Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht debate -
Tuesday, 25 Nov 2014

Planning and Development in Ireland: Irish Planning Institute

Chairman

I welcome Ms Mary Hughes, president, Mr. Seán O'Leary, Mr. John Spain and Mr. Henk van der Kamp from the Irish Planning Institute and thank them for their attendance.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence.

They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statement and any other document submitted to the committee may be published on its website once the meeting has concluded.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. As they are aware, the committee earlier considered the general scheme of the Planning and Development (No. 1) Bill 2014 and we will revisit the legislation. The delegates' appearance before us is, therefore, timely and I look forward to hearing their views and recommendations. I invite Ms Hughes to make her opening statement.

Ms Mary Hughes

I thank the Chairman and members for giving us the opportunity to brief the joint committee on some of the challenges facing the planning system and planning professionals in ensuring Ireland has a consistent and transparent planning system that is fit for purpose for the next 50 years. Good planning ensures we get the right development in the right place at the right time. It makes a positive difference to people's lives and helps to deliver homes, jobs and better opportunities for all.

I am accompanied by two Irish Planning Institute board members, Mr. John Spain and Mr. Henk van der Kamp, and its executive director, Mr. Seán O’Leary. We submitted to the committee a briefing note detailing three pertinent issues we wished to discuss. I hope the note provides an effective overview of these issues.

By way of background, the Irish Planning Institute was founded in 1975 and will celebrate its 40th birthday next year. It is the all-island professional body representing the majority of professional planners in Ireland and Irish planners working abroad. The institute's mission is simple, namely, to advance planning and ensure we have a planning system that is fit for purpose and operates in the interests of the common good.

I propose, first, to outline the reasons the Irish Planning Institute seeks to continuously raise the standards of planning and the planning profession and professional recognition of planners is important and necessary. We need a planning system in which members of the public can have confidence. This cannot be achieved without a system that is transparent and credible. Planning is a uniquely participatory process. Members of the public, planners, councillors, architects, engineers, developers and local authority managers all have roles to play in the planning process. However, these roles are not clear to the public and are sometimes conflicting.

The term "planner" is randomly used to label and describe all those involved in the planning process, including administrators, lobbyists and members of other professions. This clearly demonstrates that the role, purpose and function of the professional planner are not fully understood, even in some cases by those working within the planning system. We need to repair trust in the system, but this cannot be done without first clearly defining those who work within it. The planning (No. 2) Bill provides an opportunity to create greater clarity around the title of "planner" and emphasise that professional planners are suitably qualified. Such clarification is necessary to ensure members of the public are not misled into believing they are dealing with individuals describing themselves as something they are not. As competent authority under the directive on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Irish Planning Institute is engaging with the Department on fulfilling our obligations to regulate the planning profession.

The second issue I propose to highlight is the need for certainty and consistency in the making of plans and decisions. This is necessary to increase confidence and facilitate investment in development. Ultimately, investors need to know how long the planning process will take, the cost of securing planning permission and whether planning permission that has been secured can be implemented. Much development in previous years was project-led. It is critical that we maintain and promote deliverable plan-led development.

The Irish Planning Institute calls for the planning system and our vision for growth to be underpinned by the successor to the national spatial strategy. A new national planning framework, setting out a spatial vision for the country, is required as a matter of urgency. It must focus on promoting the country's assets and achieving synergies to maximise the potential of the different parts of Ireland. The optimal use of different parts of the country needs to be spatially highlighted. The proposed Government planning policy statement on the aims and purpose of the system is also urgently required.

The final issue we propose to address is the detailed mechanics of the planning system, some of which are likely to be amended in the forthcoming planning (No. 1) Bill. The planning system in Ireland has rigorous timelines and is uniquely participatory. However, as with most systems, there is always room for improvement. For example, An Bord Pleanála's 18 week statutory timeframe needs to be reassessed. Part V negotiations and agreement on the provision of social housing need to be more effective and should be afforded statutory timelines binding on the relevant local authority and developer. Submissions on compliance with conditions need to be effectively dealt with and a statutory timeline afforded to their consideration.

Other issues and mechanisms must also be considered. For instance, consideration should be given to the introduction of certificates of lawfulness of use or development instead of the current section 5 declarations. Furthermore, strategic development zones' planning schemes should be subject to annual review to ensure they can be implemented.

The responsibility does not solely rest with the overseers of the planning system. If the system is to work effectively, consumers must also adapt and show flexibility. The system must adapt to changing circumstances and trends and, above all, increase standards. Developers must be flexible to adapt their developments to ensure the best possible scheme can be implemented to best suit current and future populations.

