Local Government Planning Regulations: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Browne,

Wexford): I am pleased to have this opportunity to inform Senators of the steps that have been taken, through the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994, to streamline and update subordinate planning legislation. The various changes made and the new provisions introduced by these regulations are progressive in character. They will facilitate the more effective operation of the planning process while making it more open and understandable for people generally.

The technical and administrative detail of our planning system is spelt out in regulations under the Planning Acts. It is to the regulations that one must look, for example, to find out what the requirements are for making a planning application, the fee for an application, which development is exempt from planning permission requirements, and so on. The basic regulations, before the 1994 regulations, dated from 1977 but have been amended on numerous occasions since then. The result was that no fewer than 19 separate sets of regulations were in force. It is unnecessary to say that this made matters very complicated and laborious.

The time had come to clarify and rationalise the position and the new regulations do so. It was decided, however, that it would not be enough simply to draw the existing provisions together in a single document, however beneficial such an exercise would be. Experience since 1977 had shown that there were quite a number of provisions requiring modification or improvement. For this reason the new regulations contain the amendments that were considered appropriate in light of experience over the years. They also cover some new areas as a follow-up to recent planning legislation.

To put matters in perspective, all Parts of the regulations, except Parts X and XIII, correspond, with modifications and additions, to provisions of the previous regulations. Parts X, dealing with development by local authorities, and XIII, dealing with development by Government Departments and the Office of Public Works, are new; the necessary enabling powers for these Parts were enacted in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1993.

The regulations are concerned in large part with minor or technical matters. I will not, therefore, go through each article and give details of every change made. However, I will highlight the more important issues, with particular reference to the new provisions relating to development by local authorities and State authorities, the new public notice arrangements and the alterations made in the categories of development which are exempted from planning permission requirements.

Part X of the regulations is totally new and deals with development by local authorities. This Part sets out a procedure of public notice and participation for proposed development, which leads to the preparation by officials of a report on the proposal for submission to the elected members of the local authority. Development that a local authority carries out in its own functional area does not require planning permission because it would be impractical to require an authority to apply to itself for permission. While some local authority development is subject to public notice and comment, through environmental impact assessment procedures, most local authority development proposals have not until now been governed by formal procedures for public information and participation.

Part X of the new regulations effects a fundamental change on this front by applying a new procedure of notice and participation to a wide range of local authority development. The procedure will apply, for example, to the construction of houses, waste water treatment works, burial grounds, landfill sites, fire stations, etc. The new procedure requires an authority to publish newspaper notice of a development proposal and to give details of the proposal to specified bodies. Documents and plans detailing the proposed development must be made available for public inspection and a period of at least a month will be allowed for the public and interested bodies to make submissions.

When the period for making submissions is over, the officials of the local authority will prepare a report on the proposal. This report will include a summary of the points made in submissions, give the local authority's response to the issues raised and indicate whether it is proposed to proceed with the development. The report will be submitted to the elected members of the local authority and it will be open to the members, if they consider it appropriate, to exercise their power under section 3 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, to direct the manager not to proceed with the proposal.

The principal advantage of the new procedure is that it will lead to greater accountability in relation to local authority development. We should not underestimate the significance of the change in terms of the increased public involvement that it will bring about.

Part XIII of the regulations is also entirely new and is concerned with certain development by Government Departments and the Office of Public Works, to whom I will refer from now on as "State authorities". As Senators will recall, there was a general understanding before last year that development by State authorities did not need planning permission and was governed only by the consultation requirements of section 84 of the 1963 Planning Act. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in the Mullaghmore and Luggala cases last year that development by State authorities needs planning permission, the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1993, regularised the position of development already carried out without planning permission by those bodies and established a framework for the future application of planning permission requirements to their development proposals. After the end of a transitional period which runs out on 15 June, development by these bodies will need planning permission unless it is exempted development or is covered by regulations under section 2 of the 1993 Act or is the subject of a ministerial order under that section declaring that it is necessary because of an accident or an emergency.

Section 2 of the 1993 Act allows the Minister for the Environment to provide, by regulations, that the planning Acts will not apply to proposed development by a State authority if the development has to be authorised under another enactment or if, in the Minister's opinion, it is in connection with or for the purposes of public safety or order, the administration of justice or national security or defence.

The power under section 2 of the 1993 Act has been carried through under Part XIII of the regulations. The only development that has been excluded from the scope of the planning Acts on the grounds that it has to be authorised under another statutory procedure is arterial drainage works by the Office of Public Works, which require the approval of the Minister for Finance under procedures in the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. The developments excluded from the remit of the planning Acts on national security or related grounds include courthouses, prisons, Army and Garda premises, office buildings and other premises used by the President of Ireland, Dáil Éireann, Seanad Éireann, certain Government Departments and the Offices of the Attorney General, the Chief State Solicitor and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It will be readily accepted by Senators that developments of the categories I have mentioned cannot be subjected to public disclosure of detailed plans and particulars. For example, no one would suggest that detailed layout plans of a prison or an Army barracks should be available to the public generally. This means, therefore, that such development has to stand outside the normal scope of the planning Acts. Nevertheless, it has been ensured there will be as much public information about, and involvement with, the excluded development as is consistent with security considerations. A lot of the excluded development will, in fact, be subject to alternative requirements of public notice and participation.

The alternative requirements will oblige a State authority proposing an excluded development to give public notice of the proposal and to notify the relevant planning authority. Outline plans and particulars of the proposal will be made available for inspection and there will be a period of six weeks for making submissions. The State authority proposing a development will have an express legal duty to have regard to submissions received and must give public notice of its decision on whether it will proceed with the development.

It was indicated at the time of enactment of the 1993 Act that development would be excluded from the scope of the planning Acts on security grounds only where this was unavoidable in the public interest. The limited range of development to which Part XIII applies shows that this principle has been adhered to. We are now moving towards a situation in which, as and from 15 June, most development by Government Departments and the Office of Public Works will be subject to the full provisions of the planning Acts.

Parts X and XIII of the regulations complete the movement towards greater openness for public development initiated by the 1993 Act and are ushering in an era of clearly established rights to know about and be involved with development by local and State authorities.

With regard to the notice requirements for planning applications, Senators will be aware that, under the previous regulations, applicants generally had a choice between publishing notice of the application in a newspaper or erecting a notice on the site. It has been suggested in the past that these arrangements did not necessarily ensure that people would learn of applications of relevance to them. It was concluded, following careful consideration of the position and evaluation of various options, that applicants should be required both to publish newspaper notice and to erect a site notice. The choice between the two forms of notice has been removed, therefore, and both are required for any planning application that is received by a planning authority on or after 16 May. These new requirements, taken together with the new provisions governing weekly lists, should ensure maximum public awareness of development proposals. As a result interested persons and bodies will be able to fully utilise the extensive opportunities for participation in relation to development proposals which our planning system gives them.

