Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Mar 2000

Vol. 516 No. 5

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

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

Mr. Crawford

I welcome the opportunity to comment on this large and detailed Bill. The Minister has failed to secure any movement towards resolving the housing and planning crisis. This failure means that the six year national development plan will not work. The ideas put forward in the Bill, while plausible and interesting, will take so long to implement that much time will be lost.

There is an extraordinary shortage of planners, architects and specialised staff. As you are aware, Sir, there are plans for three by-passes in County Monaghan but, unfortunately, because of lack of time and ability by the consultants they are still only at preparation level, with no signs of progress within the next 12 months, or even within the next few years.

The whole planning area is very complex. County development and regional development plans must tie into the national development plan. That is good, provided the problems encountered by the different parts of the country are taken into account at national level. Counties Cavan and Monaghan contain drumlin areas with many small hills and bending roads which create many problems for planners.

There is a major crisis in housing. A colleague told me of a friend who took occupation of a house six months ago. He had made commitments to it six months earlier when the house was valued at £65,000. A person buying a similar house in the same kind of private development, not in the same locality, would have to pay £105,000 today, which represents an increase of £40,000. The only short-term answer to the housing crisis is to provide more local authority housing. It is the only way to take the pressure off and ensure that house prices do not escalate out of control.

Young people are entitled to their homes. There is no way that a couple, both of whom have reasonable jobs, say, a garda married to a nurse – it could be a ban garda married to a male nurse – could obtain a mortgage to buy a house. Given the current inflation rate and the likely increases in interest rates, young people must be more wary. Some have been getting their friends or family to put up some of the money to enable them buy a house. These extra commitments leave them in a very difficult situation, even at today's low interest rates. If rates were to increase dramatically, many young families would face a serious crisis. One only has to recall what happened in the UK a few years ago when many people had to sell their houses, at an extraordinary loss, to live.

The housing situation is no different in my County Monaghan than anywhere else. There is a sizeable increase in the demand for planners. Approximately 730 planning applications were submitted in 1996. That had increased to 1,132 for 1999. So far this year approximately 250 to 260 applications have been submitted. As you are aware, Sir, many of these applications are no longer for single houses or for developments of town houses, but for large scale developments. Some are for outline developments of 100 to 120 houses. Unfortunately, some of these requests are tax driven because of the changes in taxation which allow for the sale of the land by the owner for a tax benefit. They may not even lead to the building of houses in the immediate or foreseeable future.

These developments are putting extraordinary pressure on planners, yet they may be of no use to meeting the housing needs of the country in the short or medium term. In the last few weeks my council decided to increase the number of permanent planners. We looked for executive planners with some experience but did not receive a single application. Unless this situation can be eased worthwhile developments will not take place. Some businesses in my county may have been lost because of delays in the planning system. This has arisen through no fault of the planners but because of their extraordinary workload.

Planners are generally doing a good job. This is evident from the improvements in the villages, the urban renewal schemes and task force moneys. However, these developments take time with the result that the number of planning applications does not present a true picture of the demands placed on planners. A lot of extra work has been placed on them, especially in the Border area, with special schemes for villages and urban renewal. I welcome that, but it is all the more reason we must ensure that there is an increase in the number of planners and other personnel if the benefits of the Celtic tiger are to spread to all areas.

Serious consideration must be given to the impact of family break-ups on the housing sector. I have encountered problems here, not only in my constituency but also when canvassing recently in Dublin South-Central. Often three or four bedroom houses have only one person living in them while other family members are housed in flats or other houses. The Minister must give serious consideration to how this problem can be addressed. If young couples are to be provided with cost effective homes it is not sensible to have many three or four bedroom homes with single occupants.

Many elderly people in rural Ireland are living alone and are getting freebies, such as electricity and telephone usage. If they were to allow part of their homes to be turned into flats it would ease some of the pressure on housing. There is a fear that these people would lose out if this were to happen, but it would be much better for them to have young people or young couples living with them.

Third level participation rates in education are among the lowest in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan. This is partly because no third level education facilities are provided to any serious extent with the result that students from the constituency must travel elsewhere and stay in flats or otherwise. It is becoming a serious problem.

On the Order of Business Deputy Currie referred to the decision by An Bord Pleanála to curtail large developments. I welcome the general thrust of the decision. In County Monaghan we have tried to ensure that shopping centres are located in the centres of towns and not on the outskirts. We decided at council level that, when the three bypasses were constructed for Carrickmacross, Castleblayney and Monaghan town, they would not allow for shopping centres or other such developments being built near them, that the town centres would be retained as shopping areas and would not be damaged by out of town development. It is important that the decision made by An Bord Pleanála is extended to other areas to ensure that genuine retail development is allowed, and that whenever large supermarkets wish to locate in a town or area, they do so in sympathy with the environment of the town.

I am concerned about some of the contents of the Bill. If a person wishes to object to a planning application, under this Bill he or she will have to do so at the outset. Anyone with experience of the planning process knows the plan submitted to the planners and the council as part of a planning application is not necessarily the one granted in the end. Some development may be removed or changed. It is only when the final plans can be seen by those interested in them that they know for certain if they need to lodge an objection. Under the Bill, a person would not even have the right to object to An Bord Pleanála if he or she had not objected initially. This will lead to a great deal of unnecessary objections. The cost is not the major factor, rather the technicality.

I had experience of a situation recently of a young couple who took the trouble to drive to their county town to examine plans which affected them and were satisfied that they were acceptable. They found some months later, that a new developer had moved in and was going to build housing next to the couple's front door. When the couple investigated, the original plans were again shown to them and they pointed out that that could not be possible. It was checked and found that a number of changes had been made, possibly legally and above board. It is very difficult to be certain that plans are being adhered to. This couple came to me to point out their serious concern that their property would lose a great deal of value as a result of this development. In introducing this law, we should be careful to ensure it is workable.

Planning in rural areas is something which is regulated under the county and national development plans. I objected sincerely to some of the rules included in our county development plan, but I was assured they would be used with commonsense. However, it does not always work out that way. There is potential for development close to towns, but if a land owner has developed more than two houses, he will have great trouble in developing his land further. This is not right and, if I am still a member of the county council in future, I will have this rule changed, if possible. If we are trying to encourage rural development, then it is important that people live in rural areas.

The agricultural college in Monaghan is being closed and others are under threat. The likelihood of young farmers taking up the business as we knew it in rural Ireland is diminishing quickly. I was part of a committee which recently met economists who were eager to advise us that, over the next eight years, 40% to 50% of existing farmers will no longer be in business. If we are to maintain rural structures, keep parishes alive and keep young people living, going to school and playing football in rural Ireland, we must have a commonsense approach to development in rural areas, especially close to schools, churches and other centres of activity.

There was a new development by the GAA recently in my parish of Aghabog. That is a tremendous move forward. The local school, which was lying derelict for some years, is being developed for many other purposes, including caring for the elderly. It is an opportunity for people to live and avail of services there. However, if the rule is that the farmer living next door to those amenities can only build two houses, then commonsense and reasonable development cannot continue.

Extraordinary additional demands are being made of builders of private houses. In County Monaghan, the soil is drumlin soil and is difficult to work with. I understand that we must ensure that sanitation is provided in the best possible way, but all types of different demands are being made. I would not mind if those were placed at the time of the original application, but applicants are not advised of some of them until after, which means long delays in the processing of applications. A system needs to be put in place in Monaghan, where two thirds of the poultry and mushrooms in the country are produced, to deal with waste. That would alleviate the demands being made of private house owners. The phosphate in the water is obviously being caused more by farm pollution than by private houses. Will the Minister ensure that every assistance is given to use the waste material? The EU is in the process of granting a licence for a power station and heat provider and I want the Minister to do everything possible to ensure that proceeds. Our planners are eager that this would be done.

