Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Tuesday, 24 Jun 2008

Vol. 190 No. 6

Planning and Development Regulations 2008: Motion.

On 19 June 2008 the Dáil made the following order:

That the proposal that Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:

The Planning and Development Regulations 2008,

copies of which were laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 16th June, 2008, be referred to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in accordance with paragraph (2) of the Orders of Reference of that Committee, which, not later than 26 June, 2008, shall send a message to the Dáil in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 87, and Standing Order 86(2) shall accordingly apply.

The Seanad made a similar order.

The committee will now proceed to consider the proposal. I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, and his officials for the purpose of assisting our consideration of the proposal. I also thank the Department for providing briefing material in advance, which was circulated with the text of the motion for members. I invite the Minister to make his presentation.

It is nice to be back before the committee. I thank members for agreeing to meet this afternoon to discuss the amendments to the planning code set out in the draft Planning and Development Regulations 2008. These proposals essentially provide for changes to the planning exemptions in the 2001 planning regulations in a number of areas, principally that of renewable technologies.

The implementation of key areas of national policy such as the national spatial strategy, the national development plan, the White Paper on energy and the climate change strategy is entirely dependent on the efficiency of our strategic and forward planning process. At a more local level, our modes of transport, the way we power our homes and places of work, the quality of local community and recreational facilities, the provision of educational facilities and the delivery of high quality and environmentally sustainable infrastructure are also dependent upon on the effectiveness and quality of our planning consent process.

It is clear, therefore, that we need to continually consider ways of streamlining the planning framework and, where possible, achieve a better alignment with key national policy objectives. The amendments to the planning and development regulations I am presenting to the committee achieve the twin objectives of removing unnecessary regulatory burden, where possible, and, perhaps more significantly, facilitating the implementation of key areas of national policy such as energy and climate change.

The proposals build on our shared vision for a low-carbon society. Exempting certain renewable technologies from planning permission requirements for industrial buildings, business premises and agricultural holdings is the latest instalment of a package of measures I have taken or planned since I took office in order to address climate change through the planning system. The other measures include: the new part L building regulations I published last December, which are designed to achieve, on average, at least a 40% reduction in primary energy consumption and a 40% reduction in related CO2 emissions — these regulations will be revised again in 2010 to achieve a 60% target in further years and it is my goal to reach a position of zero carbon emissions as quickly as possible thereafter; draft guidelines on sustainable residential development in urban areas, which I issued for public consultation last February and which recommend the use of passive solar design in new housing layouts, including the appropriate orientation and internal layouts of individual dwellings; and draft guidelines on the planning system and flood risk, which I will issue for public consultation in the summer. All submissions received will be analysed with a view to examining current exemptions in the planning code such as, for example, exemptions relating to the paving of front gardens.

The changes to part L of the building regulations are supplemented by the requirements of the building energy rating, BER, system, which will provide clear information on the energy efficiency of a building. The BER system and the renewable technology proposals contained in the regulations will help encourage individuals and companies to improve energy efficiency in their homes and buildings and, by doing so, secure significant savings in energy costs over time.

On a slightly different but related note, my Department, in conjunction with the OPW, is also preparing more comprehensive guidance on flooding and the planning system for publication later this year. These guidelines will put in place a systematic approach to integrating flood risk into the planning process, building upon the long-standing acknowledgement in legislation that this is an important planning issue. The guidelines will also be important in adapting to the reality of climate change, which requires us to be even more vigilant in ensuring that risks of flooding into the future are integrated into the planning process. It is intended that, following an analysis of submissions received, relevant exemptions in the current planning code will be examined. I refer, for example, to exemptions relating to the paving of front gardens.

The level of interest in renewable technologies has grown in Ireland in recent years. Sustainable Energy Ireland, the body with responsibility for promoting renewable technologies, has recorded a substantial increase in activity in the sector. This is not surprising when one considers the abundance of renewable energy resources available in Ireland. These offer sustainable alternatives to our dependency on fossil fuels, as well as a means of reducing harmful greenhouse emissions and opportunities to reduce our reliance on imported fuels.

The proposals before the committee are based on an examination of the planning implications of renewable technologies for these sectors that was carried out last year. The outcome of the Department's intensive research was a public consultation process last October. The consultation paper set out a number of recommendations on how various renewable energy technologies could be dealt with by the planning code. More than 50 submissions were received over the three-month consultation period and almost all of the respondents indicated support for the introduction of planning exemptions for the renewables as a means of encouraging wider uptake. Within the overall support for the broad approach proposed, a wide range of views was submitted for consideration. As a result, the draft regulations, as they now stand, have been revised significantly on the basis of the arguments put forward by respondents.

