Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jun 1992

Vol. 133 No. 1

Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1991: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to bring this Bill before the Seanad.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to modify the legal framework for planning appeals so that An Bord Pleanála will be able to determine them in a shorter time than at present. The measures it proposes will improve the efficiency of the appeals process so that it will be possible for the board to determine virtually all cases within four months. It will ensure, at the same time, that this streamlining and speeding up of the appeals system is achieved without any diminution of the essential fairness and thoroughness of the process.

The Bill provides also for some changes to the provisions governing court challenges to the validity of decisions by planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála, the purpose of which is to facilitate the expeditious determination of such proceedings. It proposes, in addition, that there will be a substantial increase in the fines for offences under the Planning Acts and that it will be possible in future to seek orders under section 27 of the 1976 Planning Act against unauthorised or non-conforming developments in the Circuit Court as well as in the High Court as at present.

The physical planning system which has been in operation in this country for almost 30 years has, by and large, served us well. The thorough examination to which development proposals have been subjected has ensured orderly development and efficient and environmentally acceptable land uses. It is essential, nevertheless, that the process is kept under review to ensure that both its effectiveness and its efficiency are maximised.

An effective planning system should be capable of giving conclusive decisions on development proposals within a reasonable time frame while at the same time ensuring that the proposals are subjected to the necessary detailed examination. Undue delays in the planning process are not in anyone's interest; they can in particular cause frustration for developers and could, in the worst case, lead to the abandonment of worth-while projects with the loss of the investment and employment they would provide. It is essential, therefore, that we ensure that our planning system strikes the correct balance between the need for rigorous evaluation of proposals and for final decisions within a generally acceptable period. I believe that the measures proposed in the Bill will give us this necessary balance.

I would like now to explain the immediate background to the Bill. Some time ago a comprehensive review of the systems and procedures of An Bord Pleanála was carried out. This review led to various recommendations about the board's management and administration and these have largely been taken up by the board. However, the review also identified features of the existing legal framework within which the board operate which inhibit the speedy determination of appeals.

There has been a considerable improvement in the board's performance since the review was carried out. For example, between September 1990 and April 1992 the number of appeals on hands fell from 1,703 to 1,046 and the proportion of cases on hands for more than six months fell from 21.4 per cent to 3 per cent. This is a marked change for the better, for which the board is to be commended. At the same time, however, the time taken to deal with individual appeals is still not satisfactory. The truth of the matter is that the law as it stands at the moment will inhibit the achievement of further significant improvement.

As for the general approach taken in the Bill, some concerns were expressed when it was before the Dáil that existing rights of appeal would be curtailed. I should like to take this opportunity to assure Senators that no right of appeal against the decision of a planning authority will be taken away by the Bill. It will continue to be possible for any person to appeal to An Bord Pleanála against a planning authority's decision. All the Bill will do is to create a more orderly and effective framework for dealing with appeals.

The Bill's approach is to set out strict time limits for all stages of the appeals process. These time limits will be reinforced by a clear statement of the rights of participants in appeals concerning submissions to the board and of their obligations in relation to the timeliness and completeness of submissions. It is because of these changes that it is possible for the Bill to propose a statutory objective of four months for the determination of appeals by the board.

I would now like to briefly outline the Bill's provisions. Section 1 is a standard form of interpretation provision. Section 2 sets out the duty and objective of An Bord Pleanála in relation to the determination of appeals and the various other matters which it decides. These other matters, including references under section 5 of the 1963 Planning Act as to what is or is not development or exempted development, account for only a small proportion of the board's overall workload. The vast majority of cases coming before the board are appeals against planning authorities' decisions on planning applications. Accordingly the Bill, apart from section 2, is generally concerned only with such appeals.

Section 2 restates the general duty contained in section 4 of the 1983 Planning Act which requires the board to ensure that it deals with all appeals and other matters as expeditiously as possible. However, section 2, also sets an objective for the board to determine cases within a period of four months. The board will be expected to comply with this objective in all but the most exceptional cases. If, however, the board considers that it will not be possible or appropriate in a given case to meet the objective, it will notify the parties involved and inform them of the date by which it intends to give its decision. The board must then take all the steps open to it to ensure that it gives its decision by then.

The four month objective will not take effect until six months after the enactment of the Bill. This six month period will allow the board to adapt its procedures to meet the objective and to dispose of cases on hands.

Senators will have noted that the four month period is an objective rather than a strict time limit and that suitable provision has been made for instances where the board cannot comply with the objectives. I am advised that an absolute time limit would not be acceptable as it might prevent the full consideration of all the issues in a very complex appeal. The proposed objective goes as far as possible, therefore, towards placing a time limit on the appeals process. I might add also that the board's performance in complying with this objective will be monitored by my Department.

Various views have been expressed about the four month objective for the board. Some consider that this period is too short while others are of the view that a shorter period should be specified for certain types of appeals. I believe, however, that four months strikes the right balance and that it should apply to all appeals initially. If it emerges in the light of experience that a shorter or longer period would be more appropriate for a particular class or classes of appeal, I could then consider using the power under section 2 to provide for such a period by regulations.

Section 3 amends section 26 of the 1963 Planning Act under which appeals against planning authorities' decisions on planning applications are made to the board. Under existing legislation the applicant for planning permission is allowed a period of one month within which to make his appeal but any other appellant must appeal within 21 days. The Bill proposes to increase the appeal period for third parties so that everybody will now have a period of one month in which to appeal to the board. The fact that the third party appeal period is being increased is indicative of the even handed approach towards all interests in planning matters adopted by the Bill and demonstrates that there is no foundation for any suggestion that it will tip the balance in the planning process in favour of development interests.

Section 4 sets out the requirements to be met when appealing to the board. The most important of these is the requirement that an appeal must include the full grounds of appeal and the reasons, considerations and arguments on which they are based. As matters stand, an appeal can validly be made by submitting a statement of appeal in the first instance and forwarding the grounds of appeal afterwards. The interval between these submissions can be considerable and has led to delays in the determination of appeals. Section 4 is designed to overcome this problem by ensuring that an appeal must be submitted in full at the outset. Any appeal which is not accompanied by the full grounds of appeal will be invalid.

I am aware that some concerns have been expressed that a requirement to submit the full grounds before the end of the appeal period may be too burdensome for appellants. I am satisfied, nevertheless, that this provision strikes the appropriate balance between the rights of appellants and the need for conclusive planning decisions on appeals within a reasonable period. The one month period will, in my view, allow an appellant sufficient time to prepare a detailed statement of case and submit it to the board.

Sections 5 and 6 place new obligations on planning authorities which will facilitate the speedier operation of the appeals process. Section 5 requires a planning authority to make documentation relating to a planning application available to the public from the day of their decision on it. This will ensure that a person wishing to make an appeal to the board against the decision will have access to all the relevant documentation without delay. Under section 6 planning authorities will have to submit relevant documentation to the board within a period of 14 days of being notified of an appeal and is intended to overcome certain difficulties and delays that the board have encountered in this regard.

Section 7 regulates the right of the other party or parties to an appeal to respond to the appeal. The board will send a copy of the appeal to the other party or parties who will then have a period of one month in which to make submissions to the board. Section 8 deals with submissions or observations to the board by persons other than the formal parties to an appeal. It is well established in practice that such persons have a right to make submissions to the board but this right is expressly stated in planning law only for appeals involving environmental impact assessment. This section will, therefore, put the matter on a formal legal footing for all appeals and, in most cases, will require submissions to be made within one month of receipt of the appeal by the board.

