Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Tuesday, 4 Nov 2008

Mayo County Development Plan: Discussion.

I welcome officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the meeting. We are joined by Mr. Dave Walsh, principal officer, spatial policy, Mr. Brian Kenny, assistant principal officer, spatial policy and Mr. Niall Cussen, senior planning adviser. I thank Mr. Walsh and his officials for offering to brief us today. I invite the officials to make a brief presentation, to be followed by a question and answer session with committee members.

I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but that same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that 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.

We will now have a briefing from the departmental officials, followed by a question and answer session with committee members. The departmental officials will then withdraw and we will invite the representatives from Mayo County Council to give a brief presentation, again followed by a question and answer session. The committee will discuss its conclusions, either at its next meeting or at a future meeting. We will not be able to reach a conclusion on everything here today. We will listen to the points made by all sides and then will consider the matter subsequently. We might draw up a brief report and lay it before the Oireachtas on the specifics of this issue. However, I suspect this meeting will raise broader issues that are relevant to every local authority and we might include some of those issues in that report.

I invite Mr. Walsh to make a presentation on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Mr. Dave Walsh

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for giving us the opportunity to outline the background and circumstances that gave rise to the issuance of the direction on the recent Mayo county development plan.

The Minister regards the reserved functions of elected members in respect of preparing and adopting development plans under planning legislation to be a core role in securing a sustainable and rational plan for their area. The planning Act also establishes a clear role for the Minister as a statutory consultee within the overall process of preparing development plans. With the publication by the Government of the national spatial strategy in 2002, as an overall planning framework, and the regional planning guidelines in 2004, Ministers have provided guidance and advice to local authorities on development plans. This advice has generally been accepted by planning authorities in ensuring their plans accord with national legislation and policy objectives.

The Minister has overall responsibility in ensuring that the 88 planning authorities across the country adopt co-ordinated and coherent approaches to the many planning issues facing Ireland today. Planning issues such as the strategic development of cities and towns, the management of the rural environment and sustainable residential development in rural and urban areas can only be tackled through a partnership approach between the aims of national policy and the actions of local planning authorities supporting those national policy objectives.

The fact that the majority of city and county plans prepared in recent years represent reasonable strategies for the proper planning and sustainable development of local authority areas indicates that the system is working very well in general terms. Local authorities have a duty, when making development plans, to ensure that the future development of their areas is based on sound planning principles. However, where a development plan clearly departs from such principles and from stated national and regional policies and priorities for which the Minister has specific responsibility, the Minister has a duty to act in the common interest and has been statutorily mandated under planning legislation to intervene, if necessary, to protect this wider common interest.

Where a draft or adopted development plan fails to set out an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of an area because of, for example, conflict with national policy or by being based on unsound planning principles, section 31 of the Planning and Development Act empowers the Minister to direct a planning authority to take such specified measures as are required to ensure that the plan represents a strategy for the proper planning and development of the area. These ministerial powers are not new. They were contained in the original 1963 Act and are restated in the consolidation and updating of planning legislation in the form of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

In the past five years, the Department has provided more than 300 comments to local authorities on more than 80 development plans at the plan-making or plan-variation stages. In the same period, Ministers have only issued six directions under section 31 of the Act. This shows that the system is working very well in general terms.

Mayo County Council published its draft county development plan for 2008 to 2014 in April 2007. As part of the draft plan's public consultation process, the Department wrote to the council in June 2007 expressing concern that the amount of land zoned for residential development was approximately six times the level that would be needed to service forecasted population growth over that period. The draft plan provided for a population increase of almost 80,000, through zonings scattered county wide. For example, in Claremorris, where a population increase of approximately 1,100 was projected to the year 2013, the plan indicated that some 27 hectares of land would be needed to meet this demand. However, a total of 157 hectares of land was zoned, capable of increasing the town's population by more than 10,000 people, almost ten times the need. This pattern was repeated in many of the smaller towns and villages throughout the county. Notwithstanding the very high level of zoning, in the main inherited from previous plans, the Department's main concern was that such scattered, high-level zonings would detract from the national and regional policy objectives to focus development in Mayo on the national spatial strategy designated hub towns of Ballina and Castlebar, as economic engines for Mayo and the western region as a whole.

All of the economic and other analysis carried out in connection with the preparation of the national spatial strategy and endorsed through public consultation concluded that focusing development on the strategy's gateways and hubs is a key element in securing the conditions, including critical mass of population and services that are essential to long-term regional development.

A dispersed approach would undermine the long-term ability of the regions to thrive and prosper. In this instance, by forecasting future growth the draft county plan placed more emphasis on rural areas and smaller towns and villages than on the local and regional authority endorsed objective of securing the accelerated growth of the Castlebar-Ballina hub.

However, the Department's June 2007 letter commended the council on its rural housing strategy set out in the draft plan. As recommended in the 2005 sustainable rural housing guidelines, the draft plan identified locations throughout the county. These were categorised under four main types: rural areas under strong urban influence — i.e. rural areas located near large towns which are under development pressure because of their proximity; stronger rural areas, which are stable rural areas with access to towns and villages where there is relatively low demand for new development; structurally weak areas — i.e. areas that have suffered population decline and which are economically weak; and areas with clustered settlement patterns, such as areas with few towns and villages but which have housing clusters.

The benefit of identifying these rural area types in a development plan is that it permits tailoring of housing and planning policies to the differing circumstances prevailing throughout a county, especially in large counties such as Mayo that contain areas under great pressure for development on the edges of towns and remoter areas where population is falling. Tailoring policies to varying circumstances means that a fairly permissive regime might be followed for planning applications on suitable sites in structurally weak areas and in clustered settlement areas to facilitate the creation and growth of vibrant rural communities. Equally, in the stronger rural areas and in areas close to large towns, it is possible to be more proactive in managing urban development and avoiding uncontrolled sprawl which, as evidence shows, has economic and social impacts related to providing services and community infrastructure as well as significant environmental implications.

In reviewing the draft county plan, the Department was satisfied that the draft plan set out rational and fair local needs criteria, which would facilitate planning permission for those with genuine links to the community in these pressure areas.

Following consideration of the many submissions received, the council published material amendments to the draft plan in January 2008. The amended plan contained no change to the unfocused over-zoning for residential development across the county. The council also set aside the evidence-based rural housing policy framework set out in the draft plan and simply replaced it with the verbatim reiteration of the foreword and introduction chapter of the Department's 2005 sustainable rural housing guidelines, while deleting the rest of the reasonable policy framework in the draft plan and which accorded fully with the planning guidelines for sustainable rural housing.

While it may be claimed that this inclusion means the development plan is compliant with the guidelines, in effect, these parts of the guidelines outline the broad principles but contain no substantive, practical policies and methodology to deal with planning applications. The omission of robust, clear and evidence-based policies which gave clarity and guidance on dealing with planning applications, in favour of non-specific, high-level principles with no applicable standards or criteria, would have resulted in uncertainty, inconsistency and inefficiency for the council in discharging its statutory functions.

The removal of any valid classification of different rural area types in County Mayo effectively meant there was no policy to differentiate between applications on a spatial basis as required by national guidelines and would have led to an overly permissive rural housing policy, especially within the zones of influence of the main towns, with all the attendant down sides this involves, related to encouraging substantial drift of population from the main towns in the county to rural areas, with services such as schools, community facilities, proper water and waste water treatment systems and so on, to rural areas. There was no reason provided explaining what motivated such a significant change in thinking nor any sufficient evidence, apart from historical population trends, to justify this action and present it as good planning. This was unacceptable to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The manager's report to the elected members in April 2008 outlined not only the Minister's concerns, but pointed out to the members that the proposed plan was in conflict with the advice from the council's planners and environmental staff and was contrary to the findings of the strategic environmental assessment, carried out by the council under European Union requirements. The approach adopted by the members was also of serious concern to the National Roads Authority and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. To highlight its concerns, the EPA referred the council to its 2006 report wherein it reported that contamination of Mayo group water schemes with e.coli 0157 in 2006 exceeded 50% and was seriously concerned at policies which would exacerbate the situation.

I set out for the committee why the Minister had concerns about the development plan providing for unfocused and excessive residential zoning throughout County Mayo.

As members are aware, the NSS designated Castlebar-Ballina as a linked hub for the region to direct growth to these towns and, therefore, develop urban critical mass which would attract industrial, commercial and residential development. The designation was reinforced in the west regional planning guidelines. Under the National Development Plan 2007-2013, investment in gateways and hubs is prioritised to create the infrastructural conditions necessary to secure the Government's objective for more balanced regional development.

For Ballina-Castlebar, there has been major investment in road and rail access, housing, water services and third level education among other areas. To promote the development of these towns building upon the type of national development plan investment described, it is essential that at the planning authority level, the development plan contains effective mechanisms to focus and channel development and population growth into the hub, through, for example, careful phasing of the release and development of lands in towns across the county.

However, the settlement strategy in the adopted development plan contained no coherent policies to prioritise and target the linked hub over other locations throughout the county for strategic growth in housing development and population growth, facilitating new industry and commerce, improving community infrastructure and generally improving their attractiveness as places where businesses and people would wish to settle. This is also required under the statutory 2007 guidelines for planning authorities on development plans, which require the sequential and co-ordinated development of land and mechanisms to support the development of national spatial strategy and regional planning guidelines designated towns and cities.

Recognising the legacy of widespread zoning across the county, the Department would have been satisfied if the adopted plan included a measure to phase the development of zoned lands across the county in favour of the Castlebar-Ballina hub rather than other locations and if the plan indicated a greater share of overall growth in the county would be promoted in the hub, by increasing it from the stated 45% to 55% or greater, for instance. However, no such mechanisms were adopted and the development plan as adopted was not in line with the spirit or overall intent of important Government policy frameworks such as the spatial strategy.

I refer to the rural housing issue. It is clear some parts of Mayo are experiencing population decline while other parts are growing. Many factors contribute to rural population trends including economic trends, especially changing patterns of farming, accessibility, commuting patterns and infrastructure provision as well as rural planning policies. The figures indicate the council operated a highly flexible rural planning regime in recent years in those areas suffering population decline and which lack core economic infrastructure.

In the past ten years, almost half of all planning applications in Mayo have been for one-off rural houses and the vast majority of those, some 85%, were granted. In 2007, of approximately 3,300 planning applications submitted in the county, almost 1,400 were for one-off houses in the countryside and just less than 1,200 of these were granted. Between 1996 and 2007, Mayo County Council granted planning permission for a total of 14,505 new single dwellings in rural areas. These statistics do not point to excessively restrictive rural planning policies.

To further illustrate the point, I have circulated some maps showing population trends in the county in the past ten years and a breakdown of one-off planning permission granted in the past six years. These maps formed part of the evidence for the council's original rural housing policies which were subsequently set aside by the members in the final plan.

As indicated in the maps, citing those areas suffering population decline as a valid reason for taking an excessively permissive approach to rural housing is inaccurate. Rural areas around the main towns have seen significant increases in population in recent years. It is accepted that some remoter rural areas are witnessing population decline. This is happening for a myriad of reasons, but lack of planning permission for houses is not one of them as the figures indicate.

The council adopted the plan on 8 May, and the finalised plan failed to deal with the Minister's serious concerns. The Minister had delayed issuing the direction before the plan was finalised, as it was hoped that the council, having received a further submission from the Minister on 28 February, would take the necessary steps to address these issues. However, when all other avenues were exhausted, the Minister felt that he had no choice but to use his powers of direction.

The direction is not imposing a totally new plan on the council. The Minister instructed the council to implement its own evidence-based policies for rural housing — policies which the council originally drew up and saw fit to publish in the draft plan. It is still not clear why the members withdrew their original policy, which had been supported by the Department, in favour of a less evidence-based and less clear approach.

The Minister believes the direction is reasonable, practical and was necessary for the sustainable development of the county in the future.

Thank you. Do Castlebar and Ballina have separate development plans? We are talking about the county plan. What is excluded in our discussion today?

Mr. Dave Walsh

The county plan would include the towns of Castlebar and Ballina. Both towns have separate town development plans, but the county would provide the overall structure for development across the county. Therefore, it would include the development potential of both towns.

When were the plans for Castlebar and Ballina approved?

Mr. Dave Walsh

The Ballina plan was approved in 2007, while the Castlebar plan was approved this year. They were published in draft format.

So it happened prior to the development of the county plan. Are the Castlebar and Ballina plans consistent with the county plan? Are there any inconsistencies in zoning between the town plans and what is in the county plan for the same towns?

Mr. Dave Walsh

No.

It is just that the issue was not mentioned. Ballina and Castlebar have been mentioned, and I know that——

May I clarify something? When Mr. Walsh refers to rural areas, is he also talking about small villages?

Mr. Dave Walsh

Areas with fewer than 1,500 people would be classified as rural areas.

Mr. Walsh used very fine words in his presentation, but the interpretation of the words often becomes important. He states that six times more land is zoned than is required. I have been involved with local authorities for many years, and was involved in several development plans. There is nothing wrong with zoning more land than was required, because it brings down the cost of land in many cases as there is more zoned land available. Therefore, I would not agree with the submission made here that more land than was required was zoned and that this is necessarily a bad thing.

On page 4 of the document, Mr. Walsh states:

Tailoring policies to varying circumstances means that a fairly permissive regime might be followed in relation to planning applications on suitable sites in structurally weak areas and in clustered settlement areas, in order to facilitate the creation and growth of vibrant rural communities.

Again, these are fine words but it all depends on the interpretation of the planners. Even after the elected members adopt the development plan, the interpretation of that plan by the planners often leads to frustration when people seek to obtain planning permission. It is fine to say that a fairly permissive regime might be followed, but that means nothing.

On page 7, Mr. Walsh quotes the number of planning applications submitted in 2007, of which almost 85% were granted. Does he have any figures for 2008? I doubt if the figures are similar, following the Minister's directive to the planning authority in Mayo. We were not dealing with this plan in 2007, as it was only adopted then. Are there any figures for 2008?

Do the sustainable rural planning guidelines for 2005 take precedence over the national spatial strategy? Mayo is mostly a rural county, as 63% of the population lives in dispersed housing. It is different to counties like Galway, which has a city and other major towns. Mayo is basically a rural farming county. It is proposed to have two settlements based on hubs. Could that work in a predominantly rural county like Mayo?

After the elected members adopted the county development plan, what meetings took place so that the Minister could arrive at his directive for the council? Were there meetings between management and planning officials of Mayo County Council and with officials from the Department? Were the elected members part of those meetings, or were they kept up to date at all? Where does the reserved function of elected members now stand when a county development plan is being adopted? If there is an amended plan, has it taken the Minister's proposals into account? Will this have to be adopted by the elected members, as it is a reserved function?

Mr. Dave Walsh

The Deputy mentioned the zoning level that is six times the population target. The Department's development plan guidelines suggest that there should be some headroom over and above the requirement for zoning in a development plan. The suggestion is in the order of 50% over the requirement to allow certain choices. Even if the percentage was a bit higher, it would not make a major difference, especially where we are dealing with legacy zonings. However, six times the level would only disperse development and also require great resources for infrastructure provision at locations that might not be serviced at present or that might not be the most suitable. The idea of development plan guidelines is that we have a certain amount of choice, but we still have to prioritise where that growth should happen.

My statement referred to the permissive approach to the local needs criteria. By having categories of different types of rural area, it is possible to apply the local needs criteria to assist those who have links to the area in obtaining planning permission. In structurally weak areas, the local needs criteria are relaxed. Anybody who seeks to build a house in a rural area, subject to the proper environmental and road safety requirements, will be permitted to apply under the rural housing guidelines.

Who interprets the relaxation of that?

Mr. Dave Walsh

The local authority would set those criteria in the development plan.

