Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 1992

Vol. 133 No. 8

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

An Cathaoirleach

I draw the attention of the House to a misprint in the list of amendments, page 8 should be page 7 and page 7 should be page 8. I will remind the House again of this when we reach section 19, amendment No. 43. Furthermore, amendment No. 32 is to section 8, not section 7. I would also like to inform the House that amendments Nos. 3, 26 and 51 are ruled out of order as not being relevant to the provisions of the Bill and amendment No. 42 is ruled out of order as it imposes a charge upon the people.

SECTION 1.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

"Council Directive' means Council Directive of 27th June, 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC);".

The "Council Directive" is referred to on a number of occasions — sections 8 (3) and 18 (2) (b) — but it is not clear that we are speaking specifically of the 1985 Council Directive. I suggest that, for the purpose of clarification, we should include this as one of the interpretations.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Smith)

I appreciate what Senator Costello is trying to achieve but I hope to convince the Seanad that the amendment is unnecessary and that the Bill, in effect, already contains a definition of Council Directive.

Section 24 (4) states that "This Act and the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1991, shall be construed together as one Act." This means that definitions in any one family of the legislation automatically carry through to the other. For this reason, terms such as "planning authority" and "board" will appear but they are not defined here because they are defined in earlier planning legislation. The same applies to the term "Council Directive". The term has already been inserted in the 1963 Act by the European Communities Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 1989, in terms similar to that proposed by the Senators. The Senator will appreciate that it is already enshrined in the body of legislation and is unnecessary. I ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Costello

I appreciate what the Minister says in relation to section 24 (4). However, there is a reference to the Council Directive in section 8 (3), page 10, of the Bill "arising from consultation in accordance with Council Directive in relation to the effects on the environment of the development to which the appeal relates". There could be more than one Council Directive referring to environmental matters. It is not clear that it refers to that specific 1985 Council Directive which was very important.

If we look at the other interpretations "‘the Act of 1976' means the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976." One could say that this is clearer than the Council Directive. In order to be logical in our definitions the Council Directive should be defined to make it clear what we are referring to. It would also make it clear to anybody who might peruse the Bill that we go back to 1985 for this very important Council Directive.

Mr. Smith

I have nothing further to add to substantiate the case I have already made. It is clear that the definitions in any one family of the legislation on planning automatically carries through to the other. The term "Council Directive" has been inserted in the 1963 Act by the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 1989. As I said earlier, I appreciate the Senator's view. We had a fairly long debate on this matter in the Dáil and, in the final analysis, there was agreement on all sides that the provisions as drafted were more suitable and that this would involve unnecessary duplication.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Hederman

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following definition:

"‘publication' means a notice published in a newspaper which has general circulation in the area of the proposed development.".

I welcome the Minister to the House and I am sure we will have a very constructive debate on this important Bill which is of great interest to me.

My first amendment relates to the publication in a newspaper of planning applications. This is an issue which has caused great problems down the years. Applicants sometimes make it as difficult as possible for the public to become aware of a notice that development is going to take place. It has been known for them to insert such notice in Irish on Christmas Eve and use similar tactics in an effort to make it as difficult as possible for the notices to be seen. I expected to see some changes in this Bill because I know of the input of the Minister's partners in Government. I am also aware that the Progressive Democrats manifesto for the local elections in 1991 stated: "The publication in papers of planning applications should be altered so that all planning applications would have to appear in a designated paper on a particular day of each week". I thought that an extremely good and constructive suggestion. I ask the Minister if it is intended to proceed in that manner?

Mr. Smith

The definition of publication proposed in this amendment appears to be necessary only in relation to the alternative appeals procedure proposed in amendment No. 20 in the name of the Senator. I do not believe, however, that it is appropriate to relate the start-up periods in the appeals process to the publication of notice of a planning authority's decision on an application. I consider, therefore, that this amendment is not necessary.

I do, however, take the point Senator Hederman made in relation to transparency and the question of how we can ensure the best possible transparency in relation to the planning process will be developed in the future. The Senator will appreciate that is more a matter for the planning regulations. As I indicated in the debate on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil, we are in the process of updating the planning regulations at present. I will take account of that consideration and others that have been made to me in a way which will make it absolutely certain that people will have the best possible facility with regard to publication.

As regards cost, the Senator will appreciate that in certain areas the demands on local authorities in that connection would be quite extraordinary. It may well be necessary to combine it will other ways of informing the public. I will consider that also. I assure Senators that it is not necessary to include it in this legislation but it will be covered by the regulations ultimately.

Mr. Costello

I agree with Senator Hederman that this is an important matter. I appreciate the response from the Minister that he is considering updating the planning regulations and that it is the intention to incorporate the principle enshrined in this amendment. The Labour Party have a similar amendment, amendment No. 26, where it is stated that "such public notice shall include advertising the application in a newspaper circulating in the area concerned and on the site concerned", so it would be subject to the two provisions.

Perhaps we might disagree slightly with the Minister in relation to the regulations. The biggest bone of contention in relation to any planning application is the inadequacy of the notice that is given in terms of its insertion in newspapers. This gives rise to constant complaints from would-be objectors. It is sufficiently important to include in the principal legislation a standard set of procedures which all local authorities and applicants must follow.

I ask the Minister to reconsider his statement in relation to the planning regulations and incorporate in this Bill the provision that an appropriate form of advertisement be used so that we do not have variations from area to area. We are not certain what the regulations are likely to be later. It would be best if this could be done at this stage in the Bill.

Mrs. Hederman

I thank the Minister for his explanation. I am pleased to hear that the regulations are being updated and that this will be covered. I would like to comment on one point the Minister made. He said it would be very costly for local authorities. It was not my intention in this or any previous representations I made on this matter that the local authority would have to sustain the cost of the advertisement. At present it is the applicant who has to sustain the cost and I see no reason that situation could not continue and the applicant would pay the cost. On one day in the week all the notices would be inserted in an appropriate newspaper but the cost would not be borne by the local authority. I am satisfied with the Minister's response and look forward to the early publication of the new planning regulations.

Dr. Upton

I am reasonably satisfied with the Minister's response. The ingenuity of people trying to get planning permission on the quiet is so great that there will always be a certain degree of difficulty in trying to ensure that the public are made fully aware of what is happening. I suggest that the Minister or the Department meet with newspaper editors with a view to arranging that planning applications are listed in papers perhaps on one given day per week and in a readily identifiable and recognisable part of the paper. That would be a help. For example, on a Saturday one would simply turn to the second last page of a newspaper to see the planning applications. We are all a bit careless about these things. The problem in many ways is that it is part of the way people behave. If one were to become preoccupied with planning one would do nothing else except peruse the newspapers every day for planning applications in Irish and English.

Mr. Smith

The requirements with regard to publication have always been dealt with by way of regulation for the simple reason that it is more flexible and it can respond more quickly to changing circumstances. Senator Upton made that point indirectly in terms of the challenges that are there and that may well have to be met. To try to deal with it in the main body of the legislation would not be correct.

It is important to bear in mind that when one says one does not want the costs to be borne by the local authorities, there are two sides to this question. The local authority will make a decision and who will be responsible for publishing the council's decision? That may well be the basis on which somebody will decide to appeal or not. There is no way we can get away from, if Senators insist on a provision like this, of local authorities having to bear costs in relation to decisions which they make.