Planning authorities were already obliged, under the 1977 planning regulations, to produce a weekly list of planning applications received. However, the 1994 regulations have extended this requirement and the list must now give details of applications decided, cases in which the planning authority receive further information and certain other information. This will make it considerably more informative and it will also be more widely available than hitherto, as it will have to be displayed in public libraries as well as in the planning authority's offices. In addition, copies have to be made available to interested persons and bodies, free of charge or for a reasonable fee. Apart from these mandatory requirements, it will also be open to an authority to put the list on display elsewhere or to publish it or make it available for publication in a newspaper.

There is also a new requirement for An Bord Pleanála to publish a weekly list of planning appeals received and decided. Like a planning authority's list of planning applications, the board's list will have to be available by the third working day following the week to which it relates. The board's list will be displayed at its offices and copies will be made available to interested persons and bodies.

A further change that has been made in the interests of openness and transparency is to require any submissions or observations made to a planning authority about a planning application to be made available for public inspection along with the other documents relating to the application. There has been no legal obligation up to now to make these submissions or observations available and, in practice, only certain planning authorities have done so. However, an applicant has a right to know of submissions made about his or her development proposals and the new provision will ensure that the applicant has access to them.

The new measures are aimed at maximising public information about planning cases and reflect the principles of openness and transparency which form the foundations of many of the changes the new regulations introduce. I hope that Senators will recognise that full account has been taken of the views on the public notice issue expressed in this House in recent years when planning Bills were under consideration.

I will now discuss the provisions of the regulations dealing with exempted development. Exempted development is development which does not need planning permission and is specified in section 4 of the 1963 Planning Act and in regulations made under that section. The 1994 regulations update this area by ending some of the existing exemptions, placing restrictions on other exemptions and establishing some new categories of exempted development.

The exemption for laying out and use of land as a golf course has been removed and any development of that nature commenced after 16 May will need planning permission. This change has been made because the development of a golf course is significant in terms of the proper planning and development of the area concerned and should be subject to the full rigours of the planning process.

The regulations also establish a number of new restrictions on exemption which will be important from the conservation perspective. Before the 1994 regulations, the demolition of any building other than a habitable house or a listed building could be carried out without planning permission. There will no longer be an exemption, however, for demolition of a building which forms part of a terrace of buildings or which abuts another building in separate ownership. This will allow the development control process to pass judgment on the street-scape and other implications of demolition proposals affecting such buildings.

A further restriction limits the exhibition of advertisements on listed buildings. Planning permission will be necessary for any advertisements, other than certain small signs, on these buildings. The planning process will adjudicate on the appropriateness of proposals to display advertisements on buildings which development plans have identified as being important for architectural or historical reasons.

Among the other new restrictions is an overall limit of 25 square metres on the area of garages and sheds that can be built without planning permission in the curtilage of a house. There were no limits on this exemption before the 1994 regulations. This sometimes caused problems because it was used to build large and obtrusive structures. The regulations also put a height limit of 40 metres on navigational aids that may be built without planning permission. This restriction was considered necessary because structures higher than this could have a significant impact on the landscape and should be subject to authorisation through the planning process.

The new exemptions include the use of a house to accommodate up to six persons with a mental or physical disability and not more than two resident carers. It was concluded that this use could not be regarded as significant in purely planning terms and should be possible without planning permission. Among the other new exemptions are minor works by Government Departments and the Office of Public Works, such as provision of temporary structures in connection with visits of foreign dignitaries, maintenance of inland waterways, erection of certain minor structures, etc. None of these forms of development is significant in terms of land use or proper planning and development.

The regulations have also dealt with the position of television satellite dishes, which were not covered under the earlier regulations. One satellite dish will be allowed on a house other than a listed building without planning permission. There will, however, be a size limit and restrictions as to where the dish may be placed, aimed at minimising visual obtrusiveness. I am satisfied that the correct balance has been struck between visual amenity and the technical requirements for location of a dish.

The new exemption which allows the use of up to four bedrooms in a house for bed and breakfast purposes without planning permission has attracted some attention. I would like to take this opportunity to explain the background to the exemption and to respond to some of the unnecessary concerns that seem to have arisen.

Until now, the planning code has not contained any provision in relation to bed and breakfast accommodation. In practice, however, many such establishments have operated for long periods without planning permission. Their planning status became an issue last year when An Bord Pleanála decided, as a result of a reference under section 5 of the Planning Act, 1963, that planning permission was required for the use of a particular house for bed and breakfast purposes.

In legal terms this decision strictly related only to the particular case but in reality it created quite a degree of uncertainty about the planning status of bed and breakfast accommodation generally. For this reason, it was decided that a clarifying provision would have to be included in the new regulations which were then in preparation. These allow the use of up to four bedrooms in a house for overnight guest accommodation as exempted development and planning permission will not be needed for such premises.

However, the exemption will not apply if the bed and breakfast use would be contrary to a condition of the planning permission for the house, or be inconsistent with any use specified in the permission. Bed and breakfast operations of the scale covered will not have significant effects in terms of the proper planning and development of the areas in which they are located. Moreover, the exemption will not change significantly the actual position which has obtained for many years.

The exemption does not affect the application of other statutory requirements to bed and breakfast accommodation. For example, the fire safety and other requirements of the building control code will apply where there is a change of use of a house for bed and breakfast purposes. In the same way, the application of the fire safety requirements of the Fire Services Act, 1981, to premises providing sleeping accommodation will not be affected.

I am advised also that the requirements of the food hygiene regulations apply to any premises on which food is prepared for public consumption. Bed arid breakfast operations, regardless of their planning status, will, therefore, have to observe proper hygiene standards. In no way can it be said, therefore, that the new planning exemption means that there are no controls and standards for bed and breakfast premises.

The changes affecting exemption from planning permission requirements are, in my view, a balanced and coherent set of measures. They will facilitate the more effective operation of development controls, by concentrating on those developments which are of greatest consequence in land use terms.

The new regulations are complemented by another initiative to improve openness and clarity in planning matters. This is a series of leaflets covering various aspects of the planning system. The leaflets deal with a wide range of issues, such as completing an application form, the options available for commenting on planning issues, the planning requirements when building or extending a house and sectoral matters such as the planning requirements for farmers and business people.

The series complements the leaflet on the new planning appeals process which was published following the Planning Act, 1992, and which helped to ensure the trouble-free changeover to the new appeal arrangements. There was a great demand for that leaflet and this made clear the need for clear and readily available information on the planning process and its workings.

