I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, to the House.
Town Renewal Bill, 2000: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
In July last year I announced details of the town renewal scheme and was pleased by the positive response that it evoked from elected representatives, local authorities and the general public. This strong interest has been reflected in the extensive column inches and air time which have been devoted to it, particularly in local media around the country. This was also evident when the Bill was debated in Dáil Éireann last week when a large number of Deputies on all sides of the House participated in what was an excellent, positive and well informed debate. The interest which the town renewal scheme has evinced is indicative of the important contribution which many people feel it will make to the development and enhancement of scores of smaller towns across the length and breadth of rural Ireland.
The Bill before the House today will provide a statutory framework that will allow all this to happen as it will facilitate the coming into operation of the scheme. I would like to outline for the benefit of Senators the background to the scheme, the thinking behind it and the details of how it will operate within the framework which the Government has established.
The social, economic and technological changes over recent decades have had a significant impact on the character and appearance of our smaller towns and their rural hinterlands, including many changes for the better, but also some less attractive effects. Changes in communi cation and transport, principally growth in car ownership and concomitant alterations in work patterns and lifestyle, have all made their own impact. Fairs and traditional markets have been largely consigned to history, local shops are feeling the competitive pressures from large multiples, while uses such as cinemas and community halls are now less economic to run.
An undesirable by-product of all this has been the marked decline in the core areas of our smaller towns with people finding it more attractive to opt for new houses in the surrounding countryside. The reality is that many of these towns now function largely as daytime service centres with many vacant or under-utilised upper floors and even some derelict or vacant sites and the under-utilisation of water and waste infrastructure. In turn, the trend to relocate residential development to rural areas brings it own problems, not least of which can be the unsustainable nature of much of that development, involving pressures on areas of amenity, water and waste management and transportation.
Successive urban renewal schemes have had a dramatic impact in transforming inner core areas of our larger towns and cities which, over many decades, have experienced a downward spiral of dereliction and decay with all the despair and sense of hopelessness that came with that. Successive urban renewal schemes, as we all know, have changed all that.
The expert advisory panel for the current urban renewal scheme noted that while smaller towns, that is, those with a population of fewer than 6,000, lacked the critical mass for the type of integrated social and economic approach adopted for that scheme, they nevertheless showed evidence that they, too, have not been immune from this type of acute dereliction. I have no doubt Senators on all sides of the House will be only too well aware of the type of decline in our smaller towns that I outlined.
It is against that background we decided to take a closer look at our smaller towns in order to craft a scheme that would meet their needs having regard to their smaller population and size. The result is the town renewal scheme. While there are similarities between the new scheme and the current urban renewal scheme, in framing this legislation we have endeavoured to develop a concept of town renewal which is distinct from that of urban renewal that has operated in the larger urban centres. The new scheme seeks to restore, consolidate and improve the built fabric of these towns, promote sensitive infill, particularly residential development, and generally revitalise the towns at which it is targeted. In a word, the scheme endeavours to put the heart back into the smaller towns making them once again attractive places in which to live, work and visit.
As with previous similar schemes, the town renewal scheme is tax incentive based and seeks to stimulate private investment in the revitalisation of areas which would not otherwise have attracted such investment. There is a strong emphasis on refurbishment and tackling key infill sites. The new conservation measures introduced by the Government will help complement and underpin the efforts of county councils to meet the objectives of their town renewal plans. The scheme also endeavours to achieve synergy with other State funded programmes.
The selection of towns for designation will be undertaken in accordance with the principles and policies outlined in the Bill which relate to the detailed guidelines on which the town renewal plan approach is based. These include provisions for the selection of eligible towns and the preparation of town renewal plans for those towns, setting out a strategic approach and vision for the town, as well as recommendations for specific designations.
I am also making provision for the seeking of expert advice to support informed decision making in this regard. This involves the establishment of an expert advisory panel. In doing this, I repeat a formula that was first introduced for the current urban renewal scheme which worked very successfully and has achieved broad support. The members of the panel have been selected on the basis of their experience and expertise in relevant fields. In keeping with previous practice in the case of the announcement of designations under the current urban renewal scheme and the Government's determination to operate in as transparent and open a manner as possible, minutes of the panel's deliberations and its report and recommendations will be published.
One of the significant policy challenges to emerge in recent years is the need to ensure that cross-cutting issues are integrated into particular policy and programme development and this is especially the case where environmental considerations are concerned. The town renewal scheme must be viewed in the broader context of spatial planning policy, housing and infrastructural development and sustainability. The National Development Plan 2000-2006 mandated my Department to prepare a national spatial strategy, which will be finalised by the end of 2001.
