanála for perhaps a week or more. The first week of the month provided for in the Bill would be lost. The month's notice to the local authority must start on the day on which they receive the query rather than the day the query was sent. There is a need to tighten up the provisions of the Bill. We must legitimately reduce the time taken for planning applications.

The main consideration of the provisions of this Bill is the speeding up of development based on the belief that much development is delayed, even discouraged in the first place, because of the long procedural wrangle that can be involved and which can affect employment thereby accentuating our already horrendous unemployment position. From that point of view its provisions are entirely welcome provided they do not take short cuts through the planning process or reduce people's rights in any way. Nonetheless the reality is that the majority of delays that take place, certainly in those local authorities where building by-laws are now in force, are occasioned by building by-laws in that it is those building by-laws that deter and delay development much more than planning application delays.

These building by-laws will be replaced by building regulations later in the year and be effective throughout all local authority areas. Therefore it is vital not alone that we provide that those building regulation decisions are subjected to the same timescale, commencing on the same date as a planning application, but that appeals lodged under those regulations are also subjected to the same timescale provided in the provisions of this Bill. It is vital that building by-laws and planning applications go in tandem, eliminating any possibility of there being two tracks, one travelling slower than another, which would have the effect of slowing down the implementation of the provisions of this Bill. At present such building by-laws have the effect of slowing down, overruling the provisions of our current planning laws because applications under building regulations take much longer.

One might well ask why. The answer is lack of adequate staff resources. That is why I am so concerned that there is no provision in this Bill for adequate staff resources for An Bord Pleanála. I do not mind labouring that point. Any legislation enacted by this House carries the implicit requirement that staff resources be provided for its enforcement but, in practice, that does not happen. This means that, in effect, decisions of this House are ignored and much of our law is not implemented. In my view the overall position is so grave there is need for an overriding rule of this House, a Standing Order, if not a constitutional provision, making it a bounden duty on Government to implement the provisions of laws enacted and to provide the requisite staff resources.

I only wish the Government, as a whole, were one-tenth as enthusiastic about implementing provisions of laws passed by this House across the board as the Attorney General is in certain specific cases. It is an important point because effectively this House is being anchored, there being no requirement on Government, or in our Constitution, to provide adequate staff and other resources to ensure effective enforcement of any legislation.

Before adjourning the debate last week I had raised the question of the potential for corruption in our overall planning system. It has to be said that the provisions of the Bill before us do nothing to close any potential loopholes or indeed to reduce such potential for corruption within the overall planning system. In any amendments the Minister may table on Committee Stage I would ask him — as I will be doing — to deal specifically with the question of that potential for corruption. For example, last year the House passed a Local Government Bill limiting the powers of elected councillors vis-à-vis section 4 planning matters so that it now requires three-quarters of the entire membership of a local authority — not merely three-quarters of those present at any meeting — to make a planning or rezoning decision. It was my view that probably that provision went somewhat too far because there are occasions when an elected local authority have a right and duty to take such rezoning decisions in the public interest. Unfortunately, the position got out of hand in certain local authority areas, I regret to say, particularly in Dublin County Council under Fianna Fáil control. At least those councillors who voted repeatedly in favour of section 4 motions had to answer to their electorate. Many of them paid the price when it came to local elections and lost their seats, the people having spoken very effectively in relation to perceived corruption with regard to section 4 motions. Nonetheless no steps have been taken to highlight the even greater possibility of corruption that can take place elsewhere in the planning process whether in the official area of planning authorities or in the sphere of responsibility of An Bord Pleanála themselves. At least local authority officials are answerable to their elected councils but An Bord Pleanála are answerable to nobody, not the subject of anybody's scrutiny. I regret very much that there has been no attempt made in the provisions of this Bill to address that grievous public concern.

Many planning decisions of recent years have led to a raising of eyebrows, they have caused much public concern and anger and many have led to the despoilment of the local environment. The Minister would be doing a good day's work in inserting a whole new Part in this Bill to address this loophole. Last week I advanced proposals on how to render An Bord Pleanála more answerable to this House on overall planning policy, efficiency and so on. I advanced proposals also which would render them answerable for specific decisions to the local authority of the functional area involved in any such decision. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to these proposals. I must reiterate that the power at present vested in An Bord Pleanála, enabling them to overrule existing county or county borough development plans, or the zoning contained therein, is too great. I suggested that that power be taken from An Bord Pleanála. I know certain circumstances will arise when, in the public interest, the precise zoning of a development plan shall be overruled, when commonsense or environmentally friendly decision-making dictates that such zoning be overruled, but it should be done only with the consent of An Bord Pleanála and the relevant elected local authority. Certainly I will be tabling amendments to the effect that where An Bord Pleanála seek to take a decision having the effect of initiating the overruling of the zoning of any development plan, they can do so only when the majority of the elected local authority agree with that decision.

Those are the principal points I wanted to make in relation to the provisions of this Bill. My party wish to facilitate its speedy passage because we are anxious to speed up the planning procedure. We acknowledge that the Bill will not come into effect until six months after the President has signed it into law. Effectively that means it will be the end of the year before this Bill is implemented. We welcome the Bill in principle because it comes in tandem with the Environmental Protection Agency Bill. A major gap in that Bill, as I mentioned on Second Stage, is the lack of any real reference to the built environment. While I acknowledge the difficulty and that we could be duplicating if we gave the Environmental Protection Agency an extensive role in the built environment, in reality they must have an over view in this regard. However at least a large part of the gap which existed in the Environmental Protection Agency Bill is potentially filled by this Bill, perhaps with some amendments. We also have the Building Regulations Bill coming on stream and these three Bills together could make this a very significant year for environmental matters generally.

When many people speak about the environment they are thinking about the natural environment, the landscape, the water and so on, but the vast majority of our people live in towns and cities and for them the environment is the derelict site, the badly kept estate, air and water pollution. They would be aggrieved if the Environmental Protection Agency do not have a significant role to play in improving their environment and yet, because of the provisions of that Bill the Environmental Protection Agency will not have a major role in urban areas. That is disappointing. We have to read the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency Bill to see how it will contribute to improving the urban and the built environment. I hope the Minister will take on board some of the suggestions I have made.

Mr. Howlin

I welcome the opportunity to speak on what I regard as being one of the most important and fundamental issues in the whole environmental area: the issue of planning. In recent years, in particular, there has been a fundamental change in the level of interest of the community at large in relation to planning. It has paralleled a change in the degree of sophistication with which we have organised our own society. In the past we sought development as if it was an end in itself and we did not pay much attention to how we could control and regulate that development. It is only on reaching a certain level of sophistication and development that one can afford the luxury of addressing the matter, and in the context of the impact of the urban sprawl and other planning matters on the rest of Europe, we can reflect on how we want to control the built environment in Ireland into the next century.

I welcome the debate and I hope we can broaden the terms of this legislation to address the whole issue of planning which is attracting interest throughout the Community. People are as much concerned about the built environment as they are about other intrinsic matters in environmental policy. As other speakers have said, the vast majority of our citizens live and work in an urban environment. Unfortunately, much of the focus recently has been very negative in relation to planning. This resulted from a series of alleged or perceived scandals in planning, abuse of regulations, that culminated last year in amending legislation being included in the Local Government Act to restrict the democratic rights afforded formerly to local authority members in planning matters. Unfortunately, that was necessary because of certain abuses by a tiny minority of councillors who obviously embarked on a course of amending well-thought-out development plans and forcing decisions on councils that were not in the best interests of the community or in the best interests of proper planning. We have seen the results of bad planning throughout the country. They do not all result from corruption or from some get rich quick scheme. Most of the bad planning decisions throughout the country are the result of lack of foresight or lack of thinking. Adjoining virtually all our major routes linear development sprawls out of every town, village and urban centre. There are large, semi-urban satellites of our large towns that obviously pre-empt proper sewerage and drainage facilities and are in no way intrinsic to those towns.

Instead of planning decisions enhancing and improving our towns they have frequently acted against the best interests of our traditional towns and cities and worked instead to rip the heart out of them and give us linear urban sprawl and satellite communities which did enormous damage to proper planning. We are beginning to address that issue and the position has improved significantly in recent years. We have a long way to go because it will always be a balancing act against those who demand and want development. We need to look after the housing, social and work needs of people while at the same time catering for the aesthetics of a properly planned, developed community and countryside.

Local authorities have, since the establishment of development plans, sought some controls and have argued out some strategy with the democratically elected local authority members. In many instances local authority members have devised their own strategies for the proper development of their areas of responsibility. In recent years imaginative initiatives have been taken by many local authorities. It is important that we applaud those initiatives. On the basis of charity beginning at home I will instance my own county as a properly planned area environmentally. Wexford County Council have produced a comprehensive book, which I am sure the Minister has seen, entitled "Building Sensitively in the Landscapes of County Wexford". This is a response to some of the monstrous buildings that have appeared on the Irish countryside, that have no kinship with Ireland and are totally alien to the gentle sweeping landscapes of our counties. In a nice pastoral setting we can find a Spanish hacienda or a huge Tudor lodge or many other blots on our landscape. The idea of producing a book like this, which was an initiative of Wexford County Council, was to provide guidance and help, on a stage by stage basis, to those who wanted to plan properly to enhance Irish landscapes.

