National Planning Framework: Statements

Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government (Deputy Eoghan Murphy)

The publication of the final national planning framework, NPF, consultation represents a unique opportunity to set out an ambitious vision and 20-year strategy for what our country should and could look like in 2040. Much work has been undertaken to get the Ireland 2040 document to the stage of being on display for its final round of public consultation.

The national planning framework is primarily intended to plan properly for what will be one of the fastest growing economies in Europe over the next couple of decades, focusing development on existing villages, towns and cities and realising the potential of our regions and our rural areas. We now have the opportunity to plan and manage the sustainable growth and development of our country over the next 20 years or so. That is very challenging. We are not starting from scratch given that we have an already developed country, with five main cities, and a developed network of transport infrastructure. We have great history and heritage in our built environment that must be protected and we have to be conscious of climate mitigation targets and putting sustainability at the forefront of all of our endeavours as we grow.

By 2040 there will be at least an extra 1 million people living in the Republic, taking the population to 5.75 million, approximately a 20% increase on the current population. The all-island population will be roughly 8 million people, and there will be an extra 600,000 jobs, mainly in the knowledge economy and in services. We will need 500,000 new homes for all of these people. The population aged over 65 will double to 1.3 million people or almost 25% of the total population. Those aged under 15 will fall to under 1 million people.

It is not possible to know what the political and economic challenges might be for all those people living and working here in 2040, but there are political and economic challenges that we have to be aware of now as we plan. Brexit is the most obvious one, but there is also the question of how the future of the European Union might evolve and challenge us. The current retreat from globalisation and free trade being pursued by certain countries might impact on matters such as foreign direct investment. Technology will bring changes in how we work and where we live, with remote working, the shared economy, drone technology, automation and artificial intelligence. We must protect communities as we grow and regenerate parts of our country where we can. As recent events remind us, our climate is changing and we need to take the immediate steps to adapt to those changes and put in train changes to address the drivers of climate change by de-carbonising our way of life and taking advantage of the many opportunities that come from that.

If we continue to grow as we have been, if the status quo continues, depleting our communities and our regions, sprawling away from our urban cores, our cities will choke off, in particular our economic engine in Dublin, and the country will die. People might question this notion. They might say that things, relatively speaking, putting to one side the crisis of homelessness and the shortage of housing, are not so bad. We are in the top ten when it comes to human development, gross domestic product, GDP per capita, foreign direct investment, FDI, and democracy. However, we fall into the top 20 when it comes to quality of life and environmental performance, and into the top 30 in Dublin when we talk about liveable cities.

Our national planning framework has to have a vision that will navigate us through these challenges, both the existing ones we know of such as protecting the environment, and the challenges that may come due to developments external to us. We have had spatial strategies before and they have failed. This vision will be different because it will be aligned across Departments to ensure coherence between what the framework envisions and what others are planning, be it in respect of schools, hospitals or roads. The finalisation of Ireland 2040 as a draft in September was driven by the Government's decision to align the forthcoming ten-year national investment plan, NIP, with the national planning framework, avoiding past mistakes where decisions on where to spend scarce public capital investment were made before the national spatial strategy was finalised. We are putting our money where our mouth is. Our capital investment will underpin our planning framework so that these plans are real. The national framework will be the bedrock or foundation of all other development plans. It will be completed this year. Next year our three regions will be tasked with coming up with more specific regional spatial and economic strategies based on the framework and in more detail, with city and county plans based on that, and local area plans on them. This will be the new hierarchy and it will be set in law. Finally, there will be a smart growth fund put in place centrally to enable regions to target growth and development for key areas by competing for additional funding, based on the merit of the project and as long as it is in line with the ten-year NIP and the NPF.

One of the core principles at the heart of the NPF is to concentrate growth in the core of our population centres, to focus development on existing villages, towns, urban centres and cities, to stop sprawling inefficiently outwards, and to focus on higher density and on infill development. This is particularly important within our cities.

As the economy continues its recovery, and as we build more houses and improve the lives of people locked out of the housing market or trapped in emergency accommodation, a key challenge for all of us will be to meet the expectations of people when it comes to important quality of life issues. Turning our attention to issues such as commuting times, energy efficiency of homes, affordability and community will also make sense from an economic and efficiency point of view as we capitalise on existing and planned infrastructural investment.

Our cities and large towns are growing as major centres of employment but they are not growing quickly enough as places to live in. The population of Ireland grew by 53,000 in the year to April 2017, the largest increase since 2008. That is 1.1% year-on-year growth when the rest of the euro area was essentially static. Half the daytime population of Ireland's three largest cities travel from outside of them. One quarter of Leinster's working population travels into Dublin each day. In 2016, some 230,000 people commuted at least an hour a day each way, a 30% increase in long commutes in just five years. Deputies should think about what that means for families' quality of life. If we learned anything from the so-called Celtic tiger era, it was that our future does not lie in our people living in one location, and commuting up to 100 km to work, juggling work and family lives and losing the battle to strike a reasonable balance.

With fewer than 1,000 properties available for rent in Dublin and similar low levels in all our other cities, there is not just under-supply, but a gaping hole in the supply of affordable accommodation and rental accommodation in particular in the hearts of our cities and large towns. Turning that tide means we simply have to deliver more apartments in our cities and towns. While we have an immediate housing crisis to face if we pause to plan, even for just a moment, we can tackle the crisis and secure the sustainable development of our country and communities into 2040 and beyond. We must think about the impact of our actions now on the decades ahead if one crisis is not simply to roll into another.

We have to try to manage that growth between our five cities, as well as between our three regions. In Dublin, that means 25% of national growth happening within Dublin. Half of that will be inside the M50 so we will need joined up planning across the local authority areas and new land plans for important strategic land banks. It means another 25% of our forecast growth is happening in the cities of Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Galway. Each of these cities will have to effectively double in population size at the very least. It also means that 50% of the population growth will happen everywhere else. Approximately 15% of the growth will take place in the fabric of our towns, villages and rural areas and there are opportunities coming for this from changes in technology, job types and the ways in which we will live and work in the future. Another way to look at it is that half of the anticipated growth between now and 2040 will take place on the eastern seaboard and in the midlands, with the other half in the southern, western and northern regions. This all has significant implications for what we build, how we build it and where we build it. If we think of that quality of life challenge, then we have to build communities as we look to 2040. A quarter of our population will be over the age of 65 so we have to build communities that will suit that population and will also suit people with disability or other health needs and their quality of life as we plan for the future. We also have to plan for affordability - being able to live close to work at an affordable price so that people can live their lives in the way that they choose to.

Work on this framework has been ongoing since the end of 2014. Engagement with the relevant stakeholders, the general public and other governance agencies and bodies has been central to the formulation of the draft. Road shows have been undertaken, initial public consultations carried out and an expert advisory group established, and over 700 submissions received from a whole range of stakeholders. Now, as part of this draft consultation on Ireland 2040, submissions are being accepted up to 3 November and a series of regional briefings have already commenced with each of the three regional assemblies. After the period for submissions ends, it is my intention to have a finalised version of Ireland 2040 for the consideration and approval of the Government by December. This will take place in co-ordination with the finalisation of the ten-year national investment plan, again underlining a very important pillar of this new national planning framework. Returning again to how this differs from spatial strategies of the past, we will be aligning our planning for the future with our investment plans and this will be the bedrock for all future planning coming down the line, be it in the regional spatial economic strategies that will be designed and developed next year, or in the county and city that will flow from them. There will also be alignment across Departments and Government investment to make sure that there is co-ordinated thinking and planning as we grow into the future. We will grow as a country and we will grow in every part of the country. There needs to be joined-up thinking in promoting that growth so that we can have better and more efficient towns, villages and communities for our population in 2040 and beyond.

Deputy Pat Casey

The national planning framework builds on the historic and internationally significant national spatial strategy that Fine Gael scrapped under their short-term approach in 2012. Now, accompanied by a new flashy website and jargon-driven Government spin, the national planning framework is being launched with more ministerial photos and introductory paragraphs than I can remember reading in a Government publication. I will try now to see through the management speak, however, and give an outline as to why, although I welcome the change in Fine GaeI’s attitude to national planning, I have reservations that this framework is essentially a plan about plans.

The national planning framework as currently constructed is deeply flawed and indeed reflective of the Government's centralising instinct that is counter-productive in achieving balanced regional development and in ensuring that all of our people are consulted and involved in this plan from draft to publication to implementation to monitoring and then to review. What should be our plan should not be turned into Leo’s plan or Fine Gael's plan. The principle behind this planning framework should be the centrality of all of our people contributing to the plan. Instead we have an “everybody’s a winner” mantra which is vague and full of mum and apple pie aspirations that could, if left unaddressed, further erode the confidence of the public in the political system to address difficult issues with honesty, inclusivity and courage.