Exemptions are proposed in respect of five classes of renewable technology, namely, combined heat and power, wind turbines, solar panels, heat pumps and biomass, as well as met masts, which are an essential prerequisite for decisions on potential locations for wind energy developments. Certain conditions will apply in each case to ensure the right balance is struck between, on the one hand, maximising the impact of the regulations on uptake of renewable energy and, on the other, adequately addressing the potential impacts on visual amenity and safety considerations.

Ireland's rapidly growing population continues to present fresh challenges in meeting the needs of new communities in planning and development and the provision of necessary physical and social infrastructure. The planning system, for its part, plays a critical role in anticipating future development and co-ordinating the provision of the essential supporting infrastructure. Transport, water services, schools and amenity and community facilities are provided through the actions of the planning authorities, investment programmes of Departments and agencies and the private sector.

The developing areas initiative, driven by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Finneran, is an innovative and refreshing response to the challenge of joined-up government and integrated delivery of infrastructure and services. We are all agreed that new developments need to be more than just the provision of houses. The integration of schools, community facilities, employment, transport and amenities with the housing development process in a timely, cost-effective and sustainable manner is essential.

A practical example of this joined-up approach is the forthcoming code of practice on the provision of schools and the planning system. The code will contain best practice guidance aimed at further ensuring the planning system facilitates the timely and cost-effective roll-out of school facilities by the Department of Education and Science in line with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development. It encourages and facilitates early engagement in catering for future school demand within the development plan process, identifies and secures, through interaction and information sharing with local authorities, the most appropriate sites for schools to ensure sustainable access and efficient use of land, and develops key liaisons at central and local level to provide for an efficient exchange of information and help to resolve difficulties as they arise.

Building on guidance provided in the June 2007 development plan guidelines, the code of practice outlines the principles and scope for integrating schools provision with the development plan process. In particular, it links anticipated levels of demand for school places with housing strategies and the provision of large-scale residential developments. It also creates a clear linkage between the objective for the provision of schools with the current guidelines used by the Department of Education and Science on school accommodation.

The aim is to ensure planning authorities engage and co-ordinate with the Department of Education and Science at the earliest opportunity regarding future provision of schools and their requirements before land is zoned or rezoned for substantial residential development. In this regard, the code of practice will be built around three core objectives. First, schools provision should be an integral part of the evolution of compact sustainable urban development and the development of sustainable communities. Second, the provision of any new school should be driven by and emerge from an integrated approach between the planning functions of planning authorities and the Department of Education and Science. Third, planning authorities will support the Department of Education and Science in their responsibility for planning and developing schools including, where required or requested, to act as agents in procuring sites.

The Government has made significant progress in increasing and modernising the stock of school accommodation. Under the previous national development plan, more than €2.6 billion was invested in school development, delivering more than 7,800 projects. However, under the current NDP, funding of €4.5 billion has been allocated for this purpose over the lifetime of the plan. The code of practice will help to maximise the return on what, in effect, constitutes the largest investment programme in schools in the history of the State. It will be issued in the form a joint policy statement on the provision of schools and the planning system, to be published shortly by me, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Finneran, and the Minister for Education and Science under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

It is within the wider context of this joint policy statement that I am introducing exemptions to expedite the provision of minor school development works and temporary school facilities. Specifically, the exemption from the requirement to obtain planning permission for small extensions to existing schools is similar to the approach taken to small extensions for domestic dwellings. In addition, temporary school facilities are being proposed, subject to certain conditions and time balance safeguards as set out in the draft regulations. The exemptions recognise the importance of immediate and quality solutions to accommodation issues while also providing for permanent remedies.

The proposals regarding demolition provide for a reversal of the existing demolition exemption to give greater clarity as to what is to be considered exempt from planning permission requirements. At present, subject to a small number of exceptions, demolition works are generally exempted from the requirement to obtain planning permission. In some circumstances, a developer can carry out works in reliance on the exemption without any reference to the planning authority. This is the position even if the demolition works are carried out in advance of development requiring an environmental impact assessment.