The strategy will be of crucial importance in translating the Government's policy on more balanced regional development into a detailed framework for spatial development over the longer term. The strategy will set out an approach aimed at the attainment of better geographically balanced development. This will serve as a response to a situation where, despite a rapidly expanding economy, parts of both urban and rural regions are not realising their full potential. Another aim of the strategy is to strengthen links between urban centres of all sizes and to foster closer relationships between our towns and their rural hinterland.
There is no question of prejudging the outcome of the strategy. The strategy will be built on the premise that all of our cities, towns, villages and rural areas should be given an equal opportunity to reach their potential. The town renewal scheme will complement and support this approach.
Development must be balanced, but it must also be sustainable. I am confident that the new scheme will inject new life into the towns targeted, discourage the trend of moving to the surrounding countryside and stem the haemorrhage of shopping and other facilities to larger towns. We need to build sustainable, commercially thriving centres, while enhancing their environment and amenities, and I believe the new scheme can make major progress towards achieving these goals.
Senators are aware of the current pressures that are evident in the housing area. The combination of the generous tax incentives for residential development available under the scheme and spare capacity in terms of infrastructural services will assist in boosting the supply of housing. The scheme is heavily focused on refurbishment which is reflected in the more generous incentives available for that purpose. There is also scope for new build provided that 50% of such development is residential. Obviously, this will not be a panacea in terms of solving housing supply problems, but the scheme can make a significant contribution to boosting supply at a critical time bearing in mind that, in terms of the numbers of towns benefiting, it will be the most extensive and broadly based tax incentive based scheme ever introduced in this country.
Promoting maximum use of existing infrastructure resources is very important at a time when the Government is embarking on a major programme of investment to combat Ireland's infrastructural deficit. We need more infrastructure but we must derive maximum benefit from our investment through using it effectively and, where possible, availing of infrastructural spare capacity.
The new scheme also dovetails neatly with other initiatives such as the rural towns and villages initiative which, over the next three years, will provide substantial investment in essential water and sewage facilities to smaller settlements with a view to combating rural depopulation and to encouraging development.
The legal provisions in this Bill and the taxation measures already provided for in the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997, as inserted by the Finance Act, 2000, will provide the framework for the implementation of the town renewal scheme. This Bill will enable the Minister, following an assessment process, to make recommendations to the Minister for Finance concerning the designations which should be made and that Minister's power to make such designations are already provided for in this year's Finance Act. Those reliefs cannot be applied until after the Oireachtas has passed an Act providing for the renewal of towns or parts of towns identified on the basis of criteria drawn up by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.
In the debate in the Lower House, some valid points concerning the increasing prevalence of clichéd types of planning design, use of uniform materials and street furniture were made. I share these concerns. What we would like to see is the preservation and restoration of the unique features of the built environment, with creative and sympathetic new build where this is necessary, incorporating local materials and designs, and not a tired and timid repetition of formulas tested elsewhere. These principles are set out in the guidelines on the scheme issued to county councils. I have made it clear that county councils should undertake appropriate consultation with the relevant heritage and conservation bodies in drawing up their plans.
Sections 1, 9 and 10 are standard provisions dealing with interpretation, expenses of the Minister and the Bill's Short Title and commencement of the Act. Section 1 is the interpretation section containing definitions of certain terms used in the Bill and also certain other standard provisions as to interpretation. In particular, it indicates requirements determining eligibility under the scheme. As laid down in the guidelines for the scheme which I published last year, a town must have a population of between 500 and 6,000 as contained in the most recently published census and meet other conditions, that is, towns in areas designated under the 1999 urban renewal scheme, the seaside resorts scheme, the rural renewal scheme and towns in the Dublin administrative counties were not eligible to participate in the new scheme.
Section 2 provides that the Bill when enacted will be the Act of the Oireachtas referred to in section 372AA(a) of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997, as inserted by this year's Finance Act. Section 3 deals with the selection of towns for which town renewal plans are to be prepared, the format, preparation and contents of those plans and their submission to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.
A county council may prepare a town renewal plan for an eligible town as defined in section 1 or an area or areas of an eligible town within its functional area and to accommodate cases where towns straddle the boundaries of neighbouring counties. Provision is also made to include a part or parts of the functional area of another county council, subject to the consent of the latter.
A county council when selecting an eligible town or an area or areas of an eligible town for the purposes of preparing a town renewal plan must have regard to such criteria as may be specified in writing by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. In specifying criteria, the Minister must have regard to the need for the promotion of physical renewal and revitalisation of towns, the promotion of towns as cultural, commercial, social and residential centres, the promotion of sustainable development patterns and the enhancement of the amenities, heritage and environment of towns. These policies and principles as outlined in section 3(3) underpin the guidelines which were issued for the scheme.