The planning system can help to underpin economic recovery, without fear of repeating past mistakes and in order that all sectors involved in the built environment can function together in a wider sustainable environment. Last October marked the 50th anniversary of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963. It is timely that we are considering changes to the governing legislation. Debates continue on whether the system has served us well. While we must learn from the past and ensure similar mistakes are not repeated, we must also look to the future. The forthcoming planning Bills provide an opportunity to ensure we have a planning system that is fit for purpose and the best fit to guide development for the next 50 years.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I thank Ms Hughes and her colleagues for coming before the joint committee. One of the main recommendations of the Mahon tribunal was the establishment of an independent planning regulator. Does the Irish Planning Institute have a view on whether this recommendation should be implemented?

Ms Hughes has stated a national planning framework is required to succeed the national spatial strategy. Based on what has emanated from the Department to date, is she hopeful work on developing such a framework is under way?

Zoning in Dublin and larger towns is a widely discussed issue, as is the need to prioritise category 1 and 2 areas. On planning in rural areas, especially the issue of village consolidation, in some counties small amounts of land close to the centre of villages have been zoned. While I consider this to be the correct approach, some planners may frown on the practice on the basis that people should be pushed into larger towns. In approximately 20 villages and ten towns there are rural transport systems in place.

It is easy for people to move about from those villages to the larger towns. It is also about trying to keep those villages sustainable, as there are people living in villages that are closed down and one cannot buy a litre of milk or a sliced pan. This means people are driving five or ten miles to buy daily necessities. Some counties zoned land close to the centre of villages to try to increase population and reduce the dependency on one-off houses beyond the edge of a village. Will the witnesses provide a view on that? A certain amount of this was done in County Laois, and some of it was okay for villages like Clonaslee, Ballyroan and Ballylinan. Some of those developments are well within the immediate vicinity of the village and have helped to make the village more sustainable in some cases.

The size of apartments is an issue that arises repeatedly. There is a view that reducing apartment size or density standards is unlikely to stimulate housing growth, so what is the view of the delegation? I am not an expert but in the few other countries I have visited, apartments seem to be much larger. Balconies in this country tend to look like a small cattle crush fastened to the side of a building. They tend to be made from galvanised iron. If they were on the first storey, they could be used as cattle crushes. They look odd and they do not provide for sustainable family living. Even if one wanted to put out a deck chair or clothes horse on a sunny day, it might not be possible. What is the view of witnesses on apartment sizes?

What do the witnesses think about quality of apartments? Building regulations may not be the domain of the delegation but those regulations allow apartments to be separated by plaster slabs. I know little about construction but I know from experience that if a person is living in an apartment where neighbours are separated by two plaster slabs, there is not much privacy. I remember canvassing in the corridor of a block of apartments and I could hear a radio from four doors away. When the person with the radio opened the door as I called, the radio was not much louder than it had been in the corridor. I have discussed this with officials from the Department but I have been told it is legal. Nevertheless, I have serious concerns. I have seen diagrams of how smoke and flames can be deflected in the event of a fire but I am not convinced such a system is as good as a wall constructed with six-inch or four-inch blocks, let alone nine-inch blocks. This relates to soundproofing, privacy and fire safety. Does the Irish Planning Institute have a view on this? There were chicken boxes built in Portlaoise which sold for up to €250,000, and people were paid to queue overnight to buy some of these obnoxious apartments. People with more money than sense paid those people to stay overnight in order that the apartments could be bought. It is indicative of how we ended up.

Does the IPI have the opinion that we should move towards better quality apartments? I do not have a problem per se with apartments where there is a demand for them, particularly near transport hubs, urban centres and close to employment. I can see the need to work in a sensible fashion in that regard. I saw balconies in Rome which appeared to be a small garden. They seemed to be five metres long and four or five metres wide. They seemed huge but they were not attached to penthouses. The proletariat lived in such apartments. Could we move to such a model? What is the IPI's views on separating dwellings with plaster slabs? In one apartment block, one neighbour had a row with another and put a foot through the wall. I saw the hole in the wall.

Ms Mary Hughes

Deputy Stanley raised a number of issues and I will try to go through them. The first concerned a regulator's office. The IPI wholeheartedly supports the establishment of a regulator and fundamentally believes such a regulator should be independent. If a decision is taken that the regulator would not be independent, there should be complete transparency in the direction and processes under which the regulator would function. It is very important that we have a transparent and credible planning system, and we see the establishment of the office of the planning regulator as a fundamental catalyst in enhancing public confidence in the planning system. The office of the regulator should have and fulfil a research function and role. The housing crisis emanating today indicates a lack of joined-up thinking and research when it comes to housing provision supply and demand, and the regulator's office would also fulfil that important function.