Essentially, it is proposed that demolition of a house or other structure without planning permission may not take place unless it meets certain conditions on size. The changes also include a condition prohibiting application of the exemption in cases where the demolition is associated with future development for the purposes of section 176 of the Planning and Developing Acts, that is, prescribed classes of development requiring assessment of effects on the environment.

The opportunity is being taken to address a gap in Ireland's transposition of the EIA directive by inserting a provision in Schedule 5 to the regulations to provide for inclusion of certain standalone private roads as a class of development to which the requirement of the EIA regulations shall apply.

Essentially, while private roads generally form part of wider developments which themselves may require EIA — a housing development, for example — this requirement currently does not apply to private standalone roads. In reality, there are very few such roads and, for the most part, these require planning permission. However, this amendment will address EC concerns which are the subject of current infringement proceedings.

The exemptions relating to renewable technologies will help ensure a faster and more widespread uptake of such technologies. In turn, this will underpin the development of a long-term renewable energy market while enabling more people to play their part in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

In light of what I said, early approval by the Oireachtas is necessary to allow Ireland to develop alternative, secure and sustainable energy supply sources, and in particular to continue to step up efforts to meet the challenge of tackling climate change by lowering greenhouse gas emissions. I propose to keep these provisions under review to ensure their effectiveness.

The other exemptions regarding schools are part of an overall package aimed at providing school accommodation where and when it is needed within the strategic investment framework for sustainable community development. I commend the regulations to the committee and look forward to a full and detailed discussion.

I will open the floor to questions.

I welcome the Minister. As every other member of the committee would agree, the document before us is extensive. It is written in such a fashion that one would almost need to be a planner to read it. With its subsections, it is almost like the granting of a planning permission with conditions.

There are a number of matters arising from the presentation given by the Minister. Unfortunately, as the statutory instrument he is proposing reads like a Bill, it would have assisted the committee to have had a concurrent explanatory document taking us through the different aspects. It is written in planning legalese and it is quite hard to interpret. I have a series of questions for the Minister on it. It will become legislation — these are not guidelines — so it is very critical we understand what is being put through the committee. Given that this measure will remove the requirement for a planning application from some developments, where does it measure itself against the public participation directive?

The measure also covers commercial development, which brings its own needs and agenda. What is the scope of what is being presented? Some aspects, such as having schools do environmental projects, might be welcome. Having the private sector engage in environmental projects is an entirely different matter. What exactly are we exempting in that area?

Can the Deputy clarify that question?

I will come back to it. The Minister's briefing note refers to the private sector engaging in some of the exempted areas. What sort of private developments would be included in this measure? Would they include bio-mass locations, windmills or turbines?

A planning application does not stand alone. Associated issues come with it. The Minister, in his presentation, allows the possibility of a school adding a minor extension. That would not be a simple planning issue of bricks and mortar or even of the aesthetic question of how the extended building would look. Such an extension might also affect parking, access, traffic and a number of other areas. Local authorities are now protecting what they call "vistas", that is, the views of historical buildings within local authority areas. Slapping an extension on to a school is an incorrect reading of what a planning application is.

We should not divorce planning from due process. The difficulty is not with the process of planning but with the time planning applications take in An Bord Pleanála, which can be as long as ten months. Since the introduction of the strategic development part of the planning Act a whole host of applications are coming before An Bord Pleanála and we are seeing further delays.

The Minister has an ideological, but not a rational, position on planning. Exempting renewable energy technologies from planning requirements is an ideological measure.

Deputy, please frame your contribution in the form of questions. I invited questions.

Enforcement is the key question in any process. A householder who complains to his local authority about a neighbour who has built a back kitchen with, perhaps, an overhanging roof will be told that the addition of a back kitchen does not require planning permission and the complaint will be dismissed. Such a householder may be forced to take his neighbour to court to resolve the matter.

How does the Minister see his proposed measure being enforced? A person who has a difficulty with one of these developments cannot complain to his local planning authority because the developments are exempted from planning regulations. Must such a person resort to a civil action? There is already a difficulty with exempted development. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on those matters.

Does the Minister wish to take a few questions?

I will take a few.

I welcome the emphasis on planning in what we are discussing this evening. Planning issues are frustrating public representatives, local authorities and national Government. Planning has been very ineffective and low level. We have had many plans but very little planning, particularly in the case of the national spatial strategy.

