Deputy Kemmy is in possession and has 15 minutes remaining.
Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1993: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"in view of:
(a) the failure of the Bill to provide for equal application of the planning laws between State bodies and private citizens,
(b) the extensive exemption from the planning process for State bodies,
(c) the proposed power for the Minister to amend the planning laws by regulations,
Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill."
—(Deputy Gilmore.)
I would like to share my time with Deputy Sean Ryan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The refurbished railway station in Cobh is a modern example of an interpretative centre. It is an emigration museum which will be officially opened on Friday by the Taoiseach. It is a good heritage centre. It is built in the town in the midst of the local population surrounded by an infrastructure of shops and workshops. Another good example of a heritage centre is King John's Castle in Limerick, the interior of which is a historic wonderland. It provides a panoramic view of Limerick city and is of historic interest in regard to its sieges. The extension to the castle is controversial and has been the subject of favourable and unfavourable comments. Recently, one disgruntled Senator sought my views in this regard but he would be better advised to look after his own bailiwick because he was arrogant and foolish in his attitude to Mullaghmore. I know more about interpretative centres and stone than that Senator.
It is time we had a national debate on planning. In the past there were shallow arguments in this House to justify certain buildings. They were bogus and spurious arguments based on the fact that the construction of buildings provided employment. That is a useless argument and could be used to justify the building of a nuclear power station. We have too many gombeen men here who would erect any type of building to make money. That argument has no merit in this debate. I say that having been a building worker for more than 30 years.
The Minister in his speech referred to the role of local authorities in the planning process. That is an important part of the Minister's speech and an important part of the Bill. Local authorities in the past have not been blameless for bad planning. There is a need for constant vigilance by public representatives and informed citizens. The fact that people do not live in an area should not debar them from commenting on something just as not being born in Limerick does not stop anyone from coming to see the Shannon. We cannot be too parochial because good planning laws and regulations are national issues. Good buildings, materials and design are also broad issues. We can be too narrow and parochial in our attitude to planning, as if people living in certain areas have great wisdom and knowledge concerning it. Planning laws should be accessible so that people can discern between good and bad planning. It should not be a matter of great wisdom. Intelligence, eyesight and experience should guide people in this respect. The countryside is full of buildings that disgrace and disfigure it.
I hope this Bill will be interpreted in a democratic manner and that it will be a useful contribution to a national planning process. However, there is too much piecemeal legislation in this regard and there is a need for one Bill incorporating all the amendments and legislation on planning introduced in the last decade.
I am pleased to address the House on this Bill. For many years it has been clear that a planning process was required to regulate development by and on behalf of the State authorities. I welcome and support the Bill which goes some way towards setting up such a framework — which we should acknowledge was prompted by the Supreme Court judgment on the Mullaghmore and Luggala interpretative centres. I welcome that judgment, because planning is about community involvement and it is vital to have full community participation in planning. The judgment echoes my view that State bodies or agencies acting on behalf of the State should not be allowed carry out developments without consulting local communities. As an example, I wish to refer to a location in my constituency, St. Margaret's, where people have been campaigning over the past three years for an adequate insultation system in their homes to protect them from noise pollution. Whenever this issue was raised with Dublin County Council we were told the State was not obliged to provide such a scheme. In fact, for a considerable time Aer Rianta was hiding behind the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications in this regard.
Recently we have had a Bord Pleanála decision in relation to the Kerry airport at Farranfore where it decided, in the interests of proper planning and for the purpose of protecting people directly affected by planning decisions, that certain conditions should have been included in the planning permission. This represented the breakthrough that the public was seeking. Hopefully, this situation can now be brought to a conclusion. It was, in fact, brought to a conclusion by a decision by An Bord Pleanála. I hope the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, for example, will be included in the requirements of this legislation and I look forward to the comments of the Minister in this regard.
There are certain aspects in this Bill that need further clarification. Section 2 allows the Minister to provide by regulation that the planning process should not apply to certain State authority developments. Perhaps there is a need for such a provision but I would ask the Minister to explain in more detail the categories of development to which references are being made.
Section 4 stipulates that plans of a proposed development should be made available for inspection by members of the public. Would the Minister clarify how he envisages local authorities will meet this requirement? Two aspects of this are the giving of public notice and the availability of public inspection of detailed and proposed developments. A number of these are mentioned in the report but I ask the Minister how the local authority housing programme will be affected by this?
In regard to halting sites, my understanding is that in the past if agreement was not reached by the public representatives the opportunity existed for the Minister, or the manager on behalf of the Minister, to intervene. Would the Minister clarify what the implications of this would be for the location of halting sites?
Unfortunately, this Bill is typical of the history of Irish planning legislation going back to 1963. In many ways it is a fire brigade reaction to problems that occur on an ongoing basis. I would like to highlight certain areas of the planning process which this legislation does not cover and which should be addressed as a matter of urgency, if not by means of amendments to this Bill then by means of comprehensive planning legislation which is long overdue. After 30 years we must critically examine the position in the light of recent developments and bring our planning laws into the 21st century.
There is an element of planning which should be included in the Bill. In this regard, I compliment the Minister for the Environment for the public stand he has taken against the rezoning lobby in Dublin County Council. There has been public outrage in Dublin County Council at what has been allowed to occur and people have taken to the streets on this issue. The Minister has taken a stand against the rezoning lobby which includes the vast majority of his own councillors and a sizeable majority of Fine Gael councillors who have come together to set up a coalition lobby in the council in relation to the development plan.
What about the Labour councillors who give a nod and a wink to the developers and who vote against a decision? The Labour Party pull their councillors out to ensure a vote is cast. Disingenuous and dishonest. I will give the Deputy the facts very quickly. I do not like creative reports placed on the record of the House.
I would ask Deputy Doyle not to interrupt the speaker again.
Let us have the facts.
I am quite prepared either inside or outside this House to state my case in relation to Deputy Doyle's comments. The record of the Labour Party will stand up to scrutiny in this regard.
Particularly the councillors who went missing for critical votes, the Labour Party councillors who go absent rather than have a vote defeated.
The Minister has been very supportive of the idea of a development plan for the county stating that it is time to take proper account of the cost of providing roads, water and sewerage schemes before rezoning decisions are made. Water charges and lack of finance are issues that must be taken into consideration. In the light of this, is the Minister and this House not concerned about the major differences that have emerged between the county manager, his staff and some councillors in Dublin County Council? This is a matter of concern which must be addressed.
In the Dublin County Council area alone thousands of acres have been rezoned for no apparent reason other than the hardship plea of a landowner and in many cases this was completely at variance with the views of senior planners, people who have professional expertise in these areas. I do not take the advice of planners on an ongoing basis. I am prepared to assess a situation on an individual basis. It is totally illogical to state that the professional planners are always wrong. This aspect must be examined critically. Given the increase in land prices — in some cases land prices can increase ten times as a result of rezoning decisions — there is an urgent need to review the whole mechanism.
During the course of the development plan in the Dublin County Council area we have witnessed the introduction of a new mechanism by some developers and landowners whereby they used the legitimate needs of sporting and community organisations to apply pressure on councillors in order to secure rezoning of their lands. While acknowledging the needs of these sporting organisations this type of enticement is totally out of place in the planning process and must be eliminated before it gets out of control.
As public representatives we must highlight the needs of local people. I have already made representations to the Minister about the need to amend the current planning legislation to enable a planning authority to require local submissions regarding the provision of amenity and recreational facilities. This aspect must be examined to ensure that we move away from the mechanisms currently being used. I could debate this issue in greater detail. Many areas of planning need to be updated. We must bring a comprehensive planning Bill before this House so that our planning laws can be updated and I look forward to that in the near future.
It is a pity Deputy Ryan is about to leave because I wish to answer some of the points raised by him.
I have to attend the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
He made a point about the County Dublin development plan and it typifies what is happening in this House where people come in and make statements and then disappear before anyone has an opportunity to answer the various charges made. This used to be a debating chamber.
I listened with interest to some of the people who gave their views about the County Dublin development plan over the past few months. I would like to bring some balance into this debate. Much has been said about rezoning, the value of land and so on, but there was no mention of my area in south County Dublin where land is at a premium and vast sums of money change hands when land is deemed suitable for development. The officials being lauded by some Members endeavoured to rezone hundreds of acres of land in south County Dublin but there has been no mention in any debate about the effect this would have had on the most beautiful part of Dublin. There was talk about increasing the population in that area by between 20,000 and 30,000. That gives some indication as to the rezoning that would have taken place had that proposal gone through.
The people who receive most criticism, the elected public representatives, prevented the rape of south County Dublin. Literally thousands of new houses would have been built in that area were it not for the efforts of the elected public representatives who put a stop to the rezoning. While people have various views about rezonings, the elected representatives represent the views of the people, whether for or against development. I would like to put some balance into this argument and point out the facts.
I listened with great interest to Deputy McManus who in the course of the debate on the proposed tax amnesty referred to rezoning in County Dublin, condemning members of certain political parties for their activities. However, what Deputy McManus failed to tell the House and the public is that in my area while I fought, and succeeded, against the rezoning of the famous Monarch Property lands in Cherrywood, Deputy McManus' colleagues voted to put a 25 acre shopping centre on one part of those lands. Some people are very selective in their discussions and when it suits them they condemn members of the council for certain actions.
I would say to the Labour Party that before it makes statements it should check the records as to who voted for what. On some controversial issues, the absence of certain members when it came to making hard decisions was interesting. There were reports that commitments were given that certain people would not be present when the vote was taken. I ask those who make accusations to check their facts before doing so and to start bringing some balance into this argument. The statutory duty of each elected member of a county council is to review a development plan every five years. Having done so, there is a statutory function on the local authority to listen to objections to the proposed review of the plan. Each objection must be dealt with separately.
Hundreds of objections made to the proposed development plan in County Dublin have been rejected by the elected members who on a number of occasions disagreed with officials who endeavoured to have certain lands rezoned. I have always believed that the statutory function of elected members should not be interfered with regardless of whether their actions might increase the profits of landowners. It is the function and duty of the people who sit on that side of the House — the Government — to ensure that there is in place an equitable tax system whereby those who gain windfall profits from the actions of a planning authority are dealt with under the tax system. The statutory function of planning cannot be combined with the taxation system. You cannot say we will not rezone that property because X, Y or Z will make a profit. It is not the statutory function of an elected member of a local authority to make a judgement as to whether somebody will make or lose money as a result of his or her action. It is a matter for the Government to decide on taxation policy. We should get away from the nonsense of putting money into speculators' pockets. The tax system should deal with speculators who make profits and each planning decision should be judged on its merits.