It is also important to bear in mind the number of people who have no access to newspapers. There are statistics to prove that. After consultation, I will have to try to combine the best possible regime which will allow for the kind of transparency which Senators are anxious about, one which is flexible and can be changed to meet changing requirements and does not require me or someone who will be in my position at another time to come to the Dáil and Seanad to change the legislation. When we bear all these considerations in mind, Senators will agree that the amendment is unnecessary. I am anxious to have the widest possible consultative process in the preparation of these regulations which I hope to have ready by the end of the year to ensure that we incorporate the characteristics which are best for efficient planning and fair and equitable decisions affecting the public in the future.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Section 1 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, subsection (1), line 41, after "be" to insert "subject to proper planning and environmental considerations".

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that while we are moving in an urgent and expeditious manner, we do not forget to give careful consideration to the environment and ensuring that the board carry out their duty without prejudice to proper planning. This must be the paramount duty. The Labout Party suggest that the insertion of that clause would be a reminder to the board that with the new tightening up procedures and timescale, their paramount duty would be to ensure that no stone is left unturned to get the environmental and planning sides right and that the work would be done as expeditiously as possible in conjunction with these other important issues.

Mrs. Hederman

My amendment is identical to that of the Labour Party. I concur with the comments made by Senator Costello. I stressed on a number of occasions in the city council how essential it is for the board to expedite decisions and not to cause unnecessary or undue delays which could hamper development in an area. While I am anxious that third parties and environmental groups be considered and that the Bill will provide for their concerns, I have a copy of motions passed at the city council — some of them at my instigation — appealing to the Minister to ensure that the board would expedite their decisions because this has been a real problem. I have some cases here, which I mentioned on a previous occasion, about references made to the board and the most incredible delays, which is very hard to understand, in relatively simple, straightforward matters. In some planning applications complex issues can arise but in the cases I have mentioned the board has not made a decision.

As far as I can gather from the documents I consulted, most appeals by the board are decided within a six month period. There has been a very big increase in the number of appeals but the number of staff in An Bord Pleanála has been reduced. I have not been able to get the latest figures because I do not have an up-to-date annual report — the one I have is out of date. On Second Stage I asked the date of the latest annual report of An Bord Pleanála. One question we will come back to is the number of staff available to the board, what expertise they have and whether they have sufficient staff to implement some of the very good provisions in this Bill.

With regard to this amendment, we must not lose sight of the fact that we do not want quantity taking precedence over quality. We want to be assured that the decisions of the board are in the interests of the country. If there is undue pressure it will be very difficult for the board to make the right decisions in complex cases and to consult all the documents. The Minister will probably say this amendment is unnecessary but if it were written into the Bill it would be a statement that we are concerned about proper planning and environmental considerations.

Mr. Smith

This matter was raised continuously in the other House and I failed to use the English language in a way which could be understood. I reiterate that resources in terms of personnel available to an Bord Pleanála have not been reduced. I emphasise that. This was said in the other House and again here this morning. I do not want to delay the House but the numbers have increased. There has always been a sympathetic understanding of their position when any application was made to increase their resources, and that will continue to be the position.

While I understand the Senators concern to include "subject to proper planning and environmental considerations" in the Bill, I ask them to think more deeply about it. In the planning Acts, and specifically section 26 of the 1963 Act, An Bord Pleanála has an express legal obligation to deal with any appeal by reference to consideration of proper planning and development. I assure Senators that any new obligations which are imposed under section 2 (1) will not prejudice the ability of the board to decide cases fundamentally in that way.

The provision in the Bill restates the board's existing duty under section 4 of the 1983 Planning Act and this has not interfered in any way with their ability to deal with cases in a proper manner. What would be the purpose of a planning Act and what would be the purpose of An Bord Pleanála if it were not to decide cases on the basis of sound planning, environmental and other considerations? The legal obligation is there. Nobody could consider an approach to planning which did not embody these considerations. For that reason, the amendment is unnecessary. It seeks to restate what is already in the 1963 Act. Since nobody could approach the question of planning in a different way, it is unnecessary.

Mrs. Hederman

I thank the Minister. Did the Minister mention section 73 of the 1963 Act?

Mr. Smith

Section 26.

Mrs. Hederman

What the Minister said is correct. In the 1963 Act there were no constraints on the board to decide appeals within a given period. They may have been asked to give their decisions as expeditiously as possible, but there was no pressure on them and, until this Bill is passed, there will be no pressure on them. Under this Bill the board are obliged to decide appeals within a four months period but I hope it will be longer. Anybody reading this Bill in conjunction with the Acts will clearly see that there is now a greater obligation on the board to make decisions more quickly.

The Minister's point is that the purpose of the planning Acts is to ensure that proper planning and environmental considerations are taken into account but in 1963 environmental considerations were not given the same importance they have today. There was no such thing as environmental impact assessments or environmental impact studies. There was a much simpler and less complex mechanism. Perhaps the Minister would consider this. I do not want to irritate him but the Minister said he had difficulty getting the message across in the Dáil. I do not want to keep harping back to certain things but I will be obliged to do so unless I can satisfy myself that things are as the Minister says, and not as I see them. The Minister said resources have not been reduced. Where can I get confirmation of this? I am at a disadvantage in that I am working from 1988 and 1989 annual reports which state that in 1989 the staff of An Bord Pleanála was 58 compared to 73 in 1988. If the figures are wrong I would appreciate being told where I can get the correct figures. In plain English, a reduction in staff numbers from 73 in 1988 to 58 in 1989 shows a downward trend. The Minister may say that trend is increasing again, and if that is the case I am very happy. However, I cannot accept that there have not been staff reductions.

Dr. Upton

I would welcome clarification of the number employed by An Bord Pleanála. If I remember correctly, a document produced by An Taisce suggested radical reductions in the number of planning inspectors employed by the board for the years mentioned by Senator Hederman — I think it was 1988 and 1989 and 1990.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister's experience of the limitations of the English language in getting across certain truths. This is a problem that all of us in the political world have experienced from time to time. Of course, as the Minister is only too well aware, there are two reasons for it: one may be the inadequacy of the politician trying to get the message across and the other is a certain degree of resistance on the part of those to whom the message is being given. Things change radically as well when politicians move from one side of the House to the other.

Mr. Smith

I hope it will not be interpreted as a reflection on the Seanad when I go many more rounds to explain these figures than I did in the Dáil.

Dr. Upton

A remedial course.

Mrs. Honan

The Minister should remember he was a Senator too.

Mr. Smith

The report of An Bord Pleanála states that in 1990 62 people were employed; in 1988, 55 were employed and in 1989, 59 were employed. The problem may arise because individuals are taking establishment figures as distinct from actual numbers into account. I hope during the discussion here to lay that issue to rest once and for all.

In relation to the inspectorate the number increased from 13 to 18 during that period. One will appreciate that the workload of technical staff has increased. To deal with the real issue, I will read from section 4 of the 1983 Act:

It shall be the duty of the board to ensure that appeals, references and other matters with which it is concerned are disposed of as expeditiously as may be and, for that purpose, to take all such steps as are open to it to ensure that, in so far as is practicable, there are no avoidable delays at any stage in the consideration of such appeals, references and other matters.

I do not want to delay the House by restating what I am providing here but essentially it is what is already enshrined in the 1983 Act. We are not going back to 1963 in that context, although the words used in 1963, when there was not the same public understanding and concern for the environment, were "proper planning and development". I would not like to be the person who would try to prove in court that those words do not cover what we are dealing with now.