While subsection (3) deals with the selection of towns, subsection (4) relates to the preparation of a town's renewal plan and requires county councils when preparing town renewal plans to have regard to criteria specified by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. In addition to the principles outlined for subsection (3), criteria may also be set for the format and content of a town renewal plan, design considerations, selection of buildings and areas for the application of specified tax reliefs and for consultation procedures. Section 3(5) provides that guidelines, setting out the criteria I have just referred to in relation to subsections (3) and (4) and the selection of towns, and the preparation of towns renewal plans may be made and published.
Under subsection (6) a town renewal plan must consist of a written statement and a plan setting out objectives for the renewal on a sustainable basis of the area to which the plan relates and for improvements in that area's physical environment. Subsection (7) sets out a range of issues which a town renewal plan may address. These include the renewal, preservation, conservation, restoration, development or redevelopment of the townscape, layout and building pattern of the area, including facades of buildings and shop frontages; the restoration, refurbishment, consolidation and improvement of the building fabric of the area; the density of development and the treatment of spaces between buildings; the preservation and protection of natural, architectural and archaeological heritage; the development or redevelopment, for residential or other appropriate use, of derelict sites or vacant sites or buildings or parts of buildings; the promotion of sustainable development patterns, including the protection and improvement of the environment and amenities; the removal of barriers to development and the enhanced use of infrastructural capacity. Finally, section 3 provides that a county council may consult with interested parties and shall have regard to any submissions made to the council in the course of those consultations.
Section 4 deals with the consultative process by the Minister. Provision is made for the Minister to consult and seek the advice of such persons as appear to him or her to have relevant expertise in town renewal and, in relation to town renewal and town renewal plans, have regard to any such advice submitted. The section provides, in addition, that any person giving such advice in relation to town renewal shall advise the Minister of any interest they hold and shall not provide any advice in respect of such interest. As Senators are aware, I have established an expert advisory panel made up of persons with expertise in the area of town renewal and this panel is currently examining the various town renewal plans submitted by county councils.
Section 5 sets out the functions of county councils and the criteria which must be taken into account in the making of recommendations that areas be qualifying areas for the purposes of town renewal tax reliefs. The reliefs relate to expenditure on the conversion of existing buildings for use as rented residential accommodation, expenditure on the refurbishment of a house for use as rented residential accommodation and allowances to owner-occupiers in respect of certain expenditure on the construction or refurbishment of residential accommodation. Section 23 relief for new rented accommodation would only apply where this was considered justified.
This section also contains a provision allowing residential incentives to be applied throughout an area to which a town renewal plan relates. This is similar to a provision contained in urban renewal legislation and has been framed to take account of Government policy in relation to house prices by confining this option to conversion or refurbishment of existing property in the case of section 23 type relief for rented residential accommodation and to residential property for owner-occupation. While provision for this area wide application of residential incentives has been included in the Bill, it does not form part of the current scheme. However, as this legislation will provide the framework for future town renewal schemes, I consider it appropriate to include this option to cover its possible use in the future.
There is provision in this year's Finance Act for the application of a range of commercial and industrial incentives based on 100% capital allowances. These are similar to what is available under the current urban renewal scheme. However, these incentives must be notified to and approved by the EU Commission before they can be implemented. While on the subject of incentives, I want to outline the situation in relation to their implementation. Residential incentives do not require the EU Commission's approval and hence it is our intention to apply these incentives when the scheme is launched next month. Commercial incentives, on the other hand, require EU approval and these cannot be implemented until the necessary EU approval is to hand. The scheme will run for three years.
The criteria to which a county council must have regard in making any recommendation contained in or accompanying a town renewal plan are also set out in the Bill and are as follows: consistency between the types of development likely to be carried out in the areas to which the recommendations relate and relevant objectives of the plan; the significance of the recommendations for attaining the objectives of the plan; market conditions in the area or areas concerned in relation to the supply of and anticipated demand for the relevant types of development and the nature and extent of any impediments to the carrying out of the relevant types of development.
Section 6 provides that, having considered a town renewal plan submitted under section 3 and any recommendations which were contained in or accompanied such plan as provided for under section 5, and any advice provided to the Minister under section 4, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government may recommend to the Minister for Finance that an area or areas may qualify for tax incentives. Section 7 provides that developments qualifying for the tax reliefs must be consistent with the objectives of the relevant town renewal plan, with county councils providing certificates to this effect.
