Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1997: Second Stage.

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Dempsey):

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983, to allow for an increase in the membership of An Bord Pleanála. The membership of An Bord Pleanála is restricted by the 1983 Act to a chairman and five ordinary members. This Bill will allow the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to increase the size of the board where the Minister considers that the workload of the board warrants such an increase. The Bill does not specify the number of additional members that may be appointed but allows the Minister to do so by order. Any order will be for a period not exceeding five years and will be subject to a positive resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Bill continues the present system of appointment of board members whereby ministerial appointments to the board are selected from nominees put forward by the members of organisations in four panels. These panels represent construction and business organisations, planning and professional groups, environmental bodies and general interest groups. In relation to the additional board members, the Bill provides that prescribed bodies for all panels will be asked to nominate candidates for appointment.

The nomination process will obviously take some time as the 1994 planning regulations give the nominating bodies two months from the date of the request to put forward the names. The Bill allows as an interim measure, to meet the current urgent need, for the appointment of officers of the Department of the Environment and Local Government to the board for a maximum period of nine months. Since the publication of the Bill, I have received representations on behalf of the staff of An Bord Pleanála that interim board appointments be made from among the staff of An Bord Pleanála. Having considered the case made, I believe there is merit in the Minister having that option and I have decided to bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage to permit interim appointments to be made from the board's own staff at an appropriate level.

Mr. Howlin:

As well as from the Department.

Mr. Dempsey:

Yes, the Minister would have that option. An Bord Pleanála, its staff and board members play a crucial role in the planning system. I pay tribute to their hard work and in particular the great efforts they have made in coping with the huge increase in planning appeals in the past two years. While many of us may disagree with individual decisions of the board, the board has won widespread respect for doing its job efficiently and impartially.

Through its work, An Bord Pleanála has played an essential role in ensuring that the best qualities of the Irish planning system are preserved and upheld. For a small fee, people seeking planning permission, and third parties who consider that the principles of proper planning and development are not being upheld, have an opportunity to appeal local authority planning decisions to a completely independent tribunal. This third parties right of appeal is almost unheard of in most other European countries.

The procedures used by An Bord Pleanála are of a very high standard, above board and transparent. The quality of service which the board provides is demonstrated by the infrequency with which people attempt to challenge the board through the courts, and the rarity of the occasions on which judicial review of the board's decisions succeed. For example, challenges against board decisions were made in only nine cases in 1996 and of those decided that year none was successful. To put this in context, the board received almost 3,500 cases in 1996.

A core principle of the Government's strategic management initiative is to ensure quality public service. The issue of providing a quality service extends throughout the public service and is crucial to the success of the planning system. One essential element of a quality planning system is the timeliness of decision-making. Delays in making decisions on planning applications or on planning appeals have a financial cost for the developer and the economy in general. Some of the statements made recently regarding planning delays in the context of rising house prices are not well founded. We must be aware also that the quality and efficiency of our planning service impacts on our ability to compete in an increasingly global marketplace.

An Board Pleanála has a statutory objective to decide cases within four months. Reflecting the growth in the economy generally, there has been a steady rise in the number of appeals coming before the board since mid-1995. The number of appeals received by the board was just short of 4,000 in 1997; this compares with 3,424 in 1996 and 2,778 in 1995. This represents an increase of 44 per cent over a two year period. There is every indication that appeals will continue to rise in 1998 to around 4,500. The Government and the board have been concerned to ensure that, despite the increased pressure on the board, it continues to achieve a satisfactory level of performance.

In 1995, 98 per cent of all appeals were disposed of within the four month statutory period. However, by the end of 1997 this rate had declined to around 82 per cent. The average time taken to deal with appeals has increased from 14 weeks in 1995 to 15 weeks in 1996 and is now running at 16 weeks. The actual number of appeals disposed of per year has increased by over 1,000 between 1995 and 1997.

The decline in the percentage of cases disposed of within four months has occurred despite the fact that an increase in staffing has been approved. The board has an approved complement of 85 staff, an increase of 14 since January 1997. It will be appreciated that there is a time lag before increased staffing is reflected in output. In an attempt to improve efficiency, the board has been upgrading its computer systems.

The statutory limit on membership of the board is six — a chairman and five ordinary members. This limit is now proving a real bottleneck in terms of increasing the number of decisions and will adversely affect performance until additional members can be appointed. If, as estimated, the number of appeals continues to rise sharply in 1998 and the House agrees to the increase in board membership, the board estimates that, with the appointment of the two additional board members during 1998, the percentage of cases determined within four months will be about 90 per cent by the last quarter of 1998 and will increase to 95 per cent in 1999 with the full year benefit of the extra board members and staff.

By way of explanation of why the limit on the membership of the board can cause delays, I will explain briefly the workings of the board. An Bord Pleanála is a full-time board and its procedures are such that no single person, be it a board member, inspector or other staff member, can ensure what the board's decision will be in a particular appeal. While the quorum for the board meeting is three, all members usually attend a board meeting where a particularly complex or sensitive case is involved. In considering an appeal, all submissions on the file are considered with the inspector's report and recommendation. The board gives due consideration to the report but, as Members will know, the decision may be and has been at variance with the recommendation of the inspector. For instance, in 1996 the board accepted the general thrust of the inspector's recommendation in 89 per cent of cases. Members will agree that these carefully balanced procedures place considerable obligations on all board members.

In view of the urgency of the current situation and the risk that a further rise in the number of appeals will affect the board's ability to perform effectively, I have brought forward this short Bill specifically to allow for the appointment of the additional members. I estimate that two extra board members are required to meet the board's current workload.

Turning to the detail of the Bill, section 1(a) substitutes a new section 3 for section 3 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983 and provides that the membership of the board shall, as at present, consist of a chairman and five ordinary members. However, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government may, by order, appoint additional board members where he or she is of the opinion that the levels of the board's work would justify an increase. Such an order would be subject to a confirming resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The new subsection (5) provides that an order providing for an increase in the membership of the board would specify the period for which the increase in membership would apply. This period cannot exceed five years. I am not, therefore, providing for a permanent increase in the number of board members. I have chosen instead to provide a mechanism with the necessary flexibility to cope with changing workloads. I have referred to the procedures for interim appointments to meet urgent work demands before full appointments can be made.

Section 1(b) inserts a new subsection (2A) in section 7 of the 1983 Act to provide that the additional members will be appointed from among those persons nominated by the various bodies prescribed under the Act. Board members are chosen from among candidates nominated by various bodies which are divided into four specialised panels. They are planning and professional organisations such as the Irish Planning Institute, environmental associations such as An Taisce, construction and business organisations such as IBEC, and social, economic and general interest bodies such as the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association. One board member is appointed from the candidates on each of the four panels. The fifth member must be a civil servant serving in the Department of the Environment and Local Government. The Bill provides that nominations for appointment of additional members will be sought from the prescribed bodies on all four panels.