The Minister has tight regulations covering listed property. While I do not oppose those, if people are forced to maintain listed property in a proper condition, they should be given adequate funding for that. I encountered a situation recently where an aged couple were forced to ensure their house was safe and habitable, but when they sought funding, they were advised that, unless the maintenance was carried out in a specific way, they would not receive funding, which itself was limited. If we insist on people maintaining old buildings, which are important to the nation, it is important that people receive funding for that purpose. The building in Rossmore Park had to be demolished years ago because of the extraordinary rates on it. It would have been a gallant public representative who would have said at the time that it should have been maintained and made rate free. He or she would have lost a seat very quickly. However, we have lost very important properties in that manner and the Government must ensure proper funding is made available.

Proper funding should also be made available for the reconstruction of houses. My colleague on Monaghan County Council, Pádraig McNally, called on the Minister some time ago to reintroduce the reconstruction grant. He received the full support of Monaghan County Council. That grant is essential and I know the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would support Monaghan County Council's wishes to have the reconstruction grant reinstated so that many rural village homes could be developed.

Mr. McGrath

I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this Bill which has 245 sections. It will have a huge impact on future planning in Ireland. We should scrutinise it thoroughly and table various amendments to it.

Planning has become one of the major areas of contention. Three, four or five years ago the local authority in County Westmeath handled approximately 700 planning applications per annum, of which a high proportion were for once-off housing. It currently deals with approximately 1,800 applications per year, of which a small proportion are for once-off housing. There is a lot of pressure on planning offices and the public is often frustrated by the responses they get from the planning sections of local authorities.

There are excellent planners in my county. Our chief planner is Pat Gallagher and he has great vision and a balanced view of the mix required to maintain rural areas while developing our villages and towns. He is blessed to have a good planning administrator called Declan Leonard who gives a commitment over and above what is required in such a position. However, their office has not grown to meet public demand. They have not been given the staff they need to do their job efficiently.

There is a scarcity of qualified planners. Numerous young inexperienced planners have been employed and generally they do a good job. However, they stay for only three, four or five months before they are lured to the private sector by offers of better salaries and conditions. They do not operate under the same pressure and they will gain valuable experience. This means local authorities must face the difficulty of finding new planners who must become acquainted with the development plan.

The public's only contact with Government services is through the planning office. When people lodge a planning application, they expect to get the go-ahead to start building within the required eight weeks. However, many of them become frustrated when they receive a letter in the final week requesting further information or telling them the water supply is not as stated on the application form. A decision is then postponed on the planning application, although they may have a builder ready to start work. When they submit the information requested, it will lie in the planning office until near the end of the further eight week period because of the pressures in the planning office. The Minister should consider injecting money and staff into planning offices so the public can get the service they deserve and demand and to improve the respect people have for those offices.

Planners have been hit in recent times by EU directives and legislation which impose new regulations and planning laws on them. It is difficult for them to keep pace with this change and this increases their workload.

The Bill refers to objectors. The Minister should be made aware of situations which can develop and of which Deputy Crawford and I have had experience. For example, a person recently submitted a planning application to build a house between two houses on the outskirts of a small village. One of the two houses was built approximately 15 yards from the public road and the other was built approximately 35 yards from the road. A previous planning application was submitted for this site and it was decided the house should be half way between the two houses so their privacy would be maintained. When a new application was lodged one of the neighbours saw it and was happy that the house would be built half way between the two houses, as originally agreed.

However, six months later when the person who owned the site started to build the house the neighbours became frustrated because it overlooked their houses. When they went to the planning authority to view the plans they were told that because of a query the planning authority had relocated the house on the site to where the person was building it. The person was building it in the correct position as dictated by the local authority but it took away the neighbours' priv acy. When questions were asked about why the neighbours' considerations had not been taken into account they were told they had not submitted a written objection. The neighbour who had looked at the application did not submit a written objection because there were no queries about it. As a result of a condition imposed by the local authority, the neighbours were left out in the cold as the time limit in which to appeal to An Bord Pleanála had lapsed.

There is nothing in this Bill to protect people in such circumstances. A clause in the Bill will discommode people in similar situations. Another example is where a notice for planning permission for a large apartment block was placed on the site where the neighbours could not see it. When they discovered that planning permission was granted, the time in which to appeal to An Bord Pleanála had lapsed so they were left high and dry.

This Bill states that if an objection is not made at the initial stages, it cannot be made subsequently to An Bord Pleanála. Under the terms of the Bill, if the people in the first case to which I referred had been aware of this when they viewed the planning application and found everything in order and knew permission had been granted they would not have been able to go to An Bord Pleanála. The people in the second case I mentioned would not be able to do so either because they missed the initial application. I have reservations about that clause in the Bill.

We must clarify who can make objections. A company called Lagan Cement applied for a major project in County Meath beside Kinnegad, which borders County Westmeath. Westmeath County Council was involved because the service road was in the county. Applications were submitted to Meath County Council and to Westmeath County Council for the service road which were granted. A group of people objected and they had genuine concerns. I respect people's right to object. However, it transpired that an outside company which had no interest in the area or the environment had given in excess of £30,000 to the group of objectors. It transpired that the money was put up by a rival company which was prepared to fund the objectors. The application went to An Bord Pleanála and to the courts to slow up the development and, if possible, to stop it. That is outrageous and the Bill should allow for severe financial penalties to be imposed on such companies as that is the only language they understand. When the court cases have concluded and An Bord Pleanála has reached what I hope will be a positive decision, the company which is prepared to fund the objectors should have to pay all legal and other costs associated with the application.

The company concerned was Quinn Cement, which is a large company, and it was only interested in protecting its own interests by keeping competitors out of the market. Quinn Cement operates a long way from Kinnegad and has no interests in the area, yet it was prepared to fund the objections. This is outrageous and it brings the process of objecting to developments to a new low. The company should be ashamed of itself particularly when some of its own developments would lead one to believe that the procedures were not up to scratch in certain areas. It is taking court action to ensure that everything is done properly but I wonder if its own processes are in order.

An Bord Pleanála was established to place the process in the hands of an independent body. However, my difficulty with the board is that it is not accountable to anyone and I have reservations about some of its decisions. The problem is that one cannot obtain any explanation for these decisions. I have sought such explanations from the board but it will not explain why decisions are made and its attitude seems to be that one should go away and stop annoying it. There is a need for greater transparency as regards the board's decisions and questions must also be asked about when it can materially contravene a county development plan.

The Bill includes a number of contentious areas, including the cutting of turf. Generations of families have cut turf and households have their own plot of bog which they cut annually. However, there is an implication in the Bill that, in future, families who wish to cut their own turf will have to obtain planning permission. In a recent article in The Bar Review, an eminent senior counsel indicated that turf cutting may require planning permission in the future. The Bill includes an important change in the definition of “agriculture” in the 1963 Act which could have serious implications for farmers and turf cutters. This issue needs clarification as rural communities will not tolerate such a development.

There are also deficiencies in the Bill. For example, as provincial towns such as Mullingar expand, they are not creating crucial open spaces. Dublin includes parks such as Merrion Square, a beautiful oasis of greenery and leisure in the middle of the city. There are other parks in the city such as Fairview Park, the Phoenix Park and so on. However, provincial towns are being developed without such open spaces and the next generation will condemn us as politicians for not providing such parks. The Bill should stipulate the mandatory provision of town parks within developments. The Minister may say that this is a matter for local authorities. However, councils will have to compete with developers for the purchase of land which now costs about £200,000 per acre in provincial towns. Where are local authorities going to get such funds?

I also refer to the provision of open spaces in housing estates. The current regulation is for 0.1 hectares to be provided per housing unit. This means that 1 hectare, or 2.5 acres, of open space must be provided for every 100 houses. However, this is not enough. In addition, the open space provided is often incorporated into the unusable corners of fields being developed so there is no space for young people to play football or hurling or for other recreational purposes.

Section 82 is a very contentious element of the Bill on which all Deputies have received correspondence. I received a letter from the Irish Home Builders' Association which points out that, if enacted, this section will result in eight out of ten house buyers paying more for their homes in order to subsidise the two remaining houses. This could result in a 24% increase in the price of a house. Such an increase, on top of current increases, would be frightening and the association is concerned about this issue.