Section 8 provides for the putting in place of arrangements for the monitoring of the implementation of town renewal plans and the reporting of the results of such monitoring to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. Such monitoring must be in accordance with any guidelines that the Minister may issue from time to time for the purposes of the section. Subsection (2) provides that county councils must furnish reports to the Minister on the outcome of the monitoring. Section 9 is a standard provision enabling the expenses of the Minister in administering the Act to be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.
Section 10 sets out the Short Title and commencement dates of the Bill. Section 2 provides that sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill will be deemed to have come into operation on 16 February 1999. This would give validation to the preparatory work already carried out to date, including the establishment and operation of the expert advisory panel, the preparation of guidelines for the scheme, the selection of towns and the preparation and submission of town renewal plans by county councils. Other provisions of the Bill shall come into operation on such day or days as may be appointed by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.
This scheme represents an opportunity for the smaller towns, the backbone of rural Ireland, to avail of the type of incentives that have been successful in reviving and regenerating our cities and larger urban centres. It is another element in an integrated set of polities which the Government is promoting to ensure that the benefits of our strong economic growth are spread as widely as possible. It provides an opportunity to support and develop smaller integrated communities. It has the potential to relieve pressures on larger urban centres and bring life back to our smaller towns. It is practical, realistic and designed to achieve a positive dividend for the community as a whole.
The process of examining the town renewal plans submitted is now well advanced and the expert panel is expected to complete its work shortly. A total of 102 plans were submitted and I hope to be in a position to announce the designations next month. The scheme by its nature will be based on a targeted approach in terms of areas to be designated for tax incentives. It is not the intention to designate wide areas within individual towns as that would defeat the purpose of the scheme and dilute the impact of the incentives. However, we must await the finalisation of the deliberations of the expert panel which will then make recommendations to me. Only then can the decisions be announced.
I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to a constructive debate on its various provisions.
I welcome the Minister of State and I also welcome the Bill. As a member of a local authority which prepared a plan last year, having instructions from the Department of the Environment and Local Government to submit it before the end of last October, I cannot understand why we are now talking about the criteria for plans which have already been drafted and submitted to the Department. Is this a case of putting the cart before the horse?
I do not understand the necessity for much of the Bill. As a former member of Roscommon County Council, you are aware, Sir, of the realities of life. There is an element of nonsense about the Bill, although I support it in principle. The necessity for the Bill arose because a number of towns were not included in the previous urban renewal schemes and many people throughout the country, in Government and Opposition ranks, were very disappointed. This Bill is an attempt by Government to satisfy concerns which were expressed at that time.
Each county council was requested to designate a number of towns in its area for inclusion in the town renewal scheme. Clare County Council was asked to submit the names of five towns and we submitted six. Given that the plans were submitted to the Department last October, I am disappointed that the Minister of State has not yet announced the names of the towns to be included in the scheme. I had hoped he would make that announcement to the House today. Surely the expert advisory group is now in a position to decide which towns qualify. The Minister of State has outlined the criteria and they were clearly defined and outlined to the county councils when the plans were being prepared almost a year ago. The Minister of State should now be able to make the announcement.
Two separate elements of the scheme will apply to commercial and residential property. Can the Minister of State explain why the com mercial element of the scheme must be approved by the EU while the residential element can be approved by the Government? The Minister of State has not yet given a satisfactory answer to this question. It is important that we make our own decisions and deal with issues such as this at national level rather than wait for EU direction.
Who are the members of the expert panel? What makes them expert? How often have they met? What criteria have they used in choosing towns for inclusion in the scheme and how will the final decision be made? I would like to think that when those decisions are made, whether it is for or against a town being included, that a clear explanation will be given in writing to the local authority outlining the reasons for a town's inclusion or exclusion.
Under the previous urban renewal scheme towns were excluded and simple explanations were given, for example, that they did not meet the population criterion, yet other towns were included that did not meet the dereliction criterion. There seems to have been a lack of consistency in the supposed expert group with regard to how decisions were made. I would hate to think that decisions will be made in relation to this matter by Deputies meeting the Minister in his office to decide where it is most politically appropriate to make a designation. I fear that will happen and the expert group will be peripheral to the overall decision-making process.
There needs to be transparency, openness and clear accountability in how decisions are arrived at for each and every town. I hoped this would have happened by this stage but it has not. With the fine weather in July we will welcome the Minister to tour County Clare and we hope he will visit six towns rather than five when he comes to the county to make his announcement.
Under this Bill, we have an interesting scenario where the county councils, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and the Minister for Finance can make selections. It seems, however, that the Minister for Finance will make the final decision. This is total nonsense if we are to say that local authorities are to be empowered. The county councils met in their chambers in a very responsible fashion and made difficult and hard decisions on which towns from their counties they would present to the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Surely there must be a serious follow-up to that process. It cannot simply be left to the Minister for Finance who will look at this matter from a very different perspective to that of the elected representatives from local authorities.
