Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Feb 1998

Vol. 486 No. 6

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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputy Stanton was in possession with 18 minutes remaining. He indicated he wished to share his time with Deputy John Browne.

With your permission, Sir, I wish to share my time with Deputy Ring instead.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Last week I gave a broad welcome to the proposal to increase the number of board members of An Bord Pleanála. As other speakers have said, it is also important to increase the number of staff working in the board. It could be assumed that one of the reasons for this Bill is that An Bord Pleanála is facing an increased workload. An increased workload leads to strain, mistakes and decisions which can be questioned. An Bord Pleanála is under intense pressure. The same could be said about many local authorities.

It should be possible for an applicant to apply for planning permission and get a response within two months, if it is a straightforward matter. However, there have been instances where local authorities have kicked to touch and have told the applicant on the day the decision was to be made or close to it, to supply more information. There is a delay of a further two months which can be frustrating for the applicant. I suggest the Minister direct the local authorities to take account of this issue. It is frustrating not only for business people and industry but also for the householder.

One of the reservations I have about the Bill is that it should have taken into account a review of An Bord Pleanála. There is a lack of openness in some of the board's decisions. I note it has absolute discretion to hold oral hearings and will generally hold one where it aids its understanding of a particularly complex case or where it considers that significant national or local issues are involved. An Bord Pleanála should be more open. In days of yore, people were allowed to petition the King in person if they wanted to make a case.

In east Cork the ESB plans to erect 81 pylons around Cork harbour and people are incensed that An Bord Pleanála has refused to grant them an oral hearing. The Taoiseach has been drawn into the matter. The ESB is being asked by one of the Minister's colleagues to appear before Dáil committees on the issue. An Bord Pleanála should be more open about how it decides whether to hold oral hearings. This is an emotive issue in east Cork. We have had conflict between ESB workers and local landowners and the Garda have been involved. The situation is getting out of control. The Minister will appreciate that the Taoiseach should not be brought into such a matter. An Bord Pleanála has a case to answer.

On Committee Stage the Minister might consider including a provision in the Bill whereby An Bord Pleanála would have to be more open. The buzz words today are "openness", accountability" and "transparency". This is an example of where a State institution is not open, accountable and transparent. I hope the Taoiseach he will be able to use his legendary powers of negotiation to stop this conflict in east Cork because it is getting serious. What does it take for An Bord Pleanála to hold an oral hearing?

Those objecting to the ESB plan include Cork and Harbour Environmental Lines, 35 landowners, East Cork Tourism, the Vintners' Association, Cork IFA, Cork Tourism, Cork Harbour Anti-Pylon Group, Aghada and District Community Council, Cobh and Midleton UDCs, Passage West Town Commissioners and two local chambers of commerce, representing business and industry in the area. In addition, 5,000 signatures have been collected, including that of the Bishop of Cloyne, and yet An Bord Pleanála has decided it is not a significant national or local issue. If this is not a significant national and local issue, what is?

When An Bord Pleanála decides not to grant an oral hearing, as in the circumstances I outlined, and especially when another semi-State company such as the ESB is involved, people tend to come to the conclusion that the two State agencies are in cahoots. I know that is not true, but people are coming to that conclusion about Big Brother —An Bord Pleanála and the ESB. I call on the Minister to speak to An Bord Pleanála and ask it to review its procedures as regards oral hearings because this is an important issue. I know of other cases where this has happened. This is an important matter about which people are concerned. Tourism interests are at stake. Cobh is one of the most important towns in terms of tourism. Liners, etc., dock at Cobh.

There is a question mark over the ESB's costings. An Bord Pleanála included them in its final report, although it said it would not do so in the High Court. The High Court judge involved in the case recommended that An Bord Pleanála hold an oral hearing but it ignored him. There are large question marks over this matter. The Minister should use his authority to discuss its procedures with An Bord Pleanála before we increase its membership.

I welcome the Government's decision to increase the membership of An Bord Pleanála. Members of the public are annoyed and upset when they must wait many months for a decision from An Bord Pleanála. Taxpayers expect the public service to do a job within a reasonable period when it is being paid to do so, but that is not happening with An Bord Pleanála. It has taken board a long time to make decisions which have affected many people.

Deputy Stanton spoke about the ESB. The Minister is undertaking two reviews at present one concerning new legislation on planning laws and the other on housing. The ESB is helping to increase property prices. We often talk about rural Ireland and I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, a rural Deputy, is here because he will understand this problem. As an Opposition Deputy, I am sure he got many representations from young couples trying to live in rural Ireland. When they decide to install electricity in their homes, they get a bill for £8,000, £9,000, £10,000 or whatever the ESB decides to charge. That has not helped those wanting to live in rural Ireland.

I hope the Minister will deal with the ESB in his review of housing. If this monopoly did not exist, we would have competition and would know what people should pay. I know the Minister will look at that issue because he is a practical rural man. Two people came to my clinic last week with bills for £9,000 and £8,000. The ESB tell them to take it or leave it. They have no choice but to take it. The sooner we end the ESB's monopoly, the better.

That is a new policy for the Deputy's party.

Never mind the policy of the party. The Minister of State made many statements when in Opposition which I hope he will follow through in Government. He had all the answers when sitting on the other side of the House. I, as a rural Deputy, depend on him and know he will not let me down. When he was on this side of the House he, like me, had all the answers but he is now in a position to ask the ESB and other State agencies to give young couples with low salaries a chance and not charge them £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000 or whatever amount the engineer decides depending on his form to install electricity.

The Minister and I have been in public life for many years and we receive numerous representations on planning applications. I sent a letter to An Bord Pleanála some months ago and received a reply which told me that while the letter was received in time I did not enclose the required £30. It is not fair to expect public representatives to pay £30 every time they make representations on behalf of the public to An Bord Pleanála. The Minister should examine this matter.

There is no democracy in the planning laws as it is the county manager, together with the planner, who make the decision. I am concerned about the close relationship between local authorities and An Bord Pleanála. In a recent case a Bord Pleanála inspector gave 15 reasons a planning application should be refused, yet he granted the application because it had been made by a local authority. Ballina Urban District Council proposes to build houses in an area which has been zoned for amenity purposes. Arguments have arisen over a map and the county manager has said he does not think the area where the housing development will take place is zoned for amenity purposes but the rest of the area is. The residents had to pay an engineer to make their case, but the county manager is using taxpayers' money and does not really care. If an area is zoned for amenity purposes the local authority should not be able to use the heavy hand of the law to grant planning permission.

Like me, the general public is concerned about the close relationships between local authorities and An Bord Pleanála, and I hope in reviewing planning laws consideration will be given to setting up a planning board in every county. These boards could be made up of members of the council and the general public appointed for a two or three year period. While they may not be professional people it is important to remember that sometimes professional people have influenced decisions which turned out to be wrong. When a professional person makes a wrong decision for example, in relation to a planning decision he will not admit it but ordinary people working often look at matters in a different light. I hope the Minister takes this point on board.

Local authority members no longer have powers in planning matters now that the little power they had under section 4 of the planning laws has been taken from them. The decision made by Mr. Justice Blayney was not appealed to the Supreme Court. No member of An Bord Pleanála, county manager or planning official has to stand for election. However, we have to go before an interview board in the form of the electorate, every few years and I know from experience that they can be very difficult to please. It annoys me that we have to answer for decisions made by An Bord Pleanála and county managers. I hope this situation will be changed in the review of the planning laws.

