I ask members to ensure their mobile phones are switched off before we commence the meeting. Are the minutes of the meeting of 9 July 2003 agreed? Agreed. On today's agenda is a discussion with Mr. Frank Corcoran, chairman of An Tasice, whom I welcome with his colleague Mr. James Nix. I understand they have both been advised on matters of privilege. While members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to witnesses. Members are reminded of the long standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in any way so as to make him or her identifiable. I welcome the delegation to the meeting and ask Mr. Corcoran to proceed with his presentation which has been circulated.
One-Off Housing: Presentation.
Mr. Frank Corcoran
An Taisce, as the National Trust for Ireland, is committed to enhancing awareness of sustainable development in Ireland through education, advocacy and property ownership. For many years An Taisce has played its part through programmes such as blue flag, white flag, green schools - which has recently attained the highest proportion of national involvement by Ireland's schools in the world - in which local authorities have recently been involved. We also worked through the young reporters for the environment programmeas well as a host of targeted seminars, planning workshops and conferences.
An Taisce is a prescribed body under various environmental legislation for receipt of development proposals and plans for consultation, including environmental impact assessments. Accordingly, An Taisce is particularly well informed on development and environmental issues and takes a constructive role in promoting sustainable development, focusing on its integration in an inclusive approach.
As the largest and oldest environmental NGO in Ireland, An Taisce has a wide network of local associations around the country and is in a unique position in that it is the only environmental NGO that receives and has access to an international network of institutions and organisations researching sustainable development and the methodology of presentation, evaluation, policy construction and implementation, for example, the European Environmental Bureau and The Worldwide Network of National Trusts. Consequently, the organisation has a deep understanding of the issues being faced both nationally and internationally and many of the approaches to sustainable development delivery.
If the mission statement of An Taisce is sustainable development, what does that mean in regard to rural housing? Growing demand for housing in the countryside from people working in cities and towns is generally unsustainable because being separated from all other activities which the householders normally have resort to, such as work, shops, schools and entertainment, one-off housing is a large utiliser of energy for transport. Most one-off houses are served by individual septic tanks, raising concerns for groundwater protection if the local authority does not have the resources to monitor it. There are increased roads and transport costs and there is a negative impact for the urban fabric of towns.
In general, there must be a presumption against urban generated one-off rural housing adjacent to towns. The planning Acts enable local authorities to grant permission for dwellings for certain categories of people whose occupation requires them to be rurally based - farmers, foresters, people in aquaculture, etc. - thereby catering for genuine needs. However, certain principles should apply to all such development. These include: development along national primary and secondary roads not allowed for traffic safety reasons; the need to preserve outstanding landscapes and views of special importance should be recognised; the ability to integrate one-off housing into the landscape should be emphasised through good design, good use of site and use of the appropriate building materials; the site should be suitable for sewage disposal and drainage and rehabilitation of derelict houses should, in certain instances, be encouraged as a more sustainable option than the construction of a new dwelling.
Currently the broad objectives for sustainable rural settlement policy in Ireland are to sustain and renew established rural communities and the existing stock of investment in a way that responds to the various spatial, structural and economic changes taking place while protecting the important assets rural areas possess; to strengthen the established structure of villages and smaller settlements both to assist local economies and to accommodate additional populations in a way that supports the viability of public transport and local infrastructure and services such as schools and water services; to ensure that key assets in rural areas such as water quality, the natural and cultural heritage and the quality of the landscape are protected to support quality of life and economic vitality; and to ensure that rural settlement policies take account of and are appropriate to local circumstances.
Within the overall objectives of this policy framework, more detailed rural settlement policies in regional planning guidelines, county development plans and local plans take account of the specific character of rural housing demands in the area concerned and the characteristics of the rural area and economy concerned, which will vary between areas and regions. Like other developments, rural housing can raise difficult land use issues which must be managed to ensure the proper planning and sustainable development of the country. Further detailed rural settlement policies relevant to the specific circumstances of rural settlement land use for different parts of the country will have to be worked out as part of the regional guidelines and development plan process to ensure that the economic, social and environmental assets of rural Ireland are protected in the interests of the vital contribution they can make to achieving balanced regional development.
It is clear that the current trend of one third of all housing in Ireland being built as one-off commuter homes is not sustainable given that 500,000 new homes will have to be built in the next ten years. Such a policy would place an enormous burden on the taxpayer as Government research has already shown that there are a lot of hidden costs to the taxpayer related to one-off commuter housing. The national sustainable development strategy of 1997 was based upon this research. That document was approved by the Irish electorate when they voted by referendum for sustainable development to be put on a full legal footing in the Treaty of Amsterdam. If further research was done today, the case would be even more compelling, taking into account the financial costs to the country associated with the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has said Ireland will have to pay €1.3 billion per annum in order to meet our Kyoto targets at current rates and an exacerbation of that situation would put a further burden on the taxpayer. The legal requirements imposed upon Ireland as evidenced by the European Court of Justice judgment against Ireland in September 2002 because of our pollution of groundwater as a result of the proliferation of septic tanks in a situation where the local authority does not have the resources to properly to monitor them. According the court, the present situation represents an unacceptable health risk to the existing rural population.
A further consequence of uncontrolled site development in the countryside is that agricultural land prices in Ireland are spiralling out of the reach of farmers who wish to buy land for agricultural enterprise. We refer to an article accompanying our submission by James Nix recently published in The Farmers Journal.
Mr. James Nix
I took a look at what is happening to Irish agricultural land values and the startling thing one finds is that in 1997 we were lower than key competitor states like Denmark and Germany. One could buy land in Ireland cheaper than in Germany and now we are way ahead of them. We have completely leapfrogged them. It is hard then to maintain agricultural competitiveness in that kind of scenario.
The graph in the article goes back to 1997. I put just four countries on it because it would clog up the graph if there were too many. Members can see that we were already way ahead of Scotland, with which country we compete strongly in the dairy produce market. We were below Denmark and Germany and then over the boom years we passed them out. I have looked at how and why this has happened and have tried to dig a little deeper into it. What I have found is that the years of greatest economic growth saw the years of greatest land price increases. In other words, Irish land values seemed to be tracking the property market, not the market value of agricultural commodities even though I would like more data on this. That poses a difficulty in research. If the price is not tracking the raw materials, it is not reflective of the market.
I prepared a small equation comparing Scotland, Wales and Ireland. One hundred acres roughly——
You seem to be under the impression that the members requested you to come here to discuss the price of land. I do not think anyone requested that. We asked you to come here to talk about one-off housing and the effect it has on rural Ireland and the people who live there. We can ask other bodies to discuss the price of land. I am sure there are lots of qualified people who will attend if we need them. I do not think the committee requested you to discuss the price of land in Scotland, Wales or Ireland. Could you confine your comments to housing and the effect your body has on rural development? That is what we want to discuss.
Mr. Nix
Okay.
Is that agreed by the members?
Mr. Nix
I see the point you are making. The difficulty Ireland has is that the distinction between housing land and farmland is rather weak. In other words, there is a huge crossover. It becomes impossible from a research perspective to separate the two issues, which is what you have requested me to do.
