Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Jun 1999

Vol. 159 No. 20

Membership of An Bord Pleanála: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983 (Increase in Number of Ordinary Members of An Bord Pleanála) Order, 1999,

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on 11 June, 1999.

The planning system is in many ways the key to the successful provision of housing, places of employment, transport and other infrastructure for the future. The challenge facing the planning system is to ensure this is done in an economic, efficient and environmentally sustainable way. The Government is concerned about delays in the planning system and is taking appropriate action.

However, building output has increased by more than 60 per cent since 1994. This is the highest growth rate in building output in Europe and in the history of the State. Housing output has doubled, from less than 20,000 houses in 1993 to an all-time record of over 42,000 in 1998, and all the signs are that this will probably be surpassed this year. Ireland now has the highest house building rate in Europe. The planning system has done well to facilitate this unprecedented level of building activity, but this has obviously put a strain on the system.

Central Statistics Office data show that a total of 9,214 planning permissions were granted in the first quarter of 1999 compared with 7,822 for the same period in 1998. This is an increase of 17.8 per cent. The number of new houses covered by the permissions in the first quarter of 1999 was 10,600, the highest number ever for the first quarter of the year. This was also the second highest number for any quarter ever. The highest number of new houses covered by permissions in any quarter was 12,232 in the third quarter of 1998.

While the system has coped well with this huge influx of applications and appeals, delays have arisen in processing planning applications and appeals. This is why more resources are being allocated to planning at national and local level. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government has asked the local authorities to review their operations and, where necessary, employ additional planners. A survey carried out by the Department of the Environment and Local Government in mid-May this year showed that staff numbers in the larger local authority planning departments, that is, county councils and county borough corporations, had increased by 14 per cent over the preceding year to over 750. Several of the local authorities indicated they were on the point of recruiting additional staff to their planning departments, so I am confident the situation has improved further since then.

This draft order to appoint one additional member to An Bord Pleanála, which the House is being asked to approve, is one of many measures being put in place to bolster the efficiency and timeliness of the board's service. An Bord Pleanála, its staff and board members play a crucial role in the planning system. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to their hard work and the enormous efforts they have made in coping with the huge increase in planning appeals in recent years.

While we may disagree with individual decisions of the board from time to time, it is fair to say that the board has won widespread respect for doing its job with scrupulous impartiality. It is unrealistic to expect that there would be unanimity throughout the country in relation to all planning decisions. What is required is an independent consideration of the planning authorities' decisions. However, we must ultimately accept that different people will arrive at different decisions in respect of the same facts. The courts have accepted this and ruled that, provided the board adopts due process and bases its decisions on the facts before it, they will not question the planning merits of its decisions.

Through its work, An Bord Pleanála has played an essential role in ensuring that the best qualities of the Irish planning system are preserved and upheld. For a small fee, people seeking planning permission and third parties who feel that the proper principles of planning and development are not being upheld have an opportunity to appeal local authority planning decisions to a completely independent body. This third party right of appeal is almost unheard of in most other European countries.

My colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, is, of course, very concerned, along with An Bord Pleanála, at the deterioration in the time taken by the board to determine appeals. Last year the Minister increased the number of board members by 50 per cent to the current level of nine and approved all the board's proposals for additional staffing. The board's Exchequer grant has almost doubled over the period 1995-99. The growth in this grant mainly reflects the increased pay and non-pay costs arising from the additional staffing measures which have been approved. Since 1995 staff numbers have increased from 70.5 to a currently approved staffing level of 105. That number excludes the members of the board.

The continuous increase in the number of appeals coming before An Bord Pleanála is continuing in 1999, although at a reduced rate. It is expected that appeals in 1999 will be in the region of 5,230. The estimated intake for 1999 represents a doubling of the average intake over the recent ten year period from 1986 to 1995. This increase in appeals has seriously affected the ability of the board to fulfil its statutory objective of determining appeals within four months. At the end of May 1999 the four month rate had dropped to 41 per cent, which is unacceptable to the Minister and the board. Further increased staffing to deal with the increase in appeals has been approved and the board is recruiting this staff.

The main reason for the present level of arrears is the long delay in 1998 and 1999 in recruiting extra staff, particularly additional inspectors. The board had experienced difficulties in recruiting experienced professional planners. To overcome these difficulties, it advertised in the UK for planners. There were 29 inspectors at the end of May 1999 compared with an average of 26.8 during 1998. Four further inspectors from an existing panel are expected to take up duty by early July. Offers have been made for a further four extra jobs following recent interviews for senior planning inspector and planning inspector posts. Six additional fee-per-case inspectors have been engaged. Offers have also been made for nine administrative assistant jobs following interviews held at the end of May. This additional staff will help considerably with reducing the backlog in the processing of appeals but will, in turn, increase the pressure on the board in deciding cases.

The enactment of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1998, enables the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to increase the number of board members to meet the demands of the increased workload. Three additional members were appointed in 1999 for a period of three years up to 6 November 2001 and it is proposed that the additional member now being sought should serve for the same period. The chairman of the board and the Minister are of the view that an additional board member is required in order to achieve the necessary improvements in performance.