I am sure Deputies will appreciate the importance of the Bill to the continued efficient and effective operation of An Bord Pleanála and the planning system generally. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Dukes:

One of the Minister's most distinguishing characteristics, in public at least, is his self-possession, even on occasions when he is being hassled by unruly journalists. I was taken aback by his demeanour. In his presentation of the Bill, I did not detect a single critical nuance of any kind. He seemed to be complacent. Although this may be a short and limited Bill, it has been brought forward for a reason that is more urgent than it seems from the Minister's words.

The Bill sets out to provide for a temporary increase in the number of members of An Bord Pleanála when the Minister for the Environment and Local Government considers it necessary and in any case for a period not longer than five years. It is curious that we should have a Bill with such a limited objective at a time when the Minister, as he informed the members of the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government this afternoon, is engaged in a fundamental review of planning legislation. Has he decided that the part of the planning process affected by the Bill is not in need of further fundamental modification than what is provided for and will he come back to us with a Bill that does something else to An Bord Pleanála?

The Minister made a point with which I agree. It is clear beyond doubt that there is a need for an independent final arbiter in relation to planning appeals. The case for such an independent arbiter was well made in 1976 when the legislation providing for the establishment of An Bord Pleanála was passed. The only circumstance in which it is possible to look behind a decision of An Bord Pleanála is one in which a point of law arises. In such cases further questioning is restricted to the point of law at issue.

There is room for further reflection. The increasing complexity of planning law in recent years, particularly with the addition of environmental impact assessments and statements, has increased the frequency with which the decisions of An Bord Pleanála are brought before the courts. It would be wrong systematically to exclude recourse to the courts on points of law. On the other hand, further clarification and codification of the law and practice in relation to planning matters might reduce the number of instances in which interested parties have recourse to the courts. We would gain from a reduction in the number of such cases. I urge the Minister to give some attention to this in his review of planning legislation. The annual reports of An Bord Pleanála are interesting in that they distinguish between the reasons appeals are taken against decisions made. It may be the case that further clarification of the law, particularly in relation to environmental impact assessments and statements, might help to avoid some of the more difficult cases brought before the courts.

It is fair to say there is a certain lack of understanding of the position of An Bord Pleanála among the public generally and even among people involved in the physical development process, whether they be developers or people objecting to proposed developments. There can be few Members of this House who have not met an irate developer expressing fury at a decision by An Bord Pleanála on an appeal or at extra conditions imposed on a proposed development by An Bord Pleanála. Many of us have met objectors who were baffled by a decision by An Bord Pleanála to allow a proposed development which they believe will have a serious adverse effect on the quality of their environment or on the quality of their life. Those of us who explain to such people, whether developers or private citizens, that such decisions are entirely outside the political process and are therefore not amenable to political action of any kind are often met with stares of blank incomprehension.

Notwithstanding the collective experience of its members and of its staff, and the fund of knowledge on which it can draw as a result of its operation since 1976, An Bord Pleanála is still capable of making decisions which are difficult to understand. Its decision on a landfill site at Arthurstown, Kill for the Dublin local authorities is a case in point. Apart from the appropriateness of continued heavy reliance on landfill as a method of waste disposal, a subject to which no doubt we will return in another context, there are serious questions relating to the choice of a location which is at the highest point in the landscape for some distance around. Residents of the area are fully aware that the plans for the site include the provision of the most up to date sealing techniques. They are also fully aware that no system is perfect and that, in the event of a problem emerging, the higher up the site is located the greater the problem will be for the residents in the surrounding areas.

I mention this in the context of An Bord Pleanála because that was a decision in which An Bord Pleanála played a part. There seems to be a mania for the use of elevated sites for landfill. Some time ago the Limerick local authority prospected a site on a hillside in County Clare and I understand on that occasion they got a rather dusty answer from Clare County Council. It has now turned its attention elsewhere and it is seeking clearance from the Environmental Protection Agency to locate a landfill dump on a site 1,200 feet above sea level in Slievefelim. Even the most uninterested layman can see the folly of such a course of action. To see it sanctioned by An Bord Pleanála is absolutely incomprehensible. With the greatest respect to the members of An Bord Pleanála, they do not suddenly become philosopher kings or queens on their appointment. They are prone to human errors of judgment and the rest of us bear the consequences.

Another feature of decisions made by An Bord Pleanála which the public and many developers find difficult to understand is the frequency with which recommendations made by its inspectors are overturned or rejected by members of the board; the Minister informed us this afternoon that that is 11 per cent of the cases. He said that in 89 per cent of cases the general thrust of the inspector's recommendation is followed. It follows, therefore, that in 11 per cent of cases, one in nine, the thrust of the inspector's advice is not followed by the board.

I would not suggest that we should always and in all circumstances accept expert technical advice simply because it is presented by expert technical people. I am not one of those people, for example, who would hold that in drawing up county development plans or in considering proposals for material contraventions or in looking at rezoning proposals members of local authorities should always be led and said only by their technical experts, but decisions have been made by An Bord Pleanála which went against inspectors' recommendations for reasons which are utterly unfathomable to applicants for planning permission, many of whom have some expertise in the matters at issue. Since An Bord Pleanála is, in planning matters, the final court of appeal it has a particular duty to explain fully the reasons for any decision it makes. The level of discontent around the country as a result of decisions of An Bord Pleanála is an indication, at least in part, of a failure on the part of the board to explain its decisions adequately.

There will be eternal arguments about the aesthetics of structures and of infrastructural provisions which will drag any planning system and any planning appeal system into controversy. We do not have to look far to find them. I cannot understand how any planner or any person charged with determining planning appeals could have given approval to Liberty Hall, for example, although that predates this. I cannot understand how anybody could have allowed the IFSC building that faces Busáras. I cannot understand how any person in their sane mind could have given approval to any of the Dublin Corporation civic offices between Christ Church and the Liffey. They are just a few of Dublin's eyesores. The rest of the country has more than its fair share of them in cities and towns. Those are matters of aesthetic judgment and it is a fair guess that if planning officials and members of An Bord Pleanála were presented today with plans for the railway viaduct at Butt Bridge, for example, or if they were presented with the plans for one of the magnificent Roman aqueducts that are to be found in various parts of the European continent, they would give a flat refusal. Who would give approval today, whether on first application or on appeal, for a structure resembling a Norman keep? I will not be putting up plans for that when I decide to build a multi-million pound mansion, if ever. Although they raise great passions, these aesthetic questions are not often among the most contentious questions in the planning process at the appeal level.

I must say in passing that it is a pity that planning officials around the country seem to be absolutely fixated on neutral coloured roofs and walls for houses in rural areas. If they really want houses in rural areas to merge in with the landscape, they should call in Army experts to advise on camouflage colour schemes.