It is possible to apply for permission on what is perceived to be entirely agricultural land and receive permission to use that for developmental, or rather, accommodation purposes. The neat divide that we would like to think exists does not in fact exist. That poses a difficulty. If we take the pre-boom period when there was not the same amount of building in the countryside and less pressure on site values, we find that our prices are lower. After that boom, our prices are higher. I have tried to factor out some of the variables, for example, inputs. I tried to determine whether the cost of agricultural inputs had gone up or gone down. I found that in relative terms they have either gone down or stayed static. Could the increase in value be attributable to farmers receiving more money for their commodities? If that is the case, then there is a logical explanation, but unfortunately it is not attributable to that, because taking the 12 months to the end of December 2000, the value of farm outputs fell by 5% in value terms. Once again, taking the same 12 month period, farmers' incomes fell by 8.5%. What we are seeing is that both the value of what is being produced on the land fell, and total incomes fell.
We have no logical explanation from an agricultural perspective for why the price of land should be increasing. That explanation does not exist, unless we take into account the "non-agricultural forces" mentioned by Dr. Bielenberg, of the Irish Landowners Association. He is not the only one who has drawn attention to non-agricultural forces. The Agricultural Consultants Association attribute the overpricing of land to thwarting dedicated farmers.
If we consider the idea of dedicated farmers and the idea of Ireland as an agricultural country with 7% to 8% of our GDP attributable to agricultural output, it is evident that if one were to buy 100 acres of good agricultural land it would cost approximately——
Once again, we asked the witness here to discuss one-off housing. The Minister and his officials will be attending later this evening. We can discuss the price of land with them. We did not ask Mr. Nix to come here to discuss the price of land. The witness has given us a 15 minute presentation.
Mr. Corcoran
The point has been made.
Will you please conclude on the subject of one-off housing and the effect your organisation is having on that?
Mr. Nix
I have had a lot of e-mails about this.
There were no e-mails from us.
Mr. Nix
That is my area of research, I will leave you with Frank.
Mr. Corcoran
The point has been made. We will leave it at that.
I thank An Taisce for attending today and I thank the committee for inviting them. We could argue until the cows come home about the price of land and about what or what does not influence it. We can all produce statistics to argue one way or the other.
I often think if An Taisce was a political party it would probably do very well because the modern philosophy of politics is that you need to make people feel browned off. An Taisce will acknowledge that many people are strongly opposed to the concept of its work. Admittedly in the document it has produced there are five considerations for rural planning. I could not dispute most of them. They are reasonable. My understanding, in glancing at the article that was produced and the submission made on the Wicklow county development plan, and which I am sure is policy nationally, is that An Taisce believes no rural housing should exist unless it is agriculturally based, and that the previous policy of non-land enterprise based rural housing, or one-off housing in the countryside, was unsustainable. What the delegation is saying is that any house built in the countryside should be for someone who is making an economic living out of a farm. I am totally opposed to that. Does the delegation think that when farms are generally left to one individual, the other five or four are to be told to pack up and live in a town? There are also people who live in the country who are not land based but were raised and live in the country and have a perfectly legitimate right to live there. The witnesses appear, rightly or wrongly, to be opposed to them living there.
There appears to be an intellectual-led movement, with the Frank McDonalds of this world writing in The Irish Times and consistently mentioning the need for better public transport. We all agree with creative densities and the better use of land in towns. We do not agree, however, that ultimately everyone should be packed into towns. I have never encountered anyone who wishes to spoil the landscape by putting a house on top of Carrauntoohil or Lugnaquilla. By the same token the social well being of people has to be taken into consideration. The impression exists, rightly or wrongly, that An Taisce is telling people what is good for them. I would like to have its views on that. There are some other questions that we will come back to later, but that is the kernel of the matter. There is frustration in the community. An Taisce will argue, and maybe with some justification, that when it appeals cases to An Bord Pleanála its decision is generally upheld, but that is another day’s work. In this country there seems to be an encouragement of one-off housing in the spatial strategy, even though it has noticed the question of how local authorities actually interpret the national spatial plan. It talks about two important issues, namely, rural generated housing and urban generated housing. There is no definition of how the spatial plan will be implemented. That is a weakness in the plan.
I have the same question as Deputy Timmins, which arises from comments in Mr. Nix's newspaper article which suggests that eventually anybody who wants to build a house in the countryside would be required to have his or her application accompanied by a business plan which would have to relate to farming. That is an extraordinarily restrictive approach where there are other people who have had rural origins but do not intend to go back to full-time farming. It is totally unfair when looked at from that point of view.
On the delegations' concern for water quality and the proliferation of septic tanks, with the various stages that are involved in the building of a house, surely it is the responsibility of a builder to ensure requirements are met. I do not imagine rocket science is required to ensure a septic tank that is put in is adequate to meet those requirements. There should not be any implications, therefore, as is suggested in the document, in terms of a health risk to the existing population. That is something of a red herring in terms of a proliferation of septic tanks properly installed and managed. The suggestion was made also that the local authority would not have the capacity to monitor them but the monitoring should be minimalist in the sense that if they are properly installed, they should meet the requirements.
I, too, welcome the presentation by An Taisce and the opportunity to voice rural Ireland's concerns regarding the actions of An Taisce. From an environmental point of view, I fully appreciate the need, as does everybody around this table, to preserve the natural beauty of our country and to try to ensure that the planning laws and restrictions take that into account and address any relevant issues in that regard.
I come from an area in rural Ireland where the population has declined and is continuing to decline. Many people in my constituency would argue that there are a number of reasons for that, one of which is the cost of sites. The argument for that is the scarcity of sites but people from rural communities who are not necessarily from a farming background but perhaps may have lived in local authority cottages with the acre in the back, which is the way many people were housed in the 1950s and the 1960s, do not have access to land. They are not landowners' sons or daughters. There is nothing for them because they are unable to afford the sites and they find themselves on the local authority housing list, which contributes to the urbanisation of our communities. That is a major issue in many parts of rural Ireland. There is also the knock-on effect of all the social problems associated with mass urbanisation of communities and people leaving their rural environment and moving into an urban environment.
Mention was made of septic tanks. The planning authorities have within their remit the power to insist upon a special type of septic tank, be it a pureflow system or whatever system is available, to protect the water table level. That can be done. There are many areas in rural Ireland which should be opened up to allow people from rural communities live there.
Mention was also made of the beautiful scenic areas, and everybody would be in favour of protecting those area. All of us have the beauty of the environment in our hearts and we are prepared to play our role in protecting that but much of what is happening in rural Ireland involves serial objectors, many of whom are members of An Taisce, making objections to An Bord Pleanála and, in most instances, winning their cases. The knock-on effect of that is a great deal of resentment building up towards An Taisce. Much of the good work it does is being totally undermined by serial objectors who are members of An Taisce. They are doing a great disservice to our rural communities and the fabric of rural Ireland.
Forty years ago, two thirds of the population lived in rural Ireland. The opposite is the case now. Two thirds of the population live in urban Ireland, with one third living in the countryside. Derelict sites dot the countryside, yet people are being refused planning permission in those areas where there are derelict sites. That problem has to be addressed.