I welcome the renewable energy technologies element of the package to ease planning restrictions but I would like the Minister to put more money into greener home schemes and the various schemes local authorities implement on behalf of the Department. Those grant schemes should have assisted older people and those with disabilities in older houses to insulate their houses properly but only 20% of the demand for such schemes are being financed at local government level. There will be a long waiting list and the Minister's priority should be to provide funds. At the moment one gets a refund of two thirds from the Department or local authorities for various housing schemes but the Department is running out of money, judging by the recent allocation made by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, with responsibility for housing.

Can the Minister clarify the exemption of met. masts for wind energy purposes? Does this mean collocation? What is the definition of "temporary structure" and how long is temporary in regard to met. masts? How long does the Minister mean by "temporary" in the case of schools? Temporary accommodation for schools will turn out to be more permanent than temporary, judging by the recent ESRI report in the media today. It is fine to suggest this is a panacea for various communities but the devil will be in the detail of how the projects are funded by the Department of Education and Science. I always thought there was a planning unit in the Department but maybe they were not too busy planning. They may have been too busy writing letters for various elections relating to schools, but we will have to wait some time for those to come to fruition.

Where stands the national development plan in the context of the provision of the infrastructural facilities of which the Minister speaks, such as water, sewerage services and school provision? The figures he mentioned are now historical, according to what we read today. Is there a proposal by his colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, to bring back the devolution programme and summer work schemes, both of which were downgraded or abolished in some cases, to make it easier for the boards of management of schools to gain approval more quickly and easily?

What funding is available for the developing areas initiative? What is the funding likely to be?

Under flooding guidelines the possibility of exemption is being examined for paving front gardens but it appears only to be applicable where the gardens fall inwards. The Minister says the paving of front gardens might be exempt and it might well be a good thing to pave a garden which falls inwards and to have sump pits to take the water away. What if they fall outwards? Many people are paving their front gardens to take their cars off the road, which is commendable. Are such matters relevant to the issue of flooding?

That is what I want to clarify. In my area two gardens a week are being paved over because paving is exempt from planning permission requirements. Hard surfaces create more run-off which leads to flooding and to real difficulties.

The intention is the opposite to my interpretation.

Yes. I am sure the Chairman, like other members, gets many requests from people who say they need parking space for two or three cars. The fact is, and this is not an ideological position but a common sense position, this is causing a serious problem. One way of addressing it is to have gravel driveways which would provide extra soakage and no run-off and people could still park their cars. There is very little room on the roads now and we have seen a huge increase in car ownership. In areas in my constituency, Ringsend and Irishtown, where there were no cars, there are now cars all over the place. People want parking spaces, but that is causing problems. We cannot have a situation where people can pave over their gardens, where pavers doing one garden advertise that they are in an area and offer to do other gardens while they are there.

The Minister says such development is exempt from planning permission requirements.

At the moment paving is. That is the difficulty.

It is a difficulty in Galway.

I return to some of the other questions. In response to Deputy Lynch, we are coming at this very much from a practical and commonsense point of view. We want to promote renewable technologies. This is one way of doing it. In terms of public participation, there was wide consultation over three months and the feedback is that people are in favour of this development. They see this as a class of development that requires urgent action.

Deputy Lynch's point on enforcement is one with which we are familiar. Sometimes there are difficulties with house extensions, not when they are kept within the exemption limits but when they go beyond them. Then it becomes a matter for the planning authorities and it is up to them to enforce the regulations. I am aware there are enforcement difficulties at local authority level throughout the country. We have tried to give extra resources to the enforcement sections and we hope they are doing their job.

Deputy Hogan raised the issue of whether prefabricated buildings on school premises are classed as temporary accommodation. They are, but it is up to the schools to put pressure on the Department of Education and Science in that regard. It would be good to have pupils in proper accommodation because prefabricated accommodation is, in many cases, inadequate. The last thing any member of this committee wants is to see pupils in prefabricated accommodation that has been there for a long time.

With respect, that is not the issue. There is not a school in the country that would not make a planning application to the local authority if it thought it would get funding to build a school. The difficulty is with funding, not planning applications. As Deputy Hogan said earlier, the problem is that the planning and design unit within the Department of Education and Science is adopting a "one-size-fits-all" approach. This means that school buildings arrive prefabricated and ready for use. As a result, the question of design is not even a matter for discussion.