Many people do not know how to go about getting information on what is traditional or is in character with our landscape and heritage and this publication has therefore received a tremendous welcome right across the county. It analyses the materials which have been used traditionally and are available in each area and the design of housing which would fit in with the landscape and the built environment in situ. If anybody would like a copy of this publication, it can be purchased from Wexford County Council. Indeed, each applicant for planning permission receives a synopsis which outlines in detail, the dos and don'ts — it is very simple and straightforward, what one should and should not do in relation to light, height, location, roof, window and door design. In relation to chimneys, it outlines what is traditional, modern and what would be out of step with proper planning. I draw the Minister's attention to this publication and recommend it to him as the model to be followed by other local authorities. I hope, not by coercion but by way of encouragement, we will see a transformation in the type of building in our contryside.

Our urban centres require the same attention. I draw the Minister's attention to another publication published by the Wexford local authorities, which I again commend to him — if he has not seen it already, I would ask him to take a look at it — entitled "Shop Fronts and Street-scapes in County Wexford". This was published by the local authorities' techical staff in which they look in great detail and in a clear and presentable way at streetscapes, outline what is modern, what would be out of step with what is traditional and what would be acceptable. They pick out the best and hold them up as examples. That is the way to proceed. Many people before they plan their shop front ask if they can look at this guide and pick out the best. It is as cheap and easy to plan well as it is to plan badly so long as people known where to go for advice.

Clearly, it is not the intention that this facility should be in lieu of proper professional advice because most of those who want to draw up a design or construct a building will need good professional advice. However it is good for the professionals to know there is a resource they can fall back on in identifying materials, designs and structures which would be in keeping with the landscape. I urge the Minister to use this as a model — I am sure it is replicated elsewhere across the country — to see how he can encourage and nudge proper planning in our community. It is most upsetting when one travels the length and breadth of the country to see the most magnificant landscapes spoiled by ugly inappropriate buildings. As I said, there is a desire and a wish to do what is right but the community need help and assistance and it strikes me that the local authorities are the vehicle to provide this.

However, there is another side of the coin. When we want to lay down planning restrictions and nudge and encourage careful and proper planning, there is always a need to balance this with the demands of development. It is clear that the Bill seeks to address an issue which is causing concern up and down the country, that is, delays in the planning process both at local authority and at appeals levels. There is disquiet about the time it takes to have a decision made. The timeframe in making decisions on any planning application can have a serious impact when it comes to deciding whether a project should go ahead. This is most true when it comes to any project which has job implications. I believe that what the Minister is trying to do in this legislation is to strike a balance between the right of the community to monitor, to have their opinion registered and to have an input into any proposed structure in their area and the need to give a developer a fair and speedy hearing. There is an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. Many projects have not proceeded because of the delay in getting permission. I am concerned because delays do occur. It would be ludicrous to suggest that you could order the delays away. There is an element of that in this Bill: if, like the Queen of Hearts, we say there will be no delays, then there will be no delays. You cannot instruct An Bord Pleanála to process appeals within a certain timeframe if, at the same time you deny them the necessary resources.

I welcome this attempt to speed up the procedures but I am concerned on two levels: first, it must always be seen that the individual has the right to have his or her voice properly heard and considered and, second, that we come to the best environmental result. There has been an increase in the number of appeals received — 35 per cent between 1988 and 1989. In 1989, An Bord Pleanála had a staff of 58 compared with a staff of 73 in 1988. If you want efficient decisions you cannot blame people if you do not provide them with the necessary staff and wherewithal to make those decisions efficiently and effectively. We are not asking them to make rushed decisions, or at least they should not be asked to make such decisions; rather they should be asked to make decisions as expeditiously as possible consistent with proper planning and the best environmental results.

Our objective to lay down a certain timeframe within which decisions should be made should run parallel with the objective to provide a proper number of staff. Clearly, An Bord Pleanála are understaffed at present. Each of us has received numerous submissions on the position relating to staff. Indeed, An Taisce in a letter to the Minister informed him that the Bill will not entail additional staff. I hope the Minister will inform us that the necessary resources will be provided to ensure that decisions made by An Bord Pleanála will not suffer in regard to quality because of the decision of these Houses to curtail the timeframe within which they have to make decisions.

I understand that the number of staff decreased by 20 per cent between 1988 and 1989. Indeed, the number of planning inspectors, a critical grade when it comes to processing applications and planning appeals, was reduced by 50 per cent during that period. If we put the legal framework in place without providing a proper number of staff we will put the board under intolerable strain and put the planning procedure itself at risk. I hope this is not the intention and that the Minister will give us a firm assurance on that matter.

The delays are not exclusive to the appeals system, on which this Bill in the main focuses. Delays also occur at local level. Because the numbers have been reduced in all local authorities during the past few years, only a skeleton staff is available for each local authority activity. While some areas might survive, others will cease but the planning process will have to continue because people have to obey the law. I am delighted there has been an increase in the number of planning applications in a progressive county like my own but, unfortunately, in trying to cope with this increase many managerial decisions on the running of the planning office were forced on Wexford County Council. For example, a decision had to be made to restrict the access time of planning officials to the general public. So they now have an allocation of time in their day to meet the general public. I know that some of them come in at 7.30 a.m. to try to get some work done before the telephones ring in relation to planning matters. Nobody can work under that sort of pressure.

It is clear that the people who produced this sort of documentation are committed to their job. However, we need to help them to do their job well and it is intolerable that we respond to their initiatives in producing proper frameworks for planning and guidelines to the general public by squeezing their numbers to such an extent that they are barely able to cope and are totally overworked. We need, in isolation from the whole general staffing issue, to look at planning as a very important environmental issue and to ensure that there is adequate staff to process in a proper, efficient way, all applications coming before a local authority. We should seek to encourage initiatives like this to allow individual staff members to be seconded to produce documents like this, to look at other counties and to co-ordinate work so that planning staff can look at the overall context in a national, regional and local way. We do not do that at present with the sort of restrictions we put on them, which is a fatal flaw in the whole planning process.

There are a number of specific proposals in the Bill to deal with them. I welcome the four months general appeal period for determination of cases because the vast majority of cases are already dealt with during that time, only the exceptional ones are not. Obviously the Minister will have some measure of residual power in relation to exceptional applications, which is proper, because there will be very significant applications. In the late seventies one application was submitted to my local authority and I thought it bizarre that a local authority should be the body ultimately empowered to decide whether we should build a nuclear power station. In 1977-78 the 21 members of Wexford County Council were expected to determine national policy, which was a little bit much to ask of them. Thankfully the good sense of our people decided that issue. However, I fully accept the need for residual power to be vested in the Minister and to vary it in relation to specific applications.

Appellants will have to state in full their grounds for an appeal and the appeal will be invalid unless that is done. I hope it will work; many people are not familiar with the official way of doing things and are intimidated by a letter which bears a harp. They are also intimidated by any building which houses a great number of offices and officialdom. I am very concerned about the individual right and we will have to put some mechanism in place to ensure that individuals do not feel excluded by some legal imperative to have a detailed case argued in order to be able to appeal. That matter causes me great concern and I know some local authorities, particularly outside this jurisdiction, hold "planning clinics", an office of the local authority where people concerned with a planning matter, those applying for planning permission for a particular scheme, house or project or who wish to object or want further information, can, without being intimidated, have ready access to the information to which they are entitled. We must have openness in our dealings with the public. There is a reluctance to share information with the general public and we must get away from that kind of attitude. All opinions are important and everyone should have a say.

Sometimes a project can be mooted to which there is huge hostility. However, many of those hostile to it literally do not know what the project is about because all the information in regard to it is not readily available to them. It is good for everybody — people who want to develop and those who want to keep development environmentally friendly — to have all information readily available to them. On a statutory basis we should require local authorities to have some level of interface, planning clinic or facility to allow people have information in advance of planning applications and on planning applications which are being considered. Of course, that is a matter for staffing and resources — we get back to the same issue again and again.

The Bill states that parties to an appeal will have one month to comment on the appeal, which seems reasonable, and that planning authorities will have to make documents relating to a planning appeal available for public inspection from the date of the decision on the application. Again, this is a welcome move and a good requirement.

A number of issues not addressed in the legislation have caused disquiet and concern in recent times, I am concerned about the whole issue of retention appeals. There are two levels in this regard and I want to distinguish between them. There are the everyday retention applications for a very minor adjustment, where someone built the house six feet in the wrong direction or changed the length of a window by a few inches; minor alterations which most people would not notice. People apply for retentions so that there will not be a problem in relation to future sales and they are generally granted. However, there is a growing practice which causes me concern, the use of retention appeals as a way of avoiding proper planning. People have a "build and be damned" attitude and then submit a retention application in the hope — whatever about the expectation — that, when it is there, nobody will compel them to remove it. It is very important not to allow the planning laws to be circumvented by a procedure which allows people to think that they can build something and rectify it legally afterwards. Most, if not all, local authorities would take a very dim view of that.