I hope the An Taisce representatives understand the views of people about that problem. It is a major issue. In my own county people are prepared to build houses without planning permission because they are being refused. They are taking on the State and accepting the consequences. I dealt with a person recently who had to have his house knocked down. There is another case pending in Kenmare. That practice will spiral out of control unless this problem is dealt with because the sense of rural Ireland has been neglected, with restriction after restriction being imposed upon the people.
I assume the representatives have heard of the Irish Rural Dwellers Association. That organisation is gathering momentum along the south-west and the west coast and we must ask ourselves what is the reason for that. Why are law-abiding people so frustrated and angry that they are prepared, in many instances, to effectively by-pass the laws and restrictions? Every county council is now dealing with the county development plan and we are trying to take into account the requirements of our constituents and trying to balance those requirements against anydamage to the environment.
I question the argument Mr. Nix made about farming. The cost of farming and the increased cost of farms is determined by the demand for farming. It has nothing to do with the argument Mr. Nix tried to make. It comes down to the fact that the smaller, weaker farmer is going out of business and only the bigger farmers are prepared to pay that amount of money because they can afford it. It is as simple as that.
I, too, would like to welcome the representatives from An Taisce. At the outset I want to compliment them on their role in regard to the blue and white flags. An Taisce should stick to that role and keep out of the planning process, especially in the county I come from which has experienced mass emigration in the 1950s and 1960s. Those people now retired in England and elsewhere want to come back and build a house on the land on which they were born but every obstacle is being put in their way, many from An Taisce. I believe An Taisce has infiltrated the planning offices in each county along the west coast.
Mention was made of farmers. It must not be forgotten that many farmers now have to sell a site to sustain themselves on a holding of land in parts of the country. As the representative rightly said, incomes from agriculture have fallen. There are people who have an asset, which they fought long and hard to get from the landlord class, at the turn of the century, but they are now being told what they can and cannot do with their land. What is happening at the present time is crazy. An Taisce should go back to preserving our heritage and keep out of the planning process. The planners in the council are well able to do that.
Chairman, I do not know where to start but I want to congratulate you on inviting An Taisce to the meeting because it gives us an opportunity of seeing its representatives in the flesh and hearing their words of wisdom.
I briefly looked through the document and I listened to the presentation by Mr. Corcoran. I would be one of those who acknowledge that An Taisce did some excellent work in the past but in Cork County Council last Monday it was described as an umbrella organisation for cranks. Reading the document and listening to Mr. Nix, I am inclined to agree with that description.
I want to briefly deal with Mr. Nix's contribution because it is the least complicated. Obviously Mr. Nix has no idea what he is talking about. He has no knowledge of farming, agriculture or rural life and no understanding of what it is all about. Did Mr. Nix ever hear, for example, of the installation aid scheme and the regulations pertaining to it? Did he ever hear of the regulations governing the installation aid scheme for young farmers?
Mr. Nix
Installation aid?
Yes, it is quite obvious that Mr. Nix has not. They do not make land anymore, and most people have dealt with the issue in the sense that farms have to get bigger. About 1% of land changes hands by sales each year, not 5% or 10%, and about 1.5% transfers within families. That is what land mobility is. I will leave thatmatter there.
I want to deal with An Taisce in its attitude to rural Ireland. I come from rural Ireland and have been a member of Cork County Council for a while. I would like to tell Mr. Corcoran and the An Taisce organisation that our county council - and I think every other county council would say the same thing - has a professional staff with a competency equal to the job in hand. They do not need any lessons from An Taisce or anybody else. They have a competency in ensuring that this grand pollution scheme An Taisce is talking about works and that over-density of housing does not occur. We have technical and professional people, and every other local authority would make the same point.
To suggest that the underground waterways or the waterways of Ireland are polluted by septic tanks is a fallacy. It is a joke. To suggest that one third of housing was built on a one-off commuter basis is an absolute joke. People who come to rural Ireland have to move into local towns and communities for their jobs. That is what it is all about. Before the Great Famine we had about eight million people in this country. We did not have the greater Dublin or Cork areas nor did we have the wonderful city of Galway or any of our rural towns. They were just small settlements. Those eight million by and large lived in the countryside. They did not have the facilities or the infrastructure that is there today.
I would like Mr. Corcoran to come into the real world. I know he will enjoy this and enjoy giving the answers, but I will tell him one thing: it is my considered opinion that this committee is at fault, not An Taisce. We are the Oireachtas Members and the legislators. We have allowed An Taisce in law to operate as it does. I am going to recommend that we approach the relevant Ministers in Government about changing the laws to take An Taisce back to when it was doing good work and was not straying into areas it knew nothing about and does not have a feel for.
I am sorry to be as blunt and straight as this and find no pleasure in saying it but the fact is that An Taisce has no perception of what it is talking about. It has an imported view, and we are aware for example that what is happening in this country is being discussed on the island next door. They have set up offices around the country to import ideas because we are part of the so-called British Isles, as they see it. We do not have our freedom. We got our freedom. Just think of that.
I wish to make two final points to An Taisce. It talks about regional services. I will take them down to Bantry in west Cork. An Taisce objected to the Bantry regional water scheme which has denied Bantry town and the hinterland toBandon a modern, good quality water facility provided by Cork County Council. It objected to a tourist orientated development in Castletownbere recently. The developers have come in again and An Taisce has once again lodged an objection to Cork County Council. There are people here who know Castletownbere; I hope An Taisce representatives do. Those of us who do know it to be a poor country area in west Cork that is tourist based. A tourist enterprise was planned but An Taisce objected. Let us not forget that we won our freedom in 1922. The developers came into Cork County Council three or four weeks ago but An Taisce objected again. Who the hell does An Taisce think it is?
I welcome Mr. Corcoran and Mr. Nix of An Taisce. I certainly would not be as eloquent as Senator Callanan but I would share his sentiments entirely. Some of my recent dealings with An Taisce have left me and some of my constituents sorely wounded.
I would not expect our guests to comment on individual cases because they do not have the facts before them but I shall briefly tell them about a farmer with 60 very poor and awkward acres who gave a site to his daughter. He had three planning discussions and got planning permission. Then An Taisce - the faceless person - came in and objected. The person put his name to the objection to An Bord Pleanála and had never seen the site; he did not know where it was. What kind of behaviour is that?
Standard behaviour by An Taisce.
Senator Callanan got his chance.
I do not know whether that is standard but it happened in this particular case. It is clear from the statements made by Mr. Nix that he has not got a clue what he is talking about in relation to farming. We have many small farmers. How does one define a small farmer? One could talk about a man with under 100 or 150 acres, depending on what entitlements he has, who would have been severely in debt for one reason or another, and maybe the sale of a site here or there could take him out of great financial difficulty. What happens then, however, is that we have the serial objectors from An Taisce. It is time this was highlighted. When they go as far as An Bord Pleanála they seem to win most of the time. It is for another day to discuss An Bord Pleanála and its standards and consistency, which are highly questionable. I leave it at that.
We have a proud tradition of having thehighest home ownership in Europe. Maybe there are historical reasons. Our homes were very important to us and were taken consistently over the centuries by the invader. We had eight million people; today we have half that number, thehighest since the Great Famine.