It is proposed to build a school at a particular location in my constituency. There are substantial access issues with this school and further such issues will arise when the second phase of the project commences. Issues such as those to which I refer must be resolved because if we want to encourage children to walk to school, pedestrian access must be available. Let us consider a situation where the authorities at a school decide to build an extension and not take cognisance of the additional traffic this might bring into the housing estate in which that school is located, the increased car parking that might result from the employment of extra teachers or what is sustainable in terms of planning for the area. Both of these examples seem to fall outside the remit of the proposals the Minister presented earlier. Will he clarify the position in this regard?

The Minister referred to feedback. From whom will this come? Private industry will benefit greatly from what is envisaged and I am sure those involved provided the Minister with a number of proposals. If I was involved in private industry and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government decided to introduce legislation under which I would not be obliged to obtain planning permission in respect of certain matters, I would be extremely interested in developments. Will the Minister indicate the number of private concerns that made submissions to him?

The Minister should be allowed to answer Deputy Hogan's questions because other members are offering.

Deputy Hogan raised a number of concerns regarding the NDP, which remains on track.

It is wobbling to a certain degree.

The ESRI made predictions of doom and gloom. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, tried to provide answers in respect of these predictions earlier today on radio. There was somewhat of a firestorm following the initial publication of the ESRI report.

We hope the essential elements of the NDP will remain in place. When discussing general infrastructure, water infrastructure, sewerage, and so on, it is essential from an EU perspective — in the context of compliance and enforcement — that the programme of works to be carried out under the NDP continues. This is a matter of priority for me.

Will the Minister return to the committee at any stage with a Revised Estimate to take account of the adjustments to which the Minister for Finance referred?

I do not contemplate doing so at present.

The Deputy also inquired about meteorological masts. A met. mast is a prerequisite for identifying suitable locations for wind energy developments. It is used to obtain information on wind speeds at various heights during the course of a year. Such a mast does not have the same visual impact as a wind turbine because there is not a large blade at the top. Any propellers on a mast would have a diameter of approximately 1 meter.

Is it true that they are 80 m in height?

These developments are less than 20 m in height. The masts are temporary and are designed to allow us to determine whether wind speeds in an area will be appropriate——

What is the definition of "temporary" in such circumstances?

The masts will be in place for a 24-month period.

That is fine.

I am glad the Minister wishes to make matters easier in the context of the development of renewable technologies by introducing exemptions under the planning Acts. To make this a reality, we must make the installation of such technologies less problematic. I would welcome any moves in this regard.

I am inclined to agree with Deputy Ciarán Lynch in respect of schools. While it is fine to put temporary accommodation in place, I am sure all public representatives would agree that the major issue that arises is the safe access to and egress from school by children who walk, cycle or travel by bus to their place of learning each day. Pedestrian safety is a major issue in the vicinity of schools. If planning exemptions are to apply to school extensions, it will be necessary to make assessments of the impact of additional school accommodation on pedestrians and traffic, including cyclists. Doubling the size of a school would have a significant impact on its environs. This issue must be taken into account if we are to avoid compromising safety and exacerbating traffic problems in the vicinity of schools. I ask the Minister and his officials to examine this issue.

The possibility of exempting other works also needs to be examined. I live in a district in the basin of the River Suir. In fairness to the Office of Public Works, it has carried out considerable flood prevention works in Carrick-on-Suir and is engaged in major work in Clonmel which has been susceptible to serious flooding. I have noticed that one of the knock-on effects of such works is that river banks downstream are weakened with the result that breaches take place. Unfortunately, when farm lands are flooded planning permission must be secured before urgent and sometimes substantial remedial works on river banks can proceed. I ask the Minister to consider providing planning exemptions for such works. Permits and planning permissions are required when one wishes to dispose of subsoil or topsoil. A logical solution would be to use these materials to reinforce river banks to keep rivers flowing freely and avert floods. It would benefit landowners in proximity to rivers to have exemptions in this area.

I am concerned about differences in interpreting planning guidelines across local authorities. The issue of Oireachtas Library research was raised. If the joint committee was to carry out a little research, it would find serious inconsistencies between the manner in which the various planning guidelines issued by the Department are interpreted by local authorities. Clear direction must be given to local authorities in adopting these regulations to ensure they are not misinterpreted. For example, the Department's guidelines on retail warehousing have been interpreted in a highly inconsistent manner by local authorities. In some local authority areas, certain shops are allowed to trade in retail warehousing while, under the same retail guidelines, trading in retail warehouses is prohibited in other local authority areas. Work is needed to address the difference in interpretation by local authority managers.