Mrs. Hederman

I hope the Minister is not being selective. I have the 1983 Act and have read that section. Section 2 (2) of this Bill clearly states that it shall be the objective of the board to ensure that every appeal or other matter is determined within a period of four months. If the Minister says there is anything like that in the previous Acts, I would be happy to look at it. As far as I can ascertain in none of these Acts is there any specific period mentioned in which the board has to decide an appeal.

There is creeping into this Bill — I do not object to the principle — a specific timeframe within which the board must decide and there must be very good reasons for not complying with it. For that reason it would be helpful to insert a reminder that, no matter what the pressures were, the matter must be dealt with expeditiously and it should be subject to proper planning and environmental considerations. What would be the downside of putting it in given that it would satisfy these who are concerned that there may be undue pressure on the board? Would it upset the apple cart or would it make things too lax? Was the Minister concerned that they could use it to annul the four month period?

I accept what the Minister said about staff numbers. The latest report I was able to get was for 1989. I should like to get the 1990 report. The Minister gave figures of 55 employees in 1988, 59 in 1989 and 62 in 1990. That conflicts with my figures. We are obviously working from different data but I accept that the Minister can get more up to date figures than I.

Mr. Smith

I am sorry that again my best efforts have failed to put this matter to rest. I hope Senators will not take it as a reflection on them if I do not deal with the matter any more.

Let me deal with the difference between proper planning in 1963, dealing with planning applications as expeditiously as possible in the 1983 Act, and largely replacing that with a new section embodying the same considerations now, taking Senator Hederman's argument on board, completely different now because of the statutory requirement on the board to deal with cases within a specified period.

The purpose of this Bill is to reform the procedures which are applicable to planning appeals and to enable them to be made more expeditiously. In order for that to happen, not only the notice of the appeal but the full appeal must be made and the person must decide to make an application for an oral hearing at the beginning. The local authority have two weeks in which to make the papers available to the board. If one takes into account the procedures which have now been put in place to enable the board to have longer periods to consider the applications than is at present, the requirement which the Senator suggests is restrictive in many ways and could be interpreted the opposite way. If a person can apply for an oral hearing at any time — even at a late stage in the examination of the appeal — that restricts the board's capacity to make decisions within a reasonable time.

I want to put on record, my considered view that time has never been an absolute factor in determining if things are done well. Efficiency, understanding the subject and dealing with it in an expeditious and equitable way does not require the kind of timescale some people seem to ascribe to it. I believe that when we combine the reforms and the new procedures, Senators will understand that the board will be in a position from a staffing viewpoint to make these decisions within the timescale we have outlined. I do not accept that later decisions are better or that earlier decisions are inferior.

An Cathaoirleach

We have had a long debate on this amendment.

Mr. Costello

I thought we would have advanced to amendment No. 20 by now.

Mr. Smith

It is my fault.

Mr. Costello

Unfortunately I missed some of the debate. I want to refer to a matter which may not have been adverted to. When we were discussing the Environmental Protection Agency Bill the Minister promised that a similar duty to expedite matters would be inserted in the Bill. That has not been done. There was a promise made that we would have a similar statement to ensure that appeals on other matters are disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The fact that no such duty is incumbent on the Environmental Protection Agency means that a certain delay could take place and we would need a parallel duty expressed to expedite the matter properly. Will the Minister refer to that in his reply?

Irrespective of the matters the Minister referred to — the timescale and the numbers involved — if we impose a duty of dealing with matters urgently and expeditiously it is also important that we impose a duty ensuring that planning and environment matters are attended to and considered.

Mr. Smith

Even allowing for my desire to make everybody happy, it was intended to deliver on that commitment. The Minister of State stated that in both Houses. An examination of our ability to deliver on that commitment showed there were legal problems and we have to resolve them now by amending the Principal Act. It was considered that we could do it in the way suggested. It was nobody's fault and we are responding in a new and different way to the same consideration.

Mr. Costello

I do not want to delay the House——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has been given a lot of latitude.

Mr. Costello

The Minister has made an important point. Does he intend to introduce amending legislation soon to the Environmental Protection Agency Bill?

Mrs. Honan

We are dealing with this Bill, not the Environmental Protection Agency Bill.

Mr. Costello

The Minister raised the matter.

Mr. Smith

The intention is to resolve the matter in the Principal Act as soon as possible.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Naughten

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) In the case of appeals lodged in relation to domestic extensions, single dwellings or similarly small developments the Board should make every reasonable endeavour to have the matters decided within two months.".

This is a reasonable amendment and I hope the Minister will take it on board. This amendment refers to house repairs, reconstructions, extensions or single dwellings. I do not see why An Bord Pleanála need four months to adjudicate on a simple application like that. I hope the Minister will take this amendment on board, because it will speed up the process for the applicant who seeks to build or extend a house or carry out improvements but there may be a crank objection.

I welcome the sentiments expressed in this section that planning applications will have to be dealt with within four months. For too long, we have tolerated a situation where even the simplest of appeals dragged on for eight and nine months. That was criminal and I have no doubt we lost jobs and industry as a result. I am glad to note the resources of An Bord Pleanála were not reduced. The view I heard expressed was that the delays were the result of inadequate staffing. I am glad that the Minister put that to rest today.

I ask the Minister to accept this amendment. I believe it to be a reasonable amendment and one that will provide the right balance in this Bill. It should speed up the process for an individual applicant. I would hate to think that because four months is put in here applications will not be decided on for three months and three weeks. That is why I ask the Minister to take this point on board.

Mrs. Honan

The case is exactly as Senator Naughten has described. In his address to the House a few minutes ago, the Minister stated that good decisions do not always take a long time. Often good decisions can be made in a short time. All elected persons in local government and in the Houses here have had the experience of delays and I am sure the Minister remembers similar representations. It should not take two months or more to make a decision on a single dwelling or on small numbers of houses. Senator Naughten and I consider this amendment to be sensible. There have been complaints about the delays. When talking about a house or a few houses, it is difficult to explain to people why a decision should take many months. I agree with the case put forward by Senator Naughten.

Dr. Upton

I am in agreement with the sentiments expressed in this amendment. I would have thought that most of those cases would be straightforward and could be decided upon there and then. I would certainly like to see the Minister accept this amendment and if he cannot accept it then at least he might accept the spirit of the amendment. He said there is nothing wrong with quick decisions as against decisions which drag on for a long time. It is a good amendment.

Mr. Howard

I would like to support the amendment also. I do not see why a decision should not emanate from An Bord Pleanála within a two month period. The type of development that Senator Naughten has in mind here is a single dwelling for a private individual, or similar small-scale developments of that nature. It is obvious that the local authority will have considered the application. The file will be completed and I am not of the view that there is any further additional documentation that can be added to the file in such cases.

Essentially, the An Bord Pleanála inspector is being asked to take a second look at the merits of the decision arrived at on the basis of the documentation that is already on the file. There is nothing further that can be added in these cases from the time of the presentation and decision of the planning application by the local authority to the point where the appeal is concluded by An Bord Pleanála.

The next amendment we will be dealing with is, perhaps, a more appropriate point at which to outline the circumstances of a certain matter. In fact, it would have relevance to this amendment, but I do not want to take up the time of the House twice. What I am really saying, is that when the file is already completed by the local authority and the local planning officer has given an adjudication on it, all the inspector in An Bord Pleanála is being asked to do, in an appeal of that nature regarding a development, is to take another look at the facts on which the local planning officer decided the case, and either confirm the decision or alter it if in his opinion an alteration is justified.