My colleagues will address the issues relating to the national spatial scheme and rural housing, so I will skip to the issue of apartment sizes. The IPI believes we need quality developments and that we cannot compromise standards or afford to go back to the apartment sizes and the lack of quality in developments prevalent in the 1990s. This is exemplified by the shoebox apartments constructed, particularly under the urban renewal schemes in the 1990s. The Department has published minimum apartment sizes which are guidelines to which all local authorities have regard and which they implement. Recently, the media and lobbyists have called for a reduction in those standards. If there is one message we would like to get across today, it is that quality development is of the utmost importance. There is a need for a variety of house types and apartment sizes and it is very important that we ultimately have quality development that can be flexible not only to meet current needs but those which may arise in future.

Mr. Henk van der Kamp will address the other issues.

Mr. Henk van der Kamp

I will respond to the question of what we expect of the next national spatial strategy. We would like to be optimistic but we must be realistic and consider what was contained in the last strategy. We are part of an institute of professional planners dealing with spatial planning. The next spatial strategy, if anything, should be spatial, which means it should be about choice and deciding where things go in the country. It should recognise that some areas have strengths for some types of activities, whereas other areas are particularly suitable for other activities. We welcome explicit and consistent identification of areas for particular purposes. In doing that, synergies can be achieved, as noted in our statement, to maximise the potential of different parts of the island for energy, landscape protection, housing and agriculture and other activities. Very often, land users can work together to provide these kinds of synergies, and this is what should be addressed by the national spatial strategy. In this context, a landscape strategy is essential, along with a coastal management policy for the coastline and foreshore area.

I will address the Deputy's question about rural areas and villages. It is not for the national spatial strategy to dictate which village grows and which does not. That is a matter for a local county council and its county development plan. The planning system should continue to be based on the subsidiarity principle that what can be determined locally should be determined locally.

What the Deputy referred to in terms of smaller villages taking their share in accommodating growth by zoning areas near the centre perhaps is something that would fit into a settlement strategy determined at a local level. We fully support that idea and that principle. We welcome development in villages. The settlement strategy needs to be consistent with the higher level strategies adopted in the regional planning guidelines and ultimately in the national spatial strategy. We sometimes refer to this as the Russian dolls - the planning hierarchy. Local planning needs to fit in with regional planning strategies and the national planning strategies. There is a link between the national spatial strategy and ultimately which village gets disowned. It is just a link of logic, not a link of determination at national level.

Deputy Brian Stanley

In relation to the separation of apartments and the destruction of them, we have seen disengagement and the problems caused at Priory Hall where planning allowed apartments to be constructed without using solid walls to separate one dwelling from the next.

Chairman

Could the witness respond to that point, please?

Ms Mary Hughes

Ultimately it comes back to quality development. The Irish Planning Institute takes a holistic approach in terms of development and quality development. We are not involved in building control. That legislation is separate from planning but overall quality of development would address those issues raised by the Deputy in terms of building materials and suitable standards.

Chairman

I call Deputy Dowds.

Deputy Robert Dowds

I thank the witness for appearing before the committee. I related to much of what Deputy Stanley said and agree wholeheartedly with his remarks about apartments. I think there is a definite place for apartments but the whole idea has not been sold well due to the lack of quality in some of what has been provided. That has partly to do with the construction but also with the whole management system. I come from an area where we have experience of strategic development zones, SDZs, and would be interested to hear the views of the witnesses in terms of their continued usefulness, as I would be broadly in favour of them from what I have seen. That ties in with my second point. It strikes me that to date so much of our planning has been reactive and that there has not really been a plan for a town. I remember walking around the town of Ennis, which I did not know particularly well, about three years ago and being struck by the beauty of its centre. I then moved out to the areas developed since the 1960s, the quality of which was so inferior to the town centre. There is a rather haphazard surround to a beautiful town centre which, sadly, is true of so many places in this country. This means we need a longer term forward-planning approach. Perhaps the witnesses would comment on that in respect of new legislation or changes that ought to be made. I would also be interested in a comment on how we can best deal with the problems of infill in towns and cities from Dublin to smaller towns around the country and how the areas that are becoming derelict can be turned around. I am sure the witnesses would agree that it would be far better that those areas be occupied rather than driving people further out.

Chairman

Ms Hughes to respond please.

Ms Mary Hughes

I might pass to my colleague, Mr. John Spain, to address the issue of SDZs.