To anyone reading this draft plan in full, as I have, the Ireland of 2040 will be something approaching heaven. All of our developmental, planning and infrastructural problems will apparently be magically resolved without any specifics, timelines or any budgets. We need to get real here. This plan needs to be honest. As it currently stands, it has more in common with the utopian manifestoes of Trump and Tory-style politics. This constant spin is doing so much damage to politics. A national planning framework can be credible and ambitious. The spatial strategy it succeeds was an honest start. This plan seems to me to be more about the next election cycle then about the next 23 years. The new aligned capital plan which is being shrouded in secrecy is the reality of what the Government means behind the cotton candy of this draft plan. The people and the media should not be dazzled by the draft national planning framework but should rightly analyse how the capital plan, both in its formulation and its contents, aligns with the framework.

No one outside Government, however, has seen the detail of the aligned capital plan or has been consulted about it, proving that we have cause for concern about the sincerity of the spin. If there is no sincere and robust consultation by Members of the Dáil in the new capital plan, then how can our regional and local authorities and the wider public have any faith that their views will be listened to? Unless all our people are consulted about the capital plan and can see within it the projects that are needed, this national planning framework is just a smokescreen for continued centralised governance and urban sprawl on the east coast while rural Ireland and our regional towns and villages continue to decline and disappear.

A key requirement for this plan to be credible is the need to spell out specific infrastructural needs and intentions. If we are to achieve an adequate transport system in the greater Dublin region, including commuter counties such as Wicklow, we need key commitments and projects to be spelled out here. I will refer to my own county of Wicklow as an example of how key capital plan and planning framework needs are being ignored with ambiguous promises and no concrete proposals or workable timelines. There is no mention in this planning framework of the need for a substantial upgrade of N11-M11, a key feeder road into Dublin that is currently gridlocked every day of the week. There is no mention in this planning framework of the Luas extension to Bray which would provide major relief to our transport chaos and help balance development with regard to the Dublin metropolitan region. There is no mention of the improvements to the existing rail and DART network to tackle the sardines-in-a-can experience to which rail users from Wicklow town and Arklow can testify. There is no mention of port towns such as Arklow and Wicklow, only vague ideas around tier one and tier two port towns. With regard to the wastewater scandal that is plaguing Arklow and so many other towns and villages, no specific tasks or projects are mentioned other than that the national issue of wastewater is now a key short-term priority. After 25 years, I am sure the people of Arklow will be delighted to hear that.

With regard to housing, the plan states that we need over half a million more homes by 2040 but gives no concrete proposals as to how to get there. It would almost be funny if it were not such a serious crisis. It is in the area of one-off rural housing, however, that I have serious concerns about the hidden time bomb contained the current draft of the national planning framework. We are all aware of the need for local people to be able to live in rural Ireland and of the difficulties that far too many rural Irish people face when they seek to build a family home in their own locality. This plan’s attempt to address rural housing states the intention to recognise those who have an economic interest in living in rural Ireland. This does nothing to resolve the difficulty that many face when trying to build a family home in rural Ireland. Has the Minister informed the people of rural Ireland what he means by an economic need to live in the countryside? Has he explained the definition of having a functional economic requirement for housing? He has not explained in any of the public information sessions to date what he means by economic need because he is only too aware of its implications on the rural way of life. If this economic need is adopted, it will be another nail in the coffin of rural Ireland, this time in the form of death by policy. Let us be honest with the people and explain to them exactly what the implications are. I will give the House three examples. Let us take an individual from a family that has lived in rural Wicklow for four generations. This person gets a job in a factory about eight miles from his family home. He no longer qualifies for one-off rural housing because he no longer has an economic need to live on his own land. Let us imagine as a second example a farmer with three children. One of them takes over the farm activities and qualifies to build a home because he has an economic need.

My other two children, however, can no longer live on the family farm because they have no economic need; they only have a social need. My third example is that if I fly in from another country with no connections to Ireland whatsoever, but I am going to get involved in the agriculture business and do some farming, I would now qualify because I have economic need. This cannot be based on economic need only but on social need as well.

For years I have heard from Department officials and planners that the country cannot sustain rural housing in the future. While I share some of that sentiment, the same officials and planners have yet to address it and come up with credible alternatives. What the planners in every county excel in, however, is devising ways to refuse planning for families living in rural Ireland. This plan, and policy objective 18b with its focus on economic need, must be changed before it is adopted. Otherwise, within a very short period of time of this plan being adopted, that economic need will be part of the core strategy of every county development plan in the country. This will have a devastating effect on rural Ireland. It is already hard enough to get planning in these areas. We need to get serious about helping people who live in rural Ireland, both in rural areas and in rural towns and villages.

All of these glossy documents and all of this spin are just a smokescreen to disguise the approach of doing as little as possible which the Fine Gael and Independent Alliance Government has adopted. We need a planning framework and a capital plan that all Irish people can have ownership of and confidence in. We do not need a planning framework which is a smokescreen for a capital plan which serves the interests of a centralised Government in getting re-elected. Currently the national planning framework is a placebo plan, which gives the psychological impression of treatment while containing nothing of substance.

We in Fianna Fáil are prepared to work with the Government to ensure that Ireland's national planning framework and our new capital plan reflect the title it has used - Ireland 2040 Our Plan. We need all the people to have an input into the capital plan. The public participation networks, the local action groups, elected councillors, local authorities and every public body with an interest should be involved. If “our plan” is not to be regarded as fake news this needs to happen. At the moment all I can see is the Government's plan. I wait to see if our ideas will be taken on board.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

May I begin by expressing a certain degree of frustration? We have had to adjourn the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government for half an hour to give our statements in the Chamber. While that is not the fault of anyone currently in the room, it means that those of us who are on that committee and involved in this particular debate are put in an awkward position. We will not be able to listen to the contributions of other Members, despite the fact that we would benefit from them. I will raise that matter with the Business Committee. I am also disappointed that the Minister has not made the time to remain. I mean no disrespect to the Minister of State, Deputy John Paul Phelan but, given the huge importance of the national planning framework and of real dialogue between all the different participants in this debate, I would have expected the Minister to stay for at least the first hour of the discussion. I know that the officials are here. They are probably more important than the Minister in terms of capturing the detail of this, but it is still something which needs to be commented on.

The planning framework is a hugely important document. I welcome that the process is under way and that it is being brought through the Oireachtas and put on a statutory footing. I have genuine concerns about the extent of local community and local authority buy-in to the process up to this point. I know there has been a large number of meetings in local areas, however a significant number of those were poorly attended. Some 700 submissions to a document of this importance, which covers the entire island in many respects, is not an indication of success. It shows the level of disengagement out there.

It is also important to note that all of that consultation was at the pre-draft stage. It is really when we see the draft, the document in front of us, that we get into the meat of whether this is being done in the correct way. Yet we are only being given just over six weeks - from 26 September when the draft was published up to Friday week - to make submissions and there will be no supplementary consultation with local authorities or local communities and stakeholders during that period. That is probably when the consultation would have been most important. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider that approach and to consider extending the deadline, not to facilitate submissions from Members because we can complete them within the deadline, but to go back out and engage with stakeholders and communities in order to ensure the maximum level of participation.

While intending no disrespect to the officials who are working very hard to meet the Government's deadlines, I share many of Deputy Pat Casey's concerns. There is a lot of text surrounding the policy objectives, but that text is just context. A lot of it is aspirational and vague. The meat of this document is really the 69 or more policy objectives. Across most of those, very few firm targets are given and there is very little indication of how delivery will take place. I will go through some of those concerns.

If one looks at policy objective 1a, according to this plan almost half of the population growth will be concentrated on the eastern and midland region. Even though approximately half of that half, or a quarter overall, will be in Dublin, we know that the bulk of those 500,000 people will be in Dublin and the commuter belt. That will put huge strain on the existing infrastructure in those areas. It seems to be a scaling down of the ambition previously indicated by the Minister, Deputy Coveney, to have genuinely balanced regional development. While Dublin is only meant to be taking approximately 250,000 people, the greater Dublin and commuter belt area will probably take approximately 500,000 people, with all of the consequences that will have for Dublin, for the other cities, and for the issues around rural regeneration.

If one looks at policy objective 2b, 50% of the growth is intended to happen in five cities. I welcome the fact that we are no longer talking about second-tier cities. There was always a fear that there would be a battle between Cork and Limerick as to which would get priority. It is a good thing that is not there and that a different approach is being taken. I am not saying that the detail for each of the cities other than Dublin is right yet, but it is a more balanced approach. Derry and Belfast, however, are not included. We cannot seriously think about population growth and spatial planning, particularly in terms of the regeneration of the north west, if we are completely blind in that section of the document to the other two major cities on the island. We need to be much more ambitious about creating stronger counterbalances to the growth of the Dublin and greater Dublin region. Part of that needs to include rethinking those targets.

I am also unsure of policy objectives 13 through to 17b in terms of halting rural decline and exactly how that is meant to transpire. Some of those policy objectives are among the most ambiguous and vague and it is not clear how they will work out. In respect of jobs, there is a set of targets for jobs in the regions. I have two concerns about those targets. First, they say nothing about the existing imbalance in the distribution of jobs within those regions. For example, while the plan talks about several hundred thousand jobs in one region, they may all continue to go to the areas within that region which are already disproportionately served and the regional inequality in terms of distribution of jobs may be continued, as will the consequences of economic deprivation.

