The Planning and Development Act, 1963, represented a major departure in local government. It set down new challenges to local authorities and to their members. However, these challenges have at best been inadequately addressed. The Act has never operated to its full potential, it has been subject over the years to change, some of which I welcome. Nevertheless there is a need to look at the totality of the Act and the dual purposes which the Act was intended to address.
The Act was important for a number of reasons; two particular reasons spring to mind. First, it marked a major departure from the approach adopted to local government by successive Administrations. From the foundation of the State the trend has been and, as can be seen in the recently published Barrington proposals, continues to be in favour of greater centralisation of local government. Through the twenties, thirties and forties increasingly the tendency was to remove smaller units of local government and to increase the controls on the fewer number of local authorities which remained. This centralist tendency is evident throughout the history of the State. There are, of course, reasons put forward for these changes, economies of scale, greater efficiencies and the potential to limit corruption, or at least the curtailment of the opportunities for corruption in so far as members of local authorities were concerned.
The second reason the Planning and Development Act is important is that not only did it reverse that trend, it gave a new and positive role to local authorities. It charged the planning authorities identified in the Act with planning for development and the emphasis in virtually every discussion on the Planning and Development Act has been the planning control aspects of the legislation rather than planning for development. It is because I believe that the proposals in the Bill will help to reorient the planning process that I particularly welcome them. Incidentally, I should have said at the outset that I congratulate my good friend, Deputy Smith, on assuming the office of the Minister for the Environment. I wish him well and if this legislation is a foretaste of things to come, we have every reason to be confident that the Minister will make a worthwhile contribution to his office as he did previously in the Department of Energy.
The central purpose of a planning Bill, the planning of rational and well ordered development, is a point which has been lost sight of and, as a result, there have been chaotic consequences in the planning area. The Bill before us is welcome because it addresses some of the potential areas of chaos. The basic Act requires, as Members know, each county council, corporation, county borough, borough corporation and urban district council planning authority to draw up a development plan for their areas and to revise it at regular intervals. The aim of the development plan is twofold; first to control all significant physical development and at the same time to provide a blueprint within a geographical area for all future development. It is the first element which continuously receives attention and emphasis. The sterilisation of worthwhile development was never intended to be a part of the planning process yet, all too often, that is the effect of the current looseness in the central legislation.
Before dealing with specific elements in the new Bill, I wish to briefly address another point. The basic Act went further; it gave for the first time statutory recognition to the development role which could be played by local authorities who were encouraged at that time to become development corporations. Uniquely in the drafting of their development plan they were given a free hand and the plans were not subject to central control or adjudication. In addition to preparing a development plan and implementing planning control, the Act enabled the same planning authorities to become involved in urban renewal, to facilitate industrial and commercial development by providing sites, to contribute to training and research, to enforce control, to enter into agreements with land owners for joint developments and to support forced development of sites which had lain fallow, to assist bodies and persons to provide amenities and to make a wide range of amenity orders. They are just a small sample of the positive side to the Planning and Development Act which are largely ignored. In short, the Act provides not just for local authorities to act as planning control agencies, it provides a much more positive role for local authorities to plan for developments in the interests of the whole community.
To be fair, there are examples all over the country where local authorities act as "motors" for development. In my constituency we have many fine examples. In Bray there is very imaginative use of the council's planning role in an urban designation granted by the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, which I welcomed at the time. The two have come together with the developer and the town hall, a fine building, has been effectively rebuilt. A new commercial hub for the town is being created.
The urban district council, Wicklow County Council, and the IDA have cooperated in the development of lands on the outskirts of Bray for industrial use. It is another good example of local authorities using the powers under the Act to operate as the "motor" for positive development.