The people on the ground know what is required on the ground. The Minister for Finance, in his lofty office on Merrion Street, is remote from the reality of small towns of Ireland. I hope that the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, and the various county councils would make the final decision together on the towns to be designated. The Minister for Finance should only decide on the financial criteria. I hope this approach will be adopted.
I am disappointed to note that the explanatory memorandum to the Bill states that the amount of capital involved would be relatively small. It does not augur well if the Minister believes that there will only be a relatively small-scale investment.
I am concerned about the residential aspect. I am delighted that certain criteria have been included in the Bill. We must learn a lesson from the holiday resort scheme and the lack of consultation that took place between the Department and the local authorities, particularly county councils. Developments proceeded without proper infrastructure being in place, particularly water and sewerage facilities. It is vital that a serious examination is carried out. The town renewal scheme should go ahead in conjunction with the development of proper water and sewerage facilities in selected towns.
The explanatory memorandum and the Bill refer to the objectives a town renewal plan may address. One of these is "the density of development, and the treatment of spaces between buildings." This is a very important aspect. It is a matter that should be brought to the attention of the local authority, particularly to their planning departments. Under the urban renewal and the holiday resort schemes it transpired that developers could barely cram enough buildings, houses and apartments into areas to make the maximum profit.
The spatial environment, or the area relating to the traditional buildings already there, was destroyed in many areas. I hope that at least a protection clause will be inserted to prevent this happening under this current scheme.
While I appreciate where the Minister is coming from, I hope more incentives will be given to local people in these small towns of 500 to 6,000 people. Part of the reason those towns are so small is that there is not a great economy there. There is not great potential for massive income generation, with the result that the people who are paying heavy amounts of tax do not live there. The people who could possibly benefit most from this scheme will be people from outside the area who will come and buy property there. I hope something can be done to prevent houses in the designated towns becoming too expensive for the local people to buy. People who pay very high tax will actually benefit by buying a house in the likes in Scarriff, Kilrush or some small town in Kerry or other part of rural Ireland. That would make the price of houses prohibitive for the locals.
The holiday resort scheme in both Lahinch and Kilkee caused houses to become so pricey that the local people could not afford to buy in their town or village. There is a need to protect the locals to ensure they are still able to buy proper ties in their area and that people who have high disposable income who are paying very heavy taxes will not be in a position to buy ahead and inflate the price of houses in areas where they have been reasonable. That is a very important aspect which needs to be examined and for which protection needs to be provided.
I note that the Minister has the power to make recommendations to the Minister for Finance. I hope he will use the opportunity, when speaking to the Minister for Finance in relation to that matter, to ensure that something is done to protect local people and enable them to continue to buy properties within their own areas, otherwise areas will not be regenerated. All that will happen is that people will buy properties and use them at weekends or holiday time but there will be no genuine regeneration within the towns. This Bill aims to regenerate small towns, which is what we all want, particularly areas of dereliction in the centre of small towns. If more people come in and live there, it will make them very attractive and greatly enhance them.
The Minister should raise this matter with the Taoiseach in the context of decentralisation. The towns selected under this scheme should also be considered for inclusion in the decentralisation programme for Government Departments. It could be of twofold benefit, benefiting both the community involved in the small towns and also the people transferring from the various Departments because there could be a tax benefit there for them depending on the properties they buy. They would be permanent residents in the town. I hope the Minister and the Department will look at that aspect of the Bill.
There are quite extensive criteria involved. The restoration element is vitally important, particularly in the inner parts of towns where there are quite a number of unoccupied or derelict houses or sites. The move to rebuild, revamp and revitalise those areas will be extremely welcome. I have already mentioned the density element which is important. I hope that when the Minister announces the further details relating to which towns are designated he will clearly state to the county councils the importance of not allowing developments to proceed which are not in keeping with the local environment or the county development plan and that are completely foreign to the existing structures within the area. It is important that this town renewal scheme should be in keeping with the county development plan for each of the counties concerned.
Many counties have been revamping or redrawing their county development plans recently and there are a number of areas in each county drawing up local development plans. While some of the areas drawing up these plans may not be the towns to be included in the town renewal scheme, it is important that everything is worked out and that developers are not just allowed to go hell for leather in an area, where the planning section of a council would find itself literally tied into a situation where they have no choice but to go ahead and give planning permission for certain types of developments. That is not acceptable and will not achieve the aim of this Bill.
