I thank all who took part in the debate on this very important Bill and I appreciate their constructive and positive approach. It has received general support from all parties even if there is disagreement on points of detail. However, the general thrust of the Bill and what it is trying to achieve are supported by all parties in the House. I thank Members for that.
There has been a general appreciation that the Bill represents a fundamental reform of the planning system in Ireland and this wide ranging debate has touched upon all the main areas. I will consider each of the points made, including the suggestions for change and improvement, before Committee Stage. Where possible I will incorporate them in amendments.
I acknowledge the detailed and extensive written submissions to my Department by various groups and interests. We will also study these carefully to see how we can incorporate and advance some of them on Committee Stage. I was especially pleased to note the joint submission made by the Irish Planning Institute and the Royal Town Planning Institute, two bodies that are non-partisan and are totally independent of everybody in this House. In their submission they expressed the belief that the Bill delivers on the three principles which I set out for the planning system, namely, a strategic approach, a sustainable development ethos and a quality service. That is a good start and it has been reflected in what Members have said.
The provisions of Part V have generated much discussion and debate and they gave rise to much comment here. That is not surprising, given the radical nature of these proposals. On Second Stage I was conscious of the need to explain in detail how these provisions will work and the rationale for integrating them into the planning code. It is important to emphasise that Part V is just one part of a wide range of measures the Government has introduced to try to increase housing supply. Senators should bear this in mind when debating the Bill on Committee Stage. This is just one of almost 50 different measures taken in relation to housing, the provision of housing and trying to ensure that as many first time buyers as possible are able to avail of affordable housing and it should be seen in this context.
Senator Coogan quoted at length from one source which questioned the validity of the provisions of Part V. However, I noted that the Senator did not venture a personal view as to what he thought of the section. Reading some of the articles from this source over the last six months, if I were looking for an analysis of what is happening in the Irish housing market, I would not go to this particular gentleman. He was concerned that a local authority manager would be in a position to discriminate between developers in the application of the provisions of Part V of the Bill. This is not the case.
It is important to bear in mind that the housing strategies which local authorities will be obliged to draw up will set out in detail the housing policies of the local authority. The local authority must follow these strategies. The strategies will be incorporated into the development plan by the elected representatives, not by the manager or anyone else. The provisions will have to be applied in a very even handed manner. For example, where a housing strategy, having regard to the needs identified in the area, requires up to 15 per cent of the zoned land to be made available for social and affordable housing, this requirement attaches to all land zoned in the area. It is not a question of picking and choosing.
Neither the manager nor the developer will be in a position to derogate from this requirement in Part V. However, there is one exception, that is, where a local authority considers that there is an over-supply or sufficient social housing in a particular area. In that case it may decide to lower the requirement or to do away with the particular requirement in that specific area but that can only be done on the basis of the housing strategy and the area and land affected will be identified clearly in the development plan. It is clear, therefore, that the provisions will be applied evenly across the board.
A number of Senators raised the question of the constitutionality of Part V. I am satisfied that the provisions in Part V are constitutional. It is entirely a matter for the President to decide whether the Bill should be referred to the Supreme Court. She is well qualified to consider this matter and I have every confidence in her judgment. The President takes her advice from the Council of State, not from anyone here. I am satisfied that these provisions have been drafted having regard to the principles of fairness, equality and proportionality. I believe they will withstand any constitutional test given the serious social problem which we must address. The measured response of the Bill, together with the numerous other initiatives taken to increase housing supply, will convince any fair minded person that this is a balanced and constitutional approach. The provision will not be retrospective and developers are well aware of the likely conditions which will be imposed in the future; they are going into this with their eyes open.
The provisions in Part V represent major changes to the way in which the planning process has operated up to now. I acknowledge that what is being proposed here will have major implications for house builders and for others. Naturally I want to see the new provisions brought into effect as quickly, effectively and efficiently as possible. Some speakers expressed a fear about the disruption of the housing market. I do not want the market to be disrupted; I want to ensure a continued increase in the supply of necessary housing. I said in my opening statement, at various seminars throughout the country and to individuals who approached me on the matter, that I want to co-operate with house builders in working out practical guidelines for the operation of Part V.
