Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 2000

Vol. 514 No. 4

Planning and Development Bill, 1999 [Seanad] : Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. S. Ryan

I am very pleased to have an opportunity at last to comment on this Bill. Having read the media commentary and listened to the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, with interest when it was first introduced I was looking foward to reading it in the hope that it would be radical. While I welcome many aspects of the Bill which take on board many of the existing anomalies in planning and housing, I do not think the Bill is as radical as initially envisaged.

In his contribution my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, the party spokesperson on the Environment and Local Gvernment, correctly said that this is two Bills in one, being concerned with planning and housing. At this stage I wish to refer to the housing provisions in the Bill and see how they will help improve matters.

The single most important issue that we must deal with is housing. It is with a deep sense of frustration that I come to the House to make these comments, but it is necessary to make them. The housing problem, if not urgently addressed, could undermine the social fabric of society and the partnership approach which has by and large been beneficial to the country over the past 15 years or so. At a time of unparallelled buoyancy in the economy, with the Minister of Finance hav ing a surplus in excess of £6 billion last year, we have witnessed house prices increasing by over 60%, with increases in private rented accommodation costs of over 50%. At the same time there are 40,000 applicants registered on local authority housing lists. These figures relate to the two and a half year period the Government has been in office. However, we must be grateful for small measures. The Minister of State in particular has at long last acknowledged that there is a housing crisis.

In looking for a solution we must acknowledge that the crisis is multi-dimensional. We are all aware of the affordability problem which is being experienced by aspiring householders. Affordability problems in the private rented sector are resulting in insecurity, lack of maintenance and low quality accommodation. I heard a tenant in private rented accommodation stating in an interview last Monday that she had been obliged to move ten times in the past ten years. There is a crisis in the public housing sector, with 40,000 applicants on local authority housing lists compared with 27,427 when the Government came into office in June 1997, an increase of 43%. Housing associations, co-operatives and community development organisations are unable to achieve their objectives mainly due to the shortage and cost of serviced land. The Minister must acknowledge the problem of homelessness has never been so acute. One has only to look around the cities of Dublin, Cork and Limerick to see people sleeping on the streets every night. In the owner occupied category the escalating house prices in recent years have placed home ownership beyond the reach of a large proportion of young people. Even couples with two average incomes find they are unable to bridge the gap between what they will get under the normal formula for assessing loans and the house price. A significant factor is the price of land which affects the price of houses and their affordability. The average price of housing land in Dublin has risen by 200% since 1995 and today accounts for almost 40% of the price of a home.

Another startling fact is that the average price of new houses in the Dublin area, for which loans were approved by all lending agencies in the third quarter of 1999, was £157,530. When one compares this with £76,500 in 1996, it is an increase of 106%. This is unsustainable and if it is not pulled back the bubble will burst. None of us wants the spectacle of evictions and "for sale" notices around our towns and estates, as happened in England in the 1980s. In this regard I have outlined the extent of the problem and how this Bill will deal with it.

The new definition of eligible persons will not resolve the problem or make it easier for applicants to secure a home of their own. In certain cases it will discriminate against them. There are two main categories of applicants for local authority housing – those applying for local authority houses and those who may have the means to apply for a shared ownership loan. From reading the legislation I do not see any reference to a shared ownership loan. There are applicants for shared ownership loans who are not eligible for local authority houses. There is a problem on the difference between eligibility for local authority housing and for the shared ownership loan. I will discuss the affordability element later.

As we know, the eligibility limit is £37,500 for local authority housing but there is flexibility. The cost of rented accommodation and, perhaps, the number of children can be taken into consideration. The limit on the shared ownership loan relates specifically to the formula of assessing gross income up to £50,000. If applicants, whether single or couples, breach that formula or income limit, they are not eligible for a shared ownership loan. I have come across many people who could not get to the counter or inside the door of a bank or a financial institution to try to acquire a loan for a house because they had not the means but they were not eligible for a shared ownership loan by virtue of the fact that over the two years since they submitted their application – in other cases people are waiting for houses to be built under a co-op scheme – they had exceeded the limit of £50,000, by approximately £1,000, due to national increases in their salaries and in other cases because they had worked overtime.

In this context will the Minister look at how that anomaly can resolved? We must consider the couples or individuals who are eligible for the new scheme referred to in the Bill. Since the scheme came into operation the local authorities are using the same formula used for eligibility for shared ownership loans. In the context of the housing supply element of the Bill, there is no reference, good, bad or indifferent on the income limit, to the price of the house or to houses that may come on stream. The modifications to the Bill by the Seanad will not improve the situation for the vast majority of people. Will the Minister consider the fact that there is no flexibility?

I welcome the planning aspect of the Bill. I read with interest the proposals by the Minister to tackle what I classify as "rogue developers" and "unfinished estates". There was a comment in the media recently that this was an innovative proposal and they did not know from where it came. By and large, however, the Bill is similar to the Private Members' Bill I introduced in the Seanad on 17 November 1998 and in the Dáil on 17 May 1999. Last May the Minister stated that this much needed legislation could not be taken on board for constitutional reasons. However, I welcome the Bill.

A small group of rogue or cowboy builders consistently flout planning regulations, ignore their obligations to finish housing estates to the required standard and give the construction industry a bad name. Children in one estate in my constituency grew up without access to a green area for more than 20 years, yet during that time the developer involved applied for planning per mission for other estates in the area. I have pursued this issue vigorously at local authority and national level since I took up public office, and the proposals I put forward in my Private Members' Bills have been vindicated. I am delighted the Minister will implement them. At the end of the day, people who mortgage themselves to the hilt must be reassured about their futures and that they and their children will have a proper environment in which to live.

It appears that, if requested, an individual may be obliged to provide further information to a local authority to pursue a planning application. If an application is submitted and an official questions the bona fides of the applicant, there is a further delay. A simple way to deal with this would be to provide that planning authorities should require applicants to provide a brief history of the planning applications submitted and, most importantly, confirm whether an enforcement action had been taken against them in respect of such applications. Alarm bells would ring on receipt of this and the application could then be dealt with swiftly.