The letter also cites the Irish Planning Institute and The Royal Town Planning Institute which have expressed serious reservations about this proposal on grounds relating to the practical workability of the scheme, particularly as detailed in section 82, the equity of the proposed scheme and its constitutionality. The letter also lists other bodies which have expressed similar concerns about the section. It is still unclear how this section will operate but the Minister needs to talk and listen to interested parties, such as the Irish Home Builders' Association, and to local authorities and others with experience in this sector.

The Bill should include strict guidelines on the naming of new estates as some new developments have the most outrageous names. I am aware of a nice townland called Robinstown but an ingenious developer named an adjacent estate Sherwood Park. There is a need for regulations governing the naming of estates which should reflect the history of the area. Housing developments should include speed ramps and other safety measures that house owners subsequently ask local authorities to provide. Large developments should be phased. Often people live in conditions resembling a bomb site for a long time as development takes place. Building should be phased so one road is completed before the next is started.

Mr. Boylan

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this complex and important Bill. If our contributions can help free the logjam in planning we will have done good work.

The county manager and the county planning engineer of Cavan County Council are doing tremendous work. They are role models for the rest of the State. Other Deputies speak of a paper chase which holds up planning. That is not part of the system in Cavan. There is a hands-on approach to planning there. I can confirm that every refusal, and there are few enough, is vetted by the county manager. There are always difficulties in planning. If it was straightforward this Bill would be unnecessary. The county manager and the planning engineer in Cavan, however, are prepared to meet applicants and objectors to see if compromise can be reached. If there is a problem with an application, they will attempt to resolve it by looking at it with the interested parties. That is the way forward. We appreciate their work.

Planning is not a problem in County Cavan but it is in the rest of the State. The enormous rise in house prices is caused by demand exceeding supply. It has also been artificially exacerbated by greedy people holding on to land. In this city the number of developers who hold all potential development land could be counted on the fingers of one hand. They release that land piece by piece, stifling the market and making it impossible for young couples to afford homes.

The Government has proposed that 20% of developments will be set aside for affordable housing. Does that mean the other 80% will not be affordable? The Government expects young couples to purchase these non-affordable houses and, on top of that, they are expected to pay a premium so someone else can get an affordable house. It is a crazy idea, a non-starter. I am damned if we will stand for a situation where young couples would have to subsidise housing for those who are less fortunate. The young couples themselves cannot afford houses, they are mortgaged to the hilt. Every week they come to constituency clinics to ask for help.

There is no such thing as affordable housing anymore. Prices are crazy. People are now asking when the bubble will burst. I hope it will not because there are already so many young couples committed beyond what they can afford. They are prepared to make that sacrifice, but what are we doing to help them? Nothing. Housing for young people who cannot afford to purchase should be provided by the State. There is a way round this problem – the State could make more money available to the local authorities to build houses. It is now impossible to tell the difference between a local authority house and a private house. They are quality houses but we need more of them. It should not, however, be expected that young couples who are mortgaged to the hilt, who are being assisted by brothers and sisters, with their parents using their savings to help, should pay extra.

I do not want to be the harbinger of doom but alarm bells should ring. This is becoming serious. There are no houses in the State costing less than £150,000. We are only talking about four walls and a roof, bricks and mortar. Who is profiteering? Greedy builders. The norm for new developments is between ten and 20 houses. Who is buying those houses? The very person who built them. He is holding them and renting them out. Other interest groups are investing in housing. There should be a cap put on the number of houses one person can own. If a person has a roof over his head, his neighbour is entitled to a roof over his head. These people, however, see this as an opportunity to make huge profits when money in the bank makes very little. They live of other people's rent and that is wrong.

Home ownership is peculiar to the Irish. In mainland Europe people can rent for life but the feeling in Ireland is that rent is dead money. People prefer to buy as soon as possible and they should be supported. Now it is becoming imposs ible for young couples to do that. The Government has a duty to those couples; it must abandon the affordable housing scheme and not place a further burden on those who are already over-stretched.

Scarcity of income can cause marriages to break down. Two good incomes is no longer sufficient to build a house. The garda and the nurse who fall in love are a good example. That is a common combination with two good salaries but they cannot afford to buy a house. They would not have had any trouble in the past. Now it is a strain for them and they have to count the shillings before they get married. We must refine the planning system and examine who is buying these houses.

We must protect people's right to object. I am aware, however, of a case where a site was sold to a young couple who built a lovely house in the corner of a ten acre field. The farmer who sold them the land decided to sell a further number of sites given that prices were at a premium, but the couple were the first to object. They were delighted to get the land themselves but wanted this whole green area to themselves. I would call that a frivolous objection. They objected to Cavan County Council and their objection was overruled and planning was granted. They then appealed to An Bord Pleanála and are causing further delay with their frivolous objection. People are entitled to object, but if the county council overrules an objection and if the grounds for overruling it are reasonable, people should not have the right to go to An Bord Pleanála unless there is a fast track system in place whereby a decision can be made within a month. That is not happening at present and these people are aware of that. They are not alone and there are others who have gone down that avenue. That is meanness and greed and is something I would not support. We should look at our planning laws so that frivolous objections cannot hold up development for long periods. There should be a fast track system in An Bord Pleanála in such situations. In complex cases, perhaps industrial development, An Bord Pleanála would need plenty of time to make a good decision and to examine every aspect of the case.

In County Meath a substantial developer, who is well known in this city, set about establishing a refuse tip. He took a lease on a 500 acre farm for ten years. Over weekends he started to tip refuse of all description, including builders' materials and household waste. Nobody really passed any remarks until a mountain of refuse started to appear and people began to query it. They rang Meath County Council which was not aware of it. An application for planning had not been made. The person concerned was contacted and eventually it came to a stop when there was a huge mountain of waste there.

He was told he would have to get planning permission for which he applied. In due course, permission was refused and he appealed to An Bord Pleanála which refused the appeal. At weekends, however, lorries were coming in and out of the site and the mountain of waste was getting higher. Eventually, Meath County Council took stern action. He then applied to retain what he had developed and he called it a "Heineken step". He claimed this mountain was for exercising horses. He did not have a mound or hilly land on which horses could develop leg muscles. Talk about coming up with ideas. To make a long story short, that application failed yet he continued to add to the mountain.

Because of the failure of Meath County Council to deal with the matter effectively, local residents had to take this man to court. The judge in question, a lady by the name of Brennan, called him to the front of the court, reprimanded him and he left the court with a red face. She gave him time – the middle of this month – to remove the mound. The residents wrote to Meath County Council to request it to remove this mountain of waste since he had been refused planning permission and the tip was illegal. Meath County Council, however, said it would cause more nuisance and annoyance to move the waste than to leave it. This enforced what he had done illegally.

If I, or any Member, dumped a skip of waste or abandoned an old car, Meath County Council would come down on top of us, and rightly so. Because this man had created such a monstrosity, to move it would cause too much trouble. Yet it was a nuisance to local residents. This would not be unique if this man had got away with it. He would have established a precedent in that if one creates a great enough nuisance, one will not be asked to move it.

The planning people should take a more stringent view of this type of illegal activity. The story is not at an end yet as he has appealed to the Supreme Court. Perhaps the officials might look up their notes to see if they are aware of what I am talking about and follow it up. I was disappointed that the planning authority did not enforce the law to the letter of the law as it would for persons not involved in big business. I am not saying brown envelops were passed around but something happened which was not quite right.

People bank roll objectors in order to prevent a development. If discovered, they should be harshly penalised. If somebody with a vested interest bank rolls locals to object to a development, if the objection is overruled and if it is seen as frivolous, although complex, the person who has bank rolled the objection should be penalised harshly. The way to penalise such people is to impose a substantial financial penalty on them which should be given to the local authority in question for further necessary development.

It is difficult to say whether what I will describe now is related to people trying to benefit from high house prices, but I have come across two or three cases where a person or an old couple decide to sell their large house, but before they sell, they build a dormer bungalow in the back garden. This is becoming more common as word spreads on what one can do and how one can make money. When these houses were originally built, they had beautiful back gardens and a nice lawn in the front. That was part and parcel of the overall development of these houses.