I welcome the Bill. Some people may oppose a planning application because of a falling out with a neighbour but most people have genuine grievances. I welcome any measure which will ensure that decisions are made more speedily.

When the Minister was in Opposition he tabled many questions on the reintroduction of grants for renovating old houses. In fairness, the previous Government should have reintroduced these grants. I am not saying grants should be given to millionaires who have benefited from the tax relief schemes. Rather I am referring to people who earn £15,000 or £16,000 and those who live in housing estates. Many of these people bought their houses ten or 12 years ago and cannot afford to reroof them or put in new windows or doors. I hope the Minister will do something for them. There are various tax relief schemes available for the rich but there is nothing available for middle income earners and it is time something was done to help them.

The planning appeal system is weighted against the developer. It should be placed on a level playing pitch. The third party appeal system is different from the systems in other European countries. If a developer is refused planning permission the decision can only be challenged through the High Court by way of a judicial review, which costs approximately £100,000. If a developer is successful it is likely the court will send the matter back to the board which will again refuse the development for different reasons.

Why should one developer be allowed build 17 houses on 11 acres when another developer is allowed build eight houses on 11.5 acres? The statistics published in An Bord Pleanála reports make very interesting reading. In 1994 41 per cent of planning decisions were confirmed by the board, 36 per cent of decisions were amended by the board and 23 per cent of decisions were reversed by the board. It is extraordinary that the figures for 1995 were exactly the same, 41 per cent confirmed, 36 per cent amended and 23 per cent reversed. The same statistics were given in a report in the 17 December 1997 edition of The Examiner. It is a mystery how the figures are the same. I do not accept them and would like to know if the Minister or anyone else accepts them.

I know a person in a remote rural area of County Kerry who employs five people and who applied for planning permission to extend a shed so that he could employ four more people. He was granted permission by Kerry County Council but was refused it by An Bord Pleanála. It is extraordinary that while an official from An Bord Pleanála examined the site and gave written confirmation that he proposed to grant planning permission, for some unknown reason when the decision was conveyed by An Bord Pleanála some months later planning permission was refused. A developer who sought planning permission from Mayo County Council to extend a holiday complex and caravan park in Cong had to wait five or six months for a decision. When permission was refused an appealed was lodged, but that was turned down, at great cost to the developer.

I do not accept many of the decisions by An Bord Pleanála. While Members of this House must declare their interests and must not step out of line, a team of faceless people in An Bord Pleanála is requesting extra staff. I do not know who those people are, but will the Minister make them answerable, if not to me and my colleagues, at least to himself? People who are refused planning permission should have the right of appeal to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. They cannot afford to spend thousands of pounds on a judicial review. If I had my way, I would sack all officials of An Bord Pleanála and provide that the Minister would have the final word on planning permissions.

I wish to share the rest of my time with Deputy Browne.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

(Wexford): I thank Deputy Healy-Rae for sharing his time with me. I support many of the Deputy's sentiments. The Minister, in his speech, outlined the need for extra staff and extra members on the board of An Bord Pleanála. There has been a significant increase in the number of appeals to An Bord Pleanála in recent years. There should be an overall review of the operations of An Bord Pleanála and of the planning systems within local authorities. In my constituency the number of queries received about planning has escalated —other Deputies will confirm the same in their constituencies —from one or two per month to nine or ten per week because of refusals by planning officers.

There is no consistency, even within the same planning office of a local authority. For example, different interpretations are put on the county development plan and on ribbon development. New jargon has been introduced by modern day planning officers. Problems relating to regional roads, red brick, bay windows and so on are used as reasons for refusing planning permission. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government should seriously consider planning operations and the need for consistency.

Problems arise with ecowarriors, An Taisce and cranks who put forward objections for the flimsiest of reasons, and those objections end up on the desk of An Bord Pleanála. Many people believe, as I do, that the board operates under a cloak of secrecy, with little or no explanations of how it arrives at decisions. There is need for greater openness in regard to decisions on planning refusals and whether a person should be allowed an oral hearing. In many cases An Bord Pleanála is simply a rubber-stamping organisation in that it upholds the majority of decisions of local authorities. I agree the statistics given by Deputy Healy-Rae are not factual because very few decisions are reversed by An Bord Pleanála. The Minister should consider the matter of rubber-stamping by the board.

Another matter that should be seriously considered is the decentralisation of An Bord Pleanála. That body is hidden away in Dublin like a faceless person. If a questionnaire was circulated among the public asking who are the members and the chairman of An Bord Pleanála, nobody would know apart from the Minister and his officials. I have never seen an inspector from An Bord Pleanála carrying out an inspection in my constituency. When planning permission is refused by a local authority, does an inspector from An Bord Pleanála go to the area and consider the reasons for the refusal? Does he refuse the appeal on site or does he make the decision from his office in Dublin? Perhaps the Minister will outline the operations of inspectors.

A person who is refused planning permission by a local authority has little chance of winning with An Bord Pleanála because he does not have the resources to employ an architect, engineer or environmental health officer to get the advice needed to overturn the decision. An Bord Pleanála, on the other hand, has the expertise of county council engineers, health inspectors, planners and architects who give their reasons for refusing planning permission. The punter must depend on somebody who draws up plans to put together a case because he cannot afford professional expertise. That system is unfair and should be considered by the Minister.

The Minister said that few people challenge in the courts decisions by An Bord Pleanála. Apart from major building contractors and developers, most people cannot afford to take a case to court, to pay solicitors and barristers, the legal eagles who are ripping off the system. That is the only reason decisions are not challenged. I am not saying that this matter should be considered under this Bill, but consideration must be given to the fact that ordinary people are unable to challenge the expertise of local authorities and legal officials.

The local authorities must consider the matter of consistency when addressing planning operations within councils. For example, ribbon development is a major issue. Some planning officers will interpret the county development plans and decide that two or three houses side by side constitute ribbon development while others will decide that it is six houses. Yet we are told that the plan is the preserve of the members, who have their own views on how it should be interpreted. However, as soon it takes effect planning officers will interpret it differently and not in the spirit in which it was developed through the county council.

Planning officers are to blame for the movement to urban areas for the purposes of house building and purchasing. It is practically impossible to get planning permission in some areas of my constituency of Wexford. Reasons for refusing permission include the presence of regional roads, the use of byroads to access regional roads, ribbon development, prohibition on the use of red brick in certain areas, because it would not blend with the sea, the sky or the surrounding trees, and on the use of Tudor style housing because it would not blend in with the surrounding area. People have become so disillusioned with these restrictions that they are moving out of rural areas and buying houses and sites in the towns. It is shameful that local authorities do not operate in the best interests of rural Ireland as they should.

I am pleased that the Minster of State, who has a deep interest in housing and planning, is to review the planning laws and regulations. In the interest of rural Ireland, the sooner this happens the better. Given the high prices of houses in urban areas, I hope he will ensure that people are allowed to build more houses in rural areas. While there is a saturation of houses in urban areas, the seaside resorts and along the coastline, the countryside is being left without housing. In constituencies like mine, houses are not being built, people are moving away and villages are being denuded. These developments will have major consequences for the future.