We have seen this with the holiday resort scheme where there have been huge developments, mostly of a residential nature with very little investment in amenities. If the Minister checks with the Minister for Finance and with the local authorities in the areas where the holiday resort scheme was in place he will find that there was high investment in residential schemes and not sufficient in amenities or commercial schemes, which is not satisfactory.
It is important that there is a heavy emphasis on improving the current amenities and putting additional amenities into the area. That aspect of the Bill must be highlighted because there are a number of towns that are totally without facilities or amenities. This Bill should be used to attract investment to those areas.
Reference is also made to the heritage, amenities and the environment of the town. One of our greatest attractions from the point of view of tourists is the type of heritage in small towns, which also makes them attractive places in which to live. There is no small town that does not have a wonderful history whether of archaeology, churches, religion, music, language, historians or just characters. A great heritage is attached to every village and town and it is important that investment be focused on some type of heritage centres. Whether that is done by the local authorities or done privately is a matter for the Minister to decide.
The Minister is placing a greater onus on the county councils, which have been given very specific responsibility in the Bill. They have to monitor how the town renewal plan is progressing in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Bill and they have a responsibility to report to the Minister. I suggest to the Minister of State that county councils are fairly underfunded and understaffed in quite a number of their departments. In giving the county councils additional responsibility in this area he should also provide them with additional funds specifically to monitor and report to him in relation to this town renewal scheme. Much of the work to be done would have to come from the environmental and planning sections of local authorities.
There is a serious crisis in all local authorities caused by the dearth of planners. Planning departments of local authorities are finding it extremely difficult to secure suitable personnel. There is a need to provide additional financial incentives. Planners are being offered much more attractive salaries in the private sector as the Celtic tiger booms, with the result that local authorities are being deprived of the advantage of expert advice, which is not to the benefit of the public at large.
Some of the sections of the Bill are retrospective to 16 February 1999 and the others will become operative as from the day or days that may be appointed by the Minister. I criticise that aspect of the Bill. It is a nonsense. I urge the Minister of State to have a major input into the financial aspect of the schemes and to hold discussions with the Minister for Finance because the success of the scheme will centre on its tax incentives. I ask him to provide an incentive to people who own property in towns which qualify under this scheme but who do not earn a high income or have no income to do something with their properties. Local authorities provide grants of £500 for an improved shop front in some towns, for example, but there is a need to help people to regenerate their communities. They cannot do so themselves without financial assistance and if they do not have a taxable income, they cannot avail of the tax incentives to make the necessary investment under the scheme.
I warn the Minister of State to ensure that a development does not arise whereby affluent people from larger towns and cities can buy properties in small towns in rural Ireland for amounts they regard as "handy" money but which would be expensive in a local context. This inflates houses prices in such towns. Local people need to be protected in this regard. We, in Clare, have been criticised on occasion for protecting locals. We included such a protection in our county development plan because of the crisis that arose as a result of the seaside resorts scheme. I ask the Minister of State to bear that in mind.
I welcome the Minister of State and join Senator Taylor-Quinn in welcoming the provisions of this important legislation for rural Ireland. In the past all of us involved in politics championed the cause of urban renewal in the various towns we represented and significant refurbishment and revitalisation took place as a consequence of the introduction of tax incentives through those schemes over many years. The benefit is evident in many towns as one traverses the country. In my own neck of the woods, huge investment in Wexford town over the past decade has transformed the centre of the town. Enniscorthy has been a beneficiary in more recent times and people familiar with the town say that its street facade has been significantly changed for the better following the granting of urban renewal status some years ago. It is hoped there will be a similar development in New Ross.
The Minister of State and the Department, in an enlightened approach, saw fit to extend the provisions of these schemes to smaller towns and villages. Undoubtedly, the benefits that have been reaped in major towns will be replicated there. The Bill's provisions are sound and sensible in ensuring that there will be sustainable development within the areas concerned. More than 102 towns applied under the scheme and the Minister of State is to be complimented on the manner in which he quickly undertook the process, in conjunction with the various local authorities which have carried out their analyses and selection processes. These were examined by an expert group which will advise the Minister of State in terms of the selection of towns and villages.
I fully subscribe to the Minister of State's comment that one of the objectives of this Bill should be to combat rural depopulation. It is estimated that the overall population will increase by approximately 25% over the coming decades and it is important to ensure that the population spread is balanced and that many people who aspire to live in rural Ireland will have the opportunity to do so. One of the mechanisms, though not the only one, which will facilitate this is the refurbishment and improvement of small towns and villages. The Minister of State has stated that the scheme dovetails nicely with initiatives in rural towns and villages. There is a need in many of these areas to ensure that the infrastructural facilities essential to their development are put in place and that they will be commensurate with the aspirations of local authorities regarding the development of many of these locations.