In these cases, the couple decides to build a dormer bungalow for £80,000 to £100,000 in the back garden and sell the big house, which will be sold for in excess of £200,000. The couple then has £100,000 to save. However, they are spoiling the original house, although they will have buyers for it. As Deputy McGrath said, local residents or next door neighbours might not be aware of the planning application for the development as they would not expect it. The application is made and a public notice is put up. While people might see the notice and wonder what it is about, they are busy going about their business and may not give it further thought. Planning permission will be granted as there will not be any objections.

The dormer bungalow not only spoils the original house, although there will be buyers, but it interferes with the rights of people who bought at the same time on the assumption that their back gardens would be quiet and peaceful without anybody overlooking them. It is something about which we need to be careful. I know we are looking at green areas on which to build houses but people's rights must be protected. People can spoil a good development. I ask the Minister of State to bear in mind that that is happening. I also ask him to ensure that young people do not have to shoulder the burden of the high cost of housing. More money should be made available to local authorities to enable them to buy tracts of land in their county areas and they could then make such serviced land available for private development. The money should be targeted in that direction, but a further burden should not be placed on young people who cannot afford to buy houses at current prices. None of us can predict what the future holds. None of us can look into a crystal ball and predict that house prices will remain at the current level or fall or whether interest rates will increase or decrease. We must be extremely careful how we address this issue.

Mr. Stanton

I am pleased to contribute to the Bill. It is timely that public representatives addressed this major issue. The sooner we enact legislation in this area the better, although I have major reservations about some of the provisions in the Bill, particularly the social housing aspect to which Deputy Boylan referred.

When agricultural land is rezoned for housing or another use its value greatly increases. It seems that the sky is the limit in that regard. We read reports in newspapers of astronomical sums being paid for rezoned land. At the stage it is proposed to rezone land, a certain amount of that land should be handed over to the local authority or bought by it at its value prior to its rezoning and held in a land bank for housing, industrial or amenity use or for some other purpose it considers appropriate. The people who own land will stand to make perhaps millions from the simple act of their land being rezoned. They are the people who are benefiting most at this time. The local authority should ring fence a certain amount of that land for use as it considers appropriate. That measure would short circuit many difficulties and the land would be available to the local authorities.

I welcome the young people in the Visitors' Gallery to the House. If we continue as we are going, those young people will not be able to afford housing of any sort. I fear that the Government's proposals will introduce an awkward and difficult mechanism into the planning process. It will ensure that land that is not zoned for housing will be far more expensive because market forces will apply. That is not acceptable. I ask the Minister of State to reconsider this issue. Many of his party colleagues are concerned about it. There would not be anything wrong in the Government revisiting this issue and taking it in hand at the rezoning stage. That is when it should be addressed. That would be a simple, workable and sensible measure. I ask the Government to consider that.

I come from a part of east Cork with which the Minister of State is familiar, as he is a frequent visitor and always welcome. That area is undergoing a massive housing and development boom at present. Houses and development sites are springing up all over east Cork and the same is happening in other parts of the country. The road infrastructure in east Cork is not capable of dealing with this volume of traffic. As the Minister of State is aware, for the past two and a half years I have advocated that the rail link to Midleton should be reopened. I raised this issue with the Minister of State at another forum. I fear that if that rail link is not opened soon, it will not be possible to open it as all the land around the rail link will be built on. The same applies to rail links in other parts of the country. It is increasingly difficult to gain access to the rail link to Midleton. The reopening of rail links should be considered in planning and the rail link to Midleton should be reopened now. There is no point in waiting any longer. I call on the local county council, the Minister for Public Enterprise and Iarnód Éireann to move quickly to reopen it. It must happen sooner or later as the volume of traffic on the roads in east Cork is frightening – and it is getting heavier. A development of three thousand houses is planned for one small village in east Cork. Such development is out of control. When planning housing development, account must be taken of the provision of schools and green areas and such planning is provided for in the Bill.

With the increased volume of traffic on all roads, including by-roads and main roads, cyclists and pedestrians find it increasing difficult and dangerous to cycle or walk on country roads. When it comes to planning and development, we must make provision for cycle paths and walkways. We must reclaim some of the minor roads for cyclists or pedestrians or build new walkways and cycle paths, otherwise people will only be able to travel by car because it will be too dangerous to cycle or walk on our roads. I ask the Department to consider that proposal when it introduces ministerial planning guidelines. When the Minister issues planning guidelines, the Bill provides that An Bord Pleanála, local authorities and others must take note of them. That is welcome. That means that if Deputies raise an issue with the Minister in the House or privately, he can issue planning guidelines and they must be noted by local authorities and others. This is important. I am sure all Members would agree that as elected representatives we must also have an input into policy in this area.

I am concerned about certain bodies, such as the National Roads Authority. There are major safety concerns in my area and I am sure the same could be said for other areas around the county. There are safety concerns about making right turns off the N25 in my area and identifying those turns at night. The residents of the villages of Castlemartyr and Killeagh have been crying out for years for some type of pedestrian crossings. I am informed that the National Road Authority refused to meet the local elected representatives to discuss the matter. That is no way for such a body to act. The Minister should call in the representatives of that body and tell them that democratically elected members of a local authority want to meet with them, that a written formal request from the county manager will be submitted and that the body should facilitate them and listen to what they have to say, otherwise it should be disbanded. It does not make sense that representatives of the National Roads Authority are not prepared to meet local representatives, especially when people crossing the road have been knocked down and killed. A number of people have been knocked down and killed on the road in Castlemartyr in recent years. The residents have asked us to make representations but we have been ignored by bodies such as the National Roads Authority. That is not good enough. I feel strongly about that, as do my colleagues in the area.

From contacts with constituents, I am aware of their concern about the cost of housing. Housing is very expensive and people are spending a great deal of money buying houses. Buying a house is a major choice that people make. They are of the view that if they buy a house in a small development of 50, 60 or 100 houses in a cul de sac their house will be in a quiet area. People find it difficult to park their cars outside their houses because the roads in estates tend to be narrower, but that is another issue. Often the next field is zoned and developed and what was a cul de sac becomes a thoroughfare for another 100 or 200 houses, and there may have been no sign that this was going to happen when the houses were bought. People should be alerted to such a possibility. If housing estates are too big there will be a huge increase in traffic going through. For the safety of children playing, estates should be planned so that traffic is diverted out of cul de sacs into a main thoroughfare. It should not be channelled through narrow roads in housing estates, causing grief for the people who live there.

In addition, when there is one development after another problems are created by heavy construction traffic trailing mud all over the original estate where people have spent a fortune on housing. We should have better planning to avoid that. What is needed is a regional plan for an area rather than planning willy-nilly, developing one field and then the next and so on.

People are often anxious to build stand alone houses in rural areas and there is increasing resistance to that because of the risk of polluting ground water with sewage and so on. Biocycle units seem to work, but there is a problem in servicing them. Local authorities do not have the power to ensure they are serviced on a regular basis. If it were possible to include in the Bill a provision requiring that existing units be serviced regularly so that they will function properly, we might overcome the problem of ground water pollution in the countryside. I am told by certain engineers that this is difficult and that it is one of the reasons engineers are slow to allow such housing in rural areas. Perhaps the Minister might consider it and come back to us.

The problem of locals being able to purchase property in their area is a problem nationally. When a house comes on the market in a place such as Ballycotton, which is a beautiful seaside resort, people from cities and from overseas buy it up to use as a second home. This is happening more and more around our coast, especially in beautiful scenic areas. This means that during the off-season many of the houses are empty. However, local people cannot buy houses there because they cannot compete in the market. This is a major problem in places like Ballycotton where local people are being squeezed out and there are more and more houses lying empty for much of the year. It also causes problems for schools, shops and so on when communities like that are being slowly decimated, and local people have to fall back on local authority housing in towns. Perhaps the Minister might consider if there is a way to ring fence and preserve housing for local people in areas such as Ballycotton and other seaside areas.