On chapter 5, which is about communities, policy objective 25 involves promoting sustainable community development and supporting community development. I laughed when I read this. Again, I mean no disrespect to the planning officials. This is not their fault. We have seen the decimation of the funding and the independence of the community development sector and community based organisations. There is no sign that any of that funding will be restored. In fact, the infrastructure which would be used to develop that policy objective is increasingly not there. Again, that is not necessarily an issue for the officials in the room at the moment, but it is an issue for the Department.

Likewise policy objective 26 on health, policy objective 27 on water and policy objective 28 on public transport are incredibly vague. There is no notion of phasing, so there could be significant population growth but there would not necessarily be any requirement, as there would be in a strategic development zone plane, for population growth only to proceed in tandem with very clear targets for the provision of crucial infrastructure. Deputy Casey mentioned some roads and water infrastructure in his constituency. We could all mention similar examples of where the existing infrastructure services are not adequate for the populations in the area. How can we be guaranteed that, with an increase in population, those things will not get worse?

I have made this point on a number of occasions and I will make it again today: this document is completely blind to the spatial dimension of disadvantage and inequality. That information is there in the small-area statistics from the census. It should be mapped in the document and we should see very clearly how a spatial plan gears State agencies and State bodies towards decisions which would tackle the spatial dimensions associated with economic disadvantage.

I have huge concerns about the section on housing. There are some things which make sense, for example, the focus on trying to build up housing supply within existing urban and town areas.

Policy objective 35, to reduce vacancy rates from 9% to 5% by 2040, is a reduction of 0.1% a year over the course of the plan or 4% over 23 years. That is nowhere near ambitious enough. Likewise, policy 38 on improving the evidence base for planning is to be welcomed. This is not a dig at the Minister of State's two officials but, given the difficulties the Department is having in getting figures right for house completions and homelessness numbers, if it cannot do the stuff it is currently doing right how can it convince us that these are the things which will change?

Another major problem is the North. There is a chapter entitled "Ireland in the EU". There is no mention of the EU in the eight recommendations in the section. It is all about the North, and there is only one reference to the island. It should be called what it is, namely, the all-Ireland dimension to this plan. Across the seven objectives specific to the North there is, yet again, a lot of vagueness.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to talk about chapters four, six and eight. They are very important and my party colleagues will deal with them in terms of the environment, Ireland's marine and rural development.

A lot has to change in terms of the substance of the policy objectives in this document before Sinn Féin can support it. We will table detailed amendments next Friday, suggesting changes to the text. They will be about making the policy objectives firmer and more specific and ambitious. We also want to introduce a greater element of phasing in terms of what is permissible as one goes through the plan.

I support Deputy Casey's argument about the capital plan. The idea that we could agree a national planning framework without having seen the capital plan seems remiss. I know it is not within the control of the Department, but it is very important.

The document has to have a much stronger all-Ireland dimension. It should not view the North as simply a neighbour, but rather a central part of any planning framework which considers the island as a whole, in particular for Border communities in the north west. I do not think the word "Brexit" is mentioned once in any of the objectives, despite the fact that it is going to have a ten to 15-year impact, in particular on Border communities. Objectives to counteract those negative impacts from a planning point of view need to be in place.

I wish to emphasise once again that socioeconomic disadvantage has a spatial dimension. It can be mapped. Every single decision taken in the context of this plan will reinforce or tackle and challenge the spatial dimension of socioeconomic disadvantage. If it is not in the final draft, it will be one of the deal breakers for Sinn Féin in terms of our ability to support the plan.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I also took the opportunity to send in a submission, on behalf of my party, in the earlier consultation phase. This has been going on since 2014. It is a long time and there have been many meetings around the country. There have been opportunities for submissions and consultations.

I ask the Minister of State present and the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, whether they would consider extending the time limit for submissions on the meat of the plan before 3 November. While the previous iteration was very general, and contained a lot of good aims and asked a lot of questions of those making submissions to which we responded, it is only now that we have the substance of the plan. The timeframe within which to make detailed submissions is very short.

I attended a briefing for Deputies and councillors in my local authority last Friday, and I understand there was a similar briefing in Dublin earlier this week. I presume this is happening around the country. A very short time is available to take in what one has heard in a briefing and write a submission. I intend to meet the deadline on behalf of my party and to make a separate submission on Limerick. There will be a regional submission from my area involving different counties, Shannon Airport etc.

It is a very short time for those who have genuinely engaged with the process. I ask that consideration be given to extending the time period. After all, the process started in 2014 and this is the end process. In a way, this is the period for which more time is required because we are now dealing with what is going into the plan.

I welcome the general ambitions and intentions of the plan. I understand it is linked to the national investment plan, which we need to see as quickly as possible. There is a hierarchy of plans, and regional assemblies, local authorities etc. will operate and develop their programmes within the overall context.

I have concerns about the detail of the plan, in particular regarding balanced regional growth. There is an ambition to deal with the issue, but clearly Ireland is a country which is one of the most imbalanced in the European Union in terms of the eastern and western parts of the country. I cannot see anything in the plan which will change that.

It is expected that 50% of the growth will be in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford, which is fair enough. I support that. Approximately 30% more of the growth will involve larger towns and there will be smaller levels of growth in rural areas. There is a logic to that. The cut-off point of towns with a population of over 10,000 should be staggered. There might have to be a cut-off point, but some large towns, such as Drogheda and Wexford, could increase substantially. Others are just below the 10,000 cut-off and have a lot of potential. I would not like there to be a fixed figure.

My main point is that if each of the cities doubles in size that will not change the balance. Dublin and Cork will still be much bigger. Each of the regions is projected to grow by almost the same percentage over the period involved. The east and midlands now comprise 49% of the national population, a figure which is projected to decrease to 48% by 2040. The northern and western regions comprise 18% now, which is projected to be 17% by 2040. The southern region comprises 33%, which is projected to be 34% by 2040. In effect, that is not a change. Rather, it is the status quo.

I would like to see a lot more ambition for cities and towns, aside from Dublin. The Dublin area is sprawling and extends out to various counties. As the Minister said, people are commuting for very long periods.

I will concentrate on Limerick because I know it best. A city like Limerick has the potential to grow significantly. I have nothing against Cork, but it is described as a major urban centre in Ireland. It is stated that the city has positioned itself as an emerging medium-sized European centre of growth and innovation, and building on this potential is critical to further enhancing Ireland's metropolitan profile. There is no such vision for Limerick, Galway or Waterford, all of which are described as urban centres and important in the context of their region. There is no description of "major" for them either now or for the future. There is room for a lot more ambition for other cities and some towns. If we do not do that, we will be back to where we are now.

The year 2040 is a long way away. We need to think about what things might be like in 2040 and the potential for growth. There is significant potential for growth in Limerick. We have a university, an institute of technology and an international airport on our doorstep. We have had a lot of success with inward investment. There is an ambition in the city. People like John Moran have written articles about this and others share that ambition. We want to be involved.

In the briefing I attended last week, strong disappointment was expressed that there is not more ambition for Limerick. What are described as growth enablers could be stronger. There is no mention of the northern distributor road, which is in the pipeline. A faster rail link for Cork is mentioned but the report is much less strong about other cities.

A previous speaker referred to ports. There is greater potential in the ports outside Dublin. There is a reference to that fact in the framework but perhaps the wording could be stronger.

There is already spare capacity at Shannon Airport. There is a great deal more scope to maximise the potential of Shannon Airport. All of these things would facilitate a city such as Limerick. As already stated, the same probably applies to Galway and Waterford. Cork has already been identified as a centre that can grow significantly. We need to be far more ambitious for areas outside the greater Dublin region in order to achieve that kind of balance. That is the main point I wanted to make in the context of the framework.

There is a level of ambition regarding housing, particularly, as Deputy Ó Broin noted, the potential that exists in the context of vacant units. I agree that there is a much higher level of vacancy in Ireland than in other countries. There have been some indications that there will be a policy, long-awaited, in respect of vacant housing. It is the one pillar of Rebuilding Ireland in respect of which detailed plans have not yet emerged. There is room for development in this area.

There was a report on health and the health service in the media this morning. There is a section on health in the framework which deals with the issues that will arise in the future. There is a real concern that a significant dilemma is going to arise in this area. There is a population projection available which is higher than the 1 million referred to in the plan. This may be a statistic that will need to be revisited.

On environmental issues, there are very good targets and ambitions in respect of climate change, a sustainable environment, etc. However, what we will need to see is an indication of actions which will ensure that these ambitions are achieved. I refer here to issues such as carbon mitigation and sustainable transport alternatives. These could be more specifically addressed in the plan.

Finally, I welcome the fact that maritime-offshore issues are very much addressed in the framework. For a long time, we have neglected that area of planning in Ireland. I note that there is legislation under preparation in that regard. It is important to recognise that we live on an island, that we are surrounded by a great volume of water and that there is huge potential in this area.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We now move to the Rural Independent Group. I am advised that its Members are sharing time with Deputy Brassil, who will speak first.