There is also an important time factor. This certainly applies throughout rural Ireland in the case of people who are building or arranging to build their own homes. There is a building period where these people are concerned and there is a non-building period. Most people are anxious to get the construction under way in springtime and to avail of the long evenings and the summer to get through the job. A person who is arranging to build his own house never starts in the months of October, November or December. A slow decision can have the effect of delaying the building of a house for a year, with considerable difficulties for the people involved. There is a time constraint and a time factor.

There is much merit in what Senator Naughten has proposed here and Senator Honan, Senator Upton and I are supporting this amendment.

Mr. Foley

I support the sentiments expressed by Senator Liam Naughten. In fairness to the Minister, he indicated in his Second Stage speech that he was making every effort to speed up decisions. He made particular reference to An Bord Pleanála and specified a period of two months and I hope he will endorse that here today. There is no doubt that substantial delays have created a considerable number of problems, especially in regard to large developments, and even with regard to housing developments. For that reason I support the sentiments expressed here by Senator Naughten.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I sympathise with Senator Naughten. May of the objections to extensions and small developments need never go to An Bord Pleanála. At local level, there is a little problem. We are not dealing with a local authority Bill here but, at the same time, I feel this has a bearing on it. A person may make an objection initially to a local county council. The council may have refused point blank to give a copy of that objection to a small developer. In the case of an extension or a single house, if the developer knew what the objection was about, often the matter could be settled at council level by making minor changes in the initial planning.

I would appeal to the Minister to ensure, perhaps in another Bill, that all objections made to local planning authorities should also be furnished to the developer. That would cut out many appeals to An Bord Pleanála.

Professor Conroy

I would like to support Senator Fitzgerald. There should be a very definite obligation. We are talking here about Senator Naughten's suggestion of two months for decisions on plans for domestic dwellings. In that connection I have considerable sympathy for the amendment. It is true, as Senator Fitzgerald said, that if objections were not kept secret — which seems totally against the idea of openness, democracy and against the whole planning process — many of our other problems would be greatly eased in relation to time.

Mr. Howard

May I intervene in relation to the point made by Senator Fitzgerald about the documents to which Senator Conroy has referred? Perhaps the Minister in his reply might confirm what I am about to say. My understanding is that according to the provisions of legislation at the end of the last century a planning file is a public document. Therefore, a council is not acting within the law in restricting access by any member of the public to the contents of a file, such as Senator Fitzgerald has referred to.

Professor Conroy

Here we find an anomaly. Some councils restrict while others are much more open and democratic.

Mr. Smith

I was in Rio when the Second Stage debate was completed in the Seanad. It was remiss of me not to compliment the Seanad, for their very positive response to the Bill which has been characterised by the debate this morning, particularly on this amendment.

While I am not able to agree to the amendment, the sentiments expressed in it are very good. Reading through the Bill, I have power in certain circumstances, and after consideration to designate certain classes of appeals as being ones which I say could be decided in a period considerably less than four months. In fact, that can happen at present.

I want to point immediately to some little technical difficulties. We will deal first with the questions that have been raised with regard to the local authority and more openness which is very important. If it requires further legislation in main planning Acts to do something like that right across the board, I would be very happy to do it. Once a decision is taken by the local authority it is made public and if there is an appeal subsequently, negotiations then take place between the developer and the objectors. Often in these cases the problem is then resolved and there is no further appeal. The same point is relevant if that could be achieved earlier.

One aspect to the planning process which people who are concerned seem to miss is that it is equally important to refuse a planning application in the developer's interest as it is to uphold it. That means we can decide that is not going ahead, and can plan something else. Very often, the opposite view is taken that all these developments have to be stopped and the longer it goes on the more frustrating it is.

I have personal experience where, as Minister for Forestry, I spent two years trying to get a specific project going. It involved the use of pine timber for an added value process. I do not need to indicate to this House what has been happening to our lovely pine forests for years. I succeeded in getting a project, planning permission was granted but there was one objection. After ten months a decision was taken by An Bord Pleanála. Ireland lost the project; Ireland's forests lost, the taxpayers lost. An Bord Pleanála upheld the county council decision, with minor adjustments. I mention that as one example of what can happen, and has happened.

Mr. Naughten

Unfortunately, we could all speak of cases like that.

Mr. Smith

With regard to the technical aspects, the County Council makes its decision and is obliged to submit its papers to An Bord Pleanála. Other parties have a month to prepare their case — it can slip into a month or five weeks in the initial process. When you specify two months there may be a three week period for the examination of an appeal. This is adequate in routine cases but we need more experience of the four month requirement. While I am not objecting to the principle of the amendment, one would have to be more specific than just "routine cases". People's understanding of what are routine cases can vary enormously. A small development may have major repercussions, and a large development may have minor repercussions.

As I said, I am not objecting to the sentiments expressed. I already have the power, when we have more experience of the four month requirement, to designate certain classes as falling into a category where decisions should be taken within a much earlier period. I hope Senator Naughten will appreciate that I am going as far as I can both in the existing legislation and in the new provisions to decide what action would be taken subsequently.

Mr. Naughten

I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply. I regret that he cannot accept this amendment because I believe it would improve the Bill. I recognise that there may be some difficulties, as the Minister has indicated.

It is the wish of every Member of this House that the Minister would convey to An Bord Pleanála that we do not want every application, however small, being held up for four months and that decisions would be taken as soon as possible on the type of case mentioned here.

As Senator Howard pointed out, all the documentation is prepared by the county council and is available. The grounds for granting permission or refusal are clearly specified. It should not be a big task for An Bord Pleanála to make a decision on an individual case. It is different if you are dealing with a large housing estate or commercial development but I am talking about the individual applicant. Perhaps the Minister would tell An Bord Pleanála that we expect those decisions to be dealt with speedily. As Senator Honan pointed out, some projects are started at specific times of the year and if the planning permission is delayed, it could mean the project cannot be started for another 12 months.

Mrs. Hederman

I support this amendment. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. At the moment, there is a constraint on local authorities. Dublin Corporation will not grant permission until a certain period has passed. In other words, even if you put in an application that is practically identical with a previous application, it will not be passed immediately. I do not know if that is a custom to which they feel obliged to adhere, or whether if legislation inhibits them.

This is a problem. There are cases where a developer keeps coming back with similar applications. I had a case recently where that happened. I asked the planning department to deal with it as quickly as possible so that the enforcement section could take action. They said they could not make the decision within six weeks. If the local authority grant a planning application, I appreciate that a certain amount of time may be needed to allow third parties to send in their objections.

I understood the Minister to have said that he has the power to tell the board to speed up their decision-making process. If so, has that power ever been used? Under existing legislation has the Minister the power, to impose greater time constraints? Will anything inhibit the board from making a decision along the lines Senator Naughten wants? If a very simple appeal is submitted and all the documentation has been received, is there any reason they have to wait the four months? Does the fact that four months is mentioned in the Bill mean that an outsider, a third party appellant or the applicant can say, "We understood you were not going to give a decision for four months". Would he, therefore, be justified in complaining if the board gave the decision within two months? May I have clarification on those points?

Mr. Smith

Section 22 (b) reads:

Such other period as the Minister may prescribe, either generally or in respect of a particular class or classes of appeals or other matters.