I wonder how many local authorities monitor the specific buildings which have been given planning permission to ensure that they comply with it in detail. I do not think here are adequate levels of staffing to ensure that this is the case. Often things come to light years after they are in place, there is no planning permission for them but, unless someone objects and specifically brings it to the attention of the local authority concerned, it simply goes unnoticed. It means that some people can run a coach and four through the planning laws and procedures.

Another issue that concerns me is the definition of "material contravention". It is not properly defined, as far as I can see, in relation to existing planning Acts. There is a certain discretion in the hands of a county manager to decide what is a material contravention of a development plan. Last year under the local government legislation we rightly strengthened the democratic authority required for contravention, but there is a need for further clarification on the specifics of what exactly is meant by a "material contravention". I hope the Minister will refer to these matters when he is replying to the debate.

I said the objective of the Bill was to strike a balance between the rights of everybody to have a say in regard to their environment and the community need for development. This comes immediately after the decision of the Minister for the Environment on 17 February to dramatically increase the fees for third party appeals. There is clearly a perceived and real lessening of the right of an individual to appeal under this Bill and, taken with the dramatic increase in fees, I believe it will be preceived as an official reaction against the right of the individual. I hope that is not the case and that the Department of the Environment and the Minister do not hold the view that there is a group out there who will stymie the development and who have to be knocked down. Quite frankly, I deprecate the increase in fees and I hope the Minister will think again about it. One's ability to afford the fees should not determine one's right to make an appeal. This is a very important issue and it is one to which I hope the Minister will refer when he is replying on Second Stage.

Deputy Mitchell, the Fine Gael spokesman, put forward a number of very interesting suggestions, particularly when he spoke last week. He said he would be putting forward a number of amendments on Committee Stage, one of which would have the purpose of establishing a Dáil environmental committee. While this is a very welcome suggestion, it is not new. As in the case of virtually every democratically elected Parliament in western Europe, there should be a Dáil committee on the environment who would have a general remit in environmental matters which are of such importance now. They should have a planning role not in terms of specific planning but of the overall monitoring of the generality of planning so as to establish a national consistency in planning. Obviously there will be regional and local variations in keeping with the environment in certain areas. Now and again there is a visible difference in the attitude to planning between separate local authorities. There should be some level of national consistency in planning so that people who make an application for a building will know the reaction of the planning staff in various areas. I believe there is a role for an environmental committee in this area. There are a number of other issues in this respect which I will not go into as they are not germane to this legislation. As a matter of principle I strongly support the notion of an environmental committee of the House.

I am interested in the specific reasons put forward by Deputy Mitchell in relation to his perceived need for an environmental committee. He said this would subject An Bord Pleanála to scrutiny in a general way. It is interesting to reflect on the reasoning which brought An Bord Pleanála into existence. I believe most people were a little concerned when all power resided ultimately in the Minister for the Environment, when he was the final arbiter in all planning matters. Some amazing decisions were made by Ministers for the Environment and I am sure there are officials in the House who would be able to recite them but who, of course, would not do so in public. Some spectacular and appalling decisions were made by Ministers for the Environment in relation to planning matters and I think there was a strong view at the time that we needed to depoliticise the whole issue of planning. This is why An Bord Pleanála came into existence. They were set up in a very unique way by this House so that they would not be subject to public pressure or, more specifically, political pressure; they could not be bullied by a Minister, by Government or any political party. In spite of one or two serious hiccups, by and large, An Bord Pleanála have served the country well. I would be concerned if we introduced any element of politicisation again whereby the total and complete independence of the appeals system was brought into question. We went through that period and, thankfully, came out of it when Deputy Spring established An Bord Pleanála during the 1980s.

Deputy Mitchell put forward a number of other propositions and said he will be bringing forward amendments on Committee Stage. One of the things he wants to do is to require An Bord Pleanála to appear before an environment committee of this House to explain their decisions. Maybe there is a merit in that proposal but, as I said, we need to strike a balance between an independent decision-making body and the operation of this House. On occasion we find fault with the Judiciary in regard to judicial decisions but I do not think too many people would suggest that it would be right or proper to summon a judge of the High Court or Circuit Court to explain his or her actions to any committee of this House. There is a separation of powers between both and I regard An Bord Pleanála as a quasi-judicial tribunal who are impartial and make decisions, unless, of course, they make outrageous decisions in which case we might seek to amend the law. I would be concerned about this suggestion of Deputy Mitchell.

I support the Deputy's suggestion that inspectors' reports on appeal cases should be published. This comes back to the right to know as a fundamental principle. Irish people tend to use information as a power force: we garner to ourselves whatever information we can and we are very reluctant to share it with others. We need to break this practice. I understand openness is to be a hallmark of the Government and I hope we will see this in the planning process also.

I broadly welcome the fact that the Bill addresses the issue of planning. Not enough attention has been given to a coherent planning strategy, not enough resources have been made available either at local or national level to have proper planning and, repeatedly, decisions are made which are not in the best interests of our environment. The very best of public servants working at local authority level are stretched to their limit and often simply do not have the resources to follow through matters so that the best possible decisions can be made. Obviously we have to live with the decisions that are made. These decisions shape our country and impact on the attractiveness of our country in terms of tourism which is a very significant part of our jobs strategy. I hope on Committee Stage we can strike the proper balance between the clear rights of every individual to have a say, a voice, and be listened to in regard to the built environment in which they reside and the needs of the community for proper development. The Labour Party will not be opposing the Bill on Second Stage but we hope to amend it on Committee Stage.

Mr. Gilmore

I welcome the opportunity that the presentation of this Bill gives the House to debate the issue of planning, which is central to the general national debate on the environment. Certainly prior to the last local elections there was considerable public debate on issues of planning, much of which concentrated on the use or abuse of section 4 motions, material contravention procedure and the abuse of the planning system generally, particularly in the Dublin area, about which there was great concern. There is no doubt that there is need for reform of the planning system. The main planning legislation is almost 30 years old and the legislation establishing An Bord Pleanála is over 15 years old.

In many respects in the presentation of this Bill to the House an opportunity has been missed to reform the whole planning area. The Bill before us deals exclusively with the appeals system, but it deals with it in a very narrow context. It deals with the perceived problem of delays in the appeals system and it tries to address that problem and speed up the appeals system. I do not think anybody will dispute the desirability of speeding up decision making, but it is important that it is not done at the expense of good decision making or at the expense of one or other interest in the planning area. One of my principal concerns about this legislation is that it is tilting the balance in favour of developers and builders, who quite understandably want to get quick decisions, and away from the interests of the general public and local communities.

It is significant that, for example, the Construction Industry Federation, in their December 1991 issue of Housing News, warmly welcome this Bill. It states that the circulation of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1991, brings to partial fruition a campaign mounted by Irish House Builders Association for changes in the law to speed up the planning process. It goes on to detail the provisions, amendments and improvements in the Bill which have been sought by the Irish House Builders Association and the Construction Industry Federation for some time. There is nothing wrong with the Construction Industry Federation and the Irish House Builders Association seeking to secure changes in the legislation in order to meet the wishes of their members, but I am surprised that the Bill gives to that interest group what they sought at the expense of other interests in the planning area.

The effect of this Bill will be to speed up decision-making and avoid a situation whereby appeals are with An Bord Pleanála for a very long period of time. However, it will also have the effect of making it more difficult for members of the public, third parties, local communities, residents' associations and individual citizens to lodge an appeal against an application with which they are unhappy. It will make it more difficult for those interests to pursue such an appeal in the course of time. There has been much talk in this House on various Bills about level playing pitches. When it comes to matters dealing with development and planning, there is not a level playing pitch. A large company who propose to carry out a very significant development or not playing on the same pitch as a small, poorly resourced residents' association who may have genuine fears about such a development. My concern is that this Bill will make it easier for the well resourced company or perhaps a well resourced community or residents' association to pursue their interests while making that more difficult for the individual citizen or the more poorly resourced community.

It is a pity that the opportunity has not been in this legislation to introduce some further review of the planning system in which there is a great lack of involvement of the public. Certainly there is provision for the involvement of the public in the making of development plans at local authority level but, as we all know, the making of development plans and their revision is a periodic matter. Sometimes the making of a development plan lacks the precision that is brought about when a planning application is lodged. There is need for the public to be involved to a greater extent in planning decisions and in the processing of planning applications than is the case at present. If provision were made for that much fewer planning applications would be appealed to An Bord Pleanála, we would have a better planning system, a better degree of harmony between local communities and developers and a better mechanism for dealing with matters relating to the protection of the environment.