The public in County Dublin are fighting against a decision taken by the so-called professional planners in the late sixties and early seventies who bulldozed through three new towns in County Dublin — Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown. The public has rejected Mr. Myles Wright's plan because on social grounds it has not worked. People say that plenty of land has been rezoned in County Dublin and that is quite true, but it happens to be in places where people do not want to live. I am not going to tell people who were born and reared in my area that they must live in Tallaght, Clondalkin or Blanchardstown simply because Mr. Myles Wright decided 20 years ago that is where they should live.
I would equally make the argument for land rezoning for industrial purposes. Can anybody explain how a person would travel from Finglas to Tallaght, Clondalkin or Lucan to take up low paid employment? What public transport system exists to service these people? These are the cold hard facts involved in the making of a development plan. Planning is about people, not about profit or decisions which are solely and simply the prerogative of an elite group of people who call themselves planners.
I put it to the Minister and other Deputies where were the planners and professional when the villages of Dalkey, Dún Laoghaire, Blackrock, Malahide and Howth were developed? There were no professionals in those days. It is no accident that the most sought-after properties are in Dalkey, Dún Laoghaire, Blackrock, Malahide and Howth. The reason is that these villages have a heart and above all they have a community. Problems would not exist in County Dublin today had the so-called professionals listened to the advice of ordinary members in the late sixties and early seventies when some of us spoke out against the planning concept of developing new towns of 100,000 people.
We are now facing social problems — not only in this country — because the same geniuses proposed the same solutions to planning problems in Britain and Northern Ireland. How long did it take to get Craigavon on the move? Hundreds of houses were built in Craigavon as a result of the same type of planning concept and they were boarded up for years because people would not live in them. What about Telford in Britain? All these concepts failed and when the elected members, the voice of the ordinary people, asked the authorities not go ahead with this mad proposal it was bulldozed through. Why? Because we were zoning according to pipes and sewers, because money had been ploughed into major drainage into these three new towns and the Department and the officials would not say "stop". That is what is wrong in County Dublin and that is why there is controversy. We have ploughed resources into sewers and whether or not people like it, that is where the houses will be built.
When I take a decision on planning I think of people first and sewers second. Is it not an accident that the most sought after properties are in places where there is a good community spirit. A decision should be taken to develop Tallaght, Donabate and Malahide to a certain level but we should not proceed with this mad proposal to continue development. What has happened the proposal for the new town of Clondalkin which the Minister had the courtesy to visit? What about Neilstown and Ronanstown about which we hear so much? These places are a total disaster. They were designed and promoted by the same professionals who insist that we continue down this road. We have taken human beings from a community in the centre city and dumped them in green fields in County Dublin and told them to stay quiet, because now they have houses. We have huge social problems being dealt with on a daily basis by every agency in the city and county and it is costing the taxpayer a fortune, and all because there is a drain or a sewer into the place. Those people have been left there without work or basic facilities, without a shopping centre or a community centre. The people who have condemned what has gone on in County Dublin should see the letters I have received from parish priests and others working in the community pleading with us to stop this nonsense and give people some hope.
Planning should be about people and not about this so-called professionalism that has crept into everything which means that people have to be in little boxes. In the early sixties Pete Seeger sang a song called "Little Boxes". He was a man ahead of his time. He foresaw the authorities putting people into little boxes and assuming they would be happy and would stay quiet. The people will not stay quiet. They want a community and they are rightly rejecting this so-called professional plan which was produced in the seventies.
I would not condone a lot of the decisions taken and when I object I vote against the decisions. That is democracy, the way it should be. The people should be able to take informed decisions in the local elections, having regard to the performance of the local representatives. Deputy Ryan suggested that this function should be taken from elected representatives. By saying that he is saying that democracy is a bad thing. At the end of any term of office people should have the right to vote their agreement or disagreement. That is what democracy is all about. However, we should not have this nonsense asking elected representatives to draw up a development plan and when they do, every Tom, Dick and Harry can have a say as to what elected represenatives are obliged to do by law.
It has been suggested that a lot of land in County Dublin has been rezoned. Land has not been rezoned in County Dublin because the 1993 development plan has not been adopted. All the proposals that have caused so much concern have to go back on public display for a month and the public will have the right to lodge objections. Will the Minister explain why out of the 26,000 objections to the original development plan which was displayed for three months, not one objection was agreed to by the officials? Is that not extrordinary? The plan was not changed at all on foot of the 26,000 objections that were made. When the officials wanted to rezone Carrickmines, Cherrywood and all that area they tried everything, but some of us stood up against them and against the development. All these procedures have become farcical. The public are not told, nor do they understand the technicalities attached to the making of a development plan. Will the Minister take a personal interest and ask for a report on the number of objections lodged against the County Dublin development plan and why the officials could not find one single case with which they could agree?
In view of the fact that three county councils for Dublin will be established on 1 January 1994 I ask the Department and the Minister not to pressure Dublin County Council to finalise the 1993 development plan. It should be left to the three new councils to adopt their own development plans. As a representative of Glencullen electoral area, which stretches from the Bray boundary to Glencullen and to Foxrock, I would not claim to be qualified to vote on issues which will affect Baldoyle, Donabate or Swords. Neither do I accept that representative of Swords, Donabate or Baldoyle will be in the position that I am in to vote on plans affecting the Glencullen electoral area. The Minister for the Environment should write to Dublin County Council recommending that the development plan should be left to the three county councils. Nothing will happen anyway. Land that was rezoned in 1982 and 1983 is only being built on now. Land zoned in the early seventies has not yet been built on. There is no rush in this.
I am very strongly of the view that, for smart political gain, the public should not be given the impression there is something radically wrong with the democratic process which allows them object whenever a development plan is drawn up and put on public display. Whether the person objecting happens to be the owner of the land or an ordinary member of the public, he or she has that statutory right. They should be heard and their objections listened to carefully and a decision taken. I would strongly urge the Minister to inquire of both sides of the House whether the County Dublin development plan is being properly dealt with.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Michael Ahern. This Bill was introduced to enable certain actions already taken to be legalised. This affords me an opportunity which I will not get on any other occasion in coming weeks to raise a question about a planning application now before the local authority in my constituency, namely, the application of the ESB to erect 170 feet pylons across a 56-mile track of land. These are the types of applications that come before members of local authorities and about which they have little or no say in their rejection or otherwise. This application is on the part of a semi-State body who state that their requirements in another part of the country warrant the erection of these pylons. I consider that they have not given the proposal any real constructive consideration, that is, the provision of alternative sources of power in the relevant areas, north-east Donegal. They are actually submitting an application which totally contravenes the county development plan put in place by the local authority. Indeed, they are using the big stick, maintaining that under the ESB Acts they have power to impose this proposal if they wish. That is not democracy.
I must agree totally with what Deputy Barrett had to say on the subject of democracy, in particular, that members of local authorities are best able to decide what is best for their part of a county or region when it comes to planning, and outside forces should not be able to contravene local people's wishes.
In the case of the application to which I have referred one must examine also the incalculable material damage that will be done to property and farms in the area which will greatly exceed any compensation paid. If a full economic assessment was undertaken by the ESB, and if they were forced to pay full compensation, they would seek other alternatives in this case. They have prepared an environmental impact statement in regard to their proposal in which they refer to such things as electric and magnetic fields. They give their side of the story but do not publicise independent views expressed from northern Europe on the erection of some of the power lines, their effects on people's lives and their general health in the areas in which they are erected. These are the types of issues that should be publicised.
Sometimes we in this House are regarded as cranks, as being anti-progress, anti-this, that or the other, whenever we object to planning on environmental grounds. No outside body has the right to despoil the natural beauty of an area such as that of north Leitrim, about which I am talking, an area which already has two 110KV lines erected right down the middle. Now the ESB are talking about erecting another 220KV line alongside it. If there had been proper planning I am sure one line would have been sufficient to cater for the overall needs of the area concerned. But people, for their own selfish reasons, with the long term objective of obtaining Structural Funds from European agencies, tend to create an ideal atmosphere for themselves but one which will affect the lives of the ordinary people of the area.
I would ask the Minister of State present to ask the Minister to intervene in this case. It constitutes a crisis on a number of fronts, one of these being health, and on the basis of the potential damage of the landscape, something that has been handed on to us and which we should hand on, unharmed, to future generations. Elected representatives have a duty to defend the natural beauty of the areas we represent.
While this Bill deals with actions already taken and decisions to be taken in the future, semi-State bodies must fulfil the same conditions and/or planning requirements as in the case of a private company or individual. I am sure that if anybody from the area about which I am talking were to apply to erect a silo 170 feet high he would be told he could not, that it would totally destroy the landscape. These are the types of issues with which we must deal. I believe such power should continue to be vested in local elected representatives whose decisions in all such matters should be final. We should remember that if they do make a wrong decision the electorate have redress. They have a remedy for dealing with people who make wrong decisions in any sector of political life. Democracy is the greatest protector of the people and always has been the plain man's mode of expressing his views.
I want to refer now to some people who feel they have a right, without obtaining planning permission, to suppress others' rights of way. This is a practice that is becoming prevalent in rural areas, where people are tending to suppress what have been public rights of way for many years. This is something that needs to be addressed legislatively. We shall be debating a Private Members' Bill later this evening with regard to public liability. When that subject is being dealt with by way of Government legislation I hope there will be another legislative provision alongside to deal with public rights of way and access which people have tended to suppress knowing that they would be responsible for any third party claims.
I am glad to have had this opportunity to express my reservations and fears with regard to the proposed ESB action in the case I have mentioned and also in regard to private individuals suppressing public rights of way because of their worries about public liability insurance.
While welcoming the introduction of this Bill I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without commenting on the events leading up to its introduction. Over very many years we have heard nothing but criticism of the Office of Public Works from some sectors of the community. I take this opportunity to laud them on the tremendous work they have undertaken in recent years and which is continuing. In Dublin alone we can look to buildings such as Dublin Castle, the Custom House, the refurbished Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Industry and Commerce and Kilmainham, as examples of their excellent work. Indeed, we can see examples of their work nationwide as the Government's decentralisation programme comes to fruition in towns stretching from Letterkenny to Cork, from Ennis to Wexford.