The Planning and Development Bill, 1999, was before the House a short time ago and during its passage we commented on the area plans which must be drafted in accordance with it. Many of us foresaw that this initiative will enhance and improve the overall planning of development areas in counties. Much debate has taken place at my local authority and many others regarding ribbon development and the fact that development should be undertaken in a co-ordinated, cohesive manner which will be sustainable in the future. There is often a healthy tension between local authority members who are pro-development and officials who are pro-planning and conservation as they try to achieve a balance in that argument. In the most recent debate at my local authority we decided to try to focus on development and increasing housing availability adjacent to and within villages. It may be the approach which will lead to a solution to this debate.
The Government has recognised on a number of occasions through the various Bacon reports that there is a need to increase the supply of housing to increase competitiveness and to make houses more affordable. That is a daunting task but it is a challenge which the Government has taken up. This legislation will play its part in a small way towards assisting that process.
It is important that in the towns and villages which qualify under this scheme resources are made available not just to update infrastructure, such as water and sewerage schemes, but also footpaths, roads, street furniture and lighting. That is conducive to improving and enhancing vil lages and funding in these areas is absolutely essential.
Senator Taylor-Quinn compared this scheme with the seaside resorts scheme. She correctly identified that a consultation approach similar to that under the urban renewal scheme was not adopted under the seaside resorts scheme and an expert advice group was not set up in regard to some of its provisions. We should learn from that. When the town renewal scheme plan came before my local authority it was site and project specific, which is good. In other words, rather than having a blanket area in which development could take place, individual projects were identified which will be approved in accordance with the county development plan put forward by the local authority. Unfortunately, that did not take place under the seaside resorts scheme and as a consequence it was viewed by many developers as a great opportunity for enhancing the price at which residential properties could be sold. In my opinion, it contributed significantly to the escalation in house prices. In addition, the number of houses provided in areas that had neither the infrastructure nor the amenity support base to meet the increased summer occupancy was uncontrolled. Senator Taylor-Quinn forgot to mention that the scheme was introduced by one of her colleagues, the former Minister, Deputy Kenny, in the last Government. I subscribe to her criticism of it.
With regard to the residential aspects of the Bill, we are all aware that any commercial incentives proposed by the Minister must be approved by the European Union. The previous urban renewal scheme was delayed for some considerable time by the European Commission before it approved the incentives that could be applied. The same must be done for any State aid to industry. We are part of the European Union and we cannot have an à la carte approach to it. In general, the EU has been of tremendous benefit to Ireland and, in particular, to the development of the economy.
I share the view that houses or apartments that are built in these locations should be accessible to as wide a range of people as possible from the local community. The Minister said that in all probability the section 23 criteria for rented accommodation will only apply to the refurbishment of existing buildings rather than new ones. I am not sure if I have correctly interpreted what he said, but that is more or less what happened following the last urban renewal scheme. I can fully understand that in grappling with the escalating price of houses and the various reports from Mr. Peter Bacon, a Minister would tend to lean in that direction.
In the past, many developments that took place under the urban renewal programme became exclusively subject to section 23 criteria for rented accommodation rather than those apply ing to owner occupiers. As a consequence, the developments were the poorer for it. A balance between owner occupier and rented accommodation within the one development is desirable. The Minister should consider allowing a certain percentage of such developments to be designated for rented accommodation.
Given the demands that will be made upon local authorities in this regard, the Minister and the Government must be commended not only for the increased overall number of houses that are being constructed annually – we are reaching figures that we did not think would be possible a few years ago – but also for providing funding to local authorities, which has been increasing in line with the demand for housing. While that increase is to be welcomed, a proportion of such accommodation will have to comprise privately rented dwellings. Perhaps we should stand back and, rather than moving totally against that sector, consider how we can include it so that we will have balanced developments with some people renting and others, perhaps the majority, purchasing as owner occupiers. That would be good also for the subsequent development of such accommodation. Where all the dwellings are rented, as has happened in many areas, the attention to maintenance tends to decline and places can become unattractive.
The Bill recognises, rightly, that the attractiveness of our villages is part of their unique character. I was glad to hear the Minister underline the fact that we do not want similar developments in every village; rather we want to continue and preserve the unique character that makes them so attractive. As the Minister said, the cultural, social and commercial factors within a given area will have to be taken into account when deciding its physical renewal.
The benefits of this significant legislation will become evident in future when we see movement from the major cities to rural areas. Many people aspire to live in rural Ireland. If we provide the facilities and infrastructure as well as improving and enhancing the character of our villages, ultimately we will have done a good day's work. I support the Minister in his efforts in this regard.