In order to explain why an additional board member is required, I wish to outline briefly the workings of the board. An Bord Pleanála is a full-time board. Its procedures are such that no single person, be they a board member, inspector or other staff member, can ensure what the board's decision will be in a particular appeal. While the quorum for a board meeting is three, all members would usually attend a meeting where a particularly complex or sensitive case is involved.

In considering an appeal, account is taken of all submissions on the file, together with the inspector's report and recommendation. The board gives due consideration to the report but its decision may at times be at variance with the recommendation of an inspector. For example, in 1998 the board accepted the general thrust of an inspector's recommendation in 91 per cent of cases. It can be seen that these carefully balanced procedures place considerable obligations on all board members. After all, there would be no point in having a board if it was bound to accept the recommendations of an inspector. However, in overruling the recommendation of an inspector, the board must be satisfied that the facts before it support such a decision.

The board is required to give reasons for its decisions, but some might not be as clear as they could be. The chairman of the board has acknowledged this criticism and said the board would give clearer reasons in the future. This is a welcome development.

The most recent measures taken have not given better results for a number of reasons. First, there is the ongoing increase in the number of appeals. It might be noted that the number of cases disposed of by the board in 1998 was 4,057, the highest number in any year and an increase of 12 per cent on 1997. As already stated, the board has experienced difficulties in recruiting planners but has advertised vacancies in the UK to overcome this problem. In addition, the recruitment of new staff necessarily entails a timelag due to the need to train staff in the board's procedures. However, the rate of increase in the number of appeals is now falling and with the additional staff being put in place I am confident the situation will show considerable improvement before the end of the year.

Up-to-date legislation also has a role to play in an efficient planning system. Immediately upon coming into office the Government initiated a comprehensive review of planning legislation. Arising out of that review the Government approved the heads of a planning and development Bill on 19 January 1999 to replace the current planning code in Ireland. The Bill will substantially revise, update, modernise and consolidate existing planning legislation. I expect it to be published within the next few weeks.

The Bill will give us an opportunity to discuss all aspects of the planning code, including the provisions in relation to An Bord Pleanála. I know that the Minister looks forward to discussing those issues when we deal with the Bill in the House. While we cannot pre-empt publication of the Bill, among its objectives is the more efficient adoption of development plans and improvements in the procedures for granting planning permissions. The powers for enforcement of the planning code will also be strengthened.

In addition to reforming and updating planning legislation, the planning system must be underpinned by better guidance, which reflects national priorities and international experience. Such guidance also provides certainty for local authorities, developers and the general public in respect of policies and standards.

On the question of planning guidance, a number of important initiatives are under way. Deputies will be aware that public consultation draft guidelines on increasing residential densities have been issued. Increased densities in appropriate locations, such as those adjacent to public transport, can ensure a more sustainable pattern of development and optimal use of serviced land.

Increasing densities can also facilitate varying house types to provide for differing household sizes and needs. Good design, however, is of crucial importance to ensure a high quality living environment and public acceptability of higher densities. The submissions received in relation to the residential density guidelines are currently being considered in the Department of the Environment and Local Government and a final version will be issued as soon as possible.

Guidelines for consultation on retail development have also issued. The location of large scale retail development has a strong influence on the viability and vitality of town centres, the accessibility of services, traffic flows and on the sustainability of our development generally.

An important recent development was the strategic planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area, which were launched in March. We can see the pressures of rapidly expanding development and economic activity all around us in the Dublin area as spare infrastructural capacity is taken up and congestion becomes a damper on future growth. The population of the greater Dublin area is set to grow by more than a quarter of a million people by 2011. Even more significantly, we will have four additional households for every ten in 1996.

These guidelines are based on the principles of social cohesion, sustainability and competitiveness. These goals are to be delivered through a logical development strategy of maintaining a compact metropolitan area while developing strong growth centres in the hinterland area. The development of the metropolitan area is based on the consolidation of the existing built up areas with further development being located where it can be served by an enhanced public transport system.

The policy for the hinterland area aims to build up a number of dynamic satellite towns such as Drogheda, Navan, Naas and Wicklow. Each of these towns is on an existing transportation corridor and the intention is that in the long-term they would have a strong measure of self-sufficiency including a high level of employment activities, high order shopping and a full range of educational and social facilities.

The Government is committed to the implementation of the strategic planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area. The successful implementation of the guidelines will depend on the commitment of Government, the relevant local authorities and the private sector. The role of Government will be to ensure that the necessary strategic infrastructural investments are undertaken. Local authorities will be the driving force in ensuring that development plans are up to date and in harmony with the guidelines and in ensuring that the infrastructure is put in place.

The Minister for the Environment and Local Government has written to all the local authorities in the greater Dublin area asking them to review their development plans to ensure that they are in harmony with the strategy set out in the strategic planning guidelines.

