Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Jun 2000

Vol. 521 No. 3

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

Amendment No. 52 in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Amendment No. 117 is related. Both amendments to be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 33, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

(m)in the case of development plans which relate to the Gaeltacht, the objectives to be included shall include the conservation and promotion of the Gaeltacht as an area where Irish is the primary community language.”.

We debated amendment No. 52 at some length on Committee Stage and earlier on Report Stage. Unless there has been a sea change in the Department, the prospects of its being accepted are rather slim. However, the Minister might surprise me by telling me he is going to accept it, in which case we can carry on.

There was much agreement in the Seanad and on Committee Stage about the need for the planning system to take into consideration the special needs of the Gaeltacht. My amendments on that Stage strengthened the references to the protection of the Gaeltacht in the development plan. As I explained on Committee Stage, they more than met the points in Deputy Gilmore's amendment in section 10. There is no further need for the amendment. The objective in section 10 deals with the point raised in the amendment to section 34. The planning authority has to make its decision on any application having regard to the provision of the development plans.

Regarding the amendment to make the drawing up of regional planning guidelines a joint function of Údarás na Gaeltachta, I have explained that, given the development functions of Údarás na Gaeltachta, it is not suited to that role. I consider the existing provision in section 23(4)(b) to have regard to the need to protect the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht.

Similarly, the amendment to Part V is not necessary as housing strategies in section 93 are incorporated in the development plan and will, therefore, be subject to the objective in section 10, as will the local authority policies regarding the allocation of houses under section 96. As Deputies know, a number of changes have been made since the Seanad debate and Committee Stage in this area. There is very broad agreement on what has been achieved. The Irish language movement has already stated it is happy with the changes that have been introduced.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.

Amendment No. 56 is an alternative to amendment No. 55 and both may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 33, line 43, after "development plan" to insert "(including a development plan that has been varied)".

Having listened to Deputy Gilmore's arguments on this point, I have brought forward my own amendment which is intended to cover this issue. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw his amendment. My amendment provides that if land is zoned in a variation of a development plan, as well as when it is first made, there is no presumption that it will continue to be so zoned. I hope Deputy Dukes is not too shocked at this stage.

I agree with the Minister's amendment.

I will withdraw the amendment as it just seems to be a linguistic difference.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 59, 59a, 60, 61, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 77, 330, 331, 351a and 351b are related to amendment No. 58 and all may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 34, line 41, to delete "5 months" and substitute "16 weeks".

Arising out of the debate on Committee Stage on the adoption of the development plan, I promised to reconsider the various time periods for Report Stage. The series of amendments I have tabled reflect the outcome of that review. The one principle I am not prepared to relent on is the need to ensure the process is carried out within the two year timeframe.

The first set of amendments to section 11 timetable more precisely the various functions which have to be carried out in the preparation of the draft development plan. The initial period for the information pre-consultation period is being reduced from 20 to 16 weeks. The time available for councillors to issue directions after receipt of the manager's report is now being expressly provided for – this is ten weeks. Following the issue of directions, the manager will have a further 12 weeks to prepare the draft. This then goes to the members who have eight weeks to amend the draft if they wish. The reworking of section 11 means that the process of finalising the draft and getting it passed by the councillors will take place in ten and a half months. This leaves two weeks for the authority to prepare the plan for public display, following the making of amendments at that stage.

Regarding section 12, additional time is being given to both the manager and the councillors to carry out their functions. There was always some leeway at the end of the process in year two for slippage, but this is being reduced by the changes. To achieve the additional time, the resolution of the members provided for in subsection (1) has now been incorporated into the process under section 11, as I explained. The public consultation procedure under section 3 is also shortened by two weeks to ten weeks. The manager is given an extra two weeks to prepare his report under subsection (5), that is, 12 weeks, and the members are given an extra four weeks to consider the results of the first phase of consultation under subsection (6). The period for preparing amendments and publishing notice of them on foot of the resolution under subsection (7) is also now timetabled at three weeks. Councillors are also given an extra two weeks to consider the report on the amendments to the development plan. The total timetable in section 12 is now 51 weeks, which allows for five weeks slippage in the process. The Bill, as passed by the Seanad, probably allowed for about ten weeks slippage, depending on how the non-timetabled processes were estimated. All processes are now timetabled. I consider these amendments to be fair to officials and elected members of the council, and that they meet the general concerns of the Opposition amendments.