Sections 7 and 8 prohibit the making of further written submissions except in the circumstances contemplated by section 9. This is because of the difficulties posed for the board and the delays which arise when they receive further submissions at an advanced stage in their consideration of an appeal. I am satisfied that this limitation is necessary for the effective operation of the appeals process and that these sections nevertheless afford parties and other persons a fair and reasonable opportunity to put their case to the board.

While all participants in an appeal will generally be allowed one opportunity to make written submissions to the board, it may be appropriate in certain circumstances to allow a participant the chance to make a further submission. For this reason section 9 empowers the board to request any participant to make an additional submission within a specified period if they think it appropriate in the interests of justice to do so. If a response to this request is not received within the period specified, section 11 will authorise the board to proceed with the determination of an appeal.

Section 10 gives the board power to ask any participant in an appeal to submit any additional documents or other information which they consider necessary for the determination of the appeal. This section will replace the existing provision contained in section 18 of the 1983 Planning Act. If the documents or other information are not forthcoming within the time allowed, the board under section 11 can then proceed to determine or dismiss the appeal according to the circumstances of the case.

Section 12 deals with oral hearings of appeals. It will replace section 15 of the 1983 Planning Act and incorporates a number of changes. I mentioned already that problems are posed for the board where further submissions on an appeal are forwarded to them when their consideration of the appeal is at an advanced stage. A similar problem arises from requests for oral hearings which are made at a late stage. To overcome this problem, the Bill proposes that an appellant who wishes to request an oral hearing must do so at the outset of the appeals process. A request by any other party to the appeal will have to be made within the period of one month allowed for making submissions or observations to the board.

The new section does not contain the Minister's power under section 15 of the 1983 Act to prescribe classes of cases for which oral hearings must be held, which has not been used to date. I consider that it is best left to the board to decide whether an oral hearing should be held in a given case by reference to the circumstances of that case.

Section 13 is essentially a restatement of section 17 of the 1976 Planning Act. It empowers the board to take into account matters other than those raised by the participants in an appeal. If the board proposes to take a matter of this nature into account they must notify the participants in the appeal and allow them an opportunity to comment on the matter.

The next three sections largely restate certain of the board's existing powers under the 1982 and 1983 Planning Acts which facilitate the speedy determination of appeals in certain circumstances. Section 14 empowers the board to dismiss appeals which they consider to be vexatious or frivolous. This power, although infrequently used, is necessary to ensure that the board do not have to waste time in dealing with appeals which have no proper foundation in planning matters. Section 15 enables the board to deal with appeals relating to conditions by reference only to those conditions. This ensures that the board do not have to deal with an appeal from first principles where it relates only to a condition or conditions attached to the planning authority's decision. Section 16 allows the board to declare an appeal, or an application to which an appeal relates, withdrawn if they consider it to have been abandoned.

Section 17 makes a number of provisions about the time within which certain matters relating to the appeals process must be done. It provides, among other things, that an appeal received by the board after the one month appeal period has expired will be invalid. However, if the last day of the appeal period falls on a day when the board's offices are closed, the appeal will be in time if it is received on the next day on which the board's offices are open.

Section 18 gives the Minister for the Environment power to make regulations prescribing certain procedural matters in relation to appeals and other matters coming before the board. Any regulations made under this section will have to be laid before this House and the Dáil for a period of 21 days in the normal way.

Section 19 of the Bill contains a number of measures amending existing provisions of the Planning Acts. First, section 82 of the 1963 Planning Act will be amended so that challenges in the courts of the validity of decisions by planning authorities or An Bord Pleanála can be concluded more expeditiously. Such challenges will in future have to be taken by way of application for judicial review, which is generally quicker than plenary proceedings. Before leave to apply for judicial review is granted, the High Court will have to be satisfied that there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision challenged is invalid. The decision of the High Court on challenges of this nature will be final except where it certifies that its decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance. This will not, of course, preclude appeals to the Supreme Court on questions concerning the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of the Constitution and the section was amended in the Dáil to clarify that this is the case.

The second important provision contained in section 19 provides for the substitution of a new section for section 27 of the 1976 Planning Act. Section 27 relates to court orders against development carried out without the necessary planning permission or in contravention of the terms of the permission granted. The new section will allow access to the Circuit Court as well as to the High Court for orders against such development and fulfils the commitment in this regard contained in the Review of the Programme for Government, 1989-1993.

A further significant improvement made by the new section is the provision which will empower the courts to order land which has been subjected to unauthorised development to be restored to its condition before that development took place. Planning authorities have found the existing section 27 to be a very effective means of dealing with planning contraventions and I believe that the improvements in the replacement section will considerably enhance the effectiveness of this procedure.

Section 20 increases the maximum fines for offences under the Planning Acts. The indictable offences of carrying out development without permission or contrary to the terms of the permission or contravening the terms of a warning notice will in future attract a maximum penalty of £1 million compared to £10,000 at present. The maximum fines for summary offences will also be increased. I am sure Senators will agree that these increased fines will act as a significant additional deterrent to contraventions of planning law.

Section 21 provides for a technical amendment of the 1990 Planning Act. Section 21 of that Act provided for compensation in limited circumstances in respect of decisions by planning authorities on applications for consent required under Tree Preservation Orders. That section should have referred also to decisions of this nature given on appeal by An Bord Pleanála and this section of the Bill will insert the necessary reference to the board into the 1990 Act.

Sections 22 and 23 are standard provisions dealing with repeals and transitional provisions respectively. Section 24 is also a standard provision relating to short title, commencement and collective citation.

It is of critical importance also, of course, that there should be an efficient decision-making process at the planning authority stage. I have indicated previously that my Department have informed planning authorities that the greatest possible number of applications should be decided within the statutory two month period. Planning authorities have also been asked, in cases where additional information is sought, to decide such applications within a period of one month of receipt of the information. I would like to take this opportunity to assure Senators that I will continue to monitor the time taken by planning authorities to decide planning applications and that any action necessary to eliminate undue delays will be taken.

I would like to inform Senators at this point that I hope to bring forward on Committee Stage an amendment dealing with the time within which enforcement action can be taken in relation to unauthorised or non-conforming development. Some of the enforcement powers under the Planning Acts may only be used within five years of the relevant contravention but others are open-ended. I believe that these open-ended powers are unnecessary for the enforcement of proper planning and development and that their existence gives rise to serious practical problems, particularly for the property market. Accordingly, I intend to propose that a five year time limit will apply to the use of all planning enforcement powers.

This Bill is a clear indication of the Government's belief in the importance of an effective physical planning system and its proposals are a decisive response to the evident need for a redrawing of the legal framework for planning appeals. They will see to it that appeals can be decided within the reasonable period of four months without reducing the fairness of the process or taking away any right of participation in it.

I look forward to a positive debate on the Bill.

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is timely and very important legislation. The concern of the general public in relation to planning matters and the environment was evident during the local elections campaign last year.

This legislation has the full support of the members of my party even though on Committee Stage we will ask the Minister to consider certain amendments in relation to various aspects. It is very timely legislation and I hope it will pave the way for better planning in the future. We should not lose sight of how local authorities and statutory bodies acted in the past or of the lessons to be learned from the very good things they did and also from the mistakes they made.

There is nothing worse in relation to the environment than areas which are badly developed not only in terms of bricks and mortar but also in social terms. Briefly, without going into the difficulties that have arisen, lessons can be learned from bad development in places like Ballymun, Darndale, the concrete jungle in Tallaght, and areas of my constituency like Mountwood and Fitzgerald Park where short-sighted planning in relation to housing did not take into account the fact that people would need other facilities in their areas. While some of the matters I mention may not strictly be within the remit of this Bill, I hope that just as the Ombudsman reports from time to time in relation to the operation of his office, the board from time to time will be in a position to bring forward reports in relation to the workings of the planning process and if a local authority makes a mistake in an area that the same mistake will not be made 100 miles down the road in relation to a different development.