The extent to which the public is effectively excluded from the detail of planning applications needs to be addressed. First, a planning application has to be advertised in a newspaper. We all know of cases where such advertisements are placed in the Irish language, of which I am in favour and I would like to see many more notices and matters of that kind appearing in the Irish language, but I sometimes doubt the motives for which planning applications appear in the Irish language, particularly in newspapers which have low circulation in the area involved in the planning application. Planning applications are listed by local authorities and are sometimes posted outside local authority offices or circulated to residents' associations but the circulation of those lists is often quite erratic. Sometimes residents' associations may not be very well organised and some local authorities charge for the circulation of the lists, often resulting in a controversial planning application going unnoticed by the local community.

I recall one very controversial development in my locality where some years ago there was much controversy about the felling of trees in a development now known as Dorney Court. The first time the local people adjoining that development heard about the planning application was when the JCBs moved in to knock down the trees. Nobody had noticed the newspaper advertisement and the residents' association had not got the planning list. In some cases planning applications are submitted, curiously enough in the month of August. A remarkably popular date for the submission of planning applications is 24 December, and that usually relates to the degree of potential controversy an application may cause. Recently I had dealings with controversial applications that were submitted at Christmas time. One of those involved an application for an extension to a football pavilion in Dalkey; for the provision of a firing range for a gun club. In fact, had the applicants not taken some local soundings it is possible local people would not have even heard of that application. A similar and more recent instance involved Iarnród Éireann, who entered into a contract for the sale of land, the old atmospheric railway line, again in Dalkey and an application for the erection of 14 apartments as submitted a couple of days before Christmas.

My point is that very often the public do not even know that a planning application is being considered by the local authority because they miss the notices, do not get the lists or for some other reason. It is a pity that the Bill did not include a provision placing an obligation on local authorities to notify local residents' associations directly of an application having been made or whereby the applicant would be obligated not only to place an advertisement in a newspaper but also to give local people certain notices.

Quite rightly, the making of a planning decision involves the professional judgment of professional planners, having received the advice and reports of other professionals, such as roads engineers and staff of local authorities. Members of the public, if they are aware of the planning application, can write to the planning authorities to state their objections to an application. Elected members of a local authority can make their views known by way of recommendation. However, there is no formal procedure whereby the local community can be involved in the decision-making.

In regard to an application that has recently become controversial in the Blackrock area I suggested it would be useful to have professional planners, the developer and the local residents' association sit around a table and try to iron out some of the difficulties. That procedure would have been productive but, unfortunately, our planning procedure does not contain a mechanism whereby that can be done. If there were such a mechanism many of the applications that result in appeals to An Bord Pleanála could be resolved in a pragmatic way. If the public had an opportunity to become involved at the decision-making stage many problems could be resolved. It is bizzare that very often the first time all interested parties are gathered in the same room occurs when An Bord Pleanála grant an oral hearing. It is important that the developer, the planning officials, objectors and elected public representatives be brought together earlier. There should be provision whereby people who have an interest in a planning application are given the opportunity to sit around the same table to try to resolve the issues concerned. Sometimes it may be a simple issue of screening or a design-related matter and that can be resolved in a pragmatic way. The way the planning system is designed gives rise to an adversarial and confrontational procedure. It would be better to have a procedure such as that operating in Holland, where local planning groups, the professional planners, the local community and elected representatives come together to try to iron out problems.

The Bill is designed to speed up the appeals process. There is nothing wrong with that in principle. Nobody wants procedures that are unnecessarily long and take too long to deliver decisions. However, like Deputy Howlin, I am amazed that the explanatory memorandum to the Bill contains the bald statement that the Bill will not entail additional staffing or financial requirements for An Bord Pleanála. It was certainly my understanding that the biggest difficulty resulting in delays at An Bord Pleanála related to staffing and resources. Reference has been made to the reductions in staff that have befallen An Bord Pleanála. Between 1988 and 1989 the staffing level was down by 20 per cent and the number of planning inspectors was down by 50 per cent. It was as a direct result of the reduction in staffing in An Bord Pleanála that the big backlog of planning applications and appeals built up. It was at that time that the building industry demanded, understandably, a speeding up of the appeals process. The appeals process cannot be speeded up simply by the enactment of legislation. Unless the resources and the staff are provided the speeding up will not occur. If the House legislated that the appeals process had to be speeded up and if it were ordered that decisions had to be made within four months but provision for staff and resources was not made we would end up with bad decisions.

One of the problems, which is a matter of considerable public frustration, is that very often An Bord Pleanála issue bad decisions that cannot be understood by local communities and sometimes cannot be understood by the planning applicant. I think it was Deputy Mitchell who mentioned earlier that An Bord Pleanála are not accountable and do not have to explain their reasons for making any decision. If it happens that An Bord Pleanála must make a decision within too short a time and, side by side with that, they do not have the staff and the inspectors to carry out proper exploration of applications the result will be bad decisions.

There is nothing wrong in principle with the reduction to four months in the length of time within which An Bord Pleanála have to make their decisions. However, I am concerned that good decision-making may be sacrificed in the interest of speed. I am also concerned that a time limit of four months may be too short for many applications. The Bill includes provision for the board at their discretion to extend that period of time but more and more planning applications, and their appeals, are becoming very complicated. For example, we are into the era of environmental impact assessments and also a much more professional approach being taken to both applications and appeals. I am concerned that four months may be too short, particularly when there is a complicated or difficult issue to be decided.

My main concern relates to the period of time and the procedure for lodging an appeal. As I understand it, the new procedure under this Bill will be that an appeal must be lodged within one month and that the entire case for the appeal must be lodged at the same time. In other words, it will not be possible for someone to write to An Bord Pleanála objecting to a planning decision and then later submit considered reasons for the objection. That requirement will place local communities, residents' associations and individual citizens and bodies like An Taisce at a considerable disadvantage. The detailed letter from An Taisce to the Minister which was referred to earlier provides considerable material for all of us on Committee Stage. On this point the letter says:

Local authority planning lists often in the case of a large planning authority like Dublin Corporation which issues a weekly list do not reach An Taisce until 17 days after a particular decision. Some local authorities such as Wicklow County Council only compile a monthly planning list. For example, its January 1992 list only reached An Taisce on 7 February, 1992. Many voluntary bodies like community councils and local associations of An Taisce only meet once a month and would not have enough time to prepare their full grounds of appeal within a month should they wish to appeal to An Bord Pleanála. Most local authority planning offices are only open during working hours and many close before 4 p.m. forcing the interested person to take a half day off work in order to see the relevant planning file. People cannot get copies of any of the material lodged as part of the application with a local authority from the local authority which hinders their consideration of the issues and preparation of an appeal. Most local authorities, even the larger ones, operate the hatch system of communicating with the public in their offices which makes it difficult, due to the cramped conditions, often including no seating, to take notes from planning files.

That clearly states the problem. As I understand it, the month runs from the date on which the decision is made. The applicant will know the decision very quickly as will the local authority and its members, but an interested third party may not know the decision. An Taisce, a body which is on top of these things, do not get Dublin Corporation lists until more than half way into the month. A local residents association, even the best organised residents' association may not get the information that a decision has been made until well into the month. In some cases the month may have passed before a householder discovers that a development is to start in a field behind his house. I know a case of a family who went on holidays and when they came back they discovered that planning permission had been granted for an enterprise which looked like a handball alley which would back on to their back garden, and they had missed the date by which they could lodge an appeal. The month within which people have to lodge an appeal will mean that people will miss the deadline and will have to put up with unacceptable developments against which they would have liked to appeal. Worse than that, even if they find out that a decision has been made and they would like to appeal it, under this Bill they will have to state chapter and verse the grounds of their appeal and they will not be permitted to add to it at a later stage.

Planning decisions and planning matters can be very complicated. People may want to consult with professionals, to get additional information or simply to look at the planning file in the office of the local authority. For an individual citizen or a residents' association which is not terribly well resourced that would be very difficult. Under this Bill the only people who will be able to make effective appeals to An Bord Pleanála are either well resourced developers who have done their homework and have their architect's and engineer's reports and so on or a well resourced community who might be in a position to make their appeal very quickly. If one happens to live in a wealthy area and have engineers, planners and architects in one's residents association they might be able to quickly put their act together and make the substantive submission this Bill requires to An Bord Pleanála. Ordinary citizens or ordinary residents' associations who only meet periodically, for instance when there is a crisis, who find out at the eleventh hour that someone got a planning permission which should be appealed, will not be in a position to put a submission together in a hurry. This will make the planning appeals process the preserve of professionals. Joe Citizen or Mary Citizen will not now be able to lodge an appeal in their own handwriting stating in layman's language the grounds of their appeal. If one does not have money to pay a professional one will not be able to submit the kind of appeal necessary. Under this Bill there is no second shot at it.