It should be noted that there is an error in amendment No. 67. The amendment should read "22" and not "24". This has been corrected in the fourth list of additional amendments.

The amendment to section 241, which discounts the Christmas period for most processes under the Bill, is consequential and ensures that no confusion arises, in relation to the adoption of the development plan, on whether nine days should be deducted for each year of the process.

I have a draft of the preparation of the draft development plan which shows these changes in simplified form. I will arrange for it to be circulated to Deputies as soon as it is convenient to do so.

I thank the Minister for circulating the simplified version of the amendments. We had quite a lengthy discussion on Committee Stage about the periods of time which should be allowed for the various stages of making a development plan. I had two principal concerns. In the original Bill, a disproportionately large amount of time seemed to be given to the manager and his officials for the preparation of their reports and the various things they have to do, with a much more limited time available to the elected members, whose job it is to make the actual decision. I was also concerned about the period of time allowed for public consideration and display.

A number of these amendments extend the time periods for consideration by elected members and the public. I want to express two concerns in this regard. My first concern is about the proposal to reduce the period for the public display of the draft itself from 12 to ten weeks. I appreciate it is only a reduction of two weeks. Nevertheless, the display of the draft development plan is critical because it is the draft which signals the intentions of the council to the public. Most public comments and observations are probably made around the draft plan rather than the amendments, which are displayed at a later stage. I have some concern about that period being reduced from 12 to ten weeks.

My second concern is a more general one. I appreciate the necessity to complete a development plan within a reasonable period of time. Two years are provided for consideration of the draft and its finalisation. Local authorities should be able to make the development plan within that period.

However, I am a little concerned about the inflexibility being stitched into the process. Each stage will be time restricted. We might discover that individual local authorities, depending on their size and the complexity of the issues they must consider, might need more time for one stage and less for another. I do not know how that will be addressed.

Can a local authority in its consideration of the development plan request the Minister to extend one of those periods while not seeking an extension of the total period for consideration of the plan? In other words, could a local authority ask to extend the period for the public display of the draft plan and propose that the period of time for consideration of the draft by the council be reduced, provided it all came within the total recommended number of weeks? Can that degree of flexibility be built in?

Local authorities will probably run into some practical difficulties trying to meet a deadline at each stage. Practical matters can arise such as a planning officer being ill for a period, a key member of staff being away or industrial relations problems. Problems of that nature can disrupt the normal flow of procedures and a little flexibility might be required.

The scheme the Minister has now circulated represents an improvement on the initial scheme. Like Deputy Gilmore, I am concerned about the amount of time available for making public submissions on the draft plan. I am equally if not more concerned about the amount of time members of the local authority have to consider the various items that come before them.

I note, in relation to preparation of the plan, that members of local authorities have ten weeks to consider the manager's report on the draft development plan and 12 weeks to generate recommendations. That is probably a reasonable period. When the draft development plan is being made, the elected members of the authority have 12 weeks to consider the draft plan and the manager's report and three weeks during which they can either accept or amend it. There are four weeks for the display of amendment.

The total amount of time in the first phase is 46 weeks and 51 weeks in the second phase. In the period of two years, which is the basic framework set down in the Bill, 97 weeks are being used under the scheme set out by the Minister. Is it reasonable to deduce that in the two year framework for the preparation and adoption of a plan there is the possibility of seven weeks leeway which can be used at various stages during that process? Although we might quibble with individual bits of the scheme, if there are seven weeks of potential slippage time, it appears to be a reasonable proposal.

My concern would always be about the amount of time for public consultation and for the elected members to consider what is before them. In the manner of all politicians, I am less concerned about the convenience of bureaucrats. That is the way we are built. I am sure the compliment is equally returned from the other side. If in a two year period there is elbow room of seven weeks, we have done as much as possible to make the process convenient for all concerned.

The concept of fixing the duration of the development plan and requiring by statute that the preparation of the next development plan begins two years before the end of the current one is probably the best framework we can achieve. I wish I could say that the experience one gleans from drawing up development plans would lead one to the belief that having gone through the process once, it would be well on track after that. That, of course, is not the case. In our experience with development plans the old truism, that history teaches us how to make the same mistakes again, reasserts itself. Given the turnover in membership of local authorities, there is always a group of new members who are avid to remake the mistakes of their predecessors.

We will never achieve perfection in legislation of this nature. Taking everything into account and given the cushion of seven weeks, the conclusion arrived at is reasonable.