Obviously many of the problems I am familiar with are urban ones but they are also found in some of our larger towns and even in villages throughout the country. One would hope that we will not repeat mistakes made in other areas. That is why the board should make a report available to the Minister, his Department and officials which would be circulated to Members of both Houses, to local authority managers, and local councillors.

One of the key provisions of this legislation is to improve the planning process. If a local authority were to give a decision to an applicant in relation to a planning application within the two month period, allowing for additional information being sought, then An Bord Pleanála should not unduly hold up an appeal. There must be procedures to deal with the vast amount of appeals that are lodged. In the past the delays, as the Minister has rightly acknowledged, were far too long and totally unacceptable. They caused great difficulties for individuals, developers, residents' associations and people who did not have a lot of money behind them. Under section 14, vexatious appeals can now be thrown out. In my own area recently we had a multimillion pound development coming on stream. One or two individuals lodged an appeal and delayed the whole matter for eight to ten months and this resulted in the promoters going cold on the development. There should be some system whereby appeals could be dealt with on a priority basis. There may be some minor appeals where an inspector, after a quick read of a planning and local authority decision, could either uphold or refuse the appeal. Other appeals would take a long time to assess.

We must also look at cases where rival competitors in business may use a John Doe simply to further delay an application. I am glad progress has been made and it appears that An Bord Pleanála are beginning to function more expeditiously. I hope the board will not be stymied through lack of funding or a reduction in the number of inspectors. If we are to adhere to our ideal of a four month delay in the processing of appeals the Minister must indicate how the board will function and whether small appeals can be dealt with by certain inspectors. Where a developer or an applicant is appealing against just one condition, that should be dealt with relatively quickly. Obviously in relation to other appeals, time and serious consideration have to be given to them, particularly where small, active but probably under-funded residents' associations, or maybe a couple of individuals, oppose the might of developers. That is why there should be discretion in relation to payment of the appeal fee. I believe it should be paid but if an appeal is allowed there should be a case made for a refund, or a partial refund, of the fee or else the board should be given power to recommend that the fee should be returned in certain cases. There are many individuals and, in particular, residents' associations who do sterling work and find it very difficult to come up with the necessary funds to lodge an appeal, particularly if they employ planners, architects and surveyors. Some consideration should be given to this.

This legislation is important in relation to how we conduct the planning process and develop areas. It is important that the individual's right is looked at and it is a right that must be used responsibly. I would like to pay tribute to a very prominent organisation, An Taisce, who have many fine members. Objecting for objection's sake is not good enough.

Another matter which has to be looked at is the lodgment of a planning application and placing the initial advertisement in the newspapers. This has been open to cynical abuse and criticism. People may place an advertisement in the most under-read newspaper in the area, maybe in the native tongue, possibly on Christmas Eve when it is unlikely that individuals in an area and particularly residents' associations or those who would be most directly concerned, have very little chance of seeing it. In my own area of Dalkey, it was only by chance that an application for a gun club and related facilities next to a largish housing estate was discovered at the last moment. It was one of these applications that could possibly have slipped through, unnoticed. If people place advertisements in the newspapers in the native tongue thereby showing their concern that the language will not be under-utilised, there should be an onus on them to put it in the newspaper in a second language as well, preferably English, so that such abuses cannot take place.

One matter the Minister mentioned which must be looked at very carefully is the enforcement of decisions and abuses where planning permission is granted but slight changes are made. Then there is the question of retention. It should be open to the board or to the local authority if granting an application for retention — sometimes it is of a relatively minor nature — to have the facility to penalise such persons perhaps by asking them to pay extra for deviating from the clear plan and from the clear consent given.

An area I hope the Minister will look at is the history of developers, their track record and possible previous convictions if not necessarily to be used against them, to be taken into consideration when applications are being considered. It is far too easy for shelf companies to be set up under a different name but with the same people involved. They move a couple of miles down the road leaving a mess behind them for the local authority, the residents' association and individuals to try to clear up. They start up again as if they had never been involved in a bad development in their lives. If an application is made and the people concerned have a poor track record, if there are previous convictions or difficulties in relation to how previous developments were carried out, there should be a facility for delaying or making a decision until such time as they are called to account for what is left undone. I recognise that bonding has improved matters; at least, there is still some money left in the till to complete estates. There are instances, particularly in County Dublin and the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, where estates were left unfinished. The local authority will not take them over. Poor old John Citizen is left in no man's land. When it comes to trying to get a loan or a mortgage on property or trying to sell it, he is in neither one situation nor the other.

At the monthly meeting of Dún Laoghaire Corporation we had a list presented under various headings, for example, developer in discussion, developer being prosecuted, and various recommendations. Sometimes High Court proceedings are not recommended because the chances are the developer is in Spain or further afield and it can be very hard to track him down. We must look at the history of developers. We have people with a long track record who are well known to local authorities. I would hope that local authorities would pool information so that a developer cannot go from Dublin to Meath, Kildare, Wicklow, Cork or Galway. He should be liable for any mess until he clears it up.

Local authorities must give a lead when it comes to proper planning and development. Hopefully, they will be supported by An Bord Pleanála and by councillors when it comes to refurbishment programmes, the renewal of dilapidated areas, renewal programmes for the inner city and the examination of tax incentives. They must encourage people who own delapidated buildings to apply for refurbishment or home improvement grants. People must be encouraged to repair buildings which are old or run down. Where they are being turned into apartments or town houses, or where there is redevelopment of derelict sites, local authorities must be supported by the Department.

The Minister is probably fighting daily at the Cabinet table for his slice of the cake. There are many areas, for example Dublin, where applications are being made to the Department for assistance in respect of various schemes. They cannot all be granted at the same time but there are priorities. Some housing schemes need improvements; there must be a reduction in the number of high rise flats built; facilities must be improved, such as putting in lifts which work. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent on Ballymun and other high rise flats trying to keep the lift system working. Obviously, there is a lesson for us all in Ballymun, when we look at the hardship that young mothers in particular, experience trying to drag go-carts, with one or two children in tow, together with bags of groceries, up to the fourth floor, or maybe the 12th or 14th floor. That planning has not been repeated. I am speaking from local knowledge, particularly about places like Mountwood Flats, where there are only four storeys. There are difficulties there, and hopefully Dún Laoghaire Corporation will prepare a refurbishment programme. I hope that when the application is submitted the Minister will recognise the difficulties there and give a clear commitment to provide the necessary funds so that the flats can be refurbished. People can then, hopefully, identify with the area and community spirit will return.

In some areas, particularly in County Dublin, such as Tallaght, Darndale and parts of Loughlinstown and Shankill, people may grow up in ghettos and those who have that extra bit of initiative or who get a break may leave the area; unfortunately, decent people are left there facing all the social problems and difficulties, despite all our efforts and those of the health boards and social workers to improve matters.

It is important that the local authorities should have a say in such developments. An Bord Pleanála has a role to play. I hope there will be discussions with the Department about the development of the various areas. I listened to the Minister with interest, some weeks ago in Donegal. He spoke about developments and about the foresight of the Department. Many Senators are members of local authorities. We know at first hand the difficulties in our areas and the problems that must be resolved.

I propose to deal briefly with some sections of the Bill. A small individual may come under pressure from the might of money, big publicity campaigns and developers. Will this individual be catered for under this Bill? Will he have his chance, whether he is appealing a decision or trying to take on some big developer or residents' associations? Some of the difficulties could be sorted out if developers in particular areas, were more open and at the initial stages contacted the secretary, or chairman of a residents' association to sound them out about a proposed development. In my own area recently someone was trying to build 14 apartments over the railway line. This was only discovered by accident.