I am talking about the interpretation of the planner or the manager dealing with planning applications. The members may sometimes have the best intentions in the world when adopting their county development plan, but the interpretation of that plan often differs to what they adopted.

Mr. Dave Walsh

The plan forms the basis for all decisions, and members ultimately adopt it. The plan will set the framework and the conditions under which planning applications should be assessed.

There are no figures available from the council on one-off housing in 2008.

That is a pity, because it is the key.

Nobody from the Visitors Gallery is allowed to speak. This is similar to the Dáil Chamber. We have an agreed format, and representatives of Mayo County Council will have all the time later to contribute. If there is a vote in the Dáil, I have no problem adjourning the meeting and coming back for as long as necessary. Nobody is speaking out of turn, however, and we are running the meeting in an orderly manner. If the witnesses have comments to make, the representatives from Mayo can make them on their behalf.

Mr. Dave Walsh

The question was raised as to which takes precedence, the sustainable housing guidelines or the NSS. The NSS was produced in 2002 whereas the sustainable housing guidelines were developed on foot of the NSS principles and articulate in more detail rural housing policies and the framework that is set out in the NSS. Therefore the NSS and rural housing guidelines are consistent.

Which takes precedence? There is a conflict between sustainable rural development and the establishment of a national spatial strategy.

Mr. Dave Walsh

The national spatial strategy dealt at a strategic, high level with the development of rural areas. The rural housing guidelines articulate those high level principles into actionable and measurable policies that can be applied at development plan and planning application level.

A few other questions were raised concerning the engagement between the Department and council officials. As I said in my statement, the Minister has made two submissions to the council as statutory consultee. Following the adoption of the plan, the Department felt the process had been completed in that members had fulfilled their role in adopting a plan. When no further action was going to be taken by members on this issue, we felt we had to indicate and issue the direction.

That does not answer my question. I asked if there were many, or any, meetings between council officials and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Mr. Dave Walsh

Yes, we had a number of meetings and discussions throughout the development plan process. Before the development plan was drafted, we had pre-planning meetings with them to discuss——

No, I am not talking about that, I am talking about the fact that after the members adopted this county development plan, the Minister intervened to give a direction to the council. After the county development plan was adopted, what meetings, if any, took place between council and departmental officials?

Mr. Dave Walsh

There were no meetings between officials but there was correspondence and telephone conversations between them.

Is the Deputy nearly finished? I want to give an opportunity to other members to pose questions.

I will pass, Chairman.

Those who have indicated so far include Deputies Tuffy and Calleary and Senator Coffey.

Is rural housing the only outstanding matter that is being dealt with by the direction? The question of phasing, which Mr. Walsh raised in his presentation, is not part of the direction, is it?

Mr. Dave Walsh

Prioritisation of development in the hub is also in the direction.

Is the Department seeking a phasing mechanism?

Mr. Dave Walsh

To amend them.

What was the manager's view when the county development plan was adopted in May? Did he argue against it? What was his advice? Did the manager advise councillors to vote against it or what was the story?

Mr. Dave Walsh

During the material amendments, discussions and debate in council, the manager's report outlined his views on the proposed amendments. I understand the manager felt that the original draft plan, with the evidence-based policy on rural housing, was a more robust one.

He did not advise against adopting it, did he?

Mr. Dave Walsh

I think he did.

As regards what happens now, does the Minister require that a particular thing must be done or is there room for negotiation? Can some compromise be reached and, if so, what steps will the Department take to reach that? Will the Minister, Deputy Gormley, go to Mayo to talk to councillors and officials? Surely that is the best way to deal with it, by reaching some common ground.

Mr. Dave Walsh

The direction has immediate effect and councillors are unable to diverge from its policy.

That was the question I asked. Where does the councillors' reserve function in the matter stand now? If there is a changed plan in place, it means they did not adopt it.

Mr. Dave Walsh

It is permitted under the statutory Act that where a plan fails to provide for the proper planning of sustainable development of an area, the Minister——

In the opinion of the Minister.

Mr. Dave Walsh

That is it.

Therefore, it is the Minister's way or the highway, so there is only one option.

Mr. Dave Walsh

Yes.

Why did the Minister not give a further opportunity to the council or could he have done so? It seems Mayo County Council is being told it must do this thing in particular, whereas other councils have more freedom because they are not getting that direction from the Minister. That seems unfair because it appears there is inequality. The Minister is saying that Mayo County Council must have this wording in the plan, yet other councils could have a different wording about rural policy. Surely there should be room for further discussion between council officials, councillors and the Department to see if there is another option.

Mr. Dave Walsh

That really is the statutory consultation function. At the draft amended stage, which was the first time the rural housing changes had appeared in the draft amended plan, the Minister said he was seriously concerned. He asked why the original plan, which we commended, had been removed. At that stage, he mentioned that he hoped council members would examine the issue and address it. He said that if they failed, he would be required to consider what further steps he needed to take to ensure proper planning.

Could he not have given them a further opportunity?

Mr. Dave Walsh

The planning Act sets out a 99-week timeframe for pushing through a development plan. That is the statutory consultation period. Members and the manager's team understood the issues. There was an opportunity, from the manager's report through to the adoption, to consider it and take steps if they felt so inclined.

The Minister or the Department would have made at least two submissions during the course of it. They would have been brought to the attention of the elected members, who would have been fully aware of what the Minister was saying in advance. The Deputy should be aware that two submissions were made.

I welcome this discussion, which should be widened into a national debate. There are many issues of conflict here, stemming from the top of Government to local democracy. I want to preface my contribution by quoting the Minister for Community, Gaeltacht and Rural Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, who said in the Seanad only a few months ago:

The planning debate has been very confrontational. I do not want to destroy the visible beauty of rural Ireland and we can avoid doing so by engaging in a rational debate with those concerned. We should be able to have houses and communities without destroying rural areas. Some planning policies have been totally negative in this regard. The other interesting point is the myth that, by definition, urban dwellers leave a smaller carbon footprint than those in rural areas. I do not believe that and I am willing to debate the point with the leading experts.

That is a direct quotation from the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, who is a member of the Government.

He almost lives in Mayo.

Exactly. The issue at hand poses serious questions for the fundamentals of local democracy and, by extension, there are consequences for rural Ireland. This plan was adopted unanimously by Mayo County Council, a fact that should not be taken lightly either by civil servants or elected representatives. All the members of Mayo County Council supported the plan they adopted, but the Minister has changed it. The Minister has appeared before this committee on numerous occasions stating that he wants to improve local democracy by enhancing the powers of local councillors. In this instance, however, it is quite obvious that he is doing the direct opposite. He is totally undermining the vote of local elected representatives who are accountable to local people in that area.

I have a serious concern about that which I want to put on the public record here. I have read the Mayo plan and it seems the officials are not requesting carte blanche or an open-door policy with regard to rural planning. They made three strong points, that sites must be suitable to deal with any waste produced on the site that is developed, it should not impinge on any issues with regard to road safety or make roads any less safe than they already are and there should be no damage to the visual amenity or to sensitive areas. That is in the plan as adopted by the local elected representatives. It is a reflection of people who are concerned about their areas and who want to have sustainable rural development. The alternative is being promoted by the Minister and his Department. I quote from Mr. Walsh’s presentation:

...in relation to encouraging substantial drift of population from the main towns in the county, where there are services such as schools, community facilities, proper water and waste water treatment systems and so on, to rural areas. There was no reason given as to what motivated such a significant change in thinking nor any sufficient evidence, apart from historic population trends, to justify this action and present it as good planning. This was unacceptable to the Minister.

I sat on a local authority for eight years and I would argue there are many councillors watching this debate today. We are trying to shoe-horn our populace into towns and villages that do not have the adequate infrastructure that Mr. Walsh tells us we have. We have inadequate waste water treatment systems and inadequate recreational facilities in many towns and villages across the country, yet the Department delegation has the audacity to come here today and tell the committee that there are adequate facilities in towns and villages. I argue a different case. Mayo county councillors took this into consideration also when they arrived at their decisions with regard to this plan.

With the maps included in the plan indicating the areas under strong urban pressure, my understanding also is that Mayo County Council has taken strong account of the figures provided by the census and this is how the council arrived at its estimation of population levels in the county. That is the reason the county council proposed its plan. Many of the areas in which it proposed development were declining in population according to the census of 2006. The Minister requires the county council to insert a map indicating areas under strong urban pressure and his statistics do not stack up with those of the census. I ask for clarification, or perhaps it is my misunderstanding, but there seems to be a conflict on statistics provided by the Central Statistics Office and those provided by the Minister. How does the Minister justify his statistics?

I agree with Deputy Tuffy with regard to seeking compromise. In any democracy, rather than receiving diktats from central government, which seems to be the case in this instance with regard to the Minister and Mayo County Council, there should be some negotiation even after the adoption of the plan. I hope this avenue is still open and that a reasonable compromise can be achieved by reasonable people in Mayo County Council.

Mr. Dave Walsh

The issue we are here to discuss today is the Mayo direction——

It has implications further down the line.

Mr. Dave Walsh

I agree but it accords with Government policy which has been approved through legislation and adopted by the Houses so I will not deal with issues about rural housing.

We are not saying that the plan is completely without merit — all plans should have appropriate policies for ensuring appropriate waste systems and that houses are built on safe roads and should be cognisant of sensitive areas — but the problem is there is no differentiation in the current adopted plan between those areas that are under significant urban pressure and those in more remote, rural and weaker areas.

With regard to the question of adequate services in towns, I will approach the Senator's point from another perspective. He argues there are not sufficient services in the towns and villages to——

Does Mr. Walsh agree?

Mr. Dave Walsh

The issue is where development is spread in a more dispersed way so instead of having——

Excuse me, does Mr. Walsh agree with my statement that there are not adequate facilities in existing towns and villages?

Mr. Dave Walsh

I am talking about the issue of the policy. I will not get into a discussion on whether certain towns have facilities and others do not. The question is whether those towns within the west regional planning guidelines under the settlement strategy and within the hierarchy on the town plans themselves have the capacity to hold and take on additional development. If dispersed population is spread to 20 or 40 towns, the problem is exacerbated and this makes it more costly for the council and for central Government through the sectoral funds to provide schools in 40 or 50 locations instead of in 20 or 30 where it is possible to provide them. It is about prioritisation of resources and that is the reason we must look at this policy. That is the reason we have acted.

I wish to focus on a couple of issues in the presentation. The delegation is placing huge weight on the linked hub. The linked hub is not one but two population centres 35 miles apart. Over the years there has been tremendous rivalry between them. What specific guidance and instruction was given to the county council regarding the promotion of those linked hubs in the context of the county development plan, bearing in mind there are two separate local authorities, Ballina Town Council and Castlebar Town Council, which have legal responsibility and legal jurisdiction for developing their own plans? It is a little disconcerting to hear the delegation say the Ballina plan was completed in 2007 when it has not even been completed yet and is still at the consultation stage. Was guidance given to the council and assistance given to the councillors in terms of what is required to promote linked hubs 35 miles apart at the expense of the rest of the county?

I refer to a phrase on page 5 of the presentation and which was referred to by Senator Coffey. The plan as put in place by the 31 councillors would have permitted an overly permissive rural policy. I say, welcome to Mayo. The facilities such as rural schools to which the presentation refers and which seems to encourage their rationalisation are there and have been there for some time and we are trying to keep them there. This is not just a case of planning. We are talking about people, not just about moving planning applications around a map. We are talking about people and people's livelihoods and traditions. The phrase used is very dismissive of some of the councillors' arguments. The presentation refers to "sufficient evidence, apart from historic population trends". I am sorry but historic population trends dictate much of what we do today because we do not want to go back to that time when rural communities in our county were absolutely decimated for the want and lack of development. If we are to be guided by historical population trends and the lessons we have learned from this, we are only doing our job as public representatives.

I can see that this map in front of me might support the Minister's argument and I respect that, but to put that map in the context of five years is wrong. It must be put in the context of 50 years to understand the full situation of the county. We can all paint a great story of the past five years but the Mayo development plan and the thinking behind the plan must be put in the context of a further 50 or 75 years. I encourage the delegation to produce a map of 50 to 75 years hence and contrast that to the national trend and they might have a better understanding of our thoughts on this plan.

I think the comments about the water schemes are unfair when thrown in just like that as if excessive building is solely responsible for e.coli in 2006. There are other reasons. It dismisses the fact that the Department and previous Ministers and Mayo County Council invested record amounts of money in group water schemes and in upgrading water supplies across the county. Just to throw out that comment as something that might damn the councillors and their wishes to sustain communities is unfair and does not help the delegation's argument.

On the point about the level of contact between the Department and the council, in the course of this plan how many interactions have there been between the Department and the council? This information may not be to hand but I would appreciate if the delegation would send it to the committee. How many of those meetings were initiated by the Department and how many were initiated by the council? How many section 31 motions have been issued in the past 18 months? How many ministerial directives have been issued in the past 18 months? This information may be sent on to the committee if it is not available now.

Mr. Dave Walsh

I will deal with a few issues and I will pass on some of the technical issues to Mr. Cussen who is more prepared to deal with those. On the question about the water schemes and the reference toe.coli, that report was from the EPA, not from the Department. All we did was convey what the EPA said. This information appeared in the manager’s report and was considered by the council so it was aware of it——

To take it in that context and throw it in there as a defence for the ministerial directive is unfair to the councillors and to the council. Significant investment and time has gone into upgrading water facilities and it is unfair to throw in one comment.

Mr. Dave Walsh

That is the Deputy's view. With regard to the level of contact, Mr. Cussen is responsible as the planning adviser dealing with Mayo and its plan. I know he would be in touch on a very regular basis with the director of services and the senior planner, both in advance of the plan preparation when we discussed preplanning strategic issues and during the plan. Mr. Cussen might wish to reflect further on this.

What about contact with the members?

They do not count. They are only elected.

Mr. Niall Cussen

Given his statutory role, the Minister was making contact with the elected members of the council and making submissions on the amended draft development plan. That is part of the record and is contained in the statement issued by my colleague, Mr. Walsh.

With regard to contact with the officials of the planning authority, as part of the Department's normal functions we have ongoing contact with officials on matters relating to preparing and implementing development plans and planning statistics on a daily, weekly and monthly basis right across the country. On a number of occasions, particularly in the context of finding out the position of the decisions on the adoption of the draft development plan and the material amendments regarding the adoption of the final development plan, we made contact with the director of services, the planners and management in Mayo to find out what the current state of play was on the decisions----

My question was about the context after the plan was adopted. I did not get an answer to that.

He made it clear there were no meetings. It has already been stated there were telephone calls and correspondence.

Mr. Niall Cussen

This was to ascertain the status in regard to decisions taken and so on, which is normal.

What about the hub issues?

Mr. Niall Cussen

With regard to Deputy Calleary's question on linked hubs and what guidance was offered by us, I was in Castlebar when the national spatial strategy, NSS, was launched in 2002 to great acclaim in the western region, particularly in Mayo given the focus on Castlebar and Ballina as a linked hub. Only nine hub locations are identified throughout the country and Ballina-Castlebar is one of them.

Extensive guidance was offered in the NSS document in regard to what local authorities needed to do in response to the preparation and launch of that as a national policy document. Deputy Calleary is correct to point out that there are individual local authorities which are independent in the town council sense. However, they are also part of an overall county structure. Further elaborating on what was in the NSS regional plans, guidelines were adopted for the Western Regional Authority in 2004. These contained further objectives, measures and suggestions as to how to promote or accelerate the development of the linked hub. For our part in the Department, particularly in terms of linking the spatial strategy to the national development plan, we have been anxious to ensure that the necessary infrastructural issues are addressed in regard to the linked hub. Mr. Walsh referred to this in his submission.