The central objective in drawing up the new leaflets has been to set out the provisions of the planning code concisely and without any legal or technical jargon. The series is as complete as possible and deals with the questions most often asked by members of the public. The leaflets will promote greater public understanding of the planning system, including the changes brought in by the 1994 regulations, and should help to ensure that there is nothing intimidating about the system.

The demand for the leaflets since they were made available through planning authorities is a clear indication of people's interest in planning matters and underscores the importance of the many changes in the new regulations which are aimed at public information and participation.

The 1994 regulations are a comprehensive response to the need to rationalise and modernise secondary planning legislation. They will increase the effectiveness and transparency of the planning system. Together with the new information leaflets, the regulations will make the system more understandable and accessible for those whom the system is intended to serve.

Mr. McDonagh

I welcome the Minister to the House and am thankful for the opportunity to give my views on the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994. I approve of the vast majority of proposals enshrined in the document as I believe transparency should be the norm for public authorities. However I have reservations about certain aspects of the planning process as it stands.

The public often believes local authorities alter development plans and rezone land for political or, it is implied, other reasons. The plans are drawn up for a five year period initially and occasionally they run for 12 years. Within that period towns tend to expand. This must be taken into account in the plan. It is not written in stone and some flexibility for natural expansion must be allowed.

Nonetheless, in order to ensure the public does not misconstrue what happens, it is vital that there be utter transparency and that people are made fully aware of the process. They must be given an opportunity to see the rezoning plan, which must be conveniently available. They should not have to seek it out concealed in corners of councils or corporations.

With regard to exempted developments, it is commendable that there will be regulations for the accommodation visitors may expect. Young people who arrive in this country, or from one part of Ireland to another, often cannot afford the expensive accommodation provided by the major outlets. Perhaps there is a race meeting, a concert or a festival when they arrive. It is only natural that people would open extra bedrooms to facilitate these people. In this way they can earn badly needed money perhaps to keep their children in college or to pay medical expenses. However anyone providing accommodation at any time should be subject to controls so that minimum standards of fire safety, hygiene and quality are maintained. It must also be said that life in urban residential areas will radically alter when people go to bed and breakfast locations; there could be problems associated with traffic and with parking. I welcome the Minister's statement about the regulations which will be put in place.

As a councillor I must refer to the use of section 4 motions with regard to planning. The press has highlighted recent local government reform and it has created the impression that by leaving section 4 motions in operation, county councillors have been given great powers. Section 4 motions are being looked upon as secret and powerful weapons. However, it is time the facts in relation to the section 4 motion and its application to planning were clearly identified and explained to the public.

It is more difficult to put a section 4 motion on the agenda now because two thirds of the councillors from a specific area must sign it. A section 4 motion now needs a two thirds plus one majority in order to be passed, while heretofore only three councillors needed to sign it and a simple majority was sufficient to pass it. Councillors are reluctant to introduce a section 4 motion to their respective councils and a decision is taken only after careful deliberation and consultation. When section 4 motions with regard to planning are passed by a county council, the decision taken by the councillors should be allowed to stand. However, that is not the situation. Despite the fact that councillors have the right to bring in a section 4 motion, and have voted for it and passed it, the county manager still has the final word. After consultation with his legal experts, he does not need to implement a section 4 motion.

The recent discussions and press headlines with regard to the great power which councillors have as a result of section 4 motions are grossly exaggerated. As a councillor who has experience of the use of section 4 motions and their implementation and non-implementation, I hope my statements will dispel the belief which exists among many people that a section 4 motion is an almighty process. That is not the case because the last word on all planning permissions, regardless of whether they go through the ordinary process or through a section 4 motion, is given to the county manager.

Afforestation is an important area which must be brought within the scope of the planning regulations. At present any individual can plant 200 hectares, which is the equivalent of 500 acres, without planning permission or the requirement to undertake an environmental impact study. That is a substantial area of land and if this continues we will lose many of our beautiful scenic views because the trees will screen the horizon and cloud the sky. One must apply for planning permission to erect a bed and breakfast sign and get a licence to operate that business, yet one can plant up to 500 acres of land without getting planning permission. This imbalance is open to speculation. Anyone from outside the country, whether he is a millionaire or not, can purchase thousands of acres of land and if they plant under 500 acres a year, they do not need planning permission. This means that in a ten year period anyone could plant upwards of 5,000 acres of trees without planning permission in a scenic area and this would block many scenic views. This goes beyond all reasonable criteria.

The IFA has expressed the view that planting over one acre should necessitate planning permission. I suggest that planting over ten acres should require planning permission because this would give small planters an opportunity to work. However, the planting of trees should be confined to marginal land. It is a pity to see productive agricultural land being planted with trees, although people are entitled to do as they wish with their land. Trees should only be planted in areas where there are good access roads because those trees will be brought from the plantation areas to the various depots. There should be a firm obligation on people who bring trees in large quantities from plantation areas to repair the roads when they are finished their work. I hope the Minister will outline his Department's policy with regard to afforestation and planning permission.

I hope the Minister will tell me — and this is of interest to many councillors around the country — if the final word on planning permissions, with regard to section 4 motions, will remain with county councillors. At present the county manager still has the right to exercise his executive function. I do not agree with that.

Notice of planning applications, fógra atá curtha ar an áit ina bhfuil siad a chur anseo, seem popular and simple, but these cause many problems and could prove impossible to maintain, given the level of vandalism and possible deliberate damage which may take place. It is proposed to put these notices on display for one month. However, what happens if the notice disappears for a day or a week? Who will know it is constantly on display? These questions must be answered before proceeding with this proposal. Given that the planning proposals can sometimes be difficult and sensitive, this requirement is bound to lead to complicated legal actions, with subsequent long delays involving increased public expenditure.

People seeking planning permission should be treated fairly, particularly if, as a result of an error, they leave out information on their planning applications. The council does not seek this information or write to the applicant until a decision is due to be made about the planning application, approximately eight weeks after the application has been made. Then it will write to the applicant and there will be another few weeks delay before the information is received. This could continue for another eight weeks until a decision is made. This is grossly unfair to the applicant who has paid his or her money to apply for planning permission. Sufficient staff should be made available to all the councils to immediately check applications. If further information is required, the council should get in touch with the applicant within two weeks of lodging the application. This would be a positive step and would be welcomed by many people who find themselves in this position.

I hope the Minister will respond because this affects many people. If one applies for planning permission and a query needs to be answered, the council does not seek the information until the decision is about to be made. It then writes to the applicant who must spend a few more weeks trying to get someone, a planner or an engineer, to deal with the matter. The applicant then sends it back again and it may take eight more weeks before a final decision is made. This is grossly unfair.