There must be a "firming up" of the appeals procedures. People should have access to files. Obviously, this causes difficulty in areas, particularly where some planning departments in local authorities are understaffed. Sometimes people have to get off work to go in to look at a file. Perhaps in some areas there should be an opportunity from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Wednesday or Thursday evenings, when shopping centres are open, so that people would have an opportunity to look at files and make notes.

It is important, if this new procedure in relation to An Bord Pleanála is to work, that there would be co-operation. Information should be made freely available by the planning authority to An Bord Pleanála and to individuals who may be parties to an appeal. This must be done expeditiously in order to maintain an appropriate rate of progress.

Third party representatives in relation to applications can be useful. From time to time, I write to An Bord Pleanála to ask them to consider certain matters following consultations and discussions I have had with residents or individuals in an area. I am putting a point of view to them which should be considered and taken into account by the inspector when the decision is being made by the board. Local authority and Oireachtas Members who receive representations should be able to make representations in relation to various applications. I ask the Minister to ensure that that is being adhered to.

There may be several angles to an appeal. There could be something in relation to the house next door or some other part of a development. Something happening down the road might have some effect. The board should be able to get all documents relating to an appeal.

In certain cases it is necessary to have an oral submission. Experts, certain individuals in the area, public representatives and people employed professionally by the developers or residents' associations should have the right to appear in person at the oral submission. Obviously, there will be many cases where this will not, and should not, be necessary. Appeals, particularly vexatious ones, can be dealt with by the stroke of a pen. There should be definite guidelines and procedures regarding an oral hearing. Certain matters of public concern or of intense public interest in an area may mean that an oral hearing is probably the only way to resolve the matter by giving every party a fair hearing. A case may look fairly black and white from the outset. Where certain aspects have to be looked at, an oral hearing should be available.

An oral hearing may take time. There was one in Dún Laoghaire that went on for a few days but others have lasted for weeks. When members of the board are out there, it means other work will not be done by them. Perhaps the Minister might be able to give us figures at a later stage about the numbers of inspectors at present employed. If this board is to adhere to the time limits, they should not be in the position which prevailed in the Ombudsman's office and other places in regard to staffing where they did not have the personnel to type the decisions when they were made.

This is important legislation. It goes a long way towards improving matters particularly in relation to our planning procedures and, more importantly, as to how our environment is protected and developed.

I would like to mention the question of penalties and abuses. We are all aware of comment and discussion about abuses, or alleged abuses, in relation to planning. There is alleged to be a lot of money at stake where offers may have been made, particularly to officials, by individuals, by companies or developers. The officials at local authority level must have the very highest standards, as must officials who work for An Bord Pleanála. It is difficult to get proof in order to bring a case.

I support fully the increase in penalties referred to by the Minister. It may even be necessary for the Minister to consider a remuneration scheme for those who bring information that pinpoint abuses. Some of them may be of a minor nature, but some have been serious and have gone undetected. I hope the Minister will give a clear commitment that any mis-demeanour, any blatant abuse of the planning legislation will meet the full rigours of the law, and that people will go to jail.

We must have the highest standards of behaviour by our officials. There have been cases where the board made one decision and the inspector, who obviously was the person on the ground who did the investigating, made a totally different decision. While it is the legitimate right of everyone to make general representations on any application, any improper suggestion, such as making a phone call to some member on the board or anything remotely approaching that must be rooted out. I support totally the Minister in his proposal to increase penalties.

This legislation will find favour with all the Members of this House, even though some of us may have amendments on Committee Stage, or have other items in mind which possibly should be taken on board. In particular, the history of developers or defaulters should be examined.

It is important, as we head into the late nineties and into the next century, that we should learn from our mistakes. I hope we can undo some of them, but certainly we must not repeat the mistakes that were made. As I have indicated, we will be supporting this legislation on Second Stage, but, on Committee Stage, putting down various amendments and teasing out certain matters.

I welcome the Minister to the House. In his short period in office he has proved himself to be a most efficient Minister. I wish also to take this opportunity to thank him for visiting Kerry recently where he performed a number of official functions, but especially for meeting members of Kerry County Council and in the manner which he dealt with the many points raised at that meeting especially with regard to our serious housing situation — single rural cottages, group housing and personal grants, etc. I know we have left an impression on the Minister, and that he will bear us in mind for extra funding before the end of the year. The Minister made a good impression across the party divide and his visit was much appreciated.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill. It is an issue many local authority members are dealing with each day. In recent years, the community have shown a major interest in planning, especially where large developments take place. It is accepted that an effective planning system should be capable of giving good decisions on the relevant proposals within a reasonable period of time, at the same time ensuring that the proposals are subject to the essential detailed examination. Undue delays in the planning process are not in anyone's interest. They can, in particular, cause frustration for developers and could, in the worst case, lead to the dropping of worth-while projects with the loss of investment and employment. For this reason, we must ensure that our planning system strikes the correct balance between the need for regular evaluation of proposals and for final decisions within a generally acceptable period. It is hoped the measures proposed in this Bill will give the balance required.

I believe much good will come out of this debate. There is no doubt there is need for reform of the planning system. The main planning legislation is almost 30 years old and legislation establishing An Bord Pleanála is over 15 years old. The Bill before us deals with the appeals system, and in particular the delays in that system. It hopes to rectify that situation. Speeding up decision-making will be most welcome and in so doing avoiding a situation whereby appeals are with an Bord Pleanála for a very long period of time. Under this new legislation, planning appeals and other matters can be determined by An Bord Pleanála within a much shorter period than at present.

It also proposes new procedure arrangements for legal action challenging the validity of planning decisions, the aim of which is to facilitate the speedy decisions of such proceedings. It is indicated in the Bill that An Bord Pleanála must deal with all appeals within a four month period. This is most welcome, as many of us have seen situations where appeals had been with An Bord Pleanála for up to nine months and longer.

The new Bill does not curtail existing rights of appeal to the board, hence the present position whereby a person may appeal to An Bord Pleanála against a planning authority's decision on a planning application still stands.

Over the past few years, we have seen much criticisms of section four applications. As a member of Kerry County Council over the past number of years, we have had a number of section fours, but in most cases they have arisen as a result of the development plan. It is unfair to say the section four system has been abused. It is now much harder to get a section four through, as it needs a 75 per cent majority of the members voting in favour.

There should be some input by local representatives in the decision-making process. In Kerry County Council, we have area planning meetings where the planning authorities discuss applications. Where there is a doubt they seek the views of the public representatives and this is most welcome. Legal opinion is that local representatives are not the planning authority. The officials and county manager have the say and make the final decision. I believe the views of the public representatives should be taken into account in planning decisions.

I welcome the statement of the Minister when he states that there has been a considerable improvement in An Bord Pleanála's performance. For example, between September 1990 and April 1992 the number of appeals on hands fell from 1,703 to 1,046 and the proportion of cases on hands for more than six months fell from 21.4 per cent to 3 per cent. This is a major change for the better, and on which the board are to be commended. The time taken to deal with individual appeals is still not satisfactory. The truth is that the law as it stands will inhibit the achievement of further significant improvements.

The procedure introduced by the Planning Act, 1976, whereby any person can go to the High Court for an order against a development carried out without planning permission, or which does not comply with the terms and permission granted, has shown over the years to be effective. However, the process has been too slow. By allowing orders to be sought in the Circuit Court, the effectiveness of the procedure will be enhanced and matters will be speeded up. It will certainly mean that planning authorities wishing to enforce the law will have a less costly and less onerous legal avenue open to them.

