Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Nov 1999

Vol. 160 No. 14

Planning and Development Bill, 1999: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 15, line 20, to delete "Development" and substitute "Sustainable Land Use".

We will try not to delay the House too long on this amendment which is, however, a substantial one. It relates to the Title which we feel is a little too narrow and treats the Bill as dealing only with development and things that need to be done as opposed to conserving and defining other uses for land. Basically, nothing needs to be done with wetlands, rivers, estuaries, etc. The Bill should not be seen in terms of development only. This amendment suggests the use of the term "Sustainable Land Use" instead of "Development" which is the principle the Minister is addressing in this Bill. We want a situation where land use can be sustained so the best possible use is made of our land resources and that they are not thought of in terms of development only.

I support this amendment because the term "sustainability" underpins the Bill. There is no reason "Sustainable Land Use" cannot be included in the Title. There is no argument against it and it will broaden the scope of the Bill, as intended.

There is a great number of amendments to this Bill and I hope we do not get into semantics on many of them. I do not see any reason for the amendment. The Preamble to the Bill mentions sustainable development. Surely the interpretation of planning includes the ethos of sustainability. However, development is also important and many people depend on planning structures which sensibly encourage and allow it. I hope we move on to amendments of substance rather than dealing in semantics.

We are not engaged in semantics. This is significant and important legislation. It is the role of this House, and particularly the Opposition, to examine it, discuss it in detail and put down constructive amendments. This Bill will become law and it is our responsibility to ensure it works as well as possible. It will be useless coming back in a few years and saying we should have done x, y and z. The Senator's comments are extraordinary. We are here to do a job, let us get on with it. This is an important amendment, not a semantic one. It is clear from the Bill that the issue of development is treated broadly. Development is not about bricks and mortar, it has much wider implications and greater objectives. Development affects communities, the environment and land and this should be reflected in the Title. We put down this amendment so the Title would more accurately reflect the objective and substance of the Bill. This amendment is constructive, not semantic, and I hope the Senator's comments do not mark the tone of this debate. We are here to be constructive and supportive of the Minister. This is fine legislation and our amendments are designed to improve it, not to be negative or semantic.

I hope we do not get off on the wrong foot today because legislation is often a matter of semantics. It is a requirement of the House to parse and analyse. If we do not do so, some of this material may wind up in court. It is important that the Title of the Bill clearly reflects the reality of the material contained within it. Also, it ought to give a signal that we are not just committed to the world of developers, which has caused some little difficulty for politicians in the not too distant past. We ought to be sensitive to and aware of it, although I will not make a meal of it. It is not useful at this stage, when we have shown goodwill, to start talking about semantics. We are not involved in semantics; these are amendments that have been seriously considered and which have been tabled with a reasonable intention.

It is not Wexford County Council.

Over 300 amendments have been tabled to the Bill, which, in itself, is a good indication of the interest of Members of the House in the legislation. The approach to the Bill has been generally positive and I have no reason to doubt that this will continue. While we would all have appreciated it if there could have been fewer amendments, it is everybody's right to table them. There are a number of good amendments which I will be able to accept as we go through the Bill, while others can be referred to Report Stage. I intend to be positive about the amendments. I hope Senators on both sides of the House will accept my usual approach to legislation, which is that I do not believe all wisdom resides in the Custom House or in my head. I am pleased to accept amendments which I think will add to the Bill.

Amendment No. 1 would change the Short Title of the Bill to Planning and Sustainable Land Use Act. Senator Henry's amendment, which was disallowed, sought to change the title of Part II Chapter I from "Development Plans" to "Sustainable Land Use". I do not propose to accept this amendment because my aim, and that of the departmental officials, in drafting this legislation has been to make it as straightforward and simple as possible. As Members will appreciate, that is not an easy task in a planning and development Bill. We have tried to employ words in their normally accepted usage wherever possible.

The Title of the Bill and the thrust of the legislation concerns planning. The term "sustainable development" is now being used for the first time and is woven into the Bill. It is a broad term which is not defined and we will debate that fact later on. The language we are using in the legislation makes it quite clear what the Bill is about. It concerns planning and proper and sustainable development. Sustainable land use must be taken into account in all those things. The broader term "sustainable development" covers what Senators have proposed in the amendment. In some ways, changing the wording to Sustainable Land Use Act would make the definition much narrower than it is, and I would not like to do that. I ask the Senators to withdraw the amendment because the Title and the Bill itself are wide enough to cover what is contained in the concept of sustainable land use that they are talking about. We must talk in the broader terms of sustainable development and we are at one on this. The Title should remain as it stands. The accepted Title of the legislation is the Planning and Development Bill and that is what is being discussed on Committee Stage. The Title is sufficient.

I will not press the amendment because we want to advance the discussion on the Bill. However, the points made were useful in the sense that they signal a change in ethos and emphasis. It was appropriate to refer to this matter and my view is still that the emphasis needs to be pushed in the direction of sustainable land use. However, I accept the Minister's comments that this is incorporated in the Bill and I will not delay the House by fighting over the Title.

The Minister referred to an amendment tabled by Senator Henry, who has asked me to move her amendments because she is unable to be present. The Minister said it was disallowed. Why?

The Cathaoirleach may be able to tell us exactly why it was disallowed.

Would it have been an expense?

It would change the title—

The Senator's amendment related to a heading of a chapter but it is not part of the Bill.

I understand.

The amendment is a heading to section 9. It is not part of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 16, subsection (1), line 11, after "balloon," to insert "inflatable structure,".

The amendments cover the same general material and would extend the definition which states –"‘advertisement' means any word, letter, model, balloon, kite, poster, notice, device or representation employed for the purpose of advertisement, announcement or direction;". The next provision deals further with this area. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that inflatable structures of any type are covered. There are other types of inflatable structures which may or may not technically qualify as balloons. These include teddy bears, shells and Coca-Cola cans and they cannot always be defined as balloons. However, they may be covered by the term "inflatable structures".

Amendment No. 3 states: "In page 16, line 17, after ‘advertisements' to insert ‘or any attachment to a building or structure used for advertising purposes'". The ingenuity of the advertising industry is remarkable and I have no doubt there are many ways of getting around the Bill's provisions. However, I applaud the Minister's aim which is to cover as much of this territory as possible because of the visual pollution which is often involved. One sees petrol stations with enormous tigers which overwhelm the station. It appears almost as if they are committing some type of unspeakable act on the petrol pumps.

It is the Celtic tiger.

The Minister's general provision includes balloons and he then specified certain categories. There is a general prohibition and certain particulars. The amendments would add to the particulars.

It is not a big issue but it is worth raising. Perhaps the term "dirigible" would be more suitable than "balloon" because it would cover a substantial number of inflatable objects.

I am not sure if it would be a legally acceptable description but, to ensure there is blanket coverage for what any local authority at any time might deem unacceptable, would it be possible to refer to any two dimensional or three dimensional structure? Could it be blanketed that way with some reference, particularly to three-dimensional? Words, letters, hoarding and boards cover quite a lot but is there room for or would it be technically correct to include reference to any three-dimensional structure? This is what we are trying to achieve.

The definition of "structure" in the Bill further on is very wide so it covers quite a lot. There are two distinct amendments here which we are discussing – amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Senator Henry's amendment No. 2 seeks to extend the definition of "advertisement" to include "inflatable structures" and, as Senator Norris has stated, there is a huge number of different types of balloon involved. This amendment would probably clarify it even further and I am happy enough to accept this clarification of the types of advertisement that we put, subject to planning permission. We will include it in the Bill.

I would be more than reluctant to take on amendment No. 3 precisely for the reason that Senator Norris himself outlined. It is actually covered at present in the previous Bill we passed and in the planning laws generally. I am afraid that, if we go into further definitions of it, we probably would give lawyers an opportunity to start arguing whether a thing was attached or if it was attached according to the meaning of the Act, or whatever else. I can assure the Senator the information I have is that the principle he is trying to cover is already clearly covered in the various Acts and it is not necessary. I am prepared to accept amendment No. 2 and ask the Senator to withdraw amendment No. 3 because it is already covered.

On the point made by Senator Coogan, I am accepting amendment No. 2 but we will look at some of the further definitions that have been suggested, such as the dirigible and the definition Senator Doyle proposed, before Report Stage to see whether it would make it clearer. In the meantime I will accept amendment No. 2.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Amendment No. 4 is in the name of Senator Coogan. Amendments Nos. 5 and 14 are related; amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 14 are to be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 16, line 25, after "plaster" to insert "or stucco".

It is really a very simple amendment. It is to ensure that the term "plaster" does in fact cover stucco. Stucco and plaster by some people's definition would be the same thing but in real terms stucco also involves paint, where there is paint work going into it as well. I simply wanted to ensure this would be protected.

I support this strongly, particularly in view of the remarkable reputation this country has for eighteenth century stucco work. Senator Coogan is quite right, if it is left just as "plaster" it can leave out things such as gesso and all the rest of it, which are important elements of stucco ornamentation.

Dublin's stucco work is internationally known and it could be taken that it is not covered by "plaster". Most people, the general public, would regard stucco work as simply another aspect of plaster. Senator Coogan may very well be right, that technically it might not be protected. I am sure the Minister would wish to protect this important element of our heritage.

My amendments Nos. 5 and 14 involve in page 16, line 25, after "plaster" inserting "or the removal or alteration of doors, windows and roofing materials such as slates, tiles, timber, metal or concrete". This is rather an important amendment because the character of a building can be completely altered by changes in fenestration. We have had a lot of problems with this in the city of Dublin where windows have been removed, have been altered and different and unsympathetic fenestration put in. The removal of doors is a classic example, where buildings can be left open to winds. Damage can be done by the inappropriate removal of slates or the removal of original slates which are of particular character and their replacement with something completely unsympathetic. It is important that we extend the protections to cover these other kinds of building materials.

Amendment No. 14 proposes simply to extend the definition to include slates, windows, doors or roofs. The Bill specifies "the removal of plaster, paint, wallpaper, tiles" and then refers to "other materials", which is a catch-all phrase. If one says that these other materials are contained in the phrase "or other materials" it leads one to ask why paint and wallpaper are specified. That specific inclusion would indicate that they are regarded as the most important and the other ones do not need to be specified. My experience, and I have worked a long time in conservation, would be to suggest that slates, windows, doors and roofs are important elements of a structure and in most cases a good deal more important than wallpaper, which will not keep a house standing. Doors, windows and tiles will be inclined to add more to the stability of the house, although I am not denigrating the necessity to keep, in certain circumstances, rare wallpapers. We have some very fine architects. One of my neighbours, John O'Connell, is an international expert on eighteenth and nineteenth century wallpapers and he has done some wonderful work in semi-derelict buildings in preserving wallpaper. I am not sneering at the inclusion of wallpaper. I simply say that these other items are absolutely fundamental. If we are going to specify wallpaper we ought to specify these other elements as well.

By way of explanation on these two amendments, I would ask the Minister to assure me, if he is in a position to do so, that the definition of "alteration" on line 25, page 16, which refers to "any plastering or painting", includes change of colour of paint. I support both amendments discussed already.

Having looked through the Bill – I will not say I have spent hours studying it, though I have checked with colleagues – I notice there is no specific reference to change of colour of paint. We all know of rural hamlets, little maritime areas or lovely old towns and cities of our heritage that have been blighted by a sudden change to luminous yellow from what was a lovely backdrop colour which heretofore meshed beautifully with its surroundings. Is control given, through this legislation, to the planning authorities in relation to what I would call the blight of some of the paintwork and artwork used on the exteriors of our built heritage and structures? If this is not tied down in the Bill I would ask the Minister to consider taking an amendment from me on Report Stage. I would be pleased if, under the definition section we are discussing now, it read ‘includes any plastering, or painting, including change of colour, or removal of plaster' etc. and then the addition of the amendments we have just discussed. I would like to see it specifically named unless the Minister can assure me that, somewhere else in the Bill, it has already been done.

I support the amendments and the comments that have been made so far. The inclusion of these additional references is extremely important in the context of the Bill.

I agree with the comments made, particularly in relation to stucco. While I am no expert on plaster work, there is much to be preserved. The architectural protection Act which was introduced earlier this year covered many aspects of our architectural heritage.

To illustrate that I do not always disagree with Senator Norris, some of his comments on colouring should be looked at. This relates in particular to external colouring, which Senator Avril Doyle also mentioned. We could go too far in that respect, however. If every small alteration required planning permission I would be concerned about the ability of the system to cope. I have seen new housing estates constructed on prominent landscapes where the colour used has been appalling, but planners tell me they have no control in that area.

That is correct.

We should try to ensure that provision is made in the Bill for planners to have an input. I understand that alterations to external paintwork may be covered by the terms of the Bill. The display of a consistent colour scheme throughout an estate should be protected against those who might break the pattern by using their own choice of colour, such as purple, although I have nothing against that colour. Within the ambit of the Bill we should safeguard against colours being chosen which are totally inconsistent with the general decor of an estate. To simplify the process the local authority could publish a list of colours which individuals would not require planning permission to use. If one went outside those colours, however, a planning application would be necessary. We must examine the practicalities as well as the effects of what we are doing.

They do it in the United Kingdom where there are many template schemes. We could look at that.

On amendment No. 4, I am sure that stucco is covered in our definition. Senator Coogan will remember that we had a long discussion about this previously and as a result of amendments that were tabled we included painting, wallpaper and plastering. It will not cause huge difficulties to make sure it is included. On that basis, even though I am quite satisfied from what I have been told that legally it is not an absolute necessity, we will insert it to make absolutely sure. I will accept the amendment.

Generally speaking – and I have done this myself when in Opposition – one goes through a Bill in great detail and one tends to pick up things in particular sections, but one can become confused with so many amendments being tabled. We must guard against becoming too prescriptive in legislation such as this. In effect, the more detailed we become the easier it is for people to find loopholes in the legislation, so we should maintain a balance.

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 5 for the reason adverted to by Senator Walsh. The effect of the amendment would be to extend the definition of alteration for all structures to include "the removal or alteration of doors, windows and roofing materials such as slates, tiles, timber, metal or concrete". One would have to apply for planning permission for all structures, no matter where they were, to do any of these works. That would totally submerge the entire planning system. It would not be an effective way of doing business and in most cases it is unnecessary.

I accept the case that has been made regarding protected structures and townscapes which are already included in the architectural protection Act, passed earlier this year, and which has been subsumed into this Bill. About six months ago we discussed this issue in the architectural protection legislation, which made provision for protected and proposed structures.

Any kind of painting refers to changing the colour scheme. In fact, painting the same colour is covered in the Bill, but this relates to protected buildings and structures. Amendment no. 5 would extend the same provision to every building and I do not think that is reasonable. For the sake of certainty I will accept amendment No. 4 but I cannot accept amendment No. 5 on the basis that it would impose a huge burden on local authorities. Amendment No. 14 is already covered by the architectural protection legislation which was passed by the House about six months ago, so it is unnecessary.

I have some concerns about the Minister's response. As he said, the architectural protection Act is being subsumed into this Bill. Does that only deal with what we generally refer to as the different categories of listed properties or does it extend, for example, to villages such as Kilmore Quay in County Wexford? I give that as an example because I know it so well. It is a beautiful old maritime village containing many thatched cottages with whitewashed walls and some new developments which have to mesh in with the older structures. The village has a unique maritime character but there has been the odd example of a house being painted luminous yellow or purple, as Senator Walsh said. Will the Minister assure me that the architectural protection legislation, as subsumed into the Planning and Development Bill, will give the local authority sufficient powers to prevent people from painting their houses yellow or red in villages such as Kilmore Quay, where there is not a blanket listing? Is there a way in which the planning authority can exercise control?

I do not want planning authorities to operate like a police state and I take the Minister's point that if we go too far people will be afraid to move without planning permission. That is not what we should do, but we should free the hands of the local authority to tackle blatant abuses of planning law. The Minister should examine the culture of building first and applying for planning permission only if one is caught, which is rife throughout the country.

We should refer to specific paint colours, bearing in mind there is a range of colours for which no permission will be required. If, however, someone steps totally out of sync with the surrounding environment there should be some control that local authorities can exercise, if they wish to.

If the Minister has not already done so he should examine the relevant UK legislation. In Britain, if someone paints their door a different colour, the authorities do not run up and down hammering on the door. In beautiful villages and towns in the UK they have done a wonderful job, although there was a little pain in terms of public acceptance. One recognises what has been achieved there when one drives through such places which have undergone outstanding development. Over the years, the best of the past has been conserved in Britain.

I want to ensure something is put in place without dictating what colour all houses have to be painted. Will the Minister give an assurance that a reference, including colour, can be made, if not in this section then at an appropriate part in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister will reassure me in regard to my concerns if he is not accepting amendment No. 5? The point is well made by the proposers of the amendment, Senators Norris, O'Meara and others that we are leaving ourselves slightly open in this area.