Mr. John Spain

The Irish Planning Institute would have a view that SDZs provide an improved framework over other planning mechanisms for a more holistic approach to development of large scale new areas. Obvious examples of that are in south Dublin, such as Adamstown which has worked to a point and is now being revised to try to get it going again within the current context. That is highlighted in terms of new legislation. Some improvements are needed to address the lack of flexibility in SDZs. There is a need for a much better co-ordinated and joined-up approach. They need to be able to change as circumstances change. One legislative amendment that is required is to have a fast-track mechanism for bringing forward amendments to planning schemes. At the moment there is no mechanism for an amendment; one has to go through the same process as in drawing up a planning scheme for a strategic development zone. That is an issue the Department is looking at under Construction 2020 and we welcome that.

Another key issue that needs to be addressed is the role of An Bord Pleanála because there is no third party role in appeal rights, or even first party appeal rights, within planning applications within a strategic development zone. The appeal process on the planning scheme is very important. At the moment the board has a very limited role because it is restricted by the 2010 Act to making only minor changes to planning schemes. Therefore, there is a danger that we end up with schemes that are, perhaps, sub-optimum in the board’s view because it is unable to take on board the submissions made by interested parties during the process and translate those into decisions involving amendments, other than minor amendments to the scheme. The board’s role is very much confined to minor issues and it needs to be addressed.

Deputy Robert Dowds

Not at the beginning. I was a councillor in South Dublin County Council where we had a dispute with the council about the development of Clonburris SDZ, which still has not happened. It ended up going before a hearing that involved An Bord Pleanála and it was able to overturn quite a number of decisions the council made. I think that what some of the councillors want is going to be achieved because of the changed circumstances in the country. As an elected representative, I was very annoyed that it could overturn decisions we made.

Mr. John Spain

It could do that at that time but not now. As there is no appeal process later on, it is important that the issues can be addressed fully in the plan making scheme and the board has the ability to change the scheme if it is considered necessary, having heard all the evidence from the different parties. If it is of that view, it should be able to make that change and, obviously, it would have to have regard to the view of the council in deciding what is the appropriate change. In terms of implementation, these are complex and large scale areas. Ms Hughes mentioned the need for an annual review process within SDZs to review how the scheme is working and to see what changes are needed as it is being implemented, particularly in rapidly changing economic circumstances. Linked to that is the planning scheme and the funding process for development levies. There should be a much closer tie-in between the section 48 development levies and the planning scheme. Those levies raised within a planning scheme area should be spent within that area to provide the facilities in communities for the new development area itself and should be ring-fenced.

Ms Mary Hughes

On the Deputy’s question on derelict and vacant sites within town and village centres, it is a challenge in terms of advancing or promoting those sites for-----

Deputy Robert Dowds

It is a problem in Dublin where it should not be a problem.

Ms Mary Hughes

One of the problems with derelict sites is that much of the time they are complicated by their title. Derelict sites is an area of the legislation which probably has not been advanced or used very well by local authorities. The derelict sites levy is in place. I do not know the exact returns in terms of the levy but my experience of the system would suggest that the levy is not utilised or effectively utilised. Also the local authority has powers in respect of CPOs.

Perhaps a way of advancing the issue of derelict sites, particularly those sites which are scarred by bad title, would be for the local authorities to place CPOs on those sites and sell them on with a clean title. Vacant and derelict sites need to be actively promoted, particularly by local authorities, so that we have an active management process in terms of promoting their development. This active management process could include reduced development contributions, as advocated under the development contribution scheme, and other incentives to try to stimulate redevelopment.

I will now pass over to my colleague, Mr. van der Kamp, to deal with the issue of effective plan-led development and the changes required in legislation for this.

Mr. Henk van der Kamp

We need forward planning and to set out where and how an area should grow spatially in terms of roads and housing. This is done in a county development plan, but more likely through a local area plan, which is already included in current legislation. We suggest strongly that we should provide for more of this in the new planning Bill. In other words, we should have more local area plans and more forward planning for an area before development takes place and even before the pressures arise. We should think about how the area should develop and set that out in writing in a clear plan.

We should also minimise the procedural obstacles afterwards for the implementation of the plan. This is where the development sector comes in. A plan of itself is not the implementation. The implementation happens through developers submitting proposals, coming together and making development contributions which will facilitate the infrastructure. Our institute has observed that some obstacles to development could be removed, for example, in terms of length of planning application procedures, development contribution impediments, phasing and clarity of conditions attached to planning permissions. In other words, we must try to minimise the obstacles. Once a decision has been made in accordance with the plan, the development should go ahead.