I welcome the Bill. It provides an opportunity to discuss planning generally. An Bord Pleanála is the bugbear of most Deputies and public representatives. The board does not want to deal with us. When we try to question the Minister regarding its decisions or about individuals who may have appealed to it we are told that such activities are outside his remit. There is a need for more transparency. Will the Minister consider the establishment of regional offices where people can consult the board in the same way that they can consult health boards and other regional bodies?

I support the increase in staffing for An Bord Pleanála if it means that it will make speedier decisions, but I am not sure this will happen. I also have reservations about the appointment of such extra staff from within the board. Many people who know the difficulties involved in planning and in trying to get major developments off the ground would be suitable. The Minister should look outside the board and bring in people who have common sense and a wide knowledge of planning and the difficulties which are being encountered. I hope that we will have quicker decisions and an end to the delays which are leading to job losses and are preventing many builders and developers from putting their money to work.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Deenihan.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Bill. Its purpose is to increase the membership of An Bord Pleanála, which is also to be welcomed. The current membership of the board, the chairman and five ordinary members, is inadequate to meet the level of business referred to it. The recognition that the expansion of the board needs to take immediate effect is welcome, while the proposal to limit the extension for a maximum period of five years is prudent.

I am pleased the Minister has listened to the call for the interim appointments, for a maximum period of nine months, to be made from within the board's existing staff members. To be effective in removing the backlog of appeals which are blocking the system the action being taken in this legislation must be capable of immediate effect. Those charged with the task should be in a position to get on with the work immediately. Upon their appointment, employees of the board should be suitably qualified in this regard.

The workload of the board increased by 14 per cent in 1995 and the Bill proposes to increase its membership to deal with this. From 1995 staffing levels have also been increased. The growth in planning applications over the same period in Fingal County Council, of which I am a member, is approximately 36 per cent, more than twice that of the board. This growth must be recognised and funding must be provided to local authorities to enable them deal with the increases in applications. Among applicants, local authority officials and council members there is a realisation that growth is putting pressure on the planning system, which is now overloaded.

The public are entitled to a quality service. Equally, those who provide it must be adequately resourced and equipped. Some of the additional workload which has given rise to the need for this Bill could be avoided if enhanced customer care and attention were possible at the local authority planning counter. The frustration which all sides experience can only be bad for the planning process and for local government.

Many local authorities are in the process of reviewing their development plans. Fortunately, it has been possible to recruit additional personnel to support this important work. I call on the Government to expedite the review of planning legislation and to steer the necessary reforms through the House as a matter of urgency.

We in the developing authorities know of the urgent need for the creation of enterprise zones which can be pre-designated for industrial development to expedite the formalities of granting planning permission without the customary six or 12 month delays. For a fast track approach to be adopted, the planning authority should be able to stake out an area deemed suitable for industry, zone it and classify in general terms what category of industry would be permitted, the type and style of construction and the other fundamentals in advance of an application and without the involvement of the applicant or promoter. Experience shows that when an industry opts for Ireland it will wish to develop its involvement. The saying in business that time is money was never more true than today and in some instances it is true to say that time costs jobs. We must respond and change to meet this position and put in place a fast tracking application system which takes account of this industrial need. When these enterprise zones are confirmed in principle, only the details remain to be decided. Such applications should not be subject to third party appeals as the core issues will have been already adequately dealt with in the process of the establishment of the enterprise zones.

Speed for all development is of the essence and this is why I support the Bill, but also why I call for more resources at local authority level and for the fast track approach. People want to get on and they must not be frustrated when driving the economic motor of the nation. All An Bord Pleanála decisions should and must be delivered within four months. The planning process must be seen to work. Equally, all local authorities should be resourced to allow them determine all applications within two months. The current perception is that officials only get round to looking at applications days before the decision date and, as a result, hide behind requests for additional information. This must stop. The opportunity to submit additional information should, on the part of the applicant, be confined to once only, forcing the applicant and his agents to get the initial application details correct. The planning process must be seen to be transparent with due care taken and all reports open to the public. The Minister must ensure the infrastructure is in place for the next millennium, allowing for economic advancement while providing structures which protect the environment.

There is an urgent need for legislation to effectively deal with the issue of unfinished estates and developments. There are many in my constituency and throughout the city and county of Dublin. It is a scandal which must be stopped. It is totally unfair that purchasers of new houses, bought on borrowed money over 25 or 35 years at prices which are too high for ordinary working people, find themselves living, in some instances for years, in the middle of building sites. Something must be done in this regard. There is much more the Minister needs to do. However, I support the Bill as it attempts to address the problem.

I understand the Deputy is sharing his time with Deputy Deenihan who has 14 minutes.

I welcome the Bill. If the additional membership of the board will help speed up the decision-making process, it must be welcomed. At present there is a major difficulty with many planning matters regarding decisions on appeals. This is holding back development under seaside resort schemes, in designated areas and in urban and rural areas. More individuals are inclined to object to developments now because people are more sensitive to the environmental impact of developments and how they might affect their quality of life. We can expect more appeals in the future as the land available for building runs out and people are forced to build in environmentally sensitive areas. Due to the increased level of development, there is more pressure for land and, as a result, planning matters will become more sensitive.

The additional members of the board should speed up the decision-making process. However, more staff are required on the ground. There should be more communication between An Bord Pleanála's field officers, applicants and objectors. That has not always been the case in the past due to time constraints. In circumstances where applications were refused outright or permission was granted, people were dissatisfied because the thinking behind the decisions was not communicated properly to them. They did not learn anything from the experience. However, all parties benefited in cases where there was more communication between An Bord Pleanála officials and the applicant or objector.

There is a lack of staffing at council level. Some county planning offices are busier than others, but the planning staff in County Kerry are under considerable pressure because of the large number of applications. The county is mainly rural and I do not want to imagine the position in urban areas where there may be even more pressure. Staffing levels in areas with high numbers of applications should be adequate to meet the demand. I am sure the Minister agrees more thought is now put into planning applications because various aspects must be considered by planners. I will refer to this aspect later.

The purpose of the Bill is to deliver decisions speedily and efficiently. This is most important irrespective of whether the decision is negative or positive. Developers are entitled to know as soon as possible if they can proceed. Objectors to developments should also be taken out of suspense. The important point is that decisions are made swiftly and there are no unnecessary delays.

We may query the thinking behind some An Bord Pleanála decisions in the past. However, in general, the board's decisions have been well reasoned. In my experience there are few cases where decisions could be disputed. However, as Deputy Browne said, it is also important that the reasons for decisions are communicated to the applicant and the objector, who may be community driven or acting in an individual capacity, if only from the point of view of public education. This will help people to make the right type of applications in the future. People can learn much from previous positive or negative An Bord Pleanála decisions.

When I was Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry I pushed for the creation of a national landscape policy. As a nation, we should grasp this nettle and draw up a policy which would address many of the issues which are so controversial at present. When I was Minister of State I brought together an interdepartmental committee under the auspices of the Department, although it should probably work under the auspices of the Department of the Environment and Local Government. I felt I was taking the right approach to the matter. There was a lot of enthusiasm among the members of that committee although we met on only a few occasions. They understood the benefit of a national landscape policy which would involve clear guidelines emanating from Government to local authorities, groups and the planning profession. It would inform what we want from planning and how the landscape could be protected.