Subject to the approval of this motion by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government will appoint the additional member in accordance with the 1998 Act from a list of nominees selected by the organisations in the economic development and construction panel prescribed in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994. This is because the three board members appointed this year were from the other three panels. The organisations involved in the economic development and construction panel will have two months in which to submit two nominations for consideration by the Minister. Nominations will be sought immediately. However, pending a permanent appointment, it is open to the Minister to appoint an official of his Department to fill the position temporarily and that is what he intends to do. The board, therefore, will have an additional member available for the beginning of July.

I assure the House of the Government's continuing efforts to ensure an effective and up-to-date planning system which meets the needs of our growing economy while protecting our environmental quality.

I commend the motion to the House.

I again welcome the Minister of State to the House. I said to him earlier if he was getting appearance money he would be quite wealthy, given the number of times we have seen him here, as well as officials of his Department and other Ministers from the Department of the Environment and Local Government. It is a very busy area.

In his contribution the Minister of State mentioned figures for planning permissions which I find extraordinary, but not in the sense that there is such growth because the growth factor is obvious to everybody. Even the ordinary man in the street knows that development in Ireland is at an extraordinary rate. The figure I find extraordinary is that showing the number of new houses covered by the permissions in the first quarter of this year was 10,600, the highest number ever for the first quarter. Given that the building programme usually does not start in the first quarter – January, February and March in bad weather conditions – that would indicate that the increase for the last quarter, when building really takes up, will be greater than ever. The highest figure I have seen for the third quarter was 12,332 in 1998. I have no doubt that if the number of planning permissions continue at the present rate, the additional staff being appointed to An Bord Pleanála will not be adequate. The whole point in appointing additional staff is to ensure we meet the criteria of less than four months for a planning appeal. These figures do not stand up. The indications are the situation will not get better; in fact it will get worse. I note the Minister of State's concern but his decision in regard to the number of additional staff will not meet the needs of An Bord Pleanála.

If I were to start a building programme today from purchasing the site, putting up site notices, getting drawings made, applying for planning permission, the local authority would normally make a decision within two months but cannot do so now due to the increases. The way they are getting around this is by not seeking further information. Assuming that further information takes up to three months, there is then an appeal to An Bord Pleanála. That appeal will last for over four months. From the beginning to the end I am talking about a delay of perhaps eight to nine months. If I had borrowed money on the basis of going ahead with this programme, I would be making repayments for something I do not have. There could be delays of up to 11 months. The number of additional staff appointed will not help me. Over 60 per cent of decisions in An Bord Pleanála take over four months. That is not good enough. The number of staff in An Bord Pleanála was increased last year by 50 per cent – 9 members – yet it was not able to meet the need. How does the Minister expect the additional staff will cope with the increase this year? It does not add up. I fear there will be further delays.

Those delays will be exacerbated by the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1998, passed here yesterday. This will add further to the delays because people will have to meet certain criteria. At this stage appeals can be made on any basis against the granting of planning permission. Those appeals will be more widespread under this Act than heretofore because there are more issues involved in Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill than ever before. Not only will the number of applications for planning permission increase but there will be further delays because the demands of the specific type of planning under the new Act will ensure this will happen.

I have raised the issue of appeals a number of times and I have put it to An Bord Pleanála which said it was impossible to rectify it. Often appeals are made for vexatious or innocuous reasons and the board has to take those into account even though they have little or no substance. The fee for an appeal is very low. In the event of an appeal without solid foundation deliberately holding up a planning application, would it be possible for the board to tell the appellant, having entered his first fee, that it has made a decision and, if the person wishes to take it further, the board will seek a further fee of a more substantial nature? This might be one way in which to stop people who make vexatious appeals. Will the Minister take that into account as a way of eliminating those appeals? This would help the work of the board to a large degree.

There is an aspect of An Bord Pleanála which is frustrating for local authorities. Often when local authorities decide to grant planning permission they will add additional charges, for example, for parking spaces or to maintain or extend a road which will be of benefit to the person building the house or whatever. When the appeal goes to Dublin, in many cases An Bord Pleanála overturns the charges, thus leaving local authorities to find the funds to carry out these works. It should not have the right to do that. If the council decides on a charge, based on a justifiable reason – the net beneficiary is usually the person carrying out the development – An Bord Pleanála is not the proper body to remove such charges.

Another matter about which I am vexed is that An Bord Pleanála does not take into account the city, county or town plan. We develop what we call envelopes – smaller units or villages around the city. To maintain the characteristics of those envelopes we make decisions about the nature of planning. What we are talking about is a landscape maintained to a certain standard which is different from another part of the town and has different characteristics. When a planning application is refused it is appealed to An Bord Pleanála. Its decisions in no way relates to the envelope or the plan. The result is that because this person's planning application has been granted everybody else will do the same because the criteria have been established. Its decision should be allowed to be overthrown on the basis that it does not take into account the city or county plan.