Is the Minister telling us that the Architectural Protection Act specifically includes the points made by this amendment for properties other than what we generally refer to as listed or heritage properties, that there are different categories of listing? The vernacular architecture is as important as what we refer to as our built heritage; it is part of our built heritage and should be protected in the same way. I am concerned about the character of the Irish countryside, towns, villages and seasides. The vernacular architecture impacts perhaps more in terms of the feel of our country than Georgian Dublin and various other places which are extremely important. I want to ensure that the Architectural Protection Act will cover this matter if the amendment, which I strongly support, is not accepted.

I will take an example of windows, which are important not only in terms of list one buildings but also because there is a proliferation of the awful PVC windows, which open out, replacing sash windows which open up and down, and doors. They can have a disastrous impact on the appearance of an entire streetscape and this should be included, not just in respect of list one buildings but also those which are not yet at least considered so important.

A former Member of this House, Alderman Carmencita Hederman, had a long and difficult campaign against these PVC windows which open out. They disastrously affect the appearance of buildings. I am not convinced yet by the Minister on this matter. I will not push him but will leave it so that we can raise it again on Report Stage. I will meet the people who briefed and advised me on this matter and return to the Minister with their views after this debate. I am not completely reassured yet. If we are prepared to include paint and wallpaper, which is a fairly invasive interest in somebody's property, and if local authorities are prepared to take an interest, surely to God they should be prepared to take an interest in doors, walls and slates.

I have some sympathy with what has been said in support of the amendment but I am concerned, being familiar with the increasing number of applications to planning authorities, that people who apply for permission for very minor alterations, many of which do not cause any difficulty to anyone and do not detract from the general appearance either of the house or the locality, have to go through this process. Is there not already scope for the planning authority within its development plan? In Wexford a booklet was produced, Building Sensitively in the Landscape, which received much criticism from the Members. I do not like referring to it because in other fora I have been highly critical of it.

Not least from the Senator.

I have conceded that.

For years the Senator bashed the local authority around the ears about it.

I have conceded that to the Senator. It laid heavy emphasis on natural materials such as plaster and slates. It went way overboard. It illustrated that when people got planning permission they made reference—

It is excellent.

I do not agree that it is excellent. The Senator mentioned Kilmore which, as a strong heritage location, although not designated as such, has an inherent and intrinsic value. Anything that would devalue such areas would detract from that heritage, to the detriment of the enjoyment of future generations. That almost became the doctrine for planning applications across the county in every area. I strongly disagreed at the time and still disagree. It showed there is a mechanism in the system to deal with the sentiments in the amendment without becoming overprescriptive whereby everybody would have to go through the loop, incurring costs and unnecessary difficulties in many cases. The planning authority may have the scope to control the worst excesses we are trying to guard against. Perhaps that line should be taken rather than channelling everything through a planning application.

Having said that, I agree fully with what Senator Avril Doyle has said on painting. If people lost the run of themselves and painted their cottages in Kilmore pink, green or red it would destroy the area. It would take only one person to do this to detract completely from the amenity value.

Is there anything in the Bill to prevent it?

I believe there is. Perhaps the Minister might allude to that in his comments.

I remind Members that we are talking about definitions. Section 55 of the Bill covers most of these points. In answer to Senator Doyle's questions, the local authorities under the Planning and Development Act, 1999, have power to designate conservation areas. The places to which she referred in the UK and Britain where the character of villages and towns is preserved are dealt with under similar legislation. Under our legislation, the local authority can have a listed building or a conservation area such as Kilmore Quay. Another good example would be Adare, County Limerick. There is power in the Bill for that to be done. Section 55 outlines the various rules and regulations of works affecting the character of protected structures or proposed protected structures and also in the Act which was previously passed.

The law protects against the activities we have talked about such as changing to PVC windows and doors and any kind of a material alteration without planning permission. The planning regulations being drafted under the 1999 Act provide that works to exterior structures which are usually exempt elsewhere will be included. They will not be exempt from planning regulations where they are inconsistent with the provisions of the architectural conservation area. It is up to the local authorities to declare the villages of Kilmore Quay, Adare, etc. as architectural conservation areas. That will protect the whole area and individual buildings will get the same treatment as individual buildings in other sections of the Bill. The regulations are being drawn up and will clearly cover, as does the Bill, changing the colour of paint to alter the exterior of a building. It also covers the issues mentioned about windows, doors and so on. We are merely dealing with a definition. The meat of the protections is contained further on in the Bill. The planning and development Act passed earlier this year is sub sumed into this Bill and the details are contained therein.

I am less and less satisfied as I read this. We are not saying that planning permission should be sought for any alteration. This would mean a huge proliferation in applications to local authorities. We are talking about anything that materially alters the external appearance of a structure and renders its appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures. We are talking about a fairly major intervention, not just any little change. If we decide that, because of the level of bureaucracy involved, we will permit work to be carried out, we are saying that we are prepared to tolerate alterations to windows, doors, roofs, tiles and so on even in circumstances where they would materially alter the appearance of a structure or render it inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures. This is very worrying. The Minister is shaking his head and perhaps he can reassure me.

I feel strongly about this issue, particularly in relation to windows. At the moment, I am doing a huge job on my house and windows are being restored. I have an extremely good architect and very decent fine builders, an old family firm. It was suggested putting in a small window which would open out in a small bathroom at the top of the house where it would not be noticed. I would not allow this. It was difficult to get the weight boxes in and was a lot more expensive but I know it would have ruined the appearance of the house. This could only be seen from my back garden or from Rutland Place, which at the moment is a pretty squalid lane. However, I felt so strongly that this would alter the character of the houses that I insisted on putting in the correct windows.

This is a matter which needs to be considered. I will not put this to a vote this morning but I will go back and consult the people who briefed me. I am not happy that the amendment is not being accepted. The principle of this amendment should be considered to see if it can be accepted. Neither am I happy that the issue is covered under section 55.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 16, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following definition:

"‘approval' means the grant of a detailed permission by a planning authority subsequent to the grant of an outline permission which enables an applicant with an outline permission to commence works to implement this approval permission; an approval permission can also be conditioned by a planning authority when granting per mission for a development which it considers acceptable in principle but for which it will require an approval permission due to the nature, scale or phasing of a development particularly if the life of the permission granted may be longer than 5 years;".

This is a definition of "approval". There are definitions of "advertisement structure", "advertisement", "alteration", "appeal", "attendant grounds", "the Birds Directive", "Board" and so on. We need to insert a definition of "approval" so that the whole machinery is clearly and adequately spelt out and we know what we are dealing with. It is important to include in the Bill a definition of what an "approval" is, the limits placed on it and the procedures by which an approval is sought, granted, continued, extended and conditioned, where conditions are attached by the planning authority to limit the scope of development or to ensure that certain guidelines are followed.

The reason a definition of "approval" is not included in the Bill is that we are getting rid of the concept of approval from the system. The Bill does away with the previous approval system in the context of planning permission. Section 35 provides for outline permission which is subject to further permission. Outline permission is defined as the agreement in principle to the development of land subject to a further planning application. This further planning application replaces the previous approval process which was, in effect, a de facto full planning permission. This has been removed because it simplifies and makes clearer the planning process. If a person receives outline planning permission, they can apply for full planning permission within three years.

The second element of the amendment is linked to section 40 and it would be probably better to discuss it in the context of that section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 16, line 31, after "townscape" to insert "or any open space between such structures or adjacent to such structures".

This amendment seeks to allow for the inclusion of open space, gardens, green spaces and so on, in addition to merely the structures.

The amendment would include the words "or any open space between such structures or adjacent to such structures" to the definition of the architectural conservation area. The definition of "architectural conservation area" already includes this concept of open space between or adjacent to structures. It refers to townscapes, which is the term we have used. The dictionary definition of a townscape is "a portion of the town which the eye can view all at once". This clearly includes buildings, open spaces and so on. Obviously it must include the open spaces between buildings.

Perhaps I have a fear of legal people looking for loopholes in the legislation. I would be wary of attempts to amend the legislation as this could lead to attempts to designate parks, gardens or whatever on their own, not in the context of being within an architecturally special area. During the debate on the 1999 Act, we changed the definition of "architectural conservation areas". It was accepted at the time that this was a welcome clarification. I believe the definition of "architectural conservation area" is very clear. It meets the Senator's concerns and in that context I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 18, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following definition:

"‘material contravention' is where an application if granted would be in breach of a specific policy, or a specific objective and a specific zoning in a development plan, local area plan, an area of special amenity or a landscape conservation area;".

This amendment is important. Again, it seeks to add a definition. We hear much about material contraventions but there is no definition. In practice the determination of what constitutes a material contravention is left to the manager. It may well be that a reasonable determination is made but it is inappropriate that there is not a definition. It should not be exclusively within the remit of the manager to decide what constitutes a material contravention. The amendment spells it out in simple, clear language and moves it from being a decision of one individual within a bureaucratic structure. This is an important amendment.

The Senator is correct in saying that we have not previously attempted a definition of "material contravention", although it is a long-standing concept in planning law and is generally well understood. There may be merit in defining it, but any definition would have to be carefully worded. It is something I would like to consider before Report Stage. While I have no difficulty with examining how it may be defined, I cannot accept the wording in the amendment.

The words "material contravention" do not appear in the Bill but the phrase "would materially contravene" is used. That concept is not confined to planning applications as the amendment suggests. For example, section 162 prevents local authorities from carrying out developments which materially contravene the development plan. The Senator has raised an important point but it is not met by his amendment. It is something I would like to consider and perhaps bring forward an amendment for Report Stage. I will examine the situation. If the Senator withdraws his amendment, he can always resubmit it on Report Stage.

That is a reasonable reaction from the Minister as it would be necessary to obtain proper legal opinion on this. There is a need for a clearcut legal definition so that councillors and managers can refer to the law to defend their position. The Minister's proposal to bring forward an alternative wording for Report Stage is acceptable to us.

I am happy with the Minister's flexible response. I am not hung up on the definition as I am not a legal expert, although I am extremely litigious. The Minister accepts the need for it to be examined. It is inappropriate and unfair on a manager to leave the matter to his discretion. A definition is important. Although the Minister said the words "material contravention" do not appear, the principle is contained in the phrase "would materially contravene". I will be happy if the Minister, with the assistance of his advisers, formulates a definition as it would solve our problem. I look forward to this amendment being produced by the Government on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 19, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following new paragraph:–

"(i) any prescribed body in relation to any appeal in an area zoned for amenity purposes or affecting any listed structures or architectural conservation areas.".

The amendment adds in these bodies to the list of people involved.

This is important in that it refers to the parties to an appeal or referral and defines who they are. This is consistent with an inclusive approach to planning, especially in local areas, and it ensures everyone is allowed to make a contribution and is part of the process. This is a significant amendment and I would like to hear the Minister's response.

I would like to add to what I said as my mind was still on the other amendment. This amendment is important as it gives bodies such as An Taisce and the wildlife trust a status rather than their just being an applicant. It is important for that reason that a discussion with these groups is included. I say this to make my intervention a little more forceful as my mind was still occupied with the previous amendment when I made my first contribution to this one.

No one would object greatly to the principle of this amendment. The thrust of the Bill is to involve as many people as possible in consultations. However, the amendment appears to require prescribed bodies to be parties to an appeal or that notice of appeals should be referred to them automatically where they concern areas zoned for amenity purposes or they affect listed structures or architectural conservation areas. This amendment would overwhelm the prescribed bodies. They are unlikely to want to participate in all such appeals and involving them automatically in this manner would mean a great deal of valuable administrative time would be taken up dealing with material. Perhaps Senators should consider the implications for prescribed bodies.

At present, they are notified of applications relevant to them and they can participate in the decision made at that stage if they wish. However, it is their choice; it is not compulsory. We are also conscious of and have retained their right to appeal a decision to the board, even if they are not notified as required. The prescribed bodies have important rights of participation but, on the basis of the amendment, I foresee them being needlessly deluged with paper. Perhaps the Senators should consider the amendment and withdraw it with the option of tabling it again on Report Stage. The amendment as it stands would not do the prescribed bodies any favours.

I will not push the matter at this stage, but the amendment came from one of principal prescribed bodies and was supported by the others. They do not seem to be as intimidated by the proposed blizzard of paperwork as the Minister suggested they might.

They might if they think about it.

I would give them that opportunity. Their intention is to keep the participation as broad as possible. As long as that is met, we will be happy. This amendment came from and was argued for by the prescribed bodies and they seem to have an interest in it. The Minister referred to notifications. Even those can be sometimes bothersome, but they are important. The small but significant preservation society in which I am involved receives notices of everything. We try to become involved in anything which alters the character of the area and we feel passionately about it. Obviously these bodies feel the same because it is at their request that I tabled this amendment.

Bearing in mind what the Minister said, which is pertinent, I would have difficulty with being selective about who these parties should be. Senator Norris referred to An Taisce which does a great deal of good work in this area. However, there are other bodies which would not be identifiable but which could have a more important connection to a particular planning application. I am thinking in particular of residents' associations where an application might be made which could impact materially on their local environment. While they could not be identified, they would obviously have a direct interest. I am not sure we would be doing the right thing in being selective in the legislation.

All bodies with an interest in planning issues are on local authority mailing lists and would receive a list of planning applications as they are submitted. Therefore, they would have a direct knowledge of the various applications made and would have the scope to pursue those in which they would have a particular interest. That mechanism is perhaps sufficient to meet the purposes of the amendment.

The amendment only refers to areas zoned for amenity purposes or affecting any listed structures or architectural conservation areas. In that context, we are only talking about a limited number of appeals. Senator Norris has made it clear what prescribed body we are talking about in the amendment. The amendment is important, particularly in the context of later provisions in the Bill. Section 36 proposes that only persons who have already made submissions to local authorities on relevant planning applications can lodge appeals. That is one of the more contentious elements of the Bill which will undoubtedly be opposed. This amendment seeks to ensure that specific prescribed bodies, and An Taisce in particular, would be notified of appeals. I put it to the Minister that since the amendment only refers to areas zoned for amenity purposes or affecting any listed structures, we are not seeking any great concession here.

In the context of inclusiveness rather than exclusivity and our continuing desire to ensure that information is disseminated in relation to planning, this is an amendment which the Minister could embrace. It would certainly strengthen the Bill and the role of An Taisce which, over the years, has done such good work throughout the country in regard to conservation and planning. It is often the case that it is the members of An Taisce in local communities who are up to speed on what is going on. They are the people who take it upon themselves to stay up to date on planning issues and who keep an eye on particular buildings in a locality in which ordinary members of the public might have a passing interest but would not have the expertise or ongoing experience to watch out for any potentially damaging planning applications. In that context, I would see An Taisce as a partner with local authorities in the entire development and conservation process. It would act as an outside observer, one which local authorities should be happy to have on board. This amendment would ensure that would happen.

The more I think about it, the more I think it would be absurd to exclude An Taisce. Its members are the people principally involved and concerned with planning issues. They have acted as watchdogs when other bodies, including councils, corporations and Government, betrayed the country's heritage. Now the Minister is telling us that they do not want to be involved when they have clearly indicated that they do. An Taisce does not feel it will be overwhelmed by this provision and, surely, the circumstances to which the amendment relate are those in which one would most want An Taisce to be involved. The expertise, knowledge, passion and commitment of its members would be very valuable. I certainly have not received any instruction from An Taisce to withdraw this amendment; indeed, it seems to be in favour of it. An Taisce has a track record in this area and I feel strongly that the amendment should be reconsidered.

We seem to be somewhat at cross purposes here. An Taisce is a prescribed body and we are not doing anything in this legislation to change its status. An Taisce has an entitlement to obtain any information on any planning applications or appeals which directly affect its duties. Its duties are widely defined as anything which affects the natural or built heritage; that covers practically everything.

I would not like Senators to be under the illusion that we are attempting to proscribe An Taisce's rights as a prescribed body. I take the opportunity of reiterating the very valuable role played by An Taisce and some of the other bodies referred to, some of which are prescribed and some of which are not, in the planning and development system and in the protection of our heritage and environment.

I was pleased to receive an invitation from An Taisce last Saturday week to address its conference in Dublin Castle at which it looked forward to the role it would play in the 21st century. The speech I delivered was a positive one in which I sought to encourage An Taisce to expand further. Those Senators who are familiar with An Taisce will be aware that in recent years, An Taisce's membership base has decreased and it is experiencing difficulty fulfilling its current role. I have encouraged the organisation to reorganise and redevelop. Like many other organisations throughout the country, An Taisce was formerly well spread throughout the country but a generation change is now required. A gap has developed in the organisation and that must be addressed.

I assure the Senators that An Taisce will not be restricted. Its functions will continue as they are. The amendment refers to areas zoned for amenity purposes. The phrase "amenity purposes" is extremely wide and could have huge effects on the organisation. Being party to an appeal under the planning system does not merely mean one is notified of the existence of an appeal, one actually receives all documentation involved in the appeal and is expected to be actively involved in the appeal. That is the concern I have for some of the organisations.