I made a proposal for a national landscape policy then which is still relevant and which I hope to encourage Fine Gael to adopt for the future. Maybe the Minister intends adopting such a national landscape policy. I asked him about this last November but he was not very forthcoming on the issue, suggesting that what I proposed was covered adequately by existing guidelines and legislation. I disagree. A national landscape policy would give formal recognition to landscape quality and to its contribution to the overall quality of life, which is very important. Reference has been made to industrialists coming to this country for the quality of life and landscape. Most tourists come here for the environment. We have gone against proper practice in much that we have done to our environment recently, and that will not do our tourism industry any good in the future.

The promotion of good principles of landscape management in the local, regional, national and European contexts is very important. This is a European issue, not just a local matter. I attended the Special European Conference on Rural Development at which there was a major emphasis on national landscape policy. There is a great champion of such a policy in the Department of Environment and Local Government, Mr. Terry O'Regan in Cork, with whom the Minister of State's officials will be familiar. He has championed the demand for a national landscape policy over the last five years, and at this point he must be frustrated and feel he is a voice in the wilderness. However, this matter is gathering momentum. It is not just a green issue or associated with a small group of people. It is becoming a major issue, and it is time we woke up to it.

A national landscape policy would provide support for the preparation and ongoing review of guidelines for better landscape management. It would lead to the co-ordinated dissemination of information and skills relating to landscape to all those whose activities impact on landscape quality and who would benefit from same. When advising people on making planning applications, the impact on the landscape is never discussed. There are no guidelines apart from some vague aspirations. There are examples all over Ireland where one asks of recent developments, "How did the person get planning permission for that development?" The reason is that we have no clear guidelines, consistency or standardisation. A national landscape policy with guidelines would help enormously in the standardisation and preservation of our environment.

In adopting such a policy, the Government would have to recognise the fundamental importance of national landscape quality in all its diversity and in all settings, taking all necessary steps to safeguard the integrity of the landscape. Bills dealing with the environment, planning and the landscape would be heavily influenced by such a policy. A national landscape policy would also co-ordinate the collation of information on all aspects of landscape and would commission additional research, where required, to facilitate the establishment of a comprehensive reference resource for the preparation and subsequent ongoing review of guidelines.

Afforestation, ribbon development and the respect being shown for rural and urban architecture are among the issues that relate to a national landscape policy. I will return to this topic. The Minister of State, as a pragmatist, should examine it closely. He comes from Galway, which has one of the finest environments and landscapes in Europe.

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983 and to provide for an increase in the membership of An Bord Pleanála, which 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 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 responds to a need of which public representatives at all levels will be aware. The Minister and his Department are to be congratulated on responding quickly to a situation many believed was getting out of control. Any applicant for planning permission, or in the case of an appeal when there is a third party, has the right to due process under the law.

Given the four months time constraint, new developments and the huge workload of the board, applicants and others believed it was impossible for their applications to be given the consideration they deserved. The Minister gave figures relating to An Bord Pleanála's workload: it dealt with 2,800 cases in 1995, 3,500 in 1996 and 4,500 are expected in 1998. This is a major increase. On one hand it reflects the positive developments in the economy. On the other, it shows up various shortcomings in county councils, Departments and elsewhere. With this kind of increase it is natural that the response period has slowed. Interestingly, it was as high as 98 per cent at one point, but it has since slipped to the low 80s.

In the past two years planning staff have experienced an enormous increase in their workload. A planner gets a feel for an area by getting to know it, and in conjunction with technical training he or she develops the capacity to deal speedily with applications. I support Deputy Deenihan's points about Kerry County Council's planning department, which is under considerable pressure. The efficient staff in the planning section, however, have managed to keep on top of matters and have made excellent decisions over the years in the best interests of the county. The rate of applications has increased in most councils, but staffing levels have not. There have been calls for a new county development plan. A substantial number of councils who would normally have reviewed their plans every five years are running two or three, and in some cases up to five, years late. That is most unsatisfactory.

There have been enormous changes in the manner in which the planning process operates. This is the first stage at which the crisis in the local government system arises and the next is when the number of planners is not sufficient to deal with the number of applications. Given the two month time constraint, it is inevitable that planning staff will seek more information at a late stage. This angers applicants and increases the workload for councillors and Deputies trying to resolve the matter. They must talk to planners which involves a further waste of time. It is now accepted that the most effective way to deal with planning is at local level. However, trained permanent staff are needed to ensure the process moves smoothly, that county development plans are back on their planning agenda and that background technical work is undertaken.

Developments which would not have excited any interest five or ten years ago are now the focus of attention for groups of concerned citizens. There has been a change in how third party citizens view their relationship to particular planning applications. I have no difficulty with this when those raising objections live in the immediate area of the proposal, but I have a difficulty with people who live miles away having an input.

Planning legislation covers a period of more than 30 years and it is accepted that it is appropriate to consolidate all existing legislation into a new parent Act, as was successfully achieved in the area of roads. One Act would simplify the operation and interpretation of the planning code within the local authorities and the private sector.

The current public consultation procedures should be continued for significant development proposals. The areas where such consultation is not required should be clearly defined and expanded where necessary to take account of the limited impact on the public of certain works, and works that must be carried out to protect public health in the area. A clear distinction should be made between Parts IX and X of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994 so that it is clear which section should be used for particular developments.

The format of the county development plan is significantly influenced by the parent Act which is more than 30 years old and does not truly reflect the needs of the current era. Issues that need to be addressed include the importance of local area plans, the use of the terms "policy" and "objectives", the scope of the development plan and other policy areas. The inclusion of more local area plans within the county plan would increase public interest in the adoption of the plan. People are generally more interested in their immediate areas than in policies for an entire county. There are financial and staffing implications in the preparation of more detailed area plans which would require consideration.

The fees for applications should be increased to a more appropriate level. Given the capital cost of building a house at a modest £50,000, a fee of £100 would not be excessive. It would provide local authorities with funds to employ more staff to deal with increasing demands and might also have the effect of reducing frivolous repetitive applications.

The 1994 regulations expanded mandatory referrals to statutory bodies which has created a dilemma for local authorities when requesting additional information. By law the planning authority is allowed request additional information only once and is reluctant, therefore, to do so until all reports have been received from internal and external resources. This has resulted in additional information being sought later than necessary in the two month period. If necessary, planning authorities should be empowered to seek additional information as soon as possible without the limitation of being unable to seek further information at a later date within the two month period of the lodgment of the application. This would ensure applicants are made aware of the need for further information at an early date.

The requirements for a valid application should be expanded to include other essential information without which a planning application cannot be processed. This would reduce the need for requesting further information at a later time. Such information should include details on the source of water supply, the public mains and the group water scheme, the letter from the group secretary, the location of a well on the site map, where the septic tank is required and percolation and water table test results. The council recommends the preparation of regional planning guidelines to reflect the diversity of circumstances in different areas.

Section 4 of the Principal Act should be addressed to take account of decisions which have taken a very broad view of categories of development that may be exempt. Exempted development criteria for agricultural buildings should be tightened. The written consent clause regarding neighbours within 100 metres of a proposed development tends to be inoperable. Such structures can be constructed in a very short time which makes the planning authority's enforcement procedures more difficult.