It has been mentioned by many of my colleagues already that the work of planners and engineers in local authorities has increased dramatically in the past few of years. Many of them are attracted to the private sector by higher wages and better conditions, and there has been a steady haemorrhage of experienced and talented people from local authorities. The outcome has been a slowing down of the planning process because we do not have enough experienced staff. Privatising the whole system might be the wrong thing to do, but something has to be done to ensure that local authorities have adequate num bers of planners and engineers. Often, public representatives discussing a planning application on behalf of a constituent, as we are elected to do, discover that every couple of weeks a new planner is dealing with it. Planners have to understand everything and often have to postpone decisions because they do not have time to visit sites and check files. This is frustrating not just for the planner but for people trying to build a house or a factory.

I have noticed that planners can be subjective in their approach to certain proposals. One planner will grant permission for a certain development or a certain feature in a house but another will take a different view. That can cause difficulties. Perhaps there is some way of standardising such matters.

Although I can understand the pressure they are under, I am perturbed by the behaviour of some mobile telephone companies who put up masts without planning permission, sometimes in the dead of night, and then apply for retention, even though they have been told by the local authority that they should not put them up. When they are told to take them down they appeal to An Board Pleanála. This is an abuse of the planning system by such companies which should be stopped. It is not good enough that they should behave in that way. That is not the purpose of the retention clause in the planning legislation.

There have been objections in east Cork for some time to the construction of ESB pylons in the area. As the matter is before the courts, I will not say too much about it. The case is linked to the proposals in the Bill to restrict the rights of people to object to planning proposals and the methods by which they can do so. The difficulty is not that there are too many objections but that the procedure for dealing with them is cumbersome and slow and we do not have mechanisms in place to deal with objections speedily and efficiently. I would seriously question the wisdom of curtailing people's right to object. They have to have a right to object. There is a danger that if we prevent people objecting formally or put obstacles in their way, they will find other ways to do so. I welcome Cork County Council's initiative in setting up a forum to deal with the concerns citizens have about super dumps in the Cork region. It has set up a forum, and has funded objectors to carry out their own investigations. This is open and transparent and facilitates the objectors. If, in relation to the ESB pylons, An Bord Pleanála had allowed an oral hearing matters might have been resolved. However, An Bord Pleanála refused and the matter still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of either side.

We have to be very careful when dealing with planning and rezoning. A great deal of money is being made out of this. Tribunals have been set up to investigate certain practices which are costing the State a lot of money, and we have to make sure this does not happen again. Tribunals are important. We must get the systems right and if wrongdoing took place in the past, it must be discovered and sorted out. The people involved must be punished, and be seen to be punished. It is important to ensure that this type of alleged behaviour does not happen again.

Planning and development is the major issue because it concerns almost every aspect of life at present. There will be another major scramble in the autumn involving college students seeking accommodation in the cities. This is linked to planning and development because the current grants for students are totally inadequate. They face a huge problem trying to find accommodation.

We must move towards higher density in terms of housing, but this must be properly planned. More apartment living must be considered. Many of the apartments being built are not suitable for families. They are only suitable for summer accommodation and single people. We should consider building apartments which will suit families but if that is done, they must have security of tenure. The rents would have to be fixed so families and students cannot be exploited.

I welcome the Bill, although we have reservations about many aspects of it. The provision which would require builders to finish housing estates before they leave should be rigorously enforced. Incomplete housing estates are a major problem. Builders make their money and go, leaving a huge mess behind. This problem impinges on the quality of life of the people living there.

Mr. M. Brennan

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Bill is most timely and could not be more relevant. It will assist in the implementation of the national development plan. It is a comprehensive Bill with 245 sections and it has been discussed in the Seanad. The last Planning Act was introduced in 1963, a considerable time ago.

Much has been said about housing and county council land banks. My county council has a considerable number of land banks but it is becoming increasingly difficult to get contractors to build local authority houses. It may be due to the Celtic tiger but contractors appear to be extremely busy. When the council advertises for a contractor to build housing, it receives tenders but a number of units could be completed by the time they can start work. Previously when the council advertised for contractors to build houses, it had no problem getting a builder. When the tenders were opened, there could be 20 contractors applying to develop up to 50 houses and building would start within a number of months. However, this is not the case now. Contractors do not appear to be available; they are all too busy.

I welcome the fact that some local authorities will allow farmers' sons and members of their families to build on the family farm. It is difficult for people to get planning permission in rural Ireland at present. I am delighted that some county councils, and particularly the county man ager and planning officer, get together and give permission to a farmer's son or daughter to build a house on the family land. This is a step in the right direction. If the aim is to maintain the rural population, it is not right to stop family members who want to live beside their parents or other family members from building a house. It is only right that this should happen given the huge cost involved in buying a site anywhere in Ireland these days. I am glad farmers' sons and others will get planning permission.

I welcome the great work being done by the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, in providing housing and finance to build houses. The introduction of affordable housing is fantastic. Many great social housing schemes have been built over the years and all local authorities should encourage them. People should avail of them.

A number of applications for houses on national primary roads have been granted permission under section 4 motions. I do not want planning permission to be granted in the future for houses on national primary roads because of the level of traffic on them these days. It is dangerous, particularly if it is a narrow road and one has to turn off to a house. All applications for houses in such areas should be refused and I am not afraid to make that point. It would be a shame if houses were built on the by-pass in Mullingar. There is an excellent garage on that road which serves food. One can easily turn off the road to it. Although people have got permission to build houses on national primary roads in the past, such developments are too dangerous, particularly for children. Such applications should be rejected in the future.

I thank the Minister for making money available for local improvement schemes on non-county roads. If such a scheme has been done well by the county council and people are living in houses at the end of the road concerned, the county council should take it over. The sons and daughters of the people living in the houses should be given planning permission to build houses on nearby roads. The roads are repaired with money made available by the Department under local improvement schemes, but the council will not take them over because it considers that it already has enough roads to maintain. There are 1,400 miles of county roads in County Sligo and the council will not take on any more. These roads should be taken over and maintained in the same way as the roads in housing estates are taken over after they are surfaced with tarmacadam to the satisfaction of the local authority and adequate lighting is provided.

A number of local authorities are finding it difficult to get planners at present. They have advertised for planners but it is difficult to get them because there is a shortage in this area. More planners are required now than ever before because of the increasing level of applications. Tubbercurry, County Sligo, was a small town but, since the introduction of rural renewal, is no longer so. The first application made was for 39 houses, the current application is for 55 houses and I understand a subsequent application is to be made for 85 houses. I welcome this development but objections to planning applications are delaying the process. When an objection is made to An Bord Pleanála, it takes several months to process it. If objections could be dealt with in two months rather than five or six months, that would be a step in the right direction.

I welcome the development of our national primary roads which are being built as far away as possible from houses. I understand that planning permission will not be granted along national primary roads and I hope that is the case.

A previous speaker referred to the erection of mobile phone and television masts which are very unsightly. People are concerned about the health implications of these masts when they are erected near their homes. I would like to see them being erected far away from built up areas. An Taisce has objected to these masts on occasion but it has also objected to the location of rural houses on farm land which is an unwelcome development.

I welcome the requirement to set the walls around rural houses a certain distance away from the road. A significant number of stone walls is being built around new houses in rural areas and that is to be welcomed as it adds to the character of an area. That should be a requirement in all planning applications. Rather than building plastered, whitewashed or pebble-dashed walls, people should be encouraged to build stone walls. There is plenty of good stone in the country and plenty of stonemasons to craft it.

Mr. R. Bruton

At the outset, I want to address a Dublin-based issue which is intimately tied up with this Bill. I refer to the future of Dublin Bay. Recently, Dublin Port attempted what could be described as a "smash and grab" raid to infill 52 acres of the bay on the basis that infill material was coming from the Sutton pipeline and the port tunnel. Its effort has been temporarily halted by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources who decided that the port's environmental impact survey was inadequate. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government signalled that such applications will be considered as planning applications in the future. He intends to introduce a provision on Committee Stage whereby the port board will, in future, be able to go directly to the planning authority to seek planning permission.