Clearly, the legal power to decide in certain classes of cases on a shorter period is open to the Minister in the light of experience.

I want to deal very briefly with one or two points that Senator Hederman has made in relation to the obligation on local authorities. There is a statutory obligation on local authorities to make a decision within two months and I regret very much, in terms of my personal understanding of that situation across the country, that it is not being adhered to. There is a huge percentage of cases now which are taking longer than two months to be dealt with at local authority level. This, of course, is achieved where the local authority have not had an opportunity to fully consider the application. They then inform the applicant, and there is agreement on another specified period. I am extremely anxious that this practice should not continue.

I realise there are very many new types of applications for planning permission. There are requirements which necessitate the local authority considering matters from the point of view of roads, fire safety, health and from the point of view of general planning and other considerations and it is not possible to synchronise all those in a way which will allow for the two months statutory requirement to be met on all occasions. Statistics available to me indicate there is departure from what I would consider to be a fairly absolute requirement on the part of the local authority to deal more expeditiously with planning applications. I will be considering any means which are open to me in order to ensure that there is greater efficiency and that we get decisions consistent with what has been the practice and, indeed, expectation of the public with regard to these matters.

There is no obligation on a local authority to wait for the full two months if all the considerations necessary for taking a full and fair decision have been dealt with prior to that time. They may well decide on a much shorter timescale in the type of cases referred to in Senator Naughten's amendment.

A point was made earlier — which I did not deal with — concerning vexatious appeals. There is provision in the Bill for the board to throw those out. Another point which I did not deal with adequately referred to the question of the objectors' comments being available. The 1977 regulations make provision for these comments to be made available but, carrying through to the point made by Senator Conroy, they are not applied consistently because the regulations do not specifically require such provision. There is the question of availability. The planning regulations, as I indicated earlier are up for review currently, and I hope to have them finalised by the end of this year in order to take account of that case. They will require making these documents available so that the system throughout the country and its application by local authorities will be much more harmonious and open.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Hussey)

Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9 are related and may be discussed together.

Mrs. Hederman

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, subsection (2) (a), line 3, to delete "four" and substitute "five".

These amendments deal with the basic issue which we have already touched on, that is, the pressure which the board will be under in order to deal adequately with all the issues particularly in a complex case. In amendments Nos. 7 and 9, we raise the matter of an application or appeal where we are involved in an environmental impact statement. I would like to reiterate what I said at an earlier stage because I do not think the Minister really accepted this from the tenor of his reply.

I have been closely involved in the planning process for about 20 years, if not more. I am old enough to remember when the 1963 Act came in, although I would not have been as familiar with it then as I am now. What I am trying to stress is that the whole area of planning has become very complex and that is borne out by the fact that various organisations, such as An Taisce, planning institutions and ENFO bring out a series of documentation to assist people. I must congratulate ENFO in this regard. A layman or woman who has no experience would still find it requires quite an amount of study and application to get the gist and the general tenor of what is involved if one is embroiled in a planning appeal as a third party, or something like that.

Many of the Members here will remember the long and tortuous debates we had with the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Harney, on the Environmental Protection Agency Bill. I required all one's skill attention and application to follow what was involved and most Senators who were interested and who followed it would accept that. There will be instances of applications at the other end of the spectrum to Senator Naughten's description of domestic extensions which are probably very simple and straightforward. We have had some of them already involving various industrial applications. Sandoz was a good example and there are others. Is there a possibility of the board being able to deal with these in the same timeframe as they would be able to deal with the average application?

I accept that the average application should be dealt with expeditiously. We have been over that ground in relation to the last amendment and I am not going to go over it again. On the other hand, we must look at the other end of the spectrum which is complicated. There are many difficult issues and much documentation is required on all sides by the local authority, the appeals board and by third party appellants. I know that the Minister has had a bad experience in this regard. A number of people had mentioned the forestry project. It is understandable that having had a disappointment, where something went so wrong so unnecessarily because of delays and everything else that, even at a personal level, the Minister would feel all the more anxious to expedite things. However, where there is an environmental impact statement, there should be a general extension of the time.

In the amendment I suggested five months rather than four because I noted an amendment put down in the Dáil asked for six months, to which the Minister did not agree. I am hoping he may agree to five months. I am not happy with the situation where, if there is a complicated case under section 3 (a), the board can have a longer time. The Minister said in relation to the local authorities that there is a binding obligation on them to decide within two months, but that a huge percentage of the local authority cases are taking longer. He said he is not happy with that and does not want this practice to continue. I am afraid the same thing is going to happen. The Minister's successor, or the departmental officials, are going to feel the same way if the board is constantly saying that it cannot stick to the timeframe. I ask the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of, say, five months. If that cannot be done, I would ask him to take on board the sentiments expressed in amendments Nos. 7 and 9.

Mr. Howard

The three amendments are related and I will comment on the first one. If I understood the Minister correctly when he responded a short time ago to the matter of the status of the documents in the file, he said he intends, by way of regulation, to clarify the matter. I am satisfied with that.

I support the four months period the Minister is proposing but I ask him how realistic is that period in the light of the experience of a number of us? In the vast majority of cases, I am satisfied that four months is adequate. What An Bord Pleanála do in an appeal is to review a file that has already been compiled by the local authority. The donkey work has been done by the local authority. They are permitted only two months in which to do it. There are time constraints on the local authorities. A public notice must appear, and there are 28 days allowed after the public notice appearing.

Referring to a comment by Senator Upton earlier, there is very little difficulty in getting circulation of public notices in the rural areas and the local papers. They are seen by everybody. There is a period of 28 days required after the publication of the public notice before the local authority can proceed. Yet, they are required to give their decision within two months. In the vast majority of cases, the donkey work is done already and the review by An Bord Pleanála is a review, basically, of the documents that are in the file. Therefore, if we say there is a statutory obligation on the local authorities to do their investigation in a period of two months, it is reasonable to say to the board that they should be well able to review the decision of the local authority and give their considered judgment in double that timeframe. While I say it is reasonable, I do not know whether it is realisable. That is the point I want to make to the Minister.

This morning I had occasion to visit the offices of An Bord Pleanála. I did it for the purpose of establishing information and of finding out something. That something was simple enough: when were the board likely to give a decision on a planning application against one condition? When were they likely to give a decision, even though that appeal had been with them for six months? I want to make it absolutely clear that I was not seeking to influence in any way the content of the decision. It was simply an inquiry as to the stage of the process of that particular application. I am referring to a case of an appeal on one condition out of seven. The information I received was that it was about to go to the board and that perhaps a decision would emerge in about a month's time. That is a total of seven months.

Does the Minister expect that six months from now matters like that will be disposed of in four months? I do not know if that is realisable. I am not accusing the board of discourtesy in this matter, but it is important. The reason I had to go there this morning was that this inquiry was the fifth attempt to get the information. Previous attempts were made by a phone call, a letter, a fax and a visit by a solicitor representing the appellant but all of these methods got no response. I say to the Minister he may have difficulty with four months.

There should be a provision in the Bill whereby information would be made available to appellants. I was met with the utmost courtesy from the people in the office of An Bord Pleanála this morning. I said to them there must be an understanding of the frustrations on the other side of the case. As the people in the middle, we should move to take care of that and I suggest to the Minister that should be done. If a simple inquiry regarding an application is directed to the board, whether by letter, fax, telephone or otherwise, there should be some response. Even an acknowledgment that the application has been received would be a help. The absence of such acknowledgment takes us, as public representatives, into the situation where an hour in the morning has to be devoted to these matters. However, I think that four months is adequate in the majority of cases.