We are fortunate that we are now an affluent country and have young people who can stay here, build their own houses and live in the country. The country without the people is not a country at all. We talk about people leaving rural Ireland. Rest assured, An Taisce's actions and the serial objections have done quite a bit to promote that.
In my county, one area in particular was deprived of a population to the extent that it qualified for CLÁR funding. The population went down 50% or more between the census of 1926 and that of 1996, and still An Taisce would come in and object to people building their own houses. I am talking about a landowner's daughter building her own house. It was not a very elaborate house either, just an ordinary bungalow. In County Waterford, where the county development plan is currently being examined for the first time, the councillors' attitudes have hardened and changed. I agree with Senator Callanan that it is time the legislation was changed to bring an end to the serial objectors, many of them faceless, blow-ins to rural areas. Nobody knows who they are or where they came from but it is time it was stopped. There is a growing anger among rural communities about what is happening.
I welcome the delegation from An Taisce. There is no doubt land prices have become more expensive in the past number of years. However, if An Taisce had studied land purchases, it would have found it is dairy farmers who are buying the land. There are lands close to towns which may, at some time, be development lands making up to €15,000 an acre.
In rural areas, if a good farm goes up for sale close to a dairy farmer, it turns out that he or she is the only farmer who can afford to buy it. The small drystock farmers are not buying land as their incomes have dropped in the past number of years. These are the people who might need to sell a site to survive or give to a daughter or son.
I understand what Deputy Wilkinson said earlier about rural communities. I have encountered similar cases where a farmer wanted to give a site to a son but some faceless person, using the name of An Taisce, objected and took it to An Bord Pleanála. In this case, I am glad to say An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission.
We are told the treatment systems being put into septic tanks, such as biocycle, etc., are supposed to purify the system. It is claimed the water that comes from the systems is nearly safe to drink. If that is true then septic tanks pose no danger to people living in rural areas.
The people building houses in rural Ireland today are the very same people who could walk into Sligo County Council, put their names on a housing list and wait for the house to be built by the State. These people are prepared to get up, buy a site, get planning permission and build their homes. What are we doing to them? We are discouraging them in every way we possibly can instead of encouraging them. They could easily put their names on a housing list but they do not. The Government cannot build houses for everybody, so the only course for them is to buy a site and build a house. There are farmers out there willing to sell. However, the only person currently willing to sell is a drystock farmer. In Counties Sligo and Leitrim, I have not encountered any dairy farmers who have ever sold a site. I am sure this is the same across the country.
It is ingenuous to say that when the people voted for the Amsterdam Treaty they voted for fewer houses in rural Ireland. That is an insult in An Taisce's report. When the people voted for the Amsterdam Treaty, they did not vote for that reason.
Mr. Corcoran
As some of the points were repeated I will deal with points rather than the members who made them.
It is not true to say that An Taisce objects to any application for planning permission which is not for farming. From 1,000 applications that are lodged, An Taisce will refer four to An Bord Pleanála. The other 996 applications are not referred to An Bord Pleanála. It is not true to say we refer all of them. Obviously An Taisce is not a decision maker; we refer cases to An Bord Pleanála. It is often done when the decision has been made against the advice of the planners. This is where they have given reasons planning permission should not go ahead, perhaps on water quality grounds. We refer them then to An Bord Pleanála.
In the cases referred to in County Mayo, in the last two years, of the 20 referred to An BordPleanála by An Taisce, all them were rejected on the grounds of public safety and health. It was the detail of the case on the grounds of public safety and health that they were rejected. The European Court has convicted Ireland for a breach of the EU groundwater directives. The Departments of Agriculture and Food, the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the EPA claim one third of group water schemes have been contaminated with coliforms. Some of these are dangerous. Cryptosporidium for instance can kill. If there is a proliferation of septic tanks the receiving ground may not be able to take the amount of discharges from them. In the cases An Taisce referred to An Bord Pleanála, decisions were granted on the grounds of public health and safety.
Regarding public safety, there have been a number of serious traffic accidents at entrances to houses on major routes. Vehicles from such dwellings are coming onto 60 miles per hour zones. It is recognised that this is particular hazard. The proliferation of these types of dwellings presents a hazard. This is the view of the National Roads Authority and other organisations.
An Taisce refers only four out of every 1,000 applications to An Bord Pleanála. An BordPleanála agrees with 90% of An Taisce's objections. In that respect we are not cranks. We do not appeal every application, only a small number and we do so on the grounds of public health and safety. I would be concerned if An Bord Pleanála said that only 10% of our objections stand up. To say 90% stand up, shows that those referred by An Taisce have been carefully considered. They are referred on the major grounds of public health and safety. It is often the case, and An Bord Pleanála will say so in decisions, that the proposed development breaches the county development plan. This plan is drawn up by the councillors, not by An Taisce. An Bord Pleanála may also state that an application breaches Government policy. These are the grounds on which An Bord Pleanála refuses applications.
Deputy Ferris referred to population decline, costs of sites and site scarcity resulting in people being put on the local authority housing list. I agree that there has been a population decline in the west. Deputy Harkin, Professor Caulfield, Seán Hannick from the Council of the West and myself made submissions to agencies such as NESC making the point that there was a need for balanced regional development. We argued that there was over-development in the Dublin region and under-development in the rest of the State. We wanted to see the creation of a regional structure which has been subsequently created through the BMW, etc. We supported the creation of a regional strategy to recognise local conditions and not apply the Dublin model to the rest of the country. I agree that areas where many of the members live need a much larger population.
I recognise that the cost of sites is a problem. We need to build 500,000 houses over the next ten years. This is not just an extrapolation of population because the household size is coming down, so we need to build more houses even for the same population numbers. The population is increasing. If the present trend continued, these houses would be built as one off houses in the countryside. If people cannot afford houses in towns, which is the case at the moment, the logic is that they would want to buy land in an area not zoned for housing, but zoned as agricultural or scenic land. People have a human right to a roof over their heads. A house is clearly not just any old commodity. Since the Government is currently looking at the constitutional implications of the cost of land for infrastructure, perhaps there could be a case for looking also at the cost of land for housing, which is probably more basic than infrastructure, as I am sure a lot of people would agree.
People have been left to the vagaries of the market, and as the market pushes up the cost of sites in the zoned land, people cannot afford it, and that is a problem.
There is a method that could be used to resolve that problem. Local authorities could use compulsory purchase powers to acquire land, have it properly serviced and then make sites available there for the building of houses, with facilities provided for transport, sewerage and water and so on, in a safe way. That would comply with the thinking of Government and of many local authorities.
Senator Callanan said it was a fallacy that water was polluted. It is not a fallacy. The Government says that 20% of groundwater is polluted by nitrates. That is not from septic tanks, but one third of all group water schemes has been contaminated with coliforms. About half of that is associated with septic tanks. That problem was recognised by the European Court of Justice when it issued a judgment against Ireland for breach of the water directive.
The point is written down and it is not as Mr. Corcoran is saying.
The Senator may comment later.