One of the difficulties with employing additional inspectors is that it creates a problem at the top – in other words the board cannot deal with the number of recommendations from inspectors. I note that 10 per cent of cases may overrule the inspector. I have no difficulty with that. We have raised the matter time and again that where inspectors make a recommendation which is overturned by the board, inspectors say one can have the report, for a reasonable sum, but what one cannot have is the information on which An Bord Pleanála will base its refusal. Not enough information is coming out. I note An Bord Pleanála says it will give further information but that needs to be clarified. It should have to give almost the same detail as the inspector has given in order to overturn the inspector's recommendation. Everybody has a right to know on what basis a decision has been made. I know An Bord Pleanála intends to be more open but those words mean nothing. That may mean an extra three lines in a page. What I have in mind is total openness, which is what we all expect in this day and age.

Many inspectors are appointed on a fee only basis. There is also a difficulty in recruiting them and it is necessary to advertise positions in the UK. This indicates that our system of encouraging people to take up a career in planning is not good enough. Alternatively, the remuneration is insufficient or there is more money to be made elsewhere. Whatever the reasons, there is a need to examine the situation to ensure that our colleges are producing enough young people who will take up careers in the planning area where they will be well educated, have something to offer and get something in return. I would like to know why we have to go abroad to recruit planners.

The figures do not stand up because the projected increases in planning applications will continue to outstrip the capacity of the sanctioned additional board members and inspectors to deal with them.

The purpose of the motion is to enable the Minster to appoint extra staff to An Bord Pleanála. The massive boom in the building industry is very good for the economy as it is generating high levels of employment and good wages. As we travel around the country we can see the huge amount of building work, especially in the towns and cities.

This massive growth in the building sector has generated greater problems for the planning authorities, the county councils and An Bord Pleanála as the number of planning applications has increased on a daily basis. In the past five years the number of new houses had doubled, from 20,000 per annum to over 40,000. This places an enormous workload on the planning authorities.

Applicants for planning permission expect their applications to be dealt with speedily to facilitate the early development of building sites. Such sites are often purchased at a very high price and the investor needs an early return to sustain the development.

It is very regrettable that only 40 per cent of appeals are being dealt with within the four month guideline. I urge the Minister of State to examine all means possible to speed up the planning process. We must ensure the resources of the planning authorities are expanded in proportion to the rise in applications for planning permissions.

It gives me great pleasure to see young people building their homes in rural areas in my counties of Monaghan and Cavan. On many occasions I have spoken in this House on how young people have had to leave rural areas. The fact that they are now building there means that rural life has a future and services will be sustained. We must ensure they are given every assistance and that no barriers are placed in their way when they seek planning permission.

The planning laws are too restrictive. Now is the time to examine them to ensure that the maximum number of houses are built in rural Ireland. Sites are often made available by parents to their sons or daughters at minimal cost. This is preferable to having them go closer to the towns where the price of sites is very high. In some instances they can be as high as £50,000.

Development plans should be reviewed more frequently in line with the current massive development. The economic boom has transformed many aspects of the country for the better. We should not hold back or stop progress. We must ensure a common sense approach is taken to all planning decisions.

I also welcome the motion. Nobody can object to the needs outlined by the Minister of State. A big problem with many parts of the public sector is a lack of human resources in specific areas. More people need to be recruited by An Bord Pleanála to deal with its increased workload.

I have no involvement in local government, nor in the planning area. I do not share the view that An Bord Pleanála and local authorities do not have an idea about what they are doing. I have lived in north County Dublin for the past 30 years. The planning decisions taken during that time, including those on zoning and rezoning, have been good ones, although the tribunals may show that the wrong people got land.

A big problem is that the planning authorities at local authority level have not had the political guts and courage to rezone where it needs to be done. A culture has developed where if somebody sticks a spade in the ground there will be a queue of people to set in motion the process of planning appeals. I believe in the planning appeals system. People should be able to object. However, things can get out of hand, as happened for example when Galway Corporation decided last year to get rid of the city's waste. The will of the people was held up at enormous cost to the taxpayer by one person working the system to cause delays. The Minister of State needs to look at the legislation, bearing in mind that people should have the authority to object and to use the appeals system.

I consider myself to be more committed to conservation and preservation than most people who consider themselves to be Green. I love the countryside and all that attaches to it. However, I have also seen the abuse of very good organisations, such as An Taisce, where people who decide to object to something join the organisation to provide them with a basis of support.

Our difficulties with the planning area largely centre on the fear felt by local authorities about rezoning. They have been afraid to take the hard decisions and to say what their area needs. In my own part of north County Dublin last year it was clear that the area around Swords needed further development, including new sewerage schemes. There was a major debate and row in the council about it, despite the fact that any right thinking person could see what needed to be done.

The ribbon developments that are taking place around the country need to be stopped. For instance, in north County Dublin there are two types of development – estate and ribbon development. Ribbon development involves building houses here and there on the side of a road and there is no doubt that it destroys certain areas.

A Chathaoirligh, in your local authority area significant ribbon development can be seen when one drives from Athlone to Roscommon. Most developments are crescent shaped, comprise eight or nine houses and have one entrance. They do not destroy the countryside, unlike the construction of ten houses on the side of a road. Such development should be encouraged but it is not happening.