We would also in the normal way, as we do with all planning authorities across the country, offer technical advice to the planners and officials in the local authorities on how to deal with matters such as population and the allocation of development, particularly for NSS locations such as gateways and hubs. I am happy to confirm — Deputy McCormack raised this point earlier — that in overall terms the population growth ascribed to County Mayo in regard to the county development plan is in conformity with overall NSS targets. The issue is how that growth is managed, focused and distributed within the county.

Can we return to the question of the maps?

Mr. Dave Walsh

I have the two maps that appeared in the original draft plan and which have come from Mayo County Council. These are the figures, analysis and statistics the council used to base its original evidence-based rural housing policies on. We have distributed the maps for ease of reference.

Mr. Walsh referred to the regional planning guidelines. Was the plan consistent with the western regional planning guidelines? What counties were included?

Mr. Niall Cussen

The western regional planning guidelines cover Galway, Mayo and Roscommon. With regard to the amount of population growth ascribed to County Mayo for the plan period, this was in conformity in overall aggregate terms with the western regional planning guidelines. There were certainly issues in regard to how that growth was distributed or focused within the county, particularly that growth focused on the linked hub. One could argue whether there was good consistency between the development plan and the regional planning guidelines in that respect.

Without getting into names, members of Mayo County Council have been part of the regional body that agreed the regional planning guidelines. Did Mayo County Council make submissions on that?

Mr. Niall Cussen

Yes, the regional planning authorities are comprised of members from all the constituent planning authorities. Regional planning guidelines are prepared and adopted by the representative members from the different local authorities in a regional authority area on an elected basis.

Is it unfair to suggest that members of Mayo County Council signed up to regional planning guidelines and then signed up to a county development plan that was in conflict with those regional guidelines?

Mr. Niall Cussen

It would not be unfair.

One could say members of Mayo County Council drew up a regional plan for Galway, Mayo and Roscommon and then came back to the council chamber and did something in conflict with the plan they had already drawn up. I will put that to the members and they will probably give me the opposite view.

Can I make one point and I will then wait my turn?

The Deputy should be quick.

This is the very point I have made for many years on the local authority. These guys in the Department have all the resources and staff, and so has Mayo County Council. This was the first time elected representatives got professional help, support and backup, which was not paid for by the taxpayer but by themselves. This is where the situation is wrong — I have been saying it for 20 years as an elected representative. The officials in the council have all the backup and professional advice yet lay people — I include myself — are expected to do this. They did that right this time. I will comment later on this issue.

We will move on to other speakers.

I will not delay the committee. The Chairman should take a few speakers at a time.

I welcome the officials, particularly Mr. Niall Cussen who served his time in Meath for many years. He was a very efficient official and I had a good working relationship with him.

Mr. Cussen knows my views on rural planning over the years, namely, it should not be prohibitive. Rural people want to live in rural Ireland. I was always against trying to shove them into urban areas because they will never fit into these areas. They are there for a while, they do not settle and they want to get back out to the rural areas. Unfortunately, with development plans down the years, we never put facilities in place so those who moved from rural Ireland into our towns and villages could ever go back to rural Ireland again.

The only people for whom this was provided was those who had emigrated some years before. The guidelines which the then Minister, Deputy Dick Roche, changed some years ago were very beneficial to those people. When I was a young fellow starting out on the council 34 or 35 years ago, people from my area were emigrating to work in Dublin, and I am sure the same happened in Mayo, Galway and counties across the country. Those people should not be prohibited from coming back to live in their rural areas.

The draft plan provides for a population increase of almost 80,000 people through rezoning across the county. For example, for Claremorris, where a population increase of approximately 1,100 people was projected to 2013, the plan indicated that some 27 hectares of land would be needed to meet this demand. However, in fact 157 hectares were rezoned, which was capable of increasing the town's population by over 10,000 people. This pattern was repeated across the county.

We had experience of this in the Dunshaughlin, Laytown and Bettystown areas of Meath which are adjacent to Dublin. Were there facilities in the other towns across Mayo to facilitate this type of population? We in Meath suffered as a result of this practice. It did not happen in my area, which is at the Cavan-Westmeath end of the county and does not have the same demand for rezoning, but it happened in other parts of the county. Even up to last year, the delegation may have read in the newspapers of the need for schools in Laytown and Bettystown. The county suffered enormously because the infrastructure was not put in place beforehand.

I had a question on the number of section 31 motions in the past 18 months.

It was stated in the opening statement that six were issued in total.

Mr. Dave Walsh

It was six, with four in the past 18 months.

There were four in the past 18 months.

We will ask the witnesses to send the list of the six, complete with dates, times and local authorities involved.

Mr. Dave Walsh

That is no problem.

We will need the information later.

I see housing in a very positive way and we should welcome housing wherever it happens. We want to see it happen in an orderly fashion and no councillor or official would want anything different.

Deputy Ring also mentioned a very important issue in how the plans are prepared. I do not know if the Mayo plan was prepared by consultants before being passed to officials who presented it to the councillors. If that is the case, the councillors would be around a table without any professional advice on dealing with a plan. We understand from Deputy Ring that councillors got advice, which they funded. The Department should have funding for councillors who wish to take such advice and, although I understand that exists, I am not sure about it.

With regard to the population size of 1,500 in villages and settlements, is it the contention of the witnesses that if the population is over that number, a development plan is required for that town or village?

Mr. Dave Walsh

The OECD classification for a rural area covers all development outside of a population centre of 1,500. Smaller villages and towns are classified as rural areas.

Any place with a population of fewer than 1,500 people is rural.

Mr. Dave Walsh

Yes, as well as the open countryside. Under the planning Act, for land where there is a population of 2,000 or more, a local area plan is required but for classification purposes, rural areas have populations of 1,500 or fewer people.

Would all villages in Mayo with a population of over 2,000 people have land zoned?

Mr. Dave Walsh

They should. The settlement strategy of a county plan will indicate X number of housing units will be required over the planned period. The amount of available land is assessed and sufficient, or even more than sufficient, land is zoned to ensure choice over the planned period of development. The plan was drafted in-house by the planning section of Mayo County Council. It produced the plan for the councillors.

The only advisers to the councillors were the officials of the county council.

Mr. Dave Walsh

That is correct.

The main question today is the zoning of land in Mayo. As Deputy Brady mentioned, in Claremorris there was a proposal for 157 hectares of land, although that does not mean 157 hectares of land was to be developed over the next five years or the lifetime of the plan. Many hectares of land were not built on for long periods of time in all counties. Although we might say that amount of land is too much to zone, some of it may never come on the market. Much head-room must be allowed for proper and orderly development.

Councillors do not propose unsustainable issues. They are the people on the ground best placed to comment on and make decisions on development plans. In this instance, the Minister may be a bit high-handed in issuing a directive without having taken part in any discussion with elected public representatives. They are the people taking the brunt of the force of this and who will have to face the public at the next election. If they are acting illegally or in an unwarranted fashion, they will suffer at the end of the day. No councillor in any county wishes to do that.

When speaking about the strategic planning guidelines, it is very difficult to make one cap fit all. It has been mentioned that people from Mayo are members of the western regional authority and they sanctioned the adoption of the plan. In Mayo there is a range of different circumstances that must be considered. I believe the councillors do this very well.

I also planned to speak about rural planning but we are discussing settlements today. Do the witnesses believe that development plans should be required of a village of 2,000 people? Should smaller villages have a designation other than rural?

I will call one more speaker, Deputy Ring, before reverting to the witnesses.

I will be very brief as this is a very simple issue regarding democracy. Without any disrespect being shown to the witnesses, none of them has stood for election and I have never seen any of their names on a ballot paper. I never saw the county manager's name or the county secretary's name on a ballot paper as many of them would not be elected.

This boils down to two issues, one of which is local democracy. Have we any democracy or local government? I went to the High Court to fight a case relating to the dual mandate. It was not about Oireachtas Members but about the people having a right to vote. The same concept applies to elected representatives to Mayo County Council, who adopted a plan. If it was not right, the people of County Mayo should have made the judgment on the elected representatives. They will never make a judgment on the witnesses, the county manager or the director of services.

These actions are wrong. Some people blame the Minister but I blame the officials. It went wrong on the night it was adopted by Mayo County Council and the phone calls were placed the next day. There should not have been phone calls, instead the statements of the council should have been put in writing. I know there was unhappiness over the plan.

It is a bit like the people in this country who use An Taisce, which the people of rural Ireland do not like. Nevertheless, people use it when they want to make an objection against a neighbour. The officials knew they could not beat the elected representatives of Mayo County Council so they used the Department officials to scupper the plan. It is wrong. The issue is about local democracy, elected representatives and the people having a choice to vote for the people they want. If the people were not happy with the plan's adoption or if the county was being destroyed, they would use their vote in the next election.

The witnesses have provided figures about what Mayo County Council has granted and refused. These are false and I have made the point to the county manager on many occasions. Not an hour, day or week goes by without an official from Mayo County Council ringing a person in planning, or their agent, to indicate that if a planning application is not withdrawn, it will be refused. More plans are withdrawn from the system than are either granted or refused, and that has been the case for many years. It is an old trick of the council.

I will give an example from last Friday about how democracy works very well. A constituent of mine had a pre-planning meeting and saw officials on several occasions. It was agreed everything was ready for the application and the person did not come near an elected representative because he believed the application would be successful. At 12.30 p.m. he received a phone call from a council official who asked him to withdraw the application because it would be refused, although all the indications were the permission would be granted. Everything was above board and there was no problem. He rang back at 2 p.m. but an official could not be found because they were all gone out on-site. The refusal was sent and my constituent got in on Monday.

That is what people must put up with, but the witnesses do not understand that because they do not have to deal with the public. I am upset about such phone calls. We had tribunals about phone calls. Officials are great for one thing, writing down or taking notes, or writing e-mails or memos to one another. Why was this process done through phone conversations? Not one elected representative was contacted and the chairman of the council was not notified. The Minister used the heavy hand of the law.

What has the Minister done in my county? If one goes to Glencastle or Geesala in Belmullet, a councillor colleague of mine, Gerry Coyle, would tell this story. It is the first time since the foundation of the State the school there will not have a boys football team as it does not have the numbers. The Department has frozen all the land almost from Belmullet to Castlebar as it has road frontage. Nobody will get planning permission there from here on. That means Glencastle national school, already under pressure, will lose teachers and pupils over the next few years because people will not be living there.

The issue of holiday homes has always been used as an excuse. Many people in this country, particularly Irish people, left Westport, Castlebar and Belmullet, all of Mayo, to travel around the world in the 1930s and 1940s when there was no EU. That is the money that kept the country going. Some of the people concerned want to live in their own country for the few years they have left. They come back and look for planning permission but are not regarded as natives. These are not holiday homes. The people concerned have contributed to the State, yet they cannot get planning permission in their native county.

What the officials have done is to interfere with democracy, which is very dangerous. That is why two weeks ago we had so many people protesting. It was not only about the medical card but about the way in which people were treated. It is the same with schools. People are sick and tired of decisions being made behind closed doors by individuals who do not have to answer to the general public or anybody else. That is what happened with the county development plan. The elected representatives made a decision which was overturned because the officials in the county council did not like it. They contacted officials in the Department who got the Minister to sign off on the changes. It is a disgrace. It is an attack on democracy. It is time the rules and regulations were changed. The only function elected representatives have left now is to strike a rate and they do not even do this any longer because they are curtailed when it comes to keeping services going. The county development plan is the last thing left and it is now being taken out of their hands. If the Department wants to get rid of local authorities, it should do so. It should tell them and the people that it does not want them.

I want local authorities and elected representatives to have powers, not the three officials present because they are not elected by anybody. I mean no disrespect to them; it is the same in every Department. Officials are not accountable or answerable to anybody. I know what is happening on the ground and if we get it wrong, the people can adjudicate on us. They have the opportunity to do so every four years. People such as the delegates are selected and never again have to go before an interview panel, except when they are moving up the line, which is easy enough. They are sorted when that happens. The manager could come along, as happened with regard to Better Local Government, and receive a directive from the Minister to appoint the first run of staff, but now this is done by the Public Appointments Service. I can tell the delegates one thing. This is very serious and the people are angry. What they have done to my county and its people is wrong. It is time the elected representatives made the decisions. If they make the wrong one, they should stand over it.

Deputy Ring made very strong statements which were aimed more generally at officials and not personally at the delegates as individuals. He may or may not know them as private individuals. I would not like any comment made here by any Member of the Oireachtas——

Perhaps the time has come for us to know what decisions the people concerned are making. If there are conversations taking place between officials of the county councils which will affect people's lives, we should know about it. We are accountable to the people and every statement I make is in the public domain. They people can adjudicate on me and say yes or no. There is too much happening behind closed doors. This should be out in the open and we should know what conversations have taken place between the officials of Mayo County Council and the Department.

That is fair enough, but the point I am making is that, ultimately, it was the Minister personally who signed this directive. If he was not happy, he could have said no. It is the Minister who must accept responsibility, not the officials. It is not their function to take the blame.

The Minister should be here today.

That is another day's work.

There was conflict within the Government also. I have outlined what the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, said in the Seanad, which is totally in conflict with what the Minister has directed Mayo County Council to do.

The Senator has said that. There is a large attendance of Oireachtas Members. We received correspondence from Mayo County Council and agreed to meet its representatives. We also agreed to receive information from officials in the Department to explain the ministerial directive. If needs be, we can have further discussions with others. However, the first thing to be done today was to establish the facts. I will move on. The delegates might make note of the questions because there are many who wish to speak. I will call everybody, but there is a list.

I thank the Chairman for accommodating me. Obviously, being from County Mayo and a former member of Mayo County Council, I am concerned about this issue. In the first paragraph of his submission Mr. Walsh stated: "The Minister regards the reserved functions of elected members in respect of preparing and adopting development plans under planning legislation to be a core role". I have a major problem with the process involved. From my own experience as a member of the county council and having worked with many of the current members, I know that the work involved in the preparation of the county development plan is taken very seriously at local level. Meetings continue long into the night and a huge amount of attention is paid to it. It is not something that is treated in a light-hearted way. In fact, things have moved on since I was a member of the council. I know from speaking to the members involved that there were six seminars, 14 council meetings and 182 proposals made. They accepted 75% of the manager's recommendations, only rejecting 31 of them and amending 13 out of a total of approximately 160. To put the matter in context, in case anyone thinks we have maverick county councillors running around County Mayo trying to do things that are completely against Government policy, they took on board 75% of the recommendations made by the manager. In fact, they only brought forward amendments that they thought were suitable based on their own experience in working and living in the county. I experienced this in the past.

I want to highlight something. Elected members have very few reserved functions. In fact, that was one of my complaints about local government. Very little responsibility was given to members. It is critical that where it is given, it is respected. It is not always the case that officials within the county council are in agreement with the members; in fact, it is largely not the case. Thus, conversations between departmental officials and county council officials are not the same as consulting with members of the council. That is not sufficient.

When the county development plan goes on public display, submissions are invited from the public and there is much detail involved, yet when the Minister issued his directive, I read about it in a Sunday newspaper. This process is not acceptable. Rather than sending a letter and allowing people to read about it in a Sunday newspaper, the Minister should have gone through some process, after the plan was adopted, if he was not happy. If the facility to do this is not available, a mechanism will have to be found. The Minister should be able to go back to the county council and try to work through the areas of difficulty. Much of the plan, as the delegates stated, is acceptable and there are a few areas of difficulty. If the members had been consulted directly after the plan was adopted, when this problem emerged, things could have been different. I accept, however, that there was a time factor with regard to the legality of the process. If section 31 has only been used on four occasions in 18 months, there must be a mechanism, even if it requires new legislation, for the Minister to exercise discretion in order that there can at least be a proper timeframe for teasing out issues with members.

I do not want to discuss the individual points and know the committee is anxious to bring in the county council members. However, some of the points that the Minister is deleting from the county development plan have actually been included in previous development plans. One of them was actually included by me when I was a member of the county council. These are things that were acceptable and have worked effectively in county development plans in the past but are now being deleted.