While we may be talking at cross purposes, we all want to preserve the participation of outside groups and bodies and, in particular, we want to protect the rights of the prescribed bodies as we have done in the Bill. Perhaps if people stand back from this, they may see a better way of achieving the amendment's objectives. As I said to the Senator earlier, if they want to talk to the people and the people want to talk to us then we could look at it again on Report Stage.

Have many of those groups, including the Heritage Council, An Taisce and An Bord Pleanála, the resources to carry out an indepth study of planning applications on appeal? Recently the Heritage Council lodged an objection to a planning application without visiting the site. This application will set a precedent for the county concerned. The council examined a planning application by looking at a map in its office. That is disgraceful. Recently, an engineer who visited a site made a recommendation and An Bord Pleanála made a different decision. It was completely at variance with what the engineer or inspector who visited the site had recommended. Other than holding up many planning applications throughout the country, can the Minister tell me if those groups have the resources or can be given the resources to carry out thorough and fast inspections?

In section 2(1), page 19, lines 8 to 9, it says, "‘party of an appeal or referral' means planning authority and any of the following persons, as appropriate". It does not mean they are automatically involved. That is already covered. In the light of remarks I passed in this Chamber on the subject of councillors and members of county councils, I have friends in this area of public life. A number of them have expressed the view to me that if these prescribed bodies were not specifically named, they would never be included because of the nature of county councils and they would not be involved in the process. It is no harm to push this amendment. I will not push it to a vote and I will take it back and consult people. I am glad the Minister has indicated some degree of flexibility. Perhaps we can come to some kind of an arrangement on this. It is quite an important point. If Members read the Bill they will see that it is not as black and white as they might think in the beginning because it says "any of the following persons, as appropriate".

Perhaps the Minister could explain who decides whether they are appropriate. Is that clear in the Bill? Do they make themselves appropriate by applying if they are a nominated prescribed body? Is it required that they be sent notification and they would then be put in? It is just a matter of my own ignorance. I would like to know.

It comes back to my earlier response in relation to the definition of the Bill. There needs to be a perspective and that is why I was anxious that it would be a Planning and Development Bill. Senator Burke has reminded me that there have been instances where some of these bodies have involved themselves in applications with a total disregard to the economic well being of an area, and large areas at that. We need sustainable development but it must take account of the needs of people. All these bodies have not acted responsibly all the time.

Neither have councils nor governments.

I did not interrupt the Senator.

No, but that does not mean I will not interrupt the Senator. I will when I feel like it.

But I will stop the Senator.

There are some prime examples of that; Senator Burke might have alluded to a case with which I am familiar. The purpose of legislation is to ensure that a proper approach is taken to this area. Within this Bill and what has operated to date, there is adequate provision, particularly for those bodies which have played a constructive role in the planning process – there have been significant aberrations with which I strongly disagreed – but in the main they played a constructive role. There is adequate scope within the regulations for these people to be consulted and actively involved, and they are. However, I would caution against setting up a system which is anti-development. That message should not go out. It is all very fine to talk in today's economic climate when we have significant growth and high employment, but it not long since we had high unemployment. People and parties represented in this Chamber, particularly in Leitrim, and I will not say that the company involved has covered itself in glory since, but the Minister of the day with other members of the Heritage Council far from excelled themselves in the manner in which they dealt with that and the signal it sent to overseas investors. I would be wary of putting anything in legislation which would promote that type of approach as it would be undesirable in the long term. We need to speak honestly about sustainable development.

I ask the Senator to be more specific. I have no idea what he is talking about. If he wants to put the case on the record he should do so.

I have been quite specific.

The Senator has not.

Acting Chairman

We are on Committee Stage and Senator Norris will have an adequate opportunity to rebut the argument.

I cannot if I do not know what it is.

I do not think anyone is unaware of the circumstances to which I referred.

I do not know what Senator Walsh is talking about.

With regard to the question raised by Senator Burke about various groups, the Heritage Council is a State body and, therefore, it is a matter for another Minister. I have not heard of difficulties in discharging its planning remit. The Heritage Council restricts its participation in the planning process to buildings of national importance. An Taisce has a wide remit – the protection of natural and built environments and dealing with any proposed work or development that might affect that. The Office of Public Works used to have that role. Dúchas probably has it now or perhaps it discharges it through the Heritage Council as well; it was a prescribed body. In response to Senator Norris's point about the term "as appropriate", that means as appropriate to the type of appeal or referral, not to the function of the body itself. Therefore, the term "as appropriate" does not work in that instance.

With regard to the conflict, we can all cite cases where a body, such as An Taisce, an environmental group, an NGO or a residents' group, has objected to planning and development of a work we all thought should have gone ahead and we can cite examples where we think some of them were unreasonable. Equally, we can all point to developments that have been allowed to go ahead by local authorities, even by An Bord Pleanála, which many of us felt should never have been given planning permission. Planning and development are strictly covered by law, regulation, etc., and there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved. It is very important that we have checks and balances in the system. This is inconvenient at times, particularly with regard to a development that we think would be worthwhile in our constituency but someone does not like it because it affects something they are concerned about.

It is very healthy that we have that divergence of views. Whoever is looking to alter the natural environment by development should have to justify fully what they are doing. All we are trying to do in this Bill is to continue that and to ensure people justify fully what they are doing. On the other hand, our response should be reasonable and those who want to object should have a reasonable chance to do so. Once that procedure has been gone through and whatever amendments are made, the development should go ahead in a reasonable period. That is the object of the Bill.

We will always find pluses and minuses, no matter who drafts such legislation. There are changes which can be made as we go through this process. What we are talking about in terms of this Bill is balance and sustainable development and if we keep those two elements in mind we will achieve something significant for the environment. Those are the main points which have been raised in relation to it. There will always be conflict when it comes to planning and specific developments. The Bill and the various provisions in it will help to minimise that conflict and ensure the protection of the environment as well.

I understand this amendment has been well discussed. Is Senator Norris pressing the amendment?

I did not quite hear the end of that. Does the Acting Chairman want me to move on?

Acting Chairman

I have been informed the amendment has been well discussed. Is the Senator pressing the amendment?

I will not press the amendment but I would like to make a comment. I will take this matter back to the people who briefed me. I am glad the Minister showed this reasonable side. I agree with him that it is a question of judgment. There are certain appeals I would not have made. I would not have appealed against the Hilton Hotel, for example. I would have concentrated my appeal on Carton, which would have been far more significant. That is a judgment we all make and sometimes these things are wrong. I will take it back to the people who sponsored the amendment. I welcome that the Minister said he is prepared to meet groups like An Taisce with a view to teasing this out a little further. If he is prepared to do that I am happy.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 20, line 18, after "part" to insert "thereof".

The Minister may or may not want to include it. They usually include "part thereof" and do not just leave part dangling. It is slightly indecent to leave parts tangling, even in legislative terms. I am not sure the Minister will be able to accept this.

Acting Chairman

Is the amendment withdrawn?

No, it has not. It has not even been commented on yet. My God, we are hoping the part will be withdrawn.

I said at the outset that I wanted to ensure the language in this legislation was as simple and straightforward as possible. I under stand Senator Norris's proposal but the amendment is not as innocuous one would think. It looks innocuous but it would change the definition in a very subtle and important way, of which the Senator would not approve. I am conscious when I argue about the English language, although I have a degree in it, of the Senator's eminence. We may be talking about legalese as much as proper English.

The amendment the Senator proposes may have the unintended effect of lessening the overall protection of architectural heritage, which we already agreed in the 1999 Act. It could be read to mean that it would be sufficient to preserve the character of part of a protected structure rather than the whole structure. For that reason, I am not prepared to accept the amendment. The legal advice I have is that it could be read that way. I know the Senator does not mean it to be read that way.

If the Minister has legal advice to that effect, I am happy to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 20, line 19, after "seashore" to insert ", land including public open space".

This extends the definition slightly to include "land including public open space" after "seashore".

The amendment does not add anything to the definition of a public place. The definition, as it stands, already includes any place to which the public has access as of right or by permission and that includes open spaces.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 21, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(c)for any purpose related to the extraction of resources especially for their commercial exploitation and particularly those related to the Minerals Development Acts, 1940 to 1979, as well as the Continental Shelf Act of 1968;".

Amendment No. 12 may be fairly important because it specifically extends coverage to mining. Mining can have a very significant impact on amenities, landscapes and so on. This amendment covers mining in all its aspects for any purpose related the extraction of resources especially for their commercial exploitation and particularly those related to the Minerals Development Acts, 1940 to 1979, as well as the Continental Shelf Act of 1968. It is important that this aspect of development is clearly and specifically dealt with in a manner spelled out in the Bill.

I appreciate what the Senator is seeking. The amendment seeks to extend the definition of substratum of land so as to include land required for the extraction of resources. This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of this definition. It is only used in the context of the local authority compulsory acquisition of land under Part XIV of the Bill. The definition is merely a technical one and is included as a result of the transfer of the Minister's powers in relation to CPOs, road schemes and so on to An Bord Pleanála. The Senator's amendment makes no sense in that context. The extraction of minerals and so on is dealt with in other legislation.

It is dealt with in other legislation but is not dealt with here.

It is not dealt with specifically here other than that mining, extraction or whatever requires planning permission. I am sorry if I caused confusion. Mining or mines are covered under planning.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 21, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following new definition:

"‘sustainable development' means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs which is the definition provided in the World Commission on Environment and Development as published in its report entitled Our Common Future in 1987. The Minister shall by regulations make specific definitions relative to sustainable development for specific sectors in a planning context e.g. transportation.

This is an attempt to flesh out the Bill by giving a definition. We already had some discussion about including "sustainable development" in the Title and have agreed it is one of the significant purposes and objectives of the Bill, therefore, it seems strange there is not a clear definition of what constitutes sustainable development. We really should have one. I am not particularly stuck on this definition but it seems reasonable because it comes from the World Commission on Environment and Development, a body of long standing on which Gro Harlem Bruntland, Willy Brandt and Ted Heath served, and presumably, they are in a position to give us a reasonable definition of what constitutes "sustainable development". If the World Commission on Environment and Development comes up with this we should bear it in mind. The inclusion of a definition is important. If the Minister has a difficulty with this definition and wants to come up with his own, I will be happy enough.

I am not wedded to the wording of the amendment we put forward but we are try ing to insert the principle of defining sustainable development in the Bill. This would be very welcome. The concept is a fundamental one and is a cornerstone of environmental policy. It is important that this Bill contains such a definition. Though this amendment is not perfect by any means, I hope the Minister will accept the principle behind it and return with a tighter and more focused amendment.

I appreciate what Senators are trying to do in inserting a definition of sustainable developments, though such a definition would exercise the mind for a considerable period. The definition cited here, the Bruntland definition, was developed in 1987 and is commonly accepted. It is the one we worked to and the Bill tries to incorporate it.

I assure Senators that there was a considerable amount of discussion about this and we listened to various opinions on the matter. We feel that the concept of sustainable development is a dynamic one and is likely to continue to change. Putting a definition in the Bill would either tend to stifle the dynamism of the concept or else it would be so vague as to cause endless problems for those in planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála in deciding planning permissions on the grounds of whether developments were sustainable or not. We felt regulations allowing the Minister redefine this for various sectors would be a way of kicking the problem to touch. It was decided to try to weave the concept of sustainable development throughout the Bill and I agreed with that decision. I have given examples of the ways in which we have tried to do this.

The development objectives to be contained in a development plan obviously reflect the environmental concerns of the modern age and that has been worked into the Bill. There is a provision for enhanced public participation in planning for their locality through local area plans, for instance. The environmental assessment of regional planning guidelines is specifically provided for and that is also the case for development and local area plans. There are new environmental measures within the Bill to protect landscapes. There are tree preservation orders and measures to facilitate the protection of public rights of way included also. There is also a section dealing with protection of our architectural heritage.

These measures are all woven into the Bill and they make the concept of sustainable development practical. I was persuaded by the arguments that this is the best way to incorporate the concept of sustainable development in the Bill. We carried out research throughout the world to see how other countries have incorporated sustainable development and if they have included definitions in their legislation. Finland is regarded as the country that pioneered the concept of sustainable development but it does not have a definition of sustainable development. The only country which has attempted a definition is Canada, although Senators can correct me if I am wrong. However, Canada included that definition in a sustainable development Bill rather than a planning and development Bill.

We are at one on the concept and ensuring that it is respected in the Bill, but we could defeat our purpose by including a rigid and strict definition. People may think I have a fixation with lawyers, but if a definition is included, one allows legal people the opportunity perhaps to create loopholes that were never intended. As this is such a dynamic concept it is not right to include a definition in the Bill and for that reason I ask Senators to withdraw the amendment.

Acting Chairman

Is the amendment withdrawn?

We are not going to foreclose discussion quite so rapidly. I know the Chair has been given instructions to push people like me on.

Acting Chairman

I only take instructions from myself.

The Minister gave a reasonable reply to the effect that the principle and idea are included in the text of the Bill. I understand the difficulty in encouraging the legal profession to earn ever more money and obviously the absence of a definition will not cause any legal problem. I am happy to withdraw the amendment for the time being. In discussions with the people who brought this amendment to me, they said they were aware of the fact that this was a developing concept, but that they felt it could develop in practice even if it was included as a definition in the Bill. I will not lose a huge amount of sleep over this and we want to go ahead.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

There has been a clerical error and a number of amendments I submitted are not on the list. I did not realise this until I came in at 10.30 a.m., when I saw the full list of amendments. With the indulgence of the Chair and the Minister, I wish to mention them now so that I can resubmit them on Report Stage.

Acting Chairman

The Senator may speak on the section.

I wanted to include pressure or mechanical cleaning in the term "works" on page 22, line 16 because this type of cleaning can damage structures irreparably. If the Minister accepts it I will not put down an amendment on Report Stage. It is a reasonable request. I ask for the indulgence of the Chair as this may happen a number of times due to missing amendments.

From a procedural point of view it would probably be better if Senator Coogan resubmitted this on Report Stage.

I must mention them now in order to resubmit on Report Stage.

I understand that, but I presume that now we have mentioned this it can go in on Report Stage. It would be helpful if the definition of "cleaning" contained the qualification "pressure or mechanical cleaning", as I would not favour cleaning being introduced into the Bill as "works". I understand the Senator has that definition.

Sandblasting can ruin a structure.

The Birds Directive is defined on page 16, the European Communities (Natural Habitat) Regulations are referred to on page 17, the Habitats Directive on page 18 etc. I raised this matter on today's Order of Business and I am glad to have the opportunity to put this question directly to the Minister, instead of the Leader of the House, who is also present, making representations to him. In view of the fact that these directives are incorporated in the Bill, is the Minister concerned that as regards the Habitats Directive, Ireland is the second worst member state in terms of its progress in the designation of sites and that inaction in relation to this directive could cause problems for Ireland in the next round of Structural Funds? There is a case before the European Court of Justice in relation to the Habitats Directive. What are the implications for this Bill of our inaction in transposing these directives into national law, either in part or completely?

The same case can be made for the Birds Directive. The Commission is considering similar moves as per the Habitats Directive but they are less advanced. How will that affect this Bill? We have also been slapped on the wrist for failing to transpose the Directive on the Pollution of Rural Drinking Water. We have been indicted by the Commission as regards the Dangerous Substances Directive, which is extremely important for proper planning and development, and our waste management plans. The European Court of Justice decided against Ireland as regards the environmental impact assessment. I could continue but in the spirit of the debate and as this applies to section 2, I will not. I would appreciate answers from the Minister and I hope he will outline his concern about our lack of progress in these areas. Perhaps he will explain whether the failure to transpose these directives, fully or in part, will cause problems for this Bill.

Acting Chairman

I do not know whether that is completely relevant, but the Senator has got away with it.

It is very relevant. They are mentioned in section 2.

Acting Chairman

The Senator referred to more than section 2.

The reference to these directives, most of which are the responsibility of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, means that once this Bill is enacted, if any areas are designated under them, the legislation will have an effect on them.

Is the Minister concerned about the lack of compliance with EU law?

The Senator should put her questions to the appropriate Minister.

Unauthorised developments take place in many local authority areas and they are very lax in enforcing the law. Is it their responsibility to do so? Local authorities do not have adequate staff to enforce the planning application regulations. Who enforces them? Local authorities should be more rigorous in their control of unauthorised developments. However, they do not have the resources to enforce them.

We are widening the discussion on the definitions in the section. I wrote to each local authority 12 to 15 months ago and asked them to review their planning departments. I assured them that whatever needs they had would be met by the Department and if they needed extra staff they would be provided. As a result we have increased the number of planning staff by 14 per cent throughout the country. I am not aware of the refusal of any reasonable local authority request for extra staff. I am not worried about the Department holding up the appointment of staff. There are difficulties in retaining staff in local authorities because of the economy. There is a more rapid turnover of staff than previously which is causing difficulty. However, this has nothing to do with the Department holding up the appointment of staff but is a problem of the local authorities being unable to fill vacancies, even though we have increased the number of positions.