A huge problem has been bequeathed to us by our history. No other country in Europe is as costly to service in terms of electricity, education, water or health. As a result of plantations and famines people live in the most extraordinary places, such as on top of mountains and at the bottom of valleys. People were pushed off their land during plantations over a 600 year period or forced to leave it during the Famine. As a result the distribution of people is scattered whereas in continental Europe people tend to gravitate to small villages. There are huge tracts of land in Europe where as one drives along one tends to look out for farmhouses and there are none because the farmers live in villages and travel to their farms every day. In Ireland, every farmer lives on his or her own land. That is how society has developed, although I do not say it is bad. Family members then build on the farms or the farmers, who have no way of making money from their land currently, sell it. Unfortunately, whether people like it, that is the reality. Many farmers cannot generate an adequate income from their land.

That brings me to the issue of transportation. The Minister of State said that "The policy for the hinterland area aims to build up a number of dynamic satellite towns, such as Drogheda, Navan, Naas and Wicklow", to which I have no objection, but I disagree fundamentally with his statement that "Each of these towns is on an existing transportation corridor". That is a joke as he would find out if he were to ask the people who drive from Navan or Naas to Dublin every morning whether they are on a transportation corridor. It might be many things, but it is not a transportation corridor. These routes are jammed with cars every morning.

Earlier we discussed what might be done with the EU funds, which will total £4 billion. If railway lines were built between those four towns and Dublin, it would be a great start, and that suggestion should be included in the National Development Plan. How long has the Luas project for Dublin been under discussion? We are trying to analyse ourselves into total paralysis. We are not prepared to move until every person in Dublin signs a petition to signify that they agree with the project. It is time to take hard action and, whatever is the outcome, a decision should be implemented and we should move forward.

In every other European country, tunnels and underground links are constructed on a daily basis. I was in London yesterday. The underground Circle Line is closed for the next two months because it is being extended and another new line is being built. This is similar to what is happening in other European countries; they simply get on with it. Transportation corridors must be provided for in the planning laws. It should be possible for everybody who lives east of the Shannon – and those west of the Shannon if they so wish – to commute to Dublin. It is wrong that they are not given that support.

The Minister of State also said that "the intention is that in the long-term they would have a strong measure of self-sufficiency including a high level of employment activities, high order shopping and a full range of educational and social facilities". I compliment him on that admirable objective and that should be our aim. The four towns he named should receive Government grants to build theatres, for example. People living in those towns should have everything on their doorsteps rather than having to go to Dublin. They should not have to travel to Dublin in the evening and, likewise, those who reside in Dublin should not be reluctant to leave the city because of the lack of sports facilities, theatres, cinemas, etc. elsewhere. Money needs to be spent on such infrastructure and I ask that it be done.

Young people are not building houses within 50 miles of Dublin because they cannot afford it. The argument is made constantly that developers invest huge amounts of money in land and then try to get a quick return on their investment. That is what the market is about. If they are prepared to pay £10 million for a site or £8.3 million for a house in Foxrock, that is their business because they must live with the system after that. I have no sympathy for people at that level but clear direction needs to be given and I ask the Minister of State to take that on board. I am aware that the Department has been heading in this direction and I hope I am pushing an open door.

Every local authority should be directed and required to double the amount of land its designates for housing immediately. That would do more for young people building houses than anything in both Bacon reports. It should also be required that in the sale of lands for development An Bord Pleanála, the Department or the local authority should make it a condition of the sale that a certain percentage of the houses built must be sold for an appropriate figure. That will sort out the price of land for development very quickly. There should also be a requirement for a mix of housing.

In places, such as Galway, Dublin and other major centres, local authorities allow developments around villages in order to avoid ribbon development. They then rezone, quite correctly, a few hundred acres. The land goes on the market and is sold at a highly inflated price. The developer builds houses on the land, puts them on the market and sells them. There is usually a mix of people who know each other well in such villages, including teachers and farmers. The population of a village may double following the construction of the new houses and while I do not have any objection to that, I hate the selfishness of people who think that when they have found a place to live, they will not allow anyone to live within a mile of them.

However, the people who move into the village can afford to spend £250,000 on the houses and the mix of people may become completely wrong because it is no longer balanced. The new arrivals build walls around their properties and install security cameras. There is a totally new mix in the community, whereas if a requirement had been laid down that a certain proportion of the new houses would have to be sold at less than an appropriate figure, the problem would have been resolved immediately and the developer would have had to factor that in when buying the land in the first place. Such measures must be implemented.