Mr. Corcoran
Leading up to the case mentioned,the Government made the point that rural dwellers were not entitled to the benefit of the directive in relation to clean water, and the European Court of Justice disagreed. It gave a reasoned opinion which the Government ignored. The full judgment was issued last September in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and it said that existing rural dwellers are entitled to the benefit of the framework drinking water directive in relation to clean water and that this was being breached. According to the court, therefore, this is not a fallacy - nor even according to the Government, which says that one third of group water schemes has been contaminated with coliforms.
A number of committee members said that a "faceless" person from An Taisce made an objection. That cannot happen. Most objections are made from head office in Dublin where a number of planners are employed. Some objections are made from the local An Taisce associations, of which there are 23 around the country. They have elected officers and it is the planning officer of the local association, a person who is known in the community, who makes those objections on behalf of An Taisce. The objections have to be approved by the head office. The name of the person is on the objection, so these are not faceless people. They are known, and their names are attached to the submission itself.
In relation to Sligo, the point was made about people being put on the housing list because the Government cannot build houses for them. I agree that the Government cannot build houses for everyone. The issue relates to the availability of affordable sites for everyone to build houses. The current model is that land is zoned by local authorities for the housing demand in a particular area, and thereby shoots up in value, with the landowner making millions of euro from the increase in value because of the executive decision of the local authority. Currently the entire increase in value goes to the landowner and not to the people who want to build houses. That is an issue which could be looked at.
Regarding planning applications, An Taisce does not object to everybody who is not a farmer or engaged in aquaculture or forestry. We refer to the board four out of 1,000 cases, and of those the board agrees with us in about 90% of cases, on grounds of public health and safety.
In relation to the objection, I made the point that it came from An Taisce head office in Dublin, signed by some guy living in Dublin who never saw the site and had no local involvement. That is my point, and I believe this situation is basically wrong.
Mr. Corcoran
I do not know the particular case, but it may very well be that on examination of the file, the planner recommended against the proposal for a particular reason, perhaps on grounds of water safety, and the manager overturned the planner's advice without giving a reason. For that reason, with the planning consideration not appearing on the file, An Taisce might have referred it to the board so that the board would apply a planning consideration to it. I do not know if the site had been built on.
This is my last interruption.
There are a number of members yet to speak.
If what Mr. Corcoran says was the case, there would be some grounds for the objection, but it was not the case. My clear point is that a person living in Dublin, who never saw the area, put his name to an objection to An Bord Pleanála. There was no sign of local AnTaisce involvement, and the manager did not overrule anybody.
Mr. Corcoran
As I say, I am at a disadvantage because I do not know of the particular application.
Some local member of An Taisce gets someone else to do it in Dublin. That is the way it works.
It is not great work.
That is why I say there are faceless people.
The Senator can speak later.
Mr. Nix
I will be a little autobiographical for a minute. My dad milks 32 dairy cows just north of Limerick. I grew up on a farm which my brother and I wanted to expand. We found that the numbers did not add up. The committee members know there are many farmers working for a very low hourly rate when they factor in their time and labour. The members might bear in mind that when they are making comments with regard to my experience.
If the members look at the Western Development Commission, they will see a presentation I gave about the proposed re-opening of the western rail corridor between Galway and Cork, serving Limerick en route.
The members should briefly look back into the wider area of planning. Why is there a movement for this or that? Why is this happening? Why are these pressures being experienced? The reason is simple - planning. It is obvious; it is all about living near what one needs. Life has changed a great deal. We talked about 8.5 million people living in this country before the Famine. At that time much of our produce was grown and consumed locally. Entertainment was local. It was low impact living. There was no cement. There were no huge foundations going in. Those houses can be scooped up by a bulldozer and lifted into a truck.
You are straying from the subject.
Mr. Nix
Please bear with me.
If you want to come in to discuss agricultural affairs on another date, the committee will certainly be glad to see you.
Mr. Nix
May I talk about planning?
Please talk about planning.
Mr. Nix
I am. The reason for the change in philosophy since Famine times, is that modern living generates so many journeys and requires so much movement, such as delivering pizza. We get videos out, go to the gym every day and go to see films. We move about so much in modern life that our impact is totally different than 150 years ago. In practical terms that means that, when the statistics are added up, many people living far outside towns spend 11 working weeks of their lives in traffic. Why? Because 70% of trips today are not work related; most are taken up with what the Americans call shop and drop - dropping kids off to soccer, flute lessons and the scouts. We move in and out of homes all the time, so what is the reason for being pro-urban? Because more and more of the things we require are in urban centres, planning is moving towards trying to improve not just cities but also making towns and villages more habitable. New aspects of urban design, even for villages, include communal playgrounds and community centres. People should be able to go for a pint of milk without hopping into their cars every time. These are not matters that An Taisce talks about every day and they are not ventilated in planning fora but I raise them to provide a general background.
Some 20% of the world's population consume 80% of the world's resources; it is high impact living. Every single house's outer wall has heat being generated against it whereas if one has two houses together there is an obvious saving.
Do you still feel that these points are no longer relevant, Chairman?
Some of them are not. Have you finished?
Mr. Nix
I will leave it at that.
In rural Ireland, and particularly in the Duhallow region of north Cork, the mention of An Taisce conjures up a certain amount of comment. After hearing the last speaker, I would not like to be telling it in the local villages of Kiskeam, Boherbue or anywhere else in north Cork. If one is talking about commuting - and I am referring exactly to what Mr. Nix said - how much time is spent commuting by people who are buying houses in Kildare, Meath or any of the suburban areas of Dublin? As Mr. Nix was speaking, I was thinking of my own village and the people who commute to Cork, Limerick and Tralee within an hour. I have been told that people get up at 5 a.m. to commute from Maynooth in County Kildare to Dublin, dropping off their children on the way. They return home at 7.30 p.m. but that does not happen in rural Ireland. If that is An Taisce's argument against the one-off houses, it is unsustainable. I see the unsustainability of one-off houses is on the list but An Taisce's continued objection to such houses is, to be blunt, totally unustainable. Mr. Nix has written down a number of points but I would like him to clarify where the increased cost in road and transport is in relation to houses that are being built along existing roads and laneways in rural Ireland. I have not seen any Luas or Dart trains in the Duhallow region yet and there is no need for them because there is good access to roads.
Mr. Nix stated that there is a negative impact on the urban fabric of towns but most people say there is a negative impact on the rural fabric of Ireland. It is accepted that the number of people actively engaged in agriculture is in decline and if we do not have rural one-off housing we will have vast areas the length and breadth of this country devoid of young families setting up homes and children in schools. In some small villages schoolrooms lie empty while new schools are sought in the growth areas. There is a case for using the existing infrastructure properly. I do not want to delay the meeting but I feel strongly about this issue. If one looks at rural parishes away from the large urban growth areas in Leinster, particularly on the western seaboard, one can see that there were more family homes there in the 1950s than there are today.
An Taisce and other groups are totally opposed to one-off houses but, with all due respect to this document, I think it is complete and absolute rubbish. I have yet to see any document being produced that will convince me that a sustainable objection can be made to one-off rural houses which are planned reasonably. I am not talking about building houses on bends, on top ofCarrauntoohil or other scenic areas.
I would ask members to be brief because unfortunately we have to vacate the committee room by 3.45 p.m.