I also intend to table an amendment specifically to provide for a degree of flexibility which will allow the local authority to enter an arrangement with the developer for the provision of housing units at an agreed price in lieu of transfer of part of the land and part of the site. I am open to any suggestions that might assist in the better operation of the provisions of the Bill. However, I do not wish, nor do I intend, to compromise the principles laid down in the Bill. Those who will have the greatest experience of the housing market and house building are the house builders and I would like their co-operation in ensuring that this is carried out efficiently and effectively.
Senator Jackman said that while she thought the Bill was aimed at affordable housing, people are now talking as if it is aimed at social housing only. This is true because I am aware that some people who will be affected by this provision have deliberately talked about social housing and neglected to talk about affordable housing in order to stir up a certain amount of heat about this issue. We are not talking about social housing only; the provisions in the Bill are aimed at both social and affordable housing. I accept that both are inextricably linked and have been inextricably linked in Government policy dating back to 1991. The current housing waiting lists indicate this because as the number of people who cannot afford to buy their own houses have increased, so also have the local authority housing waiting lists. People who heretofore were able to provide their own housing are now going on the local authority waiting lists because of the high house prices.
I repeat that in the initial stages at least, because most local authorities have land banks for social housing, I expect the Bill will apply more to the provision of affordable housing than to social housing per se. It makes sense that there should be that emphasis in the initial stages to see how it works, to see what effect it will have on the social housing waiting list and then to take it from there. Obviously it will have an effect on local authority housing waiting lists. It seems to me, as has been suggested by a number of Senators, that we should try to cater for the maximum number of people now on the local authority waiting lists under the affordable housing provisions of the Bill.
Senator Quill mentioned that we cannot afford to build large housing developments without including proper facilities from the beginning. I agree. The whole tenet of this Bill is to ensure sustainable development and socially integrated communities. They are the principles which underpin the Bill. In terms of housing I believe this will be better achieved by providing a better mix of house types to suit the demand from different sectors in the community, a point made in relation to Part V. The housing strategies, coupled with the Department's guidelines on housing densities, will help achieve that aim and the mandatory objectives of the development plans in relation to the provision of community facilities for the first time ever. The provision for local area plans and the levying in a transparent way of development contributions for community facilities will assist in ensuring there are better quality, integrated and properly serviced developments provided in future rather than what has happened in the past. As Senator Quill rightly pointed out, the lack of affordable housing for working people is perhaps the most important issue facing the economy. If we are to continue to enjoy the current economic success in years to come, we must address the issue of affordable housing in a radical way, something I believe the Bill does. Because of the wider social implications of people not being able to afford their own housing, I believe the Bill will be found to be measured and constitutional in response to the crisis.
I acknowledge and thank Senator Costello for his comment that Part V represents a very courageous step on behalf of the Government. However, both he and Senator O'Meara, I think, suggested that Part V should be taken separately and rushed through the Oireachtas so it could have direct and immediate effect. There is nobody on any side of the House who would not like to see the Bill passed through the Oireachtas tomorrow if that could be done, and all indications from Whips and all sides in this House and in the other House are that they will facilitate passage of the Bill within reason as long as a debate takes place. I believe that separating Part V from the rest of the Bill would not be good and would not work. All new housing development has to go through the planning system and any realistic policies to deal with the current housing supply situation must also embrace planning. This is the inescapable logic of Part V which fully integrates housing supply with the planning system by requiring planning authorities to prepare housing strategies for incorporation into the development plan. I believe that a stand alone provision, a Bill dealing solely with housing, would not facilitate that and would not be as effective.
The Bill also contains a number of general measures which are essential to the successful operation of Part V. For example, it is made explicit that zoning only lasts for the period of the development plan. No compensation will be payable for down zoning in subsequent development plans and the procedure for varying development plans is shortened and simplified. Planning for the provision of housing is one of the most important elements in land use planning – the two are inextricably linked. Separating Part V for a doubtful gain while at the same time undermining the provision's link with the planning code could undermine the intent and effectiveness of the provisions of the Bill. The best way forward, as has been indicated, is for all parties to assist in the passage of the Bill and not break up the provisions. I guarantee that I will not delay the commencement of the Bill once it is passed. I have already asked county managers, most of whom I have met and others whom I will meet this week, to commence the preparation of housing strategies so that they will be virtually ready as soon as the Bill is passed. There certainly will not be a delay of three years as has been suggested by some Members.