While there are examples of the Act being positively used there are, unfortunately, many more examples where it is not being used positively, where rights conferred in the Act have been used to stymie development. On occasion they have been used to defeat worthwhile development which would have given jobs and helped to develop areas in a very positive way. One of the most spectacular examples of this in my area was the rejection of proposals to site a specific plant, the Sebulite factory, in an empty factory building in Kilcoole, County Wicklow. I refer to this case because it illustrates the importance of some of the specific proposals introduced in the Bill. The example which I gave is a case study in how things should not be done. For reasons which I will never understand, the development authority, the county council and the IDA failed, in spite of urgings from myself and other public representatives, to be open with the local community and to take the people of the village into their confidence. In this regard I acknowledge the role played by Deputy Kavanagh in support of my case.
As a result of failure to be open in the planning process, extraordinary exaggerated stories were circulated as to the dangers associated with the proposed development, and they took root. People who were positive in regard to the creation of jobs were convinced that the environmental and health costs of the development would be far too high. Faced with a High Court challenge the promoters decided that this would delay the project for two years and they pulled out. There is no doubt in my mind that the approach adopted in this case by the planning authority, the IDA and a small group of people turned something which could have been positive into something divisive and negative. There is equally no doubt in my mind that in this case a major foreign multinational company. 3M, which had previously frustrated the efforts of the same company, Sebulite, to locate in a County Kildare location, or one of their local representatives cleverly manipulated opinion and abused the very openness of Irish planning law to stymie an effective and potential competitor. Under the law as it stands no doubt this was not the first time this happened. I have no doubt that the law without amendment would be abused in this way on many further occasions.
Given the effective degeneration of planning which can be seen all over the country, the changes proposed in this Bill are particularly welcome. As the Minister said, the preliminary purpose of the Bill is to streamline and speed up the planning appeals system so that An Bord Pleanála will be able to determine the vast majority of appeals within four months. I believe every Member of the House welcomes this proposal. It is fundamentally wrong that planning appeals should be allowed to drag on for interminable periods, frustrating the community, developers and citizens who have a right to their view. Justice delayed is justice denied. The proposal to introduce a four month period for the hearing of appeals is welcomed by everyone. I suggest to the Minister that this aspect be closely monitored and, if necessary, supported by a specific requirement in later legislation. I will come back to this point later.
The Bill also proposes the establishment of new procedural arrangements for legal actions challenging the validity of a planning decision. The aim of this is to facilitate speedy determination of such actions. This proposal is particularly welcome as it will prevent our courts being used as a means of stopping development. We all accept the need for effective development control systems. The development control process must subject development proposals to detailed examination to ensure that they match up to the exacting standards which Irish people rightly demand nowadays. However, at the same time it is very important that the system of planning and planning control should be able to give conclusive decisions to citizens' proposals for development within a reasonable timescale. If it takes too long to reach a final decision worthwhile projects can be abandoned and imaginative developments stymied.
It should also be borne in mind that in many cases this country is competing with other countries for internationally mobile projects. Any view abroad that our planning system is inefficient or that it takes too long to give a decision could well influence companies to go elsewhere. In the case of the Sebulite plant in Kilcoole to which I referred, it is interesting to note that after a protracted planning period and threats of High Court action, which would have held up the development for another 18 months or two years, that corporation moved to Newry in County Down and within three weeks had received all of the necessary permits and permissions to go ahead with the development. The village of Kilcoole and north County Wicklow lost 250 jobs directly as a result of this. When one considers the mobility of international investment and the competition for this type of investment I have no doubt that this case will be cited by planning authorities and development agencies in other states to illustrate how difficult it is to set up in Ireland. I do not want to see dirty industry here but equally I do not want to see Ireland as a whole and, in particular, County Wicklow, being identified in the international mind or the business community mind as a no go area for development. We need jobs. We do not need jobs at any cost; we need clean jobs. It is frustrating in the extreme for anyone interested in employment to see how the planning process was abused in this case.
