I wish to share my time with Deputy Finucane.
Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1997: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. Most individuals involved in local government — many Members of the Oireachtas are members of local authorities — find the planning procedure has changed dramatically in recent years, probably mostly for the good, but much bureaucracy and regulation has been introduced which leaves people who apply for planning permission extremely frustrated. Those people approach their local public representative who makes representation to the planning authority involved, but the information given is sometimes sparse. As a public representative, I find the issue of planning one of the most difficult to deal with and on which to get information. The relationship between those applying for planning permission and the planning authority is sometimes fraught. That does not provide for positive regulation of the planning laws.
Some years ago when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was Minister for the Environment he introduced a number of EU regulations pertaining to planning, which resulted in vast changes for planning authorities. Many planning authorities said they did not have the staff or the capabilities to implement those far-reaching regulations, and that has caused much difficulty and frustration. Many of the regulations introduced were of benefit, but Governments should have the potential to change the regulations that cause difficulties. Just because regulations are inherited from the EU does not mean they operate efficiently. To make the planning system more consumer friendly, rather than increasing the number of people in certain cases, An Bord Pleanála should deal with the difficulties experienced by planning authorities.
I know of a case where a person who applied for planning permission had to wait eight weeks for the planning authority to reply. On the day before the eight weeks were up the planning authority wrote to the applicant to say the townland was misspelt and that the person should readvertise and reapply for planning permission. That is ludicrous and is not what was intended by the regulations. I cannot understand why the planning authority could not make a phone call or write a letter two days after receiving the application to say that the townland was wrongly spelt. I am not saying that happens on a regular basis, but small problems such as those cause frustration to applicants. When a public representative is asked to mediate on such issues it is difficult to explain to a constituent why it takes so long for a planning authority to deal with such a minor issue.
I wish to refer to planning permission for afforestation. I come from a part of the country where major incentives are given to the agricultural community and financial investors to plant vast areas of land with coniferous trees. Vast areas of Leitrim and Sligo have been taken over by afforestation. I am not against afforestation, but I am against the unplanned abuse of forestry, particularly in the west. The Minister, Deputy Molloy, will be aware that this is happening not only in the two counties I represent but throughout the west. This is an issue that has been neglected by all Governments. Previously planning permission was needed for afforestation of 200 hectares of land but that figure has been reduced to 70 hectares, which is a move in the right direction. I compliment my colleague, Deputy Yates, on taking that initiative and the Department of the Environment and Local Government for introducing it.
However, 70 hectares is still a vast quantity of land in rural Ireland and especially in the west where the size of holdings is very small, usually 30 to 40 acres. We have all seen people move from their rural environment because they are surrounded by forestry. Those people had no right and could not object to unplanned afforestation. I firmly believe it is a mistake to allow this to happen. If we do not try to solve the problem and regulate the matter, there will be a vast movement of people from rural to urban areas. I know the EU is giving vast financial assistance to leave land fallow. A more planned approach to afforestation should be examined.
I do not wish to criticise An Bord Pleanála on any decisions it has made. However, as regards representations made to the board, it is very difficult to get information. I do not believe public representatives are entitled to sensitive information, but we should be entitled to information which we could give to our constituents to show them progress is being made on their applications. The manner in which An Bord Pleanála deals with requests is secretive. This Bill should go some way toward countering that rather than appointing an additional two people to the board which will not solve the problem. Perhaps there is a difficulty with the number of staff or inspectors provided to the board. It should be more consumer friendly. If that were the case, there would not be as much difficulty or frustration with planning applications.
I am pleased to speak on this Bill because it deals with an issue which impacts on the lives of most of us. As regards the planning function, my colleague, Deputy Gerry Reynolds, said it all when he spoke of it being consumer friendly. Has the raft of planning regulations and the various Acts of the Oireachtas over the years in the planning area been more to the benefit of lawyers than ordinary people? How many people understand the planning laws? Are they phrased in layman's language? I ask any of my colleagues in the Oireachtas to frame an understanding of what is meant by planning laws. There is an extract from the commencement order of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992, which says it all. It reads:
On the 19th day of October, 1992, the remaining provisions of the Act of 1992, except paragraph (g) of section 19(4) as respects paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of the section inserted in the Act of 1976 by the said paragraph (g), shall come into operation.
How many of us would understand that? How many ordinary people, if they were to interpret planning law, would understand it? When we frame legislation in the House, do we understand it or do we frame it with regard to the legal dimension afterwards?