The standard reaction to planning problems is the suggestion that more staff and money should be allocated. All of us are aware of practices in local authorities which could be changed in order to streamline the effectiveness of planning offices. Some local authorities are making these changes. One local authority is providing computers for the public to check their planning applications and they can access a fair amount of information. It is now working on providing three dimensional drawings of planning applications. This should cut down on a certain amount of the work. I will probably not be popular with Members of the Oireachtas and local authorities for saying a huge amount of the time of county council staff is taken up by public representatives raising queries and making representations. This system could also be streamlined. Most councils have area meetings, at which files for particular areas could be discussed. Representations could be noted on the file instead of clogging up the system. Organisational measures such as this might reduce the workload for staff.

We are aware this Bill will increase some of the pressure and Bord Pleanála and local authorities will need extra resources. We are discussing this with managers and planners to try to ensure that as soon as the Bill is enacted, the staff and systems will be in place. We are conscious of this and we have already begun to work on it. However, because of the booming economy, local authorities are having difficulty retaining staff. This problem will not be easily resolved.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 23, subsection (1), line 2, after "in" to insert ", over".

I am interested in the Minister's response to this amendment because when I discussed it with the sponsors recently, neither they nor I could work out what it meant. However, I have an idea now. Its purpose is to increase the cover to include anything over the ground. It is a question of where the word "over" is inserted and whether it is already covered in the substance of the original provision.

I am not sure whether it was the weight of conviction in the amendment or the fact that my officials were also confused, but I have decided to accept the amendment.

I thank the Minister. I am most grateful, and now I know what it means.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 23, subsection (2), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(c)the change of use of any land for any purpose other than agricultural use shall be considered a material change of use unless the proposed use is consistent with the zoning of such land in an existing development plan.".

I hope these amendments will be accepted also because they are substantial and important and, if necessary, we will press them. Amendment No. 16 is most important because it covers anything that is inconsistent and it would strengthen the protections envisaged in the legislation. It also excludes changes that may be necessary for the agricultural development of land. I will deal further with this matter in the context of the Minister's response and those of my able colleagues. I wish to put on record my appreciation for the work of Senator O'Meara in assisting with the amendments and her courtesy in coming to a composite proposal where the Labour Party allowed my name to stand first on the amendment. This may not be directly relevant to the Bill but such a good working relationship between individuals and parties is a valuable part of the parliamentary process.

I have a strong conviction on amendment No. 17 not due to any virtue or special intelligence on my part but because I was listening to the radio recently and I heard a former colleague of mine who is a little eccentric. Professor Hugh Sacker used to be the professor of German in Trinity College, Dublin, but he withdrew from that conventional life and lives close to nature in the Glen of Immal. I think it was on Pat Kenny's show that Professor Sacker complained bitterly that his life was being radically disturbed by the redevelopment of a sand quarry. This is precisely the type of subject which will be covered by the amendment.

Professor Sacker accepted that the sand quarry had existed for many years, but it was an ancient facility where sand was drawn out with an ass and cart by local builders who used it to build sheds, etc. However, with the building explosion, it was an unrealised asset in the possession of a farmer and it was sold. A new, big commercial developer became involved but there was a grey area and the council refused to go after him because it was not sure about the position in law and whether it could pursue him. It did not want to waste money because its legal advice was that it was a muddy, grey area.

The area around Professor Sacker's house is becoming a muddy, grey area also. There is constant noise, disruption of the landscape, a fair amount of shaking and very large vehicles moving in and out. There is also the noise of Caterpillar trucks which make an odd beeping sound when they reverse. There is huge disruption from an existing site because of intensification of use. This is one example.

Another example is pig farming. Anybody who has driven around the country will notice the strong odours associated with intensive pig farm ing. This relates to the increased use of land because in the past, a farmer might have kept one or two pigs, a sow and a couple of bonhams, which would be used for home curing. Although people might say they are only developing an existing operation, the impact on the landscape and on neighbours of intensive methods of farming may be extremely troubling. There is a town in the west which has problems in this regard but I cannot remember its name. I heard people from there—

Ballyhaunis.

I am sorry, I have not been to Ballyhaunis for many years but the people there have had a disastrous problem with a similar type of operation. I think it is a meat rendering factory which started off innocuously. However, the problem has become increasingly bad to the point that businesses are being affected. This is my case for the amendments.

I am grateful to the Minister for showing flexibility but I regret that I revealed my hand and displayed my ignorance. However, that is my innate honesty. On the previous amendment I said that originally neither I nor the person who suggested the amendment understood it. However, we teased it out and I wanted to find out if the Minister understood it. It has only dawned on me that perhaps he did not understand it at all and he just decided to accept it as a way around it. That is a light-hearted point but Senator O'Meara and I consider that amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are most important and we hope they will be accepted.

I think Senator Norris was making a veiled threat that there may be a reaction if the amendments are not accepted.

I concur with his views. The Senator mentioned a colleague of his who decided to go back to nature. Something similar happened in my area involving an old quarry from where a small amount of stone used to be removed by light machinery. However, there are now many machines and the noise has increased to extraordinary levels. In addition, there is a huge amount of dust. Where there is an extension of use to such a degree, an application should be made to the local authority. This case was taken to court by Galway County Council. They lost the case because the present law allowed them to go back and then develop this. The intensity of the increase has been extraordinary. Not only did it happen in that case but less than a quarter of a mile away they did exactly the same thing, impinging directly on a residents' area, where blasting is now carried out. Blasting was not being carried out 30 years ago to the degree it is now. I support this amendment, about which I feel very strongly.

I can understand the reasoning behind perhaps the second of these amendments rather more than the first. The two amendments would specify that the definition of development includes, firstly, any change of use or land for a purpose other than agriculture unless it is consistent with the zoning of the area. The second specifies any intensification of use leading to a greater impact due to increased noise, smells or whatever. The Senators are absolutely right that these are so fundamental that they would amount to a complete and total change of the planning code that we have had since 1963, particularly the first one, because since 1963 the planning code has only been concerned with material changes of use, that is, material in planning terms. Changing from material changes to any changes is a huge step.

To give a practical example, it is not material to one's neighbours or the authorities if one begins teleworking two days a week from home, for domestic reasons or perhaps to be with one's children more often. It is regarded as material if a doctor sets up a clinic in his house, or adjacent to his house, because that involves increased pedestrian and motor traffic, parking etc. That is obviously material. If I were to accept the change suggested in this amendment, I would have to make a long list of exemptions from the regulations so that people could go about their ordinary business without having unnecessary planning controls imposed on them.

The alternative would be that the development plans would have to be drawn up in such detail as to cover all of the possibilities which could be considered with the proper planning and development of the area. I foresee a situation where local authorities would see this as being so onerous that they would just put everything as being permitted under every particular zoning in this matrix used by them to determine which development is permitted and which is not under various headings. This would defeat the whole purpose of planning and development control.

Amendment No. 16 involves a very fundamental change. I understand what the Senators are trying to do but I do not think it is possible. One cannot remove material changes or the consideration of changes in development and planning if the term "material changes" is taken out.

Amendment No. 17 concerns intensification of use, which because of a whole range of court decisions and judgments is now accepted as a material change for the purposes of the Planning and Development Act in certain circumstances. Probably the reason this amendment has been put forward is that the case law and the judgments are very wide and varied in many circumstances and quite complicated. There are relevant court cases and court decisions in both Ireland and England. Intensification means more use, that is the development is more productive or more clients can be seen or whatever. There is more activity generally. While I accept the examples that have been given, which are particularly good examples relating to quarrying and so on, it is not often that this greater use is so detrimental to proper planning and development of an area that additional planning permission should be required. It is not often but I have to admit that it does actually happen and has happened, particularly in quarrying. Senators should remember that in those kinds of circumstances the planning authority already has power to step in to enforce legislation or to force a person to apply for planning permission because a more intensive use is contemplated. If we need a vote on amendment No. 16, we will have to have one because I am not going to change that.

Amendment No. 17 concerns intensification and in spite of the fact that court judgments on this exist, this could be examined for Report Stage. The Senator might be inclined to withdraw it on that basis. I have concerns about quarrying because there is quite a lot of it in my own constituency and I heard the examples that he and Senator Coogan have outlined. I feel that there probably is a need to remove, if possible, this exemption based on pre-1963 working of quarries. I have heard examples of how difficult it is to prove that a quarry has not been worked continuously since 1963. I am aware of that difficulty and I would certainly be inclined to examine bringing in some amendment to tackle this, particularly in that area, if I cannot do it generally. Case law on intensification exists that might be of assistance, but if it could be clarified it would be useful to do so in this Bill. On that basis I am not accepting amendment No. 16 but I would certainly be prepared to consider amendment No. 17 again and listen to suggestions which Members might have on intensification for Report Stage.

The Minister is clearly accepting that there is an issue around intensification, particularly concerning quarries. He says it does not happen that often but he has instanced a number of examples in his own constituency and other Members have referred to cases in their areas. It clearly is a problem arising countrywide and one which needs a legislative response. It would be unreasonable of us not to take note of what the Minister has said, which is that he will examine this, even though the case law is, as he says, wide and complex, and the judicial response is clearly quite wide. It is our duty in that context to come up with a legislative framework and it would be unreasonable not to take note of the Minister's proposal and wait for what he comes back with on Report Stage. His proposal is made in good faith.

The very fact that so many court decisions have varied on this matter indicates that it is necessary in some way to tie it down and make it more clear cut. I gave examples and I did not intend to be parochial about them. Let me give one further example. Beside this main quarry another person decided he was going to start quarrying. He claimed that it had been in use and nobody could deny it because there was no way of proving that it had not been. That is the difficulty. He took the machinery out and put it on farmland beside someone else's house. This went to court the other day and the case was lost.

The difficulty is that part of the machinery that goes in could be declared as agricultural machinery for levelling purposes or large dozers etc. I know that the value of the individual's house beside him went down. They lost the case and the corporation which had taken the case lost it as well. This is the difficulty with this section. We have to make it clearcut. I accept the Minister will review the position prior to Report Stage and I do not wish to push it but it is an area we have to look at very stringently.

The Minister is being reasonable. We will not waste the time of the House at this point on a vote as it is a long process and we want to get on. The Minister has given fairly clear undertakings about amendment No. 17 and it is remarkable that a majority of people in the House have had some experience of this. I have spoken to some Members who have not contributed. There is a wide experience here of which I was not aware. I thought I was being clever and lucky that I had come across this example but the Minister knows of it, Senator Coogan knows of it and other people have had experience of this. Although the Minister says there is case law, he is open and honest in acknowledging that its application is patchy. I know from the case to which I referred that the local authority were unwilling to go to the law because they were aware of the patchy record and they did not want to waste public funds.

An amendment in this area would be necessary though there is no point in wasting time having a vote. We accept the Minister's undertaking that he will look at it to see if it is possible to produce an amendment and if not we will re-submit. The commitment is there.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.

Amendment No. 18. Senator Fintan Coogan's name should be added to this amendment and the word ‘such' in this amendment should also appear before the word ‘development'. Amendments Nos. 19 to 21, inclusive, are related and may be discussed with amendment No. 18.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 23, subsection (1), line 24, after "Act" to insert "so long as such development does not impinge on a protected structure, any structure or area protected under the National Monuments Acts, a European site, or a National Heritage Area".

This is a section that deals with exemptions from the process and it is logical that, if we are committed to the protection of archaeological and architectural sites, areas of amenity and so on, these should continue to be protected, except in the most exceptional circumstances. For this reason amendment No. 18 seeks to insert a clause, "so long as development does not impinge on a protected structure, any structure or area protected under the National Monuments Acts, a European site, or a National Heritage Area." That does seem to be logical. It could hardly be one of the purposes of the Planning and Development Bill to assist in the destruction or negative alteration of any of these mentioned areas, sites or buildings. Can I speak about the related amendments at the same time?

Amendment No. 19 seeks to delete paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) because they exempt local authorities from the provisions of the Act. That has been shown over a long historical period to be a bad move. It is not good practice to allow local authorities to derogate from their own plans. What is the point in their having plans if they exempt themselves automatically from such developments?

Amendment No. 20 seeks after "road" to insert ", provided any new road is one that is contained as an objective in the relative development plan." I must look through my notes while I listen to what the Minister has to say.

The amendment I tabled, one of those now disappeared, differed only in the use of the term "such development" rather than "development". It is not a large issue but it ties it down somewhat more. Regarding the amendment itself, Senator Norris has clearly outlined that the intention is to protect the structures. If it is, they are already listed in the Monuments Act, the European sites and the natural heritage areas and as such should be included. It is not a difficulty. These are the people who are making the judgments about the structures, that they are worth protecting, and it should be mentioned.

Regarding amendment Nos. 19, 20 and 21and the Senator's objection to the local council having to be exempt, the present situation is that local authorities must apply in the same way as anybody else and are open to objections. They are quite well covered in that. If the local authorities are excluded and asked to go through the entire process, it will have the effect of slowing down all procedures in local authorities where it might be necessary to move at a faster pace. In general, while there are some exceptions to the rule and I know some areas where local authorities have caused some destruction, today it is not so. They are aware of structures that have to be protected and they often make great advances in maintaining those structures, in maintaining the curtilage around them, in building roads into them. Amendment Nos. 19, 20 and 21 should stay. I have no difficulty with amendment No. 20, as regards inserting "provided any new road is one that is contained as an objective in the relevant development plan." I would see no great objection to that but local authorities cannot be constrained to such a degree as proposed in amendment No. 19. I would push amendment No. 18.

While there is considerable merit in amendment No. 18, the effect of including it in the Bill would be to exclude always the possibility of any development which would not just destroy a protected structure but would impinge upon it. We are into an area the Minister mentioned this morning, that of subjectivity, and what one person's protected structure may not be another's, although I accept the Senator's statement that there are independent lists of these matters.

The fact that it would impinge upon it is not sufficient grounds for this amendment. You could not include in law an exclusion that, in all cases, it would be impossible to proceed because there are cases where there has to be a 'trade-off'. That is not a word I particularly wish to use but it gets at what I mean.

A county council would not be able to derogate, as has been suggested, from its county development plan. It does not arise. As to the exemption of the council from seeking planning permission, it strikes me as sensible because if the council were to apply to itself for permission, logic dictates that it would grant permission to itself. The way around that is the existing method of public consultation. Provided there is an adequate public consultation process, which takes into account the concerns of people, that is adequate. That has applied under the existing legislation in the case of an arts centre being built in Newbridge, where the Part X process was used. The observations that were made during that process were taken into account in modifications to the design of the building which is now being erected. As long as there is adequate public consultation, the need for a local authority to apply to itself does not arise. Though I can imagine circumstances where there would be tensions between the planning department and the county council and the engineering department and the management of the county council. It is implausible that the council would not grant itself permission for something it was seeking to build.

I fear Senator Dardis has a mind reading ability because many of the points he made are exactly the same as I was going to make. I have a problem with the word "impinge".

It is common education.

Yes, congratulations. It may well be that the Minister has a different solution from that proposed by Senator Norris. What the Senator is proposing is worthy of consideration, other than that the word "impinge" is rather vague.

I agree with the point made by Senator Dardis on amendment No. 19. If a council, an urban district council or a corporation decide that this is what they want they will grant themselves permission. What happens with appeals to the Planning Appeals Board? If they do not require permission then it is not possible to make an appeal to the appeals board. If they are required to have permission then they would grant it, but at least it announces the intention to grant permission which gives an opportunity to appeal. Perhaps the Minister could put my mind at rest on the appeal structure.

Senator Quinn is also a mind reader because that was precisely the point I was going to make in a supplementary. It is obvious there is logic in what Senator Dardis said but at the same time this exemption appears to cut out the appeals process.

There is something in the air.

Must be.

The theory of the council adjudicating is perhaps appealing in regard to amendments Nos. 19 to 21. To the best of my knowledge, in practice the operation of Part X has been satisfactory. That is certainly the case in my local authority and others with which I am familiar. We should recognise that it is a reserve function of the councillors. The councillors in the area are sensitive to what needs to be done and are susceptible to pressures from those opposed to developments.

I would have a concern if we went the other route. It is significant that the councillors' input is to some extent diluted if one goes through the planning process, which is an executive function rather than a reserve function. At a time when houses must be constructed as speedily as possible to meet the increasing demand, most objections to local authority housing can be motivated by people opposed to social integration and so on. It would open it up. I am fairly convinced it would not be better than the current system. The Part X operation in practice is working reasonably well and amending it along the lines suggested would not improve the process.

The amendments are intended to remove the exempted status of a number of developments. Amendment No. 18 qualifies exemptions to state they would not apply where a development would affect a protected structure, a national monument, a European site or an NHA. Members will note there is no specific mention of NHAs in the legislation as it stands. Because NHAs have not yet the force of law, we cannot provide for them as much as we would like in this Bill. There is a provision at a later stage of the Bill for including NHAs to the list of areas that need protection. The amendment is designed to protect the environment, particularly sensitive areas and so on. As it stands, it is unnecessary and unworkable. The planning system is not the only one used to protect the environment, natural or built. One example is the Habitats Directive where regulations control exempted developments such as agricultural land use in European sites in a manner which the planning control system cannot do.