While that development is welcome on one level, the manner of its operation will be crucial. If we allow a situation to develop whereby the port authority in Dublin or elsewhere can make an application to a local authority without the development plan having been materially contravened or varied, people will be robbed of their democratic right to have a say in the manner in which key amenities are developed. The Dublin Port application will, doubtless, be refused by Dublin Corporation and will then be appealed to An Bord Pleanála. It is crucial that if the Minister introduces an amendment providing for planning permission to be sought for port infills of this nature, the legislation must explicitly provide that such applications can only be considered following a variation or material contravention of the development plan. That would ensure that the process would remain in democratic control and that the corporation would have an opportunity to advertise its intention to vary the plan and to specify permissible uses in various parts of the waterways involved. It would also ensure that applications would not be solely driven by commercial opportunism without proper regard to Dublin Bay's amenities. Dublin people will expect the Minister to ensure that this legislation will protect the bay.

People may be somewhat unnerved by other aspects of this legislation which seem to suggest that the right of third parties to object or raise concerns about planning applications is being eroded. It is crucial that this would not happen in relation to Dublin Bay which is a unique amenity. Few cities in the world can boast access to such an amenity. Although we have been slow to develop the bay for recreational purposes, that is now happening and there is a greater recognition of the bay's natural beauty and amenity value. The Minister must be conscious of that and provide for proper democratic controls. I have spoken to Deputy Dukes about this issue and I understand he will table amendments on this issue if the Minister's amendment is not adequate.

I am extremely suspicious of the erosion of people's right to object to planning applications. I do not see any problem with people raising objections. If the planning system worked properly, even a contested application would be decided upon within seven months, the time limit clearly set out in the primary legislation in regard to local authorities and An Bord Pleanála. Applications are not taking longer to process because of third party objections, but rather because the administrative structures are not capable of dealing with the workload.

The possible introduction of fees for objectors and the restriction of appeals to those who made submissions the first time around would be very wrong. People were not aware of the port infill proposal, which was advertised in a very limited way by the port, until the closing date for objections was upon them or had passed. Under that provision, those people would be denied the opportunity to appeal planning decisions. Many people may miss the first opportunity to object to an application and when it comes to their notice, they will find themselves statute-barred from making an appeal. That should not be a feature of our planning legislation. There are many other ways in which we could deal with delays in the planning system without eroding people's fundamental right to make an appeal.

I welcome the introduction of the provision whereby planning permission can be refused in circumstances where there is a consistent history of failure to fulfil planning conditions. The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and other Members will be aware of maverick developers in their constituencies who move from one estate to another leaving a trail of mayhem behind them. However, the provision envisaged by the Minister is extraordinarily cumbersome. The notion that planning authorities must first form an opinion on applications and then seek authorisation from the High Court to refuse maverick developers will put the onus entirely on the wrong parties.

A developer should be obliged to take a High Court action in order to have a refusal lifted on such grounds. A local authority may have prima facie grounds for a refusal on that basis. For example, it could have very good grounds because it is aware of a developer's past record in the relevant county or city and such knowledge should be acceptable in terms of issuing an initial refusal. The onus of taking a High Court action to overturn a refusal and the costs involved in doing so should be placed on the developer. I hope that refusals will only be overturned when developers have put to rights previous developments they have undertaken.

Apropos of that, I wish to raise with the Minister an issue in respect of which he replied on a previous occasion by stating that he had no interest in taking action. I refer to the role of management companies in privately developed estates. Many of the apartment developments throughout Dublin city are not taken in charge, at any stage, by the local authorities and they remain under the control of management companies. There is no legislation which regulates the behaviour of such companies and the Minister stated that it is based on the contract between the relevant parties. The reality is, however, that many people move into apartments or houses and developers either do not establish management companies or fail to honour their obligation to deliver quality services to those who have taken occupation. Residents of these developments cannot seek the protection of the planning authority which shows that there is a gap in the legislation.

The Bill represents the best opportunity we will have to introduce controls in the area to which I refer. Under the legislation, it will be a normal condition that a management company should be established but the necessary enforcement powers will be absent. We must consider the inclusion of specific provisions in the Bill to deal with management companies in order to ensure that they take their responsibilities seriously. As I understand it, the provision to enable a majority of residents to have an estate taken in charge by a local authority will not apply to estates developed privately with private management companies.

I welcome the inclusion of a time limit in respect of enforcement action. That is a good development. However, will the Minister indicate if we are just fooling ourselves in this regard? Planning enforcement in the Dublin area is wholly ineffective because of a lack of resources. It is great that a warning letter will be issued after six weeks, an enforcement letter will be issued after 12 weeks and that everything will be hunky dory after 18 weeks. However, that is not what is happening in reality. People are driving a coach and four through the planning legislation, proceeding with unauthorised developments and eventually wearing down the patience of planners and obtaining planning permission by allowing sites to become derelict. If we are to have a proper enforcement system, adequate resources must be provided. How will this be achieved?

I also welcome the establishment of strategic development zones. The role of such zones goes beyond the sphere of industrial development. Let us consider the Dublin 15 area, through which the Minister probably passes on his way home each weekend, and the education provided there. In certain areas, classrooms are laid out in community centres each morning and taken apart again each evening so that normal community activities can proceed. The reason for this is that the Department of Education and Science has no strategic development plan to match the populations of housing developments with schools. The same can be said in respect of transport and other infrastructural services.

If local development plans are to include strategic development zones, the Bill must include the power to put pressure on the Department of Education and Science and other agencies to put the necessary resources in place. I am open to correction by the Minister but, as I understand it, if a strategic development zone or any other local zone is put in place, planning permission cannot be refused or conditions imposed to the effect that it may only proceed on the basis that schools will be provided to deal with the influx of children. That is not possible. We have put forward the notion of strategic zones in the belief that they will provide for infrastructural development, transport, etc., but the legislation does not state that developments will be delayed if the services to which I refer are not forthcoming.

Once plans are put in place, the system of development becomes driven by developers. We must put a stop to that and the Bill represents the best opportunity for the Minister to do so. We must ensure that statutory power is put in place in order to ensure that schools, transport and other infrastructural services are provided when a strategic development zone is being established. Developers should be stopped in their tracks if that does not happen. The provisions to which I refer are not included in the Bill, not even in the section dealing with strategic development zones for industry where, for example, it is intended that transport services will be properly developed in tandem with the zones. The Bill is flawed in this regard.

I welcome the provisions relating to local plans but, again, progress in this area will be hampered by a lack of resources. This year Dublin Corporation has £250,000 to provide local development plans to cater for the 300,000 houses occupied by over 1 million people. That money will not have any impact. It is great to introduce provisions dealing with local development plans but I believe they will not proceed.

My final point relates to housing and the new formula for qualification – 35% of net income after the deduction of tax and PRSI – with which the Minister has come forward in respect of affordable housing. The Minister of State with responsibility for housing development is present in the House and I wish to ask whether he will be extending that formula to the shared ownership scheme. As he is aware, given the rise in house prices, the existing limit of £20,000 is not realistic. There is a need to increase the limit substantially if those on the middle ground are to be accommodated. The Minister of State will be concerned that this will make it even more difficult for people on the bottom rung of the ladder.

The Minister of State's initiatives are not working in Dublin. A year after he announced the introduction of affordable housing, not one affordable house has been built in my constituency. I am informed by the housing section of Dublin Corporation that affordable housing will not be provided in my constituency during the next 12 months. It will be the end of the year at the earliest before any affordable housing provided by the Minister of State's scheme comes on stream. There is something radically wrong. I know the Minister of State has tried to put in place initiatives but there are serious delays in making affordable housing available. Effectively, it will be two years before a single house is provided under the scheme. The Minister of State must discover why it is taking so long for land to be made available for the development of socially affordable housing.

The scheme of socially affordable housing has the potential to be successful in Dublin. That is not the case with the shared ownership scheme which will encounter increasing difficulties in the future, particularly as renting is no longer an attractive option in light of low interest rates.

The Bill is like the curate's egg, it is good in parts. If we can amend the weaker provisions and put in place a proper democratic process to protect the amenity of the bay, we will have done a good day's work.