The Bill provides that up to 20% of future housing developments can be allocated for social and affordable housing. However, since the Bill was published that has been watered down. My great concern is that, while the Bill provides for different types of housing, such as local authority and affordable housing, people in well-off areas still do not want local authority housing in their neighbourhoods and they will continue to object. They will combine with the developers and the local authority to ensure the affordable element is introduced in certain areas but social housing will be excluded. The Minister is concerned to ensure that there is a proper mix of housing and I hope managers and builders will not get their way when his recommendations are implemented following enactment of the Bill.

Officials outside my local authority area and builders have said local authority houses are not suitable in certain areas. We are all aware that if proposals are made for a sewage treatment plant, a halting site, local authority houses or a dump, protests will take place. I hope the Minister ensures that the broad basis of what he has in mind will be implemented. I look forward to discussing other elements of the legislation on Committee and Report Stages to strengthen the Bill so that it has a positive effect on the future development of Ireland.

Mr. N. Ahern

I will comment only on a few aspects of this enormous Bill. Local authorities do a very good job in the area of planning. The economy is booming and the number of planning applications is huge. Local authority staff deserve credit. It is easy for us to complain when further information is sought on planning applications and we suspect it is a delaying tactic but, in general, the officials have done a good job. Staff are poached daily by other local authorities, An Bord Pleanála and private developers and consultants. They work under great pressure and have done well to keep on top of their workload.

Some measures in the Bill are necessary and worthwhile, but I wonder whether the right problem is being tackled. It provides that a local authority must give a decision on a planning application within eight weeks rather than two months, but the difference is only a few days. There is merit in reducing from eight to four weeks the time a local authority has to decide on an application following receipt of further information. I am not against the measures but relatively small delays are involved.

The real problem in the planning process relates to An Bord Pleanála and judicial reviews. Five years ago one rarely heard of a judicial review in regard to planning and if one did it related to a major infrastructural development which people perceived would affect their quality of living. However, such reviews are rampant now. Small pressure groups frequently seek judicial reviews of planning applications for 50 houses. It is crazy. The Minister may not be able to control the courts but he can control their guidelines. It is easy to obtain a judicial review or at least play around with one for six months until such time as the local authority or the developer must buy off the objector rather than be subject to a three or four year delay. That is appalling. I am disappointed that all of these issues are ending up in the courts. I read recently about someone who had run up legal costs of £300,000 or £400,000, and I do not know the detail of the case, but the judge waived all the costs out of compassion or whatever. It is like backing a horse. If somebody engages in this process there is always the possibility of a win or of getting stung but if everyone is allowed to seek judicial review, delay matters for a couple of years and then walk away without any pain, it will encourage more and more people to do that. In most cases, these people do not have a good point.

I saw a media report this morning that the Minister might make some movement on that in relation to major roadways but it should cover more than major roadways. We should try to tie down the courts or set up a special court to deal with judicial reviews on the overall planning issue. A case arose recently in a local authority in my constituency of Ballymun involving objectors, most of whom would not know where Ballymun was, who were seeking a judicial review. An out of court agreement had to be made with these people to avoid the issue being bogged down for three or four years waiting to get to court. People have a constitutional right to seek judicial review but we need to speed up the process. A special court should be assigned to deal with these cases so that they can be finalised quickly.

Changing to eight weeks is a small point but An Bord Pleanála is not adhering to its four months requirement; it seems to be taking longer to make decisions. If there is an imposition on a local authority to make a decision by the due date, An Bord Pleanála should have some more responsibility placed on it to respond by a due date. It is not sufficient just to have a target date and then to exceed it by a few months. I ask the Minister to concentrate more on An Bord Pleanála and the judicial review aspect to speed up this process.

I agree with some of the measures the Minister is taking in relation to An Bord Pleanála. There are too many objections from third parties who live miles away and who have nothing to worry about. It may be difficult to make changes that apply to one person and not to another. That applies to having to pay a fee to make a submission or to appeal to An Bord Pleanála. I do not mind some people having to pay a fee but it should not apply to somebody who is objecting to a development next door to them, and it certainly should not apply to public representatives. I am horrified by the suggestion that public representations might have to pay a fee to make a submission to their own local authority. I do not know where that is coming from. It is most undemocratic. I do not want to start slagging the Department of the Environment and Local Government and some of the other electoral reform measures, but I do not like that measure and it should not apply to public representatives.

This measure has not been thought out. What will happen in local authorities in the future? Will the management say an item cannot be discussed at a planning or a city council meeting where we currently discuss a sample of the major issues? Will we try to discuss every issue at the corporation or local authority meeting or will we be told by the manager that if we have something to say on an issue we should send in our £20 and he will read it? That measure needs to be tied down. There should be a charge for people who make spurious objections to developments they do not live near but public representatives should be excluded from any form of charge. The person living directly beside a development should be exempt also because they have a legitimate point of view.

While I recognise the difficulties of being able to draw a line to leave some people in and others out, the same applies to appealing to An Bord Pleanála. Despite the fact that we all get planning lists and notices are put up, the odd planning application sneaks through without notice. I know of two in my area recently, one of which involved a public body which put in a wrong address and everybody, including ourselves, missed the planning application. Nobody copped it until permission was granted. I would like to think the Minister would have the power to allow, in very limited circumstances, third party objections when the original application was missed. That does happen on occasion but the change introduced by the Department some years ago in relation to public notices has solved many of the difficulties.

I welcome many of the other changes like pre-planning discussions, etc., but I would like the Minister to clarify one point. I would like him to explain what is meant by giving statutory recognition to people who make a submission. Does it mean a person is entitled to a reply acknowledging their letter? Does it mean that a person will get a considered reply specifically addressing the points made? Will the local authority have to go into the nitty gritty of a person's particular points or just acknowledge the letter and include a copy of the decision? I would like that spelled out in more detail. While the measures in the Bill are welcome, I hope something will be done about An Bord Pleanála and also the courts.