The next problem frequently encountered with An Bord Pleanála, and the Minister mentioned it, is delays in having appeals determined. Section 2 of the 1992 Act provides that, in general, appeals shall be determined within a period of four months beginning on the date of receipt by the board of the appeal. There are exceptions but as a general rule the intention is that appeals should be determined within four months. The position in this regard has deteriorated. Up to this afternoon the latest information available to me was that contained in the 1996 annual report of An Bord Pleanála which states that in 1994 98.7 per cent of all appeals were determined within four months. In 1995 the percentage went down to 97.6 per cent. In 1996 it went down even further to 92.7 per cent. The Minister told us this afternoon that by the end of 1997 that figure had gone down to 82 per cent. The figure went from 93 per cent in 1996 to 82 per cent in 1997. That is extremely worrying and I know the Minister will say this Bill is a response to that. I accept that is the case but we need to know a little more about the reason that has happened.

The total number of cases in which appeals were determined in 1994 was 2,332. In 1995 it was 2,631 and in 1996 the figure was 3,237. In 1996, the last year for which we have full information, 236 cases were not determined within four months. One must read between the lines of the report to find out the reason for that. The explanations given in the l996 report are far from satisfactory. We need explanations of those explanations. Oral hearings were held in 32 cases. That is the explanation given. It is not immediately obvious why or how that constitutes an adequate explanation in itself. In 20 cases an environmental impact statement was submitted. It is not obvious why that should be a cause for delay. This relates to what I said earlier. There may be a case for seeking clarification of the cases where that submission arises. If we had made the position in that regard clearer in law and in practice, we could have avoided some of those 20 cases in l996 and we might avoid similar delays or even recourse to the courts in the future.

In l996 102 cases were the subject of notices under sections 9, 10 or 13 of the l992 Act. Those notices provide for submissions, observations or information to be furnished to the board within 14 to 28 days, 14 to 21 days and 14 to 28 days, respectively. It is not obvious why the serving of such notices and the soliciting of such submissions within those deadlines should in itself be a cause for cases not being determined within the four month period.

The l996 report states, "43 cases were large cases or involved complex issues". Is that not the reason the board is there, to deal with such cases? To say that some planning decisions are complex is not a reason that in any way explains why there are delays, especially in those 43 cases. Most teasingly and mysteriously the report informs us, "92 cases were attributed to the significant increase in the intake of appeals". That explanation must surely be a masterpiece of opacity.

In l996 615 more appeals were received than in l995. The report tells us that 92 of them took longer than four months to determine because there were more appeals in l996 than in l995. I must confess that explanation leaves me none the wiser than when I started. There is a danger that the board has fallen a victim to the same virus that has affected planning authorities all over the country. The Minister knows the one I mean. The average applicant for planning permission and most Members could be forgiven for believing local authority officials have a standard system for dealing with planning permission applications not provided for in law. It seems they note the date of receipt of an application, diary the application for a few days before the date on which the decision is due and file it. When the diary date arrives, they pull out the file, give it a cursory examination and dash off a letter seeking further information. The nature of the further information sought in many of these cases strikes many of the applicants as being a ploy for delaying the decision. I hope that virus has not spread too far into the organism of An Bord Pleanála. If that were to happen it would be a dreadful pity. I am prepared to believe that is part of the concern underlying this Bill. If the membership of An Bord Pleanála were increased there would be less excuse for delays. That opinion is widely held. We do not need to wait for the Minister to form an opinion as provided for under section 1(2) to know that is required. Will the Minister reconsider if there is a case for increasing the membership of An Bord Pleanála permanently, assuming he does not intend to make any other changes in the board's structure?

We all hope the current conditions of rapid economic expansion will continue. If they do they will inevitably result in a high level of construction activity. Given the importance we attach to the ability to lodge third party appeals — the Minister mentioned that in his remarks and I agree with him — the high level of economic activity and construction activity will inevitably mean a continuing high level of demand for the services of An Bord Pleanála. Even if the board were to find itself in a position to observe the spirit and intent of the l992 Act and give a decision on appeals within four months, for many people that would still represent a considerable delay. I know of one case today where a worthwhile BES scheme in the energy sector is in danger of being closed out because the promoters cannot be sure they will be in a position to issue shares before 8 June next, the close off date for those schemes under the provisions of last month's budget. The reason in that case is that there may be delays in securing planning permissions and, even if and when the necessary planning permissions are obtained, there may be appeals.

The four month target included in the l992 Act is not something we should be prepared to accept indefinitely. In many cases it can be rightly and justly demanded that decisions be made more quickly. If a permanent increase in the membership of An Bord Pleanála allows that to happen that would be worthwhile in itself. If on the other hand the pace of physical development were to slow down, what would be the harm in having decisions on appeals made in less than four months? If that were to be the result of having a larger board, I believe a great many people would approve that.

I approve of the provision in section 1(3) that any order made under subsection (2) would be subject to a confirming resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. That has been a hobbyhorse of mine since I was elected to this House. I am always delighted to find it in places where it is appropriate. Given the structure of this Bill, it is an entirely appropriate provision here. However, I cannot understand why in subsection (4) the Minister needs powers to appoint additional members to the board in the interim period before such an order is made and for a period not exceeding nine months. That seems to suggest that if the Minister believes an emergency situation will last for nine months or less he can dispense with the procedure of bringing an order before the Houses of the Oireachtas, appoint the additional members for a period of nine months or less and no further discussion is required. That would not be desirable. I cannot conceive of a situation——

Mr. Dempsey:

I can assist the Deputy on that. Regarding the nine months provision, as I explained in my remarks, we intend to appoint two new members to the board and we will follow the procedures in place. However, because of the strictures in the legislation which allow people two months to submit nominations which we then have to consider, giving the Minister power in the interim to appoint members immediately to deal with the problems that exist is considered necessary. The new members need not remain on the board for nine months. If we follow the procedure and appoint the new members within three or four months that temporary membership will then lapse. That provision is to assist in that.

Mr. Dukes:

The Minister will then be able to come back with an order and invite the Houses to reappoint the temporary members whose membership has lapsed.

Mr. Dempsey:

I could.

Mr. Dukes:

I heard what the Minister said, but I am not sure the provision for nine months is appropriate. I hope to discuss that on Committee Stage. I do not believe there would ever be a situation where a Minister looking more than nine months ahead would find himself or herself unable to be sure the Houses would sit to consider any orders he or she might propose in any shorter a period than that.

A point arises from comments made by the Minister. He informed the House that he is considering keeping the option of making interim appointments from among members of the board's staff at the appropriate level. I understand why the Minister may see merit in that position in the short-term. It is not a criticism of the staff of the board, but this would be a self-defeating proposal if it is supposed to help deal with matters more rapidly. If two members of staff at the appropriate level are appointed to the board, it only shifts them from one place to another. There is no net gain.

If there is then a position, pace the Minister for Finance, where, having appointed two members of staff at the appropriate level to the board, it is found that two vacancies in the staff of An Bord Pleanála can be filled, it will not be at the same appropriate level. There will be some consequential vacancies further down the line. It is axiomatic that if two senior members of the staff of the board are appointed and it is necessary to compensate for that by bringing in two staff members at junior level, nothing has been gained in terms of the expertise of An Bord Pleanála. There are only two new people who must be trained. I am not sure that is an entirely appropriate way to deal with the type of temporary problem the Minister has in mind. Perhaps something could be said for it if the Minister considered the appointments as a permanent accretion to the number of members of the board. However, that will not be the case if it is temporary.