The Office of Public Works have not suddenly become environmental ogres as some environmentalists would have us believe. I use the latter description with tongue in cheek. I would remind such environmentalists that the Office of Public Works were green before that became fashionable. They are in charge of and do an excellent job with our national parks, nature reserves, wildlife sanctuaries and refuges for fauna. While the identification and conservation of our natural and cultural heritage must remain a priority, we must build on this even further. It is vital to inform and educate the public so that all will be aware of the importance of conservation. Indeed, interpretative centres are a key element in informing and educating the public on heritage matters. There are over 30 such centres in existence at present and they have been welcomed by some environmentalists. They have also been praised by the people who visited them.
We are now faced with a group of environmentalists who not alone do not live in the immediate area but many of whom do not live in the country. For far too long we have been listening to expert environmentalists lecturing us about how we should look after our heritage. We are perfectly capable of fostering our own heritage and providing safe access for the public. It was the intention of the Office of Public Works that interpretative centres would mirror one element of our natural and cultural heritage, convey the importance of that element and the conditions necessary to enable it to survive for other generations to see, experience and learn from.
The Irish natural and cultural heritage is one of the most remarkable, beautiful and educational in the world. We should share this experience with the many visitors to our country and those of us who have an interest in learning where our ancestors came from how they survived. When we travel abroad other countries take great pride in outlining their heritage and explaining, through interpretative centres, their individual landscapes. We have been slow to build such centres mainly because of an attitude which presumes that people know of our heritage. Now that we realise the potential of our tourism industry we must nurture it and try to provide a wide range of activities and facilities for tourism groups as we cannot sell Ireland as a sun holiday destination. We need to expound our virtues to tourists and highlight the many benefits we have to offer.
Last week the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, Deputy Dempsey, officially opened the interpretative centre at the Ceide Fields in north Mayo. The area encompasses 400 square miles of mountain and low-lying coastal bog, some of the oldest and most spectacular rock formations on these islands, the greatest concentration of stone age tombs in Europe and the intact farms of the tomb builders preserved in the bog. The farms date back approximately 4,500 years. This is an example of what we have to offer. We are steeped in history and we should be proud to show this to visitors.
The recent Supreme Court judgement in the Mullaghmore case highlights the need to provide for the regulation of development by State authorities in future. The Bill deals with those regulations. Section 6 provides for the repeal of section 84 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. Section 84 states that a State authority, before undertaking the construction or extension of any building, should (a) consult the planning authority to such extent as may be determined by the Minister and (b) if any objections that may be raised by the planning authority are not resolved shall, save where the construction or extension is being undertaken by the Minister, consult on the objections with the Minister.
The interpretative centres were built under this section. At no stage did the Government as some have mistakingly suggested, try to rush the work on these centres without proper prior consultation with the relevant planning authority. Subsection (2) (a) will empower the Minister to make an offer provided that neither the planning Acts nor the requirements of regulations apply to development which is required because of an accident or an emergency or which is otherwise in the public interest. It is envisaged that this section will be used where development must be undertaken as a matter of urgency. This power will be used infrequently and in an emergency such as storm damage, the reconstruction of buildings or housing projects for refugees.
While the Bill states that this section will be used only in cases of emergency I have no doubt that some people will find fault with it, but they never seem to bother about the human element. Interpretative centres have been welcomed by the local communities and it is recognised that jobs would be created in areas where, up to now, people have witnessed mass emigration because of lack of employment. Tourists' numbers would increase substantially with the result that employment would be generated and our flagging economy boosted, especially in rural areas.
In my constituency of Cork East two heritage centres have helped to transform the towns of Midleton and Cobh. The Jameson Heritage Centre in Midleton and the Queenstown project in Cobh, with which I am glad to have been associated, have been visited by thousands of visitors, foreign and local, since they opened, with the result that those towns have been transformed. Instead of gloom and unemployment there is new found wealth. Another example in the Cork area is Fort Camden in Crosshaven in which the Office of Public Works has done tremendous work during the past few years.
I intend to share my time with Deputy Dukes. The decision of the High Court and subsequently, the Supreme Court is the essence of commonsense. One can only wonder why it was not made 30 years ago when the 1963 Planning Act was implemented because some of the greatest abominations in regard to planning in the intervening period have been constructed by State bodies, including local authorities. Having said this, it is ironic that work on the two sites in question at Mullaghmore and Lugalla in County Wicklow is being carried out by the Office of Public Works which has not been the worst offender among the State and semi-State bodies involved in planning and building. Invariably, work carried out by the Office of Public Works is exacting but it takes great care and shows consideration. It is ironic that the case in question arose from works which were being carried out by it.
I am not sure if the two buildings in question deserve the fate destined for them, whereby work will cease immediately and they will be ultimately destroyed. Interpretative centres are exactly what is needed when there is something of beauty, for example, the Burren and the Glens of Wicklow. We need explanatory material to show visitors what is at their disposal. I am sure if they were adequately camouflaged they could be used as interpretative centres and perform the functions for which they were intended. This is an unfortunate episode.
I am disappointed that Deputy Bhamjee is not present as he advocates the decision not to proceed with the Mullaghmore interpretative centre. I would have thought he would have been here for the duration of the debate——
What about the Minister, Deputy Higgins?
I do not know if they will vote but I have not seen either of them.
Both are in favour of interpretative centres.
I have an open mind on the matter.
Both are in favour but act against.
I would have thought that they would have been present to express their opinions in no uncertain manner.
It is a long day.
Do not hold your breadth.
With all due respect, the Minister of State may regret what he said. As I said, the Office of Public Works is unfortunate as, in general, it does outstanding work and in this instance was the victim.
As Deputy Ellis pointed out, the ESB can erect massive pylons throughout the country without having to comply with planning laws or regulations. There is a moot point to be made in this regard. I have been a member of a local authority for many years and I remember questioning why the ESB had to apply for planning permission. The sheet given to county councillors referred to applications cations by the ESB to erect a certain number of pylons. The county manager told us that the ESB had to apply for planning permission as a matter of course but there was no way a member of a local authority could interfere with that application. The entire process was a charade. The application had to be put on paper, but the company was not subject to any of the conditions of the Planning Acts. That was an amazing situation. Obviously, the ESB will now have to conform with the Planning Acts.
I wish to refer to an abomination in Kildare Street, a house where I spent some years as Minister — Agriculture House. This building is located in the middle of a beautiful architectural area, which includes such buildings as the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Leinster House and the Shelbourne Hotel. Agriculture House should never have been built. However, as it was a State building the Office of Public Works did not have to apply for planning permission. Agriculture House is an abomination in the midst of many fine buildings.
Some of the worst cases of planning in the country are the ghettoes being built by certain local authorities. Deputy Barrett referred to Neilstown, Ronanstown and other areas where there are massive numbers of houses and no facilities or infrastructure. These huge estates, which should not have been allowed under any planning laws, were built because the local authorities were not subject to the planning laws. The Ballybeg housing estate in Waterford contains miles and miles of houses, yet it does not have any facilities. This estate should never have been built. I welcome the High Court decision because it will make local authorities and semi-State bodies subject to the planning laws just like everyone else. I hope that the body which adjudicates on the plans submitted by local authorities will be sufficiently independent. I am not satisfied that this will be the case. Will the adjudicating body be sufficiently independent to ensure that local authorities and semi-State bodies do not get their own way as they did in the past? Is the legislation sufficiently strong to ensure that there is a truly independent adjudication of the work which it is proposed to carry out?
The Minister said that State authorities would have to consult with the planning authorities before constructing or extending a building other than a building in connection with afforestation by the State. Some of the worst planning I have seen relates to afforestation. There are many magnificent scenic views of the sea, mountains and valleys in this country. Coillte, the old Department of Forestry, was allowed to plant trees ad nauseam which, when they grew after ten, 15 or 20 years, blocked many magnificent scenic views. This body was subject to no planning controls. Some of our best scenic views have been obliterated by trees. Trees, like water and mountains, are beautiful; but if they are grown in areas where they destroy scenic views then they too can become an abomination. I ask the Minister to ensure that trees or any buildings which give rise to problems affecting scenic views are subject to the planning laws. That point has not been dealt with. I will leave my remarks at that. Deputy Dukes will need his full ten minutes. Obviously, he has many valid points to make.
I thank Deputy Deasy for sharing his time with me. If the Minister wants an illustration of Deputy Deasy's last point, I invite him to visit Mullaghcreenan, which is between Athy and Castledermot, and follow the forest walk to the top, where he will find a spot from which one used to have a very fine view of Counties Kildare, Wicklow, Laois and Offaly. Seats have been put in this very pleasant little spot, but for the past year one can see nothing from there but trees. The trees planted on that side of the hill have grown to the point where they now obscure the view. There was no planning involved in that. It is a nonsense. There are other points which could be made about this issue and no doubt Deputy Kavanagh, like most of us, has a few more skeletons in the cupboard in that regard.
No.
We will drag some of them out in a few minutes. When I heard this Bill was to be brought forward I felt somewhat encouraged because it seems to start from a perfectly good principle and one which, as Deputy Deasy said, should have been enshrined in legislation 30 years ago. However, once I started to read the Bill things started to go downhill very fast. The Bill is far too tentative in its expression in legislation of this principle. Most of the Bill seems to be concerned with making exceptions to this principle rather than putting the principle into effect. For example, there is no provision in the Bill for any authority other than a local planning authority to have any control or say over what that local authority does. As Deputy Deasy said, the Minister knows perfectly well that local authorities have perpetrated some of the worst planning sins we have ever seen. There is nothing in this Bill which gives me any confidence that this will change. It seems that the reason this had happened is that the Government has actually reneged on its commitment to the original principle. So far as I am aware, before, during and after the general election the two parties in Government said that they wanted to make sure that local authorities and State authorities would be subject to some outside scrutiny. There is no outside scrutiny of the activities of local authorities provided for in the Bill.