On the question of housing, the previous speaker amused me with his contribution. My local authority is in a built up city area where there is not much land available for rezoning. In the past year I was amused by some politicians on Dublin City Council who declared a housing crisis and passed a motion to that effect. The very next month we received a report on the rezoning of one of the last tracts of land in Dublin. Major objections were made by the same people who had declared a housing crisis the previous month. That is nonsensical. I am talking mainly about people in the Labour Party and some other lefties. If there is a housing crisis, which is the case in certain quarters, and if we want to do something about it we have to realise that land will have to be rezoned and that somebody will make money out of it. That is the system and there is no point in people losing their heads because somebody else is going to make a few pounds. If rezoning provides housing and satisfies a social need, good has been done but it cannot be done without putting money into the pocket of some developer, and we might as well face up to that reality.

I have no objection to the 20% requirement and the changes made in the Seanad are worthwhile. Under the old system there was a danger that the main development would not correspond to the development the local authority would build subsequently, and this 20% patch might be left in estates for a number of years waiting for the local authority to move. If this means that the builder will build the affordable or social housing at the same time, or that it will be done in conjunction with the local authority programme, that is good and logical. It is a sensible change. I am not concerned about the developers. The zoning system gives the land its value and we are only taking back a portion of that value. If the construction industry will not agree to the spirit of the legislation, we should change the Constitution and take the builders on in a full frontal attack. We can introduce a land authority and let it take over the land and zone it as it sees fit.

The developers are doing well; they are ripping off the system. With the introduction of increased density, they are in no danger of having a poor day. They are getting far more apartments or houses on a site than they did previously. There are no houses built in Dublin any more, only duplexes or apartments. The builders are cram ming more housing units onto the same patch of ground so I have no concern that they will have a hungry day.

There is one concern about this provision. The idea behind it is to have social integration. Some of my colleagues on the city council might think I am a new convert to this concept. The local authority some years ago started buying – it still is – secondhand houses in residential areas. This was a cause of much concern and fear for residents who felt the policy was not proper. I did not exactly lead the charge against them. However, things have moved on. It is different when people know from day one that when an estate is built there will be a certain number of private houses and a certain number of affordable and social units. They know what they are buying. It is fairer to do it that way than to buy privately built houses later and use them for social housing.

However, there is a huge problem with rented accommodation, regardless of whether the tenants are in social housing or are the sons and daughters of well to do people from the country, possibly students, as is the case in my constituency. Nobody looks after a rented house the same way as a house they own. If one is putting social or rented housing into a private estate, there must be tighter rules regarding estate management and how people look after those houses.

The local authorities have made huge strides in estate management in recent years and that is welcome. However, the message must be conveyed that if a person ignores the house or the gardens or allows their appearance to become run down, action will be taken against them. If we are opting for inclusive estates and avoiding the old system of segregation, it must be on condition that there will be proper estate management and that if tenants step out of line, they will be dealt with. Everybody, regardless of whether they are in the social or private houses, must be obliged to look after them.

There is a danger, as the last speaker said, that if a builder is building an estate of £300,000 houses, the affordable houses will be located there while the social housing will be located in an estate of £150,000 houses. We must avoid that. Every estate will have to do its share. Some of the comments made by Deputy Ryan were amusing. He criticised the Minister and the Government for failing to provide houses. However, the party he represents and Fingal County Council, of which he is a member, have done precious little to provide social or affordable housing. There are great plans to provide it but in recent years the council has not even filled its quota of social housing.

From my point of view, as a member of the neighbouring authority, its attitude has been that it does not want any social tenants. Many of the homeless people to whom Deputy Ryan referred have come onto the streets of Dublin from Blanchardstown and other such areas because the surrounding local authorities, including Fingal, did not want to do their bit. They let the homeless go into the city and expect the corporation or somebody else to look after them. There is a great deal of messing going on among the local authorities. They are dumping on each other. There is too much playing politics. If they are trying to solve a problem, it would be better to work together and stop declaring a crisis one week and blocking development the next.

Enforcement has been practically non-existent. I welcome the measures in this regard in the Bill and I hope the local authorities will be given the resources to follow up on it. Again, this goes back to the courts. I remember following up small enforcement issues in Dublin. The case comes before the court and the judge imposes a £20 fine or something similar. It might have taken the planning official weeks or months to prepare the case. The next time he goes to the principal officer or the manager with a similar case, he will be told to dump it: "We cannot go to huge lengths, spending hours preparing a case, for the judge to impose a £20 fine". If there is a system, the courts must support it. Planning people must make decisions but that is what has been happening. People drag out the case and after five years or so the attitude is that no court will listen to it. Passing legislation is one thing but we must get the courts to adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of the law.

I welcome the changes in relation to the strategic development zones, compulsory purchase orders and other matters. Planning compensation is referred to but that is the only type of compensation mentioned. The Department of the Environment and Local Government should bring forward a scheme for individual or community compensation. Developments such as the port tunnel are of great benefit to hundreds of thousands of people but the location of these developments mean that a certain number of people, perhaps 50 or 60, will suffer. There should be some form of community, if not individual, compensation for when something enormous is located in an area. It might be for the greater good but it might not benefit a couple of dozen individuals living nearby. This issue was mentioned during the debate on the waste management legislation and on other occasions. It is regularly mentioned but it is always put off for another day.

Mr. Ring

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I have been a member of a local authority for over 20 years. I was a member of both the urban and county councils and it has never been as hard as in the last two years for people in rural areas to secure planning permission.