Let us consider how planning has evolved over the years. We try to encourage small industry and business. In many cases a person wants to set up a business in their garage or in a shed at the back of the house. It is immediately regarded as a commercial venture so they are pressurised into taking an advance factory or small unit. Suddenly they find their business is uneconomic and they find it difficult to earn a living, whereas they would probably have eked one out in the small garage or shed. Neighbours often resist such a small commercial venture taking place next door to them, although it does not impact on them at all. Many people build a nice bungalow out in the country and they object when someone wants to build alongside them. They become one of the objectors and join An Taisce with their independent views.
Contrast that with planning in the industrial sector. I remember there was only one objection to planning permission for the Tarbert oil refinery in 1983, which never materialised. Only one person objected to the Raybestos asbestos factory in Cork. Such a venture would not get out of the traps today. The Sandoz plant in Cork had to go through a plethora of legal trials. It went through every legal aspect and the company eventually became frustrated. Have we gone overboard and lost a sense of balance with regard to the environment so that our concern acts in many cases as a deterrent to potential industry which may set up here? Deputy Gormley of the Green Party will speak after me and will probably say differently from me. However, I wonder if the planning area has become a monster in the sense that we have gone overboard, even in this House. There is now a raft of Oireachtas Acts and regulations dealing with the planning area.
What degree of planning takes place between the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Coillte and various bodies, such as the local authorities, when future forestry policy is being decided? When it is said that up to 18 per cent of the country should be planted with trees, is it realised that the decision will impact on many county councils and local communities? Are people to be driven out of the places in which they live? In many cases in my county, rural villages and areas are being depleted because they are surrounded by forestry, yet there is not much planning in that sector. There are certain restrictions, but it is still possible to proceed with a forest plantation of a considerable size thus probably driving people out of the area. Perhaps we have gone overboard in providing protection for some areas and neglected others.
I have often had people come to me having made a planning application only to receive a letter from the local authority within eight weeks requiring further information on the development. It can also be seen from such letters that the period of eight weeks dates from then. Suddenly people are terrified and frightened and wonder why it was never pointed out to them before that a difficulty existed or additional information was required. How many people go through the planning process and spend much money framing an application for a house, for example, only to be rejected afterwards because of septic tank considerations, although local authority officials knew that certain areas were very suspect with regard to septic tanks? Would it not be wiser to forewarn people that planning applications for that kind of development in such areas might run into problems because of previous experience? People are often put to considerable expense when they might have been better off not putting in a planning application in the first place. The system is not perfect nor is it customer friendly. There is scope for looking at all of this.
Appointing extra people to An Bord Pleanála may be a cosmetic exercise and may not set the world on fire. However, the entire planning issue can be examined. We have gone overboard in many instances.
In my county we rarely have section 4s. They normally abound in those counties with the best tourism products. Why is this? My councillor colleagues may not appreciate my saying so but it is because three quarters of the council will decide on a section 4. There is a quid pro quo involved in councils. We took a decision that there would be no section 4s. In other counties it is the case that if a Fianna Fáil person applies they get a Fine Gael person to back them and vice versa. That is wrong. We were not going in the right direction in stipulating that three quarters of council members must be in favour of a section 4. The Minister knows what I am referring to. Unfortunately, our tourism product is being blighted by section 4s which involve improper planning decisions. I am not sure that we have addressed this problem. I have concluded that we have not.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Joe Higgins.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I understand a review of the planning process is under way. This is welcome as there is deep frustration and anger among people I represent about the process. It is seen as inadequate. In some cases enforcement is non-existent and there are many problems. I will cite some of the problems I have come across in my constituency.
There are two major applications for planning in Dublin South East — one is in St. Anne's in Milltown involving 18.6 acres and 476 residential units. This is a lovely green space which is the lungs of the city. We have already vigorously fought this development with An Bord Pleanála. It was interesting that one of the arguments used by the planners was that this was a sustainable development. This argument is being used consistently — if a development is on the DART people can be transported into the city and so it is sustainable. I do not believe the argument itself is sustainable. We are talking about people's quality of life. These developments diminish that quality of life and sustainability must be about quality of life. Unfortunately, these arguments are not taken on board by An Bord Pleanála.
A similar development is proposed for Ringsend in which the same argument is being used. This is one of the biggest developments in the city which I will vigorously oppose. It is proposed by the famous Zoe Developments to which Deputy Higgins has often referred. This is a huge development comprising 655 residential units. The area is already one of high density but this development will be ten storeys high in the middle of Ringsend. The quality of people's lives will be affected. The problem is that when developers are defeated at An Bord Pleanála they simply resubmit the plans. They have done so in St. Anne's. They know that they will eventually get what they want. It may be cut down in size but they will get what they want.