The tragedy is that there is already a body in existence which has the expertise to do that; it is called An Bord Pleanála. For most ordinary people this body is the court of final appeal in planning decisions. It is the final arbiter of the shape of planning decisions in this country. It is a mechanism which is almost ideally suited to the job of keeping control, applying standards and applying some kind of sense to what local authorities do. However, this is not provided for in the Bill. It is not provided for anywhere I can see in the Government's current intentions. Nothing in the Bill will make any difference to the fact that local authorities can make very bad planning decisions. I am not criticising all local authorities indiscriminately for this. The fact of the matter is that — members of local authorities know this full well — local authorities have made some very bad planning decisions in the past. There is nothing in this Bill which will stop them from doing this in the future.
There are some very worrying exceptions in the Bill. These can be referred to in more detail on Committee Stage. The exception in section 2 (1) (a) (i) is very widely drawn. It states that the Minister may decide that the provisions in this Bill "shall not apply to any specified class or classes of developments if such development is, in the opinion of the Minister, in connection with"— what does that mean? —"or for the purposes of"— what does that mean? —"public safety or order, the administration of justice, national security or defence". That can mean an awful lot of things. I have no confidence whatsoever that future Ministers will not justify the widest possible exceptions on the basis of that provision on its own.
The final paragraph of section 2 states that the exception will apply "for so long as such regulations are in force" and that the provisions of the Principal Acts "shall not apply to the said class or classes of development". That could mean that a particular development is exempted forever from the provisions of the Bill which on reading do not amount to a thraneen.
Everything after the first line of the Bill limits the application of what has been put forward. It is a joke to have this process for State bodies to consult the local authorities. The local authority members, as the Minister should know, are tired of being consulted about things that they have no power to determine. They do not want to be consulted, what they want is control over developments in the area for which they have a responsibility. This Bill is not giving them anything of that kind and when it is passed the State authorities, with the backing of the Minister for the Environment, can continue to ride roughshod over what local authority members believe should be the shape of development in their area. There will not be a blind thing they will be able to do about it. Once they have been consulted the provisions of the Bill will have been respected and they can go and whistle after that. They can have all the ideas about the harmonious development of their area but they will not be able to do anything about it.
I was amused to hear Deputy Ellis talk about democracy in the context of this Bill which I consider to be thoroughly anti-democratic. There is no provision in it for control by a local authority but there is an even more insidious evil because the Minister will have the power to decide certain matters by regulation. An expression of the purpose of the Bill is given in section 3 which states:
The Minister may by regulations modify or adapt any provision of the Acts that is the planning and development Acts, 1963-92 for the purpose of securing or facilitating its application to development by or on behalf of a State authority
That gives the Minister carte blanche in respect of these types of developments and it is where the anti-democratic nature of the Bill resides. The Bill sets out to give the Minister powers which the High Court and the Supreme Court said he does not have at present and this section sets out to reverse what our courts have done and what the Government said it wanted to do in their so-called partnership for Government proposal. That section guts this Bill, takes all the meaning out of it and brings us back to what has been a hobbyhorse of mine for some time, the business of Government by regulation.
This Bill deals with important matters, both the exceptions and the few things that are not exceptions are important. The Bill sets out to give the Minister for the Environment powers to make regulations governing all these exceptions, consultations and so on. If one reads carefully through the local government planning and development Acts, 1963-92 one will find almost without exception, that the procedure under which the Minister makes regulations is that he promulgates the regulations, which are laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and they come into effect immediately unless they are annulled by a motion of the Oireachtas within 21 sitting days. I challenge any member of the Government to show me any case in the past ten years where any provision has been annulled under that procedure.
We now know the Government's view of that provision because my colleague, Deputy Doyle, has been trying to get the Government to give time in this House to debate a regulation being made by the Minister for the Environment to give effect to an EC regulation on access to information on the environment. That regulation can be annulled only if the Houses pass a motion annulling it within 21 sitting days and the Government will not allow Government time to discuss a motion to annul. The Government is subverting the very limited latitude that is left for this democratic institution under the provisions of that kind of regulation.
Under this Bill the Government is proposing that they should be allowed to do more of this. Every development by a State or local authority can be sanctioned by the Minister for the Environment under that provision and if the Minister does not want to this House will never have the opportunity of admitting any contrary opinion on any one of those things. For a socialist who pretended he was worried about planning law, who pledged himself to be part of an open government to come here with two jackboots on and try to ram this through the Government shows the disgusting level of apostasy——
Jackboots are the Deputy's speciality.
——that this Government has descended to.
They are the speciality on the Opposition side.
This Bill is the most anti-democratic legislation I have seen for a long time because every section in it is designed to give the Government, and the Minister, power in a way that does give this House, or any democratically elected local assembly in any local authority, the power to do anything other than what the Minister wants. The Government and the Minister are setting out to make this House, and every county council and planning authority in the country, a tame creature of the Minister for the Environment. That is not what the Labour Party campaigned for in the election but it seems it has decided it does not matter a damn what it campaigned to do because to hell with democracy and let it get the powers it wants.
I wish to draw the Deputy's attention to the time, he has overrun slightly.
I am not sure, Sir.
Acting Chairman
We have been more than generous.
Your time is up, Deputy Dukes, in more than one way.
When I heard this Bill was being brought forward I hoped we were finally going to see a measure before the House that would give our national Parliament and our planning authorities some real role in planning the physical environment that we are going to live in. However, it amounts to a naked grab for all kinds of planning power by the Minister for the Environment masquerading under the claim that this is a way of involving the local authorities. It is nothing more than a naked Fascist grab for power by a Minister for the Environment backed up by an apostate socialist who is now beginning to find out what the party is.
Deputy John Bruton is not here, he cannot hear the Deputy.
If that apostate socialist hangs around for long enough he might get a bit of reality as to where democracy is at.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Kavanagh.
Acting Chairman
Deputy, I am sorry that the last speaker has eaten in slightly into your time.
That is democracy for you.
Acting Chairman
Is the sharing arrangement agreed? Agreed.
I compliment the Minister on the speed with which he introduced the Bill. I welcome this legislation which provides for the future regulation of development by or on behalf of State authorities, taking account of the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Mullaghmore and Luggala cases.
I am concerned that this Bill does not fully address the question of the rezoning of land that has taken place. I say that based on my experience as a public representative in a constituency which regularly witnesses rezonings and proposed rezonings. Over the past months a number of attempts have been made to rezone lands which the planners in Dublin County Council recommend should not be proceeded with. Indeed, last month in a speech to the Tallaght Chamber of Commerce, the Minister said he would not be making grants available to service lands which have been the subject of ill-considered and haphazard zoning decisions.
The Minister is correct in his assertion that much of the capital's and the country's planning has been conducted in a non-co-ordinated and haphazard fashion. All too often, for whatever reason, councillors vote in favour of proposed rezonings without taking into account the need for the necessary infrastructure. All the necessary decisions concerning infrastructure, such as roads, water and sewerage, should be an integral part of the consideration of the development plan. In the nineties, Mr. Myles Wright in his long term plan for the greater Dublin area recommended, for the better development of our capital city, the development of three satellite towns. Since then the Dublin city and county planners have taken the Myles Wright plan as an integral part of the basic framework of the city and county development plan.
Is that the right thing to do?
Land use and transportation policy for the region has also been based on the same long term strategy. The Dublin Transportation Initiative — of which I am a local authority member — is moving towards its final report and it is the kind of planning exercise we should all applaud and encourage. This initiative is taking a long term strategic view and it has involved a process of comprehensive public consultation and participation. In its main recommendation the DTI interim report, published last February, called for a light rail system and public transport quality bus corridors between the centre city and the satellite towns. It stresses the importance of pursing a coherent land use policy for the greater Dublin area to support and reinforce the DTI transport strategy.
I am pleased to say that the Programme for Government includes a commitment to implement many of the interim recommendations of the DTI which includes up to four light rail lines, the introduction of ten quality bus corridors, the extension and upgrading of DART and the provision of parking facilities at public transport terminals.
At present the development plans are very much a controversial issue in the Dublin region. In December 1991, Dublin City Council — of which I am a member — adopted its second development plan. As Lord Mayor I had the honour of being at the final council meetings which adopted the development plan. This process included public displays of the plan, consideration for the public submissions in detail and the evolution of a wide cross-party consensus which culminated in the adoption of the Dublin city development plan with the support of all the major parties and groups on Dublin City Council.
At present Dublin County Council is considering its development plan. The picture that is beginning to emerge from the deliberations of Dublin County Council in relation to that council's development plan is riddled with utter confusion and a total lack of coherence. Decisions are being made almost on a daily basis to rezone large tracts of land against the advice of the county council's professional planners and engineers in relation to the cost of servicing the rezoned lands.
I welcome the statement by the Minister for the Environment on 26 May in Tallaght when he warned those members of Dublin County Council, involved in the rezonings that they could not bank on State funding to finance the implications for the taxpayer of their willy-nilly rezoning activities. I support the Minister in his stand and I hope his warnings have not fallen on deaf ears.
In my own constituency of Dublin North-East, one-third of the constituency, is within the administrative area of Dublin County Council. This includes Baldoyle and Howth where some of the worst examples of rezoning are being attempted. In March 1993 a rezoning motion was submitted to a special meeting of Dublin County Council to rezone the high amenity east mountain area of Howth for residential use. This part of the Howth peninsula was an amenity and recreation area going back to the days of Fionn Mac Cumhaill. Opposition by local environmental groups and an Taisce led to a last minute withdrawal of the motion by its movers.
In Baldoyle one of the most breathtaking rezoning motions is still before Dublin County Council as part of the review of the development plan. The existing Dublin county development plan has, as one of its principles, the preservation of green belt areas to provide a green lung between built-up areas and towns to prevent an ever expanding urban sprawl. The Baldoyle racecourse, comprising 250 acres, was designated as a green belt to provide a lung between Baldoyle and Portmarnock, to safeguard the amenity of Baldoyle estuary, as a bird sanctuary in the present development plan. A motion to rezone this green belt was submitted to a number of special meetings of Dublin County Council. Again, because of overwhelming opposition, this motion was defeated on 26 April 1993. Since then attempts have been made to raise the matter both by way of procedural wrangling and by seeking legal opinions on rulings of the Chair. A widespread view exists that the last has not been heard of the encamp proposal.
In Dublin County Council there is a practice known as "sand bagging". This device works as follows: councillors from outside the area support the rezoning and local councillors oppose it, although in the Baldoyle case it was the exception that proved the rule. Two local councillors proposed the rezoning motion in Baldoyle which was defeated.