The Government says it wants to see more development on smaller sites and it has made many new rules and regulations. However, there is a difficulty. The planners think they are above the Government. Look at the provision in the Bill under which members will have to pay to make a submission to the county council. That is an attack on democracy and on local representatives. However, there are people in the public service who think the local authorities should not exist, that there should be a dictatorship and that they know better than the people, the councils and the Minister. The Minister introduces the rules and regulations but these people believe the planners have the vision.

I can offer two examples. In every town and village there are islands or ramps to slow down traffic. They are disasters. The person who was paid to design them should be sacked. The planners decided, probably at a meeting in Dublin, this was the way every town and village should look. They decided they should all look the same and that the traffic should be slowed down. As a result they made a mess of many of the towns and villages

The second example relates to the National Roads Authority. That authority has caused more accidents and deaths than speeding drivers, again because of their placing its islands in the middle of national roads. Yellow lines are now painted on both sides of the road, with the result that inexperienced drivers, of which there are many on the roads, will not pull in to let faster traffic pass. This delays traffic and people become frustrated, with the result that they overtake dangerously and cause accidents. It seems that this decision was made in Dublin or elsewhere and was communicated to the local authorities who implemented it.

At the past four meetings of Mayo County Council, there has been an average of 35 refusals of planning applications per month, a total of 140 refusals in the past four months. This is crazy. The applicants are not non-nationals or holidaymakers but ordinary, decent people who want to live in their own area of the county but cannot obtain planning permission from the local authority. That should be compared with my home town of Westport where another housing estate with more than 120 houses was built. About 12 local people live in these houses and the rest are from Cork, Dublin and elsewhere. Not only were they able to obtain planning permission, the Government gave them a tax break. They are being rewarded for increasing property prices in Westport. More people from Westport live in Castlebar than Westport. That is a serious situation which was created by central Government through the Planning Acts. I hope whatever measures the Minister introduces under the Bill will be implemented by the planners and that they will not do it their way. If we enact laws in this House, they should be implemented by the people who are paid by the taxpayers, rate payers and the State to do so. It should not be the case that the Government enacts legislation which is not implemented by the planners. Something is wrong when there are 140 refusals for planning permission in four months. The applicants are young couples who are trying to build their own homes. They do not ask the State for anything except planning permission so that they can build their houses.

It has been common policy in recent months for a letter to be sent by the council within three or four days of the two months deadline for dealing with planning applications, usually to the agent, requesting a time extension under threat of a refusal of planning permission. Sometimes the agent is not able to contact the person on whose behalf he is dealing. It is wrong that this happens. If the council needs further information, it should seek it within two weeks of receipt of the planning application and not within three days of the deadline. I want to see that dealt with in the Bill and I hope the Minister does something about it. I will try to have my party table amendments to the Bill on this matter. People make every effort to build their own home, often under a time factor. They obtain a quotation for the house and seek planning permission, but by the time they obtain it they find the costs have increased.

Deputy Noel Ahern said that builders have had a good time of it, and that has been the case for a long time. We can see that from the amount of money they have been able to give people over the past 20 years. If it was good times for them then, what must it be like for them now? There is no shortage of money and builders cannot be hired to do work, nor will they apply for local authority work. Health boards are experiencing difficulty in hiring people to carry out essential repairs for the elderly. There is not enough money in that work. Builders want to be involved in largescale developments on greenfield sites.

Regarding the proposal to allocate up to 20% of development sites for social housing, the Government has never had as much money as now and revenues are pouring in daily. Perhaps it is time the Government gave local authorities money to buy land. This would mean that, instead of taking 20% of builders' land, the authorities would buy land and rezone it, which would eliminate any accusations of rezoning for a certain individual. The land would be developed for sewerage and water, the authorities would take whatever they needed and the remainder would be sold to developers who should be charged a high price for it. This would help in two ways, to fund the purchase of the land and to fund social housing. There is a major demand for housing. Young couples in my town cannot buy a site on which to build. My suggestion should be implemented so that the council could buy and develop land and sell some of it to developers. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with local authorities selling sites to young couples at a reasonable price, even if local authorities or the Government lose money on it.

I would appreciate if the Minister of State would bring to the attention of the Minister the following problem. Local authority tenants can buy their houses after 12 months, and there is nothing wrong with that. Tenants receive a 3% discount for every year of occupancy up to a maximum of 15% in addition to the £3,000 first time buyer's grant. The problem arises when people buy local authority housing, build their own house within two years and sell the local authority house at a substantial profit. That is wrong and should be dealt with. I have made the point before in the Dáil that if a person buys a local authority house, they should live in it for ten years before they can sell it. If they want to move out before the ten year limit, the house should be given back to the local authority at the price for which it was bought plus inflation. If people can build their own house, their local authority house should return to the housing stock.

What is happening at present is outrageous. I was fooled as a public representative by a person on whose behalf I made strong representations but who I did not know had a planning application to the council. That person is now trying to buy a local authority house from the council before they move into their own house. This means the taxpayer has subsidised their house and now they want to make a profit to pay for their new house. That cannot continue and my request in this regard is reasonable. Some people in local authority housing may not like it, but it is wrong that a person who buys a council house at a 15% discount and receiving a £3,000 first time buyer's grant is allowed sell that house at a substantial profit within two or three years. That should be dealt with.

People who await decisions on their cases from An Bord Pleanála are outraged. The staff are not in place and something is wrong. The board always requests further information to stall the situation. That must be dealt with in terms of staffing. Some people have waited four months for permission from the local authority and they must wait another four months for a decision from An Bord Pleanála. That is wrong and must be dealt with. It is also wrong that, as a public representative, I cannot make a submission to An Bord Pleanála about any major development in my town or area without paying £50. That should be waived in the Bill.

The public think that I, as a Deputy and councillor, have some say in the planning process but, as the House will be aware, we do not have such a say.

Mr. Bradford

I hope the Deputy does not tell them that he has.

Mr. Ring

I tell them that the chief planning officer and the manager have the overall responsibility. It is wrong that public representatives are not allowed to make a submission to An Bord Pleanála. I am not saying that the board will listen to us, but at least we should be able to make a submission and receive a response which deals with the points raised. The same applies in the case of the local authority.

