Caithfidh mé mo chaípín a athrú ag an bpointe seo ón Roinn Ealaíon, Cultúir agus Gaeltachta go dtí an Roinn Comhshaoil.
Before the break I was speaking about the change in regulations that put the onus on those proposing golf courses to apply for planning permission. That regulation is welcome and long overdue. Burial grounds, also covered in the regulations, seriously impact on the local environment. I am aware of two areas where, because of the unsuitable ground chosen, the remains surfaced in another person's property. When it comes to applying for planning permission I hope that lesson will have been learned. Also, ground water pollution has been caused due to burial grounds being inappropriately located. It is very distressing for all concerned when such problems arise. We are beginning to realise that even through certain things are underground it does not mean they are no longer significant.
I wish to refer in detail to the retention of planning permission which has almost become standard practice. In this regard buildings are erected and developments carried out without any concern or urgency and an application made for retention. The local authority is then faced with a decision to either cause enormous disruption and be accused of putting people out of work if they refuse permission or, alternatively, to bite the bullet and grant permission. I hope this practice is on the way out. Unfortunately I have had experience of this attitude on a number of occasions. Some developers are profiting sufficiently from the tactic of not applying for planning permission to make it worth while to pay the fee in the hope that retention will be granted. This is a question of example as well as of regulation. The State has been appalling in this regard with its proposals for Mullaghmore, Luggala and the Boyne Valley centre by not seeking planning permission or even checking as to whether planning permission should be applied for or engaging in a consultative process, which is less rigorous. These are inexcusable breaches of public faith and of regulations.
I urge the State to get its house in order so that it can credibly make other people apply for planning permission. In this regard, Mullaghmore is costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds in ongoing legal fees, to retain people on contracts and other costs associated with keeping the project in abeyance. This is nothing short of a scandal. The Government which continues to backpedal should take stock and realise that the vast majority of people throughout the country, whatever about in the locality, favour a change of location. The court took this into account in making its decision. The State lacks credibility on this matter; it is being hypocritical when it states that people should comply with the planning process when it has the sticky end of the wicket.
I urge the Minister to inform other Departments about these regulations, in particular the Department of Transport, Energy and Communcations. As he may be aware, the railways, in particular the rolling stock, are being upgraded. This is long overdue. A different attitude is adopted when it comes to the procedures to be followed in replacing bridges, in particular along the Dublin-Belfast railway line. In the case of Balbriggan there was a lack of communication between the company and the various local authority departments. Even though it is required to obtain planning permission, the company decided not to consult with the local community, public representatives or the planning department.
I have been informed by the council that it received a letter in which the company stated it wished to apply for permission not to knock down the bridge but to close a road, in the same way that permission is sought to hold a bicycle race. The council did not see any problem and granted permission. It later discovered when it examined the matter that replacement of the bridge was being considered. When the company contacted the planning department it was informed that under the 1977 Local Government (Planning and Development) Act planning permission would be required. It decided that it would not submit any plans, that there would be a stand-off, and that it would challenge the planning department to do its worst. The planning department had no option but to serve a warning notice the day before the bridge was due to be demolished. This caused enormous disruption in the town — water, electricity and telephones were cut off — all because a semi-State company decided not to consult with the planning department to see if planning permission was required. The planning department insisted that the company should either apply for permission or amend its plans.
The Minister should issue clear instructions to all Departments and semi-State companies to ensure that there is not one set of rules for the elite, those who hold the reins of power, and another for ordinary people such as those who write to me regularly to check if they need planning permission. They do not have the resources to meet the cost of legal fees, adopt a gung-ho attitude and flout the law. The Minister should ensure that people are notified.
Reference is made in the regulations to the publication of forms and leaflets to provide information. The present practice appears to be to produce leaflets in English or Irish only, as if we were living in an apartheid society. Leaflets should be produced with both languages side by side. As the Taoiseach pointed out in the Mansion House in commemorating the events of 1919, we all have a role to play in imparting information.