I wish to raise an issue which supports Deputy Dukes's comments on time limits for development plans. It is the new Part which the Minister has introduced on Report Stage. He is proposing radical changes whereby, under Part 15, development of the foreshore is permissible. This means, in the context of Dublin, that planning applications can be made to fill in Dublin Bay in whole or in part.

That is extremely controversial. The reason the Minister is introducing the provision now is that it is recognised that the current situation, where the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources makes such decisions even though he is the only shareholder in Dublin Port and in port companies, represents a conflict of interest. I expected a proper democratic process to be provided for such a radical change in relation to the bay. The Minister is providing, however, that there will be no democratic input by way of a development plan, regardless of whether there is a seven or 12 week period for public consultation. There will be no consultation in relation to the objectives that should be set for the bay.

It is essential that there be an opportunity for councillors and the public to shape a development plan before there is development on the foreshore, particularly in areas of crucial amenity such as Dublin Bay and other foreshores around the country. The public will expect and demand an opportunity to have public consultation about the objectives of foreshore development and under what conditions it will be permitted. Instead, the Minister is saying that these decisions will be made in the first instance by the city or county manager and on appeal by An Bord Pleanála. There will be no democratic input into the objectives. There will simply be a right to object, which will have to be paid for, to proposals that are brought forward.

Past efforts by the port board showed that 66% of the criteria under which an EIS was assessed were found to be poor or deplorably bad. There is a poor record here and no public confidence in the way this is being handled. My amendment No. 109, which seeks to ensure that these developments would only follow a development plan, will not be reached. There will be no debate on Part XV of the Bill which is only a Report Stage amendment.

We did not have an opportunity on Second Stage or on Committee Stage to debate this issue. It was not even signalled on Second Stage that the matter would be introduced. Therefore, this is a highly undemocratic process of dealing with the amendments the Minister is proposing and, as a consequence of these amendments, the whole issue of assessing development on the foreshore will be undemocratic. The Minister needs to consider the area of foreshore development in the context of whether there are development plans. The principle of amendment No. 109 should be accepted to ensure that if there are areas of high amenity such as Dublin Bay, a development plan will be published, there will be proper consultation both by the democratically elected councillors and only then will planning applications be considered. This is the only way to proceed in relation to an amenity so valuable and so sensitive as Dublin Bay.

In order to accommodate Deputies' concerns to achieve the extra time, we had to timetable each stage. There is a safeguard in section 12(16) which states that missing an internal deadline will not affect the validity of the plan. Therefore, as long as all stages are finalised by the end of the two years, the plan will be valid and any internal slippages within the process will be tolerated under the Bill. There is no provision for extension of time given our experience with the current system where several extensions can be sought by local authorities. There is about five weeks not timetabled, which will give some flexibility, as Deputy Dukes pointed out. On decreasing the public consultation period by two weeks, this is more than compensated for by the extensive public consultation now provided for at the first stage.

It is important to provide a degree of certainty in how these matters are dealt with. I recall when I last held this office introducing legislation in relation to An Bord Pleanála where the timespan for decisions on appeal were considerably decreased, with no diminution of the effort to make sure proper decisions were taken. As I have outlined, there is a degree of flexibility in the five weeks which are not timetabled. However, the two year period must stand.

In reply to Deputy Bruton, obviously we will not reach that stage of the debate. Deputy Dukes has tabled a number of amendments. The Minister states that his amendment to the First Schedule which allows planning authorities to have objectives in their development plan in relation to foreshore, coupled with the existing requirement in section 34 means that planning decisions must be made having regard to the proper planning and sustainable development, including the provisions of a development plan. This means that planning authorities will be obliged to include objectives in their plan in order to make decisions on development on the foreshore. This can be done when drawing up a new plan or by variation of an existing plan.

The point must be made that in the interim, before local authorities draw up a plan, anyone can submit a planning application for anything on the foreshore. This means there is no democratic input, that they must just go through the city or county manager and appeal to An Bord Pleanála. A stay will have to be put on applications so that local authorities can draw up development plans for the foreshore. This has not been happening because they did not have the power to do so.