With regard to the objection issue to which I referred earlier, there has been a change in attitude among certain elements of society towards housing development and it is evident where I live in north County Dublin. One of the problems is that when people move there to live, the first thing they do is to object to the applications for planning permission by others who want to live there. People spend years arm-twisting county councillors to try to obtain planning permission and as soon as the foundations of their houses have been laid, they found protest groups against people moving into the area. I used to teach in the area in which I live and I know all the families who have lived there for many years. There was a knock at my door seven or eight months ago from a person whom I did not know who wanted me to sign a petition. The only industry in the area is about four fields behind me. It is run by a man who services small machinery and it gives employment to five or six people. The place is clean and nicely screened off by trees. It was originally a farm building but the man did not have permission for the operation and he was seeking retention planning permission. However, a group of local people objected. I did not know these people who have been in the area only three or four years. They had taken control and were trying to stop the man running a light and clean industry giving the only employment in the area. I told the person who knocked at my door that I would write to the man concerned the following morning and tell him that if he needed any support for his retention application he could use my name. This is an example of the selfishness in society at present.

Developers should be required to ensure that a certain percentage or number of the houses on their land is sold for under a set price. This should also apply if sites are being sold and priority should be given to local people. All local authorities should be required to increase substantially, perhaps double, the amount of building and development land at their disposal. I support the motion.

I welcome the Minister's statement. The purpose of the motion is to increase the number of members of An Bord Pleanála from nine to ten. This follows a 50 per cent increase last year in the number of members from six to nine. These changes are indicative of the increased number of applications to local authorities and the consequent increase in the number of appeals to An Bord Pleanála.

Senator Coogan referred to the need to recruit inspectors in Britain and the qualifications of planners. It is a welcome development that some inspectors are being appointed on a fee only basis. More extensive use of this system in the public service needs to be considered. I will deal with this aspect later. The fact that recruitment in Britain is taking place and that there is a need for the appointment of another member to An Bord Pleanála is a measure of the economic success the country is currently enjoying.

Yesterday the House debated the recent referendum and the turnout at elections. The country's success may be an influencing factor in that people's concerns are not as extensive as a decade ago. Politicians and successive Governments, particularly the Government that was in office from 1987 to 1989, which was probably one of the best Governments ever after one of the worst, deserve great credit for the growth rates the country has enjoyed in recent years. Economists predict we will continue to enjoy this success for the next few years.

I share the Minister's concern that only 41 per cent of appeals are dealt with within the four month guideline period. This is unacceptable. I also concur with Senator Coogan's point that there is a propensity on the part of many county councils to seek to extend the two month period by requesting additional information. In many cases this happens because pressure on time and staff resources prevent applications being dealt with within two months.

We should remember that the planning process is a public service. In this instance, it should be predicated on two principles, efficiency and quality. Regarding efficiency, it is important that the people appointed have the necessary qualifications and aptitude to do the job well. I will refer later to the lack of consistency in decisions in the same planning area.

The Minister has urged planning authorities to ensure that the staffing levels in planning departments are commensurate with the demands placed on them by the increased level of economic development and applications. However, there were great problems in the late 1980s because staffing levels had been increased in line with activity during the 1980s but it was difficult to generate natural wastage subsequently to bring the number of staff in line with a lower level of activity. The contract system should be used more in the public service.

I share the view that the planning departments in local authorities generally have been under strain for a number of years. They are in need of additional staff resources, but my experience is that there is overstaffing and a lack of productivity in other areas of local authorities. Managers should be urged to transfer staff rather than simply increasing the numbers in one section while allowing overmanning in other areas. Government should operate efficiently. It does not have the discipline of the private sector where profits, or the lack of them, dictate the decisions which must be taken and the productivity levels which must be achieved. It is important to incorporate disciplines and the management initiatives that have been taken are intended to achieve that. However, we should ensure that, in dealing with a problem by increasing the number of staff to meet current demand, we do not sow the seeds for future difficulties in the context of cost factors in the public service.

The experience of many council representatives is that the number of representations we are receiving regarding planning is indicative of a need for councillors to play a more pivotal role in decisions. This may run against the views of media and other commentators but the planning process is too important to be left solely in the hands of officials in planning departments. There is a need for elected representatives, who are accountable to the people for decisions taken, to participate actively in that area in a responsible manner.

There is also a need to ensure that councillors get the necessary training to equip them to participate in the process. I do not share current conventional thinking that everything of a sensitive nature should be kept away from politicians. That is misguided. If people are elected, they are the only ones with a mandate and this should be exercised by them in a prudent, fair and impartial manner. I am a strong proponent of that view.

In common with many local authority areas, there has been phenomenal development in the Courtown area of Wexford because of the seaside resort scheme. No planner would be proud of what has been allowed to happen there. The extent of the housing development has not been matched by the provision of services, social, infrastructural and otherwise, and amenities. There is a need throughout the country for much more imagination and innovative thinking regarding the planning and laying out of estates and the quality of many of the houses being constructed. Given that we are enjoying economic success and the construction industry is so highly profitable at present, there is an obligation on us to ensure that the buildings are of a quality which will enhance the appearance of the area and will be a legacy we can pass to future generations. That does not seem to be happening at present. We should ensure the buildings are of a quality which will enhance the appearance of the area and will be a legacy we can pass to future generations, but that does not seem to be happening at present. We must inject such thinking and discipline into the planning process.