The Minister indicated he will strengthen enforcement provisions and provide additional resources for enforcement by local authorities. This is welcome because a good planning system requires proper enforcement structures. I am aware of a few places where local authorities are inactive in this area owing to a lack of resources. If a local authority is not meeting its enforcement obligations and duties, where does the ordinary citizen go?

I welcome the forthcoming code of practice on the provision of schools and the joined-up approach the Minister advocates. County Meath could do with some joined-up thinking having suffered a lack of planning leading to insufficient school places for children at the start of their schooling.

The Minister may have discussed class 57, the exemption for permissions for schools, during my absence to attend a division in the Seanad. Class 57 provides that planning permission is not required in the case of the extension of a school where the school has not been previously extended by the construction of an extension to the side or rear of the school. Most schools in growing commuter areas such as counties Kildare and Meath have been extended at some point. Will the exemption be of any benefit to such schools or will they have to go through the normal planning process? I am aware of schools which extend capacity annually by adding further prefabricated buildings. Will this provision have practical relevance to many schools in the commuter belt?

The Minister proposes to remove the requirement to secure planning permission for school extensions. I am a little concerned because, as previous speakers said, it they get an inch they will take a mile. With planning guidelines the Minister set out in February, we will not have much community gain that will facilitate us building an extension to a school or improving the infrastructure of villages, as they are quite restrictive in the number of houses allowed to be developed within small rural settlements. It is worked out on a percentage basis. The community gain we had in the past will not now be available to us because of the restrictions.

On renewable energy, many people have concerns about the visual impact of devices such as turbines and their location. In the exempt developments will there be any process for people to make a submission? Will people have to advertise that they will build an extension to a school under the exemption clause? Will people have a chance to make a submission to local authorities indicating whether they favour the process, or if it could be done in a different way?

With regard to pathways and private roads requiring planning permission, I hope the pathway element only applies to urban areas. I hope those out in the countryside or on bog roads do not have to apply for planning permission, as we do not have that many cobblestones in the rural areas. There may be enough in Dublin. I would not like to see us going down that road, where every move a person has to make must have accompanying planning permission.

The best people to consult on these issues are local authority members, those who are elected by the people to represent the people. I hope that when we draw up such measures, people are widely consulted before the measures are adopted.

I welcome the Minister's draft report. Although there are very positive opinions on what we are considering, there are also some very negative opinions. I have not had the time to read this in any detail and so I will not make detailed comment on it. There are a few obvious points that Deputy Fitzpatrick has raised.

To some people it is very petty to require planning permission to do a bit of paving around the house. I can see where the Minister is coming from with regard to water run-off but my experience is that paving can be done in several ways. Paving can affect water run-off, but rather than stipulating that paving cannot be put down without planning permission, we should require paving to be done in a certain way which can achieve the Minister's goals.

I have another concern with regard to roadways. The Minister has not spelled out in any detail what roadways are affected, such as new roads being made. Farmers and such people may make roadways through their land for different purposes, which would probably keep traffic off the road. They could make a roadway inside the ditch or through the land to access different parts of the land. Clarification on such points would be helpful.

I am inclined to move with the Minister on renewable energies. We will have to consider the concepts and we are a small bit behind in our approach to renewable energy. I welcome that side of the argument. Nevertheless there are a few concerns, and I will probably pick up a few more when I read the document properly.

I welcome the proposed changes and particularly the proposal to examine non-permeable surfaces. These surfaces are a significant contribution to making flooding worse in urban areas.

I was taken aback to see a major bank in the Minister's constituency recently pave over a very large portion of what had been grass. The bank may or may not have had to apply for planning permission in that instance but it seems clear as day that if one puts down more concrete, tarmacadam or a surface which does not allow soakage one will exacerbate flooding. We have seen examples of flooding on the Tolka and Dodder rivers in Dublin. In my constituency of Dún Laoghaire the Maretimo stream flooded to an extent which had never been seen before and which may have been a result of recent tree felling upstream. We must be much more careful about the changes we make and a stronger planning system is hugely important in this regard.

We must be vigilant with regard to the application, in their entirety, of school building regulations. If we remove the belt and braces approach of planning permission and building regulations in favour of relying on the building regulations alone, it is crucial that we have oversight from the perspective of fire safety and health and safety, as was pointed out earlier. I have no doubt the Minister is putting measures in place to ensure strong oversight of any such works. However, having spent most of my secondary schooling in prefabs, I think it crucial that we set the bar high. We must make sure the regulations are complied with and that we do not see prefabs emerging from the storage where they may have been for the past 20 years. I am sure the Minister is simply ensuring that we reduce bureaucracy in this part of the planning process.