It is also unfair from the point of view of councillors, who are entitled to submit prior notice of planning permission and who are given an idea of the decision before it is granted. However, that decision may not be issued until a day or two before it is made. This morning as I was about to leave for Dublin, I got a telephone call from my county council in regard to prior notice of planning permission which I submitted. I was told that it was due to be decided today. I was supposed to get in touch with the planning applicant — be a type of superman-and try to get him to go into the council to extend the time on the operation. This is grossly unfair to councillors.

Councillors should be given an answer to prior notice motions at least seven days before a decision is taken. We are busy people involved in legislation and we should be given the opportunity to get in touch with the constituent to give them an opportunity to extend the time so that further discussion may take place in the planning process. These are important issues, which are specific to councillors throughout the country. Given that the Minister is fair-minded, I hope he will respond positively to representations I have made, not as a Senator but as a member of a county council where the planning process come up day in day out.

Mr. Finneran

I welcome the Minister to the House and I am glad we are debating this today. On the Order of Business last week, I posed a question to the Leader of the House requesting that the Local Government Planning and Development Regulations, 1994, be debated. I appreciate that he has moved with haste and that we now have the opportunity to debate this.

The Local Government Planning and Development Regulations, 1994, are an important initiative in the planning process. They bring planning legislation up to date and establish new procedures, particularly in regard to public notices and consultation. In addition, there are new regulations for State or local authorities which wish to go ahead with construction work. The regulations as presented have many advantages and, by and large, they are welcome.

Some have said — this has been raised at local authority level — that they make the planning process more difficult as regards further information, notice and the extension of regulations to new areas. The public and local representatives are, by and large, tied up with regulation after regulation. Some would say this country is over regulated in many areas. However, they are important for the protection of the environment. The Minister and the Government have a responsibility to respond to the public's demand to protect the environment.

As regards the implementation of the planning process and planning regulations, I question the personal point of view of planners. It is inappropriate that someone's personal opinion, which is often petty, may be imposed on the public by certain "copy book" planners. Recently this has been taken to an extreme, something which did not happen before. I do not believe that planners, those who come from planning schools or colleges, have the wealth of opinion they say they have. In many cases local people have a better understanding of an area and how it should be developed than those who look at it from a "copy book" point of view.

Some planners will try to impose their opinion on a planning application for a simple house in a remote area, despite the fact the applicant has in most cases given £200 or £330 to an architect, a surveyor or someone who draws plans to produce a set of plans which they have discussed with their family and are happy to put before the council as the type of building they wish to proceed with. In most cases planners will not accept them. They will impose or attempt to impose changes, ranging from the size of a window to the capping on a chimney. Often these are petty reasons for excluding or altering a plan. There should be a regulation from the Department of the Environment in regard to this activity. Planners from planning schools do not have a monopoly on opinion. It is inappropriate for them to impose their opinions on the petty areas I spoke about. They should pay attention to matters of public importance.

I agree with Senator McDonagh when he said that forestry should come under the planning process. We could say — and the Minister probably will — it comes under the planning process, but we all know that is at a stage where it may impinge or have serious repercussion on the environment. Some 500 acres of forest is too much without planning permission. It is inappropriate that anyone should be able to plant 500 acres without going through the planning process. That matter should be looked at and changed. Regulations and planning law should be brought in to regulate forestry development.

Another area of concern to many people, particularly to road users, is the new method of making and feeding silage. It is time to look at this farm development. In most cases the old system of making silage on a slab and feeding it off that slab or from a feeding bay came under the planning process. We now have the baled silage system and bales may be located in various places. That is not the main problem, although seepage may occur and wells and other water streams may be affected. The main problem relates to the feeding of silage. Baled silage is brought along country roads on tractors. In some cases it is fed on the side of the road to cattle who are on the other side of the wall in the field. Many of our country roads and lanes are now damaged to the extent that some of them are practically impassable.

I appreciate that people must make a living and feed their stock, but it is inappropriate for us to spend massive amounts of money on a road and then to abuse that road. In many cases farmers travel along the country lanes and roads when they could cross their land with the same tractors and silage. If they did they would cut up the land so they move along the roads instead. They leave trails of silage and trails of destruction in many cases along our country roads and lanes. That method of feeding baled silage should be examined. Regulations should be brought in to protect the public in this matter. We have a responsibility to the road using public to have that matter brought under some type of control.

Another area where State bodies seem to be of the opinion that they can impose on the public is in regard to the construction of pylon lines by the ESB. In the north east there is a major objection to that type of development at a time when it is nearly impossible to get a planning application in certain areas. There is now a proposal to run a pylon which will impinge on the skyline of one third of the area. That type of development is inappropriate. It is not allowed in many other countries around the world. It must also be examined in this country and should be regulated.

What is the position of the National Roads Authority in regard to the construction of national primary and secondary routes? In the past county councils decided where to build a road. I am not sure what the regulations will be in the future. I would like to see a situation where the local authorities involved still had a say in this matter because motorways and national primary and secondary routes can impinge on the lives of the public and can prove to be not environmentally friendly. I would like the Minister to comment on that when he replies.

Apart from that, the regulations are welcome. They are a necessary tidying up operation. This is an ongoing process to try to bring unity and transparency to the whole system. I am very pleased that documents are now to be made available to the public. I am glad that this is clearly stated, because in some local authorities there has been confusion for years in this matter. One county manager will object and not make documents available until the appeal stage when the matter had gone to An Bord Pleanála and a subsequent manager will say he has no problem at all with it and will make documents available to an applicant if there is an objection. It is important that those matters are cleared up and that the public know where they stand. The planning process is ongoing and there are a number of areas that still need to be looked at.

There is public concern about everything that happens. If we have a situation where people find that the environment is being damaged and that we as Members of the Oireachtas are not in a position to make decisions that protect the environment and the scenery, then we will not be doing our job and the public will say that we are not doing the work we were elected to do.

An opportunity to debate these regulations is important. It also gives us the opportunity of talking about the whole planning process. We may find that there are some deficiencies. As far as I am concerned, there are. In a debate like this, where Members of the House have an opportunity to contribute, the Minister can get the views of this House, take them back to his officials and hopefully in the near future further regulations will be brought in to cover some of the areas that have been debated here today and that will be debated in other fora at local authority level and possibly in the other House over the coming weeks and months.

Mr. Farrelly

Planning is a very thorny issue for many people. I was the instigator of the first section 4 in our county after 16 years as a member of a local authority. Many of my colleagues who were a lot older than myself, with a lot more experience, attempted or threatened to do so on a number of occasions, but they never carried it out.