I do not share Senator Coogan's opinion of An Bord Pleanála's power to overturn charges made by local authorities – the board must be able to adjudicate on all conditions applied by authorities. Some councils have tended to use conditions under the planning process as a revenue earning measure. I have no difficulty with developers contributing to the infrastructure which facilitates their developments but the rules should be applied in a fair and uniform way within and between local authorities, and that is not the case at present.

I do not fully agree with Senator O'Toole's comments on ribbon development. Many planners now being recruited were educated in Britain, which is a more urbanised society than Ireland, and their training, qualifications and experience are not compatible with the needs of rural Ireland. I agree with the Senator about transportation difficulties but if we are serious about dealing with those problems we need more actively to encourage people to live and remain in rural areas. We cannot propagate that policy on one hand while also compelling people to live in towns or larger villages, as happened under a number of development plans. There is nothing wrong with building housing in a planned way but that should not preclude building in rural areas.

I agree with Senator Coogan that we should see what can be done to reduce vexatious appeals, often made for commercial reasons unconnected with planning. Perhaps people should pay a higher fee for an appeal; if it was upheld they could get a refund but if it was lost they would lose the full fee. That may not be the answer but we should consider something along those lines.

The Minister said that the full board is in attendance for major planning appeals but since the number of board members has been increased to ten, consideration should be given to raising the quorum from three to four. It is important that there be a representative viewpoint on matters which go before the board. Not only does it enhance the decision, it protects the process of which it is a fundamental part. I compliment the Minister for taking this action to ensure An Bord Pleanála is equipped to deal more efficiently with appeals.

I support this measure, which relates to human resources in the planning area. Local authority members know that development poses challenges and difficulties as well as providing opportunities. It is good that there has been a large increase in the level of planning applications to all local authorities and that more development is taking place, but the great difficulty in securing the personnel necessary to cope with that demand is a source of frustration. I would like to hear the Minister's thoughts on how to improve the supply of properly trained planning staff, who are familiar with the Irish context, to local authorities, An Bord Pleanála and the increasing number of planning consultancies.

I am concerned about the ability of the local authority system to cope with current demand. It is difficult to recruit planners and even more difficult to recruit those with relevant experience. When they are obtained, they are not council employees for a wet week before they apply for promotion or a more stable position, as is their right. A new development in the last year and a half is that when a planner gains a few months' local authority experience, he or she is quickly snapped up by planning consultancies in our larger cities, who are delighted to have staff with such experience in order to deal with the system from the outside. It is a big problem and issues of education, training and supply cannot be addressed overnight but I have seen no great evidence that the Minister has addressed it to date. I acknowledge that efforts are being made to recruit people in Britain but as Senator Walsh said, they are trained in a different context. Even within Ireland the two jurisdictions take quite different approaches to planning, and the British approach is even more different.

A concentrated effort should be made to increase the supply of trained planners. A scheme based on internship or a contract in return for assistance with fees should be instituted to ensure these people spend a minimum period after quali fication with the local authority before moving to higher vacancies or the private sector. This problem at local level must be addressed quickly.

I am also concerned about the delays local authorities have experienced in dealing with the Local Appointments Commission when seeking new planning staff. Last year members of my county council expressed grave concern to the county manager about the lack of enforcement of planning conditions. There is no use attaching up to 20 conditions to a planning application unless someone checks that they are met – for instance, that roof tiles are the specified colour. It has become the accepted practice in some areas for people to carry out a development and then apply for retention permission, and those of us who value the integrity of the planning code would like that problem addressed. Last year, the local authority of which I am a member applied to the Local Appointments Commission to recruit a staff member with particular expertise in the enforcement of planning and building regulations, and I regret that we are still awaiting the commission's advice as to who we should appoint. In terms of the supply of personnel, the wheels move extremely slowly. While I welcome this limited measure and the promise of legislation, unless the personnel issues are addressed it does not matter what Bills we pass, we will still be playing catch-up. That is not ideal for planning and development.

In common with previous speakers, the experience of local authority members in my area in recent years has been that we have increasingly been called on to intervene in and inquire into planning matters. Much of this concerned simple things like acknowledgment of queries, requests for further information at a late stage, clarifications sought as a cloak for requests for further information, and frustrating bureaucratic delays which do no credit to the planning system or those involved in it, in whatever capacity. Last year I dealt with the case of a young couple who had been promised a house by an elderly relative, provided they built a granny flat at the back of it. It took 14 months for planning permission to build a granny flat but at the same time a major power company sought and obtained permission to build a new power station. We were delighted about that and the fact that planning permission was approved within the minimum period allowed, despite the fact that environmental impact statements and assessments had to be carried out. It is wrong that a power station can get planning permission within three months, yet it takes 14 months to get planning permission to build a granny flat. The members of my own local authority have sought to address this problem, as has the manager, but we continue to experience problems.

I want to allude to a point made by Senator O'Toole, who appeared to imply that opposition to rezoning per se was opposition to necessary development. I have no problem with rezoning provided it is in the public interest. I support decisions taken by a number of local authorities in recent months to grant substantial rezoning applications provided that strong social provisions are built into it, either in regard to the provision of recreational amenities, social housing or other socially necessary components. Rezoning needs to be examined in that context and not rushed into in a way which might lead us in future years to revisit many of the problems which are currently the subject of examination in Dublin Castle.