Delays in the planning appeals stage are a frustration we all recognise. The main problem currently confronting the development control process under the planning Acts is the time it takes An Bord Pleanála to determine planning appeals. Although there has been some improvement in this respect in the recent past the time taken to decide individual cases still cannot be viewed as satisfactory. A number of elements of the planning system seem to contribute and exacerbate the delays. There is no obligation at present on an appellant to submit the grounds of appeal when appealing thus putting the onus on the board to request submission of the grounds for that appeal. This is a ridiculous situation in law. I know of the multi-million pound development which was stymied by a one line letter handed into an Bord Pleanála one hour before the time for appeal expired. The writer of that letter said he would make known the basis of his opposition at a future date. In fact, the writer of that letter, and supporting letters which were submitted after the planning appeal period had expired, never indicated the specific basis of their objection. Nonetheless the development was stymied and, as a consequence, jobs were lost.
The second point which causes frustration is that appeals will typically involve the board in circulating a lengthy series of submissions and counter-submissions between the parties. Anyone who takes an interest in planning accepts that this process borders on the farcical with views, counter-views rebuttals and counter-rebuttals going backwards and forwards interminably. It is only right and proper that this ping pong or table tennis game, so to speak, should be stopped.
The third factor which causes delays is that a party to an appeal could make a further submission when the board's consideration of the appeal is well advanced. The board might then have to circulate this submission to other parties, effectively creating a chain reaction of views, counter-views, assertions and counter-assertions. The termination of an appeal can also be delayed when a request is made to the board at a very late stage for an oral hearing. It is ridiculous that in effect people can come in at the eleventh hour or 59th minute and start to change the rules, move the goal posts and demand an oral hearing. Very frequently this is done by people who do not necessarily have a positive reason for their actions.
I am not one of those who like to tar everybody who makes an appeal with the brush of obstructionism. Of course that is not the case. The vast majority of people who use the planning and appeal processes are citizens exercising their bona fide rights. Unfortunately in a significant minority of cases this is not the truth. The reality is that the circumstances have to be changed. The Minister is doing this in an imaginative way in this Bill.
The Bill proposes to speed up the determination of appeals by placing clear time limits on the various stages of the appeals process. I welcome this proposal. The Bill will help to define clearly the rights and duties of participants in appeals concerning submissions to An Bord Pleanála. I also welcome this proposal. These changes will enable the board to decide the bulk of appeals within the four month period, and section 2 will establish a legal objective for them to do so.
It is, of course, important to ensure that there is a balance between speed and the preservation of existing rights. This balance is struck in the Bill. The Irish planning appeals system is very open and democratic and any person can make an appeal to An Bord Pleanála against a planning authority's decision. This position will not be changed significantly — indeed, it may not be changed at all — in the Bill which seeks only to ensure that effective procedures are put in place for dealing with appeals.
However, I question the openness of Irish planning law. A German or Japanese tourist travelling across Ireland for the first and possibly last time in their lives may see an attractive area which he believes is worth preserving. He may then be told in the local pub that a planning appeal has been submitted in relation to that area. He can become a party to the planning appeal without showing any interest in it. I wonder if a balance is struck by such openness.
Is it not time that we considered how the system operates in other jurisdictions? For example, in other EC countries is there a requirement that people show an interest in a development before they can become involved in the planning appeals process? The Bill introduces new requirements concerning appeals. Under section 4 an appellant would have to set out the grounds for appeal and unless that is done the appeal will be invalid. This is a very important provision and I welcome it. It will return a degree of justice to the planning process which has been lacking in recent years. These new provisions will put no imposition on objectors, rather they will help to level the playing field.
The rights of other parties are also dealt with in the Bill. It is fundamental to the proper discharge of the board's role that they take account of the views of all parties to an appeal. Section 7 ensures that the other parties will have a fair opportunity to state their case by requiring the board to send them a copy of an appeal and by allowing them a month to make their submissions. This period will allow a comprehensive response to the appeal and will ensure that the board are fully appraised of the views of parties when making their final decision. This is reasonable. Some criticism has been levelled on these aspects of the Bill, but I cannot understand the basis of such criticism.