Deputy John Brassil

I greatly welcome this debate and the opportunity to contribute to it. There are a few key points that I would like to raise, one of which was already mentioned by my colleague, Deputy Casey.

In looking at rural settlement guidelines, we must have a radical rethink in terms of how we approach building houses in rural Ireland. The only relevant criterion in this regard is that a new house would be the primary place of residence of the person building it. Anybody who wants to live in rural Ireland, as long as proper planning guidelines regarding such matters as percolation and road traffic safety can be adhered to, should be given the opportunity to do so on the basis that the house he or she is building will be his or her primary place of residence. Once that is the case, he or she will contribute to the social and economic fabric of the community. That is so important in places such as rural Kerry, which I represent, because many of the towns and villages in north and south Kerry - this is borne out by the recent census - are suffering from depopulation, in some cases at a rate of up to 4%. We need to revitalise those communities. In order to do so, a radical reconsideration of the rural settlement policies should be undertaken.

I am also interested in the breakdown of how the population will expand in the future and the 50-50 divide between the east coast and the remainder of the country. The zoning of land in towns and villages is a matter of great interest to me. In my experience, planners will zone land concentrically from the centre out, which is correct and represents good planning. However, a great deal of land is zoned in circumstances where landowners have no desire for it to be zoned because they do not want to develop it. There are vast tracts of zoned land across the country and those who own it have no desire to do anything with it. This is a matter with which we need to deal. We either adopt policies whereby we incentivise landowners to ensure that their zoned land is developed or we make provision for broadening out the zoning areas, thereby ensuring that enough houses are built in order to cater for the population.

Another matter about which I am greatly concerned and which I have raised on a number of occasions, particularly on Questions to the Taoiseach a couple of days ago and with the Department and my local authority, is that of turnkey projects in respect of which developers are incentivised. There were advertisements published in various newspapers to ask developers to submit proposals to build houses and then hand them over, when fully completed, to local authorities. For this, a 10% down-payment is offered to the developer and the remaining money will be paid on completion. I have strong evidence that in certain counties, but, in particular, Cork, people can get up to 30% funding for turnkey projects. As the Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, will be aware, a 10% offering is not easily bankable and, therefore, makes the project more difficult to deliver, whereas a 30% offering is far more bankable and will ensure that a project is delivered very quickly. I have no issue with that. In the case of Cork, in order for the 30% upfront payment to be made, the site must be transferred to the local authority as a guarantee in the event that something might go wrong and it would be left out of pocket. Developers all over the country are quite willing to do this.

I really would like an answer in respect of this matter because I know a number of people who have been affected by what is happening. I want fair play for everybody. I want the procurement guidelines for every county to be the same and I do not want one county to have a greater advantage over the others. I want local authorities in all counties to have the ability to deliver these turnkey projects and to be given the same upfront payments in order to make them bankable and deliverable. That is a reasonable request. I am fully supportive of what is being done in Cork because the local authority there is trying to get on with dealing with what is a national crisis. If it is allowed to operate under certain procurement rules, then every other authority should be in a position to do the same. I really would like an answer in respect of this matter. I have been running around the place for the past four or five weeks trying to get somebody to provide a definitive answer but one has not been forthcoming.

I ask that the Minister of State take my points, particularly the final one, into consideration. I will now hand over to my colleague, Deputy Michael Collins, who kindly offered to share time.

Deputy Michael Collins

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this important matter.

Last week, I raised my concerns about the Mackinnon report by means of a Private Members' motion on behalf of the Rural Independent Group. This report comes under the new national planning framework. Ireland 2040 is supposed to provide a framework for national planning, pulling together relevant Government policies and investment on national and regional development.

It intends to put a focus on economic development and investment in housing, water services, transport, communications, energy, health and education infrastructure. However, I do not believe the implementation of the Mackinnon report truly fits into the description of this framework. The report proposed that Cork City Council's boundary be extended. This reform would be one of the most significant reforms of local government structures in the history of the State. It would see the population of the city council area nearly double to 225,000 people. It is a huge concern for people in my constituency of Cork South-West and in the county generally as the change will result in an estimated loss of €80 million to Cork County Council through commercial rates and property taxes.

How does this fit in with the intention to improve and invest in housing, transport and water services on a regional and national level as outlined in the national planning framework? How will this affect places such as Castletownbere, the Mizen Peninsula, Kilcrohane, Durrus, Bantry, Skibbereen, Bandon and Clonakilty? It will have a detrimental effect throughout west Cork. It will have a negative effect on the economic development of the Cork County Council area. It is not appropriate that this report should go into the Ireland 2040 plan.

The key elements of the new national planning framework are regenerating rural Ireland by promoting environmentally sustainable growth patterns; plan for and implement a better distribution of regional growth in terms of jobs and prosperity; transform settlements of all sizes through imaginative urban regeneration; and bring life and jobs back into cities, towns and villages. With regard to bringing life back into cities, towns and villages, I do not know how the Minister will do that. It certainly has not been the policy of either this Government or the last Government to bring life to rural villages. In the case of planning, every possible obstacle is put before young people who are trying to get planning permission to start their lives in a rural community. Changes and allowances must be made if the Minister wishes to turn the situation around.

I live in hope of seeing all the elements happening. However, with extraordinary growth being encouraged in the capital and little or no plan for rural Ireland I worry that the national planning framework will be little more than a paper exercise.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I am glad to speak on the national planning framework. It is the most important body of work before this Oireachtas. We must get it right and learn lessons from the past. We must be bold, think big and be brave.

I have been very supportive of the process and of the broad outline of what the planning framework is trying to do. I see three elements from reading the documents and being engaged in the consultation process to date. One is that we must do everything to decarbonise our economy. That is how the future economy will be so we must do it. We also have obligations under the Paris Agreement. Our island must start being green. If we are marketing ourselves in that way we must do it in reality.

Second, we must stop the sprawl. We must start bringing development back close to the centres of villages, towns and cities for a variety of reasons. The cost of servicing our health, education and transport needs in the same way as we have done in the last 30 years will not be viable. It will be incredibly expensive. It does not provide strong social cohesion and simply will not work.

Third, there is the opportunity to reinvigorate Irish politics at local and regional levels. This should be done not from the top down but by engaging communities, regions and cities and allowing them to come up with ideas on how to implement the aspirations for decarbonising the system and intensifying development so we can reduce our carbon footprint and improve our society.

I do not see the Government doing anything that is aligned with the three objectives which I consider to be central to the plan. That is my key criticism. I will outline in simple detail in all three areas where we are not delivering in Government policy what we say we wish to deliver in the framework. First, with regard to climate, we must have a land-use plan if we are going to reduce emissions. Many of the reductions will come from natural solutions, which will help us to develop biodiversity and improve our landscape. There is a range of different gains. However, there is no detail in that regard.

Farmers will be the front line and there is an opportunity with the forthcoming revision of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, to stitch in what we say we want in the framework in terms of paying farmers for storing carbon, helping with water management and delivering on wildlife. The way that is done in the Burren is an example, but we must go further. There was nothing in the recent budget about forestry. How can we state in the national planning framework that we wish to reduce emissions yet say nothing in the budget about how to develop forestry? Similarly, in our food system we cannot promote Origin Green if we are not green behind it. We had an interesting meeting with Bord Bia recently. We are keen for it to answer the question of what it really means to be Origin Green. I believe it starts with healthy food that consumers want, supporting local farmers, getting young people back on the land and making food a key employment creator again. Our current system does not encourage or support that.

We must also examine the development and integration of our national parks and start thinking in a different way in that regard. If we were serious about this the funding for the National Parks and Wildlife Service would have been doubled in the budget. It was not. We spend more on greyhound racing than on the National Parks and Wildlife Service. That must change.

We are not doing anything on climate change mitigation actions. We have no offshore wind plan. We will probably have to hold back on onshore wind generation because we have lost public confidence to a certain extent but that should not stop us pushing a solar revolution, where nothing is happening. It should not stop us developing our offshore wind resources where there are huge possibilities and capabilities. It should not stop us developing biomass, not to burn it in a power station which is the least sustainable option but to examine the clever use of biomass at local level. Again, that ties farmers into this new economy.

Where is the plan to promote electric vehicles as part of this framework? Where are the plans to ramp up the use of heat pumps rather than burning oil and gas in our homes? Where is the plan to double and treble the amount of money we are spending on retrofitting insulation? There is none of that in the current plans.

The same applies to transport. We do not have a single rail-based public transport project ready to go. This draft document is all about roads. The recent budget was all about more roads. How can one talk about concentrating development when one does not promote public transport, cycling and walking? Where are the plans for the 19th century market towns that are not thriving at present? Where is the experiment to retrofit certain towns completely and see how it works to get people back living on the main street and get shopping back to the local level rather than in big out-of-town centres? There is no detail or Government plan behind that objective.