The Minister has rightly stated that planning matters should be based around an approach which responds to the demands for systems of public information and involvement which lead to greater transparency. I commend the Minister for implementing such a system. Eventually I hope it will lead to a tightening up of the rezoning process. Section 2 provides that former Local Government Acts from 1963-92 shall not apply to a limited range of specified categories of development by or on behalf of the State. I hope the Minister will be vigilant in applying this rule.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is empowered to establish an alternative procedure of public notice and consultation for any development for which regulations are made. I welcome the provision in section 4 which obliges a local authority to prepare a report in relation to a proposed development and to submit this report to the elected members of the local authority. As a councillor I believe this provision will introduce a greater degree of democracy into the planning process. I urge the House to support this Bill as it will induce a greater measure of transparency into the planning process for State and local authority developments and I ask the House to support it.
This Bill is not about Luggala or Mullaghmore. It is not a rehashing of the arguments for or against those two interpretative centres as that has been decided, up to the planning stage, by the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court has ruled that the application of the 1963 Planning Act has to apply to the decisions made by the Office of Public Works. Therefore, the Government has accepted that both of these interpretative centres should be subjected to the planning laws. To that extent, we accept that decision. It was not a unanimous decision but in another context, in a different part of Europe, if today we get the same results we will be very happy. As on all other occasions we accept the decision of the Supreme Court and we must get on with the shambles in which the Planning Acts have been left.
The Minister has accepted demands from all sides of the House and has reacted to the position of the Planning Acts and the Government controlled areas, such as the Office of Public Works, and how they are left at present. The buildings which have been constructed since 1963, without planning permission would, except for the introduction of this Bill, have to seek planning permission in retrospect in order to be regarded as within the law of the land. I do not think any of us want to see all the schools, the Garda stations, other interpretative centres and a whole range of buildings which were the responsibility of the Office of Public Works dragged into the planning sections of our local authorities. It is just not practical. Therefore, there was an urgency to introduce this Bill to ensure that those buildings were properly brought under the law.
All of us in the House pay great tribute to the Office of Public Works. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for the work they have done over the years, for the splendid constructions for which they are responsible, not only schools, Garda barracks, Army barracks etc., but the other interpretative centres which have been built throughout the country and which provide splendid amenities.
My position about Luggala has been clear from day one. I am interested only in Luggala and I have never involved myself with the Mullaghmore controversy. The design and the position of Luggala is ideal. Anybody who has taken the trouble to visit the site or to examine the plans would agree that it was an acceptable and sympathetic proposal. We are not here to fight that battle, that will take place at local level in the planning area. The situation at local council level will make it difficult for this proposition to receive support because of the requirement, under the material contravention rule, for three-quarters support to change the development plan. Nevertheless, I hope An Bord Pleanála will examine matters without any influence from either side and will make its decision on the basis of what is put before it. The Bill is a direct result of the Supreme Court decision and the commitment in the Joint Programme for Governement that planning laws should apply to the Office of Public Works and other State and semi-State bodies not previously covered under the Planning Acts. Local authorities will be covered also under this Bill. While the section in the Bill dealing with local authorities may be weak, there will not be a transfer of managerial powers to directly elected councillors. This will involve a consultative process and we must wait to see if it will be effective. As the Minister of State said the managerial role will have to be considered if more powers are to be transferred to local councillors.
Those who argued against the interpretative centres at Mullaghmore and Luggala appear to consider it as a victory that planning laws should apply to both those centres, but I would remind them that local planning is not very democratic and fair. Local planning is an executive function and 99 per cent of cases are decided by the county manager with the advice of planning officials. Local councillors may implement section 4 of the Planning Act, which will be much more difficult to do following recent changes in Planning Acts, but this does not mean that councillors will suddenly have a greater say in the matter. The county manager and his planning officials will continue to make decisions. Those of us who are members of local authorities and attend planning committee meetings will be aware that decisions are made and members are then advised of those decisions. We may make an input into such decision-making, make special appeals for certain cases and try to convince the manager and his planners that decisions are not always even-handed, but at the end of the day it is a managerial function and not one for local councillors.
The main exception to this relates to development planning where local councillors have complete control. My colleague, Deputy Séan Kenny, spoke about the development plan which is being reconstructed in Dublin County Council at present. Development plans can be brought into effect for a term of five years and not be reconsidered for ten years. Material contraventions are introduced and changes are made, but the day-to-day control over planning lies in the hands of county managers and all local authority members are aware of that.
I would like local county councillors to have more powers but we should be honest in regard to the pressure under which they come when asked to provide refuse or incinerator facilities or travellers' halting sites. We are told that if such facilities are placed in a certain area the land and property surrounding it will be devalued. We should be fair and state that under the present system the manager has a say in those matters. If we want more powers given to local councillors we must demand that local councils are elected for a shorter term, say, four years. We should consider having by-elections to local councils. If councillors are given more responsibility and the public elect them they will see that electing urban councillors for periods of ten years without change and county councillors for periods of seven years is undemocratic. If we want democracy we should have it at local level and I hope the Minister of State who is examining that matter will consider those facts. If we want more power we must be responsible to those who elect us and if we are responsible to them we must be elected at regular intervals and such elections should not be altered because of European or general elections.
Ba mhaith liom ar dtús a rá go bhfuil mé ag roinnt mo chuid ama leis an Teachta Nealon.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is exactly two weeks since the former Green Party TD for Dublin South, Mr. Roger Garland, and I attended a press conference in Buswell's Hotel following the historic Supreme Court decision which requires the Office of Public Works and other State bodies to seek planning permission before carrying out developments such as the interpretive centres at Mullaghmore and Luggala, not forgeting those in the Boyne Valley and in Dunquin, County Kerry. At that press conference on behalf of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, and the public at large, I thanked Mr. Roger Garland for all his work in helping to bring about this change for the Office of Public Works and the Minister. On that day I looked forward to the introduction of legislation to validate in law the court's decision to force the Government and its agencies to be accountable to the same planning criteria and procedures as govern the private and commercial sectors at present. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for equality in the area of planning as this Bill bestows on the Minister enormous powers to regulate the law. I hope the Minister considers the power he has given to himself in this Bill as an unacceptable starting point and that he will accept serious judicious amendments to ensure that the spirit of the Supreme Court decision is implemented in law. Pragmatically speaking, I can see the whip being used to make the majority in Government support this Bill.
Effectively, the court primarily took on board the widespread concern over Mullaghmore and Luggala and section 5 (2) (a) of the Bill permits the Minister to ignore this decision and allow the two centres to be completed with no further comment. Section 5 states:
Permission under Part IV of the Principal Act shall not be required for—
(a) any development commenced by or on behalf of a State authority during a period of one year beginning on the commencement of this section, or ...
What is the Government playing at? All its printed words are a veritable charade if it exempts Mullaghmore, Luggala and the Boyne sites from the normal planning procedures with which ordinary citizens must comply. Any other points made here today, while uncertainty hangs over the controversial centres and festers, are little more than a deckchair on the Titanic, as it were, unless the Minister can ensure that the spirit of the court decision on 26 May is fully adhered to.
And the letter.
Apart from specific developments being undertaken by the Office of Public Works, some general aspects of the Bill and related comments by other Members need to be referred to. Like Deputy Gilmore, I am sad that the Office of Public Works is the focus of such discontent among the public because of the careless omissions and inequalities in our planning laws to date, particularly as they apply to State sponsored developments. The Office of Public Works has a very good reputation in canal restoration, maintaining historic buildings, protecting certain areas of importance for wildlife and educating the public in aspects of our common heritage through various media.
The real problem, which this Bill worsens rather than solves, is that the Minister is allowed to be the judge and jury in the context of certain planning laws for State bodies. The Minister can, where he considers it necessary, arrange for the preparation of an environmental impact statement and he may make it available for inspection on purchase by members of the public. Such powers in the hands of one person are excessive to the point of being autocratic. There should be a statutory body to oversee such far-reaching decisions. For instance, in the context of section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, the Dáil has a role in reviewing the status quo on a regular basis. Without an informed and democratically accountable process to oversee planning decisions the court battles will be repeated again and again. Ordinary people exercising their right to challenge autocracy will become poorer as the legal profession thrives on legal fees earned resolving disputes caused by anti-democratic laws.
This Government pays lip service to the principle of subsidiarity, but this is an opportunity to open up the planning process and allow every citizen to have a say in protecting and developing our resources in a sensitive, ecological way. I suggest one simple amendment to facilitate this democratisation process. I refer to section 2 (2) (c) which provides that a notice of the making of an order be published in a newspaper circulating in the area of the development concerned. I ask the Minister to follow the example of the Office of Public Works when it places an advertisement. We have seen some of these magnificent advertisements which do not rely solely on words, it uses pictures to tell us what it is doing at Newgrange and Cashel. It is not just any newspaper in the area in which it chooses to advertise, certain newspapers in Cork city are national newspapers but they are not widely read, and application notices or advertisements are placed in them.
A Deputy
They are widely read.
Certain newspapers are not, and the circulation figures bear that out. Advertisements should be placed in the newspapers with the highest circulation, that could be easily written into the law so that we do not fall between two stools. The notices the Offices of Public Works places are not just in the most popular paper but are often graphically and tastefully displayed on a prominent hoarding on the site of the development. If the Minister would care to cycle out by the North Strand after a long day here he will see a clear example of the work of the Office of Public Works at a bridge over the Royal Canal where a very beautiful sign tells anyone within 100 yards of the canal that work is ongoing. These are the signs we need before developments begin to encourage consultation and to avoid wasting the time of the courts. Agus ó thaobh na fógraí a bheith as Gaeilge, ábhar díospóireachta go minic sa chás seo mar a tharlaíonn sé, bheadh léaráidí ag déanamh cur síos ar an tionscnamh an-chabhrach dos na daoine atá gan Ghaeilge más mian leis an Office of Public Works an fógra a chur isteach trí Ghaeilge.
Some parts of the Bill are beyond redemption. We are all, effectively, wasting our time here because under section 3 the Minister may modify or adapt any provision of the Bill for the purpose of securing or facilitating its application to development by or on behalf of a State authority. This Bill is not just about reducing the Minister's powers. It is and should be about giving people a decisive say in the development of their own area and, indeed, their own country.