National monuments legislation has comprehensive protection, development measures and structures and is deemed to be exempted under section 55 of the Bill. What Senators are trying to achieve in amendment No. 18 exists already and inserting it in the Bill would only add confusion. There is specific legislation to cover the protection of habitats, national monuments and so on.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 would abolish the exemption for local authority development, effectively requiring them to obtain planning permissions from themselves, which does not make sense. In regard to Senators' concerns on the development plan being varied or broken by the local authorities, section 162 of the Bill makes it clear that a local authority cannot contravene its own development plan. That would meet some of the difficulties intended to be met by the amendments. Except for very small-scale works where local authorities carry out development, they must either undergo the public notification procedure set out in section 163 of the Bill which is subject to the democratic control of the elected members or undertake an environmental impact assessment which is subject to the approval of An Bord Pleanála under section 159. Those protections are built in and replace the existing provisions which come under planning regulations only but will become primary legislation here.

The amendments provide that the exemption for development carried out in partnership with the local authority would only apply where planning permission was already sought. However, such development must undergo the procedures set out in either section 159 or section 163. This would mean they would have to go through two sets of procedures under the Bill and makes a nonsense of it. Amendment No. 21 would make it more difficult for a local authority in conjunction with, say, PPP to get permission to undertake a development.

To return to the Part X procedure, politicians often complain about the public perception, their lack of power and so on. They very often talk in terms of power being taken from them whereby they have no say in anything. The argument here is a classic case of politicians arguing to take a democratic responsibility away from themselves, admittedly from members of a local authority who are elected locally. The more this happens the lower politicians will be held in public esteem. I have more complaints from members of the public – they can be very fickle in their approach – that councillors have no say; managers and others have all the say. Up to the time Part X was introduced councillors, when approached about various developments, could shrug their shoulders and say, "Sorry, we cannot do anything about it as it is a manager/executive function. We have no say in it at all."

There is an in-built appeal system in the Part X procedure whereby appeals can be made to councillors as the decision is being made as part of the consultation. They can then make an input and influence the decision of the manager. The decisions might not be perfect because none of us is perfect, democracy is not perfect, but it is the best system available. We should bear this in mind when talking about taking away powers. The Part X procedure is democratic because public consultation is built in and it allows for the democratic input of the local councillors.

I have spoken to managers, various officials and a number of councillors throughout the country and they have indicated that Part X is causing serious problems in relation to housing. People now know that under that section local authorities must consult and members must give their approval before developments can take place. People who are comfortable in their three and four bedroomed houses with nice gardens and so on are using this section to object to houses being built for those whom local authorities have an obligation to house. These people are putting intense pressure on local public representatives. This is the down side of going too far in a particular direction.

We have achieved a balance. People have a right to express their views because in the past decisions were probably made which should not have been made where neither the councillors nor the public was listened to. It is a question of balance. In relation to the various amendments, I assure Members that these areas are protected under legislation. Sections 159 and 163 meet the requirements and principles laid down in amendments 19 and 20. In relation to amendment No. 21, no development should have to go through a double procedure and that is effectively what is being proposed. On that basis, I ask Senators to withdraw the amendments.

When the Minister says that this must go through a double procedure, does he mean that in the partnership the partner who is not the public authority would have to apply for planning permission? I was asked to table this amendment so that local authorities might not be tempted to use their exemption to cover their partners in a development.

The effect of the amendment would be that they would have to go through the two procedures.

The Part X procedure?

Yes, it would have to go through the procedure under section 159 or 163 of the Bill and a full planning permission. I accept that this is probably not the Senator's intention but that would be the effect of the amendment as it stands.

Perhaps the Minister can reassure me. The concern of those briefing me was that in the case of a joint development an exemption covering a local authority might be used by the local authority to say that their partners would not have to make an application. There is the possibility of something sinister happening. I have been promoting recently the Mitsui Corporation being brought in to help develop the Luas, particularly to put it under ground. While I am in favour of this but I believe the planning process should be followed. Perhaps local authorities might be exempted but it could be extended to cover commercial bodies to protect them from having to obtain planning permission.

I understand the Senator's concern. If a local authority decides it wants a particular development, something with a commercial flavour perhaps, they could go through the procedure under sections 159 or 163. In some cases a local authority might decide it had not the commercial know how to proceed any further and it could decide to advertise for a partner which would carry out the development work. That is conceivable. The Senator is concerned that this might be used in an underhand way, as it were. In an era of public-private partnerships, we must put in place legislation that will allow local authorities to undertake these partnerships. To an extent, this is a matter of trust. I do not foresee local authorities abusing this in the sense of deciding willy-nilly to build shopping centres etc., and making applications under sections 159 and 163 in case partner companies would not get permission.

That is exactly what I mean.

That would be an abuse of the privilege. If there was evidence of that happening there are provisions in the Bill whereby the Minister or others could intervene. In the context we are talking about and the era we are moving into, we must make provision for public-private partnerships to loosen up the system so that we can provide for local authorities operating by themselves or in partnership with the private sector. This section is designed to help that development.

Regarding amendment 19, I accept the Minister's indication that these areas are covered in other legislation. Senator Norris mentioned the possibility of a joint partnership in relation to the Luas. I was thinking about the establishment of thermal treatment factories. This will cause great controversy throughout the country and local authority members will face an outcry against these plants. The "not on my doorstep" factor will be one aspect but there will also be genuine fears about emissions etc. It was in that context that I am concerned that if we do not have full consultation or an intensive procedure this might occur. I will be pleased if the Minister tells me I am wrong in this belief.

That is exactly what I was thinking when the Minister mentioned public-private partnerships. I attended a meeting in my constituency on Monday night when public-private partnerships were being discussed in relation to waste management and huge issues arising in this context. As a member of both an urban council and county council, I take on board what the Minister has said that he is not in the business of tying the hands of local authorities or to place more onerous requirements on them for developments which are not applied to private developers. On the other hand, it is extremely important that the set of obligations on local authorities is as open, transparent and accountable as possible.

One hears regularly, especially regarding sensitive developments such as an extension to an existing landfill site or the development of a car park, that there is no need for the local authority to apply for planning permission. If it was anyone else, they would have to go through the hoops. I accept that we are not in the business of tying the hands of the local authority. However, as the body charged with implementing planning decisions and especially as the body charged with acting against illegal developments, it is important that the planning authority is seen to be acting within the same set of rules that applies to everyone else. If the local authority acts against someone whom it says is engaged in an illegal development and at the same time develops a car park but is not subject to the same rules, what confidence can the public have? While not wishing to tie anyone's hands, the standards that apply must be very high and open and transparent.

I am aware of a situation in my constituency where the Part X procedure broke down. What appeared to be at first a positive development for the area has turned into a nasty row and the reputation of the local authority is now in shreds. The Part X procedure has clearly not worked and a dreadful problem has arisen from it. We can talk about consultation but it does not always work. One of the reasons for that is that it is seen not to be as powerful or to have the same standing as the planning rules which apply to everyone else. We must be very careful to achieve the right balance in this area. The Minister has put his finger on what will be a huge issue in future – public-private partnerships where local authorities are partners. We must explore that carefully in the context of the legislation because time is upon us and it behoves us to do it properly.

The point has been well made and I agree with Senator Coogan. I would hate to think a thermal treatment plant would be developed under the Part X procedure, even though I have every confidence in my colleagues on Wexford County Council to make the right decision. We may have to do that soon. It is important that anything of a quasi-commercial nature should be subject to the same rigours of the planning process as if it were undertaken by a private concern. It is a point of principle that it should have to go through that type of procedure. Perhaps there is something the Minister can do to take that issue on board.

Public-private partnerships will become the norm in future. Perhaps there is a need to define them and perhaps on Report Stage the quantum of local authority involvement could be defined. Where the local authority has a 95 per cent stake, it is primarily a local authority venture, but where it only has a 5 per cent stake, that is a different issue. It must be seriously examined because it should be open to the public in issues of significant concern and impact that they would have recourse to the planning appeals process which is a valuable part of the planning procedures available to them. I would support anything the Minister can do to accommodate what has been said.

The appeal process is the nub of the issue. As the debate progresses, interesting details emerge. We have been told about the consultation process. However, according to CIE, there was massive consultation about Luas but this turned out to be defective. Consultation is a buzz word that is thrown around to obscure what is often a lack of democracy in local authorities and that is precisely why I am dissatisfied with it.

I thank Senator Walsh for his honesty and the clarity of mind with which he addressed this issue. When Senator Coogan raised another interesting example of thermal treatment plants, Senator Walsh immediately replied that the same rigour must be expected of local authorities. That tells me that the same rigour is not required under the legislation. I thank Senator Walsh for highlighting that useful point. We are not applying the same rigorous standards to local authorities as we are to private developments.

I wish to record my experience in North Great George's Street. It may have been what is called the "bad old days" but it is similar to an example of the Minister's, although varying in one aspect. The local authority compulsorily acquired, allowed to go derelict and demolished a set of houses at the bottom of North Great George's Street in the days when no one gave a damn about such houses. In fact, it was almost regarded as a national objective to demolish them because they had some vague association with an occupying colonial power. The authority intended installing local authority housing and a number of us did not like that plan. However, it was not because it was local authority housing. I made it abundantly clear at the time that I would welcome local authority housing but that it had to be in architectural sympathy with the remaining fabric of the street. That did not protect me from being attacked by some rabble rousing members of Dublin Corporation who said I was part of the gin and tonic, liberal middle class – the usual rubbish.

But all completely true.

No, I never drink gin. Whiskey, yes; gin, no. I will leave that to the Senator

I am sure it was malt.

It was certainly Irish. The local authority intended installing a grossly unsympathetic development which was out of scale and lacked any reference. If it were to be tested against everything that was said this morning, it would be found to be lacking. However, the authority was exempted from applying for planning permission. There was no question of appeal. Local people and consultation bodies knew what was wrong but they had no recourse except to councillors, many of whom, for their own political reasons, were unsympathetic.

It seems a dictatorial power that local authorities can demolish buildings, erect whatever they like, blackguard anyone who objects to it and they are not required to apply for planning permission. I accept there is a slight Alice in Wonderland situation in the authority applying to itself for planning permission. However, as Senator Dardis pointed out, the planning section sometimes has a principled objection to what either management or the elected representatives want to do and it has that objection because it comprises professionally qualified planners. We are excluding them from this and that is wrong.

Unlike Senator Norris, I do not have the benefit of having attended Trinity and my phraseology, therefore, is perhaps somewhat defective.

The Senator is not too old. He could go in as a mature student.

The Senator is very fortunate.

He does not even have to have his leaving certificate.

However, I have one advantage in that I have been a local authority member for some time and have experienced the operation of the Part X procedure. It has certainly worked well in our local authority area and in others. When the Senator refers to it as being dictatorial, I do not see how that is compatible with the democratic exercise which takes place in the council chamber where members independently come to a conclusion and then vote on a decision. To me, that is the essence of democracy and far from dictatorial. The procedure has worked well.

The point I tried to make was that, in issues which can and do impact environmentally on local people, it is important that the appeals process is available to them. That is the message I was trying to convey. I remind Senator Norris that there is a significant divergence of impact from various planning applications and I would only argue this particular point in relation to those which could have a serious impact. At council level, members approach these matters in a conscientious manner and are accessible to the public at all times. Members of the public are not shy about making their views known on issues about which they feel strongly. There is a vibrancy in the system which Senator Norris's comments undervalue.

I support Senator Walsh's point. There is a very important issue here which relates to checks and balances within the system. The fact that a person may not like a particular course of action does not constitute a sufficient reason for not proceeding with that course of action. We must ensure, through the legislation, that the system is fair and open, that the proper procedures are followed and that, even if a person does not like what is taking place, the correct decision will be made at the end of day. There is a tendency for people to veto issues left, right and centre merely because, in their personal views, something is undesirable. The merit of the local authority system is that the elected representatives represent the views of the communities from which they come. The good of the community should prevail rather than the narrow views of a particular group or individual.

I thank Senators for their contributions on this important matter. The subject of thermal treatment plants was raised. Those plants are subject to EU directives which require that an environmental impact assessment be produced whether the plants are built by a private company or by a local authority. Private companies will obviously be subject to planning procedures and local authorities which build thermal treatment plants will be subject to section 159 of the Bill which requires that an EIA be produced. The environmental impact assessment can be appealed to An Bord Pleanála.

On Committee Stage of the Bill, we will include a provision in section 159 parallel to that which is included in section 163(1)(c) which states: "This section shall also apply to proposed development which is carried out within the functional area of a local authority which is a planning authority, on behalf of, or in partnership with the local authority, pursuant to a contract with the local authority.". I realise this will be a very sensitive topic in the future and although the provision is not absolutely necessary, I will include it in deference to Senators' concerns that the position in the Bill should be very clear.

We have strengthened the procedures in the Bill to ensure that the planning reports under Part X will be of the same standard as those required for a planning application. Those reports must be submitted to local councillors; it will not merely be a matter of somebody in the council drawing up a report stating that a particular housing development is absolutely necessary. It must be treated in the same way as a third party planning application made outside of the local authority. That strengthens Part X and brings it into line with current planning applications.

There is a danger that in trying to protect people's rights to object, have their views listened to and engage in consultation, we could suddenly decide that the right to object overrides every other right. It could be seen to override people's right to have a house, the right of the travelling community to a halting site or that of a local community to a landfill facility. We must ensure a balance in these matters. These facilities must be provided. Nobody wants certain developments next door to them and I do not blame people for having legitimate objections. However, certain facilities must be provided for the greater good and benefit of the community. There are certain people who believe that because a decision does not go the way they want it to, the entire procedure is flawed. I do not concur with that, nor do I think would any Member of this House.

The Minister has gone some way towards reassuring me and I have learned from the discussion. I still have some hesitations. I can point to a number of instances in the past in which the sound advice of planners has been politically or managerially overruled. I accept it is not always possible to create a perfect situation and that it is necessary to balance vexatious objections.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment Nos. 19 to 21, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 24, subsection 1(h), line 5, after "structure" to insert ", provided this structure is not a listed structure or situated within an architectural conservation area,".

I assume the Minister will make a similar argument on this amendment and, in the interests of progression, I will not comment on the amendment.

This amendment seeks to provide that internal or external works to a protected structure or structures within architectural conservation areas are not exempted. Section 55 of the Bill provides that, notwithstanding paragraph (h), works to a protected structure or a proposed protected structure are not exempt if they materially affect the character of the structure. The amendment is, therefore, unnecessary in this case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 24, subsection (1)(i), line 11, to delete "construction".

This amendment relates to the construction of roads in forests and seeks the deletion of the word "construction". Even though such routes may not be frequently used or seen by the public, they may have the effect of seriously scarring the countryside. In addition, there is a possibility that Coillte may soon be privatised and we will have to deal with private companies. If the Minister does not accept this amendment, we will be licensing commercial companies to construct this type of development wherever they wish across the landscape without having to make a planning application. That is wrong. While I accept the body of this paragraph, the construction of new roads is something the Minister should look at.

I concur with Senator Norris on this issue. I thought he was removing the word "construction" from his amendment. I am glad to notice from what he has said that he intends to remove everything from the word "construction" to the end of that section. Is that correct?

No, but I am happy to accept that.

Senator Norris is removing the exemption.

I intend to revisit this on Report Stage. My proposal was to remove every word from the word "woodlands" backwards in section 4(1)(i). This would ensure that any application for new roads or expanding existing roads would have to go through the planning procedure. This is critical. After deforestation there could be a roadway that would be ideal for a housing development. It is not too much to ask that applicants go through a process for these projects, such as construction, improving and developing new roads or ancillary works.

I support the amendment tabled by Senator Norris and the proposal made by Senator Coogan. It is right that planning permission should be sought for roads that are built within afforestations. As Senator Coogan said earlier, when Coillte Teoranta or whoever is responsible is up and gone we could be left with a road which is not suitable for anything and is an eyesore. There is every reason to believe that planning permission should be sought for the construction of roads within afforestations.

I would point out to the Minister that Coillte, through its afforestations and the removal of timber from afforestations throughout the country, is doing unbelievable damage to the county roads network. More penalties should be imposed on the weights that are being carried by lorries, particularly timber because they are doing excessive damage to the county roads network. Perhaps constraints on the removal of timber from afforestations could be built into this amendment.

I think one of my amendments later on will cover that.

I support this amendment.

It is important to distinguish between two different situations. One is where woods are being made and the other is where felling is taking place. There is no exemption on the planting. I support the idea that it will be subject to planning regulations. In the past there has been too much indiscriminate planting without reference to the environment or other aspects. In other words, the construction of roads at that stage is subject to planning. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong in that assumption. It would seem sensible that where felling is to take place there must be a provision to get timber out. I accept there can be undesirable visual and other side effects to that. I am sympathetic to this amendment but it is important that we do not confuse the two things.