Despite all the grief we may be giving An Taisce, I acknowledge that the organisation has done enormously good work in the country and continues to do so in many areas. However, it is fairly clear that there will not be a meeting of minds between An Taisce and the committee on how we see rural Ireland developing in future. I concur with the views expressed by my colleagues on the committee. As far as the planning process is concerned, An Taisce should be delisted because it is not just fulfilling a role advocating change and instigating a debate at national level. It is quite entitled to do so and I have no difficulty with that because it is healthy for society. There is an issue about the volume of houses for which planning applications are made and are being granted in rural Ireland, so there is nothing wrong with having that debate. The problem I have is with the type of activity we are seeing on the ground by, as Deputy Ferris said, serial objectors, including An Taisce. In some instances, the people who are causing the grief at local level may not be members of An Taisce but are actively using is as a flag of convenience.
I come from Kildare and I can tell Deputy Moynihan that I came into the committee in an hour and ten minutes this morning, so it is not that onerous a task. I accept that delays occur commuting from counties such as Kildare, which is one of the counties An Taisce has targeted for special attention. There is a particular crusade going on against houses in rural Kildare. When we devised the current county development plan in 1999 we had very little input from An Taisce. We had little contact with the organisation until about two years ago when it launched this nationwide campaign against houses in rural areas. At that stage, we called in the local chairmen of the An Taisce branches in County Kildare to ask if they had a problem with what we were doing as a county planning authority. They assured us that they did not have a problem and that the objections were coming from An Taisce nationally. We then invited the national An Taisce organisation to come down to Kildare to debate the issues with Kildare County Council, only to be assured by An Taisce's national representative at the time that the organisation was fully supportive of Kildare County Council's rural housing strategy, which effectively set out five categories of people who should be considered favourably for houses in a rural area.
I have a difficulty with the manner in which your organisation is pursuing individual applicants. Others have given examples and I propose to outline two others in my county. In the first instance, a marriage break-up on a family farm resulted in an agreement to sell the family farmhouse, which necessitated the provision of a new house for the members of the family remaining on the farm. A member of the farm family made the application and while it was being considered, the unfortunate person committed suicide. The application was duly granted by Kildare County Council with a restrictive clause requiring that the house would be occupied by the remaining members of the family. However, An Taisce objected to that development on the grounds that the person was dead and, therefore, did not have a housing need.
More recently, a situation has developed on the banks of the Grand Canal where a small site which had been the subject of a number of proper refusals for one-off houses was bought and occupied by a large number of travelling traders. They laid a hard surface, erected lighting and, when forced to do so by the local authority, they applied to retain the development. In this instance one house had been refused on the grounds that it would be injurious to the amenity of the canal and that access to the house would endanger public safety, a point made by Mr. Corcoran, but now, upwards of 40 families are ensconced on the site and an application to retain the permission has been lodged with Kildare County Council. An Taisce was invited to make a submission on this development but it did not do so. In the meantime, a local man residing further down the canal, accessing from another safe point, building on his family land was granted permission. However, An Taisce objected to his application.
That type of behaviour is insupportable. It illustrates that a once great organisation has become soulless and heartless. It should be delisted.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss some matters with An Taisce. Officials in An Taisce are similar to the characters depicted in the film, "City Slickers". They have no concept of the realities of rural life. Travellers today have more rights than people living in rural areas, and this policy is being pushed by An Taisce.
Mr. Nix was asked about farming by Senator Scanlon. He knows nothing about it because he did not answer his question. Would Mr. Nix like to live in Tallaght? The consequence of the policies he is promoting will mean that half of the people in the country will live in poor parts of cities with no jobs and consequent poverty. It is time he copped on to that reality.
An Taisce is seeking to stop progress in my part of Ireland, County Donegal. We have a good local authority which adopted a stringent development plan in 2000. The county is divided into three categories. If any area appears to have problems with ground conditions percolation tests are required and if difficulties are detected planning permission is not granted. In view of this, I do not see the need for An Taisce to be involved in the planning process.
It is well known in County Donegal that the four cases in a thousand to which An Taisce refers must be in that county. It is also well known in the county that if an objector secures the involvement of An Taisce, any appeal to An Bord Pleanála will be turned down. I do not consider that An Bord Pleanála is much better than An Taisce. The supposed independence of both organisations is a joke.
The submission today by An Taisce is mild by comparison with what I have heard Ian Lumley say on a number of occasions. He appears to live in some kind of fairyland and would appear to be reading too many fairy tales. If I had my way, An Taisce would be disbanded and my constituents think likewise. If a referendum on its future was held tomorrow it would be abolished.
It is farcical to talk of preventing developments on national primary and secondary roads. The regional roads in County Donegal are in a better condition than some of the national primary roads while our back roads are better than some of the national secondary roads. Yet officials from An Taisce, who are from the city, are trying to tell us what to do with our roads by preventing access to them. We have good officials inDonegal County Council and we can handle our own planning affairs. We do not need An Taisce to tell us what to do.
I welcome this opportunity to exchange views with two officials from An Taisce. Castletownbere is a small fishing village located in one of the most peripheral areas of the country and is heavily reliant on fishing and tourism. An application was lodged with Cork County Council which proposed the construction of a few holiday homes, leisure facilities, a bar and so on. It would have created a useful economic boost in the area and provided much needed facilities. However, An Taisce objected. It eventually ended up with an Bord Pleanála where the decision was overturned. In recent weeks a resubmission was sent by the developer to the county council. It was a much scaled down version of the original and had taken due cognisance of the reports by planners and different organisations, including An Bord Pleanála. Again, An Taisce has lodged an objection. It is signed by one person. Indeed, any objections by An Taisce to planning applications in Cork are signed by the same person. The person does not live in County Cork and could not know about the constraints and infringements of any proposed development.
It is clear that people are using An Taisce to lodge objections without revealing their identity. We are living in a democracy yet An Taisce is not a transparent organisation. There is a lack of accountability. If rural decline is to be arrested, children of landowners need to build houses. The prices of sites in rural areas become cheaper the further they are located from the large urban centres, yet An Taisce objects to such developments. It is driving young people from the land. Farm incomes have taken a serious hit in the last few years because of economic factors. We must encourage people to stay on the land but the objections to these developments are not helpful and they work against the principles to which the rest of us are working.
I ask the officials present to tell us, in an effort to make their organisation more accountable and transparent, the number of members of An Taisce, where they live and who are they. Applications lodged with local authorities are examined by professional experts, including the council's planners and engineers and the various officials involved. One would be forgiven for thinking that the only level of expertise in various engineering aspects or planning aspects comes from An Taisce itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are occasions where a local farmer will apply for planning permission so that he can sell a site and he is purely motivated by economic circumstances. The income of the person concerned may be low, he may have debts with banks, etc., or he might want to finance the education of his children at third level institutes. He may want to pay off loans. There are sociological elements attached to planning applications.
Tourism is being affected adversely in some quarters by the behaviour of An Taisce. It is, to say the least, a bit rich to be lectured about the Famine and to go out and get pizzas and get flute lessons. The people to whom we refer are real people with real issues who live in real Ireland. These gentlemen should take a grip of themselves and bite reality. I support calls that An Taisce be disbanded forthwith.