The Minister said earlier that the number of inspectors in An Bord Pleanála had been increased from 15 to 18. I could be open to contradiction on this. We have 27 local authority areas. We expect a planning officer in each one to make his decisions, to compile the files and to go through all the information in two months. It is not unreasonable to expect these 18 inspectors, whose sole job is to review the files assembled in 26 or 27 local authority areas, will do so in a reasonable time. I do not believe that the four months objective will be achieved without considerable difficulty. While I admire the Minister's enthusiasm, he will be subjected to the same frustration as the client on whose behalf I made inquiries this morning.

Professor Conroy

It is one of the major advances in this Bill that objectives are being set. At the moment, that is all it is. It says, "it shall be the objective of the Board to ensure..." and "such other period as the Minister may prescribe either generally...". At the moment four months is an objective we hope will be achieved. I sympathise with what Senator Howard is saying in relation to this matter. In practice, it may be very difficult in a number of circumstances to achieve that objective, but at least it sets an objective and An Bord Pleanála, or whoever, has to explain why it is not achieved. Four months is about the right time. That allows a month to collect data and three months to examine it and come to a decision. In certain circumstances, it may be rather tight and in other circumstances, as we discussed previously, a lesser period of two months may be sufficient. At least at this end of the planning process, we are beginning to see some progress.

It concerns me because I, and I am sure all other Senators, have had personal experience both in my role as a Senator and in other capacities. I do not wish to refer to matters in which one has a personal interest. I have learned a great deal about the very severe problems facing us in this country in relation to planning and developments which are justifiable and which are environmentally fully up to the highest international standards. We had a lengthy environmental Bill in the Seanad some time ago.

We have the highest environmental impact statement standards in the entire world. There is one other country which equals us and that is The Netherlands and there is one other state in the USA, namely, the state of California. Nowhere else in the world are such stringent standards applied. Admittedly, there are specific reasons why the Dutch, with the extreme damage already caused to their environment, have set some of their standards but it is right that we should have high standards and that we should maintain them. However, it means that an industrialist coming to this country has to consider whether the development in question is viable. To take one simple aspect, if you are looking for a site or an area — and by definition under the EIS you must also examine alternative sites — that process may take 12 or 18 months. It is very optimistic to have reached the stage of having chosen a site within 12 to 18 months. You then have to prepare an environmental impact statement and that will take at least 12 months. However, the likelihood is that it could take somewhere between 18 months and two years. Having got the environmental impact statement, one then proceeds to submit a planning application, of which the EIS is an essential, associated part under the statute.

The Minister mentioned a period of two months. That is the minimum period but we all know, as members of county councils, that getting a decision within two months is unusual. I cannot think of any case where that was so and I am working on two very efficient county councils. It is not a minimum of two months, because at the end of two months what happens with virtually any significant application is that the council comes back with a request for further information and that request is likely to be a substantial one that could require another six months work. Let us say it only requires a couple of months work, that two months have gone by and now another period of two months starts all over again, so where have we got to?

We have had 18 months to two years doing an EIS and other work. We then submit our application on the assumption that it can be submitted the moment the EIS is finished. There could be a request for further information which would take at least two months to deal with and if there are any further delays we could be talking in terms of years.

However, it does not stop at that. Some councils may not reveal objections and people have to wait around to ascertain what objections have been submitted. I am delighted the Minister is going to do something about that. In addition, under the environmental impact statement a council can now refuse even to consider an application until it is satisfied with the EIS as submitted. It is right and proper that those powers should exist, but it would not be right or proper if that is also going to be subject to a time delay so that you have not even started your first two months of consideration for a planning application. Developers will be conscious that objections submitted to An Bord Pleanála can take a very long time to be considered. Now at least we are getting the target date of four months. It is only at the end of the process, but one can begin to see why on a basis of time alone many people may decide not even to proceed in the first instance with a project. In many instances we are possibly not aware of it because they do not come here and discuss the matter.

Our environmental regulations already are subject to the most stringent requirements in the world and I would be concerned if in amendments Nos. 7 and 9 we impose yet another open-ended indefinite delay. The planning authority already has the power not to consider a planning application until it is satisfied with the EIS. We want this country kept in the best possible environmental state and greatly improved. We must have the very strict legislation which we have unanimously approved for our environmental regulations and, equally we need to consider what is our economic policy as regards developments. The word gets around after a while that it is pointless even considering this country for good, worthwhile environmentally acceptable projects of the highest level. I must ask that this series of amendments be rejected.

Mr. Costello

I have listened closely to the remarks of Senators Conroy, Howard and Hederman and I do not disagree with any of their remarks. We have a principle that we are trying to assert here, namely, that we deal with appeals as expeditiously as possible, and that we want to tighten procedures whereby appeals are dealt with by An Bord Pleanála and that a time-scale should be established.

Most people have welcomed the Bill in general terms as it is attempting to expedite matters. At the same time we have to ensure that the rights of third parties, in particular the citizens who will be affected by the results of the development, are acknowledged and adverted to and that the legislation does not discriminate against them. We are trying to get the balance right. Senator Hederman's amendment, the Labour Party amendment and amendment No. 5 have an equal bearing on the matter.

We need greater flexibility. We acknowledge everything that is in the legislation. If all the planning appeals are lumped together there will be an almighty mess and the Minister will have to intervene, as is prescribed here. The Minister may prescribe "such other period". He will be swamped with planning applications that are not an extension to a domestic premises but might be for, say, the Eastern bypass; God forbid that we should have a project for a nuclear power station. There are distinctions to be made. There are minor applications and there are major applications.

Under the European Directive of 1985 a major application requires that we have an environmental assessment study carried out. Where an environmental assessment statement has to be prepared and there are environmental implications we should ensure that the provisions in the directive of 1985 are covered in this legislation rather than blandly referring to the four month period and then another period as may be prescribed by the Minister. Because this has been left out of this legislation our time scale cannot be adhered to. The four months is for standard applications that do not require an environmental impact assessment. We will be proved right if this becomes law without any of these amendments being introduced, or an appropriate amendment the Minister may wish to put down.

I would refer again to what the Minister said earlier about the Environmental Protection Agency carrying out their responsibilities expeditiously. That commitment has not yet been transferred into amending legislation or regulation. Therefore, we may find we have a rigid timescale for An Bord Pleanála, the third party and the developer but not under the EC Directive, because this provision is not in the directive. In fact, it may be a breach of the directive to have it imposed in this fashion. If we have to conduct an environmental impact assessment, there is no way we can keep within the four month timescale laid down there. It would be better if, at this stage, we divided planning applications into those which would require that procedure and those which would not. That would indicate the serious nature of the appeals process.

We agree with the underlying principle to expedite the appeals process but we cannot expect the procedures to be adequately followed. However, proper planning and environmental considerations can be dealt with in terms of a major planning application that requires an environmental impact statement.