Furthermore, I will ask my party to seek the following on Committee Stage. If I, as a public representative, write to the chief planning officer of my county to support or oppose a planning application, I should receive a detailed reply within two weeks. It is wrong that these people will reply to a public representative stating that they have noted the contents of the letter and that is the last one ever hears of it.

In addition, the Minister should deal with the situation regarding replies from local authorities to the public and public representatives. If a member of the public or an elected representative writes a letter, he or she is at least entitled to a detailed response. It is common courtesy and it is only right.

One can see from the Bill that departmental and planning officialdom does not want public representatives to have anything to do with planning. I am aware that Ireland has a poor record on planning and zoning despite the fact that there are planning committees, but when planning permission for a controversial local application is refused I would see nothing wrong with a committee comprised of perhaps two public representatives, the manager, the planner and maybe an outsider which would make the overall decision. If planning permission is granted on the other hand, the people may appeal to An Bord Pleanála. I would see nothing wrong with that because it is wrong that we have no direct say in the granting or refusal of planning permission, and yet we are the ones to which people come. For example, my attention has been drawn in the past four months to 140 cases in my county where people cannot understand the reasons given for refusal.

Planning permission is refused for two new reasons, septic tanks and scenic views. I have never met anybody who could make a living out of a scenic view. I would rather people were allowed build than be told this. It is something which should be considered.

Recently I spoke to a politician from Northern Ireland about the Bill and he told me that planning permission is never refused there on the grounds of septic tanks because of the puraflow system and other methods which are available at a cost of £4,000 or £5,000. On the basis of the amount of rainfall in the west in the past three years, if one put out a bucket tonight it would be full in the morning. There is no point in people using trial holes. There is no way that the trial holes would be empty, they would be full. The land is not able to take the amount of rain water there has been in the past three years. It is outrageous that the planners state that there will be trouble with water quality because of a septic tank since that is the purpose of the puraflow system. The least which should be done is that these people should get a grant in that regard. It is not right that people should have to wait so long and it is wrong that they are refused for that reason.

The Bill was introduced to address the housing problem. There are serious problems in the area of housing and people are finding it increasingly difficult to get housing. A considerable number of people with good jobs are on housing lists who would not have been on them six or seven years ago because the green areas are not being developed and the infrastructure is not in place. The problem was created because there is a shortage of houses to cope with the demand. The Government should be making it easier for local authorities to develop green areas and make as much housing as possible available at the cheapest possible price. That would deal with the problem in the market where exorbitant prices are being paid for houses.

It embarrasses me, as an auctioneer, to see young couples who are trying to build their own homes come into my office because they have trouble with planning and getting a mortgage. A nurse and a garda on a reasonable salary will not get a mortgage that is adequate to cover the price of a house, and there is something very wrong in that.

The imbalance which is evident in my area must be addressed. It is creating problems and will create problems down the road for the churches, schools and post offices. People want to live in their own area and commute to work, but the planners want them all to live in towns and built up areas and to forget about rural Ireland. It is time the Minister introduced a strong measure. He should summon the chief planning officers from the 26 counties and state that their job is to implement Government policy. That is not happening at present. If it was happening, An Bord Pleanála would not be tied up with appeals on a daily basis. Many of these appeals arise because people have been refused planning permission for reasons relating to a septic tank or because there is no proper water supply in the area. That is the responsibility of the local authorities. If they were doing their job, there would not be as many refusals.

Many people who bought local authority houses are finding it difficult to pay their mortgages and they have nothing extra to spare. I am talking about people who would have bought their homes in recent years and whose homes now need new windows and doors. There are no grants available for people in that category. I am not suggesting that the Government introduce a grant scheme, such as that which existed previously which was open to doctors, solicitors and—

Acting Chairman (Mr. O'Malley)

Deputy, may I draw your attention to the fact that this is a planning Bill and that your time is nearly up?

Mr. Ring

I know this is a planning Bill. This is all about bad planning which has happened over recent years. I ask the Minister to introduce a grant scheme. Otherwise there will be further people on the housing lists and there will be further problems with planning in the future because these people's houses will fall into disrepair, they will not be able to remain in their houses and there will be more pressure on the local authorities.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I listened attentively to Deputy Ring and I would agree with much of what he had to say, particularly about the difficulties in rural Ireland. He was going extremely well, I am sure you would agree, Acting Chairman, until, in reference to the home improvement grants, he tried to incriminate solicitors and doctors.

I welcome the Bill. It is possibly the most important legislation to pass through the House in the lifetime of this Dáil. Certainly the interest in it by Members of the Seanad and Members who wish to contribute to it in this House is an indication of how important it is. The Bill introduces many reforms. Indeed, it is a tribute to the Minister and his officials that the Bill consolidates nine Acts from 1963 to 1999, as well as including many reforms. I fully support the ethos underpinning the Bill, the need for sustainable development, taking account of the necessary environmental legislation, and the Minister's desire to ensure that a high quality service is delivered by the planning authorities.

We all accept the need for planning legislation. One has only to visit countries where there is no such legislation to see the type of higgledy-piggledy development which takes place. Planning legislation has a major impact on social and economic development. If one looks at the national development plan, £40 billion is being provided by the Government over the next seven years. Unless the planning legislation is effectively implemented and works efficiently, it will be the greatest threat to the national development plan.

The planning legislation is the first point of contact most people have with the State service when they want to build a private house, a housing development or a commercial development. It should be much more user-friendly than it is at present. The delays in processing are a major concern to many of the applicants and, indeed, to many public representatives at national and local levels. There are many reasons for refusals – Deputy Ring referred to the 140 refusals in his area in recent months. Many of these could be dealt with in a more user-friendly way.