Forestry exemptions are too high, particularly when one considers their impact on other developments. I recommend a sizeable reduction in the area of forestry that should remain exempt. The nature of turf cutting has changed dramatically, with machinery now clearing large areas in a very short time. While I recognise the difficulties involved, planning permission should be required for any new areas not yet worked.

The current regulations regarding advertising signs are too lenient in respect of signs erected for travelling shows. Court decisions have viewed events such as "Ideal Homes Exhibitions" as travelling shows, thus circumventing the need for permission for such signs. In a county like Kerry such widespread signage has a detrimental impact on tourism.

Development contributions should be an integral part of sustainable development in a county. Contributions should not be limited to expenditure by the planning authority within any period, but should be payable where services are available. Services are provided on a country-wide basis and expenditure is confined to individual areas at given times. This should not, however, remove from the developer the duty to contribute for the services he or she enjoys.

Serious consideration should be given to the imposition on local authorities of the duty to pay compensation where a decision to grant permission by a local authority has been overturned by An Bord Pleanála. Such a decision is outside the control of the council and may impose a huge financial burden on it. It is also necessary to re-examine the workings of a section 13 notice when a decision of An Bord Pleanála refers to "pre-maturity" as a reason for refusal. The compensation consequences of refusing permission for a development on the grounds of designation of land as SAC, NHA or SPA need to be addressed in the legislation review.

Sections 31 to 35 of the Principal Act should be amalgamated so that all enforcement notices are issued under one section, thus avoiding a defence challenge to an incorrect notice being served. Conviction of an offence of contravention of such a notice should also allow the court to compel the offender to carry out works and not just impose a fine.

In light of differing court decisions, legislation should clearly define what constitutes intensification of use. Such clarification would assist the local authority and developer and avoid the necessity of legal proceedings in many cases. Legislation should also clearly outline time limits for discontinuance of use to aid local authorities in their deliberations. This area requires re-examination to ensure the clearest possible definitions are utilised to ensure a minimum of uncertainty.

In regard to public notices, if a site notice cannot be made visible from the public road, the need for two notices, one on the site and another on the nearest public road should be considered. A site notice may not be visible from a public road, but the resulting development may be. The impact of unsolicited information on the two month time period should also be examined. Such information may be of interest to third parties, but because of the time restriction this may not be possible. The onus should be on An Bord Pleanála to clarify to the applicant the conditions imposed on appeals which may be open to more than one interpretation. In relation to applications for the subdivision of industrial units, fees should be imposed only on the area of the new development and should not relate to the entire development.

All new legislation and regulations should be circulated to local authorities on computer disk in addition to hard copy. This would help to access information quickly, particularly in relation to areas such as exempted development.

Planning laws treat major and minor developments similarly. It would be desirable if the planning process could be simplified for categories of development which are of a minor nature. Planning authorities could be given discretion to dispense with some of the regulations and to accept simplified documentation and procedures in respect of minor developments.

I respectfully suggest the above observations be considered in the review by the Department. Some of the points raised require amendments to legislation, others amendments to regulations and some may be clarified by circular letter. All points are put forward with a view to improving the operation of the planning service and to ensuring consistency and clarity for both the local authority and the public.

The role of An Bord Pleanála has become a great deal more important than was perceived in the past and its composition ought to be examined in the near future. I am interested in the submission from the staff of An Bord Pleanála to the effect that they wish to be considered for interim positions on the board. I do not know on what basis they made that proposal. Clearly they consider they are more au fait with cases. Planners who have dealt with the case and made a recommendation would undoubtedly feel their judgment was questioned if overturned by the board.

Given the time constraints placed on the Minister under existing legislation, he is right to make interim appointments. If not, there will be a greater backlog of cases and it will be difficult to return to a situation of 100 per cent of cases being dealt with in the four month period. We should aspire to reach that position as quickly as possible. I do not agree the only beneficiaries would be the 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 their cases heard within a certain timescale. Third party objectors, some of whom may have a frivolous objection but the vast majority of whom have a genuine interest, are entitled also 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.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Belton.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Bill. There is a need to upgrade An Bord Pleanála and to re-examine the whole area of planning. There is obviously a need to expedite decisions of An Bord Pleanála and the proposal by the Minister to increase the numbers on the board will facilitate this. A debate has been taking place with regard to increasing staff numbers, the services provided and the professionals in An Bord Pleanála. Perhaps the Minister will address the issue of improving the efficiency and speed with which decisions are made on the cases coming before the board.

Many speakers referred to the confusion which sometimes arises with regard to decisions. However, over 90 per cent of the decisions of Limerick County Council are upheld by the board. That is an indication of a large measure of agreement on policy. No doubt there are difficulties in the planning area, especially at local level.

The planning process has changed considerably in the past 12 years since I became a member of a local authority. Environmental issues play a major part and rightly so. The environment is the most important heritage we can pass on to the next generation. Any organisation that assists its protection should be commended. However, we must maintain a balance. On occasion there is a scare regarding the environmental impact of some developments. Industries which may be regarded as less friendly on the basis of their product are safe when operated properly. We must ensure that a balance is maintained and that we do not scare off industries which have an environmental problem. Environmental impact statements cover this issue. We do not want to become a State which, because of concern for our planning rules and regulations, scares off industries which in the operation of their activity are environmentally friendly. We must not operate on the basis of doubt but on fact.

Public relations may be lacking in many areas of An Bord Pleanála. Its role is not understood by the public. It is amazing the number of times public representatives have to explain An Bord Pleanála and its independence to constituents who are dissatisfied with a decision of a local authority. They see in their report from the local authority they have the right to apply to An Bord Pleanála. At that stage they often ask what An Bord Pleanála is about. Its role, independence and importance is not as clear as it should be to the public. Local authorities may have a role to play in this.

The role of the public representative should be recognised by An Bord Pleanála. We can make inquiries but we should not seek to influence its decision in any way. There should be a facility to allow our views to be put on the record after a decision has been made. We should not be allowed a role other than to put our views on the record of the board.

With regard to local decisions I detect a growing tension, certainly in the county council of which I am a member, between elected representatives and the planners and the planning section. We fully accept the different roles of the planning section, the county manager and the public representatives. The public representatives are the oil which assists understanding and communication between the public and any office of State. We are expected to do that when concerned about decisions and should be listened to. For example, there is much concern about delays at local level.

Six or seven weeks after a person applies for planning permission he has to answer a list of eight questions. It is unacceptable that the two months wait for a decision commences after the reply. That is unfair, it creates much frustration and is bad PR for the planning section. The Government should look at the staffing of planning sections. There should be a full examination of the staffing levels in local authorities and the management of the planning section. Management systems and approaches in most local authority planning sections remain unchanged. Applicants should be advised within two weeks of the date of receipt of applications of their status and the requirements to be met.

A strong effort is being made to block ribbon development, a sensitive issue in rural Ireland. I do not agree with this. There is a need to encourage people to live in rural areas. It has been said that people should build in towns and villages but insufficient sites are available. I appreciate land may be acquired by compulsory purchase order but that is not the way to advance. If the current trend continues, within 15 years no houses will be built in rural areas and every school on the western side of my constituency will lose a teacher because of depopulation. This will have a knock on effect on the local community, sports club and churches. Permission is refused for such reasons as that the road on which a person plans to build is too narrow. People are leaving rural Ireland as a consequence.