Mr. McKenna

I appreciate the Senators' concerns. In this Bill the Minister is trying to tidy up the procedure of An Bord Pleanála. If he proposed a five month period, people would be looking for six months. If he came with a six month period, they would be looking for seven months. The four month period is adequate. It sets in train an effort to try to tidy the appeals procedure. Every public representative has had representations to do something about applications that have been with An Bord Pleanála for 12 months, two years or longer. People who knew there was nothing wrong with an application that would be granted by a local authority would appeal to An Bord Pleanála, knowing the decision would be delayed for 12 months or two years. As a result, the development might be substantially reduced or the developer might decide not to go ahead. It was an indirect way of stopping people proceeding with legitimate developments. The four month period would not involve the environmental impact study because it would already have been submitted with the application for planning permission in the first instance. In my view the four month period is adequate and everyone should welcome the Minister's decision.

Professor Conroy

A planning application will not be accepted by a local authority unless it is accompanied by a comprehensive environmental impact statement. That will be one of the things considered by the local authority.

Mr. Smith

The example I gave of my experience in trying to establish an industry which was lost because of delay in the planning process, was not my reason for introducing this legislation. I gave that as an example of what can happen. I will be dealing early next year with other legislation relating to local authorities.

We have a young population and tremendous unemployment problems and the least we can expect from those of us who are employed — I do not mind where we work — is greater efficiency, understanding and support for systems which help this country to grow. The planning process fits into the economic, social and cultural fabric but it is only one part of how this country wants to grow and how we perceive that planning as an integral part of everything we do. It is beneficial to the developer to be told that he will not get planning permission. One TD told me that he very often told people to delay putting in their full appeal and to look for an oral hearing later. He told me he welcomed the changes even though he had been party to facilitating the delaying processes. I thought it a very honest assessment. This Bill is trying to strike a balance; it is trying to be fair and to meet real situations.

We now come to the question whether the time limit should be four months or five months. We have succeeded in laying down an objective of four months. In all but the most extreme cases I would expect An Bord Pleanála to be able to decide applications within that time. We should bear in mind that the average time it takes a local authority to decide a planning application, is ten weeks; it should be less than eight. When you add four months to that you are talking about seven months to process an application. That is about the time that it takes countries to draw up treaties on complex issues involving historical, cultural and economic differences. Is it asking too much that technical and administrative people should deal with planning applications in less time than it takes countries to negotiate and sign treaties?

We are not talking about rush decisions, we are talking about fair and reasonable considerations. Notwithstanding that objective, section 2 (3) provides that where the board deems it necessary, that is in very extreme cases, they may take further time. In relation to environmental assessment statements section 2 (2) (b) provides for the Minister to select classes of appeals which may prove too difficult to decide within the four month objective time. Let us be logical. We must allow the board to decide certain categories of appeals in four or five months, but I am coming down hard on the side of what I see to be a realistic situation. The majority of cases can be dealt with within the time laid down but in specific cases the board might deem it necessary to take more time; now the power is there to do it. If an environmental impact assessment or statement is required, there is also provision, to take a longer period. I am not looking forward to hearing from An Bord Pleanála or anybody else that this should happen in any but very extreme cases.

Of all the problems we face in this country, the biggest is unemployment, the social fall-out and everything that involves. Is it not an indictment of all of us that, while we have that problem, there are hundreds and millions of pounds worth of planning applications at different stages of assessment with local authorities and by An Bord Pleanála? I accept that some of the more difficult cases get to An Bord Pleanála but I want to indicate all we want to achieve. In this Bill, we have fairness and a balanced approach, everybody is given an opportunity to have their say and we are prescribing an objective time within which we want good and fair decisions.

As soon as this Bill is passed it is my intention to look carefully at all aspects of the planning system and how it can be improved. I am alarmed that many local authorities are taking longer than necessary to make decisions on planning applications. With regard to the publication aspect, in the consolidation of planning regulations later in the year I will be taking account of Senators' views on the creation of the greatest transparency. I take the point Senator Hederman made in relation to greater transparency and simplicity. We have all managed to make life very complex. I think it is essential that the wider public understand the planning process, how it affects them, where it is taking the country compared with other countries and how we want to manage our own environment.

We want to blend that with the need for development. There are those who consider that no development should take place, that the landscape should not change. The landscape has changed over the centuries and some of our beauty spots would not exist if the landscape had not changed. I am anxious to simplify the system as much as I can. The ENFO leaflet is part of that process, but only part of it. In the autumn I will be looking at other ways to remove some existing doubts to help people to be more informed and to create a planning system that is businesslike; fair, transparent and doing the job we need at this time.

Mrs. Hederman

Senator Conroy made a very good case for implementing amendments, Nos. 7 and 9. He pointed out how extremely complicated and complex the whole system was, especially when an EIS is involved. He even spoke about the time it took to get an EIS. He said that if there was a request for further information it might require up to six months work. The general thrust of his comments underlines the problems and the complications for the Planning Appeals Board.

The latest figures I have are from the 1989 Bord Pleanála report according to which only 15 per cent of cases took more than six months; the majority of cases are dealt with expeditiously and satisfactorily. Only a small number, presumably the more complicated, take longer. Environmental impact studies are relatively new. The board's annual report says that many appeals are probably cases that have raised difficult issues at local level arising from the implementation of the provisions of the development plan, the protection of amenities and the need to reconcile proposals with the proper planning and development of the area. A number raise contentious third party issues. These cases by their nature require more time for processing and careful consideration, a factor which is sometimes overlooked in criticisms of the system. I think that is something we must bear in mind.

When an application is made to the local authority, one applicant makes that application to those who have power to grant it or refuse it. Third parties are rarely involved at that stage because they are probably satisfied that the local authority is either going to grant or refuse the application, as the case may be. They only come in when they are dissatisfied with the decision given by the local authority. The Planning Appeals Board has to deal with the local authority, the applicant and possibly a third party appellant. The whole operation is extremely complex and sometimes it is further complicated by the fact that planners make changes in the application between the time it goes to the local authority and the time it goes to the Planning Appeals Board.

The unfortunate outsider — and the third party is really an outsider — has great difficulty in finding out exactly what is the nature of those changes and what is the nature of the application that is going to be considered by the Appeals Board. That even happens on occasions when you go into an oral hearing. I have had the experience of going into an oral hearing and finding the carpet almost completely pulled from under me because the developer had submitted a substantially different set of plans from those which went to the local authority.

I am making these remarks in response to Senator Howard. I do not want to be seen as somebody who is making a case for the Appeals Board because nobody has pushed as hard as I have for the Planning Appeals Board to get its act together and get the decisions out in reasonable time. I would like to see the board become efficient and speed things up while being able to take time, trouble and care over the important decisions. As the Minister has so rightly said, those decisions are very important for the future of the country.

I would like to make a brief reference to the Culliton report which addressed the issue of a more efficient infrastructure. The report said that "concern for the environment should be addressed by the Government in a positive proactive rather than a negative reactive way." That is really all we are trying to do on this side of the House. We are trying to be positive and address these issues so that in the long run there should be more consultation and consensus at an early stage between the developer and the planning authority to avoid the necessity to have appeals at all. That should be our aim but that is not, unfortunately, helped by the confrontational nature of our political system which thrives on confrontation and which seems to abhor consensus. We had an extraordinary situation last week, which was interesting to see, when the four parties got together. Perhaps that is a sign of things to come but I must not deviate.

The Culliton report also says:

Sites for particular types of industry with unique physical planning requirements should be selected in advance, on a national basis as necessary, and the infrastructure required planned in advance to meet the environmental requirements of both the industries concerned and the local planning authorities.