It is not just the State which has thwarted the people's wishes as with Mullaghmore and Luggala, a few infamous developers have cost many people sleepless nights, expensive legal fees and loss of amenities. I spoke about this problem during last week's debate on the Protection of Occupiers of Land Bill and it is also relevant in the context of this Bill. The disappearance of rights of way is a very controversial issue in my area of Dublin north, specifically in Portmarnock. Infringement of rights of way is also an issue in Kinsale, Mayo and elsewhere. Will the Minister again look at the issue of protecting these rights of way? The Bill should protect communities from the affluent developers and their greed.
The Bill, unfortunately, still copper-fastens a double standard in our planning law. One example relates to Dublin north as well as to County Kerry. Farranfore airport applied for planning permission for a runway. Permission was granted with very strict conditions relating to noise insulation and the effect on the local area. On the other hand Aer Rianta, a much bigger body, can hide behind immunity from State planning laws and build a runway but it has yet to deal with the effects on its local area. The people in St. Margaret's will tell the Minister how their lives have been disrupted. I hope this matter will be dealt with as it is more urgent than others which have received attention.
The double standard still exists where an ordinary person is told that his development is not appropriate to zoning while on the other hand those with money, power and influence can use them to appeal against a decision that goes against them when they want to build golf clubs — which do not need planning permission — extinguish rights of way or build large scale residential areas of a speculative nature. These people can offer sports clubs, football pitches, club houses and other facilities. They can offer to build roads for the local community and the council, which is often strapped for cash. The people themselves can turn on their own community and regard these offers as a good deal which should be accepted. Unfortunately, if it is not accepted, as in the case of Baldoyle, there are threats of legal action because these people also have money to go to any court in the land and take a case if the decision is not to their thinking. We must live with the results.
The development plan in Swords, County Dublin has brought that area to the attention of the public. Regarding the decision in relation to Brackenstown Road, people on one end of the road have requested a bus service but the other end of the road is too narrow to take a bus. People are almost faced with a riot on the streets. People on one end of the street do not want the bus service while those on the other do. This conflict goes back to the planning omissions which allow rezoning to take place in a piecemeal fashion. Another example of bad planning is the housing scheme built near a sewage treatment plant in Swords. It has cost the council a large amount to treat the resultant odour in the area. I agree with Deputy Killeen's remark that it would have been easier if planning permission had been compulsory for Mullaghmore initially. If this Bill provides exemptions in this regard, all the interested parties will be back in the High Court or the Supreme Court and I am sure nobody wants that to happen.
I thank Deputy Sargent for sharing his time. Already our spokesperson, Deputy Doyle, has outlined clearly and cogently her general principles in relation to this Bill. However. I wish to refer to a problem in my constituency and one which is relevant to the Bill before us. The ESB is now seeking planning permission to erect a 220 KV transmission line from Flagfort near Carrick-on-Shannon to Drumsallagh near Bundoran. It proposes erecting a double circuit transmission line carried by pylons for 70 miles. Those pylons range in height from 110 feet to 170 feet. There is no building or trees in the north west the height of those pylons which are proposed to be erected over a 70 mile distance through some of our most beautiful scenic territory. Often when people object they exaggerate the position, but there is no exaggeration in this case. Those pylons will cause massive scenic pollution in this area. The Minister of State comes from that territory originally and he is aware that it is beautiful countryside, perhaps unsung. It does not get the same hype as Killarney, but it is a beautiful area. However, those pylons will cause massive scenic pollution. The area will be ruined; it will be raped by those pylons.
The planning permission should be refused.
It is important that the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment should talk to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to ensure that this proposed planning permission will not go through. I can do my share by raising the matter here but I ask the Minister of State to do his share. I am sure he will do this and that is why I raise this issue so confidently now. We have been told that those pylons may be a health risk. I will not go into that as I am not an authority on that matter and I will not put the case for something which I cannot cogently argue and back up with facts and figures. Those pylons will cause damage to farmland. Anyone who travels through Barnesmore Gap in County Donegal can see the damage caused by pylons in that area. There must be an alternative to the pylons. It is necessary to provide power but there should be a moratorium on erecting those pylons until all areas are investigated. Perhaps there could be a link up with the inter-connector from Northern Ireland. I appeal to the Minister of State and the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to meet representatives from the ESB to consider this matter. In recent times the ESB has been sensitive to such issues. It had aberrations in its earlier days, but under the management of Dr. Moriarty and others it has been sensitive to such issues. I am sure the ESB will reconsider its proposal. The Minister can make a difference in relation to this matter and he could do good work for the part of the country from which he comes.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Brian Fitzgerald.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am pleased to welcome this Bill. It is necessary legislation in that it effectively addresses the issues raised by the Mullaghmore controversy and the broader issues of transparency and consultation. Before addressing the Bill I will turn my attention to the recent controversies regarding interpretative centres.
I can well understand the passions unleashed in recent debates on this issue. The Irish landscape is one of the most remarkable and beautiful on the face of the earth. No one wants to see it despoiled. It is an integral part of our natural heritage, a precious legacy for future generations. No one has a monopoly on caring for this landscape. I care deeply for this landscape and I also believe in the value of interpretative centres. These two areas are not mutually incompatible, but from recent speeches and addresses one would imagine they were. To say that this is otherwise is a crude caricature of this debate.
In this regard I have been dismayed by the posturings of some of those who have opposed interpretative centres and who have portrayed themselves as the only true defenders of the Irish landscape. I find this smug piety most offensive. It seems that those individuals have a particular view of Ireland; it is an Ireland they wish to see preserved in amber for their own pleasure, irrespective of the feelings and concerns of the people who inhabit the landscape concerned.
It seems the group that was most ignored in the recent controversy was the ordinary people who live in the localities concerned. Those are the people who have a deep and ingrained knowledge of the landscape they inhabit. They do not need to be preached to about the world they inhabit; they know it very well. It is they who have to make a living in an often economically deprived community, with high levels of unemployment and emigration.
These local people must have been bemused by the sight of flying squadrons of self-appointed environmental guardians descending on their localities. I wonder did these local people feel honoured to have such wisdom among them, preaching to them about the landscape they inhabit, telling them of its value and beauty — things that as natives they supposedly could not possibly know? There is something deeply paternalistic and patronising in the attitude of some of those self-appointed guardians. It presupposes ignorance on the part of the areas' inhabitants. It smacks of old time landlordism. Those people have lived in those areas for generations. They know and respect the landscape they inhabit, and it is deeply insulting to them to suggest otherwise. The people of those communities will continue to live in those areas long after the self-appointed guardians have returned to the leather armchairs of their urban dwellings.
Local community groups wish to foster growth in their areas. Indeed, the growth of community-based initiatives has been a most positive trend in recent years. One way to foster such growth is through a respectful relationship with the landscape. One way to achieve this is through the construction and development of interpretative centres. I know of course that this will come as heresay to the tender ears of the self-appointed guardians. Like all dogmatists they have no time for anyone who does not subscribe to their particular creed; the importance of jobs and enterprise does not enter into their fossilised view of Ireland. They would rather see a landscape inhabited by rocks and stones, beautiful but empty, than by families and communities, with no pesky natives to get in the way of their aesthetic enjoyment when they pop down for a visit.
It also appears to me that there is an irony at the heart of the argument of the self-appointed guardians. They oppose interpretative centres yet insist on imposing their particular interpretation of the landscape on the people who live there.
In recent times the Office of Public Works has come in for much criticism. I know from experience that much of this criticism was unjustified, ill-informed and, I am sad to say, perhaps deliberately so. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous contribution which the Office of Public Works has made to Irish life since it was founded over 160 years ago. There is not a parish that has not benefited from the works of the Office of Public Works.
It is important to bear in mind the breadth of the work carried out by the Office of Public Works in the areas of public sector accommodation, arterial drainage, development of inland waterways, conservation of national monuments and historic properties, management of national parks, the protection of flora and fauna and the operation of the Government Supplies Agency. It is important to be aware of this context and temper our comments accordingly. To listen to some of the comments regarding the Office of Public Works in recent times one would envisage it as some sort of ruthless bogeyman trampling around the country despoiling the countryside at will. This gives a completely erroneous impression and those who were trying to create that impression were aware of it.
As far as I am concerned the Office of Public Works was green long before environmental issues were placed on the political agenda. I know from personal experience that it pursued an enlightened and imaginative approach to the protection of our environment, built and natural. The Office of Public Works has always been conscious that conservation of the resource is the primary objective. However, this must be carefully balanced with the need to provide some access to the monument or landscape through the provision of appropriate infrastructure which may entail an interpretative centre.
I believe in public access to our landscape. As a matter of course this must be carefully managed. I do not accept the view that the landscape must be somehow sealed off from ordinary people. Landscape does not exist in a vacuum, it is not a museum piece. People are part of an interactive landscape. The work of the Office of Public Works reflects the fact that heritage belongs to the people. It is not the preserve of elitists. The public should be informed and educated as to the importance of conservation. Interpretative centres are a key element of this strategy to inform and educate the public. Contrary to what has been said, interpretative centres can be used as an effective tool for conservation and education. In such centres the public can be given an experience of elements of our natural or cultural heritage, conveying the importance of this heritage and, most importantly, communicating what conditions are necessary so that this heritage will survive for other generations to see and experience. The Office of Public Works has done an admirable job in preserving our national heritage and long may its work continue.
I would also like to use this opportunity to highlight another aspect of the valuable work of the Office of Public Works, namely, decentralisation. Over the years, many provincial regions suffered considerably from the effects of emigration of its people, particularly the younger generation, to Dublin to work in the public sector. The Office of Public Works' role in the decentralisation process has helped to reduce regional imbalances and the pressures on the Dublin region. As a rural Deputy I cannot over emphasise the importance of this process.
In essence the men and women of the Office of Public Works are public servants in the truest sense of the phrase. I wish some other Members of this House could have been less begrudging in their praise of these men and women.
Consultation is an important part of the democratic process. In particular, this applies to local communities. In the case of recent controversies this would have clearly indicated the support of local people for the projects concerned and put the objections of elitist groups in their correct perspective. Therefore, I welcome the provisions in the new Bill which allow for procedure of public notice and consultation for local authority development. I have no doubt that this will lead to greater openness and transparency in relation to development in a local authority's own area which is not already subject to public consultation through environmental impact assessment requirements.