There is no doubt that the maximum fine of £10,000 for conviction on indictment under the planning Act as it now stands is totally inadequate, particularly bearing in mind some of the serious offences involved. The Minister's proposal to raise the maximum fine to £1 million is very welcome. It will ensure that the penalty is a real deterrent to the small minority of developers who might otherwise be tempted to flout the planning laws with an eye only to profits.

Overall the Bill's approach is a reasonable one. A fair balance has been achieved between the need for a thorough and efficient development control process and the public interest in having final decisions on development proposals made within an acceptable period. I commend the Bill to the House and I compliment the Minister on the very important changes he has introduced.

In section 12 the Minister referred to oral hearings. The Bill proposes that any request for an oral hearing of an appeal will have to be made at the outset of the appeal process. This will get over the problem posed for the board where a request for an oral hearing is received when consideration of the appeal is nearly completed. It should not, however, cause difficulties for participants in appeals. It should be known by the appellant when appealing and to any other party when making his submission whether he wants to seek an oral hearing.

The Bill is to be commended as far as public representatives are concerned. Its main objective is to set a time limit of four months for the making of a decision by an Board Pleanála. All public representatives are extremely concerned, and have been for a considerable time, at the lengthy delays in the decision making process of An Bord Pleanála. In order to assist the board, I would ask the Minister to ensure that they would have the necessary staff, as they have indicated over the past number of years that they are completely understaffed. They must have the manpower, and the required resources in order to achieve the Bill's objective.

To summarise, this Bill will be welcomed as a measure to speed up planning appeals. While there may be some reservations about the fact that all grounds of appeal must be submitted at the first attempt, the Bill probably strikes a balance between the needs to preserve the rights of the third parties and an equal need for the developer to have a quick determination of his planning application.

The Bill could put some pressure on local authorities who will now be required to forward documentation to the board within seven days, in particular having regard to the large increase in planning applications in some counties over the past few years.

As a member of Kerry County Council, I note that the number of applications for planning now range from an average of 40 a week, and in some cases over 50. From listening to some of my colleagues speaking about the problems they have had in their local authorities regarding planning applications, I believe we have a very efficient planning authority within Kerry County Council to deal with the massive workload they have. I am concerned with the extra work that will be put on them as a result of this Bill that they will need extra staff. I would appreciate it if the Minister would give some indication as regards funding.

I welcome the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on his initiative.

I welcome the Minister to the House and wish to say how much I appreciate this Bill coming before us. I have always had a great interest in planning. It was very much a local planning issue that brought me into politics. Probably if it was not for that, I would not be here today. It involved a planning issue in my own area and since then I have had a deep interest in planning matters. None of my Dublin City Council colleagues is here, but somebody like Senator Eoin Ryan, who was a very good chairman of the Corporation Planning Committee could vouch for the fact that my big interest in Dublin Corporation during my 17 years there, has been in planning. If I go on a little long this morning or if I get excited it is because I feel strongly and passionately about the issue. I will be putting down a number of amendments at a later stage but I want to make some general comments now.

I will start by saying where I believe the planning process fits into our political structures. We are getting away from a situation whereby people elect a representative once every five or six years and leave everything to him or to her. We are becoming a more participative democracy. People want to be involved in what is going on. I heard something mentioned at the Dublin City Council meeting the other night with regard to the control of dogs. The Minister gave extra power to the local authorities and in that context it was said by one of the Minister's Fianna Fáil colleagues that the was doing this because he believed in local democracy and that measure would be a flagship of his time in that Department. If so, I hope the Minister will be left long enough in the Department to bring about more local democracy and I hope he will be given the necessary time and opportunity.

Life is getting more and more complicated and many public representatives may feel as I do that I could not manage now as an Independent councillor Alderman with 63,000 voters on my register as I did the first time I was elected. I could not have dealt with problems without the help and expertise of constituents. There is no longer any question of electing a representative and leaving them to get on with it. The planning Acts — there are a number of them — guarantee citizens the right to information on planning proposals which may be of great concern and interest to them. A proposal may involve their local area although one's comments should not be restricted to local issues. The country belongs to all of us and so does the capital city, Dublin. If I wished to comment on a major planning application for Kerry I would not consider it inappropriate for me to do so, any more than I would consider it inappropriate for a Kerry or Donegal representative to comment on a major planning proposal for Dublin.

People involved in a planning issue need a forum in which to express their views and to know that their views will be taken into consideration. That is important. People want a say in what sort of a community they will live in and how it should develop. They want to feel that they can influence the shape of their physical environment, and of their community in years ahead for themselves and for their children, whether in a rural area or a town or village. Coming from Roscrea I am sure that the Minister has seen changes there in his lifetime. I do not know how long he has lived there. Some of the changes are beneficial but there have also been less attractive developments which I will not mention. The Minister knows them well. I travel regularly through Roscrea and note the restoration of Damer House and many other commendable projects. One should compliment voluntary organisations such as those who engage in the Tidy Towns Competition and others in Roscrea for their achievement. I mention that to emphasise that local voluntary groups do excellent work. Many people believe that voluntary groups do nothing but sit on the fence and object to proposals. That is not so, nor do I believe it to have been the experience of people in this House involved in local authorities.

The pace of change nowadays is intense. We have seen the gravitation of population to towns and cities, the huge increases in urban population and the planning difficulties encountered in many urban centres. Maynooth is a typical example of a town endeavouring to cope with an expanding population. The response has been inadequate and bewildering at times. This is where the whole planning process becomes important and it is crucial that legislation be clear. It is bewildering even for semi-experts like ourselves in many instances and should be simplified as much as possible. People should be encouraged to contribute to the formulation of planning legislation because no decision, no matter how wise, can satisfy everyone; some people are going to be hurt.

I believe, and I hope the Minister does too, in the common sense of people by and large. It has been my happy experience for 17 years as a public representative where I had problems, to have given the people involved all the information, keeping nothing back. I found out as much as I could, brought them together and discussed it with them. They were enabled to see what the problems were and they remained reasonable. That is not to say that one will not get an occasional crank here or there. This fundamental fact should be borne in mind when considering the planning process.

The Minister may think that time constraints are causing delays and problems and costing money. I sensed an emphasis in his speech on effectiveness, efficiency, time management and so on. It is very important to realise that if people are trusted with information, given time to consider it, provided with any back-up they may need, and have their views considered, they will generally accept the outcome even if it does not satisfy them. I think that we learned that bitter lesson from the history of chemical industry development applications in Ireland, when people doubted the information received from State institutions. I urge the Minister to bear in mind the benefits of having popular support for the planning process rather than a "them" and "us" situation between authorities such as the Minister and the Department on one side and members of the public on the other. There is no reason that should happen but sadly, it often does and may cause delays.

In relation to the development plan in my area, I was first elected in 1974 and the first development plan following that was in 1980. I instituted in my area something called CP76. We convened a meeting of 14 residents' associations covering virtually the entire area and formulated the representations we wanted to make regarding that development plan. The good thing about that was that after sitting down together people could not shove a problem onto an adjoining area. It was not possible to say "We do not want this extra traffic, your area must take it". People had to be constructive and say, "We have each to take our bit, we must come up with solutions that are beneficial to everybody". In such cases people are reasonable, although I can speak only for my own local authority which is anxious to facilitate the involvement of community groups, etc. in the planning process.

That is a change, because when I introduced the CP76 my group looked for £100 to help pay for maps and other considerable work involved. The chairman of the then planning committee, who was not a Fianna Fáil member, said on that occasion that it was outrageous for Alderman Hederman to ask the council for £100 to help people come up with plans which might be in conflict with official plans. In other words, there were two plans, one made by people and another by representatives. That practice has been discontinued in my local authority. Our attitude is to seek the views and participation of the public as much as possible.