We will get an opportunity to debate the legislation as soon as possible. I recognise it is not easy to produce but I have some regret in that regard because promises were made in the House last November, when my colleague, the former Senator Sean Ryan, sought to introduce a short planning Bill to deal with road developers, that the legislation would be published. We are told it is now imminent and I would welcome the debate on the legislation as quickly as possible. As the Minister has alluded to some of the provisions which will be addressed in the Bill, I want to make some brief points.

I would like to see the Bill contain some provision for the registration of planning advisers and consultants. A major problem in our local authority is that people can set themselves up, without any agreed or recognised qualification or standard, as planning advisers and consultants. They can take money from people, without limitation, for the purpose of giving advice and professional support to a planning application. The majority of the people who act in that capacity are well qualified and capable, but there are a number of "cowboys" operating in my county and I am sure in every other country. They take money under false pretences and neither the client nor the local authority has any comeback in that regard.

My local authority gave consideration last year to setting up our own register but on checking with the Department and with the recognised professional bodies we were strongly advised by the manager that it would be difficult legally for us to do so. I implore the Minister and the Department, in the interest of serving the customer, to consult with the professional bodies, devise a register and inform local authorities that they are free to question or reject applications from people who are not properly registered. These people take £400, £500, £600, £700 or £800 from their clients, draw up a dodgy set of plans and submit an application form which has not been properly completed. When a problem subsequently arises with the local authority they tell their clients to get their county councillors to sort it out. That is not professional and it is not proper practice. I appeal to the Minister to address that problem as a matter of urgency.

The area of enforcement needs to be strengthened. The powers of local authorities need to be strengthened but the obligations on local authorities to enforce need to be addressed. An area I would like to see tackled is the problem that arises when a developer contravenes some regulation. The council issues a query or an enforcement notice against them but it then discovers that the company is liquidated and the developer is operating under another name. We have dealt with this problem in other legislation but we have to deal with connected persons and companies in this regard and allow councils to enforce orders or take action against the developer, regardless of the name under which they operate.

I agree with the concerns raised by previous speakers regarding vexatious appeals. I would seriously question many of the appeals to An Bord Pleanála by third party objectors in particular who, for one reason or another, have not submitted an objection to the local authority for consideration at the first stage. I agree it is difficult to rule them out completely. There may well be issues of local or public interest which require, as an exceptional measure, an objection to be made to the board when such an objection has not been made to the planning authority in the first instance. I am aware, as I am sure are other colleagues, of cases where objectors examine a file in the council office and make verbal remarks to planning staff which they hope will have some impact on the decision-making process but which they are not prepared to commit in writing. The client and the county council spend a great deal of time trying to get the planning permission agreed. It is eventually agreed and then the person who did not have the courage to put their head above the parapet appeals the case to An Bord Pleanála. The developer, who may want to build a bungalow, housing estate or factory, is then subjected to a lengthy wait and costly financial considerations and obligations while the case is being determined. That should be limited and perhaps a public interest test applied to the area of appeals to the board where an objection has not been made to the planning authority in the first instance.

I have more to say on this matter but I will wait until the Bill is published. I welcome the debate but I hope the Minister of State and the Department can do something about the supply and retention of qualified personnel in the planning area within the local authority system.

I thank all Senators who took part in the debate on the motion. There is general agreement that An Bord Pleanála should be properly resourced and staffed at board level to ensure that the planning appeal process operates in an effective and efficient manner. I have explained the steps the Government has taken and is taking to provide extra resources and staff levels during the past year. The proposed additional ordinary member of the board, which the draft order provides for, is a necessary complementary measure for the increase in staff resources.

A number of Senators raised other issues relating to An Bord Pleanála and the planning system generally. These issues will be addressed in the forthcoming planning and development Bill, 1999, which I expect will be published in the next few weeks. The Bill will give us an opportunity to discuss all aspects of the planning code, including the provisions relating to An Bord Pleanála. I know the Minister looks forward to discussing these issues when we come to deal with the Bill in this House.

Senator Coogan was concerned that the staffing arrangements we are making are not adequate to deal with the increase in appeals. This is the first year we have the full year benefit of the nine board members and that must be taken into account. We will also have the benefit of the extra staff. I assure the Senator that we will keep the position under constant review.

Senator O'Toole raised the question of the transportation corridors in the strategic regional planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area. I agree with him that this should be based on efficient public transport such as rail. That is the intention of the guidelines and I am sure the necessary provision will be made in the forthcoming National Development Plan.

Senators Walsh, O'Brien and Gallagher raised many issues on the planning system which are relevant to the new planning review Bill. As I said, we will shortly have the opportunity to discuss the new Bill in detail. I thank all Senators for their thoughtful contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tuesday, 29 June 1999 at 12 noon.

Top
Share