I have a problem about rural planning and had great difficulty with officials of the council council in the past. Has effect been given to the EU decision in June 2007 that there could be no discrimination in people being able to get planning permission in rural areas? It has been the practice in various county councils to state that if a person is farming or working in an area, he or she can apply to build a house in that area, but the European Union saw this as being discriminatory. At what stage is it intended to give effect to that decision?

I will take a few more questions, although I know they are piling up. In fairness to the elected Members, they have not had an opportunity to put them.

I welcome the departmental officials and members of Mayo County Council. When I heard about this decision, I was very annoyed. As somebody who spent some 25 years as a member of a local authority, I agree with what was said by Deputies Calleary, Ring, Fitzpatrick and Brady about local democracy. I also agree with the point made by Deputy Flynn that there should have been consultation. If there was something wrong with the county development plan, there should have been further consultation with the persons who had drawn it up, but there was not. This is a fundamental problem which remains to be addressed.

What annoys me intensely is that members had to get their own advice and pay for it. This has happened down the years on other councils, not least my own and it must be addressed. I have raised the issue in the House within the past four or five months because it related to at least one other local authority. In that case a number of members had to get legal advice and pay for it from their own pockets. That is wrong and must be addressed urgently.

There is not much point in having people come forward to stand for local government only to see their decision overturned. We all recognise what the Minister is obliged to do in his ministerial capacity. I agree with Deputy Beverley Flynn that there should have been full consultation with the members of Mayo County Council who, after all, were the authors of the plan. That situation must be addressed as a matter of urgency in respect of other matters.

How does the plan as now decided address the concept of sustaining rural communities? Deputy Ring made a point about football teams that has been made ad nauseam on Westmeath County Council. Three or four parishes are obliged to come together to make up a football, hurling or camogie team. We talk about sustaining rural communities, maintaining school numbers and rural development. The latter is part of the programme for Government and was identified as deserving a Minister of State in the 1997-2002 Government. A Minister was appointed at that time to discharge that particular responsibility. Rural development is not made up of gateposts, telegraph poles and birds, important though they may be as local flora and fauna. People drive local development. I know County Mayo very well because I have driven through it a number of times canvassing for Seanad Éireann. That is one way of seeing the country though there are cheaper ways.

Local democracy has not been well served here. I do not carp at what the Minister did. What he did is consistent with his powers as Minister and these are enshrined in legislation. However, the officials of Mayo County Council should have consulted the elected members. Instead of making telephone calls elsewhere they should have called their own elected council members, brought them in and told them there were certain difficulties. There would have been nothing wrong with that and I would have applauded such action but clearly it did not happen. My position today is very simple. Local democracy has not been served well in this regard. That point was well made by a number of previous speakers and I repeat it only to underline it.

During the course of the debate in the council chamber did the county manager say to members that if they did what they intended to do the Minister's directive would, in consequence, be a possibility? I suspect the members were well apprised that the Minister might have to go down this road and were fully aware that there would be a ministerial directive in that case. From that point of view plenty of information was given to the members well in advance of the decision. We will ask them——

On a point of information. Is that a reasonable conclusion when this has been exercised only four times in 18 months?

It is, absolutely.

I do not know that it is.

If a county manager is in a county council chamber with his members he will tell them that if they take a certain route the relevant Minister has powers to overthrow it. If that is said in a council chamber it should be listened to although I do not say it must be accepted.

We do not know whether that was what happened so is that fair——

I shall ask the members. We will move on. The point was made that it was never said to the members——

There are 31 members in the council and they made a decision. For goodness sake, is everybody out of step?

The only question was whether the members were apprised of that information. I asked the officials that question and we will ask the same question to the members who will have their own perspective. We will ask the elected members when they come before the committee whether they were made aware of this. Perhaps they were, perhaps not.

I am very conscious of the timeframe and will stick to questions. The Chairman's question is very important. A county manager will give advice and will tell councillors that they cannot take a certain course of action because of Government policy. There are two conflicting views here with regard to Government policy. One concerns the spatial strategy where the intent is to herd the people of County Mayo into the two hubs, Castlebar and Ballina. That is specifically stated in the refusal, in the change of the new plan. The other concerns the rural guidelines which are about communities. Those two views are in conflict.

If one was a councillor how could one deal with this situation? On the one hand one wants communities but on the other one does not wish the smaller towns in County Mayo to grow because one wants the hubs to grow. I hope this can be explained.

Development has been curtailed within the small towns in County Mayo. Some are not so small. Ballinrobe, Claremorris and Ballyhaunis are curtailed because they want the hubs of Ballina and Castlebar to grow. Tuam is a hub town and Claremorris is as near to Tuam as it is to Castlebar. Must Claremorris be cut back because Tuam is a hub town? That is my first question.

There is much discussion concerning recommendations and policies of regional authorities. Who makes those recommendations? Who draws up the draft guidelines for regional authorities? Is it the Department, the county managers or the council officials? I would estimate that it is not the councillors who draw up the initial guidelines.

The present Mayo county development plan, which was rewritten by the Minister, will go on public display for a period of time in order for submissions to be returned. Is it then to go back to the councillors in order for them to adopt it? If they do not adopt it what will be the position of the plan at that stage? Will the Minister's plan stand in any case? What will happen to any submissions entered? If the councillors do not adopt the plan as rejigged by the Minister, will the county council be abolished? If that is the case what is the point in sending it out for public display, looking for submissions and wasting 14 weeks? The Minister's plan has been adopted by the county manager and is being used by him at present.

We might be talking about almost any county development plan in the country. We are not discussing rural planning today but it is important that it is supported. I represent an area in north Leitrim that has 20 townlands without a single house. If we keep going the way we are we will find much more of that.

I partook in two county development plans. In both cases submissions were made by public representatives and by individuals. We met as a group with the officials and while there was never complete agreement, ultimately we came up with a plan. In fairness to Mayo County Council its 31 members adopted a plan. What happened the day after the plan was adopted that triggered the Minister's action? I am sure he was not watching what happened in County Mayo. Somebody must have raised an issue. If that is the case, it is very unfair to county councillors, not only in County Mayo, but throughout the country. If it continues the same problem will exist everywhere.

I refer to land zoning. Market forces decide what is built. Given present circumstances we should be glad to see building in many counties throughout the country. Unfortunately, this is not happening at the moment. I agree with the sentiments of Deputy Tuffy who suggested this matter should be resolved. The Minister should meet the councillors and sort out the matter once and for all, as the current status is not good for anyone.

I will be brief as many of the points have been well articulated. The development plan was passed unanimously by every member of Mayo County Council. This is unique. This is not about party politics, it is about what people seek and we represent the people. Is the Department or the Minister aware of the likely changes to rural Ireland if the edict proceeds? Are public representatives worthy of anything? We saw people marching on the streets last week. That was evidence of people power. Can representatives on both sides of the House not convey a message to the Department that there must be compromise and change?

The perception of Ireland abroad is based on its people, the rural areas and the community spirit and organisations. Deputy Ring mentioned the numbers attending schools and their teams. This not about politics, it is about shutting down rural Ireland. Can the departmental officials see a possibility for compromise or change, given the cross-party support? It is a simple, straightforward question.

The next speakers will be Senators Leyden, O'Sullivan and Carty. Does anyone else wish to speak? We will then hear final comments from the officials.

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to attend this meeting. We are in Government with the Minister, Deputy Gormley but in the circumstances it would be preferable if he were present. The officials cannot change a ministerial order. They can advise the Minister, but he will have to revise, amend or change the order, which is significant. I welcome and respect the officials in attendance from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and I understand their position. I will not direct any derogatory comments at them as they are simply doing their job. I welcome the chairman and members of Mayo County Council and the media from the county, which shows the public interest in the matter.

I was a member of Roscommon County Council for a considerable period and during that time we introduced county development plans, but we never encountered this difficulty. I was a member of the Western Regional Authority for five years. When were the regional planning guidelines adopted by the authority? I may have been a member of the authority at the time. What opportunity was afforded to members of Mayo County Council to make submissions to the authority? When I was a member of the authority, members were recognised for the frequency with which they attended meetings. At the county council meetings I attended we had to take account of the needs of County Roscommon as opposed to regional needs, such as those for Galway, Mayo and Roscommon combined.

What is the difference between the Mayo plan and the plan adopted by Roscommon County Council, which is geared towards rural housing? I live in a rural area and my daughter, who is a councillor, has built a house beside me. I hope my other two girls can build nearby if they wish to do so, and that my son can build on the farm. I intend to ensure that the policies are in place to allow this, as it is necessary for rural areas. There are schools, churches, shops and pubs in rural areas and there is nothing wrong with that. Compare the population in these areas now to that in place before the famine. It is hard to believe the number of people who lived in my area on the land where we farm now. We are only trying to balance the situation.

I support the overall policy of Mayo County Council in this regard. The councillors must face the electorate on 11 June 2009. If they are not doing their job, have breached proper planning guidelines and affected the public in a detrimental way, the electorate will make its decision. I respect the councillors' view and given their comments and those of Members present, will the Minister review his position and consult members of Mayo County Council to devise a reasonable approach, consistent with the approach in County Roscommon? I am proud of the work to date in County Roscommon and I am conscious of the work done in preparing the county development plan by the 26 members of the county council. I see no difference in the position of Mayo County Council. I hope that when the officials report to the Minister, Deputy Gormley, following today's meeting some compromise can be reached with members of Mayo County Council.

I will not delay the meeting. I made a contribution on the matter in an Adjournment motion in the Seanad some weeks ago. However, since the officials are here I wish to put some questions to them. The policy of the Minister and the Department is interventionist. Does the Department now interpret the planning Act in such a way that county development plans are the business of the Minister and the Department? Are such plans belonging to the Department in the first and last instance? If this is the case, it would help if we were aware of the fact. Perhaps departmental officials could start drawing up the draft plans, employ the consultants and go through all the processes at departmental level from now on to save councils money?

Who owns county development plans? I understood ownership was vested in the local authority. I was a councillor for almost 25 years and a major advantage held by a county manager over councillors in a debate was the ability to say to the lady and gentleman councillors present that they were contravening their own plan. It was an important moral weapon the county managers possessed. It appears that it cannot obtain in County Mayo any longer. It is no longer their plan, it is now the Department's plan which will be introduced. I do not imagine there could be much respect for the plan among local authority members in County Mayo today, and perhaps this could happen in County Kerry tomorrow. There are fears among locally elected county councillors throughout the county that this is some kind of new blueprint and that ownership of development plans and county plans will be withdrawn from the counties and from the people who live in those counties. These are the people who recognise the heartbeat and the pulse of the county.

My final comment concerns hubs. There seems to be a fascination with hubs and we have all bought into the concept. Hubs will grow if they are the right hubs and if people wish to live in those areas. If people do not wish to live in an area, one could be hubbing for the rest of ones life, but people will continue to live elsewhere and stay away.

Where do we go from here? I say to the officials and I would say to the Minister, were he present, that they have embarked on a dangerous slippery slope, as Senator Glynn said. It is a bad day for local democracy if this is the new trend. It is time that officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government sat down with the officials from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to discuss the matter. There is clearly dual thinking in Government, and I say as much, as a supporter of the Government. It is time the two relevant Ministers discussed the matter to get the priorities right. I am fully behind the members of Mayo County Council and its officials, who are placed in an invidious position. There was always a healthy tension between planners and officials and elected members. Now there is a third element present. To whom does the county manager report? Must he look over his shoulder to the Department for every decision? He may be able to manage his councillors, but can he manage the Minister too? That is all I have to say on the matter.

I welcome the officials, the chairman of Mayo County Council and his colleagues with some of whom I served on Mayo County Council. I hope the officials give comprehensive answers to what has been stated today and that there is no need for me to ask questions. There seems to have been a lack of consultation between the councillors when they were making their decisions. They put in tremendous work. The two main parties and independent members came together, they had the best legal advice and they put forward a plan, which seems to have been acceptable. Then all hell broke loose. Some of the officials from Mayo County Council contacted the Department and from there on the big stick was used. I deplore that because I am aware of the amount of work democratically elected councillors put into the plan.

I concur with what Deputy Scanlon said and with Senator O'Sullivan who said that democracy is badly served by this kind of action. I ask that there is consultation and that common sense prevails. Regardless of what anybody says, anyone born in the country does not want to be forced to move into a town. Young people today can get a site from their parents, build a nice home and rear a family, which is vital to various organisations, such as schools, churches, GAA or soccer and the whole community.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few brief words. I and Senator Cummins are visitors. We are here because we have received many representations from our colleagues in Mayo and we have strong feelings on the issue. I am delighted to see the delegation from Mayo, led by the chairman. I congratulate him on his election to the chair of Mayo County Council.

This is a unique and extraordinary occasion as the view of the county councillors that the development plan should proceed is unanimous. The view of the people of Mayo is that the plan succeeds. I do not recall such a situation and I have been involved in local government since 1985. It is unacceptable that this issue has arisen as it flies in the face of democracy, local democracy and decision making. I personally and passionately believe, and best practice supports my belief, that people should be allowed to live where they wish to live, subject to basic standards of health and safety. People should have discretion over where they wish to live. They should be in a position to live on their parents' farm and develop their communities. Many speakers today have said there is a threat to rural schools and a rural way of life. Deputy Scanlon was correct when he said there is now a real threat to the construction industry. It is difficult enough to encourage activity in these communities and if this kind of imposition is put in place we may as well put the lights out in rural Ireland.

The Minister must sit down with the councillors and the leaders in Mayo and reach a compromise on this issue. To use a cliché, it is bizarre, unprecedented and unacceptable. One cannot fly in the face of local democracy and best practice, and the people of Mayo should be the ultimate determinants of their own destiny.

I shall return to the delegation. I refer to the opening statement in which two issues struck me. The last paragraph on page 6 states: "Recognising the legacy of widespread zoning across the county, the Department would have been satisfied if the adopted plan included a measure to phase the development of zoned lands across the county in favour of Castlebar-Ballina." Are these lands already zoned and would the delegation be happy if the council had put a phasing on that? That would devalue people's properties that have already been zoned. Would the council be subject to compensation if previously zoned lands were phased and people had a legitimate expectation as they were previously rezoned?

Page 7 states: "In 2007, of the 3,302 planning applications submitted in the county, almost 1,400 were for one-off houses." That information must come from the planning department — the planning department in my area produces that type of statistic. The one statistic we want to get in writing is that if 1,600 applications were not for one-off houses — some of those could be for hundreds — how many housing units were granted permission in the county in 2007? The presentation states that 1,400 were for one-off houses but I suspect it was multiples of that when larger applications for urban areas were taken into account. I hate to be given half a statistic, which is what that is. We were not told how many houses were granted permission other than one-off houses.

Senator Burke asked the delegation to explain the current legal procedure as a variation was mentioned. Is it the case that the Minister has issued his directive and the council is to amend the current plan by way of variation procedure? The delegation has said that is a foregone conclusion. We are going through a charade regarding public consultation. The same happened in Laois, where there was a directive and it was a charade to go through the procedure of a variation seeking public consultation, knowing the outcome was predetermined. The manager bypassed the process and implemented the direction.

What will happen if the councillors do not adopt it?

The manager will probably do it. Those points might be clarified.

Will they be abolished?

No, there is no power in the planning legislation to abolish a council on a matter of this nature. Correct me if I am wrong.

The officials might be able to put it on the record.

They might tell us.

Mr. Dave Walsh

I shall deal with questions and clarifications. The six directions relate to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown in 2003, when it had underzoned sufficient land to cover its housing strategy, Laois in 2006, Monaghan in 2007, Dungarvan in Waterford, Castlebar town plan and the Mayo plan in, all in 2008.