Every person in Ireland, if one goes back one or two generations, has a rural background. We are not British, we have a different culture and approach in terms of where we want to live. Many people want to live in rural areas and commute to their place of work but it will be impossible to do this within ten years. Every obstacle is put in their way. I am concerned that we will have a beautiful countryside for tourists but with no people. A balance has to be struck. It is only recently that we have become an urban society.

I thank Deputy Neville for sharing his time with me. I welcome the Bill. Anything that will improve the planning process should be welcomed. As a member of a local authority for many years, I am well aware of the problems that can arise at local authority and An Bord Pleanála level. Planning is a sensitive issue for all concerned —the person who wishes to build a single house, the developer and the local authority where it plans to develop a landfill site. The process can have a major effect on the community. It is vitally important, therefore, that people with an expert knowledge are involved at the highest level, especially in An Bord Pleanála.

There has been much criticism about the length of time it takes local authorities to process planning applications and An Bord Pleanála to process appeals. Different time limits should be specified. An application to build a single house in a rural area, major housing and industrial developments and landfill sites should not be subject to the same criteria.

In the past local authorities and some State bodies were not subject to the planning process. This led to problems. The process should be carefully monitored by the Government. There is a view that forestry development has resulted in flash floods in certain parts of the country and impacted on the state of county roads. Developers have never been asked to contribute to their upkeep, unlike farmers who increase output. In urban areas applicants are charged on-street parking fees.

Whenever an inspector from An Bord Pleanála visits a site in connection with an appeal local authority members are not asked for their views. Provision should be made for this, although in certain cases they might prefer not to be asked for their opinions.

I welcome the Bill. The time is right for the Minister to conduct a thorough evaluation of the workings of An Bord Pleanála which has made outlandish decisions on numerous occasions. Let me give one example. Last year Cork County Council granted planning permission to a person who was born and reared on the Beara Peninsula and forced to seek a living in Great Britain through no fault of her own, like many others in the 1950s and 1960s. She had planned to retire to her native region. A third party appealed against her, however, and An Bord Pleanála upheld the appeal and did not allow her build a house in her native region.

This woman made a second application to reconstruct her late mother's homestead and again obtained permission from Cork County Council. This was appealed by a combination of third parties, who were members of An Taisce, and an individual from Ballycroy in County Mayo who wrote a seven page letter to An Bord Pleanála appealing against the decision of Cork County Council. That letter was identical to the one submitted in the first objection. The result was that An Bord Pleanála upheld the third party appeal and refused permission to this poor woman to reconstruct her mother's homestead.

Surely the Minister will agree that the time is right to nip this practice in the bud. Members of An Taisce can make outlandish appeals against these misfortunate people wishing to return to the country where they were born and bred. Having spent 40 years in Great Britain the woman I mentioned was refused planning permission on two occasions, yet these blow-ins can retire here and take up permanent residence. They do not want anybody to live in Ireland but themselves. We have a large number of settlers in the country who are competent and realistic people. They do not object to every permission granted by Cork County Council in my region.

In his reconstruction of An Bord Pleanála I ask the Minister to ensure that he can have his say in regard to decisions on appeals. I ask him to act before it is too late because faceless people can write letters of seven, eight and ten pages making frivolous objections to people trying to build houses in their native land. That is outlandish and should not be tolerated.

Certain decisions by An Bord Pleanála have deprived rural Ireland of industrialisation. Various county councils throughout the west of Ireland, from Mizen Head to Malin Head, have given permission for development only to run up against a barrage of protest by people who are not natives of the country and who would not care if there was no industry in an area. We cannot live on fresh air and cold water. The views of the inhabitants must be taken into consideration as well as the people who come here to retire. We welcome those people with open arms, but I ask the Minister to put some type of curb on their power to object to proposed developments by misfortunate people who want to return here and build a home in the land where they were born and bred.

It is always refreshing to hear Deputy Sheehan; his common-sense contribution is a tremendous addition to this House. I hope, in a more modest and abstract way, to make some of the points he has made in his contribution.

As the Minister pointed out when introducing the measure, the third party appeal procedure in Ireland is almost unique in the European Union. It is too well established in our public culture to even consider abolishing this particular facility. I am glad the Minister has introduced this legislation, having noted the increased incidence of appeals in recent years, because the operation of an appeal to An Bord Pleanála can put a real brake on community and economic development. If we are to sustain our economic and social advancement, it is vital that An Bord Pleanála should dispose of its business with rapidity.

In a more general sense all sides of the House would welcome this measure because it endeavours to increase the efficiency of the board, but Members like to reflect on the operations of the board generally. It was decided that politicians could not be trusted with this area in its entirety and that some of the business of making decisions in relation to planning should be committed to what in substance is a judicial body.

That decision was made in 1976. Of course the local representative is still involved in the formulation of the development plan and can continue to make representations at the planning committee about any particular application —the file can be requisitioned and representations made about it. However, we have decided to consign a great number of sensitive, important decisions not to the political process but to a judicial process. That judicial process is not just applying known law to disputed facts but is making value judgments about what the community does or does not require in terms of desirable development. Having made that decision to commit this whole branch of public business to a judicial body, it is of enormous importance that this House ensures that body operates with public confidence.

In relation to the role of the public representative, I would like the Minister to examine the reason public representatives have to pay a fee in the event of wishing to make a submission on an appeal to An Bord Pleanála. Since An Bord Pleanála is dealing essentially with public business involving choices about policy questions which are highly political, it is appropriate that public representatives should make submissions to the board which are clear and reasoned, and that they should not be charged for so doing because it is something they should do in the proper discharge of their function as representatives.

A further aspect of An Bord Pleanála as a judicial body which will have to be examined is the whole question of the secrecy that attaches to the proceedings of the board. The reason people have confidence in judicial bodies generally is that, under the Constitution, they are required to perform their operations in open court before the press and be available for full inspection by the public. It is improper to suggest that a judicial body cannot be made accountable to this House in a reasoned way.

It could be said that when the board hands down its decisions the reasons for a refusal must be set out in the decision on appeal and equally the various conditions attaching to a development if a development is permitted. As far as it goes that is desirable, but I would like to see a greater cataloguing of these decisions. There should be the facility for the board to give reasons for the decisions on particular applications so that scholars can examine them and ensure there is a consistency of interpretation where the board is concerned.

A point that constantly strikes one as a public representative is the enormous variety of opinion that seems to exist among planning officers about the desirability of particular planning applications. If An Bord Pleanála laid down the law in a consistent way, that conflict of opinion would not exist. That is the way it works in the courts. The courts hand down decisions which are reported and commented on publicly, but the reasoning of An Bord Pleanála is terse in many of these decisions and is not open to a great deal of rational scrutiny. The public can lose confidence in the board when they see what appear to be inconsistent decisions mirroring in An Bord Pleanála the same problem I already mentioned at local level where planning officers seem to have widely divergent opinions about what is and is not desirable. It is important An Bord Pleanála operates in a predictable way. The only way to ensure that is by requiring that not only an inspector's report be made available, but also the final determination of the board giving reasons for a refusal or conditions attaching to a development. In landmark cases that should be accompanied by a reasoned opinion so that a corpus of opinions can be developed by the board, analysed by commentators and planning experts and evaluated in a critical manner. That is a hallmark of a free society. I am not happy at the level of reasoning in the board and the extent to which the public can evaluate how its decisions are arrived at. That is an important point because if we remove the board from all political scrutiny the reasoning of its decisions must be obvious to the general public if we are to have a predictable planning system.