I am concerned about the provision in section 4 (3) that one effectively does not get a second bite at the cherry. It has been suggested that this provision may well be unconstitutional. The subsection says:

Without prejudice to section 9, an appellant shall not be entitled to elaborate in writing upon, or to make further submissions in writing in relation to, the grounds of appeal stated in the appeal or to submit further grounds of appeal and any such elaboration, submissions or further grounds of appeal that is or are received by the board shall not be considered by it.

If one does not get it all in the first time round, one does not get a second chance unless the other party to the appeal states something, when the appellant will get an opportunity to reply. The appellant only gets one chance to reply, and that also may be insufficient. I know of a case involving a small scheme of five houses which was never fully completed. The developer did not finish the estate but sold a sixth site to a third party who submitted a planning application for the site. There were objections from the other five houses. The case went on for the best part of 12 months. The appellants in this case repeatedly had to refute inaccuracies and misinterpretations by the planning applicant. These things can happen. If there is not sufficient opportunity for people to stand back from the argument that has been made the first time round, particularly where an oral hearing has not been granted, the appellant will be at a disadvantage.

Many things might arise after the month is up about which the appellant might want to appeal. Some additional information, for example, might arise in relation to the ownership of the site and there will be no opportunity to submit information in relation to that. Indeed, additional information might arise about the planning history of the site. Very often in these dodgy planning applications, the planning history can go back for over 20 years. I know of a case where planning permission was originally sought for a residential flat, it was converted to a shop, it then became a dry cleaners and ended up being used as a take-away restaurant through a whole series of changes of use. Sometimes a property can have a very long planning history. Not everybody will be in a position to find out the planning history within the four week period and there may well be a need for people to come back and have a second opportunity to outline what they have found out since they last wrote; indeed they might have found out something in relation to the archaeological or historical value which was not immediately known to the appellant. Unfortunately this Bill will prevent people from making that kind of case.

The other issue which I wish to raise and which is provided for in the Bill is in relation to fees. An Bord Pleanála can charge fees for appeals but the fees the Minister is allowing them to charge, and which are currently being charged, have got out of all proportion. It now costs £100 to make a third party appeal. A fee of £100 is chicken feed for a developer who wishes to appeal but it is prohibitive for the individual citizen who wishes to appeal. When one says to the citizen he cannot appeal unless he puts up £100, you are effectively telling him that unless he has money his voice will not be heard.

In addition, the fee for making a submission on a planning application has now gone up to £30, which is a 300 per cent increase on the fee charged in 1984. I have come across cases where I have been asked as a public representative to pay the fee of £15 — which was the charge before the recent increase — when I have been asked to write on behalf of a residents' association in support of their appeal to the planning authority before it will be considered by An Bord Pleanála.

The cumulative effect of what is happening — the increase in fees for third party appeals, the new legislation which says that this must be done within one month and one does not get a second bite at it and that An Bord Pleanála can dismiss what it calls frivolous or vexatious appeals — is that the whole thrust is directed against the individual citizen, residents' associations, local communities and so on. Effectively it is professionalising and making the planning appeals more expensive. Quite frankly, I believe that is the wrong direction. Let us by all means have legislation that has the effect of speeding up decision-making, and within reason let us have periods of time within which decisions have to be made. Let us have the staff and resources which will enable the local authorities and An Bord Pleanála to make decisions as they should make them. However, we should not take away the rights of individual citizens and local communities because that is going against the whole principle we hear so much talk about at present, of subsidiarity, democratic deficit and so on.

I appreciate the Bill is intended to speed up the planning appeals process but I believe it erodes the rights of the citizen and of local communities. On Committee Stage we will have to address this Bill to try to change some of the provisions and restore the balance so that we can facilitate decision-making but that we do so in a way that does not inhibit or run counter to the needs and wishes of local communities.

Mr. D. Ahern

I welcome this Bill. I will make a number of brief general comments on the Bill. It is important that the procedures of An Bord Pleanála should be clarified and an effort should be made to speed up the appeals procedure. Recently a man who wanted to build a house visited one of my clinics. He had submitted a planning application but some neighbours objected to the type of house he wished to build and they appealed the decision to An Bord Pleanála. The appeal has been going on over a period of six months. I think it is quite ludicrous to expect somebody to wait that long for a decision on the type of house plan. He already had outline planning permission and he was now looking for full planning permission. Although this Bill will not effect his particular case, it is not before its time.

I agree with previous speakers on a number of aspects of the Bill but I would be diametrically opposed to the opinions of the last speaker as regards the opportunities the general public have to object to planning permission. There has to be a balance between the right of people to object and the right of people to build. To a certain extent while an effort has been made to remedy the situation at the stage when it reaches An Bord Pleanála, the Department have not gone far enough. They would have been better served by trying to codify the entire planning legislation into one large Act and, at the same time, addressing the logjam at urban council or county council level in the planning application process.

Everybody appreciates that when one submits a planning application the planning authority have two months within which to make a decision but we all know that invariably the local authority issue a letter requesting further additional information within a week or two of the deadline, thus putting back the whole process for another couple of months. This creates a logjam and has an effect not only on the person involved but on the overall house building in the country. Indeed, applicants for sole developments have been frustrated by this process. The local authority official may not get around to deal with the application until the last week of the two-month period and because all the reports have not come in or for reasons of pressure of work they issue a letter seeking further information which delays the whole process for another two months.

I accept that in some cases applicants do not provide sufficient information at the initial stage. It is my experience and that of other public representatives that the planning authorities fall into the trap of putting out letters of further information within a week or two of the lapsing of the decision period. The Department of the Environment should address this matter very quickly. We talk about the housing problem and Deputy Gilmore mentioned the problems of people who wish to object. There is a housing shortage and one of the ways to help would be to allow more flexibility. Letters requiring further information can cause a matter to drag out. This is not right and the problem should be addressed, particularly if we want to get the building industry back on its feet.

The Bill should be commended, although it does not go far enough and should address the whole area of time limits. Nevertheless, it is a particularly good Bill. The four month time limit, while it may cause problems in some cases, is reasonable. The information should already be on the file prior to the matter going to An Bord Pleanála and they should be able to make their decision within that time. There is provision to allow the Minister by regulation to vary the time period. I would be slightly worried that these regulations might come in and in some way curtail the implementation of that time limit. Perhaps we could deal with this matter on Committee Stage.

The identity of objectors at local authority level is not readily made known to the applicant, whereas at an Bord Pleanála stage the identity of the objectors is always well signposted because of the flow of correspondence. Future legislation might allow the applicant to know the identity of objectors in the initial stages.

Much has been made of section 4 applications. I come from a county where some use of the section 4 procedure has been made because of difficulties which have arisen in the implementation of the development plan. It is slightly unfair to say that the section 4 system has been abused. I have not been a great fan of section 4 applications, although I have signed a few in my day.

There should be some input by local representatives in the decision-making process. This has not been allowed. Legal opinion is that local representatives are not the planning authority. Ultimately the officials and the county manager have the say. The views of public representatives should be taken into account in planning decisions. Any appeals in respect of the section 4 procedure are almost always unsuccessful with An Bord Pleanála because the people there have a problem with these applications. The figures will show that very few of the section 4 applications which are appealed to An Bord Pleanála get through. Perhaps the Minister will give some indication of the success rate of section 4 applications which have been appealed.

I broadly welcome the Bill. The point should be made that a lot more work has to be done regarding the time limit procedure for applications at local authority level. It is not good enough that applicants can be held back for some spurious reasons involving further information; it cannot be denied that this happens. The Minister should examine the possibility of introducing further legislation to tie down local authorities in this area. The House should welcome this Bill because it is an effort to tie down appellants, local authorities and An Bord Pleanála and to have a final determination made on an application that comes before An Bord Pleanála. I warmly welcome the Bill.

Mr. Cosgrave

I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his recent appointment. I also congratulate the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith. I hope the two Ministers do not take hurling matters too seriously and that when Cork and Tipperary meet they will take it in good spirit. I know they will work within the Department for the betterment of the people. I congratulate the Minister and the Minister of State and wish them both well.

When this Bill was first announced by the then Minister for the Environment, most commentators and the Minister himself described it as a measure to speed up the planning appeal process. The newspapers reported the matter on 27 November 1991. The Irish Times said that the new Bill aimed to speed up planning appeals. The Irish Independent ran a headline —“New Planning Appeals Rules to Speed up Decision Time”. The Irish Press reported that the appeal time-scale was to be limited to four months.

If I were a developer, a builder, a property speculator or a company wishing to establish a not very clean industry here, I would certainly welcome this Bill. I am not out to hammer the developer, the industrialist or the builder. Developers and builders speculate. That is their right and I support it. They buy land and apply for planning permission which, when they get it, is a licence to print money. Planning permission will probably treble the value of the land and those who purchased it cheaply in the first place will make a large profit. That is their business. Thank God we live in a country where people are entitled to make money and profit is not a dirty word. People should be able to make that money but within certain confines and constraints. On the other hand, if I were a concerned resident anxious to preserve the quality of the environment in my locality, perhaps a member of a residents' association, I would doubt this Bill.