We would like to emphasise that there are advantages and benefits for society in adopting a plan-led rather than a development-led approach. A development-led approach is one where the planning system responds to project proposals from developers in an ad hoc manner. This does not necessarily mean it makes bad decisions, but it deals with each application on its own. A plan-led approach lays down a framework for development so that the development sector has certainty and predictability. This does not only apply to housing development, but also to wind energy products, industrial and commercial development, etc. Our planning system provides for much of this already, but there is room for significant improvement in regard to the implementation phase and planning permission.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The Irish Planning Institute presentation commenced by saying there has been some confusion in regard to planning and that although people tend to talk about the area as a combined entity, there are separate roles and many different players. I understand that as I have spent many days trying to explain to people how things are done. It is obvious significant work needs to be done on various levels.

I believe we need forward planning. The national spatial strategy is a critical part of the hierarchy. When the regional planning guidelines knitted into the national spatial strategy, this produced a change in culture within the local authorities. I noticed a major change in culture within Kildare County Council when people fitted into that more strategic approach. However, does the institute accept that we cannot have a purely spatial strategy and that there must be some sort of dovetailing with the national development plan? Large initiatives, such as transportation planning, must dovetail if we are to have rational planning. Should these planning strategies happen in conjunction with each other?

The sequence of events is important. I find it frustrating that some of the other legislation required, such as the building control Bill, the planning (No. 2) Bill and Bills such as the one I produced seeking greater transparency, have not been passed. People would be astounded if they looked back at what happened in 2008 and realised that we have not spent the intervening years getting what went wrong right before the construction industry kicked off again. I do not believe we are anywhere near getting it right. We are now back at the point of looking at introducing incentives for developers. I find this incredibly frustrating. We tend to make our decisions at a crisis point which is part of the reason for criticism of decisions, such as on the size of apartments now that we have a housing shortage. The industry will obviously argue its own corner and explain how it can do more for less and how more money can be made from development. However, we are constantly making decisions at a time of crisis, rather than planning ahead to prevent a crisis.

I want to address a number of specific issues. In the new (No. 1) Bill, it is proposed there will be a register of planning permissions and if they are not taken up within three years, they will expire. This is to reduce the length of time and before development commences and to ensure people do not sit on land. This is fine, provided all the elements required to develop the land stack up, including water and wastewater treatment systems and so on. The issue is not as simple as dealing with people sitting on planning permissions granted.

We also need to have a compliance register in regard to enforcement notices. This must happen at national level because of the movement of people who are non-compliant from one area to another. I am aware of the time, effort and energy that goes into compliance in planning departments, such as taking issues relating to warning or enforcement notices as far as the courts. It is unbelievable that we do not use this information at national level. I am curious to hear the institute's views on that. I believe we should reward good behaviour. Good developers who do not engage in bad practice are not rewarded, because there is no overall overview of the situation and non-compliant bad developers can move from one area to another. Therefore, sequence is important.

The institute mentioned Part V and the conditions in this are to be changed in the (No. 1) Bill. I have some concerns about this. How would the institute like to see the provisions for this stated in legislation? Will the witnesses flesh out its views on timelines and so on? I believe a real mess has been made of the issue of development contributions. For example, a circular issued in December 2013 more or less told local authorities they could not apply water or wastewater development contributions, because these were now the function of Irish Water. Now, Irish Water does not have that function and this critical income source is compromised, at least for 12 months. What role does the institute see for development contributions? These contributions vary throughout the country. Do the contributions need to be rationalised? The cost of building a water or wastewater facility or a road will not vary significantly from one part of the country to another.

I am curious about that. We are now at a point where we are discussing reducing development contributions to stimulate development. What do the witnesses think their functions should be? The 2006 Act on strategic development dealt with major infrastructural projects. An Bord Pleanála deals with that. I have no problem with that if it is the Luas. However, there are matters such as wind farms, for example, where technology and information have moved on since 2006. We are facing a situation where guidelines will be produced but the applications will be made before that, so people are shooting in the dark when making the application. Do the witnesses think matters such as that should be positioned more at local government level, where there is an appeals mechanism? Does that Act go too far and does it weaken the position for the public in terms of not having an appeals mechanism on something like that and where the technology is changing? That has become a real bone of contention.