Mr. McGinley

Ba mhaith liom mar a dhein na cainteoirí a labhair anseo ar maidin agus le cúpla seachtain anuas fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo. Tuigeann gach duine go bhfuil géarghá le súil ghéar a choinneáil ar chúrsaí pleanála ar fud na tíre. Tuigimid chomh maith an dlúthcheangal atá idir tithe a chur ar fáil do na daoine agus cúrsaí pleanála. Go minic tá an dá rud sin fite fuaite le chéile. Má tá géarchéim de chineál ar bith sa tír seo i láthair na huaire sílim go bhfuil an géarchéim sin i gcúrsaí tithíochta. Tá, ar ndóigh, dlúthbhaint idir sin agus cead pleanála. Níl fhios agam an dtugann an Bille sin faoi na fadhbanna sin go léir a fhuascailt. Tá fhios agam go dtuige ann an tAire Stáit é féin ón áit a dtagann sé ó iarthar na hÉireann goidé chomh tábhachtach is atá an cheist seo.

The Minister has missed a major opportunity to stamp his persona on the future of planning and development into the next century. This Bill is technocratic and tidies up the loose ends of the Planning and Development Act, 1963. In the 40 years since that legislation was introduced, the remit of Government has changed completely. In those days, we were emerging from a long period of economic decline, massive emigration and reduced demand on resources. At the beginning of this third millennium, the opposite is true. There is economic growth due to the Celtic tiger, a rapidly increasing population and major demands for improved and increased developments in the infrastructure of the State in the next 20 or 30 years.

This Bill pays lip service to the Brundtland Report which in 1987 enunciated the European Union's position on sustainable development. It is noticeable that while in the past 20 years we have paid lip service to EU environmental initiatives and proposals, it has been reluctant to provide local authorities, who are the main operators in this area, with the necessary funding to implement its proposals. There is a range of indicative objectives in this Bill and in the national development plan regarding water, sewerage, telecommunications, transport and pollution control. However, there is no indication that necessary funding will be put in place to meet such objectives. This Bill provided a golden opportunity for the Minister to ensure the entire population is directly involved in the future control and development of our wonderful natural environment. Sustainable development which, to a large extent, leaves the environment intact for the next generations can occur only when there is a Government commitment to its achievement.

Section 4 relates to exemptions from planning permission and subsection (1)(f) refers to development which is carried out “on behalf of” a local authority. This should be deleted because it is open to abuse by opportunistic contractors and others. Section 4(1) makes planning permission compulsory for the planting of forestry. Would the Minister not consider it worthwhile to give exact guidelines regarding the distance from inhabited houses, roadways, streams, rivers and so on? If he does not do this, the local authority may decide on a completely different range of distances in the operation of this regulation.

Part II, section 9, states that each planning authority shall make a development plan every six years. What will the Minister do about local authorities who do not complete their plans and request extension after extension while rampant and often unbridled development is taking place in their areas? Part II, to a large extent, contravenes the democratic right of councillors as elected representatives and affects planning authorities in the exercise of their duties. To strengthen the position of elected representatives and the planning authorities, it will be necessary to change the section under which An Bord Pleanála can grant planning permission in contravention of the county development plan. Before the manager grants permission for work to commence, it should be referred to the county council, which, if it so decides, should take an initiative on a material contravention of the development plan as initiated. Where such an initiative occurs, planning permission should not be granted until the council decides to grant that material contravention and include it in the county development plan.

The change made in section 36(1) is too restrictive. The existing provision should apply so that any citizen has the right to appeal until An Bord Pleanála grants permission. Under the Bill, if a citizen does not appeal a planning permission to the local authority, he is not allowed to appeal to An Bord Pleanála. Often, a person may not be in the country when a development is advertised and permission may be granted unknown to him. This section is restrictive as such a person should have an opportunity to appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

There is a correlation between the granting of planning permission and housing. There is a major housing shortage and people cannot afford to buy houses. There are more than 40,000 people on local authority housing lists, which is probably the highest figure ever. In my county there are about 2,000 on the housing list, which is also one of the highest figures ever. This is because of the escalating price of houses and building sites, not only in Dublin but throughout the country and ins na ceantair Ghaeltachta mar a thuigeann an tAire é féin.

Ní rud íontach ar bith anois é go mbeadh ar dhuine a bhfuil fonn air teach a thógáil sa Ghaeltacht £40,000, nó £50,000 nó fiú níos mó ná sin a íoc ar shuíomh. Go minic ní daoine ón Ghaeltacht iad ach daoine a thagann isteach mar is beag duine ón Ghaeltacht atá ábalta airgead mar sin a dhíol.

De réir an Bhille, duine atá ag iarraidh forbairt a dhéanamh ar shuíomh fá choinne tithe a thógáil go mbeadh céatadán áirithe de na tithe sin saor sa dóigh go bhféadfadh an gnth dhuine iad a cheannach. Níl fhios agam an bhfuil sin chun an fhadhb a réiteach. Bheadh sé i bhfad níos fearr dá gceannódh na húdaráis áitiúla an talamh iad féin agus go gcuirfidís na seirbhísí ar fáil ar phraghas réasúnta do dhaoine a bhfuil fonn orthu tithe a thógáil in a gceantair féin.

B'fhéidir nach mbaineann sé seo go hiomlán le cúrsaí pleanála ach is cinnte go gcuireann sé isteach go mór orm féin, ar ionadaithe poiblí eile agus ar an Aire Stáit go mbíonn deacracht mór ag daoine atá ina gcomhnaí in a gceantar féin le blianta fada cead pleanála a fháil le teach a thógáil ar a dtalamh féin in aice len a muintir féin.

Caithfimid a bheith réasúnta agus freagrach ach sílim gur chóir dúinn aire faoi leith a thabhairt d'iarrachtaí mar sin mar tá cúrsaí pleanála agus luach tithe ceangailte le chéile. Ó tharla go bhfuil an tAire Stáit anseo ba mhaith liom a rá fosta nach dtugann na deontais atá ar fáil fá choinne tithe i láthair na huaire cuidiú do dhaoine tithe a chur ar fáil dóibh féin. Is £3,000 atá ar fáil i láthair na huaire in aon chuid den tír agus is íontach íseal an méid é sin. Tá £4,000 ar fáil sa Ghaeltacht agus tá sé thar am go mbéadh an deontas sin ardaithe. Bhíomar go léir ag súil go gcuirfí deontas ar fáil chun tithe a fheabhsú.

There are many old homesteads throughout the country which have not been used for years. These could be renovated if there were incentives from the Department.

The Department provided generous grants for a number of years before 1987. Indeed, I believe they were introduced when Fine Gael was in Government. The Minister will recall that during the 1980s there were substantial grants for the renovation of old homesteads. Planning permission is not required for renovation because the structures already exist. They might need to be reroofed or otherwise improved so the planning process can be bypassed. It is a matter of repairing a building that already exists but has fallen into disuse. There must be incentives for such work. The grants given in the 1980s amounted to £4,000 or more for renovating a pre-1940 house. This would be another means of solving the housing shortage. Country people should be given an incentive to purchase these properties and renovate them. That would remove some of the pressure on planning offices.

The planning office in Donegal has a huge problem due to limited staff resources. I understand that we do not yet have planning officers qualifying in this part of the country. They appear to qualify in Northern Ireland and then come to the Republic. I am not aware of any plans to establish a town and country planning faculty in our third level institutions although I could be out of date. There was a post-graduate course available—

Mr. D. Carey

There is one in Thurles.

Mr. McGinley

It is about time. People from County Donegal have gone to Belfast and other universities in Northern Ireland and the UK to become town planners. If we are to loosen the logjam, there must be more planners. There must also be more flexibility if we are to tackle the housing problem. Not only must the planning process be improved but incentives must be provided for new houses or for renovating old houses.

The Bill does not address these basic problems. Nevertheless, it is welcome as far as it goes.

Mr. Sargent

Tá áthas orm seans a fháil labhairt ar an mBille seo. Although the Bill was published on 23 August last, it is still exercising people's minds. A number of aspects have caused considerable comment and annoyance. There has also been a welcome for the provisions which tighten up some areas that required it.