I will address the code of practice, which has been raised by a number of members. We must avoid a situation where people can build one extension and then another and another. This can give rise to the issues raised by Deputy Lynch. The safeguard is in place. If a householder has an extension he cannot build another.

How will this exemption help in areas such as the commuter belt?

In those areas householders will have to go through the planning process.

This measure does not really apply to them.

I suspect that Senator Hannigan's colleague, Deputy Lynch, would insist that they go through the planning process. That is the sort of vigilance that is required. Where householders are going to extend, we want to publish a protocol and code of practice. Such a code of practice will encourage and facilitate early engagement in catering for future school demand within the development plan process; identify and secure, through interaction and information sharing with local authorities, the most appropriate sites for schools to ensure sustainable access and efficient use of land; and develop key liaisons at central and local level to provide for an efficient exchange of information and help to resolve difficulties as they arise. That is the safeguard to which people have been referring.

Senator Coffey raised the issue of flooding, and exemptions to allow the OPW to repair and maintain river banks. We must proceed carefully here. Flooding will become a big issue. We must not see climate change as something that will happen in the future but as something that is happening now. From all our information gathering and from reports Met Éireann has submitted to me, we know that our weather patterns have changed. We are getting strange precipitation patterns. We are seeing flash floods and full days of constant rain. Such water must go somewhere. If we do hard engineering and securing of river banks, flood water will have no place to go. As we saw in Britain last year, the water goes down, then it builds up and floods towns. I have visited places around the country to look at the problem. We need more wetlands. We have taken them away and drained areas——

We built on some of them.

We have built on some of them but that will be a thing of the past as we cannot build on flood plains any more. This is part of an adaptation strategy. We must adapt to the reality of climate change but I will give consideration to the proposal. Where it is an absolute necessity that we have maintenance of river banks we can look at it and I will talk to my officials about it. The proposals will not affect farmers' roads because they apply to major roads of over 2 km in length. It might affect forestry but a farmer will still have access so they need not have any fears on those grounds.

I do not want to omit any questions. Have I answered all Deputy Fitzpatrick's questions?

I asked about timelines.

The exemptions are not designed to introduce infinite arrangements in respect of temporary buildings but are provided in the context of the policy framework. More important, they are given on the basis that planning permission will already have been received. In that context, it makes sense to provide for exemption for five years. The buildings will not be prefabs but will be fairly solid structures.

Can an exemption be renewed after five years?

I would hope——

It can or it cannot.

It probably can but I would hope it would not be.

We would all hope that. It is like the 20-year school prefab.

There are some things to welcome in the report, such as the suggestion that advertising hoardings should be prohibited from any structures going into schools. This is a positive step. We have discussed in the Dáil commercialisation and branding in respect of schools.

The approach to flooding varies from one local authority to another. Some insist a proportion of the front of a house is maintained as soil and garden, which creates absorption. I find it ironic that we are talking about schools when we were talking about them a couple of months ago in the context of the costs of water. Instead of the water running off into the local river, causing flooding, perhaps the schools should be incentivised to keep the water.

Will the Minister clear up two issues? I am still not convinced by his response on enforcement. Who will enforce the law if a business or school operates outside its scope? It might be a question of interpretation because local authorities state that it is not their responsibility if a development is exempted. I do not refer to an extension which exceeds the permitted size but one which causes difficulties by, for example, overshadowing.

Page 1 of the Schedule states: "Article 5.1 of the regulation is amended by inserting the following: "biomass" means the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues from agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry and related industries as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste." Are we also exempting the putting in place of biomass, in a residence or a community, without planning permission? Is that also part of the statutory instrument?

The Minister did not respond to my question on paving. Is it a blanket regulation or will it apply only to urban houses? To alleviate fears about the consequences of paving, perhaps the run-off water could be collected in a tank and used to water the remaining green areas of gardens.

We live on the island of saints and scholars but it is usually the councillors who get the rap in regard to an issue on which the Minister or his officials might be able to throw some light. In the case of a local authority where the officials want to build on a flood plain, a place subject to flooding risk or a special area of conservation, what powers does the Minister have to prevent them if it is brought to his attention, even where there is no objection to the development? I have seen examples of retail strategies being agreed and proposals being brought forward by officials which fly in the face of what the Minister wants to achieve.