I understand what is meant by that is that these will not require planning permission. Coupled with what I heard from Senator Conroy, that makes me extremely anxious and apprehensive about the road on which we are going. If you tend to alienate, exclude and make things difficult for those who have a genuine concern for and an authentic interest in the environment, architectural heritage or whatever, what happens is that they put on the boxing gloves and get into a confrontation. That should be avoided. I would be interested to know if the Minister agrees.

The Minister mentioned a TD who said he waited until the last moment to put in his appeal and waited until the last moment to ask for an oral hearing. I have no doubt there are some isolated incidents of that. However, I have dealt for 20 years with residents' associations and other community bodies and I have found them to behave in an extremely responsible manner. The Minister and the Government have no special understanding of the problems of unemployment and the social consequences. I can tell the Minister that in my electoral area those concerns are extremely high. If a residents' association or some other community group make the hard decision to lodge an appeal which may prevent certain jobs from coming to their area, they do not do it lightly. They certainly do not want the development to go by default. They want the process to be speeded up. We should not presume that everybody has a "not in my back garden" attitude. The Minister knows as well as I do that the board has the facility to deal with vexatious or frivolous appeals and to deal with them expeditiously.

It is in the context of those remarks that I would like the Minister to consider these amendments.

Mr. Costello

The point at issue in these amendments is that we are looking at all the projects that may be appealed to An Bord Pleanála in exactly the same manner. They are all numbered together as though they were to be dealt with subject to the same criteria and the same timescale irrespective of the complexity of the issues involved.

We should signal our concern for the environment. Senator Conroy referred to the fact that we are now one of the countries foremost in projecting concern for the environment internationally. That has happened largely because of the European directive in relation to the environment in this country. Our record has not been good in the past and once there is an environmental impact statement, irrespective of the fact that that statement will have been made at the initial stage, it does flag the complexity of the issues involved. It is in a different class from the run-of-the-mill planning application which relates to a narrow environment. When an environmental impact statement is required, a large area may be affected, a development plan may be involved. Certainly, a complexity of issues is involved which would not be found in the normal, minor type of planning application.

Rather than limiting An Bord Pleanála to four months on all planning applications, with the proviso that anything else would go to the Minister, we should insert a category of "minor" and "major" appeals. The determining profile for a major application and a major appeal here would be an EIS because of the complexity of issues related to it. A signal of our concern for the environment and the larger issues involved now is that we produce an EIS in accordance with the EC directive. That is really at the nub of it, whether it should go to the Minister or should belong to a separate category coming before An Bord Pleanála.

I think it should not go to the Minister. I do not think any decision in relation to exceptional circumstances in this area should be simply and solely the concern of the Minister. The Minister will find himself being asked again and again to make a decision in relation to an appeal arising from an environmental impact study and statement. It might be better for us to put it into the legislation rather than just leaving it to the Minister.

Professor Conroy

Senators, and particularly Senator Costello, are saying, because so much work has been done, because, quite rightly, a very detailed environmental impact statement has been prepared, because that has already gone through very detailed consideration by the various experts involved at council and planning level, that when it comes to An Bord Pleanála, there must be yet a further delay over and above the four months. The Minister has the power to allow that and on major projects one would not see a great difficulty if one could be assured, for example, that An Bord Pleanála would take a maximum period of six months.

I consider four months should be adequate. Indeed, four months is more than adequate for minor appeals about an extension to someone's garage or whatever. Senators are proposing to multiply the process. They are saying that because it is being done so thoroughly and so well, even longer consideration should be given to it at the other end. If the initial procedure were not so openended there might be something to be said for that, a definite time limit, perhaps even longer than four months could be set and the Minister has the power to do that.

It has been said that in the past perhaps we did not have sufficient concern for the environment. Here I would certainly pay tribute to Senator Hederman, her colleagues, the people in An Taisce and many others who, at a time when it was not popular, brought these matters to our attention and encouraged us to bring in the sort of legislation we have. It is not simply now that we have implemented European Community legislation. We have had a degree of choice at the level at which we implement directives and, quite rightly, we have set higher levels than those actually required by the European Community. That was our decision.

Mr. Smith

Senator Costello makes the point again that the EIS cases take longer. We will just go through the process. An Bord Pleanála receive the appeal and it is accompanied by the EIS which would normally be part of the planning application stage. An Bord Pleanála then publish a notice of the EIS in the newspapers and invite comments within one month. At the same time they invite comments from other parties and they have one month to respond. It is very hard to argue, in those circumstances, with all of the preparatory work which has been delivered, that the board should now be required by statute, to take longer to make their decision on these matters. That is not logical. If the board in particular cases, not necessarily an EIS case, consider or deem it appropriate to require more time, they have absolute power to do that.

I reject out of hand Senator Hederman's point about confrontational attitudes. I have served in this House, I have been here before introducing legislation. Confrontation never formed part of the way I approach my work. It is not part of my business. In each case, while I could not accept the changes that were proposed, I have indicated what I was planning to do in the consolidation of the regulations, on publication, on transparency and on getting the more routine cases dealt with more expeditiously. On every front I have sought to be as accommodating as possible.

I do not see a Bill like this as tipping the balance, either in favour of development or in favour of people who deem it appropriate for them to object to certain types of development. Can Senators look at the legislation right across Europe and bring me a case, give me an example, of where a better job is being done at the moment, an example of more open planning systems? It will not be too easy to produce cases of where other Governments and other countries have more open flexible systems than Ireland or give the right to so many people, if they deem it appropriate, to object to development. What we are trying to achieve here, as I emphasised at the beginning, is balance and a requirement to be efficient.

It has never been proved to my satisfaction that the fact that you take longer to do a job means you are more effective and more efficient or do a better job. In fact, every signpost in the industrial, commercial and even sporting world, apart perhaps, from the case of the slow build-up of the German soccer team, proves that efficiency puts you on top of the job and, as a result, you move on to next business. That is what we are trying to achieve.

I reject Senator Hederman's suggestion that this Bill is a confrontational Bill, one that politicians thrive on or one where we set out as politicians to try to tip the balance in favour of one side or another. I hope to prove here and at any stage in the future, in any public debate or in any private conversation that the elements enshrined in this Bill are good, they do not lean in a particular direction, and that they are fair and equitable. What I want to deliver to the country and what I want to achieve will not be on the basis of trying to be confrontational. In fact, I will do everything I can to have a more transparent, open, fairer and balanced system.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McKenna)

Is amendment No. 6 being pressed?

Mrs. Hederman

Before deciding whether to press it or not I wish to say to the Minister that it was not my intention to suggest that he, personally, was being confrontational. We would all be unanimous in agreeing that his approach this morning is anything but confrontational. The point I was trying to make was that we have a sad history of a confrontational approach to matters and for that reason perhaps the downside of being confrontational is not obvious. What I was anxious to stress to the Minister was that, unwittingly, the results of this Bill may well be to bring about that sort of sad confrontational approach.

Any contribution which I and other Senators here make is made with the same objective. Our objective is to see the smooth and efficient streamlining of the planning process. We all know that it is not in our interest or in anybody's interest to have these hold-ups. Members have given examples of delays that have occurred. I have also stressed that I have made overtures to the Department — the Minister can check them out — asking that the Planning Appeals Board would have a time restriction put on it. I agree with the Minister. What we are looking for is to get the right balance.

Acting Chairman

Does the Senator want to conclude on this amendment before the adjournment?

Mrs. Hederman

There are one or two points I would like to make.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.