Questions about this matter arise. Within the framework of the law as it stands, the Bill is reasonable. However, I am not satisfied, as we embark on a major review of planning legislation, that we should accept that the Bill is necessarily the final word on the structure of An Bord Pleanála. This side will not oppose the Bill for that reason, although amendments to it may be proposed. The House should note its intention of coming back to this matter when Members have had a chance to comb through the debate which will inevitably take place on overall improvements to the planning process.

Mr. Howlin:

I wish to begin my contribution where Deputy Dukes ended. I am delighted a specific Oireachtas committee will deal with environment and local government matters because it was necessary in the past to queue for time at other committees. However, when the establishment of that committee was being discussed it was obvious from the concerns expressed by Members on all sides that the issue of planning is causing much public concern and debate. This involves developers who want to develop sites and provide infrastructure, people who are concerned with preserving the natural environment and the public which is concerned about basic matters, such as access to affordable housing and the shape of towns, cities and the countryside.

It is a most important debate which the Minister indicated he will lead. The Bill is small and simple in that context. I acknowledge the need for the legislation and the Labour Party will not oppose it. However, as Deputy Dukes said, it may be necessary to revisit the issue of the appeals mechanism in the fuller debate which will take place on all aspects of planning. The Bill is a simple measure which deals with the workload of An Bord Pleanála, the independent appeals board that, by and large, has worked well. It has removed the political charge from the planning process which existed in advance of the enactment by the Houses of the Oireachtas of legislation to establish a separate, independent board to act as the final arbiter in planning matters.

The model has served us well and has been used in other areas, for example, in considering the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies which have come on stream since then. I acknowledge that the volume of appeals has put huge pressure on An Bord Pleanála in recent years. When I was Minister for the Environment I increased the staffing component of the board. This helped the process but because of the structure of the decision making system, where matters are decided ultimately by the full-time quasi judicial board, I accept the logic of the argument that there is an immediate dilemma which can only be addressed by increasing the number of board members.

The Minister is correct to balance the figure he outlined. The figure of 98 per cent achieved in 1995 fell to 82 per cent last year. However, the volume of applications processed substantially increased. Therefore, no matter how productive the board was and how many more applications were processed, it was not running fast enough to keep up with the volume of applications submitted. This indicates a number of points. There is the boom in economic activity to which the Minister and Deputy Dukes referred, but there is also a growing sensitivity among people about planning matters. Few planning issues or proposals for development are not debated or go unnoticed. This is good, but it is not uniformly good because I am greatly taken aback by the delays in advancing obviously good proposals. A coterie of people like to object but it is important that there is a good ventilation of issues. Proposals may initially appear good but when they are occasionally knocked down, better proposals emerge.

We can be subjective in our views on what are good and bad developments. I have a different view from Deputy Dukes about the civic offices. I think the final product is a lovely addition to the architecture of the capital city. I am not a purist in the sense that the only building which should be erected in Dublin is Georgian pastiche. This would be a disastrous approach. The city of Paris has a magnificent architectural heritage but the Centre Pompidou was erected there.

Mr. Dukes:

A mortal sin.

Mr. Howlin:

The pyramid in the Louvre was also built.

Mr. Dukes:

That is even worse.

Mr. Howlin:

One pays one's money and takes one's choice. I am excited by those developments. The Georgian architecture of Dublin is magnificent, but we should not be trapped in a time warp. Our generation should be willing to be bold on occasions. The Sydney Opera House would not get past first base in Irish planning and I am not sure that is good. We can be captured forever in Georgian pastiche and that appears to be what is accepted.

Many local authorities, including mine, have produced worthy documents about building sensitively in rural landscapes. The view appears to be that if we all build the same type of house, with the same size windows, height and dimensions, everything will be fine. I do not agree with that view. However, I also disagree that houses should be scattered all over the place. I visited some counties when I was Minister and I occasionally arrived by helicopter. It was possible to have a global view of areas and some appalling planning decisions have been made in this country.

A global overview of planning is required because it is linked to virtually everything else. For example, the traffic problems in Dublin and the industrial patterns of Ireland ultimately revolve round good planning. We have a county planning process that was required to have no regard to its neighbours. Even the more recent regional authorities have scant regard for their neighbours. There is no national plan that shows the displacement pattern, the development pattern and the housing pattern we require. I am anxious that we take some bold decisions on a national development strategy that deals with every area in a complementary way. All individual pieces of the jigsaw then fit together rather than being carved out on a county by county basis without gelling together as a cohesive whole. The Minister will not be able to do this major work alone. It will need to be done on a cross-party basis and with public debate. The sustainability of Dublin in particular depends on the right decisions being made now.

I could not attend today's meeting, at which the Minister perhaps touched on some important issues. I hope we have a significant debate and specific proposals dealing with real issues in the planning process. The grand scheme I mentioned, a comprehensive national planning and development plan, is one matter. A more mundane and immediate issue is today's planning and its enforcement. Although we are acknowledging the pressures on An Bord Pleanála in today's legislation, similar pressures exist in every planning office. In the last couple of hours I spoke to the chief planning officer in my county. She does not have time to look at a particular development until next week because of the volume of applications that require a decision this week. I do not believe there is much enforcement of planning decisions. Once a decision is made, nobody checks if a person builds what was approved. I know of no buildings which did not comply with their planning permissions and which were removed. If there are such examples, they are few and far between.

Deputy Dukes is right. Everyone knows that local planning offices are under pressure. An application is made and a decision must be made within two months. If a decision is not made in the two months provided by law, the application is granted by default. This grant by default should be examined and I have doubts about whether this mechanism should continue. Deputy Dukes is right about the clause whereby the authority can ask for further information at the eleventh hour. That is a matter of routine in many cases and it makes a nonsense of the statutory obligation to have a matter determined in two months.

If we are looking for extra staffing or extra board members for An Bord Pleanála, we must look at the planning structure as it is initiated. So much of the work of An Bord Pleanála could be removed if there was a facility at local level for skilled persons to debate planning matters before submissions have to be made. There is very little scope, time or staff for discussion of what is appropriate. We must begin at the county level if we are to have an effective planning system. This matter dovetails with other issues such as house prices and the strategic approach to planning mentioned by the Minister. I hope he is encompassing the notion of a comprehensive national plan.

Labour Senators brought a Bill relating to unfinished housing estates to the Seanad which was voted down by the Government parties. This matter is becoming a scandal. People are desperate to buy houses and are virtually buying houses from the drawings. Builders are doing nicely in the current economic climate. They move on to their next project, leaving a list of matters not completed. These can be minor or the most basic amenities such as footpaths, roads and lighting. There seems to be no follow-through. Developers can go on to the next estate and leave problems for local authorities in their wake. I am disappointed the Government voted the Bill down. Perhaps it did not have enough time to consider the legislation. I hope the Minister has this on his agenda when he introduces planning legislation.