There is a need for greater access to information. The community group in the corporation was instrumental in having the press brought in to all our committee meetings; prior to that they did not attend and people felt that things were going on behind closed doors. Very often there was nothing nefarious going on but because the doors were locked to the press people suspected all sorts of skulduggery. Admitting the press enabled people to find out what was going on.

On the question of delays which is at the back of this new Bill, I would like to refer to the Fianna Fáil document which came out in 1991 for the local elections under the title "Better Locally, Better Nationally". In the section "Creating a better planning system" it said:

Fianna Fáil is bringing in a better planning system. It will balance the rights of citizens and the needs of the community while improving in the widest sense the environment in which we live.

The three issues of concern there are the rights of citizens, the needs of the community and the environment in which we live. There is no reference there to giving in to pressure from developers to do away with or shorten the time available for third party appeals. On more than one occasion I had a motion passed by the planning committee of Dublin City Council asking for a speeding up of the planning appeals process and I want the Minister to consider my remark in that light. It should not be speeded up however, at the expense of private individuals and voluntary organisations.

My final quote from that Fianna Fáil manifesto is: "The new planning Bill will streamline the appeals process and speed it up while fully respecting the rights of individuals to have their case properly heard". I had hoped that this Bill might give more consideration to the rights of the citizen.

In the Progressive Democrats manifesto for the local elections they said:

An Bord Pleanála will be required to give a verdict on all planning applications within a period not greater than four months from receipt of all documentation.

Am I entitled, as an Independent Senator, to believe what I read in these manifestos? I do not have the means to publish a 64 page manifesto. Whatever I put down I guarantee to my constituents that I will stick to it. The Progressive Democrats said — they are in Government and cannot be let off the hook, we must not place all the blame on Fianna Fáil — that there would be a verdict four months from receipt of all documentation. That is not what we have in this Bill. Four months is the total time as I understand it but there is a difficulty in getting local authorities to send in documentation and in getting individuals, residents' associations, An Taisce and other organisations to send in their appeals. The Progressive Democrats promise is not being fulfilled in this instance.

Delays have given planning a bad name to a certain extent; intolerable delays have held up the implementation of certain urgently needed development. I contributed actively to two development plans in my time on the city council — I have been on the planning committee all the time and I accept that a development plan until it is implemented, is a sterile document. That is why I am as anxious as anybody else that development plans be implemented expeditiously.

I am also aware that developers may moan and groan about loss of money involved but everybody here who has been involved with planning applications must be aware of the extent to which they can affect people's lives. An application may be lodged for something next door and those affected may be elderly people or a young married couple who have just bought a house and endure a heart breaking experience as they see the value of their property debased. We have to remember those people and not only big developers. I would like to see the verdict period reduced so that these people would suffer the minimum of worry during that period.

We must realise that the time and effort put in at an early stage when local authorities are discussing a proposal may produce in the long run an understanding, co-operative public and public support for the planning process. That outcome should be striven for.

There are unnecessary delays in the planning process. If there is a major application from a chemical industry and an EIS is required, it is understandable that it should take longer but there are instances where for no explicable reason a small kitchen extension or domestic application has also been held up. An application of mine is being considered at present and I would like to raise it here, although I do not suppose I can get information on specifics, but it is a typical example and it is reasonable to bring it up. In Dublin city, and in our area especially we have been trying to get the local authority to take steps to ensure that in the cases of listed and important buildings, owners are not allowed to rip out wooden sash windows that have been there since the houses were built and in many instances contain the original glass that twinkles and winks when the sun is shining. People rip these out and put in the most hideous and incongruous substitutes. The local community, An Taisce and others have been trying to do something about this. The local authority now tell us that we cannot do anything because of a court case taken and the residents' association have had to take the reference to the Minister to ask him to decide if a certain development was exempted. The local authority would not undertake this responsibility. I have not yet received the date but I will stitch it into the record when I do. Months have gone by, and maybe years but I do not want to be inaccurate on the record. We cannot get a decision from the board on this reference. What is holding it up? Why should it go on like this? Could they not write and give some indication? I am as frustrated as the Minister and other people seem to be with regard to this and I do not agree with his assessment of whose fault it is.

I accept that difficulties are experienced by developers when they cannot have a free run at the planning process. They can incur considerable costs when people take vexatious appeals or ask for oral hearings as a delaying tactic. I deplore these tactics as much as anybody else and have no time for them. I would do anything I could if I knew of such a case to bring it to the attention of the board so that it might not continue. There is no doubt that there are occasionally mischievous or frivolous appeals — I will give the figures I have but they are somewhat out of date. An Bord Pleanála reports are also out of date; the last one I can put my hand on is for 1989. I do not know if the Minister has a more up-to-date report and I would appreciate a copy if he does.

Another reason Dublin Corporation and Dublin City Council are anxious to permit development is because of the generous tax incentives for people who develop certain areas when there is squalor and dereliction. Work must be done in a certain timeframe and for that reason we would not wish to do anything to hinder development. That does not mean we will agree to any development. We want a high standard development which will conform with our development plan and we are entitled to expect developers to come forward with plans in conformity with it. Our job is to tell them what it is about.

I am also aware, and I know this is of great concern to the Minister and to the Oireachtas, that development delays may cause loss of employment. Since the board took up office in 1977, delays have been minimised. In 1963 Deputy Clinton suggested in the Dáil that time limits should be imposed; the objectives here are not new. I do not know to which party Deputy Clinton belonged but the Senators will know which party to give credit to.

Senator Neville speak up and take a bow on behalf of his party.

Then he was a Fine Gael Deputy.

He was the best Minister for Agriculture ever.

We are told all the time by developers and by various bodies who fight for the interests of developers such as the construction industry, the housing industry and so on, of blackmail carried out by third parties. In 1981 in the Irish Business Magazine it was alleged that third party blackmail was taking place, but in 1981 there were only ten vexatious appeals; in 1980 there were 13; in 1979 there were 14; in 1978 there were none and in 1977 there were none. I took those figures from an An Taisce journal article by Mrs. C. O'Connor, former chairperson of An Taisce. These figures do not tell a story of enormous numbers of vexatious or frivolous appeals; the numbers are modest.

We know now that for a long time An Bord Pleanála have had the power to dismiss appeals. In 1989 — here again I am restricted by not having a more up-to-date report from An Bord Pleanála — the board dismissed only 32 appeals, 1.4 per cent of total decisions for that year. That was not an excessive figure and it is quite reasonable for people to register a third party appeal if they are dissatisfied with the decision of a local authority. My residents' association has often put in an appeal, talked to the developer and arrived at a compromise so that it was not necessary to sustain the appeal. That is perfectly reasonable and legitimate. I do not think that a figure of 32 appeals dismissed is worth worrying about.

In section 5 of the 1982 Act the board were given the power to consider appeals withdrawn, if they were abandoned or not followed up. This happened sometimes when appeals were sorted out elsewhere. In the 1983 Act the board were given power to dismiss appeals as vexatious, frivolous or mischievous. I am in favour of that and I have on occasion written to the board saying I believed an appeal was frivolous or vexatious and asking the board to dispose of it.

The board can declare an appeal as withdrawn if the grounds for it have not been submitted within two weeks. I do not think we should exaggerate the possibility of delays. The board can write to somebody asking them to lodge the grounds for their appeal and I think I am correct in saying that if the information is not submitted within two weeks the board can consider the appeal withdrawn. I am sorry for dragging this out but we must get the facts straight. An erroneous impression is sometimes given by those with money, power and expertise that their applications are constantly being challenged by third party appeals, a large number of which are vexatious and frivolous. That is not the case and I am determined to get the facts straight.