There are a few matters I wish to mention during this debate on planning. A couple of things that have happened in the recent past are welcome. One is that the Office of Public Works have to make applications to the planning authority for permission to build particular premises. If and when any Members have the opportunity to drive into Kells, County Meath, and look at where the Office of Public Works built a Garda station, beside the historic church of St. Colmcille in Kells, they will see that this was a situation where interference with an historic building was not taken into consideration. A number of other speakers have mentioned the way the planners would like to see Ireland developing. Many of them are of the opinion that rural Ireland should not be turned into a series of housing estates, with long rows of houses on every county road in the country. We, as a county close to the city, have that problem. But the other side of that story must be taken into consideration. In cases where families have lived and grown up in an area and they want planning permission for their sons or daughters on the family land, it is most difficult for those applicants to be successful. Many members of local authorities find it frustrating that these applicants are not dealt with more fairly. One of the reasons my colleagues ended up reviewing the county development plan two years before it was due to be reviewed was to give those people some favourable consideration within the planning laws and regulations.

I also agree with Senator McDonagh in regard to the point he made about applications. After eight weeks, on the second last day they can do this, planners send out notification for further information. This is extremely unfair to the applicant. The problem exists because of the huge number of applications that come in on a daily basis to most of our local authorities. A direction should come from the Department of the Environment that these applications should be vetted. An engineer should take a quick look at them and if further information is required it should be sought long before the eight weeks are up. I argue this all the time with our planners in County Meath and I am saying nothing here that I have not said to them.

There is also a difference in the way rules and regulations are dealt with in different counties. Some counties are accepting new septic tank systems and other counties are not. The council officials or the planners will not accept them for individual applicants, yet if there are problems with county council housing schemes where septic tanks are not working this is the first solution suggested. This is where the problem of inconsistency arises. The greatest argument I have had over the last few years with the former county manager and the planners was about the inconsistency of decisions. If consistency applied to everyone in the county there would not be a great deal to complain about.

When the inconsistency becomes more and more evident people approach their public representatives complaining that they are not getting planning permission while others are and there is no other solution but the section 4 motion. Admittedly, the former Minister made it that little bit more difficult when the simple majority was deemed no longer sufficient. In respect of the last number of section 4 applications in County Meath — and they got fewer — as far as single developments are concerned, the majority of members vote in favour on the basis of the argument put forward. We cannot all be wrong.

I hope that in the light of these regulations the Minister and his Department will see there is consistency between counties so far as individuals are concerned for once-off housing. I do not believe there is consistency. Some planners take the view that a two storey house, for example, cannot be built because it might destroy the landscape and only a bungalow is allowed. Such applications can be held up for months and planners are up to their eyes dealing with backlogs of applications because further information was required.

There is a controversy in County Meath in respect of a forestry development of 600 or 700 acres. I would not be totally in favour of allowing such a large development without planning permission. There are many areas of poor land in the country from which we may get a return with afforestation. We must do something about afforestation and ensure that the timber can be processed here. Afforestation should be allowed on a reasonable area of land — perhaps 50 or 60 or 100 acres depending on the land and its location — but planning permission should be required when an individual is looking to afforest a large area.

There is no point going into the names of individuals involved in events, etc. because we may get tied up as they are in the other House. We are above that in this House, as the Cathaoirleach told me on numerous occasions.

I welcome the fact that the Office of Public Works will have to make application for planning permission. If an individual is refused permission for a two storey house which would be intrusive on the landscape and the scenery, why is the Office of Public Works given permission to put up a metal bridge to bring visitors across the Boyne? The planners have agreed to that project in one of the most beautiful areas of the country. It has now gone to An Bord Pleanála but I doubt if anyone will oppose it. If an individual wanted to build a house in the same location which would be intrusive on the landscape they would be refused permission for the reasons I have given.

The biggest problem with planning is inconsistency. I would like the Minister's view on the way people look at applications differently, making section 4 applications necessary to ensure fair play.

Ms Kelly

As a tidy up operation these regulations will be welcomed by all, in particular those involved in the planning process, whether public representatives or those making submissions or producing plans to put to county councils. In this context a tidying up operation was much needed and I congratulate all involved. I also welcome the series of leaflets produced by the Department, which we in Limerick received at the council meeting last Friday. I have only perused two or three of them but they are useful to elected representatives because they answer every question that might be asked about the planning process. Each county councillor and each Senator should be supplied with a quantity of these leaflets. One may give such leaflets away not realising that one has none left; there should be a ready supply of them.

I welcome the thrust of these regulations which is to ensure greater transparency in all aspects of planning. Many will welcome that a local authority's works will be subject to a certain degree of scrutiny. I understand that it would be illogical for a county council to apply to itself for planning permission. However, this procedure should allow the public a greater role in voicing its opinions which will have to be taken on board by the management of the county council and passed to the members for their consideration.

We discussed this matter at a recent housing committee meeting of Limerick County Council and we discovered that it could lead to quite a delay in getting our housing programme off the ground. We first have to wait for the permission from the Department to plan for the houses; we then have to wait to see where those houses will be built and that has to be put to the council for approval. Some of the proposals will involve a series of houses and that will have to involve a process of public consultation. We will then have to wait for a period of a month while the public makes its comments. The management has to have time to gather all the submissions and report to the council. One can envisage months of delay.

Is it necessary for management to report back to the council as a council or would it suffice for it to report back as a committee? County councils have statutory monthly meetings while a committee meeting can be called at much shorter notice and the matter can then be dealt with more speedily. If there is no objection to the proposal, one has to go to tender and then there are more delays; many housing schemes could be delayed until September. Anyone with knowledge of the construction business knows that September is not the time to start building houses. June or July is a better time to avoid the bad weather. If construction work starts in September and it rains, the houses will not be completed before next May or June. People on our housing lists are crying out for houses. It is difficult to explain this delay when they are living in mobile homes and in damp and poor conditions. Could the Minister highlight ways to get around these delays that will be built into the system?

I welcome the insistence on site and newspaper notices. I worked in a planning office for a while and it amused us if we saw newspaper notices coming in as Ghaeilge in The Irish Times. The Irish Times would not be as popular in certain parts of west Limerick as it would be in parts of Dublin — but we always knew there was something strange about planning applications that issued in this manner. Someone was always trying to hide their true intentions in such applications. At least that practice will now be overcome. There were many ruses used when displaying the notices on the site. These notices are supposed to be on the site and easy to read. This may be the case if one is ten feet tall and can read microscopic print. Some planning applications were displayed in awkward positions. The insistence on newspaper advertisements will overcome those trying to get around the system.

I am a little worried with the wording — it may be phrased differently in the regulations —"The applicant can now see submissions or observations that are made about planning applications." What is meant by "observations"? Does it mean that if I, as a public representative, call the planning officer and inform him that a certain planning application is not a good idea, it will be noted, inserted in a file and used as evidence that I have objected to a planning application when all I have done is made a query? People get upset if they think someone is objecting to, or even looking at, their planning application. Although a person has the right to see who has been looking at their application, one should also have the right to get information on a certain application without exposing oneself to the ire of the applicant.