I cite residents' associations and other groups in my area who have successfully fought controversial planning applications such as the Encamp project proposed for the Baldoyle area. I make no excuse for my tremendous interest in Howth and other local areas such as Baldoyle and any remarks I make on this Bill will reflect that interest. If I were representing a residents' association which had fought off such developments threatening my local environment, I would not welcome the provisions of this Bill. Indeed I would be very worried about them. Again I have in mind the Encamp development in Baldoyle which proposed the erection of 2,500 houses on practically the only remaining green belt after Baldoyle. That application was submitted to Dublin County Council who refused it. The matter was then appealed to An Bord Pleanála. Local residents and other groups, and environmentalists from all over Dublin joined together because they perceived this to be a unique area, zoned for agricultural use, located beside an estuary of international significance, an over-wintering preserve for birds migrating from Canada, an area well worthy of preservation. They joined together, put up a tremendous fight, eventually defeating the Encamp developers in their efforts. The same company had also proposed the installation of a toll sewer to cross the local estuary into Dublin Bay, probably emptying raw sewage into the bay. They proposed leaving very little open space for the people already resident there, a most undesirable development which was defeated by the efforts of local residents and community groups on which they should be congratulated.

Another example would be that of the proposed Red Rock development in Howth some years ago, a proposal on the part of another builder to erect many houses in one of our most scenic areas. Howth is a unique scenic area being located so near to the city with ideal walks and viewing positions for locals and tourists alike. A person who came into possession of land at Red Rock decided he would like to build a certain number of houses there. Again, the local communities grouped together and objected. The application was submitted to An Bord Pleanála who, as far as I can remember, granted permission. At that stage Dublin County Council entered in and dealt with that developer on the basis of land swaps, offering him certain lands throughout the county in their possession in order to get him off the site which the local people wanted to preserve. That controversy has continued to date, as the proposed house builder is not satisfied with the land offered him. For example, certain lands offered him by Dublin County Council were not of the required quality in that I think he was seeking land in Dublin 4 on which he could make a considerable amount of money. The site remains intact to date. I would stress that land swops should not be engaged in in any planning applications or permissions.

There is at present another application before Dublin County Council with regard to the East Mountain at Howth, one of the most scenic areas in these islands, close to the city centre, an area of unique environmental interest forming part of the Howth hinterland. Some time ago the person who had bought this land decided to build a Dallas-type house for himself there which proposal was appealed by local residents and interest groups who were successful in warding off the project for a while. However, Dublin County Council had to grant partial permission in that there was a house already existing on the site on which he proposed building the new property. This meant the whole East Mountain was threatened when local residents groups had to talk to the owner of the property. When they endeavoured to do so it transpired there were other interested people, those with grazing rights and so on. I and another local Fianna Fáil councillor decided to talk to local landowners, endeavouring to bring about a solution. I should say that, as a public representative it is not pleasant to enter into such negotiations. Generally we do not like dealing with developers we know are out to make money, many of whom would not have the same concern for our environment. In addition, local communities may well be suspicious of politicians engaging in discussions with landowners with a view to having such property acquired by Dublin County Council in order to create a park or some other public amenity. One could not blame people for being suspicious of such negotiations. We are still endeavouring to acquire that property for Dublin County Council. The developers want to make money out of the project, are demanding planning permissions for the site which are outrageous and which we could not concede, in that they are seeking such permission in high amenity areas worthy of preservation. We will not travel that road with them. As I have said, the East Mountain in Howth is a unique area, with excellent walks, where Dublin County Council could create an ideal park, thus preserving this land for future generations of Dubliners and others.

Dublin County Council are examining the whole of the Howth scene which warrants much attention but in order to improve facilities there generally the relevant properties must be in their ownership which is the goal to which they are working. That is the reason we are endeavouring to get the owners of those lands in Howth to negotiate with Dublin County Council so that a park can be created on the East Mountain along with other high amenity lands. I make no excuse for talking to the owners of such lands, and I will continue to do so in an effort to have them acquired by Dublin County Council thus ensuring their development for future generations of Dubliners and tourists alike. I might mention in particular the Howth/Sutton 2000 group who have worked so hard over many years to preserve their local amenity areas, a voluntary group, something of an offshoot of An Taisce who work extremely hard to preserve this and other areas in the Howth vicinity. Indeed, the recent Dublin County Council draft development plan led to that group spending much money to devise their plans for the Howth/Sutton area which were submitted to Dublin County Council for discussion within the overall draft development plan to be considered by the council in the near future. One must commend and support the work that local groups are undertaking especially in the preservation of the East Mountain and other surrounding areas.

Another case that comes to mind is that of the threatened oil refinery in Dublin Bay some years ago when local residents grouped together to ensure that no such installation would be located within the vicinity of Dublin Bay. Another undesirable planning application for the Dublin Bay area was that in relation to the installation of gas caverns proposed some years ago, when local residents associations successfully fought and defeated that application. However, in order to do so one must remember that such local residents associations must get planners and others on their side, which costs a lot of money, necessitating the holding of local raffles and other functions in order to get sufficient funds with which to consult experts and so properly present their case to An Bord Pleanála. They were successful and were able to operate within the framework which then existed and to prevent this most undesirable development in Dublin Bay. Groups like An Taisce, Howth 2000 and people who were anxious to preserve the environment are at a disadvantage under this Bill because they will have to raise money to employ experts.

A recent article in The Irish Times stated that when a planning authority issues a decision, appellants will have one month in which to prepare their case in full. This includes an examination of the council file and internal documents and preparing any surveys which are needed to rebut arguments. That will be very costly for people and for local residents' associations who wish to appeal these decisions in the future. I would ask the Minister to consider the situation and, perhaps, make a grant available to residents' associations or to An Taisce to ensure they have sufficient resources to look after their own environment.

This Bill would be acceptable if we had in place a special amenity area order or the machinery which could create special amenity area orders. It took so long to put in place the Liffey Valley order that development did occur in that area; I am afraid the same is happening in my area. Without a special amenity area order, areas of high amenity will not be protected. Within Dublin County Council at present there are applications for special amenity area orders for Portmarnock, Baldoyle and Howth. While Dublin County Council officials are making every effort to have these orders put in place, this has not yet happened.

This Bill is premature. I would accept this Bill and be wholeheartedly behind it if special amenity area orders were in place to protect the areas of high amenity which need to be protected in my area. If special amenity area orders were in place there would be no problem with this Bill. I see the problem faced by builders and developers who want to get on with a job and develop land, but they cannot walk over the community. I believe a special amenity area order will be needed to protect the areas of special amenity to which I referred.

I come now to local authorities. As a member of Dublin County Council I know that councillors take a great interest in planning matters and each month when my area comes up for discussion councillors request the files and look at planning permissions in their area. They take out files on local garage applications, local domestic applications and local applications for major works. I often wonder about councillors who request these files — they debate them and sit over them in case other public representatives on the council would look at them and perhaps get an extra vote — and ask officials to make decisions on them. They are not planning experts. Even though local authority officials give the planning experts' view, many of the decisions can be forced through the local council by persons who would not have the necessary expertise. This matter should be examined at local authority level. I have seen cases where local councillors have requested files and asked the manager to reject permissions but within a month the manager makes up his own mind and makes decisions. One wonders what useful purpose can be served by a councillor requesting files and trying to debate local planning matters. Local authorities will have to examine that issue and provide more expertise to advise councillors on the best planning for their area.

I support the Fine Gael spokesperson on the Environment, Deputy J. Mitchell, when he asked that a Dáil committee on the environment be established. This would be a means by which An Bord Pleanála could be brought to account for decisions they had made, and controversial decisions could be debated within that committee. That would be a most welcome development. Some time ago a developer was seeking a site in Baldoyle for 20 or 30 houses and An Bord Pleanála made a decision which would, in effect, rezone extra land around the site. The developer finally got planning permission for twice the number of houses he had sought initially. In this case An Bord Pleanála had rezoned agricultural lands in an area where local residents were anxious that this should not be done. This was very wrong. That matter must be addressed. If an Bord Pleanála grant decisions they should do so on the application before them. I have been at some oral hearings and I have seen developers offer a package to the council. This can mean that a new plan is introduced at the oral hearing which is totally different from the original plan. This is another issue Deputy Mitchell is seeking to address.

I support Deputy Mitchell's suggestion that local authorities would be empowered by a two-thirds majority vote to require the board to appear before them. It would be a most welcome development when, if An Bord Pleanála make decisions, the local authority could request that they come before them and give the reasons for that decision. Local authorities would benefit from that and it would bring democracy to the board.

The Bill is welcome but the matter of preserving areas which are of high amenity value and need special amenity area orders should be addressed and taken into consideration.