Regarding phasing, it was suggested in a letter, and we had discussions with the council, as to how it might provide a viable route to prioritise without withdrawing zoning for proposed land. Refusal on foot of a phasing does not merit compensation. If land was phased and permission was not granted, there would be no compensation. I cannot confirm the number of houses, but I can get that figure for the committee.

The key question on the issue of having more zoned land is that there is an expectation of development if land is zoned and a requirement or onus on the council to service all zoned land within the period of the plan. It would also contribute to haphazard development, where there would be greenfield sites followed by a development, with no linking of services such as footpaths and lights.

The issue of the Minister not engaging in this matter was raised by a few speakers. Part II of the Planning and Development Act sets out the development plan process and the consultation process. The draft plan and the draft amended plan are sent out to statutory consultees, including the Minister, who make their views known and they are reflected in the manager's report. In this case, the Minister's comments on the lack of prioritisation for the hub and rural housing policy were flagged and supported by the manager in the draft amended debates. The powers of the Minister under section 31 are set out in legislation passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. I cannot comment on whether we need to amend it or to look again at procedures.

One of the last comments was that this situation is unique. That we have issued six directions during the past five or six years suggests it is not unique and the system seems to work well in the main. It is where there are serious significant strategic anomalies between what is considered under Government policy as set down in the national spatial strategy, the rural housing guidelines, the development plan guidelines and what may appear in development plans, that the Minister feels empowered to use his extreme powers under section 31.

There were a few other issues. The Department's direction is not about limiting people building and living in the countryside. It is about controlling and managing the decanting of population from the towns where the services are, to rural areas which may not be the most suitable in terms of their location. The policies only relate to areas around the main towns of Castlebar, Ballina, Westport and a few of the smaller towns. In terms of policies on rural housing, in other parts which have suffered depopulation and where there are issues around growing those rural communities, the rural housing guidelines and the original policy as set down by the council in the draft plan support and facilitate such growth. The direction is not stopping rural development or rural growth, it is trying to manage it as best it can within the broad context of the national spatial strategy and the regional planning guidelines for the west region.

On the issue of taking on board the majority of the manager's proposals, as Deputy Flynn said, we have changed a couple of issues in the plan but they are significant issues that will have major implications for the future development of the county. If they were minor issues, one would ask whether they would have a strategic effect on how the country as a whole and the region is developed and the Minister might say it is an area that will not be critical. In these cases it was felt that if the policies were left as they were, they would impact significantly on development in the west region in terms of servicing and building the capacity of those locations that have the services, the infrastructure and the prioritisation under the regional planning guidelines which has a very strict and logical settlement hierarchy.

The planning Act provides that making a plan is a reserve function of planning authorities. Section 13(7) of the Act provides that local authorities cannot act contrary to proper planning and sustainable development. It is in those instances where the Minister, who has overall responsibility for the planning system, must ensure that the plans at a local level, town level, even LAPs and the large city and county plans, agree with and deliver the type of national policies and priorities that the Government has set in its groups.

The plan was drafted and devised by the councillors. There is a statutory consultation process. On the one hand, it is important that the Department has ongoing engagement with the council. Whenever a draft plan or a draft amended plan or an adopted plan is produced, it is formally sent to the Department along with any notices. The day after the plan was adopted we received an e-mail, along with all statutory consultees, stating that the draft plan had been adopted and was available for viewing on the website. At that point we had to consider what steps we should take now that the plan had been adopted and the members had effectively decided the draft amended plan was the plan with which they would proceed. The process, as set down through the development plan and ongoing engagement with the local authority, allows us to engage and facilitate in that process.

The last question was what happens with the direction and where it goes. Section 31 of the Act provides that the council shall implement the direction by way of variation and it cannot go against the direction. While the Act provides that the plan must be varied to take account of the direction, there is no leeway to move from the terms of the direction. As the Chairman mentioned in his case, the manager undertook a public consultation process, submitted all the comments received to the Minister for his attention, but in the end he made a manager's order affecting the variation——

In County Laois.

Mr. Dave Walsh

——in County Laois. That has been case in other directions in Monaghan. Currently a consultation process is taking place in Waterford in relation to Dungarvan and it is likely the manager will make an order. When the public consultation period is over and the Minister has received the full set of submissions, along with a covering letter from the manager, he will then, unless otherwise directed, make the direction into law——

That is only for the councillors.

Mr. Dave Walsh

That is the process and the legislation sets that out in terms of what must take place.

I wish to raise one final point.

Who brings forward the regional guidelines?

Mr. Dave Walsh

The councillors who are representatives of the three councils in the west region would have elected representatives from Mayo, Galway, Galway City and Roscommon. The director of the regional authority would be tasked with drafting the policies under the guidance of the regional authority. Then there are consultation processes which go out nationwide but also to all the councils. Each of the councils was presented with the draft plan and given an opportunity to comment and make submissions on the regional planning guidelines before they were adopted by the regional authority members.

What about the EU decision in 2007?

Mr. Dave Walsh

That EU decision related to setting up a business in an area. It was about the freedom of movement of capital and freedom of movement of businesses or services.

Mr. Dave Walsh

The Commission wrote to us stating that in development plans, one cannot discriminate against somebody who wants to set up a business in a rural community if that business will contribute to the development and enhancement of the area. On foot of the Commission's letter and following engagement, we had a meeting with the Commission to discuss in more detail what it meant and what it wanted. We issued a circular during the summer to local authorities asking them to ensure that, where they get applications for rural housing, they cannot discriminate against applicants who seek to establish a business in the area if the business can be seen to contribute to the area and is not teleworking or something similar. All councils have received that circular. We have asked that by the end of November they write to the Department confirming that their development plan, local needs criteria, which is decided by elected members does not conflict with the EU requirements.

Will Mr. Walsh forward a copy of that circular to the committee?

Mr. Dave Walsh

I will.

The regional guidelines did not have any impact on Roscommon when I was a member of the council.

That is because the council was not in conflict with them.

Do not check it.

For the benefit of everyone, I will summarise the current position in regard to planning applications received in County Mayo since 11 July 2008. I understand when planners are considering planning applications they have to take account of the development plan and the Government policy directives of the Minister. Even if this is not implemented, am I correct in assuming that planners in County Mayo——

Mr. Dave Walsh

Yes.

——are legally obliged to take account of this directive from the Minister from the date it was issued, whether or not it is ever incorporated?

They are. That is the bad news so that there is no racketeering.

Does that actually mean that the county plan for Mayo will not be the plan of the councillors?

Of the planners.

It will not be the plan of the councillors. It is not being signed off by the elected members. Is that the first time that has happened in the history of the State?

No, we have had five other cases. I assume the county development plan spans 200-300 pages and that only about ten paragraphs have been amended. It is probable that ten, 20 or 30 paragraphs were thrown out, out of several. We all have the schedule.

Councillors have no reserve function any longer.

That is true under the planning Act.

If that is the case we might as well——

At this stage I want to bring in the elected members, who have been very patient. I thank the representatives. They had a difficult session. Many Members of the Oireachtas were in attendance today. The representatives will understand there are strongly held views on this issue across all parties. I thank them for attending and if they want any issue clarified they can revert to the committee in writing. We will suspend the meeting while the elected members take their seats.

Sitting suspended at 5.41 p.m. and resumed at 5.42 p.m.

We are resuming our discussion on the Mayo county development plan and the ministerial directive issued by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I welcome the delegation from Mayo County Council. Councillor Joe Mellett is cathaoirleach of Laois County Council.

Mayo County Council.

What did I say?

Well all politics is local. I welcome also Councillor McGuinness, Councillor McDonnell, Councillor Ryan and Councillor Walsh and thank them for travelling to Dublin to attend today. Before they make their presentation I draw the witnesses' attention to the fact that Members of the Oireachtas have absolute privilege in regard to their statements. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I call on the chairman of the council, Joe Mellett, to introduce his councillor colleagues.

Councillor Joe Mellett

I will introduce the members of our delegation — Councillor Paddy McGuinness, Fine Gael; Councillor Al McDonnell, Fianna Fáil; Councillor Damien Ryan, Fianna Fáil; and Councillor Harry Walsh, Independent.

As chairman of Mayo County Council, I thank the committee for meeting our delegation today. As said previously, we come here with the unanimous cross-party support of the 31 members of Mayo County Council and, more important, with the endorsement of the people of County Mayo. I stress that we represent the next generation who want to remain in County Mayo and construct houses for themselves in their native areas. I hope that having listened to our submission the members will realise the severe impact the ministerial changes in the County Mayo development plan will have not only on County Mayo but on all rural Ireland. I call Councillor Paddy McGuinness.

Councillor Paddy McGuinness

I join the cathaoirleach in extending our thanks to the committee for affording us the opportunity of speaking to members today.

Before I begin my presentation I would like to afford the senior officer from the Department, Mr. Walsh, an opportunity to correct something he said that was wrong. I am sure he did not intend to mislead this committee. I am not accusing him of intentionally misleading it but under questioning he said that no meeting took place between officials of the Department and officials of Mayo County Council post the adoption of the development plan. Under the Freedom of Information Act we sought information about such meetings. We were given information but it did not include a meeting which we are aware took place. The holding of such a meeting was confirmed by the director of services of Mayo County Council with responsibility for planning, Mr. Joe Loftus. If the Chairman allows it I will afford Mr. Walsh the opportunity to confirm that he was not aware of such a meeting.

I will ask Mr. Walsh to verify his records and come back to the committee to clarify it. Councillor McGuinness's point is well made and we will have it clarified, but we must proceed.

Councillor Paddy McGuinness

I would like to make other points before I make the presentation. Another question asked was whether the manager advised us against adopting the plan. Again, Mr. Walsh said that the Minister advised us against adopting the plan. That is not true, but I do not blame Mr. Walsh for that because he was not at the meeting. The manager made recommendations, most of which, as Deputy Flynn pointed out, we accepted. We rejected a very small number of them. At no stage on the final adoption of the plan did the manager intervene to say that he must advise us against adopting the plan.

Many questions were asked by Members of the Oireachtas today — we are greatly encouraged by the number of Oireachtas Members who attended — about meetings between the Minister or his officials and ourselves as elected members. No such meetings ever took place. At every one of our meetings we suggested that the Minister should enter into dialogue with us because we have always recognised that the debate on rural housing has been hijacked by extremists on both sides, people who want houses built everywhere and the planners who, in our view, and perhaps it is incorrect, only want them built in towns and cities.

In an interview with a lady who is present in the Gallery, the news editor of The Western People, the Minister confirmed that he wanted to engage in dialogue with the members of Mayo County Council long before we adopted the plan, but such a meeting never took place.

There are four weeks between a council adopting a plan and it becoming an effective legal document. Why did the Minister not do anything in those four weeks in terms of talking about his problems with our plan? Why did he allow a further six weeks to pass in which applications for planning permission were adjudicated on the basis of a plan he has now rejected? That is a valid question and it is an issue in which the committee might be interested.

Many of the Oireachtas Members spoke about consultation and a number of them pleaded for consultation, even at this late stage. Last Sunday's The Sunday Business Post carried an article in which I and others were quoted. An unnamed source, a senior official in the Department, is quoted in the paper as saying they would come to this meeting but there would be no further meetings between us and the Department. That is serious.

I wish I had not prepared a presentation. I am so exercised by what has gone on, it has thrown me somewhat. We are aware of the amount of documentation that has come to the committee already from the official side. Members have almost been choked with it. We are aware of the format of these types of meetings. We prepared a PowerPoint presentation but it is not feasible to make it. There is a copy in each member's pack and I ask them to look at it in their own time.

The main reason we have gone to this extreme of making such a comprehensive presentation to the committee is that we appreciate this opportunity but, more importantly and because it is necessary, we want to show the thoroughness, commitment and effort the 31 members of Mayo County Council put into this project. The CD concentrates, to a considerable extent, on the beauty of the county, our pride as elected members in it and our reluctance to do anything that would damage in the slightest way such a beautiful county, one of the most beautiful in this beautiful country.

I believe it was Deputy Ring who referred to this point. We went to the extreme of putting our hands in our pockets to pay for independent expert advice. We are, therefore, very hurt, and rightly we consider, by the contents of a letter most members will have received from the Minister in respect of their representations on our behalf. He used phrases in it such as, "ignoring expert advice", "I find it difficult to [understand] the ... rationale [of these people]" and "I hoped [for common] sense". I do not believe that the effort we have put into this deserves those kinds of comments. It adds to the elitist position taken specifically by planners about county councillors. Although I am not saying that any of them are to be found in our county, throughout the country there is a perception that county councillors are buffoons who know nothing.

We conducted a poll on a website to test the popularity or otherwise of the Minister's directive in the case of Mayo County Council, the details of which are in the packs circulated to members. The results of the poll do not matter. Some 70% were against what he was going, 29% were for it and 1% did not care what he did.

An e-mail was circulated. It is interesting that practically none of the e-mail addresses contained in the e-mail is traceable as many of them were "Gmail", "hotmail" and other strange words. The e-mail requested people to answer "Yes" to the survey on the website below and forward it to anyone from Mayo and then it is stated in bold print "retarded Mayo councillors". We suspect, although we have no proof, that this emanated from people in or associated with planning in Ireland.

The Chairman will be interested in this point as he shares the same constituency as the person concerned. Last Sunday, a well-known journalist wrote the following few sentences:

Decent though they are, Brian Cowen and Enda Kenny both inherited their Dáil seats from their fathers ... Still tied to the parish pump where the publican, the doctor and the biggest farmers hold the handle, they are drifting further and further from the new country [all around them].

It is worth taking the time to put in context the atmosphere in which we operate vis-à-vis so-called experts.

I will speak a little more about the experts. I read the minutes of the meeting during which the committee decided to invite us to attend before it. I again repeat our thanks for that. The Chairman rightly expressed concerns about inviting representatives of every council that had a problem with its development plan to appear before the committee. I and, I believe, all my colleagues understand that. This is not a matter of the usual row a council can have with a Minister. The issue in the case of Waterford County Council concerned the zoning of a particular piece of ground. In Monaghan County Council the issue concerned the zoning of lands that were subject to flooding.

This issue is not about zoning lands to enhance any developer and make somebody very rich. It is ridiculous in the extreme for any logical people to suggest that by zoning and freeing up land, it will encourage 79,000 people — that is the figure used in the Minister's letter sent to Deputies — to rush into County Mayo. There is no evidence of that ever having happened. Long before there were these restrictions, that did not happen and it will not happen now. If we thought it would, we would not have gone down this road. It is not about party politics or one party trying to upstage the other. We have 100% unanimous support for our plan.

Many points were made today with which we entirely agree. A speaker said that this is about the notion of one size fits all. That concept of one size fits all is used in a television advertisement where one can see how ridiculous this philosophy can be when a fellow with a spanner can hardly get in the door because the spanner is so big.

On every issue there is room for debate and for alternative opinions to be expressed inside and outside every Department, but the Chairman has the unique honour of chairing a committee for a Department that has one bible. It is as infallible as the one written by the gospel writers. There is no room for any dissension, view or discussion. We have used, much to the annoyance of the senior people in the Department, existing Government policies to draft our plan because we were well advised. We had engaged planners.

Our hopes for today are to point out some errors. In straightforward, simple terms, they are wrong. We hope to highlight some consequences of the Minister's decisions. We want to pose a few questions and appeal to the committee to try to find some way to resolve this dispute.

There are two key issues on which the Minister has found our development plan out of order and unacceptable. The first is that the plan fails to take proper account of the national spatial strategy. I would like to give three quotations from an individual who worked on the expert advisory group advising the Minister on the drafting of the national spatial strategy. It is difficult to believe that somebody working on the committee could find such a different view from what the Minister is saying. The source is Professor Emeritus Séamus Caufield, a man with a huge reputation for accuracy in any of his assessments of any documents. He said:

The growth of the gateways and hubs is not an end in itself and is not so stated in the NSS. Neither is the achievement of target population by 2020 seen as essential or likely in many cases and there is no mention that population growth should be channelled into the hubs.