I accept that the abuse of the retention application procedure does not arise strictly on this measure, but it is relevant to the general question of public confidence in the planning system. Far too often we find the sequence of building, retention and permission being followed rather than the sequence of permission and building. Because of that many citizens lose faith in the planning system. When the compliant citizen who observes the rules and obtains permission or refusal sees another person not observing the rules a consciousness develops that sinning has its own reward as far as the planning system is concerned. There should be a review of the planning code to ascertain if a greater penalty or perhaps a greater fee should be attached to people who make retention applications and who have opted in the first instance not to comply with the planning code. The public would respect the planning system more were it clear that those who do not comply with the code do not have an easy facility to find a way around it. I wish to share the remainder of my time with Deputy Michael Ahern.

The growth of our economy is reflected in the increase in the number of houses and business developments during recent years. Consequently, there has also been an increase in the number of appeals to An Bord Pleanála, especially since mid-1995. There has been an increase of more than 44 per cent in that two year period. Because of that An Bord Pleanála considers it necessary to increase its number of staff. It has a statutory objective to decide cases within four months, but due to its increased workload it cannot meet that objective. On those grounds the Bill is acceptable and necessary. However, most speakers I heard today and on the other occasion this Bill was debated put forward views on An Bord Pleanála's decision-making process, especially the lack of information on the detailed reasoning behind many of its decisions, as outlined by Deputy Lenihan. It gives a reason for a decision, but does not outline the reasoning behind it. That does not apply only to An Bord Pleanála, but to many statutory boards set up to make decisions because of a prevalent view that politicians are not honest or capable of making decisions. However, those independent bodies do not seem to be accountable to anybody. Accountability, openness and transparency should apply to them as to other organs of Government. The operation and decision-making process of An Bord Pleanála should be examined, as should the planning process at local authority level.

It is strange that an applicant may be refused planning permission because a proposed development may block the skyline, but that may not be important to another planner. The colour of the brick may be another reason one planner refuses permission, but it may not prevent another planner granting it. There is a lack of consistency at that level as well at An Bord Pleanála level. That frustrates our constituents and public representatives. I did not notice such frustration up to five years ago but in recent years it has crept in because of the lack of consistency in decision-making.

An Bord Pleanála is supposed to be an independent body, but my constituents in Cobh, Aghada and Midleton would question its objectivity, especially in light of an important matter which has arisen in recent months. It relates to an ESB plant which would require 80 massive pylons across the island of Cobh and east Cork. A court case was taken by some farmers in the area and their counsel requested An Bord Pleanála to hold an oral hearing. Counsel for An Bord Pleanála was amenable to that, but I understand the ESB used its influence to block an oral hearing and it was not heard. My constituents and I consider the objectivity of An Bord Pleanála has been called into question. In light of its refusal to grant an oral hearing, it is not surprising that it was supportive of the county council's decision to grant permission. Its decision may have been correct from the point of view of planning, but to allay the public's fears and suspicions openness and transparency should have prevailed and the oral hearing should have proceeded at which the reasons behind that decision should have been made public. An Bord Pleanála is falling into disrepute because, like other statutory bodies, it is treating the public with disdain. Those bodies are not listening to the public or meeting to discuss matters in detail with them.

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le gach éinne a labhair sa díospóireacht seo. Is cinnte go bhfuil suim íontach sa chóras pleanála agus tháinig an-chuid moltaí chun cinn sa díospóireacht. Rud an-ghnáthach sa Teach seo an líon mór Teachtai a labhair ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo. Cuirfidh na tuairimí éagsúla a tháinig os comhair an Tí go mór leis an athbhreithniú atá á dhéanamh ag an Aire ar an chóras pleanála.

I thank all Deputies who took part in the debate on this Bill. There is general agreement that An Bord Pleanála should be properly resourced at staff level and at board level to ensure that the planning appeal process operates in an efficient and effective manner. I have explained the steps the Government has taken to provide extra resources at staff level during the past year. The proposed strengthening of the membership of the board, for which this Bill provides, is a necessary complementary measure to the increase in staff resources. I assure the House that my Department will continue to monitor the trends in the number of appeals and in the board's performance to ensure that the board can meet its objective of deciding on appeals within four months.

A number of Deputies raised other issues related to An Bord Pleanála and the planning system generally. This Bill must be seen as a single focused urgent measure to deal with the current upsurge in planning appeals brought about by our economic success. Other issues concerning the planning system will be given consideration as part of the comprehensive review of planning legislation in which I am now engaged. My Department is examining all the submissions received as part of that review and I look forward to a constructive and healthy debate on my proposals when they are published later this year.

The provision of indemnity to the staff of the board was raised by Deputy Howlin. The provision of such statutory protection has been promised and will be contained in the next planning and development Bill to be brought before the House. This is the Bill which will deal primarily with the protection of the architectural heritage and which I intend to submit to Government for approval to draft within the coming weeks. I expect it to be before the House later this year. The Bill before us is urgent. It contains only two sections and its sole purpose is to allow for an increase in the membership of An Bord Pleanála. In the light of this debate, I will consider if it is possible to include provision on indemnity in this Bill. With regard to the planning review, I am happy to consider any views which the Members of this House express regarding the Planning Acts in general or An Bord Pleanála in particular.

Deputy Dukes and others referred to a number of instances where they disagreed with the decisions of the board. Some of the buildings to which the Deputy referred, such as the IFSC building and the Dublin Corporation headquarters, did not come before the board. The IFSC building, for example, was part of the special scheme for the Custom House Docks area. The buildings in question also have many admirers, as Deputy Howlin pointed out.

It is unrealistic to expect that there would be unanimity throughout the country in relation to all planning decisions. What is required is an independent consideration of the planning authorities' decisions. We must be satisfied that the board applies the principles of administrative justice in arriving at its decisions. However, we must accept that different people will arrive at different decisions based on the same facts. The courts have accepted this and ruled that as long as the board adopts due process and bases its decisions on the facts before it, they will not question the planning merits of the board's decisions.

Deputy Dukes also questioned the fact that the board overruled the inspector's report in 11 per cent of cases. There is no point in having a board if it is bound to accept the recommendations of the inspector. However, in overruling the recommendation of the inspector, the board must be satisfied that the facts before it support such a decision. I understand fully the point made by Deputy Dukes and Deputy Howlin that where the board overturns the inspector's recommendation, it should explain why it has done so. The board is required to give reasons for its decisions, but some might not be as clear as they could or should be. In presenting its last annual report late last year, the chairman of the board acknowledged this criticism and said it would give clearer reasons in the future, which is a welcome move.

Deputy Dukes inquired as to why there has been an increase in delays in dealing with planning appeals. The reason is quite simple. It reflects the growth in the economy generally. There has been a steady rise in the number of appeals coming before the board since mid-1995, an increase of 44 per cent over a two year period. This rise in appeals has matched the rise in planning applications generally, which have increased from 39,000 in 1993 to almost 51,000 in 1996.