On that point, I share Deputy Bruton's concern that Part XV has appeared before us on Report Stage. This was not signalled on Second Stage. The Minister did not table an amendment on Committee Stage. This is effectively new legislation and it is not appropriate that the House should be used to slip in legislation of this kind. I am aware legislation has been under consideration for some time in relation to changing the foreshore legislation generally. Perhaps this should be done in that context. I am deeply unhappy and oppose the Government introducing legislation dealing with foreshore development at this late stage and hav ing it effectively enacted by default because, given the time constraints, we will not have time to examine this part of the Bill in detail, which we should be able to do on Committee Stage. If the Minister intended to change the foreshore legislation, he should have introduced the issue on Committee Stage when we would have had an opportunity to consider it in detail rather than slipping it in on Report Stage.

In a Bill of this size, given the raft of changes made since it was first introduced in the Seanad and with the substantial co-operation on all sides to make sure it is an effective and modern Bill, Deputies will appreciate that it is almost inevitable that at certain stages changes will be made rather late in the debate. It is far better to include this provision for considerable certainty in an area where there was no provision heretofore. If a planning application is made and the local authority has any reservations about it, it can defer the application until such time as it has an opportunity to review its plan.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 35, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

(e)Directions under paragraph (d) shall be issued not later than 10 weeks after the submission of a report in accordance with paragraph (c).”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 59a:

In page 35, line 24, to delete "recommendations" and substitute "directions".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 35, to delete lines 28 to 30 and substitute the following:

"(5)(a)The manager shall, not later than 12 weeks following the receipt of any directionsunder subsection (4)(d), prepare a draft development plan and submit it to the members of the planning authority for their consideration.

(b)The members of a planning authority shall, as soon as may be, consider the draft development plan submitted by the manager in accordance with paragraph (a).

(c)Where the draft development plan has been considered in accordance with paragraph (b), it shall be deemed to be the draft development plan, unless, within 8 weeks of the submission of the draft development plan under paragraph (a), the planning authority, by resolution, amends that draft development plan.”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 35, to delete lines 31 to 36 and substitute the following:

"(1) Where the draft development plan has been prepared in accordance with section 11, the planning authority shall within 2 weeks of the period referred to in section 11(5)(c)—”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 62, 63, 74, 78 and 79 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 35, line 38, to delete "prescribed authorities and any" and substitute "prescribed authorities, any town commissioners in the area and any city or county development boards in the area".

On Committee Stage I accepted an amendment to section 11(2) which provided that city and county development boards would be notified of the review of the development plan. These further amendments provide that city and county development boards will be similarly notified at all stages in the making of a development plan or the variation of the plan.

I feel honour bound to point out again that amendment No. 62 will have to be reviewed if the Minister ever reaches the Local Government Bill.

I assure the Deputy he will.

I gather since this morning this may no longer be necessary because the Minister seems to have retreated from his daft proposal to abolish references to county boroughs, urban district councils and town commissioners and replace them with town councils. My information, which I hope is correct, is that the Minister will abandon that proposal.

The Deputy has not got that correct.

So, will the Minister persist with his daftness or will there be a variation of the daftness? I am disappointed to hear that because I thought there would be some common sense.

I hope the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will allow me a little bit of latitude to make a few remarks at this stage, given that we are reaching the end of a lengthy consideration of this Bill. It has been an extremely lengthy process and I pay tribute to the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and his staff for the way they approached the debate on this Bill. It is fair to say the Minister approached the debate with a very open mind. On Report Stage and more so on Committee Stage there has been a readiness on the part of the Minister to meet amendments tabled by the Opposition. I am particularly pleased that we have been able to get agreement on a series of amendments relating to how we deal with development in Gaeltacht areas, on our architectural heritage, the control of development, enforcement, special development zones and the application of that system to housing, some aspects of the activities of An Bord Pleanála, particularly on hearings relating to environmental impact assessments, developments by local and State authorities and on regulations. In particular I have been looking forward to telling the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, how happy I am that of the 12 areas I proposed for an active form of regulation, he has accepted eight and added two off his own bat which I did not expect. Colleagues have said the Government might regret this, and they may be right in the short-term as there will be more work involved in passing the regulations, but I firmly believe, and I know the Minister agrees, that the democratic process can only gain through such an approach.

Personally I have been very heartened by the approach of the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, to the debate. We have made a number of useful amendments and when the Bill is enacted planning law will be improved by a measurable margin as a result of our efforts.