Finally, where is the political change? Where is there a different regional approach? The three regions are not appropriate. Dublin needs a directly elected mayor if we are going to make Dublin work as a medieval city with development coming back close to the core. A mayor is required because it cannot be done through a regional assembly. Where is the south-east region? Waterford could be the capital of the south east. That would lift all of the region. Where are the district councils and the ability to match what has happened in Clonakilty, which has a local mayor? That town is booming because power is being given back to the local area.

The framework wishes to set up a smart growth fund. I support that, but we should have started in this budget by giving towns and regions the opportunity to bid for this new future. Some systems will work and some will not. We will replicate those which work and transform the country. There is no ambition in the Government to back up this plan and there was nothing in the recent budget to back it up. We do not even have the draft capital plan while we are discussing the planning framework. If we were serious about this we would see that level of engagement on the part of the Government.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

This is an incredibly important debate. I was in a different location for the debate on the national spatial strategy. What flowed from that were hubs, gateways, spokes and all sorts of things, which meant nothing was going to happen.

The biggest flaw in the national planning framework is the plan to limit the growth of Dublin and the greater Dublin area. One cannot stop people having babies, so there will be natural growth. The only way to limit the growth physically is by not zoning land for housing. That will increase the price of land and housing enormously.

Neither do the framework's projections appear to take account of any inward migration in coming years. There is much talk about Brexit and its opportunities but some of them would require us to assimilate an additional population. There are good arguments for doing that in the context of the ratio of working population to pensioners and how we project that into the future, for example. The projections seem to be based entirely on natural growth and even at that, they are very low. The population growth in Dublin will be higher than projected. The plan is to limit the growth of Dublin. It does not make sense.

I believe in balanced regional development. Going back to the 1990s, I remember being on the Dublin Transport Initiative, as was Deputy Eamon Ryan who is in the Chamber. A strategic planning approach was to be deployed and it looked at different scenarios such as scaling up Dublin city in order to limit the sprawl. In practice, we got the worst-case scenario and now have nine, 10 or maybe 11 counties that have Dublin as their focus, which creates significant traffic congestion. We must ask why that happened. It is not enough to have a planning framework as there must be the means of delivering it. There must be a tie-up between the national capital plan and the national planning framework. If one seeks to have balanced regional development, it must be about more than merely diverting funds, because funds are required to overcome the difficulties caused by the worst-case scenario. This will cost us heavily in fines, which focus the mind. I was told at the Committee of Public Accounts by the Department of Finance that it would be €600 million annually for missing our targets on climate. Some of that is due to the settlement pattern here and, for instance, we must spend money on the DART interconnector if we are to overcome the congestion issues as a consequence of that.

The population changes are interesting. If one examines the changes between 2001 and 2016 in several locations, one will find that Dublin city and Dún Laoghaire both grew by 13%, while south Dublin, Fingal, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow grew by 23%, 43%, 44%, 39% and 28%, respectively. The great increase happened along the arc of Dublin's periphery, with that in Fingal being the largest. Cork city grew in those years by 1% whereas the county of Cork grew to a greater degree. Galway grew sequentially, which is unusual. If we are to have balanced regional development, it must be coherent and sustainable. That means our city cores must grow but they cannot grow without the infrastructure which provides for a sustainable pattern of growth.

I strongly favour balanced regional development because without it-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has well exceeded her time.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I am sorry, I will wrap up. Without regional development there is no prospect of self-sustaining locations, which is what we should seek to achieve.

Deputy Hildegarde Naughton

I am glad to speak in this debate and will limit my comments to issues relating to proper allocation of resources on a national basis. In so doing, I endorse IBEC’s call for an ambitious long-term planning and investment strategy for Ireland to redress the growing imbalance between the regions and the greater Dublin area. The Minister of State and Government understand the importance of redressing this imbalance. What we need is an implementation mechanism that will deliver change.

I seek confirmation that implementing legislation for the framework will include a requirement for all Departments to prepare budgets in accordance with projected growth figures and that budgets should be allocated accordingly. It should also include the requirement for a formal review on a biannual basis of actual growth against projected growth and where growth projections are not being met, appropriate action should be taken.

Given the planned growth in the regions, will the Minister of State confirm that national agencies such as the National Transport Authority and other national entities that are directly funded by the State will be given a mandate encompassing the entire State and not just Dublin? The impression in rural Ireland is that many national agencies are overly concentrated on Dublin-centric issues. Galway has a particular problem where some 7,000 workers experience near-constant gridlock in Parkmore business park. Our national agencies must become more involved in resolving difficulties outside of Dublin. A number of specific projects are contained in the draft, including the proposed development of a new science and innovation park in Cork. Will they be replicated in Galway to service the west of Ireland?

Will the Minister confirm that services required to support the increased population in Galway and the west will be appropriately budgeted for? Given that the current ageing facilities at University Hospital Galway, UHG, are not fit for purpose and do not provide an appropriate environment to safely manage the current and future care needs of the population of the west and north west, can the Minister confirm that an appropriate budget will be allocated for a new acute hospital to service Galway and the region? UHG is designated as a centre of excellence for the west and north west, from Donegal down to Clare and as far east as Athlone, covering a population of more than 800,000. Some 196 senior clinicians working in UHG have told the Minister for Health it is completely unsuitable and a new acute hospital is required urgently. We can talk about science parks and roads from here to Timbuctoo but the health infrastructure in the west is crumbling and we should reorder our priorities to ensure the more than 800,000 people in the west and north west get the best care in the best facilities possible.

According to projections by the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, reported on the news this morning, Ireland’s population is on course to increase by almost a quarter by 2030, which, combined with a projected increase of up to 94% in people aged 80 or over, will have significant implications for the health service. This will have considerable consequences in the west and north west where our hospital infrastructure is already not fit for purpose. Nobody expects a hospital to appear overnight but we must start planning for a major acute hospital for the region. Otherwise, as the ESRI report clearly shows, our health service will in no way be able to cater for the increase in population.

As An Taisce notes, the history of Irish planning has been marked by successive implementation failures of plans and strategies. It is the biggest obstacle to achieving the goals of any policy. An Taisce's considered opinion is that the standard necessary to avoid the mistakes of the past is that local authorities and regional assemblies “shall comply with the National Planning Framework”. Equally all Government expenditure needs to comply with the national planning framework. I fully agree with those sentiments. Most of us in this House have had experience in local government as members of various local authorities. How many of us have seen various strategies by various Governments go down the black hole of local government? If this plan is to succeed, it is necessary for the executives of local authorities to be made accountable to Government for the implementation of national policy.

I very much welcome the national planning framework. I commend the Minister of State on his sterling work to date. It is an opportunity to properly construct a framework that will serve the infrastructural needs of Ireland for a generation.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

I will divide my comments into two sections, that is, as a constituency representative and then with some more general, national observations.

I will start with Cork, which is an area covered by the plan. I welcome the plan. It is very necessary to plan such a distance into the future to ensure balanced regional and national growth. However, there are gaps in the plan. Cork will probably grow in this period by 100,000 people, which is very significant growth. The population of the city council area does not reflect the population of the real metropolitan urban area. In order to ensure the area is sustainably and properly developed, there is a need for a number of things. Industry is key. There is reference in the plan to the need to develop the Port of Cork and some of the docklands areas. I note the reference to the development of the new science and innovation park but that has been on the cards for more than ten years-----

Deputy John Paul Phelan

It has not.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

-----and development has been extremely slow. The park has significant potential but it needs to be looked at again. The city and suburbs will expand and regardless of where boundaries are drawn, by and large, the city will expand to the east and west. From Ballincollig in the west to Carrigtwohill in the east, one is talking of a span of almost 30 km between the city and the suburbs, yet there is nothing planned for Cork in so far as I can see in terms of additional rail projects. Road projects are included, which are very important such as the M28, the N40 interchange and the N40 to Limerick. They are key projects that will make a difference but they will not be able to carry all the additional population. They might get us another ten or 15 years but that is the extent of it.

About 30 or 40 years ago, there was a land-use and transportation strategy in Cork and it laid the foundations for the transport infrastructure we have in terms of the South Ring Road and a variety of other things. There is a need for something similar now. If the city is allowed to develop in the geographic way it is planned, there will be a traffic nightmare ahead unless we invest heavily in public transport, in particular on an east-west basis. It is also key to open up that huge area of the docklands which will facilitate intensive high-density urban development. That is crucial. I urge that the current impasse with local government structures be resolved and I am pleased to see there will be dialogue between the two local authorities. We will see how that will progress but it is vitally important to resolve it.

I will make some general observations, one of which relates to local government. We have a very weak system of local government in this country. The vast majority of the powers that are devolved to local government are controlled by executives. We cannot reasonably expect the other major cities and towns to be able to develop in a balanced way to counteract the extensive growth of Dublin without greater independence being exercised by local elected representatives. There is an urgent need to examine that issue.

While my constituency is not especially rural, I believe broadband is potentially the game-changer in terms of the development of rural areas. The ability to allow people to work at home is crucial to ensure sustainable rural communities and strong towns so that people do not have to move to cities to work. High quality broadband must be a very high priority.