Ms Mary Hughes

Deputy Murphy raised a number of issues. With regard to her observations about confusion within the system and, indeed, relating to the correlation between strategic infrastructure plans, such as the national development plan, county development plans and regional plans, the Irish Planning Institute has long been calling for publication of the Government’s planning policy statement setting out the aims and objectives of the planning system and how that can affect different provisions within different Departments. We understand from the Department that the planning policy statement is in train. We consider it quite urgent at this stage because we fundamentally believe that the work of Irish Water or of the Office of Public Works regarding flood mapping and the provision of infrastructure flood protection measures should be influenced by planning and should be aligned to the objectives of, for example, settlement strategy. Without that planning policy statement the public is not aware of the importance of planning, the objectives of the planning system and where planning and other provisions should be aligned. That is one important aspect. We agree that items such as the national development plan, the national spatial strategy and other development plans must all be in line and synchronised together.

Regarding the register of planning permissions the Deputy mentioned and the indication that they might just be retained for a period of three years, it takes a long time for a potential project to evolve. It takes a long time for it to advance through the planning system and then a long time to be implemented in terms of compliance with planning conditions and addressing certain key infrastructure. The Deputy made those points. One issue that must be seriously examined within the planning Bill, and we referred to it in our opening statement, is compliance with conditions attached to a planning permission and the length of time it is taking for planning authorities to issue compliance with those conditions. It can take anything from one month to eight months to secure compliance with planning conditions, and it is issues such as these which are an obstacle in the system to implementing development on the ground.

The Irish Planning Institute wholeheartedly supports the provisions of Part V, particularly the emphasis on the provision of social housing. There are indications that the Part V provision focusing on social housing might be reduced from 20% to 10%. Looking at the current system and at how we could potentially improve it, there are difficulties in the system in terms of reaching agreement on the level of Part V that is to be provided. There is no doubt that securing legal agreement on any development issue can take a huge amount of time. However, at present, it is quite an impediment, and it has been in the past, to delivering infrastructure projects on the ground. There must be some mechanism for negotiating Part V agreements. They must be embedded in some form of statutory timeline process to ensure that the matters can be dealt with in a timely and effective manner.

There are pros and cons as to whether the Part V proposal should be dealt with pre-planning or post-planning. There are merits in it being dealt with pre-planning from the point of view that one plans for the social housing provision as part of one’s planning application and one gets the house type and size right. However, progressing and negotiating a Part V agreement pre-planning will involve time delays. It is another bureaucratic system or process that one will have to deal with before lodging for planning. That is a time constraint in itself. If one does it post-planning permission or when the planning permission is issued, one can address the Part V issue when one is dealing with compliance with other conditions associated with one’s planning permission. There can be a time saving there. The difficulty, of course, is that it could be a case that a planning permission has been issued that is perhaps not suitable for the purposes of social housing or for the social need of that particular area.

Another issue relating to Part V that probably requires consideration is to provide more definite notice of the requirements in advance of any potential developer coming to the table. Indeed, DKM undertook a report on the Part V process and it consulted the public in that regard. One of its recommendations was that perhaps we could identify and have more clearly defined areas within development plans where a specific social housing need was required or particular housing types were required.

The objective of Part V should be to create greater clarity in the system in terms of what is provided and therefore to encourage and facilitate the process as much as possible, as opposed to becoming a burdensome issue. We have concerns about other issues and how they will be addressed, for example, if the 10% social housing is a mandatory provision, how that will be applied to smaller schemes and how it will work out. There must be some element of flexibility within the system for it to be implementable on the ground, but there is certainly no easy solution to it.

I will ask my colleagues to reply on development contributions.

Mr. John Spain

We agree that further work must be done to improve the operation of the development contribution system. It is fundamentally a sound principle, but it has been in place for approximately ten years and we must review how it works in practice. There has been a review of the level at which development levies are set throughout the country and there are now lower levels, but many planning permissions were granted when the levels were higher and at levels which make development unviable. One of the provisions in the new planning Bill is that the new levels would apply retrospectively and we certainly support that. It must happen. It would enable planning permissions to be activated and help to deliver housing supply in the short term.

There must also be greater consistency throughout the country as there is considerable inconsistency, as the Deputy said. There must also be a more sophisticated approach to levies in terms of looking at different types of development more carefully. Many local authorities have a single levy for commercial development, for example. The ability to sustain such a levy is very different for a town centre retail scheme as opposed to a large floor plate industrial scheme.

Levies need to be more sophisticated and consider the types and locations of development. Levies should be applied and ring-fenced to provide the infrastructure and community and transport facilities they are designed to provide, not go into a general pool of expenditure. There should be very clear tracking between the levies collected and their expenditure on providing the infrastructure and community facilities they are designed to provide.