I also welcome the exemptions in these regulations. For example, anybody wishing to knock down a house adjoining a terrace or other house will now have to seek planning permission. The practice of demolishing neighbouring houses often causes structural damage to adjoining houses and their owners have no means of redress. Now those involved have the right to ensure an engineer's report is provided and the demolition is done to their satisfaction. In older houses, since the masonry connected them to each other it is difficult to knock down one house without causing major damage to the adjoining one.

I am also pleased that major development works, like golf courses, will now need planning permission. I have nothing against golf courses but they are a major development and ought to be subject to a planning authority. I agree with the Senators that there is a need to subject large acreages of forestry to planning permission. Someone living on half an acre of land in the countryside could find themselves surrounded by trees — some of these species, especially spruce, can grow rapidly — and a person could be hemmed in by a forestry development. If a landowner was to erect a wall ten foot high around the perimeter of a dwelling, one would have grounds for complaint and would be justified in demanding that the landowner seek planning permission. As matters stand at present, that landowner could plant trees that could grow up to 30 feet around a dwelling and there is nothing anybody could do about it. Major research has been done on the effect these large acreages of forestry have on a wide variety of environmental aspects. They may not only affect the view but also the watercourses, wildlife and micro-climate of an area. The development of any area over ten acres should require planning permission. Any forestry in close proximity to a dwellinghouse not belonging to the owner of the forest should also be subject to planning scrutiny.

I agree with the regulation stipulating that for retention of unauthorised development, a fee of 1.5 times the normal rate should be levied. This device is used by some people building an extension, who then blithely ask for planning permission. By doing that, they have short circuited much of the planning process. Few planning authorities would wish to create a major public fuss by demanding that the extension should be knocked down. If it is an extension to a shop or a retail premises, it will then be in use. Why should one person have to expose themselves to all manners of objections while another does not? This fee is not excessive but will be enough of a sting to make people realise that it will not cost them as much if they do things the right way.

This tidying up operation is long overdue. I welcome this move towards greater transparency and accountability in our planning authorities.

Mr. Farrell

I welcome many of these improvements, especially where planning permission shall not be needed for use of a house as a residence for up to six people with mental or physical disabilities. This is a good regulation, because when the health board of which I was a member attempted to locate houses in the community and get people out of mental hospitals and other large institutions, it encountered considerable hassle in the early stages from objectors. I am pleased that in the interests of the disabled such activity no longer requires planning permission and that health boards and those involved in voluntary groups dealing with the physically and mentally handicapped can acquire or rent a suitable house.

It is regrettable that a similar regulation was not included regarding the housing of itinerants because this is another group which is difficult to house as there are always many objections. This group should be included in our planning laws. Perhaps there should be a regulation allowing for the housing of one or two itinerant families in an area without applying for planning permission.

The transparency evident in the regulations is to be welcomed. Such transparency is deemed to be in the public interest. In this respect the local authorities represent local communities and they are elected by the people of a county, but unfortunately when they make a democratic decision any one person can object. Given this, my own local authority in County Sligo has a good system to deal with section 4 applications and has had such a system for some years. It has a planning committee which examines the proposed site and evaluates the proposed development. There must then be unanimous decision by the committee that planning permission be given. Following this, the section 4 application is then lodged and signed by all parties comprising the local authority.

Recently I dealt with a case where a man with five or six sons had bought a good bit of land and wished to give a son a site to farm the land. He was refused planning permission and the planning committee processed a section 4 application. Following this a gentleman from An Taisce objected. Despite the fact that the land was in a country area on a holding of approximately 60 acres on the side of a mountain, An Bord Pleanála agreed with An Taisce that it was located in a scenic area and that the house for which planning permission was sought would spoil the scenery. In response to this decision I ask: which is more important, fancy views or families? There is nothing as nice as people in the countryside.

There is some hypocrisy on this issue. There is criticism at the absence of people in rural Ireland and that people are leaving the west of Ireland. Many people are leaving because they cannot get planning permission to build houses for their sons and daughters. That is why transparency on this issue is required.

I recall attending a large meeting regarding a development of four houses. A lawyer informed the meeting that it would not be possible to object to the development on legal grounds as it was within the planning regulations. However, he advised that those opposing the development could make it so expensive for the developers, simply by objecting through the legal process, that they would be obliged to pull out. This is the attitude of people who object. When a developer is within the law and they do not like the proposed development they take action of this kind. This case was brought to the High Court and appealed to the Supreme Court. The developers won the case in the end, but at enormous expense.

There is little thought given to those who put down the money for developments. This is regrettable, because such people should have some rights. The seven small industries in my village of Grange could not be built today, despite the fact that there are 200 people employed by them. For example, a meat factory in the village which employs 30 people could not be built today because the cost of environmental impact studies and so on would make it too expensive. Yet this factory has been in existence for the past 30 years, has not caused any problems and all in the village are pleased with the employment it has provided.

Requirements, such as an environmental impact study, are new whiz kid ideas and are putting planning permission out of the reach of people. I met a young man who was interested in setting up a business. He established a concern in the food business in a small town and endeavoured to open a shop. He had to apply for planning permission for change of use in the shop premises he acquired. In the process he was sent from Billy to Jack for licences and so on. At the end of three months he advised me that he had terminated the venture as he had received no cooperation. He was fired with enthusiasm but, discouraged, he went on the dole. Why should he set up a venture, given all the hassle he was put to?

There is much talk about unemployment and job creation. However, as soon as somebody decides to create jobs, obstacles are put forward. For example, someone objects that a proposed venture is part of a dirty industry. When the objector is asked to advise on a clean industry he says he is not aware of any, but that they exist and they should be sought out. This is a negative attitude.

There should be planning regulations and planning laws, but there is a danger of going over the top on these matters. In this respect section 4 applications should be sacrosanct and there should be no going back on them. If a county council decides that a developer may proceed that should be the end of the matter, but regrettably it is not. Newspapers and others create a fuss around section 4. However, this means nothing, because any person can object to a planning application in Grange, County Sligo, which they need never have seen, heard or known of. Such people will get all the publicity, their views will be taken into account and the process then goes to An Bord Pleanála and so on.

This attitude is creating much unemployment and is killing the entrepreneurial spirit. The House will shortly address the issue of community employment, but it is difficult for people to create community employment given the way they are hamstrung at present. The Minister should seriously consider these difficulties. In this respect, where section 4 applications are made they should proceed as intended.

If there is belief in democracy and majority decision, the county councils in Ireland are the only bodies which are representative of all shades of opinion in their respective counties. All those on these councils stood on a public platform and were elected by secret ballot. They consist of unemployed, employed, teachers, lawyers and those from the entire spectrum of society. If such a body makes an unanimous decision, where can a more democratic decision be made? Dictatorship appears from some small groups which object to a planning application, with no rights only their own and no mandate from anybody but themselves.