I was amused to see one of the members of the previous delegation frown and shake his head when the phrase "herding of people" was used in the presentation. The words "focused development" is much nicer language. It is the same thing.

Moving on to the second quotation, Professor Caulfield said:

What he is proposing and has formulated in his wording to replace P/CCC*2.2.2 is in direct contravention of the strategy for small towns and villages as set out on pp 107/8 of the National Spatial Strategy.

He is either completely wrong or he is not. It is a black and white statement.

The third quotation is:

The Minister is ordering the prioritising of development in the hub by demanding the withholding and phased release of zoned land in other towns throughout the county. By refusing to release lands in other towns the explicit aim is to force people into the hub.

We say "herd" people into the hub, so now we have three different descriptions.

I now wish to deal with the facts of the matter. The national spatial strategy has an expectation that hub towns, or the link hub in the case of Mayo, would reach a target population of 30,000 by 2020. In Mayo, the population of Ballina had reached 22,300 by 2006, leaving a shortfall of 7,700 to be made up in the following 14 years. As the population of the hub grew by over 5,000 in the decade from 1996, the target is clearly achievable without any intervention by the Minister.

Deputy Brady is from County Meath. I believe he is from Kells, which is ten or 11 miles from Navan. Navan has not been fortunate enough to have been declared a hub town. If all we get for Mayo from the designation of Ballina and Castlebar as a hub is further restriction on where and how people can live, we will gladly do without hub status. We have got absolutely nothing else. In the development plan that has been thrown back in our faces we had an aspiration that, as the third largest town in the county, we should facilitate the growth of Westport as a natural extension of the hub. We were told to throw that out; it was not allowed. I mentioned Deputy Brady. How would he like it if Navan was a hub town and the county development plan did not allow the development of Kells until this magic figure was achieved in Navan? Really, Chairman, what we are up against is daftness of the worst order.

The national spatial strategy is almost exclusively an urban-based strategy, and most of its targets were arrived at from this viewpoint. It gave only token consideration to the issue of rural housing and rural decline. Many of its aims have been achieved or are no longer either relevant or desirable. Much of the strategy needs updating, especially in so far as it never adequately examined or addressed the problem of rural decay, which is rampant not just in Mayo but throughout the country. As locally-elected councillors, we had no input into the national spatial strategy. Having to slavishly rubber-stamp that strategy renders any county development plan nothing more than an implementation of central government policy rather than local government policy. If this is the case, why bother with the pretence that locally-elected councillors have the right to draft local development plans?

Sustainable rural housing is the second reason the Minister has said he does not like the plan. The word "sustainable" is used all the time. Has any member ever seen in legislation or in a document a definition of the word? When I mention the powers of the Minister it might strike a bell. There is no definition for the word. Later, I will discuss the powers of the Minister. There was a map in the draft development plan which showed areas under serious urban pressure. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that the map was not and could not have been evidence-based, words that were used repeatedly in the earlier presentations. How often this evening have members heard the words "evidence-based"?

It was not and could not have been evidence-based at the time it was drawn up. Even now, with more up-to-date figures available, the map is seriously inaccurate. For example, the hinterlands of Swinford and Ballyhaunis have recorded population loss but are shown in the map as being under strong urban pressure. Even in areas much closer to Castlebar, similar results have emerged. The population of Balla increased from 1,182 in 1996 to 1,362 in 2006, a gain of 180. However, since the town of Balla increased from 316 to 586 in this period, it means the hinterland of Balla town declined by 90 over this period. Despite this, the hinterland of Balla is classified as "under strong urban pressure". This evening the members of the committee were told that nothing we did was evidence-based and that anything being inserted in place of our crazy stuff was evidence-based. When members have time to ask us questions, they will get answers to those comments.

I have spoken for longer than intended. Deputy Flynn mentioned things that were in the plan when she was there that worked fine but which we have now been instructed to take out. In the submission, members of the committee will see examples of items the Minister has told Mayo County Council to remove from the plan. It is frightening. I have dealt with the quotations from Professor Caulfield but I will refer to two further quotations. The then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Martin Cullen, at the launch of the draft guidelines on rural housing said the following:

We have a long tradition in Ireland of people living in rural areas. About one third of our people overall live in the countryside, with a much higher proportion than that in some parts of the country, especially in parts of the midlands and west. [It is 63% in Mayo and 91% in Leitrim.] People will continue to live in rural areas for the foreseeable future. [I doubt that they will if the present philosophy is allowed to take hold. This is not a battle for Mayo but a battle for every rural county in Ireland.] We owe it to rural communities to support the future vibrancy of all areas.

Some members might remember the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern. He said:

In publishing the national spatial strategy we have sent out a clear signal that the traditional settlement pattern of rural Ireland is something we value and should be developed. The traditional loyalties to townland, parish and county have been a binding force in Ireland over the past 100 years and have been a major motivational force in social and economic development. The growth of our towns and cities, which is very welcome, should not be at the expense of rural areas.

Compare that with the herding of people from every corner of Mayo into Ballina and Castlebar. When the population there reaches 30,000, there will be another look at what the council intends to do.

I mentioned sustainability earlier. Section 31, the part of the Act that is being used against us in Mayo, states that where the Minister considers that any development plan fails to set out an overall strategy, he can invoke it. We have received three sets of legal opinion and I will quote from all three. The expression "the Minister considers" means it is not necessary that it is objectively established that he is correct, but merely that the Minister is of that view. Contrast this with the requirement of councillors. We got all kinds of warnings in Mayo about what would happen if we did not follow the direction. We were asked if we had considered this plan, took account of it and had regard to it. The 31 councillors elected in Mayo must meet strict criteria as to what we do or do not do, whereas the Minister only needs to have a view. This committee must examine the Planning and Development Act.

Another section states that the Minister can assert that a county development plan fails to take proper account of the national spatial strategy. The legal opinion is that it is not necessary that it is established that the Minister is correct in this view. The section states that the Minister must give stated reasons for his direction. According to our legal opinion, however, the section does not specify the extent of such reasons and the requirement to give reasons does not involve a requirement to give a discursive judgment.

One of the opinions summarised it by stating:

Section 31 operates as a stark repatriation of power to the Minister. It is striking for the absence of any appeal process, the absence of any meaningful test before the Minister is available to invoke it and the absence of any temporal limits on the Minister to restructure the development plan.

I will now hand over to my colleague, Councillor Al McDonnell. Our presentation contains a petition signed by 31 local representatives who were elected by the Mayo electorate. We are very upset and annoyed because we feel that we have been wrongly portrayed as irresponsible, but nothing could be further from the truth. We appeal to the committee to use whatever influence it has to have this issue in Mayo addressed and resolved for the benefit of many more counties.

Councillor Al McDonnell

I am conscious of the fact that it is 6.15 p.m. and I hope not to detain the committee for very long. I wish to be associated with everything that Councillor McGuinness has said. I have been a member of Mayo County Council for 31 years and this is the third county development plan in which I have been involved. I confirm that the proper procedure was fully observed at all stages in the adoption process. As a matter of fact, this plan got greater consideration than any plan I have dealt with. We scrutinised it not glibly, but meticulously, line by line. We took on board all the advice, but it would not be in the best interests of our county if we took heed of much of the advice we received.

Earlier, the Chairman asked if the manager had advised us. He did, as did many other bodies, both independent of the council and as employees of the council. At the end of the day, however, the elected members of Mayo County Council, having listened to and considered all the advice, are charged with the responsibility of making the ultimate adjudication, which is what we did. I hope the Chairman, as a person with a high reputation, respects that as well. I think he does. We listened to all the advice but we are the adjudicators.

It was deeply upsetting to hear Mr. Walsh refer to the fact that certain communications took place between departmental officials and officials of Mayo County Council without the knowledge or consent of the members of Mayo County Council. This can only be interpreted as undermining the authority of the democratic system in Mayo. We take great exception to that. We were conscious of the fact that there was a strong possibility that this happened and we alluded to it. I was attacked for using the word "collusion" at one stage, but it was a fair word to use in the circumstances.

This is not a political issue in Mayo. We have the full and total support of the people we represent. Before any of our elected members signed this declaration, they had consulted with the people they represent and their views are reflected in those 31 signatures. In the past couple of days we have received messages of goodwill by letter, e-mail and phone concerning our efforts in Dublin. People are conscious of the fact that we have a serious problem in our county. They are also conscious of the fact that over the past 70 to 80 years rural depopulation has been our greatest scourge. For a variety of reasons over that period we have lost in excess of 30,000 people from our rural areas, through emigration caused by lack of opportunity and more recently through restrictive rural planning policies. We can cite plenty of examples of closed schools, shops and post offices, as well as community and sporting centres.

Our entire rural, social and economic structures are falling apart. Our vast rural areas will become totally unsustainable if this trend is not reversed quickly. We are grateful, though, to Governments of all persuasions for their efforts to redress this problem. We are particularly appreciative of the efforts of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, who has identified large areas of our county that have suffered serious population decline, in excess of 33% since 1926. The decline has exceeded 50% in many district electoral divisions within one person's lifetime. As members of the committee will be aware, these are known as CLÁR areas and additional funding is provided on an ongoing basis in an effort to address the infrastructural deficit in these declining regions. As a result, our entire county is now provided with the necessary facilities and services to accommodate residential development of traditional densities. Our county is now in a position to accommodate residential development of traditional densities.

In our current development plan we classify, with justification, all CLÁR areas as structurally weak. We believe that, subject to strict environmental and road safety conditions, anybody wishing to build or live in these CLÁR areas should be allowed to do so. It is difficult to believe that anyone could find a more suitable categorisation for these depopulated areas. The sense of disbelief and outrage which greeted the Minister's attempt to reclassify these areas as "under strong urban pressure" is very easy to understand. Our experience confirms that there will not be a mass exodus of people from urban areas to quiet rural settings. There is a worldwide attraction to bright lights and urban surroundings. However, having made the move to urban centres, many soon realise that it is not the panacea once anticipated and quickly experience the social, economic, environmental and security threats in urban surroundings. The peace, tranquility and safety of rural life are replaced by concrete, congestion and pollution.

The severe restrictions now being forced on us did not exist prior to the Planning and Development Act 2000. Up until then anybody regardless of origin, race or creed wishing to build in a rural area was allowed do so subject to normal planning conditions. No dramatic relocation trends from urban to rural settings occurred prior to that time. In fact, the opposite was the case and rural decline continued.

The current unnecessary and severe planning restrictions on rural housing are slowly but progressively being strengthened towards a total prohibition of rural development. This extraordinary attack on our very existence was instigated by the Irish Planning Institute with, we are convinced, influence from British counterparts and, more importantly, by senior urban-based Department officials with a serious knowledge deficit of rural life. That is as politely as I can put it. None of these bodies enjoys an electoral mandate of any kind.

I repeat that there is no justification for a fear of a mass exodus of people from urban centres to the CLÁR areas of County Mayo. The numbers of people seeking a home in quieter and safer rural areas will continue to be a small proportion of the settled population. We in Mayo are determined to ensure this important minority of people are accommodated in our current development plan.

In my own office I have seen people I hardly knew shed tears of bitter disappointment and disbelief as a result of a planning decision just received. Their dreams, in many cases of a lifetime, unnecessarily shattered, these people were forced on occasions to leave our county. It is criminally wrong to force these people from their natural habitat to unfamiliar and unnatural surroundings in urban centres.

There are often subtle references to the threat to water quality from the rural house. We wish to challenge strongly the suggestions that a rural house, properly located and on ground suitable for the safe disposal of domestic effluent, in any way threatens the water quality in our county. Subtle suggestions from planners that the single rural house represents a significant threat to water quality are either misinformed or deliberately misleading. I favour the latter. The most comprehensive report ever carried out on water quality in County Mayo over a three-year period on Lough Conn proved conclusively, and this is important, that almost 96% of eutrophication, which is enrichment, in Mayo water was caused by sources other than rural housing. In fact, urban housing, at 3.6%, was almost as big a contributor to this problem.

In our new plan we have tightened this further. We have ensured this contribution to eutrophication is reduced further by insisting on a minimum site area of 3,000 sq. m and also insisting that each application be accompanied by a certified percolation test carried out by a person with specified minimum qualifications. These are new environmental measures that we impose. If there was any possibility that our proposals in this regard were to the detriment of water quality or to the environment generally, we would not have made them and, in fact, some of us would be on the other side of the fence.

Our plan, as referred to earlier with some inaccuracy, is in compliance with the European treaties of Nice and Maastricht. We refer specifically to non-compliant prohibitions on the majority of applicants for rural planning and to the infamous residency clause which confines a particular individual to a specific address for a defined period. These illegal prohibitions under European law have been brazenly applied by many local authorities, including Mayo, despite a strong written ultimatum from the European Commission in June 2007 to cease the discriminatory policy of allowing only certain categories of applicants to secure planning permission in rural areas. On this, I take issue with the comments of Mr. Walsh, who indicates that this is confined to business. Article 43 of the Treaty of Nice guarantees the free movement and establishment of people throughout the EU, and the Treaty of Maastricht guarantees the free movement of capital. This is not what the committee heard from this table; this is my interpretation of it.

It is not surprising then that the Government received a letter from the European Commission in which it identified a number of counties, including Mayo, which were in breach of both the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Maastricht in the operation of rural planning policy. We are, therefore, obliged to embrace the aforementioned European regulations. In fact, we are the only county in Ireland to do so.

Our plan has the full and enthusiastic support of the 31 elected members who had an active participation in its adoption. This is confirmed by the signatures. We are convinced that we are acting in the best interests of the people of Mayo and we are the people best equipped to find the solutions.

We have put substantial time and effort into this plan and we deem it our duty to do so. We are not prepared to allow a meltdown of the social and economic structures of our county. Should the Minister's intervention be successful it will ensure the death of rural Mayo. His intervention has resulted in the removal of his own Department's policies under the sustainable rural housing guidelines published and adopted in 2005. His directive classifies areas which have suffered significant population decline under strong urban pressure. The Department's theory is that the more people one drives from rural Ireland, the more sustainable it becomes. What an extraordinary conclusion.

We are totally convinced that we act in the best interests of the people of our county. It is time to challenge the flawed theories emanating from Dublin and from across the Irish Sea. We are determined to see our vision fulfilled and we hope we can depend on the committee's support in this regard in the weeks and months ahead. We appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee today.

I thank Mr. McDonnell and call Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Damien Ryan

I thank the Chairman for the time he has allowed us today and for the time he allowed the Oireachtas Members to question the representatives from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I have just a few observations to make. Councillors McDonnell and McGuinness and the chairman of the council have identified to a large extent many of the issues that needed to be raised here today.

I thank all the Oireachtas Members who have attended today and supported us, not alone from our county but from all the other rural counties throughout Ireland. It is very much appreciated. It heartens me and we will not forget it.

Having listened to the presentation and replies given by the representatives by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in respect of the county development plan, one could be forgiven for believing that one was in a place similar to Zimbabwe. That presentation and the replies that were given display no respect or consideration for elected members. The term "collusion" has previously been used in respect of another part of this island. However, it also applies in respect of senior officials in both the Department and the planning unit in Mayo County Council.

It was stated that all zoned land would need to be serviced and used up before further land can be zoned. If that policy were pursued, the cost of land would go through the roof. The other aspect of this matter is that when land is zoned, there is nothing to prevent 100% of it being built upon. In many instances involving rural towns in Mayo with which I am familiar, only 35% or 40% of zoned land is ever developed. This has been the case in respect of successive local area plans.