Mr. Henk van der Kamp

As Deputy Catherine Murphy said, there are many advantages and one can accept the way it works. However, the institute expressed concern when the Bill was introduced to transfer decision making from a local authority to An Bord Pleanála. One of the concerns we had at the time was that the board was changing its role. In the context of developing wind farm technology, it is a valid point and ties in with the plan-led argument. If county development plans are clear and there is a clear acknowledgement of infrastructure requirement, there is no reason infrastructure cannot be dealt with at local authority level.

Senator Cáit Keane

Some of my questions have been asked. The witnesses are very welcome. When we were discussing who would come in to discuss the new planning Bill, I made sure the IPI's name was included as a priority. Given that there have been 50 years of modern Irish planning since the last Planning Act, it is time for a new Bill. The witnesses referred to the term “planner” and the need to ensure everybody is qualified. University qualification is the academic requirement. Is continuous professional development the only side the witnesses want to put into legislation? The witnesses mentioned the optimal use of different parts of the country to maximise the island's potential, and much of that already happens under planning regulations in various development plans. I know the landscape strategy, and witnesses' suggestion that energy infrastructure for renewable energy would be mandatory in any future development plans is a good recommendation.

The witnesses elaborated on Part 5, and it is the most important part, particularly with the homeless numbers and the housing situation. Could the witnesses identify one thing we should be doing now to speed up the process that would put houses on the ground, particularly social housing and housing for the homeless? The statutory provision requiring planning authorities to resolve compliance submissions within a specific timeframe should be put in place. Each planning authority should have a time limit in which to enforce compliance. Personnel in the local authorities should be designated to do the enforcement. Local authorities fall down on enforcement.

The witnesses recommended that certificates of lawfulness of use of development be introduced. What would they cover? The planning review of various local authorities that reported in 2012 made 12 specific recommendations. Mr. van der Kamp did an independent review of the review and rejected some of the recommendations. It is important to hear them. One recommendation with which he disagreed was the requirement that developers be banned from making local area plans. Everybody should be involved in some way in making local area plans, because everybody brings different knowledge, including the community, developer and planner. Could Mr. van der Kamp comment on the proposal that developers be banned from making local area plans? It is not in his document today but in his review of the 2012 planning review.

Deputy Michelle Mulherin

I welcome the IPI members and thank them for their presentation. Could they critique the national spatial strategy in light of the aspirations and ideas behind gateways and hubs? How effective has it been? What has it meant for the towns and cities that have been so designated? North of a line from Louth to Galway, there are no motorways, there is poorer connectivity and there has been less investment in towns over the lifetime of our national spatial strategy. To what extent have we achieved balanced regional development since the Celtic tiger when money was spent on infrastructure? What might the witnesses change about the designation of towns as gateways and hubs? What could we do to accelerate the sort of development we would like to see in these areas? What can be done to redress the imbalance? I am from County Mayo.

It is an aspiration that all planning would dovetail. We constantly refer to our Food Harvest 2020 targets, which aim to ramp up agricultural production. Much of it is based on our pasture land for feeding our animals, which is unique to us. On the other hand, we have energy targets for electricity and energy crops. Although I have not seen it seriously happen, in my home county people are being encouraged to grow willow for the generation of electricity. On the other hand, we want more cattle and are abolishing the dairy quota next year. To what extent have these competing interests been examined? What are the guiding principles? Is it purely over to the Government of the day, or can there be a more rounded approach? Have any of the Departments examined how to deal with competing interests, what it might mean and who might have to cut back on their objectives? Maybe that will not have to happen. In my constituency, these interests seem to compete and it seems to be a matter of choice for each farmer.

Mr. Seán O'Leary

IPI members must have academic qualifications in planning from one of the accredited planning schools, and to become a full member, MIPI, they are assessed on their competence and experience.

They require an academic qualification in planning from one of the accredited planning schools and, to become a full member of the IPI, an assessment of their competence and experience. Currently, a person can describe himself or herself as a planner and provide planning services but not be a member of any institute and not necessarily have any education in planning. This means there is no consistency in terms of standard of knowledge or ethics. All our members are subject to a code of ethics and continuous professional development, which we believe are important for high quality professionals. It is important planners have a good grounding in the discipline and that they keep up to date in what is an ever-changing part of public policy on a national and European level.

Non-members who operate as planners cannot be disciplined for unethical behaviour. We believe that a lack of standards across the board has hampered proper planning and planning outcomes. None of what we are proposing would stop these people from providing planning services but it would clarify for the public that they are dealing with people who are not professional planners, in particular in the context of CPD.