As a result of this Bill we will in future be spared much of the bitterness that has characterised environmental debates. The new provisions will allow for both sides of the argument to be clearly outlined and for the pros and cons to be scrutinised in detail. This is a healthier proposal than that which exists at present. It could be something of a learning process for the different sides of the argument sensitising them to the views of others. In particular, it might lead some of the more elitist opponents of interpretative centres to a greater awareness of the problems and concerns of ordinary local people, concerns with which I doubt they are faced with often in their daily lives.
I also welcome the Bill's provisions to allow for greater transparency in the whole planning process. I believe in transparency as a basic democratic principle that should be extended to other areas of Irish life which are often obscured by bureaucracy. Part and parcel of this process is making development by State authorities subject to the planning Acts. I have no problem with this — it is a logical extension of the principle of transparency and openness and I welcome it.
We should always be examining new ways to preserve our heritage and to communicate and share its richness. In time this will lead to a more open, mature and, above all, tolerant debate. The Bill marks a turning point in that it allows this debate to take place in a more open and accessible forum. My final wish is that the concerns of the local people who inhabit the areas involved are placed at the centre of the debate and that these concerns and aspirations are not brushed aside by individuals who obviously believe themselves to be their betters.
I am happy to commend this Bill to the House.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is welcome legislation and I hope it will take the planning process out of the courts and back into the hands of the planning authorities. Judges and lawyers are employed to carry out judicial tasks, they are not employed to make planning decisions.
The recent changes in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992, were a major improvement and are welcome, particularly in relation to section 4 and its clarification of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955. The reforms give the public more information about planning decisions. Local authorities must make available reports and documentation on all planning applications for public scrutiny prior to making a decision.
Unfortunately, this does not apply to An Bord Pleanála. It is not required to comply with the same conditions applying to a planning or local authority. This was never more evident than in the Radio Tara case with which the Minister is well acquainted. Radio Tara was a subsidiary of RTE and went through the full rigours of the planning process, from a section 4 at county council level to the overturning of the decision of the councillors by the county manager to an oral hearing by An Bord Pleanála over a four day period. An inspector was appointed by the board to hear the evidence and an expert from Eolas was employed to advise on the technical information. After that period it made a recommendation to the board which decided to grant permission and to uphold the county council's decision. Unfortunately for it, the residents in the area appealed the decision to the High Court having sought a judicial review. On the discovery of documents it was found that the 126 page report issued by the inspector came out strongly against the decision. The board in its wisdom granted permission and when the case was appealed to the High Court the decision of An Bord Pleanála was quashed. However, the Supreme Court overturned that decision and judged there was no obligation on the board to reveal the documentation or material it took into consideration in making its decision.
To make matters worse, when the decision was made the same inspector who recommended refusal was advised to set down whatever conditions he felt necessary to allow the decision to go ahead. If we are to have any confidence in the planning process An Bord Pleanála must be completely overhauled. It should be required to comply with similar conditions to those with which the planning authority has to comply. Why should an area engineer or a planning officer have to write a report which may be in conflict with that of the county engineer and make it available to the public when the members of An Bord Pleanála do not have to do so? Reports may be obtained only on the production of domements, for which one must go to the High Court. In this case all documentation was not made available and there was no shred of evidence or minute to suggest that the report was considered by the board in making their decision. That is there for all to see.
If this legislation had been in place a few years ago the difficulties we are now facing would not exist, particularly that of the interpretative centre in the Boyne Valley. Seven years of consultation have taken place in relation to that project, during which time the Office of Public Works co-operated with the planning authority, members of the county council and experts. Unfortunately, at the end of the day ten people, on the coat tails of others, were able to take the case to court to have the project stopped. As a result 70 people are without work. We should never allow such circumstances to develop again.
I would like to refer to a matter in relation to An Bord Pleanála which affects local authorities. If a local authority refuses planning permission for a house in a rural area and on appeal An Bord Pleanála upholds the decision of the local authority, stating the reason that it would be a traffic hazard, it appears as a result of a High Court decision that under section 4 of the 1955 Act the planning authority or local representatives cannot overturn that decision. It is time that aspect was considered.
In a recent case planning permission was refused to a person living in a mobile home and farming 30 acres of land, even though a unanimous decision was made by the local authority members that permission should be granted. On legal advice the manager was not allowed to grant permission, because of the decision of the High Court in relation to a case in Galway. It was not the intention under the 1963 Planning Act that all cases would be decided in the courts. The 1992 Act clarified a number of aspects in the 1955 Act, but it is unacceptable that cases continue to come to light such as that I have mentioned. I and my colleagues in the local authority advise applicants not to appeal to An Bord Pleanála lest the decision of the planning authority is upheld on the basis that to grant permission would create a traffic hazard. I appreciate that that reason is given because it would exempt the authority from claims for compensation. However, it is unacceptable that local authority members have not the right, if they see fit, to change the decision at a later stage.
I welcome the changes proposed in this legislation but I ask the Minister to consider very closely the whole Planning Act, particularly the appeals section, as it relates to An Bord Pleanála. I do not want to see similar circumstances as those which arose in a rural community, of which the Minister is well aware against which the inspector and the Eolas expert warned. It is unacceptable that people sitting around a table could overturn the recommendation of experts without any evidence to suggest that they took into consideration the report before them.
I would like first to extend my thanks to all Deputies who have taken part in today's proceedings. We have had a detailed consideration of the Bill and I hope, in so far as time permits, to respond to the various points made and issues raised by Deputies. It would be useful, however, before going on to deal with particular matters to restate briefly the purpose of the Bill and the effects it will have.
As regards state development, the Bill will bring about a situation in which most development by or for State authorities will need planning permission in the same way as development generally. The only qualifications on the general application of normal planning controls will be those set out in section 2 of the Bill and the one year transitional period provided for in section 5. It will be seen that the exclusionary power under subsection (1) of section 2 can be exercised only in limited and clearly-defined circumstances. It is clear also that the power in subsection (2) of that section is of a reserve nature and would be used only in wholly exceptional circumstances. The one year transitional period is vital to ensure a smooth start-up for the new regulatory process if we are to avoid disruption to projects now ready to proceed or currently at an advanced stage of planning. We are moving, therefore, from a position in which State authorities have engaged in a closed process of consultation with planning authorities about certain development to a new era in which State authority development will generally go through development control procedures under the Planning Acts in the same way as any other development. This will, of course, bring about significantly greater openness and transparency in relation to the State's development proposals and will allow extensive opportunities for public involvement.
I wish to comment on Deputy Dukes' contribution. I am not sure if the Deputy was sitting in the sun during the lunch-break or if he had a special lunch, but the extraordinary language he used in the House contrasts greatly with the reasoned debate that took place. He described my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, and myself as fascists and used words such as "jackboots". The Deputy asserted that the Bill is anti-democratic because it allegedly allows the Minister to provide by regulation that any development by the State will not be subject to planning controls. This is based on a total misconstruction of the purpose, intent and effect of the Bill under which most development by the State will require planning permission. His colleague, Deputy Doyle, taking a much more reasonable and realistic approach, accepted this morning that certain exceptions are needed to cater for accidents, emergencies and developments regarding security, the only type of development which will be covered by the clause of the Bill under which there will be certain exceptions to the full permission requirements.
As for local authority development, the new regulatory power which section 4 gives the Minister for the Environment will be used to create requirements of public notice and involvement for development not subject to any requirements of that nature at present. This will lead to greater public awareness of local authority development proposals and will give people a say on matters which may affect or concern them. The new process of public notice and consultation for local authority development will culminate in the submission of a report to the elected members of the local authority. This report will give details of the proposed development and set out the views expressed in the public consultation process. It will therefore facilitate the councillors in arriving at a view on whether a development should go ahead and or whether to use their powers under the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955 to direct that work not proceed.
I disagree with the assertions by some Deputies that the Bill is a reactive or piecemeal measure. It was not put together hastily in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling. It was clearly explained that the Government had decided upon the framework for the future regulation of State authority development as long ago as last March well in advance of the Supreme Court ruling. It is clear from what has been said today that the Bill will establish a rational and effective regime in which there will be greater openness and extended public involvement.
I am particularly disappointed by Deputy Gilmore's decision to oppose the Bill's Second Reading. This stance is not justified by the Bill's objective merits or by his comments on it. There was a certain degree of common ground in the comments and queries of Deputies and the best way to address them is to look at the sections of the Bill in sequence.
In the case of section 1, Deputy Doyle commented on the absence of any definition of the term "Minister".
"The Minister" specifically.
This Bill when enacted will be construed together with the existing planning Acts. The term "Minister" is already defined there and, consequently, there is no need to repeat the definition here.
A number of separate issues were raised about section 2 (1) (a). The first of these is what is meant by the term "security". As was explained earlier, the type of development which this embraces is Garda stations, courthouses, prisons and military installations. There is nothing more wide-ranging than this involved.
Deputies Doyle, McGrath and others said that they detected certain sinister overtones in subparagraph (ii) of subsection (1) (a). However, I want to give the House a categoric assurance that there is nothing sinister involved. All that it will permit the Minister for the Environment to do is to remove a particular form of development from planning control if there is already in place a statutory procedure through which that development must be authorised. It is not an automatic exception, and the power under this provision to take particular State development outside planning control will not be used unless we are entirely saisfied that the existing authorisation procedure has adequate provision for public notice and involvement. I am astonished by Deputy Gilmore's claim that this provision could give rise to a new immunity from planning control for private development. It is self-evident that section 2 as a whole is concerned only and exclusively with development by or for State authorities.
Deputy Doyle and others suggested the possibility of keeping State development which will not be subject to normal planning controls within the planning process, on the basis that it would be subject to outline planning permission requirements.
On a point of order, is there a copy of the Minister's speech available?
I inquired about that. There does not appear to be one and one is not usually supplied in the case of a reply to a debate.
The Minister is going into an amount of detail in responding to us. Will we have an opportunity of putting a question to the Minister at the conclusion of his contribution?
There is no provision for that on Second Stage.
Perhaps this evening's statement could be circulated so that we can have an opportunity to study it before Committee Stage tomorrow?
I have no objection to the statement being circulated as widely as possible, along with any other comments I make. I will circulate it to Members immediately if that can be arranged.