We need to examine the way in which planning decisions are made. We know local councillors have very little power. We can make recommendations at a planning committee but that is about it. After that the planners make the decision. I understand how this process evolved. Sections 4s and rezoning brought the planning process and councillors into disrepute. However, in some instances we can give power back to councillors. The problem was often that the old trick was played whereby councillors who were not living in the area and not affected by developments made rezoning decisions. Those councillors who lived in the area could claim they did their best and voted against the application. We must look at a process which involves councillors in the area. They are directly accountable to the people. This should be seriously considered.
It was extremely regrettable that the powers of planning and the environment were separated when the EPA was set up. This was retrogressive but deliberate. It was seen that environmentalists were holding up developments, particularly in Cork. The name of the EPA suggests it is an environmental protection agency. However, as we know it is an industrial licensing authority. We need to look at this situation and introduce an EPA review Bill.
Planning decisions often require an environmental impact statement. These require the involvement of environmental consultants costing about £320 per day. Communities are often not able to afford that money. My experience as a Deputy has been that those parts of the community which are well heeled often mount elaborate objections to developments. They can hire the best lawyers and environmental consultants. However, other parts of the constituency which do not have much money are left to stew and often get the high developments. That has been the case in Pearse Street and Ringsend where huge developments have taken place. This is unacceptable. The impact of the ensuing traffic on people's lives is often not taken into account. Huge developments involving more than 600 car spaces in a confined area will result in a huge increase in traffic volumes. We are not looking seriously at this issue when examining planning developments.
We are concentrating on the big developments. However, there is a problem with the planning provisions involving retention of use. In confined areas we often see that, in order to maximise profits, small developers expand a property by building an extension. Very often they do not seek planning permission. They go ahead and build and then seek retention of use. This happens frequently to the great annoyance of many people in my constituency but very little can be done about it.
I have been told by those in the enforcement section of Dublin Corporation that when they go to court the judge is not interested. The enforcement officers have given up the ghost in relation to retention of use and enforcement of conditions. Conditions are often not enforced yet officers will not go to court because judges simply throw out the case. If we are reviewing planning, this is an area of much concern to many people.
In the long-term if we are to talk about good planning and the maintenance of the quality of life for people in this city, we have to think about CPOs. We have them for roads, so why not for parks? Why can we not preserve the green spaces in our city? There are some very nice parks in Dublin South East but the institutional lands are being eaten up by developments. Government has not given this sufficient thought. If we are to preserve green spaces and quality of life we must look at the way we use and develop land so that we have ecologically sustainable development. That is not happening and I hope it will be addressed in the forthcoming review.
There are 12 minutes remaining, five this afternoon and seven minutes on the next occasion the Bill comes before the House.
(Dublin West): This Bill deals with an increase in the board numbers of An Bord Pleanála and is very narrow in that it addresses that single issue. I would have welcomed the opportunity, had the Government taken it, of a much wider consideration of the planning issue and addressing some of the issues which have dramatically come to the fore in recent years concerning planning matters. In particular I would have welcomed proposals for making the planning process more democratic by giving local communities affected by serious decisions more weight through the provision of new structures. In many well publicised cases we have seen autocratic decisions being made by An Bord Pleanála when it was clear that the communities which would be most affected were totally opposed to such decisions. The proposed Sonas Centre at the Phoenix Park racecourse is a case in point. That dramatic development on a substantial scale would have had a huge effect on the environment of a built up and highly populated area and severe social effects in the context of the type of gambling proposed. Despite the massive scale of objections and the rejection of the proposal by the local authority, An Bord Pleanála saw fit to grant permission to the development. That development would have been foisted on the community were it not for the fact that the Government felt it could not proceed, politically, to licence slot machines and gambling to such an extent. Many other instances could be cited.
Unfortunately, many controversies have arisen because councillors, who have a crucial part in the planning process, instead of representing the community and ordinary people, are driven by big business interests, particularly by developers and those who stand to make a killing from speculation and from building, etc., often irrespective of the consequences, for example, of the type of rezoning decisions put through by councillors in opposition to communities.
A current controversy which has surfaced in the past few days and which illustrates the need for a more democratic process is the issue relating to mobile phone masts on Garda stations. Because of a deal between a private company and the Garda, an attempt is being made to foist microwave transmitters on many communities without them having any right to participate in the process and stronger transmitters can be installed without consultation with the communities. This is totally unacceptable and is causing huge concern in towns and villages throughout the country. Quite properly, people are objecting to this. A related objectionable development is the corporatism by which a private company has a deal with the Garda, one of the key State authorities, to provide mobile phones for senior gardaí. This closeness between a private company and what is supposed to be a totally independent arm of the State should be opposed. Communities living beside Garda stations must have a right enshrined in the structures and procedures whereby their voices can be heard. This is lacking at present and I hope new proposals will be brought forward on this matter.
The issue of planning is coming increasingly under scrutiny by virtue of the experiences confronting many communities on an annual basis.
Debate adjourned.