In regard to what might change, it is important to reiterate that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the profession and local authorities have developed a suite of guidelines for sustainable communities, urban and road design and so on. There is a strong body of best practice guidelines for local authorities and An Bord Pleanála to draw on. A great deal of time has been spent on ensuring that permissions will lead to better outcomes and longer-term sustainable development. I will hand over to my colleague to respond on the other issues of compliance and NSS.

Mr. John Spain

In regard to compliance and other measures to speed up the process in terms of delivering on housing and getting houses built, there are more than enough lands zoned in the greater Dublin area than is required to meet housing needs for the next four years. There are also sufficient planning permissions but these are not being implemented. There are a number of measures set out in Construction 2020 which should be incorporated into the planning Bill as well as into policy. We would generally support those measures which will help speed up the delivery of housing. There are many issues arising outside planning. Issues such as financing, funding, resourcing and the ability of developers to build houses also need to be addressed. These are also dealt with in other parts of Construction 2020.

On compliance, we have highlighted this as an area that needs to be properly codified and speeded up in terms of the timescale within which decisions are made. We would agree with the view that there has been a long-standing gap in planning practice in that enforcement has always fallen far short of what it should be. There have been some improvements in this area in the past five to ten years but enforcement still falls short of what it should be. This is primarily down to the resourcing of planning departments to ensure priority is given to enforcement matters. If planning is not enforced, it loses its effectiveness.

In terms of certificates of lawfulness, this concept arises from a need to tidy up gaps and failures in existing legislation to provide people with a mechanism whereby they can obtain certainty as to whether something they propose to do in terms of development is compliant with planning or even requires planning permission. It is important there is a clear decision in that regard, on which people can rely. Currently, this is addressed by way of section 5 certificates. However, some difficulties have arisen in that while a land owner could obtain from a local authority a section 5 certificate in respect of a proposed development another party can make an application in respect of the same development to the local authority and then appeal that to the board, the result being a contrary decision. This means there can be two contrary decisions on one matter, which leads to uncertainty for people. The legislation was never intended to be used in this way and so it needs to be tidied up. The way to address this is, we suggest, through certificates of lawfulness in respect of a proposed use or development. This would also address the issue of a use which has been in existence for more than seven years and is beyond enforcement. It is not possible to enforce against a development after seven years unless it is in breach of a condition on use. This means that because such developments are not lawful but cannot be enforced against the situation remains in limbo. A certificate of lawfulness would enable that to be tidied up and would again provide certainty to people in making a decision in respect of a property investment.

On local area plans, these should of course be prepared by the planning authority rather than developers. There are cases where developers have prepared plans. This arises because of resource failings within the local authority. It is important local authorities have the resources to prepare plans. Obviously, the local authorities are the statutory bodies responsible for such plans.

Mr. Henk van der Kamp

Ms Hughes has asked me to respond to the Senator Keane's question, although I do so not wearing my IPI hat. The reason for that conclusion in the report was based on the distinction between the preferred preparation of a draft plan and the making of a plan. The making of the plan is the function of the local authority. The preparation of the plan should be undertaken by the local authority personnel but when this is not possible it may be pragmatic to have consultancy provided. Effectively, the conclusion was that there is no basic reason that cannot be provided by a developer on behalf of the authority. However, as I said, the making of the development plan is the function of the local authority.

On the question regarding balanced regional development and the national spatial strategy, as an institute we believe this is a matter of choice. Planning is about making choices and that is often difficult. However, it is the reality. To make the gateway cities work in any spatial strategy there must be consistency and a concentration of resources in those areas and on development. Looking back over the national spatial strategy, that was not always done in a consistent manner, which would have weakened the strategy somewhat. Any future spatial strategy should anticipate those difficulties and build into it a framework to ensure that is addressed. As stated earlier in our submission, we believe a national spatial strategy should not be solely about gateway cities and towns rather it should also be about the use of different parts of the country for different types of use. This ties in with the comment in relation to the food versus biomass issue. Again, this about choice. We have so many acres of land and must make choices about how we use it. This is a very good example of the link between sectoral planning and spatial planning. The Green Paper on Energy addresses the issue of whether biomass should be used for energy purposes. That will have spatial consequences. It is a sectoral decision with spatial consequences. I believe a national spatial strategy will also have to take a view on this because it affects counties like Mayo and other parts of Ireland. It is ultimately a balancing of the interests of agriculture, food production, the benefits that biomass can bring to our energy palette. It is important these issues are addressed in a national spatial strategy, which is tied in with the sectoral strategy one energy. That is an example of how the sectoral and spatial should interact.

Chairman

I thank the Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Spain, Ms Hughes and Mr. van der Kamp for attending today's meeting.

Sitting suspended at 3.50 p.m. and resumed at 16.05 p.m.