Is the Deputy talking about local area plans?

I asked the Minister regarding consultation with local authority members and professional planners. These people are well equipped to debate and discuss planning because they deal with it on a daily basis. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on the consultation process because the people who make submissions to me and, I am sure, to the Minister may not represent the views of the ordinary Joe Soap. Further, I do not believe that working to the current planning guidelines in respect of road improvements, extensions to schools, sewerage schemes and so on will achieve community gain. Do these guidelines apply to crèches in the same way as they apply to schools?

It is very frustrating for public representatives if they send somebody for a preplanning consultation at which they are advised on the type of application they should make and then, a number of weeks or months later, a different planner deals with the file and says there was no preplanning consultation or that the record of the preplanning consultation has not been passed on. Could the Minister introduce regulations to ensure planners are a bit more co-operative than they are?

Several members raised the issue of the consultation process. I will outline how it took place. We received 51 submissions from across the community, from all parts of society, including some from individuals who made submissions in their own right or, in some cases, on behalf of others. There were submissions from people involved in commerce across quite a number of organisations, and from energy and planning interests. We also had quite intensive contacts with a range of interests, including An Bord Pleanála, Sustainable Energy Ireland, the Irish Aviation Authority and the ESB. We did that to resolve some of the issues that were raised during the consultation process. It is my intention to publish a report that will provide greater details of the issues that arose during the process.

On the question of permeability, there is no question but that a process which allows soakage would be fine. Common sense dictates that would be fine. What we are trying to avoid is extensive run-off.

Could that not be put in the legislation? There is no point in saying it otherwise.

Using a different type of surface, for example, gravel, would be a way of dealing with the problem. It is more applicable in urban areas where flooding is more likely. That is the idea behind this provision. The intention is not to come down heavily on people. It is simply a commonsense provision.

My point was that paving can be constructed in such a way as to take run-off water. Furthermore, water can be tanked and used for watering the remaining green parts of gardens.

That was raised by Deputy Lynch in the context of schools. I have provided funding for schools for rainwater harvesting which has been used very successfully. We need to do more rainwater harvesting, particularly in schools. We provided extensive grants for a school in Gorey, County Wexford and it was able as a consequence, through a series of measures, to save approximately 28,000 litres of water a day. That is phenomenal and it is what we need to do.

Someone asked whether the guidelines apply to crèches. A crèche is an education establishment as defined in legislation so the guidelines do not apply to them. There was reference to biomass. Biomass makes total sense — I have seen how CHP works to great effect — and will give a boost to alternative technologies.

On a point of clarification, could the Minister indicate the size of biomass location that will be exempt?

We are talking about averages. I will read them out if the Deputy wishes.

We are talking about a gross floor space of up to 500 sq m, a maximum height of 10 m, a maximum length of 50 m, 200 m from the nearest inhabited dwelling, 10 m from the nearest——

It must be 200 m from the nearest inhabited dwelling.

These limits refer to industrial buildings. Noise levels must be less than 43 decibels at the site boundary, and it can be only one site.

I will allow the Minister to answer all the questions.

On a point of order, must I address another issue at this meeting?

The Minister is to comment on the concerns of the Irish Rural Dwellers Association.

That will not take long.

It might take longer than the Deputy would like. I have a few points to make.

Was Deputy Hogan's question dealt with?

No. I asked about flooding.

I have powers in regard to councillors. There is a difficulty which I am trying to address regarding local area plans. Officials make decisions on these matters. Those matters will be addressed in the new planning and development legislation. The heads of a Bill will available in the autumn.

Will the Minister write to all local authorities in the meantime explaining their obligations under these guidelines. If the Minister is trying to achieve certain objectives through these guidelines in regard to flood risk, sustainability, special areas of conservation and such matters that we regularly hear about, local authorities must be reminded of it. I ask the Minister to do that in the shortest possible time. There are development plans and local area plans of which some of us are aware. Officials are bringing forward proposals that would land councillors in a tribunal if they did it.

The Deputy has a valid point. When I was interviewed on "Prime Time" in regard to certain developments I pointed that out that not only councillors but officials were involved in what I regarded as poor planning. It must be addressed and I intend to do that.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending and assisting our consideration of the report. Is the motion agreed? Agreed.

Top
Share