Perhaps the Minister can help me with two aspects that were raised on Second Stage. First, some Senators seem to believe that felling could be done on an indiscriminate basis. I believe sections 141 and 188 mean that this is not the case and that felling is controlled. I also noticed that broadleaves are excluded under this section. The second aspect has to do with the lower limit below which permission would not be required. I assume that can be done by regulation. Perhaps the Minister would indicate what he thinks the lower limit should be and if he considers the present limits to be desirable or in need of amendment.

We need to remember that this section removes the blanket exemption for afforestation under the 1963 Act. Afforestation is not covered under the planning and development Acts. No matter what size the afforestation is, it is exempted. In this section we are bringing it within the planning and development Acts. Again, we are back to the subject of balance. We are moving from a situation that people probably did not expect to change into one that is changing, and significant changes as well. Senator Dardis spoke about the difficulty relating to existing forests that have grown, and have been growing for some years, and the new forest that might be created. The exemption we refer to in this section relates to existing forests only. In order to practice good husbandry these forests must be thinned and replanted and as a consequence forest roads have to be constructed.

I accept the point made by Senator Burke about county roads but it is separate from this exemption in the Bill. I have had some discussions with colleagues and Coillte in relation to county roads being affected. Some county roads are badly affected. If we do not allow roads to be exempted in existing forests, they would have to apply for planning permission to build roads. At this stage that would be pro forma. Having allowed the forest to be created I am sure we would be in all sorts of constitutional difficulties if we prevented people from felling and thinning trees as part of that work in existing forests. It is also important to remember that if roads could not be properly constructed within the forest area county roads would be used instead. This is what happened in various places for a variety of reasons but largely because some people wanted to maximise their profits. Timber would be brought in smaller lots onto the nearest county road and that road would then be used as a conduit for all the timber traffic in an area. This would cause even greater difficulties.

This exemption is for existing forests. The amendment would remove that exemption for the construction of forest roads in existing forests. Forest roads are essential for the day-to-day operation of forests, management and logging and requiring planning permission for those roads would severely restrict the proper management of forests. In response to Senator Dardis, there will be regulations which will deal with thresholds but under these new regulations an applicant will have to get planning permission for roads and future developments but it is not practical here.

In response to the question on what levels we might introduce planning permission, I have an open mind. I have indicated to the various groups that I will speak to them again and that there will be consultations between them and officials before those regulations are introduced. My colleague, the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, is also anxious to ensure that we do not do anything that will make it uneconomic for people to provide for us, which is an important national aim. At this stage it would be premature to say exactly what the regulations are. It will be dealt with by regulations. It would not be a good day's work to accept the amendment. It would be bad for forestry, and I do not intend to accept it.

Am I correct in assuming that where it says "felling and replanting" both activities would have to be undertaken in order to qualify for exemption? In other words, if a decision was made to fell without replanting planning permission would be required. The reason I raise this matter, and I did so on Second Stage, is that I remember the Barrow Valley-St. Mullins where there was much felling of trees a number of years ago. The place was totally changed. It is a most beautiful spot and there was much adverse comment. It was replanted subsequently and, in time, it will return to its former state. I would hate to think the felling of that area and areas around the country like it, which are quality environmental and amenity locations, would be exempt without an onus to replant. I seek clarification that both conditions would have to be satisfied and that if somebody was going to fell only it would be subject to a planning application.

I find it a little contradictory that in the future one will have to apply for permission for roadways whereas in the past one did not have to do so. What difference will it make in time? Anybody planting or who has planted forestry has a plan. They know what they are going to thin and what they are going to reseed. They know exactly what they are going to do in the future so there is no reason that they should not put in their application for the new roads, developments or constructions at this stage. If they do not have such husbandry in place, they should not be running forestry or anything else for that matter so I find that difficult to understand.

I have no difficulty with the maintenance of existing roads but I have a problem defining what we talk about as a road in forest. If one makes a track to get some thinnings out does that become a road? What do we define as a road? I have difficulty in providing that future operators will have to make an application whereas existing operators do not have to make such an application, although there is no reason they should not because they have plenty of time. They know exactly what their plans are for the future and what areas will be grown at a particular time. There is no difficulty in putting in an application at that stage.

I have gone over the area of the new plantation and the old one. I would say to Senator Coogan that technology has changed dramatically in forestry. If one takes a plantation made 25 years ago, it might have been considered at the time desirable to put it in a very large block, as a single unit. That would have been in anticipation that felling would be done by hand and that the timber would be carried out by hand but, increasingly, what is happening, particularly in Scandinavia, is that machinery is dealing with the felling and the carrying, so the technology changes and that introduces new conditions. It is reasonable, in the circumstances, that it should be possible to construct in an existing forest.

I thank the Minister for his reply in regard to the regulations. He is taking a very sensible approach. From my perspective – I do not think he would disagree with this – a distinction needs to be drawn between farm and commercial forestry. The argument is when does one become the other and what is the benchmark. I will leave it up to the Minister's good judgment to decide what the benchmark should be. That distinction should be made. We are trying to encourage farm forestry at European Union level and nationally, which is important. I do not know the size of the block should be, perhaps 150 acres, 200 acres or less, but I am prepared to accept the good judgment of the Minister and his advisers in coming up with the figure.

This is not an unreasonable amendment if one considers that a person building a house must show clearly the access to a county road or, if they are lucky enough, to a national route. In the interests of planning the local authority should have some say in where timber is extracted from a forest. That is not an unreasonable. It could involve access on to a national primary or national secondary route and there may be a county road which could be used instead. Where timber is brought out onto a county road there may be a better or worse place for the access.

This amendment is not unreasonable in seeking that a local authority should have some say in where those extracting the timber from forests build a road. We cannot do anything about roads which have been built but from the implementation of this Bill it would not be an unreasonable request. Will the Minister accept this amendment or table one on Report Stage? We have seen the work of some of those extracting timber from forests and it leaves much to be desired. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment because, as I said, there may be better locations and the local authority may impose a condition in respect of an area which would be more suitable than that from which the timber is being extracted.

I am not altogether convinced by the argument which as come up from the other side, although it is always very interesting to hear from people like Senator Dardis who have knowledge in this area. I mean one learns a certain amount. On the other hand—

I would have thought somebody from Trinity would have known all that already.

We do not have to have this incessant inferiority complex. The poor dear, we will club together and buy him a tie. That will surely make him feel better.

We are not suggesting that operators should never be allowed to get in to extract the timber – we are only suggesting that it be done in a proper manner. We heard earlier about how responsible councillors and councils are and how they are the best people to make these decisions. Now we are prepared to hand it over in a certain situation where, for example, Coillte is privatised and commercial firms come in and we think they have better planning advice and are in a better position to make these decisions.

What about a traffic hazard, for example? If it is easier for a commercial company to produce an exit on to a road which may be more hazardous from a traffic point of view but commercially more practical, which does the Minister think they will do if they are exempt from planning permission? Nobody will stop them extracting their timber but we require only that they construct these roads in a reasonable manner.

What if, for example, there was a proposal to build one of these roads right beside a private house – within inches of it – which would certainly cause nuisance and noise, possibly late at night? One might be plonked right beside a school. I say this not just because of Coillte but because Coillte may be privatised fairly soon. We will have a situation where these people are exempt from planning. I do not think that is a good idea at all.

We are living in the real world. We are not suggesting that they will never be allowed to extract or build roads. We are saying that there should be a responsibility to the public where these roads are constructed. We accept that in terms of thinning, felling and the maintenance of existing roads there can be an exemption. However, we are saying that when a new road is being constructed there is a requirement that it should be done in a responsible manner, especially where there is a possibility of the enterprise becoming totally commercial. Given human nature, one cannot guarantee that a decision which is more commercial than one tilted towards a level of social desirability will not be made. So we are insisting on this amendment.

If the wording of this paragraph remains as drafted we are in danger of creating an anomaly whereby existing afforestation is exempt from the rule while new forestry developments are not. We have already referred to our concerns about intensification of particular developments. The Minister referred to his concerns about the ruling pertaining to quarries operating since before 1963 and there is a similarity here to some extent in the sense that owners of existing forestry, being exempt from these rules, have the opportunity of intensifying and constructing roads. Other Senators have referred to what might happen in that case. One can only take the example of a person who may now be living near a forest. A road may appear near that person's home which suits the forestry company but there is no possibility of that person doing anything about it as the construction of the road is exempt under the Act. We are in danger of creating quite a problem for the future. We have already discussed intensification and I ask the Minister to take our views on board. He might come back to the matter on Report Stage if he does not accept our amendment.

It is important to stress that the purpose of the Bill is to bring in a new regulatory planning authority for the first time in the history of the State. There are various layers to the Minister's overall grand plan which are identified in the Bill, but that is for the future. Regarding new developments, the Bill does not set out to deregulate anything already in existence and rightly so – that would not be reasonable, fair or balanced.

My understanding of this amendment is it proposes telling people that there are new rules which are going to be applied to those whose developments are 30 years old just as they will be applied to all future developments. That is not in the interests of fairness or balance and the Minister has given a fair and reasonable response to Senators.

There are no forests in Senator Fitzgerald's constituency.

What is exempt is the construction of roads within existing forestry. That distinction has to be clearly identified. If we say we are going to retrospectively hit every afforestation development that is there, which the State has permitted—

That is not what we are saying.

New roads.

What is being sought here is that the construction of a road for the purpose of felling, thinning or otherwise of existing afforest ation should now be subject to the full rigours of planning—

The road has to be used.

—and I commend the Minister for deciding that he will be introducing regulations for the future so that afforestation will have to be subjected to the full rigours of the planning process. It would be unreasonable and unfair if we were to delete the word "construction" in relation to roadways through existing afforestation.

New roads.

It is important to state once again what we are doing. To reply to Senator Burke, for the first time we are bringing forestry under the control of the planning and development Acts. Let us keep that in perspective. That is number one. If the owner of a forest needs access to a county road or anything else, that access will be subject to planning permission. Permission must be granted for access to a county road or a national primary or regional route and that situation will remain the same. If one is putting an extra exit onto a county road or a public road of any kind, then the current procedure will still apply.

We are talking here about internal forest roads. If that needs to be clarified a little further we will see if it can be done on Report Stage, but we are talking about internal forest roads. Also, those Senators who are familiar with the guidelines on forestry will be aware that there are comprehensive rules regarding forestry which take into account matters such as nearness to houses and so on. Good environmental practice must be subscribed to by those involved in this industry, be they in the private or public sectors. Acceptance and adherence to such practice is a condition of grant receipt in the private sector, as I understand it, so it is not a question of willy-nilly planting of trees wherever one wants. I concede that regulation of this area was less than satisfactory in the past. Senators should keep this matter in perspective. Someone listening to this debate would be forgiven for thinking that roads were going to be built willy-nilly all over forests. I do not think that will happen as there are costs involved.

I have said this already but I reiterate that for all new developments, planning will apply once the regulations are in place above the threshold we decide. However, to put the other side and offer the balance I mentioned earlier, we are talking here about people with existing forests which were planted 30 years ago or earlier. This provision means they must apply for planning permission for internal roads so that the forests can be thinned and felled. I am mindful of what I have said about the grant regulations and guidelines, but it is not unreasonable to say that this will put the person who owns the forest, the local authority and perhaps, at a later stage, An Bord Pleanála, through a procedure whereby a person will have to apply for planning permission for a road through an existing forest. One cannot do that. The reality is that while one may be able to change some of the details, one cannot refuse planning permission. The person who owns the forest has a constitutional right to earn a living and the forest is his or her living. We will ask people to go through this procedure. I am not saying it will clog up the system but they will go through a procedure which is, in essence, pro forma. The end result of this procedure is known before the application is submitted. Permission will have to be granted, perhaps with slight variations. I ask Members to remember that we are trying to maintain a balance.

We will look at this again to see if there is any way we can clarify it or include a measure which will meet Members' concerns. However, I will be honest and open and say I cannot remove this exemption, whatever about clarifying it. It would be ridiculous to put people through the procedure of applying for planning permission for existing forests when we know they will get it. Perhaps someone in their wisdom, apart from myself and my planning officials, will, in the next few weeks come up with a different provision to this. However, the exemption is necessary, being mindful of the difficulties which could be created on the other side.

I do not want to be tedious as this discussion has certainly been helpful to me. The Minister has satisfied one of my principal difficulties by indicating – which I had not fully recalled – that planning permission will be required for access on to a county road. That is important and removes one of the examples I gave. I am glad of that clarification. However, the word "retrospective" has crept into this debate somewhere; I am not quite sure how. One cannot build a road retrospectively, to be honest about it. Even in an old forest, it will be a new road. Let us not say one has to apply retrospectively for planning permission. One will have to apply for planning permission for a development. Whether it is an old forest or a new forest, it is a development. It is not a question of looking at it retrospectively and saying "we will put roads here so we have to look backwards for planning permission". That is not the case. If the principle being instituted in this Bill is that planning permission must be applied for in a new forest, I do not see why it should not also apply to existing forests – it does not seem to me to be an enormous quantum leap.

There is another area which could do with further illumination and one of my colleagues, I think it was Senator Coogan or Senator Burke, brought this to the surface – precisely what constitutes a road? Any of us who has walked in a forest knows there is a difference between paths, boreens and tracks which would be suitable for a machine but which the average person would not regard as a road. This may be a very silly question. Is there any thought given to the point at which this kind of work becomes the construction of a road? I would have thought that to gain access for the thinning of trees, particularly using sophisticated machinery, one could probably get away with what the public would not regard as a road. A road is a fairly substantial development, which is obvious in the minds of the people who helped supply me with the information to put down this amendment. When they briefed me they spoke of the serious scarring of the landscape. One cannot do that with a track or a boreen but one will do it if one builds a fairly substantial road.

The Minister has clarified a number of matters, as have the gentlepersons on the Government bench. I am not 100 per cent happy because if we are going to make this requirement – I was almost going to say down the road – down the boreen, the track, or the winding path of a road—

The Senator cannot see the wood for the trees.

Exactly. I do not see why, if we are going to impose this requirement on new forests, the same criteria should not apply to existing ones, particularly because it is quite likely Coillte will be sold off. Commercial enterprises will buy into old forests where they can get away with ten times the amount of nuisance than if they developed a new forest.

We are on Committee Stage and I would prefer if we did not have Second Stage speeches. I do not want to stifle the debate but perhaps Senators could confine their contributions to comments.

We know we are on Committee Stage and we obviously feel strongly about this amendment as we have gone over it again and again. The Minister said it will incur costs for those who already have forests and it will incur costs for those who will develop the forests. What is the difference between the two? Senator Norris asked about the definition of a road. I am aware of the machinery which is used in forests, very high vehicles which can drive over all types of terrain. My concept of a road is one that is hard surfaced. My amendment requires the removal of certain sections because of the works that are ancillary to the development. I do not know what works are ancillary to the development of a road but I am sure somebody with a little imagination could build this and that if he so wished under this definition. The word scarring is an excellent description. I deal near forests and I know the effect this has on scenery – to be honest, I detest conifer trees – but then, to add insult to injury, there are roads which take the shortest distance between two points and nobody is concerned about the topography or how it will appear from the main road and they will do what they want on a commercial basis. It is hard to blame them for doing that. However, I have difficulty with the combination of the roads and the ancillary works.

It could be a bungalow in the middle of the pines.

It could be a house for a woodsman or woodswoman. Given the many intended puns, this idea has taken root with this side of the House.

I am baffled by the Minister's reply. I come from a county that probably has more afforestation than any other and I have yet to see the construction of a road for the extraction of timber from forests.

Of course not.

We are introducing that in this Bill.

This section outlines the "exempted developments for the purposes of this Act". The Minister will exempt from the planning regulations the construction, maintenance and improvement of roads. This makes it plain that no planning permission will be required.

Internally.

This section does not state that. It refers to the construction, maintenance and improvement of roads and – I want to add to what Senator Coogan said – ancillary works. Those extracting timber could develop a quarry to construct a road. Are we saying this would not require planning permission? The Minister must accept this basic but genuine amendment. The construction of roads, especially from the main artery of a county road through afforestation, should be subject to planning permission.

Could we have some proportion in relation to this? This is proposing nothing more than that the status quo should operate. Even in the wonderful county of Mayo, I have not seen any roads going willy-nilly through plantations. There is a clear fell above Newport in County Mayo with which I am very familiar. There is an excellent road from Newport all the way through the forestry plantation to Bellacorick. I have not seen roads criss-crossing that plantation or failing to follow contours.

I was not suggesting that.

The profits from privatised forests are such that people will not want to put highways through their plantations. I can understand that the State might have the wherewithal to do so, but I do not understand the suggestion that there will be roadways here, there and every where across the landscape. The existing roadways that were built by Coillte are hugely beneficial for tourism because they give access to areas that otherwise would not be visited. The effect of the amendment would be that the forest would be dead and lying on the ground when permission for the road came through, after an appeal to An Bord Pleanála. Even some of the fellows of the holy and undivided college of Trinity would have passed on to their great reward at that stage.

Please get the title right.

The Senator is being provocative.