There should be a positive policy towards the applicant in the county development plan. I would like to see more consultation with the applicant. One often sees a refusal because the opening onto a road is in the wrong place. Consultation with the applicant to suggest they move the entrance away from a dangerous bend or whatever might suffice. In planning legislation, it should be possible to try to facilitate the applicant rather than to create unnecessary obstacles.

The Minister referred to the local development plan and said that was the cornerstone of planning within the local authority area. He also referred to the importance of the input from local authority members. I agree with him on that because there is nothing more frustrating than to see refusal of a planning application on the basis of something which was left in the local development plan by local authority members when they approved the plan put to them by the county management.

The Bill sets out to streamline the production of the development plan, which I welcome. There are five local authorities in my county and some are still working on a plan which is nine years old. That is too long given the changes which have taken place.

The Minister referred to the guidelines for local authorities in preparing the development plan and the regional guidelines. He might consider circulating those guidelines to the members of the local authority as well as to the management team because the members have a major responsibility in adopting a county development plan or a local authority development plan. It is important they are well briefed on that responsibility. It is particularly important that they do not allow the inclusion of conditions in the plan which would impede planning development which they would support and that because of their acceptance of the plan, planning applications, in certain circumstances, cannot be approved.

The regional guidelines are welcome because it is important there is co-ordination in the preparation of development plans. This Bill provides for the preparation of a development plan every six years. Under the legislation, the local authority can only be in place for five years. If there is a plan every six years, it will mean that every now and again one local authority will not produce a plan in its five year term of office. Is there any reason for this? Could a case be made to have a plan every five years to coincide with the lifetime of a local authority so that each local authority would have some input into the initiation and implementation of the plan?

Obviously, the consultation process is very important in the preparation of the development plan. If consultation between the county manager, local authority members and the public takes place, it should be well advertised and everybody should have an opportunity to study the draft plan and to suggest whatever amendments they might wish to see.

There are many areas which need guidelines. One which springs to mind, because it can be very topical in some local authority areas although not in others, is the provision of mobile telephone masts. There should be clearer guidelines than are available at present. For whatever reason, some people's fears about these masts being a health hazard have been raised by pressure groups. It is unfair that somebody may be denied a mobile telephone service because of fears which do not stand up in the light of the scientific knowledge available. If I was primarily concerned about my health, I would prefer to live in an area where mobile telephone masts were available rather than in one where there was no such service.

On the guidelines and the need for a co-ordinated plan between local authorities, there are many small local authority areas within the county local authority and it is important there is a co-ordinated plan for these areas. The development plan in each county should take account of Government policy on rural development. It is interesting that on the day this Bill was introduced in this House, 3 February, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Davern, initiated a debate on the White Paper on Rural Development. In the context of the Planning and Development Bill, it is no harm to quote from what he said. He stated:

The rural policy agenda is defined in the White Paper as all Government policies and interventions directed towards improving the physical, economic and social conditions of people living in the open countryside, coastal areas, towns and villages and in smaller urban centres outside the five major urban areas. The agenda will, at the same time, facilitate balanced and sustainable regional development while tackling issues of poverty and social inclusion.

The overall strategy decided by the Government provides for balanced regional development to ensure that the benefits of economic and social progress are distributed throughout rural areas; investment in services and infrastructure; sustainable economic development; human resources development; and a determined focus on poverty and social exclusion.

The reason I quote that is that I have a serious concern about the inconsistencies in different planning areas in regard to what is allowed in a rural area, particularly in relation to housing development. I strongly believe that if a couple wish to build a house near their parents in a rural area, they should be allowed to do so unless there is some very important health or safety reason or an environmental or heritage issue. I am concerned about the large number of planning applicants who are refused permission to build in certain rural areas. Where people, for their own reasons, want to live close to their extended family, they should be allowed to do so and should be supported. If a young couple want to live beside one or other of their parents, it is beneficial for them to do so, particularly if they have children. In that case one of the couple's parents can assist them in looking after their young family, particularly when both partners are working. Such an arrangement is also beneficial to the elderly. Everyone in this House is aware of the demands on State services to provide for the needs of the elderly, particularly in terms of accommodation. It is important that we support young people who wish to live near their families. They will look after their elderly parents as the need arises. It is socially desirable that we should have a positive policy towards allowing people to build houses in rural areas.

Deputy Ring referred to some reasons applicants are refused planning permission. They may be refused permission because an area is scenic. I was told that an applicant had been refused permission to build a house in a remote rural area because it would block a cyclist's view of a mountain. That is an unacceptable reason for refusing planning permission.

The delays in processing applications are a matter of concern. Some of them are due to the shortage of staff in local authorities. The Minister said he would talk to UCD about the need to increase the number of planning officers who are coming through. When he talks to the people in UCD, he should also talk about the need for consistency in decisions made by planning officers. Planning officers have different views. In my county where there is a good deal of red clay, many people are refused permission to build red brick houses. The colour of brick used is an issue in terms of the planning conditions. There is a need for consistency and common sense to prevail in the application of the planning legislation.

I support fully what the Minister is trying to do in the section dealing with housing. He pointed out what is underpinning the section, the need for people to have the opportunity to own their homes if that is what they want and the need to provide social and affordable housing for applicants who need it. He referred to the need for joint strategies between local authorities within county boundaries, county councils and urban district councils in terms of ensuring that a sustainable housing strategy is put in place. Some local authorities are only interested in greenfield sites. The legislation and regulations in place provide that they have the right to consider landfill sites, vacant houses and other forms of vacant accommodation to ascertain how they can best be used to address the housing need. Local authorities should consider such possibilities. If the Minister issues guidelines in this area, he should send them to local authority members because they are not always as well informed as they might be on what is in place and what is available to them.