Mr. McGrath

Thank you for the opportunity to address the House on this Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1991. As a public representative, quite an amount of my time is spent addressing planning issues at local level. Frequently the most contentious part of a local representative's job is dealing with the local planning authority and acting as a go-between for the applicant. Very often, in rural areas, somebody who makes an application to their local authority for planning permission meets with a blank refusal: they must not develop certain rural areas near their own farmland or on a road which is likely to be improved within the next 20 years. This leads to a tremendous amount of bitterness, anger and frustration, particularly for those living in rural areas.

How often have we come across a farmer's son or daughter who wants to build a house on the main road? When they apply to the local planning authority they are told to put it on a side road, a by-road or the laneway into the farm. The young couple are frustrated to think that their big investment in life, their home, will have to be built out of public view. Therefore planning is a contentious issue in rural Ireland and it must be addressed. We must bear in mind the need to protect our environment, the need for orderly development and the need to provide services, such as sewerage and so on. We must strike a balance. This must not be done at the expense of our rural communities. We must not herd them into our towns, where all these services are available, and ignore our duty to maintain people on the land.

This Bill, which will amend the law relating to planning appeals, will be welcomed in many quarters because it will speed up greatly the appeals procedure. I understand that at present it takes on average six months to process an appeal through An Bord Pleanála but under this Bill this ought to be reduced to three or four months. We are all aware that in some instances a planning application is deliberately put before An Bord Pleanála by a person to either slow up or prevent a development or in an effort to get their own back on the developer. It is, therefore, most welcome that an attempt is being made to speed up the process.

The way this will be done will be by requiring the appellant to state at the outset the grounds for the appeal. This is a good development and I welcome it. Very often appeals have been delayed or held up because the appellant did not state the grounds for the appeal for tactical reasons, until the last moment. Any change would be welcomed.

I am concerned about a number of issues and perhaps the Minister will address them when replying. In relation to information supplied on appeal it seems there will be no right of reply; in other words, if I submit an appeal to An Bord Pleanála, and someone objects they will be able to submit documentation while I may not be given the right to reply. Indeed, I may not even know what information has been submitted. Hence, incorrect information may well be submitted. Very often officials in the local authorities tell us that information received on foot of an application or an objection is inaccurate or has been submitted on spurious grounds. I am concerned therefore that if material is lodged by objectors to any development the person involved may not be given the opportunity to see this material, to assess it or reply to it. I would appreciate a response from the Minister on this matter.

I am aware that under section 9 An Bord Pleanála will be able to seek extra material or require the applicant to make a further submission but what I am concerned about is that information which may be presented may be inaccurate.

Another difficulty, given that all the material will not be circulated to the parties involved, is that people may well feel everything is going to be done by An Bord Pleanála behind closed doors, that the material submitted by various groups will not be open to inspection or be discussed among the groups involved. Is this openness to be lost? Will we come to the view that everything will be done behind closed doors and someone will not get a fair hearing?

At present An Bord Pleanála are held in high esteem, look fairly on applications, give the parties involved the right to make submissions, to look at what material has been submitted and to refute any false allegations. I wonder, in speeding up the process and removing the right to reply and of access to information, if the public will come to the view that it is a closed shop and that decisions will be taken without adequate consultation with the parties involved. I trust the Minister will reply to those points in due course.

Mr. Ferris

Like many other Members, thankfully, as a member of a local authority I have a major input in the planning process from the moment an application is submitted up to and including the final stages when objections are lodged with An Bord Pleanála. Given my interest in the planning process it is appropriate that I should make a contribution on what is important and welcome legislation which will tidy up the position, from the point of view of An Bord Pleanála, the Minister and the Department, in relation to the length of time An Bord Pleanála require to make a decision. It will also place a requirement on objectors to process their objections within a specific period of time through the courts.

We have come a long way in dealing with planning applications from the time they were dealt with — I should say effectively — by the old Department of Local Government. In 1976, the Government decided in their wisdom that planning appeals should no longer be subjected to political influence. The then Minister for Local Government, former Deputy Tully, decided to introduce legislation to set up an autonomous body who would consider planning appeals. While one should not be critical of this House, an amendment was included in that legislation in the Seanad to ensure that when a person threatened to take a High Court action, which is what people tended to do at the time, they would be required to go through a legal process in the High Court or otherwise if they wanted to pursue their objections.

In my constituency of Tipperary South, because a small number of people threatened to take action in the High Court, which they subsequently did not do and never intended to do, a major American pharmaceutical company, who were welcomed by all and sundry and approved by the Cabinet immediately fought shy of pursuing what would have been a major enterprise involving an investment of £30 million and the provision of employment for people in my constituency. Most of the objections were submitted by those in good employment, some in the public service. To make matters worse people from other parts of the country also objected. They felt that, even if they lived in Dublin, they had a God-given right as preservers of the environment to have an input to south Tipperary and its proposed industrial development which had been processed in the most meticulous way by South Tipperary County Council in a public forum in which plans and a scale model were on exhibition.

In 1976 as 13 or 14 people still objected, although most other objectors were satisfied with the reassurances from the local authority, we lost the industry. The new Planning Act at the time took account of that, at my request to the then Minister, because I felt that if we had a problem it should be processed properly through the legitimate channels. Another member of The Labour Party, the present leader, Deputy Spring, who was the Minister for the Environment at the time, revamped An Bord Pleanála to make it more open and in touch with people. He enabled people to make representations directly to the board without influencing the decision-making process. At times those of us involved at local level worry about the length of time it can take An Bord Pleanála to arrive at decisions. Of course it is in the interests of the planner, the developer and those involved in funding projects to know, as soon as possible, if An Bord Pleanála are satisfied with the concept of the plans before them.

Some counties, not all, have planning committees; in our county all the members are notified of the applications as they come before us and we are also notified of the intention of the local authority to grant — or to most cases not to grant — an application. This is brought before the members of the council by way of information and recognising that local authority members have certain rights as elected members, a right for which I will not apologise to anyone. One of those rights included — and still includes in the new legislation — the concept of using, in consultation with the planning office and management, the idea of a section 4. The formula to be used now is different as a result of the most recent legislation and it requires a certain percentage of the members in the electoral area to have an input to a section 4 before planning permission is granted. I know that there has been widespread condemnation of the use of this instrument but I defend the right of a representative elected by the people, to express a view in consultation with them and to have the power under legislation to implement that view. Needless to say, other members of the council can have a different view, that is democracy.

In a public forum elected representatives can make their case. The difficulty at times is that self-appointed bodies are not subject to the public franchise. They are described in the Planning Acts as having a special input; I recognise and respect their input but at times it is difficult to convince them that local authority members also have a role in the area of planning and a responsibility to ensure that their county is properly and adequately developed in accordance with the county development plan. That is the appropriate process in a democracy.

Throughout the country there are people living in isolation from the proposed area of development. However, because they are members and part of prescribed bodies they take it upon themselves to submit objections to An Taisce and An Bord Pleanála which were raised in good faith. It is an extremely thin line to follow in a democracy as an excellent development can be stopped in its tracks. This happened not too long ago in Cashel where there was a proposed investment of millions of pounds in a tourist-orientated theme park. Because it was being located in a sensitive area An Taisce at local level approved of it but at national level they disapproved of it. After a long drawn out process An Bord Pleanála decided to refuse permission. The developer is trying to find an alternative site to carry out his project. We must look at the whole area of the influence of other people in the everyday lives of officials, planning officers, elected public representatives and An Bord Pleanála.

There are times when I am not satisfied with the procedure followed and when I have problems with my own local authority. Generally speaking, permission is never given to build a house on a national primary route. However, at times there are reasons for allowing one to be built. It is usually allowed when a farmer has only one decent piece of land on which he can build a house. If this is the case he should be — and will be — allowed to build under the county development plan. There is also the question of a young farmer with children building a dower house to which his father and mother can retire and which will exit on to the public national primary route.

In a recent case a decision had been given by the local authority to grant permission to build a house subject to the gateway being rationalised in consultation with the planning officer. Unfortunately, over a period of years, for financial reasons and others, the applicant was not able to pursue the permission. The next time he applied, showing the rationalised entrance, the local authority did not relate the two applications and rejected the later one at holiday time when the members of the council could not be informed. There was no other procedure available except for the applicant to appeal to An Bord Pleanála. In spite of all the evidence, including a previous decision in favour of building the house and a rationalisation of an entrance on a very dangerous piece of roadway, An Bord Pleanála did not grant the application. If the man had been in a position to go ahead when he first got permission he could have built his house. What has changed in the meantime? The national primary road has not changed, the dangerous bend is still there and members of the local authority will now be forced to put in a new application with a section 4 directing that permission be granted on the basis that it is good planning. Nothing is perfect and in the area of planning it is very difficult to satisfy everybody. There must be a balance between what local authority members do — and what they want to do — in the area of planning, having regard to their responsibilities to the public, the safety of people in public areas, traffic routes and the free movement of traffic on the national primary routes.