I alluded the transport in the context of Cork specifically but investment in the rail network is crucial, as outlined by Deputy Eamon Ryan. We cannot keep putting more and more cars onto the roads as that is unsustainable.

Tá easnamh áirithe sa cháipéis seo ó thaobh na Gaolainne. Is dóigh liom go gcaithfear é sin a réiteach. Language planning is now happening on a geographic basis. Údarás na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge, under the Acht na Gaeilge, are doing that on a geographic basis. Language is being planned geographically in the major towns near Gaeltacht areas and in Gaeltacht areas generally and it would be remiss not to make reference to that in this plan. It could easily be done as so much of the work has been done and it is just a question of integrating it into the overall plan. I urge the Minister of State to consider that point.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I wish to make a few comments in general on the plan. I accept it is in draft form but it is quite aspirational and very vague on detail in terms of targeted delivery and specifics. The plan will go out for public consultation, but we have seen once too often with county development plans that they are merely aspirational and they lie on a shelf gathering dust. I hope there is far more detail ultimately and that the plan will be backed up with funding. There was no reference to the plan in the budget in terms of costings or funding being set aside.

I will now examine the plan from a constituency perspective. Drogheda is the largest town in Ireland and there is no reference whatsoever to it in the plan. It is the largest town and it is the sixth largest urban centre in Ireland. In the foreword to the planning framework document, there is an emphasis on balanced development and growth and it states that development should take place at the right time and in the right places. One cannot ignore the fact that the largest town in Ireland with a population of more than 43,000 is lobbed in with smaller towns of 10,000 plus population in the draft plan.

Drogheda has all the attributes that no other town could claim. First, we are set right in the centre of the North-South corridor. We have access to motorway and rail transport. We are 20 minutes from the State's main airport and we have a thriving port, yet there is no reference to it whatsoever. If planning is to be strategic and to allow for future development, one cannot simply ignore the largest town and also an entire region and just stick with the five regions identified. That is not forward planning and it is not proper planning either.

Drogheda was left out of the spatial strategy and we were excluded from the living city initiatives. We were stripped of the borough council status. The current Government did that in its previous coalition with the Labour Party. Drogheda was also stripped of its town clerk and any resemblance of power, local democracy and accountability. The planning framework looks set to do likewise. I cannot emphasise enough how perfectly Drogheda is positioned within the north-east region and all the attributes it has to recommend its inclusion.

The current extended population of Drogheda is already larger than that of Waterford city.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

It is not.

Deputy Imelda Munster

At the time Galway was awarded city status in the 1980s, its population was less than the current population of Drogheda.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

Fake news.

Deputy Imelda Munster

If the plan is to have any real effect and if it is to plan for future development and prosperity and give areas a chance, I urge the Minister of State not alone to award city status to Drogheda, but to give it the opportunity to realise its potential and enhance the future of the town and its citizens.

People should not be invited to make submissions if there is no intention of paying heed to them or taking them on board.

The spatial strategy was that kind of document. If the Minister wants this to fall flat on its backside then he should ignore the submissions that go in and take no account of the people who live in the areas, the needs of the area and those people who are most concerned with the prosperity and future development of their towns. It will be a joke if, come 3 November, after all the submissions are in, they are ignored by the Government. As it stands it is a Government document which does not take account of local areas and submissions which have already been made.

Deputy Barry Cowen

Various Members have spoken in the last hour about the great importance attached to this document in creating the national planning framework for the coming years. I agree with that, but at the moment it only has the potential to be important and make a difference. When I go through this document there is a deficit. I do not see that the ambitions contained within each chapter of this document are cognisant of the submissions and the input of those that sought to have an influence on the final document. That is regrettable. There were 1,000 submissions, but I would prefer that they were grouped, summarised and the key elements pertaining to different sections outlined so that we could get some cohesion for the finished product.

I listened to Deputy Eamon Ryan, and I agree with him when he talks about a planning framework which is not associated with the infrastructural plan, which is due shortly. I know that the two cannot necessarily be published together, but the Minister said that the national planning framework will be backed up by the infrastructural plan. There have to be ambitious targets for roads, rail and public transport. There has to be provision for broadband, education, further education, lifetime education and apprenticeships, public and civic services, hospital infrastructure and primary care infrastructure, home helps and assisting the elderly to remain in their communities, and housing provision. We have all spoken about sustainable housing provision and stopping the sprawl by working with what we have available in terms of in-fill sites and addressing what is contained within the Vacant Homes Refurbishment Bill. That can be done forthwith. We do not necessarily need a planning framework to provide a pathway for that. Deputy Ryan was quite right to ask what innovation is contained within this framework to help and assist in addition to those ways of regenerating, revitalising and re-energising towns. What other ideas or innovations are contained in this plan to address those issues? The greatest sin of the last number of years is the dilapidation that exists and the lack of energy and vibrancy in many towns and villages throughout the country. That issue should be paramount in any national planning framework.

Where are we on innovation and enterprise? We talk about greening our economy, but where is the provision for enterprise and innovation? Where is the fund that various regions need in order to engender that? We have spoken about de-carbonising. We have a carbon tax that I do not believe is being put to the correct use. I have been saying this consistently, especially in my own region. We are moving away from excavating turf and from Bord na Móna, which will no longer be what it was beyond 2030. The region that I represent, and far beyond it, does not have a plan or process of Government subvention to assist it to replace that industry. I have said consistently that the last Government reintroduced a carbon tax, doubled it and took away the provisions that was previously available for Bord na Móna products. That would be fine if the revenue generated from that was pumped back into those regions in the form of innovation and enterprise funds to allow the regions to replace the turf industry and provide work and potential for growth. Perhaps we would see progress then.

I will pick out certain aspects of this document in the time available to me but will make a more detailed written response in due course. I commend the Minister for acquiescing to a request for an extension. The deadline is now 10 November, rather than 3 November. That is based on the feedback I have been receiving in my constituency and also from my colleagues in the parliamentary party. It is only when the draft document appears that we can begin to analyse and scrutinise it properly and effectively in order to seek to ensure that there is more universal support for any future document. I welcome the legislation that will back up the creation of an independent office for planning regulation. It has been sought in recent years and it is to be welcomed.

The document mentions that there are to be regular reviews and updates. I would prefer if it stipulated when these regular reviews and updates will take place. If this plan is to last until 2040, as is the aspiration, it should take into account that area plans, county development plans and regional plans are of much shorter duration. They need to be in sync with the overall plan.

I welcome the commitment to end the sprawl that we have seen, especially in Dublin. That has to be addressed.

The plan discusses social disadvantage and inequality. It will involve Government intervention and subvention for those regions which are least well off in order to bring them to par.

Local development plans and area plans have sought to ensure the sustainability of rural areas. They have sought to assist land owners and their family members to live on their own lands. There are contradictions within this relating to aspirations and the hierarchy of plans, which seem to indicate that local area plans and county development plans will now have to adopt this economic need. In my county there is a functional need which carries greater weight than the local need, and it is causing great difficulty. I hope that will be addressed in the next local development plan, if not by material contravention in the meantime. I do not believe that the hierarchy, if it is an aspiration of this plan, can be adhered to in its entirety. Some leeway should be given to local authorities on the area plans based on the type of county affected, the make up of it and the potential for growth in the future.

The Minister's plan discusses learning from the previous spatial strategy, which was scrapped in 2012. There has been nothing for the last five years, and hopefully we are about to get a replacement. The new plans say that the old plan failed because there were winners and losers when it came to gateways and hubs. In my region, Mullingar, Athlone and Tullamore was to be a gateway region where development would take place. Great synergy was developed between the three towns, the three chambers and between industry. IBEC, ISME and others bought into that concept. It was working well and had the potential to work well into the future. However, this process has seen Athlone break away. The aspiration of Deputy Kevin Boxer Moran was that it would get city status and would be far greater than anything else east of the Pale. It is obviously not the case and should not be the case.

It is incumbent on the Government to help such towns. Those involved in the towns are prepared to work together for the betterment of the region in its entirety and they should be rewarded. It is extraordinary to realise that they can now only have potential growth of 20% without any review of that assertion. There should be an immediate review if those caps are reached at an earlier stage.

It would appear that I am now charged with responsibility in my region, county or constituency to try to bring all the submissions together from the various bodies, including IBEC, ISME, the IFA, RGDATA and other groups to see what commonality exists within the region in respect of their aspirations. Each region should have three or four key infrastructural priorities to help to ensure each priority represents the foundation for future growth. Again, that should be contained within the national planning framework. It should be supported and followed through with a national infrastructural plan, which would put meat on the bones and money in the regions. This is what I am asking the Government to consider when it comes to the final document. I implore the Government to realise that while this is a draft document and a great deal of work has gone into it, much needs to be changed and there is a different way in which this can be approached. I appeal to the Government to be cognisant of the input of Deputies, who represent the various constituencies and bring depth of experience and knowledge to the process. I hope that will be reflected in the new document. It is incumbent on all of us to make detailed written submissions to try to get the level of consent that we believe to be necessary for the framework document and to give the infrastructural plan the back-up it needs to allow it to become a reality.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

Next is Deputy Maria Bailey. I understand she intends to share time with the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Phelan.