In his introductory comments, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, said something with which no Member could disagree. He said the planning system of a prosperous Ireland should be guided by three principles – a strategic approach, an ethos of sustainable development and performance of the highest quality. These are excellent aspirations but if one examines the Bill and Government related activity, one can see they do not as yet apply. We live in hope.

With regard to the approach being strategic, the national development plan was announced in a way which declared the amounts of money to be spent in different areas. However, that put the cart before the horse because a spatial plan was not in place at the time of the announcement. To talk about the spatial plan being produced at a later date indicates that we are remiss and have not learnt lessons from the past.

The crisis in public transport, which will be discussed later today, is symptomatic of the problem which arises from not having public transport infrastructure in place and having no spatial plan to ensure that people live close to where they work and to other facilities. These things appear to be afterthoughts. All too often in the past they have been afterthoughts. We have much to learn. It is not a question of reinventing the wheel. These issues have been well thrashed out in other countries. Our EU neighbours can speak from experience and I hope we will learn quickly from that experience.

The second principle to which the Minister referred was sustainable development. This is one of those phrases that is thrown around like confetti at a wedding, although that is now illegal under the Litter Pollution Act. Many people mistake sustainable development for sustained development. Indeed, some are quick to metamorphose the phrase into sustained growth.

The point of sustainability, as the Taoiseach said in relation to Sellafield, is that one knows when enough is enough and one has an idea of where to go when that point arrives. One knows whether to focus on quality of life when one can no longer work on the quantity or whether one goes somewhere else and focuses on decentralisation, not deconcentration as Deputy Roche described it on the radio yesterday. Deconcentration appears to be more likely to happen than decentralisation.

For me, sustainable development means the Earth Summit in Rio, Agenda 21 and participation by the public. One of the main criticisms of this Bill is that participation by the public is hampered. The Minister will put forward the reason for that but the fact remains that people will not be able to participate in the planning process after a certain point, whereas they could previously. That does not appear to be an improvement under the Agenda 21 criteria.

The Minister also said the planning process must be of the highest quality. One cannot argue with that and we wish it were so. Anybody who deals with a local authority, as most Members of this House frequently do, will be aware that the number of planning applications submitted over the last ten years has trebled even though the number of staff in planning departments has remained static. Indeed, many are attracted to the private sector so there is a large number on career breaks from their original employment. They are attracted by the larger remuneration and better prospects in the private sector. Getting planners to fill the vacancies is difficult. That situation is contrary to the Minister's aspiration to have the highest quality planning procedures. That is the opposite of the aspiration in the Bill for the highest quality in terms of planning procedures. The staff is not in place to ensure this. As a result, mistakes are made and things are overlooked, especially if, for example, applications are submitted before Christmas and other public holidays. If a person wanted to, he could write a book about ways of working the planning system to take advantage of inherent weaknesses brought about by the creaking machinery in the local authorities because of staff problems and shortages.

While these three aspirations in the Bill are lofty and admirable, they are prone to misunderstanding and are unlikely to be adhered to because we have a long way to go. They present a huge challenge. I hope there is the will to meet it.

With regard to streamlining the planning process, it was mentioned in a seminar on the Bill on 29 September last that the planning process now aims to benefit planning authorities and developers. There is a widespread perception about this. Many on the Opposition and Government benches have pointed out that the imposition of a fee on the submission of an observation or an objection will mean that people will think twice before they comment. There is no harm in thinking twice, but there would be an outcry if people had to pay to vote. This proposal steps over the bounds of democracy, participation and Agenda 21, which the country signed up to. I hope it will not be proceeded with. There is little enough faith in the planning process without jeopardising it any further.

The proposal that people may not make an observation to An Bord Pleanála if they have not submitted an observation or objection at the original planning application stage means that those who, by doing their best to keep the so-called Celtic tiger alive were unable to screen all the planning applications submitted, are penalised for their hard work. They are also penalised if they have been living outside the country – after all, we are now told we live in a global village. There are many ways in which people will be incensed by this provision. The Government is making unnecessary trouble for itself.

The Minister has got it wrong when he says the provision is limited to those who show an interest in the initial application. Many parties – chari ties, non-governmental organisations and people who work hard – may be interested in a submission but they do not have the time to scrutinise everything. It is not only unfair but it contravenes the Arhus Convention on access to information, public participation, decision making and access to justice, especially on environmental matters. It is likely that this will open another avenue to legal challenges, as if we did not have enough of them.

The proposed charge on making a submission will turn an opportunity to comment into a privilege. That is undemocratic and it should not be implemented. Three steps should be taken. First, the proposal to charge a fee for making comments on planning applications at local authority stage should be abolished. Second, the restrictions on the rights of third parties to appeal or observe when the planning stage reaches An Bord Pleanála should be abolished. Third, the obligation on the planning authorities to grant planning permission in areas designated as strategic development zones should be removed.

This last point is a cause of concern. As an example, there have been a number of incidents, some very serious, in the Cork harbour area involving pharmaceutical plants. Most of them adhere to the rules and safety criteria. Yet if a plant does not adhere to the same high standards but complies with the strategic development zone, in that it is, for example, a pharmaceutical company, it must submit a proposal for a licence to the EPA before the plant comes into operation, but only after the plant has been built. This effectively means that millions of pounds could be spent on a dubious development because it complies with the strategic development zone criteria. It is a risky scenario. The planning authorities should be given far more discretion, using the planning expertise at their disposal. The Minister has acknowledged their planning expertise and they should not have their hands tied by the designation of strategic development zones. I hope the Minister will refer to this in his reply.

A number of points on planning have been raised with me. The development of wind power in this country has been very slow by comparison with developments in other EU countries. It has been suggested to me by the Irish Wind Energy Association that our planning laws should focus on the zones around the country not where wind power would be acceptable, but where it would be unacceptable. In that way communities who want to benefit their own areas, or companies who want to work in partnership with local communities, would be able to look at their county development plans, or the national development plan, to see where it would be a waste of their time to seek planning permission. This would enable them to better determine where they can focus their energy.

We are very bad at developing broad leaf forestry. One of the reasons for this is our tradition of planting trees where nothing else will grow in terms of a useful economic return. A focus on the acid and alkaline brown soil areas, where broad leaf growth could be considered, would enable developers to consider planting broad leaf trees, which we badly need. Thankfully previous generations took a longer view and planted them. We still have some, but not much, of their legacy.

The issue of landfills and incinerators is close to my heart. They are a cause of concern to virtually all the constituencies represented in this House. Both are elements of the waste management plan which allows local authorities to form regional alliances to provide a single facility in a lowly populated area, although such a facility would affect communities wherever it was located. The Bill should concentrate more on local treatment of waste. That could be dealt with in a development plan. A depot could be constructed which would be a collection point, and other facilities could be provided which are vital if we are to succeed in reducing waste. Considering that we have increased waste by 40% in the past three years, a considerable effort is needed to turn that around. It also needs to be done quickly, urgently and effectively. The Bill could note that.

One repeated criticism of housing, especially in areas where it is planned and badly needed, is that it is such a rushed job that it tends to be a concrete jungle of houses of the same type. There are acres of three bedroom semi-detached houses in suburban areas. While such an approach addresses an immediate need, in terms of the long-term future of communities, when families grow to a couple with children and then reduce when children leave home, there needs to be a mixture of housing.

In terms of decentralisation – there is a difference between that and deconcentration which is often referred to when discussing the moving of Departments – Rural Resettlement Ireland has done a marvellous job and I pay tribute to it in setting a trend of moving away from cities people who are in a position to do so, and creating space, vitality and life in areas and schools which may have suffered depopulation. I wish the Government could do more for it. I hope the Bill examines that issue.

An issue which arises in my constituency, as I am sure it does for other Deputies, is people's entitlement to light, especially in the context of the leylandii tree. It has the potential to grow to a height of 100 feet and a width of 15 feet, it does not allow anything to grow within 12 feet of it and is, unfortunately, not restricted in planning. The Bill should include a provision in this regard because it is a terrible blight on people who must live with it.

Debate adjourned