When Deputy Michael Smith was Minister for the Environment I debated the limitation on enforcement of planning permissions with him. It was reduced to five years, which I feel is too short. The previous situation meant enforcement could go back to the first planning legislation of 1963, and one had to ensure compliance went back to that date. That was overly demanding and 12 years would have been more appropriate than five years. The Minister should consider this. The protection of interiors is also badly addressed, when it is addressed at all, in planning law. One can have magnificent interiors which are more important in heritage terms than the exterior, yet those interiors may have no protection in law.

Any Member could introduce a huge number of planning issues. A review of planning legislation is timely and necessary. However, we must balance the need for housing and infrastructure, which is real and must be met, with the need for a built environment we can be proud of. We do not want eyesores about which we may say, "How did we allow that to take place in our time?", notwithstanding differences in personal taste.

I am glad the Minister retained the nominating procedures in relation to membership of An Bord Pleanála. It is important that there are lists of approved bodies which have the right to nominate members. The Minister makes decisions about appointments to An Bord Pleanála based on those nominations. It is a quasi-judicial role which has very onerous responsibilities. As with every judge's decision, there will be disagreement. The two sides in any court believe they are both right, but only one side will be vindicated. Planning is no different from any other judgment, although people feel less intimidated about criticising planning authorities or An Bord Pleanála than they feel about the courts. Politicians are not excluded; we seem to feel that An Bord Pleanála is fairer game than members of the High Court. However, although I would disagree with some of its decisions, by and large An Bord Pleanála gets it right.

An issue which is important to the operation of An Bord Pleanála is transparency. In my time I made the inspector's report a public document. The advice from some quarters at the time — the Minister may read the files — was that the heavens would fall and that if I made the inspector's report a public document under access to information regulations no inspector would write an unbalanced report. That is our reasoning and it is wrong. The more transparency we allow and demand, the better the process and the less aggrieved people will be.

I share Deputy Dukes's view that because an inspector writes something it does not mean that is the end of the matter. There is no point having an appeals board if the inspector is the final decision maker. A disagreement rate of 11 per cent is modest. I imagine the recommendations of the management to any local authority are overturned more frequently than in 11 per cent of cases, and rightly so. The inspector is a technical expert who gives advice to a tribunal to make a decision. The issue is not to be critical when the inspector's recommendations are not fully complied with but to have the greatest degree of transparency in relation to all documentation. That is a matter at which I invite the Minister to look again. I do not know if there is anything more which can be made available in terms of documentation. It will probably all be made available from 1 April under the Freedom of Information Act.

The only other matter I wish to raise is important and I invite the Minister to look at it between now and Committee Stage. It is a request, which has been ongoing for a number of years, from the employees of An Bord Pleanála concerning indemnification for them in their work. The Minister will be aware that under the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, specific indemnity is allowed. Under section 15 there is immunity for the agency, while under section 16 there is an indemnification of the director general, directors and other persons. Section 16 states:

Where the Agency is satisfied that the Director General or other director or authorised person appointed by the Agency, or any other employee of the Agency, has discharged his duties in relation to the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions in a bona fide manner, it shall indemnify the Director General or other director or authorised person of the Agency or any other employee of the Agency, against all actions or claims howsoever arising in respect of the discharge by him of his duties.

There is a concern, particularly in the light of complete openness, in relation to the operation of An Bord Pleanála that people would be sued in their personal capacity and would not have the protection of law. It is a matter to which I invite the Minister to look between now and Committee Stage. If he does not see fit to table an amendment, I will do so.

I could say a lot on planning and the Minister has initiated a debate in which I will fully participate on behalf of my party. It is time to take bold actions. This humble step is not a bold action, it is a necessary interim measure to keep the system operating efficiently. I will facilitate the Minister in having this measure enacted as a foretaste of the important work in and reform of planning which we all are charged to do in the immediate future.

Mr. Ryan:

I welcome this Bill which is a small but necessary step in making our planning system more efficient. The Minister said the Government's strategic management initiative is to ensure quality in the public service, but as everyone knows the number of planning applications coming before local authorities and An Bord Pleanála has increased substantially in recent years. It is increasingly obvious that the board and local authorities are groaning under the pressure of the number of applications. This measure will help to keep the quality of decisions at a good level and I hope it will increase the quality of decisions made.

An Bord Pleanála's record has been reasonably good. It is increasingly agreeing with local authorities in its decisions. As others have said, decisions are made in their areas with which they may not agree but it is the nature of planning that we cannot all agree with every decision. By and large, An Bord Pleanála has a good record and it should be congratulated on that. It is important that it gets extra staff to ensure that continues.

There is a greater awareness of planning and people are more interested in what happens in their neighbourhood, town and city and in the countryside and in the environment, which is a good thing. There could be more transparency in An Bord Pleanála. For example, people are happier if they attend an oral hearing and listen to what the inspector has to say. On a number of occasions I have seen people who may object to a development leave an oral hearing a lot happier because they have heard the reasons that the inspector has made a decision and have listened to the questions he has asked. Such transparency is a good thing.

As Deputy Howlin said, allowing the report to be made public is beneficial. Many people believe that if these sensitive documents are made available to the public, the world will fall apart. Legislation in other countries allowing for the opening of Government files and other supposedly sensitive material has not led to the world collapsing around them. In fact, the number of people reading such material has dropped off. I attended a conference on this issue and was amazed by the lack of interest by the public. It was surprising that not much information came out and that decisions made were fairly obvious.

This is part of a much wider debate and I am delighted the previous and this Minister are interested in planning. This afternoon the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government received a summary report on the convention on the planning system. A presentation was made by an official from the Minister's Department and it was excellent to see that. Legislation will be initiated which I hope will protect what remains of our architectural heritage. Huge mistakes have been made and terrible damage has been done in the past. We should enact legislation as quickly as possible to ensure no further damage is done. We must protect everything of importance which we hold dear so that it remains for future generations. That is an essential part of this issue.

We must change section 27 because local authorities rarely go to court and if they do so, they often lose. I have no doubt the same argument applies throughout the country. People break a planning law and hope the matter will drag on for years without going to court and the local authority will lose interest. That is wrong. The local authority should be able to act promptly to stop somebody doing something for which they do not have planning permission.

Some local authorities are refusing to meet residents' groups or individuals who want to put a case in respect of a planning application on the basis that it gives them an unfair advantage. However, developers often have preplanning meetings to discuss various aspects of what they are planning to do, and that gives them an advantage. I do not see why planners should be able to legally object to local authorities meeting objectors. It is not fair. It is not good for local government, and it is not good for planning. If people want to object to or support a development, it is important that they should be allowed to make their case. It does not necessarily mean that the planner has to comment on it.

Another aspect which should be changed is where objectors are not allowed to mention the environmental aspects of a development in their submission to the local authority, even though the developer requires an EPA licence. A case in my constituency was eventually turned down by the planning board. However, had it not been turned down, serious questions would have been raised about the planning process because the reasons for the objections were environmental. The objectors had access to the Environmental Protection Agency, but they felt strongly that they should have been allowed to mention the environmental reasons for objecting, as well as the planning reasons. That is something that should be looked at when reviewing the planning regulations.