I should explain, however, that outline planning permission as currently provided for in the planning code is just that. It simply involves the planning authority giving its agreement in principle to a particular type of development at a particular site. Outline permission does not, of itself, authorise the carrying out of any development. A person who obtains outline planning permission for development must afterwards submit detailed plans and particulars and obtain full planning approval before any works may be carried out.
If a State authority was to obtain outline permission in its present form for development which, for example, raises security considerations, it would still be necessary for the authority to submit full plans and particulars for the approval of the planning authority or An Bord Pleanála in the event of an appeal.
We are suggesting that the Minister exempt them from the full planning permission and insist on outline planning permission where there are security or justice considerations. We do not want them to be totally exempt from the planning process.
Outline planning permission would give rise to the same problems of disclosure of sensitive and confidential details. I take the point the Deputy made earlier, that outline planning permission should be sufficient.
It would be acceptable because of the sensitive nature of the project.
There is no provision for interruptions.
That would be an entirely new concept, to simply allow a development on the basis of outline planning permission where the skimpiest of details are all that are required.
The Minister is exempting them completely.
We are exempting them from another process in which there is all sorts of democratic involvement despite the opinion of the Deputy's colleague in the matter.
Not in terms of jails and so on.
It is for this reason that it is essential to have a mechanism which allows development which raises security issues to be taken outside the scope of planning controls. I hope that it has been made clear, however, that use will be made of the regulatory power under section 2 (1) (b) to ensure that there is as much public information and consultation as possible, consistent with bona fide confidentiality requirements for development of this kind.
Deputy McGrath mentioned that public notice regulations under section 2 (1) (b) will not be compulsory for all development taken outside planning controls by regulations under section 2 (1) (a).
Strictly speaking, this is true. It has been made very clear, however, that it is intended to have the greatest degree of public information and involvement, consistent with security needs, for any development which is removed from the ambit of the planning Acts. Regulations under section 2 (1) (b) will, therefore, be made for any development brought outside the planning process, unless we are satisfied that there are very compelling reasons as to why complete confidentiality is needed.
Looking briefly at section 2 (2), I wish to comment only that it has been made clear that this power is of a reserve character. It is to be used only in very exceptional circumstances and will not constitute a means whereby a significant element of State development can be brought outside of planning controls.
There was a good deal of comment on section 3 and the power it gives the Minister to modify the planning Acts by way of regulations. We are advised, however, that a power such as that proposed in the section is legally permissible. The Oireachtas will, in the other provisions of the Bill, have laid down the general policy as regards the application of planning law to State development. This is that such development will be subject to normal planning controls, save to the extent that the Bill provides otherwise. The power under section 3 will not permit the policy established by the Oireachtas to be altered or modified.
What about the legislation?
On the contrary, it is intended merely to facilitate the implementation of that policy ensuring that any technical snags which may arise with the application of normal planning controls to State developments can be ironed out.
Will it allow the Minister to change the legislation? Is he avoiding that?
I am being orderly.
Please, Deputy, do not interrupt the Minister. There is no provision for so interrupting the Minister.
The aspects of the provisions of section 4 which seemed to concern Members most was the absence of a right of appeal against a local authority decision as to whether a development should go ahead. A similar concern was expressed in relation to the process of public notice and consultation which the provisions of section 2 (1) (b) would empower the Minister to initiate. Taking local authority development first, I have indicated that the new procedure of public notice and involvement of the public to be established by regulation under section 4 will culminate in the submission of a report or any proposed development to the elected members of the local authority. The final decision will rest with the elected councillors, who are already empowered by the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, to give a direction to managers that works are not to proceed. I consider that that process will contain sufficient internal checks and balances and will be democratic in nature so that it will not be necessary or appropriate to have an external appeals mechanism.
Turning to development on the part of State authorities, the first point I want to make is that in future most such developments will be subject to normal planning controls. This means that any person will be entitled to make a submission to the relevant planning authority and appeal against that planning authority's decision to An Bord Pleanála.
When the transitional arrangements provided for in section 5 are terminated, the only development on the part of State authorities which will remain outside normal planning controls will be categories to which regulations under section 2 (1) (a) apply or particular projects for which an order is made under section 2 (2). However, I want to reiterate that we are talking here about a relatively small portion of the overall programme of State authority development. Orders under section 2 (2) will be made in exceptional circumstances only. Regulations made under section 2 (1) (a) may bring development outside the ambit of the planning Acts only where security considerations arise or whenever there is already a statutory authorisation process.
As has been stated, provision will be made also, through regulations under section 2 (1) (b) of the Bill, for public notice of and involvement with development taken outside the scope of the planning control. These regulations will not provide for appeals because it would not be possible to reconcile an appellate process with the confidentiality requirements which exist in relation to developments with a security dimension. However, the intention is that there will be an opportunity for the public to make submissions in relation to a proposed development as well as an express legal duty for the State authority concerned to take account of such submissions when deciding whether a development should go ahead.
Moving on to section 5, first I want to make the general point that the provisions of this section take the necessary step of rectifying the position of developments which State authorities, acting in good faith, carried out without planning permission over the years. The section also establishes what I consider to be the minimum necessary transitional period for bringing about the orderly and effective application of normal planning controls to the bulk of State development.
I must correct Deputy Gilmore's evident misconception as to the possible effect of the operation of the provisions of that section in relation to the developments at Mullaghmore and Luggala. It is quite clear that the proviso in section 5 (1) excludes these developments from the retrospective validation conferred by that subsection. It is also evident that these developments cannot benefit from the transitional period which section 5 (2) will establish since that subsection states quite clearly that permission will not be required where development is commenced during a period of one year beginning with the coming into operation of the section.
Deputy Doyle and others sought clarification as to what is meant by the commencement of development. Quite simply, it means the physical start-up of a project on site and nothing before that.
More generally a number of Deputies suggested that it would be desirable to have included in the Bill an express provision applying normal planning controls to State development. However, we are advised that a provision of this nature is not necessary, given the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the provisions of the Planning Acts apply already to State development.
A number of Deputies referred to the need to simplify and codify planning law generally. I sympathise with those views and will examine various ways of introducing improvements in this area.
Given that I have more time than expected, there are a number of points raised by Members to which I might refer. For example, a number of Members referred specifically to the quite disastrous — and I agree with them — housing developments built by local authorities, particularly in larger urban areas. I might point out to the House that, outside of the planning process, policy decisions have already been taken in my Department that these types of developments, built mainly in Dublin and other larger cities, will not be allowed in future, that we simply will not authorise funds from our Department to local authorities who insist on that type of development. Rather we shall be encouraging local authorities to develop infill spaces in cities, thereby bringing people back into living in cities, filling the vacuums created when people were moved out of cities, leading to the anti-social elements now filling such vacuums——
I take it the Minister of State disapproves of the new town centre concept?
Not necessarily, dependent on where a town centre may be located. I would not take blanket exception to all such proposals.
Another point raised at some length by two Members was that concerning an ESB proposal, or application for planning permission, for the erection of power lines and/or pylons. I should point out that in the first instance that it is a matter for the relevant local authority who must take a decision on such planning application and who can, if it wishes, refuse such application. The next step in the planning procedure is to An Bord Pleanála. As I understand it, I am excluded by law from intervening in any way on the side of either an applicant or anybody objecting to an application. I contend that is as it should be. Therefore, I would have to say to Deputy Nealon that I cannot intervene in the actual planning process to which he referred at some length.
A number of Members referred to the County Dublin Development Plan and rezoning there. In this respect I might reiterate what the Minister himself has said on a number of occasions, which is that it is not acceptable that large tracts of land should be rezoned, willy nilly, simply to enhance the welfare of substantial landowners, without reference to the need for such rezoning or the cost to the public of servicing such sites when rezoned. I strongly support what the Minister has said: that the Department of the Environment, in funding such services in future, will look with a very jaundiced eye at that type of zoning when they apply for servicing, preference being given to areas that are properly zoned. I would hope that councillors and elected members involved from all sides will take out the message loudly and clearly that they simply cannot any longer expect the public to pick up the tab for irresponsible rezoning of lands wherever there is more than adequate land already rezoned. That message must be got across.
I take the point made by Deputy Barrett and see its validity. I have not yet examined it further, so I shall not make any specific comment. But I do see validity in allowing the three new Dublin Councils to actually deal with there own county development plan rather than have one greater one now rushed through in Dublin and imposed on them by the greater council. There is merit in that. It is something I will certainly examine.
The Bill with which we are dealing here was not introduced simply as a result of the Supreme Court decision. There was a commitment in the Programme for Government to introduce legislation of the nature of that with which we are dealing today. In fact the Bill before us today goes beyond the point of commitment in the Programme for Government and meets the full case made arising from the Supreme Court judgment. I am satisfied that the Bill before us has received a general fairly positive welcome from the far side of the House with the exception of Deputy Dukes, who, as I said earlier, sat out in the sun at lunchtime, and went overboard in his comments.
Certainly, the Bill before us meets the Supreme Court decision and goes beyond the commitment given in the Programme for Government. There is provision for exclusions in a limited number of cases. It has been recognised widely that these will be required in the planning process in a limited number of cases. We will have a new system at local authority level under which local authority members will be more involved and the public kept informed. There will be transparency. This is a positive step with which I am happy to be associated.
In regard to major developments by the State outside the security area, full planning permission will be required. This is the way it should be.
Subject to appeal.
For the overwhelming majority of developments it would be subject to appeal to the Planning Appeals Board in the normal way. Before this Bill was presented to the House the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Harney, spoke to me when she strongly advocated this measure. I assume, therefore, that the Deputy will support the Bill.
It would be dangerous to assume that.
We are in a new era as far as the planning process is concerned having regard to the fact that the public will be more involved. While the Bill may have its shortcomings and difficulties may be encountered in the future the matter can be reviewed. A number of my colleagues and speakers on the Opposition benches made the point that there is a need to review the existing planning legislation in its entirety to see if it could be made easier to understand. That proposal is worth considering.
Will the interpretative centre at Mullaghmore be built?
Will they build more houses?
On this occasion I would like to commend to Members——
The Minister is replying and Members should allow him to proceed uninterrupted.
——this excellent legislation and ask for their support.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 48.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- De Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cox, Pat.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fox, Johnny.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Owen, Nora
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris; Níl, Deputies Rabbitte and Boylan.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I declare the Bill to be read a Second Time in accordance with Standing Order 93.2. When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 10 June 1993.