Is the pursuit of individual applications by means of objection a negative reflection on the professionalism of the staff of the county councils and of the planning board? Can An Taisce not rely on them to do the job?
In view of An Taisce's concern about ground water pollution, would they not agree that the resources being absorbed in considering appeals, some of which are vexatious, might be better used inspecting existing septic tanks and existing arrangements which are leading to pollution? Is it not the case that the sewage disposal system of a new house in a rural area would be more modern and less likely to pollute than that of existing houses and that if the county council had resources, they would be better off using them pursuing points of pollution in the ground water supply rather than devoting huge amounts of effort to new houses, which probably will be built to a higher standard and will be less of a problem? Would they accept that every An Taisce appeal has an effect of diverting resources away from other activities? Is it not the case that the other activities, if concerned with going after existing pollution points, would be a much better use of time than dealing with An Taisce appeals?
Does An Taisce also agree that while there is certainly a concept of sustainability, this involves not only environmental sustainability but also social sustainability? Would they agree that social sustainability is served, for instance, in an ageing society by allowing younger members of the family to live near older members of the family so that when those older members of the family become elderly, they will not have to become institutionalised so soon because there will be members of the family living close by to look in on them? While in an ideal world if everyone lived in an urban area it might be possible for people to look in on their neighbours, on average there are more elderly people living in rural areas proportionate to the general population than there are elderly people living in urban areas. Therefore it is in the interests of social sustainability, if social sustainability is expressed by younger relatives living near to older relatives, to have houses in rural areas. In fact, the concept of sustainability works in both directions and sustainability can be used as an argument in favour of rural housing, just as it can be used as an argument against it.
Notwithstanding some of the derision that was poured on it here, I do accept Mr. Nix's assertion that there is high impact living in modern society. No doubt the impact we make on the environment in modern times is much greater than that which our parents or grandparents would have made. There is no dispute about that and it is a valid concept to introduce into the debate. However, would Mr. Corcoran and Mr. Nix not agree that modern cars, for example, are much less damaging to the environment than older cars and that the arguments they advance against people motoring would have had more validity ten years ago than they would have today or in the future? Therefore the shop and drop journeys are not as damaging to our Kyoto commitments as, for instance, the continued generation of electricity from coal and I would like to know what An Taisce is doing about that. If An Taisce was really interested in Kyoto, would they not be much better off picketing the ESB on the closure of Moneypoint than persecuting the people who want to live close to their parents?
I am sure all An Taisce's activities are potentially good but in life we must choose and prioritise. If An Taisce is prioritising the environment, might it not make a greater impact pursuing the big polluters than the people who make only a minor impact? The same applies in the case of septic tanks. Does An Taisce not accept that modern septic tanks, to which it objects, cause less damage than older septic tanks, which An Taisce ignores completely because they have been there for years and nobody ever goes near them? Would it not be a better use of resources to give the council the staff to go after the old dirty septic tanks and indeed the old dirty farmyards as well?
I am not sure I know the answer to the following question and it is not a trick question. Given that farming as an economic activity is in comparative decline, what, in An Taisce's view, are the appropriate economic activities to be encouraged in a purely rural area? Obviously tourism is an activity with which everybody would be in agreement but there are certain parts of Ireland like parts of my constituency where people will not come as tourists because it is not as scenic as the area in which the Chairman lives, for instance; where I live it is much flatter and less interesting. Would An Taisce not agree that it should have a positive agenda of the activities which it would encourage in rural areas? Rather than telling us the activities it does not want in rural areas, should An Taisce not tell us what it does want in rural areas? Does An Taisce favour, for example, somebody doing panel-beating in a rural area or is it against that? What types of activities in rural areas are supported by An Taisce? That is a question we all should answer but An Taisce, in particular, should answer it before deciding to put everyone to the trouble of dealing with objections.
Mr. Corcoran, who, I think, is the president rather than the chairman of An Taisce, might answer Deputy Bruton's question because he did not respond to me. In the submission he made to Wicklow County Council and in the article in the Irish Farmers’ Journal, he wrote that he is not in favour of non-land enterprise based one-off housing in the countryside. Will he confirm in his response that such houses must be tied into an agricultural project?
From listening to the members, one of their difficulties has to do with An Taisce's membership and where they stand. An Taisce has a secret membership. An Taisce's chairman will argue that so too is the membership of political parties, but they are not as secretive as An Taisce and this is one of the difficulties. I saw an advertisement at the end of An Taisce's 2000 or 2001 report which was about helping An Taisce and which asked people to give a donation, to remember AnTaisce in their will or to stand for election. If a political party did so, it would be in front of one of the tribunals. Are there any politicians who are members of An Taisce because the organisation has always stated it was apolitical? An Taisce held a press conference to do with Glen Ding a few weeks ago and had two politicians on the platform. I would just like to know where AnTaisce stands on that issue.
On specific applications, the representatives of An Taisce mentioned four out of 1,000 and mentioned Mayo. One of the issues I can never get to the bottom of is how An Taisce judges what to appeal. In the electoral area of Baltinglass in west Wicklow, which I represent and with which Mr. Corcoran would be familiar because he is a resident of the area, in the past two years in the region of 18 section 4 motions were passed. Six or seven of those were passed by an independent councillor in Mr. Corcoran's area who has been diametrically opposed to An Taisce's position on Glen Ding, and five out of six or six out of seven of his were appealed. I put this to Mr. Lumley in Wicklow County Council and he did not answer it; I am sure Mr. Corcoran is aware of the question I put to him. Perhaps today or another day Mr. Corcoran might give me the answer. There were eight section 4 motions done by a councillor, who is actually on the same side as An Taisce on the issue and who appeared at that press conference with Mr. Corcoran. One of them was appealed but the appeal was later withdrawn. I submitted three applications. One was appealed and rejected. With regard to the appeal that was withdrawn, I have a copy of the submission made by Mr. Lumley to An Bord Pleanála. He mentioned a traffic hazard while at the same time he was preaching to the councillors in Kerry that they were liable for accidents as a result of traffic hazards. Inexplicably, he withdrew the appeal a few weeks later. I put this question to him and he did not give a response. Mr. Corcoran may not know that answer but there is a 60 to 1 chance of that happening. This is strange but perhaps there is a logical explanation.
In addition, Mr. Lumley submitted incorrect information regarding at least one planning file in County Wicklow. He entered into conversation with the applicant and stated he obtained the information from a local source. The reference number is 02/6008. The information was inaccurate, wherever it came from. This is the difficulty people have. Inaccurate information is given to An Taisce and, even with the best will in the world, the organisation makes an objection based on misinformation, as happened in the case to which I refer. I have no difficulty with An Taisce per se but a few questions need to be answered.
I am a member of Galway County Council, which agreed a county development plan recently. A year and a half ago, we were presented with a draft plan which almost ensured there would be no one-off housing. Only farmers who stayed on the land would be allowed to build their own houses. A son or daughter could not and he or she must move to urban centres to buy sites. All the political parties represented on the council came together, hired a consultant and decided to draft their own development plan, which is in operation now. Hopefully, it will work.