I repeat what I said at the beginning of the debate, not in any sense of carping criticism but as constructively as possible, that although I believe we have passed some substantial improvements to planning law, I insist that the improvements will be redundant unless planning authorities are equipped with resources in terms of funding and personnel to make them work. For example, the enforcement chapter is a major improvement on current enforcement provisions. However, it will remain a dead letter if we do not have proper resourcing of local authorities to ensure enforcement takes place. The provisions in the Bill on strategic development zones, particularly as they will apply to housing following the Minister's amendment, will require local planning authorities to be a great deal more vigilant then ever before in inspecting the quality of development as it takes place. Deputy Gilmore, and I am sure the Minister, knows what I am talking about when I say that for far too long we have put up with the daily effects of deficiencies, not in planning, but in the way plans are translated into reality. That will continue to be the case unless and until we give local authorities the necessary resources. Having done a good and commendable job in terms of the Bill, I invite the Minister to turn his attention to giving local authorities the resources they will need to make the constructive work a reality.

I join Deputy Dukes in paying tribute to the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, who showed a great degree of flexibility in the way he handled the Bill in the House. It was a very satisfying experience for myself and Deputy Dukes as Opposition spokespersons to find ourselves tabling amendments and to have a Minister who was prepared to listen to what we had to say and to amend the Bill accordingly, sometimes on the hoof. I pay warm tribute to the Minister for that flexibility and the Bill is better for it.

I also pay tribute to the Minister's officials. This is a comprehensive and complex Bill and we all appreciate the work in preparing such legislation and the management of the process as it is debated in the Oireachtas. Having public servants sit in silence through 56 hours of debate on Committee Stage, followed by Report Stage, in addition to the debate in the Seanad, is a particular form of cruelty to them. I think we should at some time give consideration to having a different style of debate on Committee Stage which would allow an engagement between Members and departmental officials who prepare legislation and who have a detailed knowledge of it.

As Deputy Dukes said we have made many changes to the Bill. I am not fully happy with it as it stands, which is in the nature of our parliamentary system. However, on Committee and Report Stages we managed to make very considerable improvements to the Bill. I pay tribute to my colleague, Deputy Dukes, and to Deputies Joe Higgins and Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin who contributed on Committee or Report Stages. However, I must express some disappointment at the lack of performance by the Green Party. This is the most significant environmental legislation to come before the House in the lifetime of the Dáil. We spent 56 hours on Committee Stage without a single appearance by either of the Green Party Deputies or a single amendment being tabled by them. We had a couple of guest appearances by Deputy Gormley during the course of one day on Report Stage. Yesterday afternoon, for example, when we were debating the key issues of the introduction of a planning charge, the restriction of the right to appeal to An Bord Pleanála and the restriction of the right to seek judicial reviews, neither of the Green Party Deputies appeared in the House to support me and Deputy Dukes when we were making the case to defend the rights of the public in the planning process. I am puzzled as to why the members of the Green Party, who are normally first up on the Order of Business to seek additional time for debating issues, did not apply their minds, roll up their sleeves and get stuck in to this important environmental legislation. I say that with a considerable amount of sadness because in our efforts to protect the environment as Opposition spokespersons on the environment, Deputy Dukes and I would have expected the Green Party to be the first source of support.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Ceann Comhairle and the officers of the House for the assistance given to us as Opposition spokespersons in tabling amendments.

Unlike some previous Ministers for the Environment and Local Government, we are very fortunate that the current Minister is a great democrat. I sincerely thank Deputies Dukes and Gilmore for their fulsome praise of the Minister, Deputy Dempsey. When I realised I would be here today I spoke to him for some time last night and he asked me to thank, as I wish to do myself, Deputies Dukes, Gilmore and others for the time-consuming preparation and their very generous approach to ensure we had the best possible legislation. There were a significant number of amendments in the Seanad and a further substantial raft in the Dáil. As Deputy Dukes said, the Minister was quite prepared to listen to and put in place the very sensible proposals put forward.

Planning law is a powerful instrument for change and sustainable development and it is important that as we make changes we fully prepare for the future. It is important that we prepare fully, as we make these changes. The matter is being looked at seriously by the Minister to determine the increased resources required at local authority level.

I thank the officials of the Department of the Environment and Local Government for their unstinting support and dedication. Their work did not start and end here after 56 hours. The preparatory work entailed many long nights. I also thank the Deputies opposite for their efforts.

As it is now 2.30 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 14 June: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; Fourth Stage is hereby completed, and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put and declared carried.
Top
Share