Some 75% of what was contained in the manager's report was incorporated into the final development plan which was unanimously adopted by the 31 members. The other 25% was rejected by individuals who were of the view that the proposals therein might be to the detriment of the areas they represent. The officials will accept nothing less than 100% of the manager's report being incorporated. I conclude from this that democratically-elected councillors have no function in the devising or adopting of development plans.

I want the committee to take into consideration a matter to which Senator Glynn referred. As county councillors, we were obliged to seek private legal advice in respect of the terminology contained in the plan. Such advice should be freely available and should be paid for by the Department through the local authority. It is available to the executive at no cost and I see no reason elected members should be placed at a disadvantage.

The report from the Department refers to strong urban pressures on the rural hinterlands of towns such as Balla, Swinford, Ballyhaunis and Ballinrobe. Nothing could be further from the truth and our report contains the facts in respect of this matter. In the rural areas surrounding these towns, the population has decreased. The argument put forward by the Department is without merit or foundation.

From the expressions used by the representatives of the Department, one would think we lived in a police state. Nothing short of contempt has been shown for elected members. This issue is not peculiar to Mayo; it will arise for all local authorities when their development plans are up for renewal.

Our report indicates that 14 meetings and six workshops devoted to devising the development plan were held. Despite all the care and consideration, thought and effort they invested in drawing up that plan, members have — in the form of the directive issued by the Minister — been treated with nothing short of contempt by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The Chairman inquired about the six section 31 applications. There appears to be a vendetta against Mayo because only two — 33% — of these applications apply to the county, one to the Castlebar town plan and the other to the Mayo county development plan. There appears to be a move on the part of the Department to close down Mayo.

In unanimously adopting the plan, that is one matter the 31 members took into consideration. The blue area in the relevant map in our report shows the decrease in population that occurred — over an area of 85% to 86% of the county — between 1951 and 2006. The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs has given consideration to the entire area, with the exception of the three urban areas of Ballina, Castlebar and Westport. The Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, considers them to be CLÁR areas as a result of the population decrease to which I refer. That is his policy but I cannot fathom how the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's policy conforms with this.

It was in order to address the imbalance that exists and the decline in population that occurred that we set about putting together a comprehensive development plan which was unanimously agreed and adopted by the 31 elected members of the council. We did not take this decision lightly. We did not invest hours of effort into considering this matter for no reason. As already stated, one could be forgiven for thinking that we are living under a regime similar to that which obtains in Zimbabwe.

Councillor Harry Walsh

I wish to highlight the extraordinary collaborative efforts of the members of the two major parties on Mayo County Council. Four years ago, I would never have guessed that this might happen. However, we came together in respect of the most important issue for people in Mayo, namely, the survival of the county in a way that is acceptable to them. I thank all the Oireachtas Members who contributed to the debate on this matter. I particularly thank Senator O'Sullivan for the contribution he made in the Seanad. However, I do not want to exclude anyone because everyone has done their bit.

I wish to make an appeal on behalf of my parish and those that lie adjacent to it to the effect that we be allowed to maintain our populations at current levels. We do not need to increase our populations dramatically in order to survive. In order to maintain it at its current level, however, we need to build a certain number of additional houses. Due to the reduction in family sizes there is no other way it can be achieved. We cannot do anything to increase family sizes because the economic constraints that exist do not allow for the existence of large families.

I welcome the delegation led by Councillor Joe Mellett. It is obvious that its members have invested a great deal of time in drawing up their plan and they have come here today to outline the principled stance they have taken. I previously served as a member of a local authority for over seven years and I can relate to everything our guests said and to the concerns they outlined.

As Deputy Ring stated earlier, we have reached the point where we must decide whether we want proper local democracy or whether we are content to allow the charade to continue under which there is a pretence that councillors have a say in the formulation of their county and city development plans and in respect of how their areas will develop over the next five to seven years. Mayo County Council went to extreme, exhaustive and extensive lengths to consult all stakeholders during the preparation of its plan. I am of the view that its members have given the plan more consideration than has been given by their counterparts in other local authorities.

I previously served as chairman of a regional authority. Where regional plans are adopted by members of constituent local authorities, they are prepared by planners. A professional planner is employed to draw up a plan on behalf of a regional authority and the planners of all the constituent authorities make submissions in respect of that plan. The planners leave their stamp on regional plans and try to do so in county development plans. This is the first time I have witnessed councillors take a principled stand to examine the needs of their communities and adopt them in their plans. They should be commended on that and that is why it is a watershed. A national debate should be held on local government and whether it has a future if we are to continue down the road of Ministers intervening directly and issuing diktats to local authorities.

This submission was not thrown together. A strong united cross-party front has been presented by Mayo County Council, which is unprecedented. Reasonable, experienced councillors who would not jeopardise the future of Mayo are involved. This is a call to fundamental democracy. I am a relatively young public representative and I would like to put down a marker that this could be a historic day. If this call is not heard by all Oireachtas Members, we could go down the road of marches on the Dáil and local authority chambers and headquarters. That is what I sense, and if we are good politicians, we need to sense what the people are saying. Mayo public representatives have done that.

This is a serious issue and it is not just a matter of the Minister sending a diktat. A more fundamental message is being sent today. It is Mayo County Council today and it will be another local authority tomorrow. I commend the councillors who have attended in their own time. There has been a serious breach of trust between them and county management and that must be acknowledged. It is a pity it happened but they have taken a principled stance and I come down on their side. Meetings were held between council officials and the Department, about which councillors were not made aware, which is a great pity. I have attended meetings of this committee at which the Minister and his officials have consistently said they are trying to enhance local democracy and the powers of councils and they are trying to build trust between officials and members. However, in one movement, this has swept the legs from under all that. The charade can no longer continue. Even at this late stage, the Minister and the Department should consult the elected members and officials of Mayo County Council to thrash out a reasonable and workable compromise. I will watch this issue closely.

I welcome the members of Mayo County Council. I was pleased to support the Government spokesperson's proposal to have them address the committee. It is important that they attend and outline the current position in succinct terms. What the council has achieved has been spoken about loudly and lengthily. The natural division created by different parties ensured that, but on this occasion there has been a huge victory for common sense. Democracy is the real victor because the 31 local authority members came together and produced and endorsed a plan, and they were disappointed. I was in my 25th year of service as a local authority member when I stood down because of the dual mandate provision, which I welcomed. Deputy Ring and I disagree on that but I respect his view.

I cannot even get an answer.

That remains a matter for debate and we will agree to differ. I am a country man living in the town of Mullingar and I am aware of the importance of rural development and sustaining rural communities. A famous Deputy once said his part of Ireland was "made up largely of briars, bullocks and bachelors". That is the road we are going if this development plan obtains. I respect the fact that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government reacted in the context of the legislation in place but this must be revisited. The people of Mayo are angry and that is reflected by their public representatives. If local government is to mean anything and 31 members decide, following consultation with their constituents, the best plan for their county, the matter must be revisited because the delegation has made a clear and sound case for doing so. The five members of the delegation, including the chairman, have my support. Many Deputies are present who do not represent Mayo and they have nothing to gain, but there is deep concern among Oireachtas Members about what happened in Mayo and its implications for other local authorities.

I welcome my colleagues from Mayo County Council, three of whom I served with for many years. I also served on Castlebar Town Council with Councillor McGuinness. All the councillors are honourable gentlemen who have the best interests of Mayo at heart. This issue can be resolved and I am grateful to the Chairman for the opportunity to address the meeting. The committee will make recommendations and I hope it will recommend that dialogue should take place between members of Mayo County Council and the Department.

I wish to put a question to Councillor McGuinness — this issue will probably be raised with the members of Mayo County Council in terms of the plan they have adopted. Will the plan allow for housing to be dotted all over the landscape? I believe, from reading the plan, that will not be the case. Another issue, which I raised previously with departmental officials and was considered by members of Mayo County Council, relates to the rural planning guidelines and the national spatial strategy. They are at variance with each other and it is most difficult for members of the council to decide which takes precedence over the other. The Department officials who are present should outline in detail what is intended by both the guidelines and the strategy and whether one takes precedence over the other.

In the town of Ballinrobe there is a racecourse and transport structures must be put in place from the main hubs in the county, such as Ballina, Castlebar and other towns, so that Ballinrobe can expand. Westport, for example, is one of the principal tourist spots in the State. It is certainly the premier tourist destination in the west. Surely that town should be able to expand as its hinterland contains Croagh Patrick and beaches. Under the plan put forward by the Minister, the growth of Westport and similar towns will be curtailed. Transport links should be provided between Ballina, Castlebar and Westport.

The Chair has been impartial and has given great latitude to everybody. He should use his office to bring about dialogue between the members of Mayo County Council and the Department so that they can sit down together. A one size fits all approach does not work with regard to planning. Mayo County Council is different from other local authorities and I see no reason the Department cannot sit down with its members to resolve this issue.

I thank the Chair for his patience and leniency, despite the fact I am not a member of this committee. Senator Paddy Burke reminded me of something. It is not too many years ago since officials in Mayo County Council wanted to cap the population of Westport at 4,000, but as elected Members on the council, we had to resist that. The officials wanted to cap the population because they felt growth in population was not the way to move forward. The feeling was Westport was a lovely town and the population should be capped. The officials in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government were not as concerned about Westport then as they are now. It had no sewerage scheme, no water scheme — that only came in recent years — and development was held back for more than 30 years. During that time neither the Minister nor officials were ringing each other to see how they would resolve the situation. It was left to the Government to resolve the problem.

I thank the head of the council and the members. They did their county proud and spoke well today. I was elected to Mayo County Council in 1979 and it was a sad day the day I left it. The reason people like me left was because officials and managers all over the country could did not want elected Oireachtas Members on the councils. They knew legislation was coming to the House to do away with the dual mandate and they felt it would be handier and easier to deal with councillors like those here today than with Oireachtas Members. It took them a long time, but they got us off the councils. Many people regret the fact elected Members are no longer on the councils because they cannot get replies from the council or make contact with officials. Mr. and Mrs. voicemail are the two most important people.

To return to the points raised today, the members of the council are the people listening to the local people. They were passionate about what they had to say today. I am from County Mayo, just as are the five members of the delegation. I love my county and want it to develop. I want people to be able to live and work and raise their families in County Mayo. I do not want to do anything that would damage our environment, our towns or our countryside. I love the environment and live in the most beautiful part of Mayo, in Westport, near Croagh Patrick and do not want anything to destroy that.

I have been a member of both a town and a county council but I never voted for anything that would do any damage to County Mayo or to the town of Westport, of which council I was a member. We took very difficult decisions at difficult times, such as difficulties with regard to plastic signage. Before the Green Party was heard of and before environment was part of the Department title, we took decisions to try to keep Westport as it was and remains to this day. Well done to the council.

I make one plea to the Chairman, the Minister and the officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Three years ago I put it on the record that it would not be long before the people would be outside the Department's door. They are out sooner than I thought. Senator Coffey is right. The people have had enough and they are waiting now for the next local elections. The big issue then will be about what point there is in voting to elect councillors or Members of the Oireachtas when they have no say or power because the power lies in the hands of officials in whose selection they have no part.

I urge the delegation to stand by their cause and their principles. If we do not win this fight, we might as well forget about local democracy. My plea is for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to come to meet Mayo County Council's cathaoirleach and members in a private session to discuss the issue and to follow that with a public meeting. He must do that and bring the officials from the council who did not see fit to talk to the delegation. They only communicated with each other by phone and could not send memos or e-mails. Why do they have the technology to send memos and e-mails if they have to do everything by phone? There is something wrong if it has to be done over the phone.

I say well done to the delegation here today and urge its members to keep up the good work. I support them. I compliment the people from other counties that have offered support. It may be Mayo today, but it could be Cork, Westmeath or someplace else tomorrow. Well done and keep up the good work.

As I am not a member of this committee, I appreciate the latitude given by the Chair. He has been very even-handed in his dealings with us. I am only in the Oireachtas a wet week and still think like a councillor. I am very proud of my colleagues in Mayo for the way in which they have progressed this issue so courageously and in such a united and non-partisan fashion.

It is no exaggeration to say the delegation has presented us with a question from which we cannot run away. This is not the first time Mayo people have stood up for the small man and small communities. Remember, for example, the time of the Land League. It seems Mayo is giving the lead again. Kerry is putting its development plan through currently, but it is quite apprehensive on account of what is happening in Mayo. The signs are there. The officials referred to six cases they have dealt with, but by this time next year I expect there will be 26. There is a new way of looking at development plans.

Let us take the example of the situation when the councils of Mayo or any other county meet to do their estimates and budgets, something that will happen soon. If in its wisdom Mayo County Council plans to collect so much in rates and service charges and makes that decision, imagine the furore there will be if a Minister intervenes and says it cannot do that and that if it does not go back and review its decision, he will set the rate at a certain level. If the Minister enforces that, what will his decision do for the credibility of the 31 councillors in Mayo? If, as currently, the Minister has the final say, what does that do for the credibility and standing of these individuals and for the whole ethos of local government? That must change.

I agree with previous speakers that we must bring about change. I will support my colleagues of all parties in the Seanad to see what we can engineer in this regard. This committee has an important function in this regard. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, is a good Minister and he has been proactive in many aspects of local government. He is new in the job and may be on a learning curve. It would be good if there was dialogue between him and other Ministers on the issue, in particular, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, who has a role to play in this area.

Nobody wants to have a council of dummies. We want councillors who are prepared to stand up and make well-researched and well-thought out decisions. The elections are due next year and councillors will be tested by that. There is no need for the Minister to oversee them at all.

I commend the Chairman on his handling of this meeting and for the time he has given from his busy schedule. I commend my colleagues from Mayo. We were at the regional authority together and I cannot recall any great debate about planning strategies that would affect Roscommon, Galway or Mayo. We never went into great detail with regard to depriving people of permission to build in a rural area.

I am delighted the senior officials from the Department have stayed to hear the views of the county councillors. I spent some time with the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party to find out what is the next move. We are being proactive and discussing different issues.

What is the next move?

This section 31 has been signed on the recommendation of the officials by the Minister. How then can we get beyond the next move? There is no point in just pandering to the five councillors here and telling them they are great because they came and they have done their bit. The question is what the next move is and whether we can do anything about the situation. Can we influence the Minister? I suggest we request that he and the officials engage in dialogue with the county manager and councillors to see what compromise can be reached in this regard.

Is the Senator seconding Deputy Ring's proposal?

I have no problem with Deputy Ring's proposal. He is a good colleague from the west.

There are other issues facing councillors and facing Roscommon County Council as we approach next year's budget. Councillors will have to make difficult decisions. What incentive is there for the councillors from Mayo to adopt a very tough budget for 2009 for County Mayo, when their proposals are being vetoed by the same Department that wants the council to implement decisions locally for 2009? The warning signs are there. I am aware of what Roscommon County Council faces in this regard and of the difficulties it faces. Mayo County Council will have difficulty adopting its estimates for next year.

I appeal to all concerned to get together. My personal experience with Mayo with regard to planning has not been great. I found it exceedingly difficult to get planning permission in areas which were quite reasonable. I had to make a very strong case. There is a far better regime in County Roscommon, thanks be to God. We adopted the county development plan and all the councillors spent weeks and months debating it. I know the effort they put into it. We adopted a similar approach to Mayo County Council and we were not vetoed by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Hopefully it is too late for the Department to veto it now or it might revisit it and I would be in right trouble in County Roscommon.

I think Mr. Michael McDowell sorted that out.

A Roscommon man.

Even the President had difficulty with planning in County Roscommon.

We will have to adopt a proposal to request the Minister to enter into dialogue with the county council, councillors and officials, to see if they can come up with some agreement.

I thank the Chairman for allowing me make a contribution as I am not a member of the committee. He has been a very impartial Chairman.