I have a very good working relationship with our planning authority. I am a member of two local authorities and I deal with planning applications daily. One of the Minister's predecessors said that it is in all our interests to expedite, as fairly as possible, applications for planning so that our actions are not a disincentive to people to develop and improve their holdings and buildings. It should be our function to help people. Of course we do not want someone to build a house in the middle of a road or, normally, on a national primary route or on a dangerous bend or corner. However, we need to strike a balance. I believe most of us would like to see a liberalisation of the strict interpretations of the planning code, Planning Acts and county development plans which at all times are subject to reassessment, reappraisal and even amendment.

Recently a local authority accepted funding from a developer to hire more staff to re-examine a project in an overall context. It is difficult to convince the people of that county that the local authority were underfunded and understaffed and could not carry out the statutory function placed on them to review their development plan. Having accepted funding from someone who might be considered to have a vested interest in a project it is difficult for a local authority to justify why they changed their decision. As I said last week in the debate on the Roads Bill, we need to be very careful in formulating legislation in this area.

I should like to compliment the Minister of State on his appointment. I have already expressed my good wishes to him privately and I wish to do so publicly. The Minister has a certain amount of expertise in this area. As a member of a local authority he knows the euphoria the decision to either grant or refuse permission for car parking facilities, the building of motorways in built-up areas, etc., can give rise to. As I said, we need to strike the proper balance. I have no doubt the Minister will use his vast knowledge and expertise as a member of a local authority when dealing with this issue.

The Minister's Department have a specific responsibility to ensure that local authorities are properly funded and staffed in order to enable them to carry out all their statutory functions in the area of planning. Local authorities have to make a decision on applications within two months. They can seek an extension of this time limit on the basis of a legitimate need for additional information. While this let them off the hook, so to speak, it can cause delays for the developer. If local authorities are properly funded and staffed by the Department they will not have to rely on outside influences for funding. I am not for one minute suggesting that the developer to whom I referred influenced the decision of the local authority one way or the other. Nevertheless the public need to be assured of the independence of local authorities in carrying out their functions; local authorities should not be seen to be beholden to anyone. The chairman of that local authority, who is a Member of this House, has explained the position both publicly and otherwise. Nevertheless, a doubt still exists in the minds of the public.

There has been much talk about the need for Deputies to publicly declare their interests, vested, financial or otherwise. A member of a local authority on the day of his election has to declare to the county manager his interest in any property which could at some future date be subjected to development. He is required to absent himself from the decision-making process in regard to such property. A similar requirement should be placed on Members of this House when dealing with legislation which covers areas in which we might have a vested interest. It is important that local authorities are seen to be independent. The acceptance of funding by a local authority should not be seen to lead to the readjustment of a county development plan to the benefit of the person or company who assisted them.

I wish to refer to appeals to An Bord Pleanála. I have been in touch with An Bord Pleanála on a number of occassions. I have to say that I have never sought to try to influence their decisions or ask them to change them: I have merely sought to expedite decisions so that people will know as soon as possible where they stand. It is important that people who object to an application, for example, the application made by the pharmaceutical company in Cork, can put forward their objections directly to the officers and inspectors of An Bord Pleanála. By its very nature this is a cumbersome procedure because the case has to be heard in total in the presence of people who may hold a different view. Such public hearings have been carried out expertly by An Bord Pleanála and the officers in charge. As a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas which lays down the regulations and rules, it is good to know that people can make decisions in this area in spite of any pressure brought to bear on them.

It is appropriate that an objector should have to document in full the grounds for his objection. This would ensure that people could not object to a development just because they have an interest in it in terms of competition or the acquisition of the property for their own purposes, as happened in my constituency. People believe that if they can delay the process long enough a development might not proceed. We need to ensure that the grounds for an appeal are set out fully and properly. These objections should be immediately communicated to developers to enable them to respond positively.

During the early stages of an appeal, An Bord Pleanála really act as a catalyst: they ask the local authority why they granted permission or did not grant it, as the case may be, they ask the applicant why he made the application and they ask the objector why he objects to the application. They exchange a lot of correspondence before they get down to the nitty-gritty. I should like An Bord Pleanála to be given a more independent role than the one they have at present. Sometimes An Bord Pleanála are very slow to overturn a decision granted by a local authority. In the example I gave about the national primary route they forgot they had given the permission, they then refused it and the refusal was upheld by An Bord Pleanála. In spite of our efforts to get additional information from the developer and planner this seems to have been overlooked at the end. This leaves us with the unpleasant task of having to follow through this application by way of a section 4 motion which, I have no doubt, will upset those people who appoint themselves the guardians of our environment.

It is important that the Bill provides that An Bord Pleanála will have to make decisions on applications in a much shorter period. This means that they will have to be given adequate funding and staff to carry out their functions. Some people have used An Bord Pleanála and the appeals process to seek extraordinary levels of compensation from local authorities which, if the Minister had not intervened, would have bankrupt many local authorities. Developers used the procedure in that way, thus putting at risk the good will of all legislators.

Subsection (4) gives power to the Minister, in exceptional circumstances only, to vary or suspend the board's time objective for determining cases. I would prefer if the Minister had no power to intervene in the variation of the time factor. If the law lays down a time factor to try to speed up the process of objections and of dealing with them by An Bord Pleanála there should be no interference by the Minister. I hope the circumstances when the Minister would use this power would be most exceptional. Will the Minister when replying outline his ideas on what the exceptional circumstances would be? What were the intentions of the parliamentary draftsman in inserting subsection (4)? If the Minister gives a reason for this I am sure Members will accept it. Perhaps ministerial orders will be involved and, if so, the Minister should consult with the spokespersons of other parties and give them an idea of the guidelines. Otherwise the legislation to expedite these decisions will be undermined. I am not suggesting the Minister will take this power but Ministers in future Governments may use it. If in future there is controversy about a particular project the Minister may say he has power under subsection (4) to direct An Bord Pleanála not to meet the requirements of the time factor.

Legislation that improves the planning process, decision-making and developments, whether industrial, environmentally friendly or housing developments, is to be welcomed. It is appropriate that we expedite the planning process. If somebody objects to a decision made by a local authority the basis of that objection should be made known not alone to An Bord Pleanála but to the local authority and the developer. It is appropriate that we legislate to ensure that an Bord Pleanála make decisions as quickly as possible.

There are other side issues involved in the legislation and I am sure our spokeperson, Deputy Howlin, will be dealing with the intricacies of the various sections on Committee Stage. The legislation is welcomed in that it seeks to speed up the planning process. As a member of a local authority I am in constant touch with the planning officer and I know that at times his life would be much easier if people like me did not ask questions even before a plan is submitted. If matters are cleared up at an early stage no discrepancies arise in the formal submission of the application. It is not always easy to make changes when the application is before the planning authority or to write in conditions which at times would be an easy way of solving the problem. We must try to have a balance. I sometimes resent the fact that self-appointed people from other counties or other bodies have the power to object to a process. In regard to environmental impact studies and so on, generally speaking local authorities do a very good job. When an application is submitted they always get an outside opinion and advice, even though at times they do not have the finance to do so.

Some major controversial projects have been dealt with in south Tipperary. We did not succeed in regard to one project but in another case we publicly produced the plans and the scale models of the proposed factory for inspection and were successful in having it built. The factories in my constituency provide employment for hundreds of people who possess a high standard of education and expertise. The task of the IDA in recent years has been made very difficult as a result of people objecting to planning applications for very little reason. That is not the way to proceed, especially if there is a formal procedure within the local authority to listen to the arguments made.

I welcome the Bill in principle. My colleague, who will be dealing with it section by section on Committee Stage, will be proposing constructive amendments. The Labour Party have had a good record in the area of planning legislation since 1976 when responsibility for the planning process was transferred from local government to an autonomous body. Under the auspices of Deputy Spring the formula of An Bord Pleanála was changed. In recent times the Minister has seen fit to make further changes and this legislation will be a useful contribution to that process. I welcome the whole concept of the legislation.

Mr. Doyle

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and congratulate him on his appointment. We have one thing in common in that we were employed in similar jobs, unique as they are, before we were elected to this House.

Mr. G. Mitchell

All ye holy angels.

Mr. Doyle

I agree with Deputy Ferris that it is very difficult to please everyone in relation to planning matters. The Bill before the House provides that An Bord Pleanála make a decision within four months receipt of a planning application. Given that local authorities have to make decisions within two months of receipt of planning applications it is only fair that a time limit be laid down for An Bord Pleanála. This will have the effect of speeding up decisions that have been in the pipeline in relation to building programmes for factories and housing, an area which gives very necessary employment. I hope that aspect of the Bill will have a beneficial effect on employment creation.

At one time decisions of a local authority could be appealed by the Minister for Local Government. There was a public outcry at the fact that the Minister had that function but nevertheless there was accountability because the Minister had to face the public for re-election to the House. We have now passed on the responsibility of appeals to An Bord Pleanála without making any provision for accountability to the public. Oral hearings are a very important function of the board and until some time ago the Minister for the Environment had the discretion to ask the board to grant an oral hearing.

Debate adjourned.