There has been quite an amount of debate and reference by a number of speakers on different sides to the proposed fee for making submissions and observations on planning applications and the requirement that third parties will have to have made submissions in order to appeal a decision to An Bord Pleanála. I assure Senators that any such fee will not be pegged at such a level that it will deter any person or body with a genuine concern in relation to a planning application. As I stressed in my speech on Second Stage, the Bill gives significant statutory recognition to submissions made in respect of an application. Submissions, therefore, will need to be given full consideration by planning authorities. I intend that people who make submissions will be entitled to be notified of all planning decisions and therefore will be in a position to appeal to An Bord Pleanála. I again stress and repeat that currently people make observations, objections and so on while legally a local authority has no obligation to take them into consideration – the law is silent on this matter. I am giving the process statutory recognition and in exchange for that and the additional work which local authorities will have to undertake in notifying people and so on I have provided for a modest charge. This is not, as some people would have us believe, an attack on third party rights of appeal or an attempt to silence people. Much of what has been said in this regard is nonsense and the people saying it know better.
I also intend to look at the planning regulations in conjunction with this to see if the various notification provisions can be improved to ensure people are aware of developments in their area. I believe that improved notification provisions, as was mentioned by Senator Coghlan, would ensure that everyone was aware of when submissions or observations on a planning application had to be made. It should ensure that people have sufficient time to comment on a planning application.
Many speakers raised the issue of planning authority resources. I referred to this at the beginning of Second Stage. I am very conscious of it and promise planning authorities my full support in providing adequate resources to ensure the employment of sufficient planners and the ongoing development of planning skills. I do not mind returning to the House on Committee Stage if somebody can tell me I am wrong or that a local authority which put forward a reasonable case for additional planners over the past 12 months was refused. It just did not happen. I am aware of the work and of what Senators on all sides have said to me – it was said at a Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting – about the importance of having resources in place. Obviously there is a problem in local authorities and across the construction industry in general concerning supply constraints, and it is getting more difficult for local authorities to hold on to planners. There is quite an amount of change, but certainly local authorities have not been hindered by me or the Department in terms of necessary resources.
A number of Senators were concerned about the inconsistencies in approach both within and between planning authorities. I certainly believe that more consistency can be brought about in a number of ways. For example, my Department has issued a number of planning guidelines in recent years and will continue to do so on various topics. Implementation of this Bill will ensure that better and more sustainable development plans are adopted and the Department will be issuing guidelines on drawing these up. The provision for regional planning guidelines will also bring greater co-ordination between planning policies across regions while the national spatial strategy for future years will also provide that national planning strategy. Therefore we have the hierarchy which I mentioned before.
I share the concern expressed by Senator Taylor-Quinn that the regional planning guidelines should take into account the interests of the entire region with which they deal and not just concentrate on a number of towns within the region. Section 23 explicitly states that the guidelines must deal with the planning issues for "the whole of the region to which the guidelines relate".
However, planning authorities and elected representatives must continue to have a large degree of local autonomy in pursuing local policies as planning is quintessentially a local function. I have some criticisms of local councillors, one of which is that they do not pay enough attention to the contents of the development plans. There is little point in complaining about An Bord Pleanála, or complaining about county managers or Ministers for the Environment and so on, concerning planning decisions made in local authorities. They must be made on the basis of the development plan on which the local elected representatives decide. It is the policy of local public representatives.
Hopefully the provisions of this Bill will allow greater consultation and a greater input from local authority members at these very early stages. This is being addressed in the Bill because up to now, local authority members have been presented with the draft and told that is the best that can be done and sometimes they end up defending a document to which they may not be fully committed. The new provisions in the Bill will allow them to become more committed but I re-emphasise the necessity for local authority members to take the development plan much more seriously. If councillors have concerns about single, once off houses or villages dying, they should be addressed in the general principles of the development plan. Perhaps members concentrate too much on the individual planning applications rather than the principles by which those applications are decided. If one has a policy in a development plan which disallows single once off houses, as they are called in my constituency, in rural areas, it is too late to complain when a planner refuses planning permission for such a house. The planner will soon say that it is the public representatives' policy.