I agree with Senator Dardis that we have to keep a sense of proportion. If a word or phrase is deleted from a subsection it can make a difference. I had visions of cities being built on mountainsides in Mayo, Roscommon and Galway.

Senator Burke would be in favour of that. He would like it.

I will not take construction, maintenance and repairs of roads outside it. If I can clarify that, perhaps by inserting the word "internally" of "serving internally", I will examine it for Report Stage. The difference between old and new forest that Senator Coogan asked me about is simply that people planted forests at a particular time when a particular set of circumstances prevailed. If we applied the new procedures now we would be changing the goalposts in mid-game. Therefore, we are not talking about retrospective roads, but about legislation having a retrospective effect and we are trying to avoid that in so far as we possibly can.

Senator Norris raised the point about seriously scarring the landscape, but we should be careful about hyperbole. Anybody who knows this business – and I would not claim to be as expert as Senators Dardis, O'Brien or Burke – is aware that the margins are tight enough. Nobody will construct highways or runways through forests at this stage; they will go for the minimum. A more serious scarring of the landscape would occur if we made it so difficult for people that they would just send these machines willy-nilly all over the place, even with no roads, thus causing even greater damage to the environment. That is the other side of the argument.

This aspect has received a good and fair airing. If it requires clarification that this is internal – and I accept that may be the case – I will try to do so on Report Stage. Any new roads that are constructed opening onto county roads already require planning permission. If they do not get it I suggest that councillors and Senators from the relevant areas should raise the matter. That is as far as we can go on this question. I will try to clarify whether the matter is internal and I would ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment.

Acting Chairman

Is the amendment being pressed?

It is. While I am grateful for the Minister's contribution, I feel a vote coming on. There is an appetite for a vote on this side of the House. In the event of this appetite maturing, I hope the Minister will still consider putting this form of words in with the word "internal". I acknowledge that the Bill is a development on previous legislation. I recognise that planning permission was not previously required and that the Minister is making that advance in the Bill, but we feel that something further should be done. I do not accept all the arguments, however eloquently phrased by Senator Dardis, as for example, in his little essay about gandering along and having a lovely view. If the aesthetics of the view were the only requirement, some damned peculiar planning permissions would be granted in this country.

If the Senator did not spend all his time in North Great George's Street, he would know about these things.

Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand."

Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Chambers, Frank.Cox, Margaret.Cregan, John.Dardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.

Gibbons, Jim.Glynn, Camillus.Keogh, Helen.Kiely, Rory.Lanigan, Mick.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.Ormonde, Ann.Walsh, Jim.

Níl

Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Coghlan, Paul.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Costello, Joe.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Hayes, Tom.Jackman, Mary.

McDonagh, Jarlath.Manning, Maurice.Norris, David.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Meara, Kathleen.O'Toole, Joe.Quinn, Feargal.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan.

Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Keogh; Níl, Senators Jackman and Burke.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 24, subsection (1)(l), line 24, after "land" to insert "(including rivers, lakes and estuarine waters)".

This is because land is not always taken to include rivers, lakes and estuarine waters and I am quite sure the Minister wishes to protect these areas as well. It is again simply extending the definition slightly.

I am informed that the amendment is unnecessary because, as the Senator says, the definition of land always includes land under water. If a lake, for example, has been opened to the public it may not be enclosed in accordance with this particular provision and that is aside from any other public right of way that might exist already. It is not necessary.

I am glad of the Minister's clarification. I am quite sure that he must have received advice on this and he must be quite correct. However, I received contrary advice on the basis that it was a slightly vague area, that whereas some streams and tributaries and so on were covered, riverine waters, estuaries and lakes were not covered. The Minister has given an undertaking and I presume he will be vindicated in the future if there is a problem about this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I would like to come back to one of the amendments because I wish to table it on Report Stage. I intend to come back to section 4(1) (k) on casual trading. I must mention it on this Stage or I will not be allowed to to mention it again on Report Stage. One of my amendments was missing.

Amendments Nos. 25 and 322 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 25:
In page 24, subsection (2)(f2>a), line 28, to delete "The Minister" and substitute "Where he or she is of the opinion that, by reason of its size, nature or limited effect on its surroundings, it would not be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development, the Minister".

I have been advised by the Attorney General's office that where the Minister is granted power to make regulations, it is necessary to outline in the section the principles and policies to be considered in making those regulations. This is as a consequence of a recent Supreme Court decision on the delegation of powers by the Oireachtas. These amendments, therefore, set out the basis, first, on which the Minister may exempt development and, second, on the types of local authority-owned development which the Minister may designate by regulation as subject to the notification procedures.

When making regulations under these amendments the Minister will be obliged to consider the type of development, that is the size, nature and effect on its surroundings. The Minister will also be bound by the principle that any exempted development must not be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. However, because the things people do change every day, the wording cannot list the type of developments that may be exempted. It can only set out the general principles and policies to be considered in making those regulations.

I smiled when I had to table this amendment myself because it was one of the areas that I championed when I was in opposition, that is, Ministers assuming power to make fairly substantial regulations under legislation. Deputy Dukes has championed the same matter since he took over my role as opposition spokesperson, so we are making some progress. Somebody in the Supreme Court is listening to us.

As my colleague, Deputy Alan Dukes, is in favour of it, I suppose I will have to support it as well.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

How does the Minister view the development of local authority buildings or housing, which is exempted from planning, under the new regulations drafted two year ago? Does he feel that the consultation process which takes place on local authority development or dwellings at the moment is adequate? Is it adequate for the protection of the environment and for the protection of the surrounding neighbourhoods?

I made comments on this, which I do not intend to repeat in any great detail, but the Part X consultations on which we introduced the regulations are, I believe, working reasonably well. The positive side is that it gives people a right to consult, to make views known and so on and that is always useful. The negative side has been, as I outlined earlier, that it is becoming more and more difficult for the local authority to reach decisions on the very necessary provision of housing, travellers' accommodation and various other developments.

I do not disagree with the principle of it but there are some practical difficulties that have arisen, mainly because of the pressures that are being put on local councillors. The Senator will be aware that it has always been my view that there is no power without responsibility and councillors have acquired some power in this area. They will have to exercise their responsibility for the greater good of the community but sometimes that is not easy.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.

Amendments Nos. 26 and 29 are related and are to be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 26:
In page 25, subsection (2)(f2>a), line 9, after "arisen" to insert "and the main reasons and considerations on which its decision is based".

Amendments Nos. 26 and 29 require the planning authority and the board to give reasons and consideration for a decision on a declaration or a referral. This is in line with provisions already in the Bill for planning decisions and appeals. By requiring reasons and considerations to be stated for decisions this will make the planning system more transparent. I commend the amendments to the House.

I am pleased that the Minister has included this aspect in the Bill as it was something several Senators spoke about on Second Stage. When I was reporting on the views of the mid-east regional authority this was something that arose at the authority meeting, and there was widespread concern about lack of accountability and people not having to give reasons. I am pleased the Minister has included this in the Bill.

I welcome this amendment. As Senator Dardis said, the Minister is clearly responding to issues which have been raised on Second Stage and I thank him.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Government amendment No. 27 and amendments Nos. 86, 110, 191, 217, 218, 308, 309, 312, 318, 325, 326, 344 and 345 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Government amendment No. 27:
In page 25, subsection (3)(f2>a), line 27, to delete "one month" and substitute "4 weeks".

It looks more formidable than it is. Essentially these are technical amendments. As part of the consolidation process it was decided to ensure that, as far as possible, a standardised approach was adopted to describing time periods within the Bill itself. Therefore, time periods are described in weeks. In the nine Acts we are consolidating here, "days", "weeks" and "months" are used in the various provisions. However, in proof reading the consolidated Bill, a number of references to months were missing and amendments Nos. 27, 217, 312, 325, 326, 344 and 345 are intended to make the necessary changes to "weeks" from either "days" or "months".

Senator Henry's amendment No. 191 seeks to restore the period for taking an appeal to the board to one month, from four weeks. The use of "months" is unsatisfactory because of the variation in the time period involved and it has caused much discussion and confusion through the years and can be unfair on people who get what we call a short month, particularly February. For that reason, and for reasons of efficiency, the period has been set at four weeks.

Senator Henry's amendment No. 218 seeks to reduce the period within which one can appeal an order requiring the removal or the alteration of a structure or the discontinuance of use from two months to one month. It will then be the same period as for other appeals to the board. I accept the thrust of that amendment but again she is using "months" rather than "weeks" and to conform with the standardised approach in the Bill it will have to be stated as four weeks but I am accepting that in principle. We will return to that on Report Stage when the Senator can resubmit her amendment or the Government will put down an amendment instead.

Amendment No. 110 to section 23 is to replace "bear in mind" with "take account of" and is a technical amendment aimed at harmonising the language throughout the Bill. Elsewhere in the Bill, for example, in section 12(4)(f2>d), the words "take account of" are used and we are trying to use the same phrase throughout the Bill.

The amendments to sections 18, 142, and 144 are typographical errors which were not detected in proof-reading and we are taking the opportunity to change them now. As I said, these amendments are mainly technical, designed to harmonise everything in the Bill.

There is something seductive about the Minister's tidying-up operation but it is all an illusion. The Minister is saying this will make things easier, people will feel more at home, but they will not. It is going to make things infinitely worse for people, for example, who want to lodge an appeal, and I am opposing this amendment vigorously because people who are told they have one month to appeal know they have from 15 March to 15 April. If they have four weeks, people very often do not appreciate when the four weeks are up. It is much easier for members of the public to have, as they always have had in the past, a period of one calendar month.

The Minister claims that it is sometimes shorter. It is never shorter than four weeks. Seven fours are 28 and I do not know of any month which has less than 28 days. Perhaps there is one, but I am not familiar with it. It has been represented very strongly to me by all the bodies involved in the preparation and submission of planning appeals and other elements to do with this Bill that "one month" should be kept.

I am opposing all those amendments where there is a change from "one month" to "four weeks". The reason I do it is to make the Bill consumer friendly. Consumers in droves have indicated to me that this is what they are comfortable with. They feel that if the period for lodging an appeal is reduced to four weeks they may miss out on an appeal because they will leave it until the last minute and assume they have a calendar month when, in fact, they have three or four days short of that.

I support Senator Norris. Most planning officers and county managers make planning decisions on a Friday and in most cases they are posted on a Friday. That would mean that the majority of applicants would not receive their planning decision until Monday or Tuesday. In effect, while you can say they are losing four days from the month, in addition to that they may lose Saturday, Sunday, Monday and possibly Tuesday. They could only have 16 or 17 days in which to get all the advice they need to lodge an appeal to An Bord Pleanála or any other body. I have no problem supporting the status quo of the one month period. The Minister should accept that because there is nothing wrong with it.

I was just asked in an aside which month we were discussing, that of 28 days, 30 days or 31 days.

When I first read the Bill and I understood what the Minister was trying to get at, the aspect that struck me most was in relation to the decision on planning and that it was shortened to eight weeks. At first this seemed like a reasonable idea, because we all want to see planning go through as quickly as possible, but when I looked at it again I knew that the Minister was trying to get the same structure through the entire Bill. However, like Senator Norris, it is not something that descended upon me.

People who came to me about it said they felt secure with the traditional method because they always knew where they stood. As was pointed out by Senator Burke, there is the possibility of the loss of a number of days if we adopt "four weeks", whereas the monthly period is one that has traditionally been accepted and people know exactly what is involved. They know if they get the decision on 17 April they will have until 17 May to appeal but with the four weeks time period, some will confuse it with one month and they will be too late anyhow. I do not agree with this amendment or the related amendments.

I will not say much about this as obviously our views differ. Let me illustrate the confusion that has been caused. If someone gets planning permission on 15 November, they only have until 14 December to appeal it, not 15 December as cited by the Senator. Four weeks is much cleaner. People will know they have exactly four weeks. All Members who have spoken have illustrated there is confusion and this will clarify it.

Amendment put.

Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Chambers, Frank.Cox, Margaret.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.Gibbons, Jim.

Glynn, Camillus.Keogh, Helen.Kiely, Rory.Lanigan, Mick.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.Ormonde, Ann.Walsh, Jim.

Níl

Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Coghlan, Paul.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Hayes, Tom.Jackman, Mary.McDonagh, Jarlath.

Manning, Maurice.Norris, David.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Meara, Kathleen.O'Toole, Joe.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.

Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Keogh; Níl, Senators Burke and Norris.
Amendment declared carried.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 25, subsection (5), line 39, after "authority" to insert "or of a decision by the Board on a referral".

This is a technical amendment which brings the language of section 5 into line with the language used in section 7(2)(f2>g) on the register. This section already requires details of the board's decision on a referral to be put on the register.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 25, subsection (6)(f2>a), line 42, after "section" to insert "and the main reasons and considerations on which its decision is based".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

If a planning authority refers a planning application to An Bord Pleanála to see whether the development should be exempted and if at a later stage a planning application, which comes within this jurisdiction, is referred to An Bord Pleanála, how can it deal with that planning application? Would there be a conflict of interest from the board's point of view given that it had already made a judgment on the application?

The original decision of the board would be on whether it was exempted. In the second case, it would be making a decision in relation to a specific planning application giving the full details. There would be no conflict of interest in this case. I recall a case where a person applied for planning permission after they had already submitted the application. This was refused and they then discovered that it could possibly come within exempted development. It went to the courts; they were refused exempted development status and the courts decided that the local authority acted properly. Once one gives up exempted development status and applies for planning permission, the full rigours of the planning and development Acts apply. This shows how complicated the planning and development Acts are. These are two quite distinct procedures and two quite distinct decisions of the board.

Is An Bord Pleanála the final arbiter on whether a development is exempt? Does the local authority refer the application to An Bord Pleanála or has an individual a right to do so?

Yes, they have, but the final arbiter is An Bord Pleanála.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 26, subsection (2)(f2>a), line 17, after "application)" to insert "shall be recorded under the appropriate place name referable to a six inch Ordnance Survey".

The Minister spoke of harmonising legislation and establishing a uniformity but he has just had his wicked way after the recent vote on the subject of four weeks as opposed to a month. I hope his principled stand regarding uniformity will bring him to accept this amendment. It is because of this desire for uniformity that I tabled it.

The practice of different authorities varies widely and sometimes it is difficult for a citizen to gain access to the required information. Some councils require a person to know the name of the developer to obtain the file. We have tabled the amendment for the purposes of openness, transparency, accessibility and making the legislation workable for citizens. It is an unanswerable argument. I have been told, although I do not have experience of it, that in certain circumstances, one must know the name of a developer and that can be terribly difficult to find out. In the amendment, if one wants to clarify matters regarding a development, all one needs is the Ordnance Survey reference, and that is an improvement.

I am surprised by the amendment because I am not aware of any difficulty with local authorities making information available, even when the least information is given to them by members of the public. If there are examples of local authorities insisting on details before they seek planning files, I would like to hear about them because it is something I would not condone.

It is a question of locating files.

Most people's experience in requesting a planning file, usually by giving the name of the person who has applied, or the townland or even broad details, is that local authorities can locate the files and assist them. If there are local authorities which are not that obliging, I would like to hear about them. It would concern me if local authorities were not operating to maximum openness. A person is entitled to gain access to the files when a planning application is made.

There are difficulties with the amendment other than that. It requires that the appropriate name place be included referable to a six inch Ordnance Survey map. While I accept the principle of the amendment and that the Senator is trying to achieve absolute clarity regarding applications, the amendment would not add anything to the clarity. Six inch maps would only be useful in rural areas, not urban areas. The sad experience of most of us, most likely including Senator Norris, is that most or a good number of these maps unfortunately have not been updated since the 1930s. The only useful name that could be included would be a townland name which would form part of a rural address in any case. Six inch map names would be meaningless in urban areas where most development takes place. The amendment will not add to the transparency and openness of the system.

I am sure the Senator welcomes, as do I, the fact that the new developments in technology mean that a number of local authorities have linked the planning register to GIS systems which can at least provide accurate co-ordinates for the location of properties. Section 224 allows local authorities to take advantage of developments in information technology and make the system more open and transparent. However, because the maps are out of date, among other reasons, I am not of a mind to accept the amendment, although I accept the principle of trying to ensure everything is as open as possible.

Is the amendment being pressed?

No, I do not think so. The Minister has given an interesting reply, especially regarding information technology. It is important for people to have clarity. The Minister might be prepared to meet An Taisce who made what seemed a strong case to me and explain matters to them because there are some matters which need to be resolved. Obviously the Minister is correct when he says the Ordnance Survey maps referred to here are outdated. Howecer, that does not ameliorate the fact in the way we thought it might.

A better way of approaching this might be in later sections which deal with notification procedures. We might be able to improve those to increase transparency.

The latter comment of the Minister deals with what I was going to say, that those sections might be the point at which to deal with this. Also, given the changes being made in this legislation, the planning register would need to be kept up to date. While that happens in general terms, I have had experience of the planning register being circulated to us two months after applications were made and decisions would already have been made in that time. It would be important that we consider that at some stage because it is important from a practical point of view.