There is an important set of safeguards in section 9 which should commend themselves to all Members. The proposals ensure that appellants and other parties will have a fair opportunity of making their case to the board. However, it is possible to foresee circumstances, perhaps in the case of a particularly complex planning appeal, where the board might consider it necessary to ask a participant in an appeal to make further submissions by way of clarification of the issues. Section 9 proposes that the board request further submissions where they consider it appropriate and that this be done in the interests of justice. That is a fair and reasonable provision. Those people who fear that the timetable being introduced in the Bill may in some way prevent the fullest exposition of all arguments should realise that this provision ensures that the board approach the issue in a reasonable, rational and just way. It is an important provision and has a great deal to commend it.
The provisions dealing with oral hearings are particularly important. Section 12 proposes that any request for an oral hearing of an appeal will have to be made at the outset of the appeals process. I think everybody would agree that this is a fair and reasonable proposal. It seems to be a very sensible provision which will overcome the problems posed for the board and for citizens who wish to get involved in bona fide developments where a request for an oral hearing is received when consideration of the appeal is almost complete. The position under the current law is intolerable and needs to be addressed. This provision may, of course, have the effect of encouraging all objectors to ask for an oral hearing. However the requirement that fees be lodged may operate as a deterrent to any overdue enthusiasm for oral hearings. The point made by the last Fine Gael speaker about the determination of hearings being left solely to the discretion of An Bord Pleanála is a sensible one. There should be no ministerial involvement in that area.
The board's objectives for determining appeals is also dealt with in the Bill. Given the new procedures proposed in the Bill it seems quite feasible for the board to determine all but the most exceptional planning cases within a four month period. The approach in the Bill to setting a four month time limit for decisions is sensible and practical and will be welcomed by all interested in rational development. It is important that this matter be kept under review to ensure that there is no slippage. If a slippage occurs in the future the Minister should quickly intervene to ensure that we do not go back to the bad old days.
The Bill's provisions as far as legal proceedings are concerned are particularly important. I welcome the provisions dealing with legal challenges to the validity of decisions in the planning process by planning authorities or by An Bord Pleanála. They will not interfere with citizens rights of access to the courts but will facilitate the expeditious determination of any court case. This should ensure that a citizen wishing to undertake a permitted development can do so within a reasonable timescale where legal actions arise. The courts have a role to play here in that they should not permit threatened court actions to frustrate a citizen's right in vexatious cases. I do not wish to delay the House but I could instance cases where, to my knowledge, rich and powerful individuals have intervened, threatened court action and gone as far as issuing proceedings simply to frustrate positive developments from which communities could have benefited. That is unacceptable, and the Minister, by introducing changes here, has taken a step in the right direction.
The Minister's announcement that he will bring forward on Committee Stage amendments to allow access to the Circuit Court for orders against unauthorised developments and to substantially increase the fines for planning offences is welcome. It is fundamentally wrong that abuses continue and that law breakers can downface their local planning authorities through the use of tricks and devices. It is right that the Minister should set about ending that process. One case comes to mind of an illegal development in a highly scenic area of County Wicklow where for years people have been in and out of courts while the developer, without planning permission, has been allowed to use and abuse the law. That situation should never have arisen. I welcome the changes proposed in this regard.
The procedure introduced by the Planning Act, 1976, whereby any person can go to the High Court for an order against a development carried out without planning permission or which does not comply with the terms and permission granted has shown over the years to be effective. However, the process has been too slow. By allowing orders to be sought in the Circuit Court the effectiveness of the procedure will be enhanced and matters will be speeded up. It will certainly mean that planning authorities wishing to enforce the law will have a less costly and less onerous legal avenue open to them.
There is no doubt that the maximum fine of £10,000 for conviction on indictment under the Planning Act as it now stands is totally inadequate, particularly bearing in mind some of the serious offences involved. The Minister's proposal to raise the maximum fine to £1 million is very welcome. It will ensure that the penalty is a real deterrent to the small minority of developers who might otherwise be tempted to flaunt the planning laws with an eye only to profits.
Overall the Bill's approach is a reasonable one. A fair balance has been achieved between the need for a thorough and efficient development control process and the public interest in having final decisions on development proposals made within an acceptable period. I commend the Bill to the House and I compliment the Minister on the very important changes he has introduced.