Section 84 deals with controls on the resale of certain houses before the expiry of 20 years, with some alleviation if one has a house for more than 20 years. I agree with that provision in principle, but the Minister should be able to allow a derogation in respect of that requirement in specific circumstances. He should have that power under the legislation. I can think of cases – I am sure other Members can think of others – where such a facility should be available. In circumstances where a couple had lived in a house for only three or four years, one partner died suddenly and the other partner had to sell the house because he or she wanted to move to live in another part of the country and buy a house there, a derogation in respect of that requirement should be available.

I welcome the changes in respect of An Bord Pleanála, particularly that it will be obliged to give the reason it refused an applicant planning permission. In the main, it has done a good job. While none of us is happy about the length of time it takes to decide on an application, its decisions are broadly in line with the views of local authorities. However, its decisions in respect of some applications are difficult to understand. Up to now we had no way of finding out how it arrived at its decision in respect of an application. I welcome the Minister's decision to ensure that in future its reason for refusing an applicant planning permission is given.

An Bord Pleanála will assume authority for compulsory purchase orders and EIAs by local authorities. The Minister referred to a period of 18 weeks and it is important that it makes its decisions within that timeframe as the delay in planning decisions is one of the major difficulties with planning legislation at all levels. Such delays cause other problems, to which previous speakers referred. One such problem is that some people do not have proper living accommodation. Another problem is that it is an obstacle to economic development where developers want to establish an industry as quickly as possible. In those circumstances, it is important that there is no unnecessary delay in planning decisions.

I welcome the Bill. It is a good one. I compliment the Minister and his officials on the work they have done on producing this mammoth Bill. I look forward to it passing through this House.

Mr. Bradford

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As I did not expect to speak on it at this time, I do not have precise notes on it. As a member of Cork County Council, I am sure I share with every councillor and every local public representative a great interest in this legislation. I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, on introducing the Bill. I am sure many amendments will be made to it on Committee Stage and the Minister indicated a willingness to accept what he described as positive amendments. I am sure amendments will be tabled by Members on all sides of the House and that the Minister will look on them in a fair and favourable manner.

This Bill has been introduced at a time of unprecedented economic growth. Stemming directly from that, there has been a great boom in construction. The Bill is timely in that regard. When we talk about planning we are not talking about a particularly precise science. We are not talking about something that is black or white but about dozens of planners who have their own views on a particular planning permission and on housing policy. That is part of the reason An Bord Pleanála is so busy dealing with appeals.

My colleague, Deputy Ring, made a valid point when he suggested that the Minister, the Department and the people in charge of preparing this Bill should sit down with the main planners throughout the country to formulate a single planning strategy. This reminds me to a degree of the debate taking place in virtually every local authority area in respect of waste management. Many local authorities are developing different solutions to waste management. The waste management problems experienced in County Donegal should be similar to those in counties Cork, Kerry, Limerick and Clare. However, virtually every local authority has developed a different solution. In a sense, the position which obtains in respect of planning policy is similar. Each local authority formulates its county development plan but a national guiding light, be he or she from among the ranks of politicians or planners, has not emerged.

As we set out on a new course with the Planning and Development Bill, 1999, it is important that a clear national planning strategy is seen to be put in place. I am sure the Bill is concerned with this but its success will be dependent on the individual viewpoints of the two dozen or so planners throughout the country. We are dealing not with a precise science but, in a sense, with a philosophical topic. Planning is quite a philosophical occupation because while one planner might like a design or building, another may look differently on it. We must aim at developing a national strategy.

We have discussed the housing shortage on many occasions. We are advised that part of the Minister's proposal is to deal, through the planning process, with housing supply. In the notes he supplied with the Bill, the Minister indicated that housing supply is at the core of the legislation, and I am sure that is the case. However, a great deal of debate has arisen in respect of what I term the "20% solution", namely, that an obligation will be placed on developers to allocate a certain amount of land for social housing. I do not have any particular ideological hang-ups in that regard but I believe the Minister's proposal will not work. It is an artificial solution to economic and social problems and such solutions have no history of success anywhere in the world. The greatest attempt at finding an artificial solution was the former Soviet Union which inevitably collapsed.

Using the planning process to offer artificial solutions to housing problems will not prove effective in the long-term. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government has at his disposal a much easier way to solve the housing supply problem, namely, by using the housing section of his Department.

Different local authorities appear to be operating different strategies in this area. However, I must commend what is happening in Cork County Council, or part of it at least, where a positive policy on social housing is in operation, where attempts are being made to provide and build affordable housing for direct sale to the public, where encouragement is given in respect of the development and sale of private housing sites, where there is a strong belief in the concept of shared ownership loans and where there is a programme of building local authority housing. I see such mechanisms as the solution to the wider problem of housing supply throughout the country, not the forced, artificial 20% solution the Minister is attempting to put in place. I do not believe the Minister's proposal will work. As already stated, he has at his disposal the requisite mechanism and funding to solve the housing supply problem, particularly at local authority level, in a different fashion and I hope he will proceed to do so.

Cork County Council is currently debating its four year housing budget. I am disappointed provisions in this regard are not sufficient from a financial perspective. If the Minister wants to ease the housing supply problem in Cork and elsewhere he should provide local authorities with increased funding to supply more houses, provide additional private housing sites, build affordable houses and sell them directly to the public.

Acting Chairman

I remind Deputy Bradford that this is the Planning and Development Bill and he should confine his remarks to planning matters.

Mr. Bradford

I am keenly aware of that. However, given the Minister's remarks that housing supply is at the core of the Bill, I am merely suggesting that the best way to deal with the housing crisis is by providing direct financial assistance to local authorities. I will leave further comments on that matter to a later date.

I wish to briefly address the section of the Bill which deals with enforcement. As a member of one of the largest local authorities in the country, Cork County Council, I must admit that planning enforcement is a joke. Thousands of planning applications are made each year in County Cork but the planning enforcement office is hopelessly understaffed. There are barely enough personnel to answer telephone calls and take details of queries or complaints. The office does not have enough staff to allow it to send people out to investigate complaints.