I compliment the delegation from Mayo County Council on the wonderful presentation and the unity of purpose it has shown right across the party divide. I support the proposal made by Deputy Ring and Senator Leyden. The only way to solve this is through dialogue. This is the message that needs to be taken from this meeting. I urge that common sense prevails.

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to speak. Like Deputy Ring I was elected to a council in 1979 and I have had the pleasure of addressing a number of conferences for the IPA addressing new members of councils. I have always stressed the reserve function of the members where estimates and development plans were concerned. There will be a diminution of the reserve function of members if this goes ahead. There will have to be dialogue at this stage. The Minister cannot just bury his head in the sand and give a directive. He must come back to the members and discuss what is happening.

It has been said there are six other such cases. I would suggest that with regard to the other cases there was not unanimity among the members. This will need to be borne in mind by the Minister. If he looks at the other cases, he will see there were divisions as to what should go on. In this case there is complete unanimity and that signifies the difference between the Mayo situation and the other situations. I ask that this be investigated by the officials and by the Chairman.

As Deputy Ring and others have stated, the members would be the last people to do anything that would destroy their own county and area. It is essential that the Minister consults with the members now rather than imposing this directive. He can consult with officials and he obviously has done so but in deference to the members, he needs to get back to them and try and iron out this problem because it needs to be ironed out, otherwise we can throw our hats at the notion of reserve functions for members.

I refer to what a Minister from the west said on 19 June 2008. He said that people must recognise rural Ireland as a place of promise and opportunity and most important, a place where people have chosen to live and work. He said that a growing population creates jobs and stimulates further diversification. He said that instead of forcing rural people to move to towns and cities, the sensible thing to do is to move to dispersed rural communities, the townlands and villages which have so much to offer.

The Minister from the west, Deputy Ó Cuív. It is worth putting on the record. Mayo wants people, it wants employment and it also wants housing. Other parts of rural Ireland are also in danger of depopulation and this results in the loss of jobs, shops, schools, post offices and GAA clubs in parishes.

The most unsustainable thing about rural housing is the case made against it. My advice would be to ask the Minister to call together all county managers to see how they might address this issue and help to address the current economic situation.

I have some observations and I will act as the Devil's advocate. It would be unfair if we all praised the delegation and sent them home and did nothing about it. Reference was made to Swinford, Ballyhaunis and Balla where there has been a population decline and yet the Department is referring to it as an area of strong urban pressure. It seems to be, on the face of it, an area with population decline on the one hand and yet the same area is suffering strong urban pressure from a planning point of view. This seems to be a contradiction but, on analysis, may not be completely so. I will ask the Department to explain the difference.

The Department stated in its presentation that it has been involved in 80 county development plans and only six of the 80 have incurred a ministerial directive, therefore, 74 others have not had a problem. Somewhere along the line the other 74 did not have this problem. It is incumbent on Mayo councillors to check with neighbouring counties to see how they got over the problem that many rural counties have. The other 74 avoided incurring the wrath of the Minister. Maybe they flew under the radar.

I was struck by the notion that the Ballina and Castlebar hub is good for Castlebar and Ballina but if the rest of the county has to be held back to help that, it could be a disadvantage to be a hub or whatever these phrases are. We just have a county town in Portlaoise. There may be a disadvantage in a county having a hub.

I am going to ask two hard questions. The delegation said that site size should be up to 3,000 sq. m. This is way less than an acre as I understand it.

Councillor Damien Ryan

It is three quarters of an acre.

Yes, way less than one acre. It is 30 m. by 100 m. In a rural area if each of those houses has to sink its own well for water supply and put in its own septic tank and the site is not even an acre and everyone up the road is doing the same, there has to be a concern about the proliferation of septic tanks and individual wells. There must be a risk. I am aware that a certified percolation test is being carried out but that is not adequate to deal with this problem.

The delegation referred to the CLÁR area which covers nearly all the county. It states the council is in favour of anybody wishing to build once a road hazard is not created. Any building or site involving a road hazard, has a percolation problem or is unsuited to the landscape, should not be built anywhere. The delegation argues that anybody should be allowed build anywhere in County Mayo once the site passes road safety, sewerage and landscape regulations. How much of the county is in the CLÁR area outside of the three towns?

Councillor Paddy McGuinness

All of it.

I am playing Devil's advocate. I ask the delegation to tell me if I am wrong. I want to address this issue impartially. Am I wrong when I say that the Mayo county development plan states that anybody can build anywhere in the county on three quarters of an acre, provided there is not a road safety or environmental problem? Coming from a rural county I say there should be some restriction. The document states that anybody can build in any part of the county.

Councillor Paddy McGuinness

To meet the three criteria——

If I were the Minister and that were presented to me, I would say that it is too broad. I want the witnesses to respond to that matter as it is the nub of why we are here today.

Having observed proceedings today, the legislation dealing with the ministerial directive is fundamentally flawed and requires amendment straight away. Every step of a local authority development plan up to its adoption involves discussion, reports, consultation and views of the public and then when it is all completed from behind closed doors a ministerial directive is issued. That element of the legislation is not in keeping with the spirit of the Planning and Development Act. There needs to be a continuation of the planning process. It is right that the Minister ultimately has the power to make a directive. However, there is no continuation of the consultation in arriving at that. While I am not suggesting weakening the power of the Minister, at some stage that power needs to be changed so that it cannot come like a bolt out of the blue without any awareness of local people. I would include that if we were compiling a report. In due course the committee will consider everything we have heard today and we will get more information from the answers to questions we have put to departmental officials. We will issue a report. I ask Councillor McGuinness to respond to my concern over what I have read today and assuage my fears if possible.

Councillor Paddy McGuinness

May I also deal with the questions asked?

Councillor McGuinness should also respond to the comments.

Councillor Paddy McGuinness

I begin by agreeing with other speakers that members of the committee have been extraordinarily lenient and fair with us, which we appreciate. Their questions have also been very perceptive, which is no harm. Senator Paddy Burke asked about the proliferation of houses dotted all over the county. We recognise the validity of the classification of areas under strong urban pressure.

Is that in the plan?

Councillor Paddy McGuinness

It is in the plan. Ours is evidence-based as distinct from a large amount of the county being designated as being under strong urban pressure when that is not the case. If we want compromise — we certainly want settlement — there are areas that are not classified as being under strong urban pressure that should be shown as such. For us to be blamed as having adopted the plan without evidence-based facts is hard to take. However, we will take it in the interest of progress.

If all three conditions had to be met before planning permission could be granted, it would mean that vast amounts of Mayo would not meet those three criteria. Therefore, again the assessment of the officials that the amount of land we have zoned would facilitate an additional 79,000 people is bunkum. By our criteria vast tracts of Mayo could not be built on, but for a different reason based on pure planning rather than the strict zoning attitude. It must be remembered that we started by saying we are offering another way and another view. Why will people not talk to us about it? I hope that deals with Senator Burke's question.

I would like to cover three other things. Somebody spoke about a breach between the management and members of Mayo County Council. We would be doing a disservice to our council if we left that unchallenged. Our manager is in an unenviable position and we do not in any way detect a breach between him and us.

I wish to make one very important point in response to one of the Chairman's questions. There have been six ministerial directives and 74 out of 80 plans were not affected. Four of those six have been issued since the Minister, Deputy Gormley, took office. Many of the 74, mentioned by the Chairman, have gone through. The Minister issued this directive. Mayo County Council, in refusing planning permission, had quoted to people that the Minister had issued this directive and therefore they were being refused. One of the gentlemen — I believe it is one of the gentlemen the Chairman introduced today — wrote to our senior planner and in the middle of the letter stated that the Minister's direction to Mayo County Council of 11 July that the county development plan must be amended de facto meant that the terms of the direction were incorporated into the plan. The letter went on to state that the senior planner should not tell people it is the Minister’s fault. We took legal advice, which indicates that the Minister’s variation, while effective from the date of issue, does not form part of the Mayo county development plan until the process set out in the Planning and Development Act 2000 has been completed. In this instance the process has not even commenced. Why is all this going on?

I hope we have given the members of the committee a sense of why we are so annoyed. At the risk of having to thumb home this evening, I will say to those three gentlemen that I believe that they hold their views with total sincerity. I have no problem in saying that. Many of their colleagues are similarly as sincere and they are trained in an area professionally. However, I beg them to recognise that similarly we are as sincere in our beliefs. We ask them to recommend to the Minister that we engage in dialogue. I mentioned areas that are under serious urban pressure which are not identified in the Department's map. We are offering to engage in dialogue on those areas. I ask the officials not to leave us in the situation where the Minister, if he is so convinced that he is right, will ultimately find himself having to dismiss the 31 of us. There is no way we will agree that we were completely and totally irresponsible in something over which we took so much care.

The Chairman has been unbelievably fair to us, which we appreciate.

I will ask the departmental officials to clarify this issue for the committee. I understand the Minister would have no power to dismiss the council on a matter relating to planning. I will ask to get that in writing. I do not want any fears to exist that this might happen. Councillor McGuinness did not fully answer my question about houses in the country. It goes without saying that any site that does not meet road safety standards or any site that cannot meet environmental standards relating to percolation or whatever cannot be built on. That applies in every county. If there is bad soil or bad roads in a region, that is the end of it. Is Councillor McGuinness saying that beyond that, the current county development plan as drafted by Mayo County Council allows building on every one of those fields throughout the entire county on which a house could physically be built without endangering road safety or the environment?

Councillor Al McDonnell

I wish to address Senator Leyden's query. He asked where we go from here and what our current legal status is as councillors. Councillor Dave Walsh indicated that this ministerial directive was a fait accompli and we had no right to challenge it. From the best legal advice we could get on the reading of the Act, our understanding is that we can successfully challenge the directive under a specific section of the Planning and Development Act 2000 subject to certain criteria. I will not indicate those criteria today. I know we have strong grounds for challenging this directive. We know that at the end of it we could refuse to accept the directive. I cannot pre-empt what the public will tell us to do but I am 95% sure we will reject it if it comes to that. The advice we have received suggests that the Minister would then have the option of dismissing us. We are prepared to go that far. Our principles are forcing us to go that far. If we compromise on this, we will be abandoning the people of our county. It would lead to the death of rural Mayo. We are not prepared to do that.

I will respond to the Chairman's query. Councillor Damien Ryan pointed out that 85% of County Mayo is deemed to be structurally weak and therefore qualifies for CLÁR assistance. Such areas have suffered significant population decline. Many rural areas have been decimated. Last Sunday, I went for a drive in the Castlebar electoral area, which is deemed to be under pressure. Within approximately 20 minutes, I saw ten national schools that have been closed in my lifetime. We are not talking about maintaining what we have — we are talking about reversing the trend. As I said earlier, there is no fear of a mass exodus of people from urban to rural settings. The number of people applying for planning permission in rural settings will continue to be small. It will represent a small proportion of the population of County Mayo. Some people believe there will be a house in every field, but that will never happen.

Does the plan allow for that?

Councillor Al McDonnell

No, it does not. A significant area of County Mayo is unsuitable for the safe disposal of domestic effluent.

I hope Councillor McDonnell does not mind me asking that question. I am merely engaging in conversation. If it is not suitable for the safe disposal of domestic effluent, it does not come into the reckoning for planning.

Councillor Al McDonnell

It does not. That is what I am saying.

Does Councillor McDonnell believe that every field in which a house can be built should be eligible for housing development, as long as it is appropriate from the point of view of sewage disposal and road safety?

In some areas, houses would be visually obtrusive if they were built in the local fields. Mayo is a county that has a——

Do the councillors present mind me saying that they have pushed the boat out very far?

Councillor Al McDonnell

Prior to 1961, there were no planning regulations anywhere in this country.

Correct.

Councillor Al McDonnell

Approximately 50 or 60 protected structures are listed at the back of the County Mayo development plan. I refer to the finest buildings in the county. Every single one of them was built before 1961, before planning permission was necessary. Prior to 2001, which was just seven years ago, one could build a house in any field in the county, subject to normal planning conditions. Is the county dotted with houses? No. Rural decline continued right up to 2001. We need to dispel that fear.

Councillor Paddy McGuinness

I wish to comment on visual amenity. Large areas of County Mayo are ineligible for development——

They are ruled out because of the visual amenity guidelines. We will try to wrap the meeting up after Deputy Scanlon has contributed to it. Everyone has been patient.

I would like to clear up a point that was raised by the Chairman. The development plan for County Sligo lists areas which are under urban influence. In such areas, planning for one-off houses is only permitted when the applicants come from the local area, or have a connection with that area.

It is a question of local need.

Is a similar approach taken in County Mayo? Is it different there? Are such restrictions imposed in the county? Large parts of County Sligo, particularly in the north of the county, are characterised in this manner in the county development plan. Many applications are made in respect of north Sligo because many people want to live there.

Councillor Paddy McGuinness

We do not dispute that theory. We accept it. The Minister and the council are disputing the size of the area in question.

Is such an area provided for in the plan?

Councillor Paddy McGuinness

Yes, it is. We have it in our plan.

That means planning permission for one-off housing cannot be secured in every part of County Mayo.

Councillor Damien Ryan

I would like to make an observation to allay the fears of the committee.

Do the councillors understand what I am trying to ascertain?

Councillor Damien Ryan

I appreciate where the Chairman is coming from. I would like to allay his fears about all rural areas being open to housing development.

If one should be allowed to build in every field, what is the point of having any zoning?

Councillor Damien Ryan

I appreciate what the Chairman is saying. I would like to mention some of the terminology that is used by planners throughout the development plan. It describes streams of houses as "excessive ribbon development". It does not allow what it calls "backland development". It refers to "landscape appraisal". Many scenic areas, and areas which do not meet the environmental standards that apply to housing developments, are designated in the plan. A huge chunk of land is excluded from planning in that way.

I ask the councillors to help me. I did not get a chance to look at the plan in detail. Does it contain a map of the scenic areas that are excluded from development?

Councillor Damien Ryan

It does.

I accept that. We have had a long meeting. It is useful, from a national perspective, to see how the legislation is working in County Mayo. I do not know whether the Minister's hands are tied. Nothing in the legislation prevents consultation from taking place. It is probably not specifically provided for, but there is nothing to stop it from happening. That is the way I look at legislation. The joint committee will consider everything that was said at today's meeting. We will contact the council again in due course. That is important.

Will the joint committee make recommendations?

It will. It might take several weeks. We have not set a timescale for it. I suggest that there would be some value in the committee producing a report. Every Member of the Oireachtas will be free to comment on the draft version of the report. It will be discussed by the committee before it is finalised. We will have to see who can put it together.

Councillor Joe Mellett

I thank the Chairman and his officials for their patience and understanding. This is the first time I have attended an Oireachtas committee meeting. I often watch snippets of such meetings on the television. It is great to be here.

Councillor Mellett might come back here on a full-time basis.

Councillor Joe Mellett

The members of the committee should watch their backs.

Will there not be a vacancy when Deputy Ring goes to Europe?

Councillor Joe Mellett

That is right.

We will have to bring back the dual mandate.

Councillor Joe Mellett

Powerful presentations have been made by members on all sides of the committee. We have received great support today. I look forward to further discussion on the issue, perhaps in the Dáil or the Seanad. We hope to meet the Minister. If we do, hopefully the meeting will have a positive outcome. We do not expect to get everything we are looking for. All we are looking for is fair play. I am more positive about the outcome of this process as a result of the attitude the members of the committee showed in their responses today. When future generations look back on important days in County Mayo's history, 4 November 2008 will be etched in their minds as one such day.

Councillor Joe Mellett

They will appreciate that on that day, the 31 councillors of County Mayo were represented at an Oireachtas meeting that tackled the issue of the demise of the west.

Councillor Joe Mellett

I hope the Department will take a different view as a consequence of this meeting. It needs to understand what people outside the Pale want.

I appreciate that. It has all been said.

The joint committee adjourned at 7.30 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 November 2008.
Top
Share