In 1989 32 appeals were withdrawn. The numbers I have given add up to 75 between frivolous appeals and those abandoned or withdrawn. Out of a total of 2,348 appeals considered in 1989 that is not a large figure; in other words, 96 per cent of appeals were valid which is a very good record.

It is not only third parties — I have admitted this — who on occasions put in appeals to thwart the system or to be vexatious or for some other ulterior motive. I could give umpteen examples of people in my own electoral area who are involved in a development for which they have no planning permission. If the corporation tries to halt the development or to take some action against those responsible, they are prohibited from doing so until the illegal development comes into use as such. In other words, if a residential house is being converted into an office, corporation officials can see the neon lights going up, plastic windows being put in and note other signs indicating that an office development is taking place in a residential area, yet the corporation cannot do anything since no material development occurs until the illegal development is put to use. The corporation cannot act until the day on which the office opens; we expect that they will be able to take action but they cannot.

An application for retention is lodged, the corporation has two months to deal with it — they could probably deal with it more expeditiously because it is a fairly black and white case. In about six weeks the decision is given and if permission for retention is refused an appeal is submitted to the board. This appeal may take six to eight months to be decided and if the board dismisses it another appeal may be lodged as the corporation prepare for court action. The developer may have intended converting the entire house into offices originally. This time the developer will ask to convert three-quarters of the house to offices keeping one residential unit. They go through the whole process again. Is that not a frivolous appeal? I will give instances at a later date of how people have done this over and over again, to thwart the planning authorities and any possible legal action against them. That is something we should bear in mind.

I would like to make a brief reference to the splendid book from An Bord Pleanála Your Planning Appeal — a Guide which our local authority has available, although I understand not all local authorities have it available. It was brought out in 1985 and I suppose some parts of it would now be out of date. In it they state:

The Board has the absolute discretion to dismiss an appeal where,

(a) having considered the grounds of appeal, it is of the opinion that the appeal is vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation, or

(b) having regard to the nature of the appeal ... the Board is satisfied that in the particular circumstances the appeal should not be further considered by it.

Appeals may also be dismissed by the Board where excessive delays occur in the lodgment of proper grounds of appeal. The Board may also deal pre-emptorily with an appeal where it appears to it that the appeal has been abandoned or where a party to an appeal has failed to furnish particular information which the Board has sought and which it considers essential to enable it to deal properly with the appeal.

In certain circumstances, the Board may declare that an application which has given rise to an appeal should be regarded as withdrawn, in which case formal determination of the appeal will not arise.

Thus, it is made quite clear to the public that this facility exists for the board and that they should use it.

The other feature is the considerable cost involved for residents' associations, voluntary organisations or an individual going ahead with a planning appeal. The costs were increased recently and they are a huge burden now. I have brought it up in this House with the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Flynn, because I am constantly under pressure by organisations and individuals, but mostly organisations, in my area who find the charges are crippling and they can no longer afford to lodge an appeal. You cannot even send in a letter to the board to bring some item of important information to their attention, withour paying a fee of £30. It was £15 until recently and I think it was doubled.

I had the rather galling experience last summer when there was an application in the centre of the city about which I felt very strongly. It was an application which was totally out of conformity with our development plan and it came before the planning committee. If it were not for my intervention it might have been granted but then they saw the light and admitted that it was a material contravention, that we could not grant it and it was refused.

The developers appealed it. The date of the hearing was changed three times. I came up to Dublin to the An Bord Pleanála hearing from my holidays in the west, at considerable cost, financial and in every other way. I got to the hearing and I just wanted to make my submission, but I would not be heard either as a Senator or an alderman. The inspector was extremely apologetic but I could not be heard unless I put my £15 on the table. I think that is outrageous. It occurred because I did not ally myself to some group. I would have got away without paying if I had done so but because I did not, because I just wrote in and it was not in my own area, it was in the centre of the city, I had to pay the £15. That is something other Members of this House may not know about and they might be interested in having it changed. I would be interested in hearing whether the Minister feels it is right that public representatives should have to pay these charges.

The amount of work now done by local and voluntary organisations and residents' associations, etc., is enormous due to the fact that there is considerable under-staffing in the various departments of the planning authorities which have had to cut back the amount of staff. The residents' associations do much factfinding work which the local authorities simply have not the resources to do. They would much prefer not to have to do it. They find it very difficult to be involved continuously in fund-raising events so that they can raise money to pay these exorbitant charges for planning appeals. I think it is very unfair to penalise to such an extent those groups who have nothing to gain financially.

The developer, on the other hand, has to pay also, and I do not deny that. However, at the end of the day, he will probably obtain a grant of permission and will, more than likely, be able to recoup his losses and expenses. In addition he will probably make a tidy profit. I do not feel quite so sorry for the developer, as I do for the residents' associations. All they are doing is trying to protect the environment for their neighbours or for the people who live in the area, or for the good of the country in general, perhaps for the good of tourism.

We are being told now that the environment is all important. The fundamental flaw in this Bill is that it penalises the small man, the small residents' associations, the voluntary organisations, An Taisce. These are the people penalised by some of the very stringent sections of this Bill.

ENFO produces very good briefing sheets, this one is called Planning and You. I would like to pay a compliment to ENFO for much of the very good work they have done. Page 3 of this leaflet tells people how to get involved, what to do, how to deal with appeals, how to make their views known and how to help control development, etc. It says:

... it is your right and your responsibility to make your views known. Although planning control rarely goes so far as to develop ideas for a street or house, the formation of street committees or even very informal groupings can be the first step in influencing local planning decisions. Generally, it is best to link up with other interested people but, if necessary, do not be afraid to "go it alone". Organisations such as youth clubs, development associations, local An Taisce associations, Junior Chambers of Commerce, Macra na Feirme, the Irish Countrywomen's Association, neighbourhood committees, street committees and many other organisations can play a part in creating a better environment.

People are being encouraged by ENFO but the Minister, in this Bill is penalising them and making it so difficult for them to make their appeals and get the information in in such a short time.

There is one further line I would like to read from the leaflet because I found it extremely interesting and somewhat amusing. It tells people to be positive and not to be begrudgers and knockers. Then it says: "Why not join a political party and become part of the action, rather than forever being a "hurler on the ditch"?

We now have ENFO, a Government organisation encouraging people to join a political party, saying all the rest of us are only "hurlers on the ditch". A person like myself who is not in a political party can only be a "hurler on the ditch". Marvellous, is it not? I am glad I am not in a political party. However, we had that debate last night and I will not go over it again.

Nobody is forced to join a political party in this country.

(Interruptions.)

Senator Hederman, without interruption.

I have been invited. Do not imagine I have not had quite a considerable number of overtures.

Tell us about it. That would be very interesting.

I do not think this is the appropriate time, perhaps during the sos.

I have not read the debates from the other House — I hope I get a chance to go through them to get a few ideas — but perhaps the Minister has been told this previously: the real problem lies in expecting everything to be in within one month. For a voluntary organisation, that is unrealistic. I do not know if the Minister or any of his officials has ever been involved in such an organisation, but perhaps they do not understand the problem. It is very easy when you are a Minister with civil servants and bureaucrats to hand you papers and do your research but that is not the way it is in voluntary organisations. Even in an organisation like An Taisce, a national organisation, where there are only two full-time officers for the whole country, a great deal of voluntary effort is required and people work hard. I hope the Minister will put up a good case if he intends to pursue this extreme and outrageous provision requiring people in voluntary organisations to have everything in within one month.