In the area of sustainable development, the burden on An Bord Pleanála could be lightened if the development plan stage was more open. If people could see that certain green field sites would be developed in a sustainable way and had an idea of where a development was going, they would not be afraid of it. When people see a huge development coming on stream they think it will lead to urban blight, but if they saw the overall plan for the area, if they were assured that the green belts would be kept, they might not be so anxious about it and would not have to appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

The Bill is a simple one. It allows extra people to take up the huge increase in the workload. I welcome the start of this debate on planning. We had a foretaste of if today at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government. Many people will be interested in it. They want openness. They want the environment protected, and they want to see how it will be developed into the future. I have no doubt that Members of this House and the general public will have much to say on planning because it is a very important issue. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Gilmore:

The Bill is a relatively straightforward measure to increase the membership of An Bord Pleanála by two members. The justification is that this is necessary because of a backlog of appeals. I understand that and have no difficulty with that rationale.

However, I have to wonder why this measure has found itself at the top of the priorities of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. A number of pieces of legislation have been promised from his Department dealing, for example, with traveller accommodation, local government funding, electoral reform — a whole range of issues, all of which are important. I am puzzled as to why this legislation has taken on the urgency it has. I agree entirely that if the law states that planning appeals have to be decided within a four month period, they should be decided within a four month period and the necessary resources and measures put in place to do that. However, there are many other situations where people dealing with Government Departments or with State agencies find themselves in a position which is analogous to that of a developer waiting for a planning appeal to be processed, for example, social welfare applicants waiting for an appeal on a social welfare case, people applying for medical cards, people applying for citizenship, many of whom have to wait for many years, workers who have been dismissed from their employment and whose appeals to the Employment Appeals Tribunal are mounting up, people in many circumstances in our society who find themselves in a queue waiting for attention from a State agency. I think in particular of people who are ill and who are waiting, in many cases for 12 to 18 months, for essential surgery. People who find themselves on those waiting lists must be envious indeed of the effect that the construction industry is having in managing not only to get its concerns put to the top of the agenda of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government but apparently put very high on the Government's overall agenda in terms of the ordering of legislation.

Not only is new legislation being introduced to facilitate the construction industry in getting appeals through An Bord Pleanála, the Minister, apparently, is not even content to wait until the process he proposes to put in place is completed. We are to have two new members appointed to An Bord Pleanála, but the Minister will not wait until they are appointed in the normal way but wants the power to appoint temporary members to the board while the process is being completed. Fair dues indeed to the construction industry who have managed to get action with such urgency from the Minister and from the Government.

I understand that there are many applicants whose appeals are stacking up in An Bord Pleanála. The Minister informed us that the decision rate dropped from 98 per cent to 82 per cent at the end of last year. I do not want in any way to justify that and it is right that action should be taken to address it. Applicants who are waiting for decisions from An Bord Pleanála are straining at the leash to get their appeals dealt with so that they can get construction under way. I am surprised the Minister did not indicate the representations he had received and from what quarter in relation to the urgency of the legislation. In the interests of transparency, that information should be put on the record. I am sure he will not have any difficulty in doing this. Given that the Bill is essentially a response to an understandable frustration on the part of the construction industry to get development under way and that the House and Government are facilitating the construction industry in ensuring action on the processing of planning appeals, we should give some consideration to the context in which the Bill is put before us.

No doubt the number of appeals being made to An Bord Pleanála is a reflection of a greater public awareness of planning matters. However, it is also a reflection of the increased activity in the construction industry. Not only are there more appeals but there are also more planning applications, many of which are for larger and more complex developments. I am sure it will be argued, again with some justification, that the increase in construction activity is a reflection of the fabulous state of the economy and that the number of construction cranes one sees along the skyline in Dublin and other cities is to be applauded. I have no difficulty in welcoming the increased level of construction activity which reflects the increased level of activity in the economy, but who is it benefiting and who will benefit from the speedier processing of planning appeals for which the legislation will provide?

There are serious questions to be asked about who is benefiting from the level of construction. When one looks at the housing sector one sees it is not the house buyer who is benefiting. The reality is that first time house buyers are being priced out of the market. Young couples cannot afford to pay £90,000 or £100,000, the minimum price being asked in Dublin for a standard three bedroom, semi-detached dwelling. I come across an increasing number of cases where young working couples are overborrowing and committing themselves to mortgages and loans which they will not be able to repay if one of them loses their job. In other cases people who have worked all their lives and are now living on a pension are giving their pension lump sum or savings to their son or daughter so that they can put a deposit on a house. Even with this, people are experiencing increasing hardship in terms of their ability to buy a house. This is driving more people on to local authority housing waiting lists which, in turn, is creating a further crisis at this level. We are fast reaching the point where a house will be a luxury. This matter must be addressed urgently.

The factors contributing to this problem must also be addressed. Many of the developments which will be fast tracked through the planning appeals process and will be facilitated under the measure before us will be bought by people who will not live in them. Auctioneers estimate that approximately 20 per cent of the houses which come on the market are bought for investment purposes. We now have the obscene situation where young couples have to compete for houses with rich investors who buy them and let them for an exorbitant rent to the people they have priced out of the market. This obscenity is crying out for urgent action.

Another problem which is contributing to the tendency to buy houses for investment rather than residential purposes is the scandalous decision by the Government in the budget to reduce the level of capital gains tax. People in the property market have already commented on the degree to which this decision is fuelling the level of speculation and the purchasing of residential property for investment purposes, thereby adding to the grief and problems experienced by people who want to buy houses.

Given that the legislation will essentially facilitate the construction industry, the Government must address the problem of house prices which increased by 25 per cent last year. The rate of inflation last year was between 1 and 2 per cent, while the increase in the building cost index was approximately the same.

Mr. Dempsey:

The Deputy's party was in Government for six months last year.

Mr. Gilmore:

Where has the increased profit gone and where is it continuing to go? It is clear that there is extensive profiteering in the building industry. Those in the industry, its representatives and perhaps individual applicants who knocked down the Minister's door in an effort to get him to introduce this legislation and to appoint new members to An Bord Pleanála so that appeals could be speeded up will walk away with the huge profits being made in the housing and property market generally. This problem must be addressed. If this legislation is being introduced to speed up the processing of planning appeals then, in fairness, the Government needs to introduce legislation which will control, by way of a planning mechanism, a price control mechanism or a fiscal mechanism, what is happening in the housing market and will ensure that the profiteering which is taking place is brought under control and that people will be able to buy a house.

I am also concerned about the position of building workers. Given that there is a boom in the building industry one would expect that among the people who would benefit from it are those who work in the construction industry. Unfortunately, this is not happening. Working conditions in the construction industry are as bad now as they were 50 years ago and have worsened significantly as the building boom has increased. There are a number of aspects to the problem. In recent months a number of cases have clearly shown that the safety of workers on building sites is not being respected by some builders and construction companies. We had the appalling situation where people were killed and seriously injured while working on building sites.