Deputy Howlin noted the greater sensitivity among the public to proposed development. This in turn is reflected in the increase in the number of third party appeals being brought to An Bord Pleanála. The latest figures show that these appeals have increased slowly but steadily from 25 per cent of all appeals in 1984 to a high of 39 per cent in 1997. We all value the openness of the planning system in allowing for third party appeals. This imposes a certain discipline on developers and planning authorities. Equally, objectors must recognise the unique position granted to them under planning law and use their rights constructively at all times. However, as Deputy Killeen noted, we must guard against vexatious and mischievous appeals which introduce unnecessary delay to the planning system. Section 14 of the Planning Act, 1992, allows the board to dismiss appeals which it considers to be vexatious or without substance or foundation. In 1996, 21 appeals were dismissed by the board for these reasons.

Deputy Hayes questioned why people who have no interest in a particular development can take an appeal to the board and asked whether any person from the EU could make an appeal. The position is that any person, regardless of interest, residential status or nationality, can make an appeal to An Bord Pleanála. To require people to show an interest would be a major departure from the current system.

Deputy Howlin and Deputy Ryan raised the issue of lack of enforcement and I share their concerns. The issue of enforcement will be carefully considered as part of the planning review. The present laws are quite complex and are not user friendly. I hope that the enforcement provisions of the Acts can be simplified. Deputy Howlin said that the lack of enforcement relates to a lack of resources at local authority level to inspect developments and take action when necessary. I hope that the additional resources which I am providing for local authorities —£125 million in extra discretionary funding —will help them to provide better resources for their planning offices. This would lead to a better planning service generally and to more effective enforcement in particular.

One issue that has been raised as part of the planning review and by Deputy Ryan is the prohibition on planning authorities taking environmental pollution issues into account when they are deciding planning applications which also require an integrated pollution control licence from the Environmental Protection Agency. This division of responsibilities was established in order to avoid duplication of effort between planning authorities and the EPA. The IPC system is a relatively recent introduction and no doubt some of the initial difficulties will be ironed out in time. We are actively examining this as part of the review on planning law.

Deputy Gilmore asked why this Bill was taking priority over other worthy Bills which are to come before the House. I cannot answer for other Departments and their priorities. However, I can assure the Deputy that proposals for the traveller accommodation Bill have been finalised by the parliamentary draftsman. It is expected that the text of the Bill will be submitted to the Government shortly for approval for publication. Deputy Gilmore suggested that the construction industry had influenced the decision to bring forward a Bill to speed up planning appeals. The proposal for an increase in the board membership came from the board. The Oireachtas has placed a statutory obligation on An Bord Pleanála to consider planning appeals within four months. It would be remiss of me as Minister of State and of the Oireachtas not to provide the board with the resources to meet the demands which the Oireachtas has placed on it. That is why these provisions cannot wait for the introduction of a more comprehensive planning Bill.

Deputy Gilmore also expressed concern about rising house prices. I share the Deputy's concerns in relation to house prices. There is an obligation on us, therefore, to ensure the planning system does not contribute to increasing house prices, for example, by delays in granting planning permission. I expected the Deputy would support this Bill. I have engaged consultants to study the issue of house prices and I expect a report from them at the end of March. In the meantime, the Government has made available £15 million for the servicing of land. Along with local funding, including contributions from developers, this should open up sites for building about 37,500 houses in the three years from 1998-2000. This is roughly equivalent to one year's housing output. We will keep the situation under observation. The other issues raised by Deputy Gilmore about the construction industry are not within the remit of my Department.

Deputy Hayes also wondered why a Bill had to be brought before the Dáil to allow additional members to be appointed to the board. He said the Minister should be able to increase board membership as the need arises. The Deputy should be aware the Oireachtas decided that the appointment and number of board members should be regulated by a strict code, which reflects the important role the board has to play in planning and development and the need to ensure it has wide acceptance as being impartial and independent. The board has managed to achieve this level of public support and we should not make changes which would detract from that.

The Deputy asked if increasing the number of board members would automatically raise the number of members needed for a quorum. The quorum of three is set in the 1983 Act and remains unchanged by the Bill. The efficiency of the board should therefore be improved with the increased membership.

Deputy Clune mentioned the need to establish special industrial zones where a pre-planning process can be gone through thereby allowing suitable industry to be set up with the minimum delay. This issue is being examined as part of the review of planning legislation. However, the issues are complex and will need careful consideration. The situation in the UK is often mentioned but the use of special industrial zones there has had only mixed success.

Deputy Roche mentioned that some local authorities are using development contributions as a means of taxation. Local authorities took in around £36 million in development contributions in 1996. This forms a relatively small but essential contribution to the installation of costly infrastructure such as roads, sewage and water services, which benefit development. Local authorities are restricted by law regarding the infrastructure for which they can charge. However, development contributions are a legitimate way of assisting the provision of infrastructure which otherwise might not be built. This issue is being examined as part of the current review of planning legislation to ensure charges are levied in as transparent a way as possible.

Deputies Howlin, Roche and others mentioned the problem of rogue builders and unfinished estates. Deputies should bear in mind that it is up to each local authority to ensure that builders provide adequate bonds to enable estates to be finished. The law, when applied properly, is sufficient in this regard and there is no excuse for local authorities allowing the problem of unfinished estates to arise in the first place. Most local authorities have used these powers to their full effect. However, I can promise Deputies that the issue of taking the past record of developers into account when granting future planning permissions will be examined in the context of the current planning review.

Deputy Deasy states that only one in ten appeals succeeds but this is not the case. In 1997 the decision of the planning authorities was confirmed in 42.5 per cent of cases. It was amended in 34.5 per cent of cases and reversed in 23 per cent of cases. The local authority decision is changed in some way in 57.5 per cent of cases coming before An Bord Pleanála.

The use of section 4 motions was raised by a number of Deputies. There has been a substantial decrease in such motions in recent years. A three-quarters majority is now needed to carry such a motion and in 1996 only nine such motions were passed —five in Donegal, one in Leitrim, two in Kerry and one in Meath.

Deputy Deasy referred to the need to provide adequate green and recreational areas in public and private housing developments. I fully endorse the Deputy's view. The circular sent to local authorities on the 1998 housing programme starts advised them that other than in exceptional circumstances, public housing schemes should not be built in public parks or designated recreational areas. We had a debate on that issue before Christmas and it is interesting that the party opposite, which tabled the motion leading to that debate, has in its ranks Deputies who agree with the point of view I expressed in the House and in that circular. It leads one to the conclusion that things are often said here for the sake of taking a party line and Deputies' real thoughts are not often expressed. I was disappointed by the attitude taken during that debate, particularly by Fine Gael.

I confirm for Deputy Burke that the additional board members will be appointed from nominations made by the bodies represented on the four panels. Because it will take time to go through the necessary consultation, the Bill sensibly allows for in-term appointments to be made from the staff of my Department or employees of the board. Such in-term appointments will be for a maximum of nine months.

I sincerely thank all Deputies who contributed to this interesting debate. I have not been able to respond to all the comments made but I assure Deputies their views will be taken into account in the review of the planning process as most comments were more relevant to that exercise than to the specifics of the legislation which has the general support of all sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share