Luadh An Seanadóir Quill an ghá atá ann an Ghaeltacht a thabhairt san áireamh i gcursaí pleanála. Aontaím léi agus tá sin déantá againn sa Bhille seo ach feicfidh mé an féidir sin a neartú a thuilleadh.
A number of speakers have also raised the matter of An Bord Pleanála overruling their inspectors' reports. Senator Moylan discussed An Bord Pleanála with me recently. The role of the board is misunderstood. In considering its decision, the board is obliged to consider the inspector's report. However, it also has to consider the application itself and any submissions on appeal that were made to the board. If the board was to be obliged to follow the inspector's report on every occasion there would be no necessity for a board at all.
The same applies to a planning officer in a local authority. If the manager had to take his or her recommendation every time, there would be no need to have the manager signing the actual orders. I acknowledge that where the board does not follow the recommendation of an inspector, they must be satisfied that the facts before them support the decision they are making. They cannot act in an arbitrary manner. However, in view of the need expressed by so many, to make the board's decisions clearer the Bill provides that the board must give the main reasons and considerations for the decision made by them, particularly when they are overruling an inspector's report. Therefore, where the board does not accept the recommendation of the inspector, the reasons for this should be made much clearer under the provisions of this Bill.
Another bone of contention is where the board decides to contravene a development plan. It must also state clearly its reasons for contravening the development plan. I took the view before I decided on this that they should not, at any time, be allowed to contravene the development plan. Having discussed the matter, there is a reasonable argument that sometimes development plans are not as clear as they should be. Another argument, which will not arise under this Bill when it is fully applied, was that development plans were not changed for up to ten years. Circumstances were changing so fast that if the hands of the board were tied by having to comply with the development plan, then one could be guilty of bad planning.
All those arguments convinced me that it should be left as it is, leaving the power to contravene the development plan, but now I accept that they must state, and we will provide for their stating, the reasons for their contravening the plan. The board accepts the general thrust of the inspector's report in about 91 per cent of all cases and recent figures indicate they uphold the decision either wholly or with some modifications of local authorities, in on average 75 to 80 per cent of the cases. The board are reasonable when making decisions not in accordance with county development plans and local authorities' general policies.
Senator Coogan asked, on the taking of judicial review and the limitations being imposed, whether a substantive interest in a particular matter equated to a property interest. A substantive interest is wider than that. It could mean that a person could personally be affected by a development or even that the person has taken an active part in the decision making process from the early stages, and has not entered it at the last minute, as appears to happen in many cases, with an objection as well as a property interest. The provisions in the Bill build on existing case law.
All Senators spoke on the need for stronger enforcement of the planning code, which is one of the key areas of reform in this Bill and people will think twice before ignoring the planning laws in the future. Some Senators called for retention permission to be abolished completely and, while I sympathise with that view, it needs to be retained for very good reason, particularly to allow a genuine mistake to be rectified. Anyone can make a mistake. However, the Bill makes it clear that any application for retention cannot be used to prevent or hold up enforcement action, and minimum fines have been introduced where an unauthorised structure has been built.
Senator Taylor-Quinn noted that local authorities had rarely required developers to demolish an unauthorised structure. However, the provisions in the Bill that allow for huge fees for retention applications will be sufficient to discourage people from engaging in unauthorised development and then looking for retention. Senator Taylor-Quinn spoke of the need to adopt a more strategic approach to planning and also for the needs of the planning system to be responsive to change. I agree. It is important to have some certainty in the system as it encourages investment. The planning structure we have at national, regional, local and area levels will help to bring that certainty about.
Senators Costello, Dardis and other Senators raised the matter of pop concerts and asked that the public be consulted. The Bill provides for regulations on public notification and I assure the Senators that these will be made and it will allow for public consultation. However, the planning system or code was not a suitable vehicle for deciding on concerts. The licensing system will help those involved reach speedy decisions but will preserve the right of the public to be consulted. The Bill addresses this issue adequately and gives the local authority more power in this area because there are ancillary problems with open air pop concerts and other outdoor events that put added expense on local authorities. At least now they will have some control over events taking place in their area.