Planning is a difficult issue and it is very hard to satisfy everybody. However, there must be rules and regulations which marry industry, environment and so on. It is an issue that must be viewed with an open mind. Many environmentalists are good, sound people, but they are afflicted with tunnel vision. They see the environment and nothing else. However, there is much more than the environment involved. There are many young people who must make a living and we must keep them at home. One recently appointed county manager told his staff that within three weeks he wanted to know what was happening in relation to planning because the county council should be the development organisation for the county and planning applications should be decided on within a month. As a number of speakers have said, planning officials have written to applicants for more information on the date by which decisions were due. They also say they had to issue replies on certain dates because the time was up but we were not informed of this a week in advance.

We must get our act together to ensure we do not adopt a negative attitude which inhibits or prevents progress and development. We must promote development, industry and work. My own village is a good example. Not one of its factories would obtain planning permission today because the cost of planning applications and environmental impact studies would break their hearts. Some 25 years ago I could say to people who wanted to build sheds to do so and that I would get them planning permission. An engineer would be asked to look at where the sheds were being built and would give a verbal opinion that he saw no problems. This is the way things were done 25, 30 and 40 years ago. I challenge people to look at the industries in those towns and say what is wrong with them today.

I have heard people say we have too many houses in north Sligo on the side of Benbulben. These houses are nicely landscaped and are part of the environment. It is the only part of County Sligo which has increases in population and industry and no shortage of employment. If we did not allow building and development to take place, this area would be deserted, like many other parts of the country. We must ensure planning regulations are adhered to but we must help those who are trying to develop the area and provide work. I know of one man who threw in the towel and went on the dole. We should not introduce regulations which discourage people to such an extent. We must encourage an entrepreneurial, enterprising society; and we must get our planning system in order so that this can happen as soon as possible.

Mrs. McGennis

I am optimistic. Despite the political divide in this House, it strikes me that the urban rural divide disappears when we discuss matters relating to local authorities. All Members who are members of local authorities have experienced the most ridiculous degrees of frustration. This applies whether one represents a rural or an urban area. I particularly welcome the changes as they affect local authorities. It is necessary and long overdue that a local authority should give notice of developments in its administrative area. I also welcome the fact that officials have to prepare a report which they must submit to the elected members but I would have been happier if this report needed the sanction or consent of the elected members before its recommendations were implemented. The Minister may be able to tell me if this is possible; it is not included in the regulations.

I am amused at the Minister's statement that a development carried out by a local authority in its own functional area does not require planning permission. There is a huge presumption here that if a local authority applied to itself for permission it would automatically get it. There is a further presumption that a local authority's actions would always be in accordance with planning regulations and the proper planning and development of an area. However, there is a huge inconsistency in what local authorities are doing throughout Ireland. There is an inconsistency in decisions. I can cite numerous examples in my area of Dublin where applications for development by our adjoining local authority, Dublin Corporation, would have raised questions in my mind if they had been made by private developers.

There are approximately 500 local authority houses in a small, slightly remote area of Blanchardstown which were built five, six or seven years ago. There is nothing spectacular about this except that when the action plan for this area was being drawn up, it was intended that it would be a parish and would be served by a road. This made sense. However, the nearer part of the parish was not developed and the housing construction took place in the furthermost part. These 500 houses are served by a substandard bridge. To cross it as a pedestrian or, more dangerously, to push a baby in a pram over it, would involve taking one's life in one's hands because it is used mostly by heavy articulated trucks. Yet, planning permission was given for the building of these houses. If an application was made for this purpose by anyone other than a local authority, it would not have been granted.

I welcome the regulation that reports will be given to local authority members but I am worried — maybe from my experience as a local authority member — that this will generate additional paperwork and reporting and the management will see this as another chore to be done before they proceed with what they intended to do anyway. How strong will the regulation be? If it is not backed up by the need for consent by members, it may not be very strong. The Minister mentioned the power councillors have under section 3 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, but I would point out to him that attempts by members of my local authority to use this power have been frustrated because the manager cited different legislation to get around it.

Senator Farrell referred to halting sites. I agree with him. My local authority has tried to provide facilities for travellers in Dublin. The then Dublin County Council proposed to put 85 travelling families in a field with facilities such as running water and toilets. To me this is not good planning and development and involves ghettoisation. When we attempted to use section 3 to reduce the size of the development, we were told we did not have the power to do so and the manager cited the 1988 Housing Act, which he claimed gave him powers to provide emergency accommodation for people in need. I am sceptical and worried that the safeguards which the Minister is genuinely trying to put in place will not produce the effect intended by him.

I wish that some of the learned journalists who produced pages and volumes during the course of the County Dublin development plan, which was given huge coverage, were sitting in this Chamber to hear the arguments made by Members on all sides that local authority members, because of their local knowledge, would not embark on rezoning proposals or section 4 motions unless they knew they were sound. Local authority members have to face the electorate, unlike managers and journalists. They have to defend decisions and if they are indefensible they do not deserve to be reelected. Their non-election would be one of the effects of bad decisions. However, planners do not have to face the electorate. There was a huge controversy about the development plan in Dublin because planners embarked on a particular course of action ten years ago and decided on a settlement strategy. They could not admit that that settlement strategy might be flawed and members decided to take matters into their own hands.

The only place in Ireland to have a task force on urban crime is Clondalkin, County Dublin, an area which was devised and designed by planning experts. It has been said that professionals and technicians designed the Titanic, but Noah who built the ark was just an ordinary Joe Soap without any of that expertise. It should not be presumed that experts know best, as has been said over and over again.

A settlement strategy for the three county towns in Dublin meant that an adjoining local authority bought huge tracts of land for public housing. If that was good planning and development, if it would have my support. However, if it was good planning and development, could the Minister explain why Dublin Corporation is now selling off at a frightening rate the land which was purchased for housing? If this was a settlement strategy involving a mixture of local authority and private housing with a good social balance, why is that local authority selling off its land bank in County Dublin? Our local authority came forward with the exact same reports on every attempt to change the usage of land in the county and the managers refused it.

I do not know if it is in these regulations that the planners should receive dictates in relation to the planning and development of urban areas. The parking of lorries in urban areas is an absolute nightmare and headache for communities, which complain to me regularly. I do not know if the Minister has drawn up regulations for that.

I live in Blanchardstown, which is one of these new satellite towns. It is larger than most of the areas which were referred to today, with the possible exception of Limerick, which Senator Kelly represents. However, we do not have a public toilet in Blanchardstown. We do not have one area where a mother can change her child's nappy. Large housing estates have been constructed without footpaths. If young families are moved to suburban areas it seems quite obvious that they will produce children. Those children will have to be pushed in buggies unless one is lucky enough to have a car, which many people living there do not. I do not know how that is stitched into planning regulations. Small shopping centres, housing estates, pubs and bookies shops have been built and yet there has not been a requirement for one public toilet in all of that. That is supposed to be good planning and development. Those developments were not section 4 or rezonings but were done by the paid planners for the area.