Reference was made to septic tanks. A fisheries board representative stated at another forum recently that Ireland is still No. 1 in Europe in terms of having the cleanest lakes and rivers but the standard is falling fast. While he pointed out septic tanks were a problem, he also stated that if high phosphate detergents used in washing machines and so on were banned, water quality would improve by 10% overnight. Why does An Taisce not pursue such an issue? Would it not be more in its line to do so?
I would like to address two or three questions to Mr. Corcoran. I am a paid up member of An Taisce and, like many others, I agree the organisation made a significant contribution to the harmonious progression of the country. However, it has become an arrogant and overbearing organisation over the past four or five years. All of us do not agree with An Taisce's approach in regard to one-off housing development. The recent CAP reforms will put more pressure on farmers to become entrepreneurial and to diversify. Mr. Nix examined the possibility of expanding his farm but the figures suggested that was not viable. However, many people want to stay on farms and develop the environment in which they live.
I support Senator Callanan who stated trained planning officials employed by local authorities can more than adequately deal with these housing issues. An Taisce has a major public relations problem. I am a member because I believe in the work it did in the past and I ask Mr. Corcoran not to leave this room today without re-examining An Taisce's approach to the issues that have been addressed.
That is an encouraging contribution by a member of An Taisce.
We were always given to understand that there was no political membership of An Taisce. Senator White has confirmed her membership. Will Mr. Corcoran comment on that? I support Deputy Bruton, in particular, in regard to septic tanks. There is an element of scaremongering on this issue. It would be more valuable to address the issue of old tanks and ground water.
Mr. Corcoran referred to two different bugs, spiridium crypto and coliforms. They are separate and distinct but spiridium crypto is primarily of animal rather than human effluent. It is not related to the septic tank issue.
I referred earlier to the serial objector. Mr. Corcoran said An Taisce objects to four in every 1,000 applications. Many objections emanate in my county, Kerry, or in the name of an individual in Dublin, which I will give to him later, despite local members of An Taisce telling those who apply for planning permission that they have no objection. However, the individual in Dublin, who is a member of An Taisce, is making objections on the organisation's behalf. Does the figure of four objections in every 1,000 applications include the faceless serial objector or does it comprise the total number of objections by members of An Taisce on an individual or organisational basis?
Local authorities insist on young homeowners installing effluent treatment systems at a cost of between €5,000 and €7,000. They must also pay the running costs thereafter. Do they affect the ground water supply? If so, it is daft that people must install such systems. I asked this question earlier and I would like a reply.
I also did not receive a reply to my question but I did not expect one. I made a proposal, which was seconded by Deputy Blaney, that the committee should recommend to the appropriate authorities that the role of An Taisce be revisited in order to restructure the organisation and put it back on stream. SenatorMcCarthy and I both come from Cork and we raised the issue of the development of Castletownbere. We extend an invitation to Mr. Corcoran to attend a meeting in west Cork and we guarantee him a safe passage in and out. I expect Mr. Corcoran to respond positively. This issue was discussed at Cork County Council and it also extended a similar invitation.
I wish to refer to groundwater pollution. A year ago, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was expected to designate nitrate zones or to designate the entire country as one. The EPA produced statistics that highlighted the fact that the north and west regions do not have high nitrate levels, which means Mr. Corcoran's point in this regard is farcical. Ireland's highest nitrate levels are in large cities and towns in the south and east, in which An Taisce wants to put everybody.
A properly working septic tank is as good as a Puraflow system. Can Mr. Corcoran produce evidence to the contrary?
Deputy Bruton referred to the impact of the campaigns on the utilisation of resources. Is Mr. Corcoran aware that in Kildare, for example, this undue focus on one-off houses has caused a situation where scarce resources are targeted in that area to the detriment of other developments? I have an example of a major retail development with a residential component - shops, supermarkets, offices and 50 to 60 apartments. There are 17 conditions attaching to the planning permission. I also have the case of a one-off house with 27 conditions. That shows where the focus is but there are other issues we should focus on.
I have some questions. Mr.Corcoran talks about encouraging more dwellers into towns and villages where services are provided. If so, why are there objections to a small development in a village in Cavan which saw no development for the last 50 years?
You also objected to a small farmer providing facilities such as a slatted tank and a shed in a rural area. Here was a man trying to improve his facilities and the environment but An Taisce objected and got away with it at An Bord Pleanála. How can An Taisce justify blocking a young man trying to provide a house on his farm, a farm in north Meath on which his family lived for over 200 years? It was just because a member of An Taisce came down from Dublin 4 and bought a wreck of a house and did it up. It was because he did not want locals living beside him that AnTaisce objected and the objection was upheld. Many members of An Taisce and ABP do not have the interests of ordinary developments at heart.
We changed our development plan and I am glad Galway County Council is doing the same. In the plan one had to be a member of the farming community to get planning permission and I am glad we changed that. It is working well, apart from where An Taisce objects to it, but it is great to see young people involved as we are always talking about people getting a livelihood from farming. I compliment farmers who are providing sites at a reasonable cost - between €25,000 to €40,000 - to young couples. That is giving those young couples a chance to provide a home for themselves. They cannot compete with those selling houses in Dublin and moving to Kells or Oldcastle because those young people are not selling their houses; they are borrowing huge amounts to buy houses.
An Taisce is a disgrace in the way it objects to these young couples. It should be ashamed of itself. In Meath county councillors put enormous effort and time into the county development plan but it was brought through the courts by members of An Taisce. Who is suffering today? The unfortunates who cannot get a disabled person's grant or the elderly who cannot get a door or window replaced. They are suffering because of lack of finance due to Meath County Council paying €500,000 for An Taisce's expenses. The disabled and the less well off are not getting proper services as a result and are suffering. An Taisce must feel very proud of that. Do members of An Taisce ever feel they will grow old or suffer a disability? Such people are suffering because of An Taisce's tactics.
I thank An Taisce for coming in. This has been a constructive meeting and perhaps An Taisce will come in again, as it will be more than welcome. Time constraints will not allow a reply now but will it reply later in person or in writing?
Mr. Corcoran
I will come back and reply.
In the meantime you might refer to the queries which have been raised.
Mr. Corcoran
I have taken note of those queries.
Is that agreeable to members? We are stuck for time.
I want them to come down to west Cork to a public meeting.
That is a matter for the Senator——
With the permission of the Chair, Senator McCarthy and I, both from west Cork but from different political parties, invite Mr. Corcoran to west Cork. A similar invitation was issued at last Monday's meeting of Cork County Council. Will he accept and visit within the next couple of weeks?
Mr. Corcoran
I will indeed and I will come in the e next couple of weeks.
We will discuss the problems and solve them.
Mr. Corcoran
Yes.
On behalf of the committee I thank Mr. Corcoran and Mr. Nix for coming in. I know it was a heated meeting and we all have concerns. You can appreciate the general public elect us to work on their behalf and we are bringing their views to light.
Mr. Nix
On behalf of Mr. Corcoran and myself I thank the committee for this exchange. It has been excellent and constructive for us.
I will give Mr. Nix a job on the farm for a few months.
Please, Senator.
My apologies.
Will Mr. Corcoran correspond with the clerk?
Mr. Corcoran
Yes.