There is also the scandal that a construction company will no longer employ people on the traditional P45 and PRSI system. They no longer want employees. They want everyone, from the tradesman to the general operative, to be engaged as a subcontractor using C45s. That in turn means the ordinary building worker, be he a tradesman or a general operative, finds his working conditions have seriously deteriorated. What would have always been regarded as the standard basic conditions of a building worker — holiday pay and essential on-site conditions such as canteens and washing and eating facilities — have been done away with as the P45 system is replaced by the C45 system. It is even worse because there is now evidence that it is not enough for some building contractors. Not only is it the case that they will only employ people on the C45 system, in some cases a building worker looking for a start will be asked to take money under the table. In other words, he will continue to sign on the dole while working for the construction company. If he is not prepared to agree to that, he is told he is not wanted on the site.

A scandalous situation exists on building sites. The boom in the building industry is evident in all the cranes to be seen around the city. The time has come for some Department, be it the Minister's or the one dealing with workers' conditions and labour affairs, to investigate what is happening with working and employment conditions in the building industry. I also believe the time has come for the Government to introduce legislation to ensure decent conditions for those workers putting brick upon brick to create this building boom. We are told it is generating so much for the economy and so much profit for the developers and building companies concerned. If they are going to make a huge killing on the sale of houses, if they can increase the price of houses by 25 per cent in a year when inflation has only increased by 1 or 2 per cent, surely they are in a position to pay decent wages and to provide decent working conditions for their employees and building workers on the sites. That is something the Government must attend to. If, as a result of this legislation, developers will be facilitated by having their planning appeals heard quickly by An Bord Pleanála so they can start their contracts and get their machinery and people on site more quickly, the quid pro quo should be, first, the control on prices and the control of profiteering in the building industry so that ordinary people can again afford to buy a home of their own, and second, the provision of decent working conditions for people working on the sites.

By and large, we have a good planning system in this country. Some of the recent commentary on planning matters might unfortunately lead people to believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with it. I believe we essentially have a good planning system. It provides for notice of intent, a period when it is dealt with by the local authority and files are available to the public, a role for the elected members of local authorities and a three tiered appeals system consisting of an inspector, an individual member of the board and the board.

I have no objection to increasing the membership of An Bord Pleanála, but why does the Minister not simply increase the membership from five to seven instead of having this complicated system of appointments on a temporary basis for five years? I object to the appointment of temporary members to An Bord Pleanála. It is not a good idea as it disturbs the balance between the different interests represented. I will table amendments in that regard on Committee Stage. I have no objection to increasing the membership of the board from five to seven, but it should be done straightforwardly, and there should not be a provision for the appointment of temporary members to the board which would have the effect of disturbing its inherent balance of representation of different interests.

Mr. Killeen:

This Bill is a response to a need of which public representatives at various levels will be aware. The Minister and his Department are to be commended for responding quickly to a situation many of us believed was getting out of control. Every applicant for planning permission, or every appellant if it is a third party, has the right to due process under the law. An inevitable danger existed, given the four months' time constraint — a relatively new development — and the huge workload of the board, that applicants and others would believe it was not possible for their applications to be given the consideration they deserved.

The figures the Minister gave for the extent of the workload make interesting reading. About 2,800 cases were heard in 1995 and about 3,500 in 1996. Some 4,500 are expected in 1998. That is a huge increase. On the one hand, it reflects the positive developments in the economy and the level of activity. On the other, it shows up in some ways the various shortcomings in councils, Departments and elsewhere. With that kind of increase in numbers, it is only natural that the response period has slowed down. It is interesting that it was as high as 98 per cent and has since slipped to the low 80s. That is a significant slowing down.

Deputy Gilmore outlined the perceived benefits for builders and developers in having the process speeded up. He is probably right to some extent, but they would not by any means be the only ones who would benefit. It is only fair to take a more balanced approach. Many of us are aware of projects in our constituencies which were delayed for various reasons and which in turn created concern that jobs in tourism projects or industry might be threatened. Those implications were not recognised and neither was the problem of the escalating cost of new houses due to demand significantly outstripping supply.

I made the point at a meeting of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government that there seemed to be a certain number of third party objections which were entirely frivolous or vexatious or arose from some local development far removed from planning. I made the point that it ought to be possible to find a mechanism for quickly assessing the merits of a case when it comes before the board. I accept what I say has implications for the time of the board and of individual planners, but it seems the downside of a system which allows third party objections — something I support in principle — is that it encourages people on rare occasions to make frivolous or vexatious objections. A speedy response in those cases is possible. It ought to be the policy of the board to determine whether there is weight in planning terms to a case being made rather than letting it run for the four month period. If there is not weight to it, it should be dealt with quickly.

In the past two years planning staff have experienced an enormous increase in their workload. A planner gets to know and get a feel for an area and, in conjunction with their technical training, this gives them the capacity to deal speedily with applications.

The rate of applications has been increasing in most councils. However, the staffing level has not increased. In the first instance, the pressure has been for the development of a new county development plan. A substantial number of councils who would normally have reviewed their plans every five years, are now running seven to ten year plans. This is undesirable.

There have been enormous changes in the manner in which the planning process operates. This is the first point at which the crisis in the local government system arises. The next point at which it arises is when the number of planners is not sufficient to deal with the volume of applications. Given the two month time constraint, it is inevitable that planning staff look for more information at a late stage. This angers applicants and increases the workload for councils and Deputies who try to have matters addressed. They talk to the planners and waste even more time. The most effective way to deal with planning is at local level. However, the trained, permanent staff are needed to ensure the process runs more smoothly, that county development plans are back on the planning agenda and that the background technical work is undertaken.

There has been an extraordinary change in the public's perception of the planning process and in the level of interest in particular planning developments. Developments which would not have excited any interest five or ten years ago are now the focus of attention for groups of concerned citizens. I would not wish to denigrate their role. However, there has been a sea change in how third party citizens view their relationship to particular planning applications. I have no difficulty understanding this when those raising objections live within the immediate area of the proposal but I have some qualms about those who live many miles away having an input. I cannot rustle up enthusiasm for that kind of behaviour, particulary in the context of the huge social problems which exist. I would prefer if these problems received proper attention.

The increase in the pressure for policy on land use lies behind the Minister's proposal to increase the membership of the board. County and town development plans have not been reviewed in recent times. Land which was thought to be adequate has been found to be inadequate to meet the demand for development. One result of this is that those fortunate to own land designated for housing or commercial development have seen the value of their property escalate. This may be a factor in the huge cost of new houses faced by young couples. Perhaps there is a need to examine the effects of land use policy on house prices generally.

We must address the fact that huge numbers of young people find it impossible to buy houses. It has been the tradition that a substantial number of people aspire to own their homes. Many have succeeded but more and more people are now finding themselves unable to do so. The burden of providing housing falls on the State. It must provide a huge number of local authority houses. The Minister of State's allocation for this year includes a response to this requirement. However, health boards also incur huge costs in providing rent allowances to those in private rented accommodation. There is an urgent need to address this problem at national level. It has the capacity to be an enormous drain on the State's resources.