I welcome the provision for a public notice requirement and I agree with Senator Kelly that it was ludicrous to see notices appearing in The Irish Times as Gaeilge and so on.

With reference to listed buildings, the Minister can make all the restrictions he likes but buildings will still disappear overnight without planning permission. It has happened in my own area and will continue to do so. I ask the Minister to impose a penalty on the owners of listed buildings which disappear overnight. I am suspicious when a listed building disappears overnight and then a housing application is made.

With regard to the other exempted developments, I would sound a note of caution in relation to the B&B situation. Throughout the seaside villages of north County Dublin, which I also represent, there is a fear among people who have invested a great deal of money, gone through the planning process and complied with all the regulations and requirements that these developments will spring up overnight, with very little regulation, and put them out of business.

Another point I mentioned to the Minister for the Environment is that Dublin city and county has a huge problem with homeless young people. The emergency provisions to deal with that are that young people are being put into bed and breakfast accommodation. There is a huge fear among residents of suburban housing estates that accommodation for homeless people will spring up — perhaps a result of necessity but certainly not through good planning and design — throughout these estates, with people making spare bedrooms available for bed and breakfast and the health boards placing vulnerable young people in that accommodation. I am sure that is not what the Minister intended by this exemption, but I sound a word of caution.

My only other suggestion is that if it were possible — I know that it is not constitutional but I am going to say it anyway — for the track record of a developer——

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister wishes to speak for the last five minutes. I ask the Senator to conclude as soon as possible.

Mrs. McGennis

I am almost finished. It is not possible to take the track record of a developer into account when granting planning permission. That is a shame. I would like to take the Minister around parts of County Dublin to see the mess — the unfinished housing estates, the lack of public lighting, the lack of footpaths — which has been the inheritance of people who paid good money to developers who went bust overnight, set up as a new company the next morning and applied for planning permission. The elected members recommended refusal because we knew that company X had become company Y overnight. We continue to be told by the manager that it is not possible to take the track record of a developer into account when deciding on planning permission. I do not know how the Minister can address it. We did it under the compensation legislation. I think that the Minister must look at it again. Other than that, I welcome the regulations.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Browne,

Wexford): I thank the Senators for their contributions. My responsibility for environmental protection makes me particularly aware of the need for effective development control procedures which can subject projects to careful scrutiny of their strengths and weaknesses. The 1994 regulations will improve both the efficiency and the effectiveness of the planning system.

A number of issues were raised which I will deal with quickly. Senator McDonagh referred to the need for control over matters such as fire safety in guest accommodation. The new exemption is only concerned with planning permission requirements and will not detract in any way from the application of other statutory requirements, such as building regulations, the Fire Services Act and health and hygiene regulations.

Senator Finneran and other Senators referred to the planning controls for forestry development. The controls over forestry development are being reviewed at present by the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Hyland. My Department will be consulted about the planning and environmental aspects and I will bring the concerns with Senators expressed today on this matter to those people.

Section 4 was mentioned. I was a member of Wexford County Council for 13 years and we never had a section 4, whereas some counties seem to have a great deal of them. There was much criticism in the past. However, it has been clarified on a number of occasions in court cases that a manager has to comply with the terms of a section 4 resolution unless it would require the manager to do something which is not legally permissible. That whole area has also been questioned from time to time. However, if the manager is satisfied that it is illegal to implement a section 4, then he has the power to object to it.

Senator McDonagh was also somewhat dubious about the practicality of the new site notice requirements for planning applications, as were a number of other Senators. This requirement is not an unreasonable burden on applicants. It will, however, require them to ensure that the notice is kept in place for one month and is replaced or renewed if it becomes illegible or is defaced or removed. The onus is on the applicant to ensure that the site notice is there for a month.

With regard to the time taken to deal with planning applications, I agree with Senator McDonagh, Senator Farrelly and others that applications should be processed without delay. It concerns me that some councils write to applicants seeking further information a couple of days before the eight weeks are up. This stifles development and progress and can cause problems for job creation.

My Department has, on many occasions, impressed on local authorities the need to deal speedily with applications so that as many as possible can be processed within the two month period. Senators can be assured that we will continue to put pressure on local authorities to deal with applications as quickly as possible.

Senator Finneran mentioned how difficult it is to get planning permission and said that some of the new planners are causing problems by specifying particular types of bricks and chimneys. We have all encountered that problem. I hope that planners will deal with applicants practically and as efficiently as possible. There are some developments causing concern in that area which we hope to address in the near future.

Senator Finneran said he heard comments to the effect that the regulations may be over rigorous. I do not agree. An overview of the regulations will show that they are balanced and reasonable. I hope they will speed up the planning process and assist the efficient processing of applications. The Senator also referred to developments by the ESB. Developments by the ESB, other than minor changes, are subject to the full planning process. The new regulations will not water down or affect that position in any way.

Senator Finneran mentioned national roads and the powers of the National Roads Authority. It is probably outside the scope of this debate but I would like to explain that the overall management of the construction and maintenance of national roads will be the responsibility of the National Roads Authority. The Roads Act, 1993, provides for the drawing up of a programme of national road works by the Authority who will have to take account of a number of factors relating to local authorities. The Act provides that the Authority will work closely with local authorities in the area of development.

Senator Farrelly referred to developments by the Office of Public Works and gave the example of a Garda station in Kells. Security works are subject to planning controls but obviously certain exemptions are necessary. Those are very clearly outlined in the regulations. For security reasons, prisons, Garda stations, etc., have to be exempt.

I appreciate Senator Kelly's welcome for the new information leaflets. I assure her that they will be readily available in the future. With regard to the new procedure for local authority development, the regulations recognise that the traditional arrangements are necessary for a smooth transition to the new procedure. If development proposals are notified to councils before 15 June and work starts before the end of the year, the new procedure will not apply. This will ensure that work programmes are not disrupted in the manner Senator Kelly fears.

Senator Kelly also mentioned submissions or observations by the public. Submissions or observations made in writing to the planning authority must be on the file for inspection with all other documents relating to the application. That should ensure continuity and prevent delay.

I agree with Senator Farrell that the planning system should not impede worthwhile development proposals. One of the objectives of the Department of the Environment is to ensure that the process operates efficiently and without delay. I hope the new regulations will help in that respect.

I thank Senators for their views and support. The questions and concerns raised by Senators will be taken up with the local authorities.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 1 Jun 1994

Local Government Planning Regulations: Statements.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jun 1994