Section 7 deals with the planning register. Much of what is outlined is already taking place. Additional information is being made available and additional requirements are being statutorily imposed. The Minister would want to examine all local authorities in the context of the point made by Senator Walsh regarding the staffing of offices. It is necessary to make more staff available to planning sections of local authorities to ensure all sections of the Bill are complied with. Planning offices are under great stress and face many difficulties. Staff are overworked and are under stress. That matter must be considered when the section is implemented.

We are not dealing with the section. We are dealing with Senator Norris's amendment No. 30.

Would it be more appropriate if I spoke to the section?

I will do so later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 31, 43, 45, 46, 47, 52, 53, 74, 82, 105, 136, 252, 324 and 349 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 31:

I leathanach 26, fo-alt 2(f2>b), líne 18, "or linguistic impact statement" a chur isteach tar éis "statement".

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Gabh mo leithscéal, a Aire, ach ba mhaith liom mo chás a dhéanamh ar an ócáid seo as Béarla. I want to say my few words in the English language. One reason is that, yesterday, I had the nose bitten off me when I said to a friend, who I thought was a distinguished literary figure, "Conas atá tú, Mícheál?". He said, "Don't you patronise me". I fear that my Irish may not be sufficiently good to meet the standards of the Gaeilgeoirí who creep around the place although I am happy to say they are currently being replaced by people with a wider vision. Even though one might not personally have the fullest command of Irish, it is important that we respect the rights of those who choose to speak our native language and who live in Gaeltacht areas. For this reason I want the words "linguistic impact statement" to be inserted after "environmental impact statement". Sometimes developments can impact on an entire area, for example, a development of holiday cottages catering principally for English speakers in a Gaeltacht area. It is important that these would be included in the planning register.

I will speak principally to amendment No. 31. The amendment is intended to protect the linguistic integrity of areas within the Gaeltacht and to facilitate Irish speakers. While the Mini ster is responding, I will attempt to locate the related amendments.

The corollary of Senator Norris's comments about the man who told him not to patronise him by speaking Irish is that I am afraid to speak English to him lest he think I might be patronising him. Is amendment No. 43 really relevant to the other amendments?

I do not see how it is; that is one of the matters which confused me.

It is consequential.

The thrust of these amendments, including amendments Nos. 46 and 47, is to ensure the conservation and promotion of the Irish language in an area where Irish is the prime community language and to seek the protection of the language and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht. I live in a Gaeltacht area and have witnessed the extraordinary changes which have occurred because there is not any great commitment to achieving the above objectives. I live in Galway city, a section of which comprises part of the Gaeltacht. When I first moved to the area some 20 years ago, Irish was the native language and one spoke Irish to one's neighbours. Now, their children will not speak Irish, not because they are unable to but because they cannot be bothered.

There is a need to make a commitment in this area and, although the Bill may not represent the exact forum through which to make such a commitment, we should underline our commitment to the Gaeltacht and the Irish language by including these amendments. The amendments are important in that they would provide a recognition by this House and by a Department, which would not normally be involved in this area, of the importance of the Irish language. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr. Ryan

N'fheadair an bhfuil cead agam labhairt as Gaeilge anois agus an méid atá ráite ag mo comhleacaí a labhair romham. Tá sé tábhachtach agus tá sé ainmnithe agus leagtha amach sa Sceideal go bhfuil ar údarás pleanála tagairt a dhéanamh do pé damáiste a dhéanfaí don Ghaeltacht agus don Ghaeilge ins na pleananna forbartha nó rudaí mar siúd. Tá tagairt don bhunfhealsúnacht sa Sceidéal ach tá sé an-lag. Baineann an cuid is mó de na leasaithe lena chéile agus ní fiú iad go léir a lua.

I would like to consider the wording of Government amendment No. 47 which proposes to insert the following new paragraph in section 10: "(f2>j) the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht, where there is a Gaeltacht area in the area of the development plan.". Nobody would dispute or object to that phrase except in so far as ní théann sé leath chomh fada agus is gá. Tá deachrachtaí nua ag an Ghaeltacht anois, deachrachtaí nach mbíodh ann. S'iad an bochtanas agus an laghdú daonra na deacrachtaí ba mhó a bhí ag an Ghaeltacht. Anois, is a mhalairt ar fad iad na deacrachtaí atá acu.

The problems the Gaeltacht is experiencing today are those of prosperity and all that comes with that. While nobody could object to the Government amendment, it is far too defensive. We must build more into the legislation than an obligation or requirement to seek the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage. We need to create a positive disposition in favour of the advancement of the Irish language. It is not merely a question of preserving an endangered species or an area of scientific interest, rather it is a question of using planning for what all of the "gluaiseachtaí na Gaeilge" have referred to as an integrated public policy based not merely on the protection of something which is endangered but also on the fostering of what already exists. Planning is a fundamental element in that.

I accept the Government amendment is more than an aspiration but it is a defensively worded aspiration. All of these amendments require one phase of public policy but a number of other phases must follow in regard to State agencies and so on. My own view – although it would be impossible to incorporate it into this Bill – is that Údarás na Gaeltachta should be the planning authority for all Gaeltacht areas. That would be the only correct and logical way to deal with this matter. I have long believed that Gaeltacht areas should be treated as a separate region for planning and development, European funding purposes, etc. A properly and democratically elected Údarás na Gaeltachta without the degree of ministerial influence which still persists should be the planning authority for Gaeltacht areas. We will not achieve that through this Bill but we must create a philosophy which is greater than one phrase contained in a Government amendment and another in the Schedule. We must develop a recurring theme throughout the Bill. For example, amendment No. 136 states that " . where an application relates to a Gaeltacht the need to maintain Irish as the primary community language". We must not merely look at the linguistic and cultural heritage but must do what is necessary within the planning laws. It may not be possible to do that; sometimes things cannot be changed.

We live in a completely different environment now. The problem in the past, as I said earlier as Gaeilge, is that the Gaeltacht areas were dying on their feet because of a fall in population levels. The problem now is that many of those areas may die because there are too many people there including people like me who have holiday homes in Gaeltacht areas – I may as well say it before someone else does. This matter will prove to be an additional burden for planners but it is as important, if not more so, than any other areas of heritage and special conservation value and addressing it will require great delicacy and considerable ingenuity.

The one great thing we have is the constitutional status of the Irish language. This would make rules about the Gaeltacht and how planning should apply to it more likely to be sustainable against any constitutional challenge than similar rules in other areas. Iarraim ar an Aire féachaint ar an cheist seo go léir athuair agus níos mó ná leathnú cosantach cosúil le uimhir 47, "The protection of the linguistic and the cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht". We need more than that. We need a statement that the purpose of planning is to advance where appropriate the use of the Irish language as the community language within Gaeltacht areas. The Minister could speak to his colleague, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands or the Minister of State and suggest that as a start in doing something like this they could redefine the boundaries of the Gaeltacht in a way that has some approximation to where the Irish language is spoken. Then we could begin to foster the real Irish speaking community. If we do not make it a centre of our planning there will be proposals for gargantuan house building in places like Spiddal which will turn those communities into predominantly English speakers overnight.

I could not agree with Senator Ryan's view that Údarás na Gaeltachta should be the planning authority in the Gaeltacht areas. Nearly all Gaeltacht areas have people elected to local authorities and these people are the planning authorities. I agree with the amendments that have been tabled because the people in Gaeltacht areas are proud to be living there and proud of their heritage. Something should be included in this Bill and in statute to protect the heritage in Gaeltacht areas. On this basis the Minister should accept the amendment. Most local authorities have elected members from the Gaeltacht areas and they can give effect to or include these amendments in their county development plans.

Aontaím le cuid mhaith atá ráite ar an ábhar seo ach is é mo thuairim go bhfuil níos mó ná na leasuithe os ar gcomhair.

I have raised this issue at local authority level on several occasions. Increasingly, when it comes to naming estates we are confronted by Hawthorne Downs and similar nomenclature which has little to do with indigenous placenames. It used to be the practice that places were named Pairc Mhuire and St. Patrick's Park.

We could have Dardis Avenue.

Mr. Ryan

Give the Senator about 20 years.

That placename could hardly be described as indigenous. Most placenames are not indigenous. Kildare County Council has endeavoured to encourage people to use indigenous pla cenames but it has not been successful. One of the reasons names like St. Patrick's Park and Ard Mhuire are rejected is that these names were traditionally used for local authority estates. People do not want to use similar names on the more upmarket estates because of snobbery. Some consideration should be given to this topic.

I agree with Senator Burke that planning permission is a matter for the local authority rather than Údarás na Gaeltachta.

I have tabled a large number of amendments in sequence but when we have to deal with a cluster of 15 amendments it is not always easy to get across them on the hoof.

I thank Senator Ryan for making the point about having a positive approach to the Irish language. He selected amendment No. 136. Amendment No. 46 does this as well. It states:

in the case of development plans which relate to the Gaeltacht the objectives to be included shall include the conservation and promotion of the Gaeltacht as an area where Irish is a primary community language.

Amendment No. 252 is an important amendment which proposes to create a new section. I hope the Minister will consider it because it brings the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands into the whole matter and requires notice to be given to her. It states that she shall". . . issue regulations to planning authorities concerning the identification of planning applications . . . . the criteria to be used in assessing such planning applications . . . the preparation and context of linguistic impact statements . . .". The involvement of that Minister in this Bill, if we are doing anything other than giving a formal obeisance, a token nod in the direction of the Irish language, is very important.

I did not draft these amendments. I simply agreed to table them but they seem to form a consistent and coherent thread. I examined them to see if they covered another amendment which I put down after briefing by the lobby group concerned. My amendment referred to the requirement for notices and so on in Gaeltacht areas to be issued in the Irish language. I did not see it included with this group of amendments so I presume it will come up under another heading.

Senator Ryan spoke about the need to promote a positive attitude to the Irish language, not a defensive one. The promotion and conservation of the Irish language should be part of the text of the Bill. These 15 amendments constitute a thread which runs consistently through this legislation that contains not just a conservation angle but a promotional angle as well.

I do not consider the Government's amendment to be sufficient. It will be tokenism if the Minister does not accept any of the other amendments. The Government amendment is a response to the amendments that have been tabled and, therefore, we can claim a degree of movement. It would be interesting if the Minister accepted that this was the case. I urge him not to leave it at the small gesture of tabling this rather compressed Government amendment and ruling out all the others.

I am somewhat confused. I understand what is meant by an environmental impact statement with regard to planning because I am a member of a local authority in County Clare, but I am not sure what is meant by a "linguistic impact statement". None of the Senators who have spoken about this amendment has explained how it relates to planning. I want a greater definition of what is involved other than the gracious aspirational statement "to be put into a county development plan where a Gaeltacht area exists". Recently, the local authority in County Clare revised its county development plan and it is undergoing a public scrutiny review at present. Does the insertion of those words mean that we will have a quota for a certain number of houses in a district electoral division? Does it mean that once that quota is reached people who cannot speak Irish will not be granted planning permission in that electoral area?

Mr. Ryan

Perhaps.

It happened in Ventry and that is part of the case I made.

This is a matter we need to clarify. If that is so, does it follow that English speaking people would automatically be discriminated against in Irish speaking areas at a certain point? If so, we are in favour of discrimination. Let us establish where we are. Senator Norris is saying, therefore, that we are in favour of discrimination. Does that mean, for instance, if a local GAA club applies for planning permission to build a GAA pitch that it will automatically get permission, but if a local soccer club applies for planning permission it will not get it because it is an English game? Let us be realistic and practical about how this would apply when one is dealing with planning applications in a local authority area. These are matters which need to be clarified in detail.

While the aspirations here are quite commendable—

Mr. Ryan

They are not aspirations, they are legal obligations.

—it is a matter which should be dealt with by a Department other than the Department of the Environment and Local Government. It is difficult for that Department or a local authority to deal with the cultural aspect. The Department of Arts, Heritage, Gael tacht and the Islands has a specific responsibility for that and that remit should be left with it.

The proposal to allow Údarás na Gaeltachta to deal with planning permissions in the various county council areas in the west rather than the councils is ludicrous. The local authorities should have full responsibility for their areas. As Senator Burke and Senator Coogan said, there are elected members from the Gaeltacht areas on the various local authorities who can well represent the interests of the Gaeltacht. Let us be practical. It is great to be aspirational but people will have to implement this legislation and they are usually officials of local authorities. We must put ourselves in their position to see how they can to it. While this may be commendable at one level, it is not practical within the planning process.

Mr. Ryan

Tá brón orm, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. De ghnáth, ní labhraím ach uair amháin go dtí go labhraíonn an t-Aire, but issues have arisen which need to be addressed. I do not care if it is the Spiddal gay and lesbian society that applies for permission to build a premises.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Ryan

If they are part of the Gaeltacht community—

They could teach one Irish.

Mr. Ryan

If they are part of the Gaeltacht community operating through the Irish language, then they should be given—

They do it silently.

Mr. Ryan

—preferential right. I did not realise that Senator Norris only does it silently.

Mr. Ryan

I am really surprised at him.

My imagination does not require any English or Irish, it is pictorial.

Mr. Ryan

Senator Norris has descended in my estimation. I thought he was a man of far greater imagination.

If the Gaeltachtaí are going to survive and if the indigenous communities in those Gaeltachtaí are going to have the space and the community strength to preserve and roll back some of the incursions of English, one of the things which will have to be used will be the planning laws. Senator Quinn's confusion about—

Senator Taylor-Quinn.

Mr. Ryan

Senator Taylor-Quinn's confusion about this—

She is more Taylor than Quinn.

Mr. Ryan

Senator Taylor-Quinn's confusion about how one does this is further confirmation of my view that Údarás na Gaeltachta should be the planning authority for the Gaeltachtaí because obviously the people from outside those areas do not understand the issue and, therefore, there is a problem.

These amendments mean that a preferential form of planning would have to be introduced which would give clear preference to the number one public policy in this area – the maintenance of Irish speaking communities in what are real Gaeltachtaí. Unfortunately, it no longer applies to the suburbs of Galway city about which Senator Coogan talked because they are not Gaeltachtaí anymore but it applies in many areas which are still Gaeltachtaí. County Clare used to have a thriving Gaeltacht 60 years ago but they managed to lose it somewhere along the way, and we will not hold that against Senator Taylor-Quinn.

The breach Gaeltacht.

Mr. Ryan

We are trying to integrate matters. I do not understand why we can use the planning laws to deal with complexities of species preservation and complexities of the protection of the rural environment, scenery and so on. We use the law to protect wildlife and bird life but, apparently, we cannot use the law positively to promote something which is supposed to be a fundamental aim of the country and, indeed, of the dominant party in Government – the preservation of the Irish language, as a spoken language, in Gaeltacht communities. If the difficulties of this are beyond members of local authorities, it confirms my view that we should leave it to the people of the Gaeltacht because they have done remarkably well in keeping the language alive in the face of extraordinary pressures.

We have an opportunity to give them the chance to have a decent community life with a decent standard of living and with a large number of young people in an Irish speaking community, but to do that we will need to use planning, education, industrial development policy and so on. This one of the major platforms, and it is the best opportunity we have had to do it in the planning area.

Aontaím leis an Seanadóir Norris mar gheall ar usáid na Gaeilge. Níl mo chuid Gaeilge chomh líofa is go mba mhaith liom ach is dóigh liom gur ceart é a usáid chomh minic agus is féidir linn agus ba cheart freisin go dteaspeánfaidh Gaeilgeoirí meas do gach éinne as ucht a gcuid iarrachtaí sa Ghaeilge. It is important that we use our Irish as much as possible but I am appalled that somebody would have rounded on Senator Norris or, indeed, anybody else who was—

It happened to the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Deputy McDaid, in a most disgraceful fashion on "Questions & Answers" on Monday.

I was about to refer to that because that type of reaction turns more people off and is probably more responsible for the near demise of Irish than anything else and people should examine their consciences. Tá sé fíor-thábhachtach go dtugtar cursaí Gaeilge agus cursaí Gaeltachta san áireamh i gcursaí pleanála, agus mar sin tá mé sásta an Bille seo a neartú ina taobh sin. That is why we tabled the amendment; we wanted to strengthen this.

I know that Members of this House, officials and myself have been approached by a number of different organisations trying to ensure Gaeltachtaí in various parts of the country are preserved, and it is something with which I agree. However, the amendments about which we are talking, apart from the Government one, relate the introduction of the concept of linguistic impact statements. Like Senator Taylor-Quinn, I do not have a clue what they are and I doubt if anybody at local authority level has either. If one starts to introduce linguistic impact statements into the planning system in relation to planning applications, development plans and regional guidelines, we will not meet the purposes on which we are all agreed.

The idea behind these amendments is to give recognition to the special nature of the Gaeltacht and to support and protect the Irish language in the Gaeltacht. I know they are the two aims of those putting down these amendments and I fully support the general aim. For the first time, this Bill gives recognition to the special nature of the Gaeltacht. Without any amendments it contains provisions on the Gaeltacht, the development plans and the regional planning guidelines.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share