Senator Dardis was concerned that environmental issues were not given due regard in the Bill. I do not propose to repeat what I said at the opening of this debate. The entire concept and ethos of the Bill is sustainable development. It is well covered in the Bill and will be well covered in the development plans.
Senators Dardis and O'Meara suggested that the technical views of the local authority should be taken into account when dealing with planning appeals. Section 113 specifies this and also that a copy of the planning report prepared by the local authority must be submitted to the board and must be considered by An Bord Pleanála, together with the appeal and the observations. That meet that particular point.
Senator Walsh noted that local authority development was exempt from the need to apply for or obtain planning permission. He was concerned that some local authorities were carrying out developments that were not in accordance with their development plan and that they would not allow a private developer to undertake. He was concerned about this lack of consistency. I too would be concerned if local authorities totally ignored their own development plan. Therefore, because of that, I have improved the provision in relation to local authority development in section 163 which will require local authorities to prepare a planning report in relation to their own development on the same basis as a planning application. This will have to show how the provisions of the development plan are being met in the proposed works that the local authority is undertaking.
Senator Maurice Hayes was worried that the Bill did not provide for community participation in planning in an inclusive manner. I have gone to great efforts in relation development plans to ensure the community gets involved at an earlier stage and that local public representatives get involved in the preparation of the plan before the die is cast. At the moment this is not happening. As a member of a local authority you are presented with a draft document and it is almost a fait accompli. In this regard this Bill lays down minimum requirements regarding public consultation, it permits and encourages local authorities to get the community involved as much as possible – obviiously this is something I support – and it will have the force of law. This is an important innovation. I accept the point that up to now community involvement has not been as strong as it should be, but it is now included in the Bill.
I agree with Senator Dino Cregan about the need for greater transparency in the spending of development levies. That is contained in the Bill. At this stage local authority members will have the power to decide what the scheme is and what the charges are. The developers will know in advance what the charges are. This is an extra power that councillors will have; they will have to approve the housing strategy and this particular scheme to ensure that there is a transparent system. All moneys received from contributions will be accounted for separately so that members can see where the money is, how much it is and how it is being spent. That will meet the concerns expressed.
Senator Moylan mentioned the need to design houses to meet the needs of the elderly. I recently published a consultation document on proposals to amend Part M of the building regulations that requires all new housing commenced on or after 1 July to be visitable by disabled people – and I mean "disabled" in the widest sense because elderly people have difficulties climbing stairs to access bathrooms, etc. The consultation process in relation to that ends on 29 October and we will publish the revised Part M and the technical guidance documents early in the new year.
I agree with Senator Gibbons about the necessity for proper landscaping and taking an holistic approach. The provisions in the Bill on landscaping will help that.
Senator Walsh raised the matter of the manager being given the power to pass the development plan if it goes beyond the year six. The Bill provides for a two year period for the report and for four years to start the review. At the end of the two years the plan will be in place and, if it is not in place and not passed by the council, the manager would have the power to put it in place immediately and he has to take into account and include everything that is agreed by the council up to that time. Senator Walsh said it was not right that one man should havae this power, and I agree. The best way to ensure he doest not have this power is for the councillors to do their job and make sure he does his job over the two year period. They have the timetable and they should insist that he follows it. That is the best way of ensuring we have some kind of finality in this. Part of the problems being discussed in other fora at this time was the fact that development plans went on and on in certain places – this did not happen in every place – and led to all sorts of difficulties.
I thank the House for its patience. I know we have until 6 p.m. to debate this but I do not intend to keep Senators here. Because of the debate and the constructive contributions, I felt I should try to address a number of the points raised. I have taken note of other points and look forward to a good debate on Committee Stage. I acknowledged from the outset that the Bill is not perfect and that it can be improved. I look forward to working in co-operation with Senators in making those improvements. I will accept amendments which will improve the Bill and we will have to agree to differ on the amendments I will not accept. It will be an open approach.
My staff has been acknowledged as extremely helpful in this area through the seminars and so forth and they will provide the maximum amount of information for Members before embarking on Committee Stage. That will ensure a good debate.
I thank the Senators for their consideration and co-operation. It augurs well for the efficient passing of the Bill through the Seanad.