Deputy Maria Bailey

I am delighted to comment on the national planning framework. This has been a long process. We have heard many comments from people who have said they did not have the opportunity for consultation or to make their views heard. Some have said that there has not been a bottom-up approach or that it has not been diverse enough. Others have said that there has not been an extensive consultation.

I am keen to put on the record that over 40 regional events have been held throughout the country in order to make people aware of the national planning framework, what it is about, what it encompasses and the direction in which the country will go over the next 25 years. These 40 regional events have taken place since 2 February. Therefore, there has been a lengthy period of ten months for consultation. This document was not thrown together in a matter of weeks. I attended several of the events to which I refer because I have no wish to be Dublin-centric. I am keen to represent the country as a whole. At the events, many of the comments raised are echoed in the submissions, of which there have been almost 1,000. We can read these comments, which are included in the draft document. It is unfair to say that they have not been taken on board. In fact, it is somewhat insulting to say so. I appreciate the vast work that has gone into putting this document together. It is a little disrespectful to say that comments have not been taken on board.

We should not go back to being parochial about the areas we represent. We need only look at the spatial plans of the past, which threw in every town that was named by every public representative. If we do that, then we will go nowhere. This must be a targeted approach for sustainable growth for our country and quality of life for our citizens. It cannot come down to naming every town in the country or throwing in everything, including the kitchen sink. That is not what proper planning is about.

What will Ireland look like in 2040? What do we need to do? We need to plan for the needs of our future population. In that context, we must make a long-term plan rather than arrive at a quick fix. It is more important to do the right thing, which is often more difficult. It would be easy to name every town in the country. This is a proper document, unlike previous plans. It will be a statutory document, something we have never had before. That is why I believe in this plan. I am of the view that it will give my children and other children a future when they are older, whether in respect of school, employment, housing, jobs, tourism or whatever. It will give them options.

This plan is ambitious. It is ambitious because it is realistic and deliverable. It will give rise to many challenges but these will be challenges we will be able to surmount. Nothing is insurmountable. There are extraordinary opportunities and potential in the rural areas of our country and these have not yet been realised. However, we are addressing them in this national development plan. It is true that I represent a Dublin constituency. However, I am a national parliamentarian who has a big vision for our country. I can see the drive and the heart of our people and their willingness to better themselves all the time.

The implementation of the national planning framework will be as important as preparing it. Let us consider what is happening at present, especially in the context of housing, the satellite towns that surround Dublin and quality of life. Currently, approximately 10,000 people commute from Portlaoise to Dublin every day in order to get to work. While that might suit some, for others it does not represent quality of life. It can mean leaving before the children get up in the morning and getting home after they are in bed. It means not having quality of life with family and living in the car for an hour and a half each morning and evening. That is not reflective of proper planning and we need to rectify it.

We need to be flexible in respect of what our needs will be for the population growth that we know will materialise. We have to develop the country as a whole rather than be Dublin-centric. We risk choking Dublin and diminishing the quality of life here, while starving the regions of much-needed development and growth, whether in the context of investment in indigenous business, foreign direct investment or whatever. The point is that the opportunity has to be available. We can continue to develop the east coast if we so choose, but that would not represent sustainable or proper planning for our country.

We need to reduce our carbon footprint by integrating climate action into the planning system in support of national targets for climate policy and mitigation objectives, as well as targeting our greenhouse gas emissions. Our planning system needs to be responsive to environmental challenges. I welcome the comments in the national planning framework in this regard. We need to realise our island and marine potential with integrated land and maritime planning. We need to ensure that our ports are aligned in order to ensure the effective growth and sustainable development of our cities and regions in the context of fisheries, renewable energy, marine tourism and other potential areas for industrial development.

Some 40% of Ireland's population live within 5 km of the coast. I am one of the lucky 40%. Our coastal areas are key drivers for our tourism sector. We need only consider the success of the Wild Atlantic Way in this regard. We need to ensure that our coastal resource is managed in order to sustain its physical character and environmental quality while building on the existing natural asset. This is about managing land use and the movement of people as well as creating quality of life for all.

All of this should happen while recognising the population growth and demographic changes that are expected. There will be approximately 1.3 million people over the age of 65 years by 2040. We need to plan for their needs in vibrant communities, whether in health, housing, employment, recreational or other areas.

As the economy continues its recovery and as we build more houses and improve the lives of people locked out of the housing market or trapped in emergency accommodation, one key challenge for all of us will be around expectations. The challenge will be to meet the expectations of people when it comes to important quality-of-life issues. Let us put this in context. In the context of planning we need to make homes more flexible and adaptable for people throughout their lives. This should be the case regardless of whether a home is a first home, a family home or a home for later in life. We need to create an environment where a person can choose to downsize to a managed and secure complex within her community that will cater for her needs, give her security, independence and familiarity. We need to develop communities that will cater to a person's needs from the time she is born to the time she passes.

We need a whole-of-Government approach to this plan. We need a whole-of-Ireland approach rather than the piecemeal approaches of the past. That was not proper planning. For the first time in my political career, I am lucky to be in a position to be part of the process relating to a document such as this, which, I believe, gives us the greatest opportunity as a country.

Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (Deputy John Paul Phelan)

I thank Deputy Bailey for sharing time. I was keen to make some points and I was afraid that I would not get in if I did not ask her for some time.

The debate thus far clearly exemplifies the divergence of opinion that exists on planning matters in Irish politics in general.

In this Chamber, diametrically opposed opinions have been expressed, even in the hour and a half in which we have heard speakers. This is best exemplified by the contributions in the slot shared by Deputies Eamon Ryan and Catherine Murphy. I acknowledge they are in different political parties but their views were quite different even though they represent constituencies that are not that far apart geographically. Despite this, they were both significantly right in large parts of their contributions.

On Deputy Eamon Ryan's point on densities, I may be mistaken but believe I read recently that a former Member of the House from the Green Party, now a councillor, expressed regret over the recent proposal by the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government to remove height caps in Dublin city centre. Perhaps it is not the only way density can be increased in the city centre but it is certainly an obvious way. Deputy Catherine Murphy's point, that we cannot stop people from having children, goes without answering.

Deputy Casey, in an extraordinary contribution, praised the spatial strategy, which I do not believe I have ever heard a public representative praise, and had a go at the framework for not being specific enough. The purpose of this debate and others, and the public consultation, is to put more flesh on the bones. I commend my two ministerial colleagues and others in the Department who have put in such work on the planning framework. It is just that, a framework. It will not be prescriptive regarding the nitty-gritty of every local authority's development plan but it will set national targets and objectives. That is the right thing to do.

I agree with most of what Deputy Cowen said. I was surprised to hear his lament for the demise of the Bermuda triangle of Tullamore, Athlone and Mullingar. I suspect there will hardly be a protest march in those towns over its demise. Perhaps the best example of why the spatial strategy did not really work is the fact that it was not an entity that had any buy-in from the general public. It might have had buy-in from the groups the Deputy mentioned, but it did not really mean anything to the broader public.

I have two remaining points. Deputy Ó Laoghaire, or perhaps another Deputy, alluded to broadband and Wi-Fi. We saw the benefits best recently during Storm Ophelia when, despite the fact that the country was closed for a day or a little more, much business continued because people could work from home. There is a significant number of people, particularly along the east coast but also in other parts of the country, who commute huge distances but who would be in a position to work from home much more if the appropriate facilitates were more widely available. I cannot emphasise enough the significance I attach to this.

My view on this is biased but I will express it anyway. There are two regions of the country more ripe for development than any others, for very different reasons. The north west, to the line from Galway to Dublin, lacks a major urban centre. This must be and is being addressed in the framework. The other region is mine, the south east. The latter has three motorways, two railway lines, an airport and three ports but it has the lowest average household income and the highest unemployment rate, which is 3% above the national average. Despite these statistics, it is the closest region to the Cork-Dublin axis. Why has this trend persisted for my entire lifetime, amounting to almost 40 years? I know efforts are being made in the plan to ensure the region, which can be developed rapidly because of its infrastructural advantages and location-----

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Make it a region.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

Once voice. We cannot have that.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

It was a region. The problem-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

We cannot have that.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

-----is that it was a region for 30 years and it just did not work.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

There will be another time for that.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

There is a way of building it into this plan.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

There is a tendency to engage in cross-party dialogue but we cannot have it now.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

That is something I believe this plan will address. I hope it does so.