Local authorities will also find it difficult to comply with the rule requiring them to send in documents within 14 days from the date on which An Bord Pleanála makes the request. As deliveries between the board and the planning departments can often take a number of days, this procedure would be very difficult for the planning authority to comply with. Therefore, I ask the Minister to make a very small amendment to this section; one or two small amendments were made to the Bill in the other House. The 14 days should run from the date the request is received by the planning authority rather than from the date the request is sent out.

A request for observations by An Bord Pleanála, in relation to an appeal under section 7 could be misdirected or delivery could be delayed. Here again I would request that the time should be from the date on which the request is received by the planning authority rather than the date on which it is made. I do not think my request is unreasonable. What does the Minister think? I will put down amendments along those lines when we come on Committee Stage.

Section 18 (2) (c) worries me. This section envisages that the Minister could make regulations to enable the board to invite applicants, or appellants, to submit to the board revised plans or other drawings modifying the development to which the appeal relates and the board could grant permission for that modified development. I told the Minister the sad story of the day I travelled on the train from the west and had to pay £15 to be heard.

Now is the time to tell him the end of the story. When I arrived I discovered that the appellants had put in new plans. The original plan was for a development consisting entirely of offices. Now, unknown to any of us, they had come up with a new plan which was considerably altered. Having paid £15, I made my case and got a letter some days later from the board saying that because the plan had been modified so much, the board did not consider that it was close to the original application and the whole appeal came to nought. The developers were told to go back to the local authority with their application and to start all over again. My journey from the country and my £15 went for nothing. I was never given back my £15; perhaps I should ask them for it. In this Bill the Minister intends to make that scenario acceptable.

I do not know if the Minister has ever been to an oral hearing of a planning application, but this is what happens. You go to the planning application office, probably having stayed up the night before preparing the plans and getting the case ready, probably having spent a lot of money because you may have to employ experts to help you to put your case to the inspector. I would like to pay tribute to the inspectors. They are all very helpful and courteous and are always very polite to people who are involved in a planning application for the first time. They never make them feel awkward, ill at ease or nervous. They do everything they can to help. However, let us get back to what happens when you attend an oral hearing.

All the homework is done and all the facts are marshalled and you have the necessary experts with you. You have probably had to give up a day at work if you are employed and got other people to give up a day's work also. You get to the hearing and, as happened to me that morning, you find that the carpet has been pulled from under you because the developer — in this case it was the appellant — has now submitted a modified plan. It is very deflating. I felt deflated on that occasion because most of the main points to which I was objecting were gone out the window. Happily, in that case, the board decided that this should not have been done. The inspector decided to allow the hearing to go ahead and to hear both sides, but when it went before An Bord Pleanála they decided that this was not the correct procedure and the appeal collapsed. The Minister is now proposing to validate that position; he is proposing to make that acceptable.

I will be putting down an amendment asking the Minister to amend the Bill to require that any material modification, such as that I outlined, introduced by the applicant or the appellant, would be circulated to all the parties involved in advance of the oral hearing. What would have happened if it had not been an oral hearing? What would have happened if that case was being decided by written submissions? Would the appellant have been allowed to substitute that modified plan? I presume that under the old regulations it would have been circulated, but I believe the Minister should amend the Bill to ensure that the modified plan would be circulated to all the other parties in sufficient time to allow them to give a considered judgment and so that they would not have to go to the expense and trouble of coming into an oral hearing to find that the oral hearing was on the modified plan.

I hope my comments and suggestions will be taken in the spirit in which they are intended.

I probably have more experience of these matters than any other councillor, Senator or Deputy. I have 17 years experience. I know self-praise is no praise, but I do not mean it as praise, I am simply stating a fact. I know what the problems are. I do know what it is like for residents' associations trying to cope. I am not magnifying the problem; I am telling the House the facts. I have been to hundreds of oral hearings and I have been involved in umpteen appeals, and I know the difficulties better than anybody. I suppose the Minister's officials would say they know them better but I doubt if they have been to more hearings than I have. Perhaps one of them was an inspector previously and knows it from that point of view. It is not easy nowadays for these voluntary organisations who are quite rightly, anxious and interested to get involved, because they feel this is the way we protect our environment.

We know how strongly the Minister's party feels about the environment. We know the former Taoiseach decided that Ireland's Presidency of the European Community would be called the Green Presidency. This is not the first time I have complimented him on that. I think it was a very enlightened and clever move on his part. It certainly sent out the right messages to the other member states. I would not be quite so sure that we were or are doing everything that was intended but I made my own personal contribution by riding my bicycle for that six months. I hoped that on one occasion I might meet the Taoiseach and I would say to him "well, Taoiseach, this is my contribution to your Green Presidency," but I did not get the chance. Unfortunately, I never met him when I was on my bicycle.

If the Minister wants to reduce the time delays in the planning appeals area he should look at the numbers of staff. This is where the problem lies. With the huge decrease in staff numbers and the increase in the number of appeals you cannot expect the level of efficiency and the sort of timescale you are looking for. It is not possible. During 1988 and 1989 staff numbers decreased by 20 per cent and the staff at planning inspector grade declined by 50 per cent. Was the Minister aware of those figures or were any of the other Senators aware of them? How can the appeals process be efficient and quick without planning inspectors? That is where the Minister will find the root of the problem, not at the door of the third parties who are alleged to be holding up the whole process because they do not send in their information in time, or, indeed, with the local authorities.

The same situation applies to the local authorities. Every member here present is a member of a local authority and we know of the cutbacks we have had to make. I do not object to them in many ways. I am not one of those people who thinks we have all the money in the world. We must have efficiency and we must upgrade our services in many ways but I do not think you can really expect that local authorities will be able to comply with the stringent requirements of this Bill, expecting everything to be in to the board within 14 days, not 14 days from the date they receive the application but 14 days from the day it leaves the premises of the board.

The staff in our planning department work under unbearable constraints. They simply cannot undertake the work they have on hand and this will put added strain on them. However, the Minister knows more than I do about the public service recruiting restrictions.

Under section 6 a local authority has to send in various documents to the board. When the local authority deals with an application and they get objections from the public, from residents' associations, An Taisce or anybody who is entitled to make an objection to the planning authority, those objections must be considered. If the application goes to an appeal, would it not seem logical that the objections, which the public went to the trouble of sending to the local authority should be forwarded with all this information to the board? However, when they are writing to the local authority asking for information they specifically exclude those objections and say they do not want the local authority to send them any objections. I hope the Minister can clarify that for me.

Why do they do this? One of the reasons which I can think of is that if 20 people from an area wrote to the local authority voicing their objections to a particular development — and those 20 people wanted the board to know about their objections, of course they would have to pay £15 or £30. Is this why the board specifically excludes the local authority from forwarding the objections? Did Senators know these objections were not forwarded? Most people do not know it. In fact the public believes that once they have written in to the local authority and put the point to them then, if it goes to an appeal, the observations will be sent on to the appeals board. This is not so. I will put down an amendment to section 6 to the effect that this should happen automatically. The Minister and his officials will probably come back and say there will be a problem because if this was done, the objections would be circulated to the other parties and the permission of the objector would be required. Is there any reason those objections could not go to the board to be considered without having to be circulated to the other parties? Is that possible? It might be a neighbour objecting to another neighbour or it might be an employee objecting to something his employer had applied for and an objection could work against him. If that person knew the objection was going to be circulated it might inhibit him in the first place from making the objection to the local authority. That is an amendment which would be beneficial and the Minister would be forever remembered by organisations, such as An Taisce and the voluntary organisations. He would be a hero.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
Top
Share