In the context of builders making huge profits, there have been allegations that they are treating their workers badly, that there is malpractice and that social welfare recipients are being hired and not paying taxes. This must be addressed. Officials in Departments involved in this area must be vigilant. Those who make allegations in public and who appear to be in possession of facts ought to bring this information to the attention of the relevant authorities. There are officials in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs who deal severely with such malpractice. The Health and Safety Authority also deals with other allegations. It is not enough to say that these practices exist if we are not prepared to go a step further and bring them to the attention of those responsible for dealing with them. This is a part of Irish life in which we have fallen down badly. No matter who the culprits are, they ought to be made accountable. These practices cannot be tolerated, whether in terms of safety or tax avoidance.

The Minister mentioned the large number of appeals referred to the board and the relatively small number challenged in the courts. This may be due to the cost of challenging a decision in court. However, the Minister is correct to state that another factor is that people tend to accept the board's decisions because of its independence and transparency. I experienced one An Bord Pleanála public oral hearing and was not impressed by the procedure. It concerned the proposal by the Commissioners of Irish Lights to erect a mast at Loop Head, County Clare. The hearing did not seem to be run in a professional manner and the decision was subsequently challenged in court and found not to have been in accordance with correct procedures. One factor in this may have been the pressure on staff and the number of board members. An oral hearing can take several days and involves a large amount of staff time. On the other hand, the value of an oral hearing is that people feel it is an advantage to be able to put their case professionally and personally. This adds to the sense that the case has been dealt with fairly and openly. This is entering into a different debate on the role of An Bord Pleanála but perhaps that is warranted. Perhaps a debate on who the nominating bodies should be or on the balance between the representation of the various nominating bodies is warranted. I urge the Minister to return to this issue in the future. The role of An Bord Pleanála has become much more important than was perceived in the past and the composition of the board ought to be examined in the near future.

I am interested in the submission from the staff of An Bord Pleanála, referred to by the Minister, to the effect that they would like to be considered for interim positions on the board. I do not know on what basis they made that proposal. They clearly feel they are much more au fait with cases, and planners who have dealt with a case and made a recommendation would undoubtedly feel their judgment was questioned if it was overturned by the board.

In view of the time constraints placed on the Minister under existing legislation he is right to make interim appointments. If he does not do that, more and more cases will be backlogged and it will be more difficult to return to the desirable situation of 100 per cent of cases being dealt with within the four month period. We should aspire to reaching that position as quickly as possible. I do not agree that the only beneficiaries of such a situation are developers. Many genuine applicants who are dissatisfied with the decision of the local authority and who refer their cases to the board are entitled to have a timescale within which their cases are heard. Third party objectors, some of whom may have a frivolous objection but the vast majority of whom have a genuine interest, are also entitled to have cases decided within the specified time and to due process, with a sufficient level of staff and board time available to deal with their cases.

Mr. Hayes:

I wish to share my time with Deputy Deirdre Clune. I welcome the Bill. I understand it is the Minister's first time to introduce legislation in the current Dáil. The Bill is not the most mesmerising legislation the western world has ever seen. It is archaic that a Minister has to come before the House to increase the numbers on a board. If a problem exists, and there is an obvious problem in the case of An Bord Pleanála in terms of the number of applications and appeals coming before it, the Minister should be able to appoint people. It seems wholly anachronistic for the House to spend two hours tonight, two hours tomorrow, an hour on Committee Stage and a further hour on Report Stage dealing with this legislation. The Bill will not fundamentally change the powers of An Bord Pleanála — it simply increases the numbers on the board. Perhaps as a new Member of the House I am naive.

We have a good and democratic planning process which is open to the public. In comparisons with other European countries our planning process comes out on top. This is the way it should be and anything that can be done to make it more open, transparent and democratic should be encouraged.

There is an attitude in society which tends to criticise every proposal, every development and every idea for industrial development and additional housing. There is a mentality, summed up in the phrase "not in my back yard", which is unfortunately seeping through Irish society. While people are understandably and rightly concerned about what happens on their doorstep, we have to achieve a balance. Frequently that balance determines whether we can have additional jobs in an area and whether the supply of houses can be increased in order to deal with the insatiable demand which Deputy Gilmore spoke about. There must be a balance. One of the ways of achieving that balance, which is central to this Bill, is by changing the process of negotiations and discussions which take place between local authorities and communities.

Far too often in the past local authorities have been seen as alien to the work of local communities. A year before a development plan is published local authority development departments should take upon themselves the task of speaking directly to the people in the communities concerned to find out in precise terms their ideas for the development of their area. A classic and innovative example of this can be found in Dublin South-West, my own constituency, where the Saggart Community Council went to the South Dublin County Council, perhaps the only group in south County Dublin to do so, with an outline of what it wanted rezoned and how it wanted its area developed. It outlined the needs for additional housing and small industrial units and presented its own thoughts on the matter. This example has, unfortunately, not been replicated in other local authority areas.

If we are serious about producing a development plan of which people feel a sense of ownership, local authorities, and central Government through guidelines, must do everything in their power to ensure the people are involved from the earliest possible stage. If we ensured that more of this type of work was carried out there would be less need for appeals and applications through An Bord Pleanála.

There is an obvious need for additional board members, something this side of the House recognises. The Minister alluded to the fact that he intends introducing two additional people in 1998. What happens if there is a need for more members? I understand the situation is unwieldy. The five board members and the chairman have to read all the documentation which comes before the board. This is a huge task considering the 4,000 applications which came before An Bord Pleanála in the past year. The Minister should get on with the job of appointing additional people in the future if the need arises to ensure a reduction in the amount of time taken to deal with appeals.

Appeals are becoming more and more complex. For the first time we have started to cop on to the idea of sustainability. For the first time in recent years the question of environmental impact statements have been to the fore in many third party appeals. In the context of the docklands in Dublin and the so-called brown field sites, it is no longer a question of one appeal but rather must be seen in the context of a variety of other developments. Appeals are becoming increasingly complex because, for the first time, we are beginning to realise that developments have a wider context, particularly in relation to sustainability.

We need to look at the appeals process to ensure applications are thoroughly gone through and that decisions are arrived at in a speedy fashion. One of the most disappointing aspects over the past year or so, highlighted in the report of An Bord Pleanála, is the increasing number of appeals and the frustration of the board that it cannot deal with the additional workload being placed upon it.

It is very good to have an open and democratic planning process supported by everybody. People feel at home with it in and have a sense of ownership of it. However, Deputy Killeen raised the interesting point that if somebody from Malin Head has an objection to a development in my constituency or in the Dublin area, they have as much right to appeal against a decision of the local authority as anybody else. We should think about this. While it is a democratic principle, I wonder whether it is sensible or realistic. Should we ask whether there are commercial interests driving the appeals decisions? Are commercial applications being made to An Bord Pleanála opposing various decisions by local authorities in order to delay developments taking place?

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 28 Jan 1998