Deputy Shane Cassells

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I have a great passion for the subject. Of all the debates in the Chamber this week - there have been some very serious ones - this is one of the most important because it will have an impact on people's lives today and in the future. The questions to be asked are stark. Will the plan shape those lives for the better or the worse? Will it give the same fair chance to everyone? The plan actually uses such language at the get-go. It refers to a sense of fair play and opportunity for all, and to social inclusion irrespective of location. When the Minister of State says the plan does not get into the nitty-gritty, and that it should not, he should note it states there should be fairness for everyone in the country, irrespective of location. Location is at the heart of the plan. Where one lives and where jobs and investment go determine whether one will have a fair crack at life. Therefore, location goes to the heart of a framework plan.

The key issue is how the objectives of the plan, set out in flowery language, will be achieved. A great deal of this, if not all, will be premised on the capital investment plan. The framework plan comes first but it is written in full knowledge of what is in the capital investment plan. It is a chicken-and-egg scenario. Consider the expected growth and how it will be dispersed in the three regions under the plan, with the greater Dublin area accounting for some 500,000 and Dublin accounting for nearly 300,000, and the rest in the commuter counties. The towns pertaining to the 200,000 will be determined by the regional plans, not the framework plan. Therefore, the detail is not set out in the plan. Where is the transparency in that? The fate of the towns will be sealed based on the Government's pet projects under the capital plan. The Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, can sigh all he likes but when he considers the Government promised a railway and regional hospital in my town, he will note none of these has materialised. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the opportunity under national spatial strategies and plans for the 35,000 people in Navan, or those in Drogheda or elsewhere? Where is the fairness and opportunity for those in my town or those in the town of Deputy Fergus O'Dowd? The Minister of State might tut but Deputy O'Dowd has a different position on Drogheda.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

I did not tut; I sighed.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

He knows my opinion.

Deputy Shane Cassells

I am glad. The plan places growth towns such as Navan and Drogheda on the hind tit, and well the Government knows it. The plan itself does not address the deficiencies that have been building up over 20 years. When the truth is told, the Government does not like to hear it.

This plan takes a fair swipe at the spatial strategy, and so has the Minister of State. The authors believe it got it wrong by identifying hubs and gateways, winners and losers.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

The Deputy spent half his speech swiping at-----

Deputy Shane Cassells

This plan does the exact same. The difference is that it does not have the liathróidí to actually name the winners and losers. Where is the fairness and transparency in that?

Deputy John Paul Phelan

One for everyone in the audience.

Deputy Shane Cassells

It goes further. It attacks decentralisation, something that went beyond the airy-fairy ideology and actually brought public entities to rural areas to try to create the hubs and edifices around which one might get some private growth, thereby driving the economy. This is not liked either so the plan has a go at it also.

With regard to what the plan calls elements of strategy, specifically regarding our regions and rural fabric, it sets out the aim of reversing small-town decline and rural population decline, supporting the sustainable growth of rural communities. How is this the case if de-zoning is happening in draft county development plans? Diktats are being sent down stating certain areas have been over-zoned, requiring de-zoning in small rural areas.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

Fianna Fáil and the Green Party in government.

Deputy Shane Cassells

There you go. Just shout it out.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

One speaker.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

Does the Deputy remember that?

Deputy Shane Cassells

Therefore, how will this plan address the strategy?

Deputy John Paul Phelan

The Deputy should read the spatial strategy at least.

Deputy Shane Cassells

How are the regional plans, which are stifling county growth-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

There is to be no dialogue.

Deputy Shane Cassells

I appreciate that.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

The Deputy should not encourage it.

Deputy Shane Cassells

I am not. It is usually the Shinners attacking me so it is a change. The regional plans are stifling county growth, and the lack of transparency will get worse under this.

If the previous Minister responsible for planning sought to interfere in my county's development plan and stop the Facebook development in Dunboyne only to get his knuckles rapped and back-track on that, how are we going to help the regions and the towns? We refer to growth regions. The Limerick county manager, Mr. Conn Murray, gave his opinion on the matter this week when he spelled it out for the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, who was down the country spreading the gospel to the regions. The locals were not buying the sales pitch, however, and Mr. Murray, who is a good Navan man, told Paschal that the plan limited Limerick's ambition and that, although the approach to the development of city regions had been the most forward-thinking strategy to emerge nationally for a long time, the scripting was limiting the potential of those regions and not addressing the issue, namely, the balance with Dublin. That is what the chief executive of Limerick City and County Council told Paschal this week.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

I thank the Deputy for his support.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

It is good practice to address colleagues in the House by their official titles.

Deputy Shane Cassells

I apologise. In his response, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, stated that it was helpful for him to hear the concerns and that he might have been missing a regional trick. It is not a magic show, but one would wonder at times.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

Indeed.

Deputy Shane Cassells

Deputy Cowen addressed the issue of curbing sprawling areas. I agree with the need to address in-fill in town centres where opportunities present, but it must be backed up with Government incentives, as happened previously when urban renewable and tax incentive schemes incentivised such development. This approach should be measured, though, given that it is a case of horses for courses and not everything is the same. Things were done wrong in certain regional centres.

That the strategy refers to fostering economic growth on the one hand and spreading it out smoothly and evenly across the country on the other is neither realistic nor practical. The people of Ireland know well that there is no even growth. They passed their judgment on that matter last year, so it is disheartening to see that ethos nearly being copperfastened in black and white in the plan. Instead of making a genuine attempt to try to reverse it, the plan only compounds it. The plan asks what will happen if nothing is done. Unfortunately, many of its aspects are reinforcing the overheating of the Dublin region. That it was not me or another politician but the Limerick chief executive who this week asked for a fair crack of the whip in trying to achieve a counterbalance is striking and should be heeded.

I appreciate that this is a draft plan and I hope there will be good, honest and robust exchanges to give people in the regions a fair chance, but the Minister of State knows from his long time in local government that what has been set out in this statutory document, which will filter down to the subservient regional, county and local plans, will lead to a great deal more restrictiveness. A methodology has been set out for that.

There must be capital investment to support these population centres, be they Navan, Drogheda or any other town, to give them the fair opportunity about which this plan speaks so passionately.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

This is an important debate on a crucial document. The strategy will determine the future of our country up to 2040, in particular how towns and cities develop. The key figure in the document is 50,000, which is the definition of a city's population by European standards. According to the document, if a community reaches a population of 50,000, it is a city ipso facto and must be treated as one. The plan mentions many cities, but the one that is missing is the most important of all and is where I live. The greater Drogheda area has, according to the census, more than 80,000 people in it. That the plan does not recognise this fact is of concern.

It is not true to say that towns are not mentioned. A town is, and I have no difficulty with that reference. Figure 7.2 on cross-Border co-operation reads: "Develop the critical mass of the Newry-Dundalk area to compete with other larger cities." I welcome this objective. I never had a difficulty with that. Neither did the Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government, of which I am a member, when it agreed today to include Drogheda as a third point in the Newry-Dundalk axis as part of a larger city or separately as its own city. This recommendation is now in the draft plan for consideration by the Minister and his Department.

I welcome everyone's comments today but why is there such controversy over this? We should be fighting like hell over this because we are fighting for our communities and our future. We are putting forward our plans. We are recognising the needs of our constituents. I accept that the regional plans to follow will see further strong battles but I want to put my marker down today - Drogheda must become a city because it needs support services for its population.

Our area includes the environs of east Meath. Deputy Breathnach was a councillor when Louth and Meath county councils agreed a development plan for the greater Drogheda area. What was wrong with it? It was quite a good plan. When it went forward for approval, however, it had no standing because it was not a statutory plan and the local municipal committee in east Meath kicked it out, leading to an appalling planning miasma in which there were houses without services and shopping centres without shoppers. Hundreds of houses were built without any sewerage facilities. The sewage was being moved at night in tankers. There was appalling and disgraceful carry-on in east Meath in terms of planning. It happened because there was not a proper plan or the proper plan was neglected and the councillors took over. It was an absolute disgrace.

We need a proper development plan for the greater Drogheda area. We need imaginative solutions. I understand that people in Meath want to wear the Louth jersey no more than Louth people want to wear the Meath jersey-----

Deputy Shane Cassells

Louth robbed a bit of Drogheda from us already.

Deputy Declan Breathnach

We are servicing it well.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

Meath goes to All-Irelands more than we do. That said, we must work together now as we did on the issue of water. Water and wastewater in east Meath and Louth come from Drogheda. The fire service in Drogheda covers east Meath. Education services in Meath and Louth work together. There is already considerable co-operation, but we need greater administrative co-operation to put in place a planning and control infrastructure in local government that is based on the area in question. An imaginative solution is what we need. Our health services are served from Drogheda. There is great interaction on that front. However, the policing of the Drogheda district ends at the motorway. If someone is passing drugs on the Donore interchange, as has been known to happen, a garda must come from Ashbourne to investigate. It is not acceptable that the policing district does not include those other parts of east Meath as well as Drogheda. The future imaginative solutions that I mentioned will make a significant difference.

The census has recognised this need. For those Deputies who wish to look, Drogheda town's footprint extends into County Meath. There are people living in the area of County Meath who are included in the town of Drogheda for the purposes of what the town needs. Recognition of the future of the greater Drogheda area, which includes-----

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 26 Oct 2017

National Planning Framework: Statements

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Oct 2017