The inclusion of planning enforcement provisions in the Bill is fine. I am sure that the provisions put in place in the 1963 Act seemed quite strong, but unless the requisite staff are available to follow up on and deal with queries and complaints, there will be no progress in this area. I hope the Minister will make provision with regard to local authority staffing levels in the relevant sections of the Bill. I am not sure what is the current position concerning the embargo on recruitment to the public service, but I am sure local authorities do not have adequate numbers of staff, be they planners or enforcement personnel. That matter must be addressed.

With regard to enforcement, I support Deputy Ring's comments about certain developers who have gotten away with shoddy work practices and have left estates unfinished. These individuals appear to be able to move on by changing their company name. However, under the terms of the Bill, I hope we will be able to pursue these builders and ensure that they put their houses in order.

When major planning decisions are being made, particularly those which relate to estates involving the construction of between 300 and 500 houses, the case history and track record of the applicants should be taken into account. Those of us who are members of local authorities are only too well aware of the fact that people who have a poor track record have been able to obtain permission for large new developments because their past performance has not been taken into account. I hope there is some mechanism whereby the position can be reversed.

Part Vl of the Bill makes provision in respect of An Bord Pleanála, an organisation which is overworked. At any given time, there are many hundreds of appeals before the board. The position which obtains at local authority level, where people are at least guaranteed that a decision will issue within two months, does not apply to An Bord Pleanála. Approximately 12 months or two years ago, people who appealed to An Bord Pleanála received a decision, whether they liked it or not, within a reasonable period. However, that is no longer the position and, again, inadequate staffing is to blame. I hope the new provisions which apply to the board will ensure that it is allocated sufficient staff to enable it to deal with the growing number of appeals.

It is not good enough that people are given the minimum amount of information regarding An Bord Pleanála's decision to refuse or grant planning permission. In the majority of cases, the information given is a repetition of what the planners said at council level. That may not be a bad thing but we should be able to obtain more information as to why an individual decision was reached. I know of a number of cases in which the inspector gave a strong recommendation which was overturned by the board, as it is entitled to do. However, when this happens there should be access to a fairly detailed transcript of the board's discussions.

Under the Freedom of Information Act the public is entitled to know almost everything about every Department. People are also entitled to know about the interests, worth and financial dealings of Members of the Oireachtas. However, the details of a decision made by An Bord Pleanála seem beyond the scope of that Act. This may not be relevant in most cases but it is not good enough that people are not given the reasons an inspector's decision is overturned by the board. There should be greater access to meetings where such decisions are made. We hear lectures about transparency, accountability and openness, but An Bord Pleanála remains too much of a closed shop. The shutters need to come down and if there is to be transparency across the planning process it must also apply to An Bord Pleanála. I hope we will make progress in this regard.

I have referred to decisions made by planners and how planning is not a precise science which leads to some confusion. Clear advice should be given by the Department to local authorities when drawing up their county development plans so that they all sing from the same hymn sheet. I am not advocating that a bureaucrat in Dublin should decide which areas of Cork are zoned for housing, agriculture or amenities. However, we need clear guidelines and that is not the case at present. This is making matters difficult for local representatives because various case histories are being cited to us. We are trying to defend the planning process in local authorities but various examples are then presented to us which show how one county is handling matters differently from another. The quicker we move away from this scenario the better.

Deputy Ring referred to planning refusals in rural areas. The Bill places much emphasis on sustainable development and environmental protection. Deputy Ring referred to refusals for planning permission for housing based on septic tanks and so on. We cannot argue with such decisions as problems with septic tanks cannot be ignored. However, we should be advocating systems such as the puraflow system and the Department should consider grant aiding such developments. Unfortunately, many septic tank systems developed in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s are no longer environmentally defensible. We must protect our water supply and we will have to move to a situation where every rural dwelling is provided with a modern septic tank system. However, these systems are expensive. There is a new housing grant and the Minister should consider a grant aid scheme for the provision of septic tank systems. It will be too late in five, ten or 15 years when we realise that our present systems have damaged our water supply. Modern systems are expensive but this problem can be overcome by the provision of grant aid.

A previous speaker spoke about the compensation provisions of the Bill where certain proposals are refused. I concur with Deputy Noel Ahern's comments that there are occasions when local communities should be considered for compensation for allowing particular developments to go ahead. In my constituency and parish there are major planning controversies involving quarries and landfill sites. Such projects will involve a significant encumbrance on the local community. It is not for me to judge whether they should go ahead, but if they do, there will have to be some provision for compensating the local community where a facility being built is of value to a much wider community. I hope this issue will be considered.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this substantial legislation which will, perhaps, be a monument to Deputy Dempsey's tenure in office. I am sure there will be many amendments on Committee Stage to which I hope he will give favourable consideration. Planning is not a party political issue and we should all approach it from the position of trying to ensure proper and sustainable development. I look forward to the rest of Second Stage and Committee Stage when, I hope, the Minister will take on board some of my comments and those of colleagues.

Mr. Moloney

I welcome this Bill. Many important issues are dealt with in this legislation, the most important of which are the involvement of local public representatives in the planning process, the issues raised by delays in the system, staffing requirements and social housing.

Wherever public representatives are gathered the main focus of attention and debate is their role in the planning system. Members would agree that reform is long overdue. I thank the Minister for responding to many years of representations concerning planning and the involvement of public representatives.

We all recognise that confidence has been eroded in the planning system for a long time. It is time to deal with this issue and the need for transparency in the system. Public perception of the political and planning systems demands that reforms are implemented as soon as possible. Over the years planning applicants have concluded that they will not receive approval unless they enlist the support of their local politician. A typical response to a planning refusal is that it is a question of who one knows. However, the blame for this lack of trust and confidence cannot be laid solely at the door of politicians.

Because of its shortcoming and delays, the planning system obliges people to seek the support of members of the political establishment, be they local or national politicians. Usually the request is to arrange a pre-planning meeting with planners or to speed up a planning decision.

Debate adjourned.