I welcome the Bill and support those who have already spoken, including Senator Walsh who said the legislation is significant. I agree entirely, it certainly is. When I first entered the House seven or eight years ago one of the criticisms I had of how Government works was a lack of urgency or awareness of the need for speed. I congratulate the Minister because I do not think I have come across a Bill which includes the words "at the launch next month". I am delighted to see that. I am also delighted to see what is as close to retrospective legislation as I have seen. In his speech, the Minister said:
Section 2 provides that sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill will be deemed to have come into operation on 16 February 1999. [What an achievement – well done]. This would give validation to the preparatory work already carried out to date, including the establishment and operation of the expert advisory panel, the preparation of guidelines for the scheme, the selection of towns and the preparation and submission of town renewal plans by county councils.
This is an example of actually doing something and not just talking about it and, on that basis, I am delighted to see it is happening. I have some questions about the Bill however. One of my fears about any legislation such as this is that it is open to the criticism of political or regional bias. I did not quite understand the Minister when he said:
A total of 102 plans were submitted [under the town renewal scheme] and I hope to be in a position to announce the designations next month.
The Minister should put our minds at rest as to how this will happen so that we can be sure there will be no bias from any point of view. There was criticism of the seaside resort scheme because of bias. I remember that 20 or 30 years ago the then Minister, Mr. Tully, set up the planning board precisely because accusations were being made that planning decisions were being taken by Ministers rather than being done from an unbiased viewpoint. I would like the Minister to put my mind at rest, particularly with regard to the expert advisory board. How was it established and how is it intended to continue it in order to ensure it allays any suspicion surrounding an advisory board or panel with such powers? I like this idea, particularly when dealing with a scheme covering tax designations. This is a win-win situation. We have seen designations work elsewhere – in larger towns and in area allocations. Let us make sure we do not fall into the trap of being open to the criticism that political bias was involved.
I am not quite sure that I understand the Minister when he says:
It is not the intention to designate wide areas within individual towns as that would defeat the purpose of the scheme and dilute the impact of the incentives.
I do not understand the need for it and I am not sure how the Minister sees that it will actually work. Will he explain what is meant by that?
The Minister also spoke about promoting the maximum use of existing infrastructure. That is exactly what is intended by this scheme, and it is what it must achieve. It must not do anything other than that. We are talking about the existing infrastructure. It was only when the point about a population level in towns of 500 to 6,000 arose that I remembered that I knew Naas some years ago when my business opened there. Naas had a population of approximately 6,000 in the early 1980s. I am not sure what its population is now but it is a multiple of that figure. There was a suggestion that the size of towns and villages will remain the same, but it was reported during the week that Dublin is regarded as such an expensive place to live and that areas such as Castlecomer in County Kilkenny and Gorey in County Wexford are regarded as dormitory towns. People are willing to travel from these places to Dublin. I am not sure of the population of Castlecomer or Gorey but they are the type and size of towns to which the Bill will relate. While it is not intended that the Bill will be implemented in the Dublin area, places as far away as Castlecomer and Gorey will be included.
I wish to deal with the issue of shopping, a subject about which I know a little. If existing infrastructure in towns is to be maintained, it will be based on the success of the commercial aspect of those towns. Areas without a commercial heart do not continue to exist; they tend to be pulled into other areas. The current Acting Chairman, Senator John Cregan, sought a debate during the Order of Business on the groceries order, and I would be happy to discuss this subject with the Senator. One of the figures put forward by those who encourage the maintenance of the order is that 40% of villages and towns in Britain no longer have any shopping facilities. This is exactly the type of situation we want to avoid.
I do not believe that has anything to do with the groceries order. However, we must avoid such a situation through the maintenance of mechanisms put in place by the Minister of State and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to control the size of superstores. Large stores soak up the populations of villages and towns. If such a situation is to be avoided, the ban on very large stores must be maintained rather than trying to solve the problem through the groceries order.
There is little understanding in general about what has happened with regard to shopping in recent years. Some of the current demographic and social changes include the rapid expansion in housing, the increase in car ownership and use, the increase in employment, the increase in the number of working women, the falling size of households, the falling fertility rate and an aging population. These factors are having a huge effect on where and how people shop and what they want to do.
One aspect which is not, but should be, fully understood by planners is the difference between convenience and comparison shopping. In general, comparison shopping does not take place in small villages and towns. This type of shopping relates to fashion, jewellery and footwear. If one wants to do this type of shopping, one wants to be able to make comparisons. One does not want to go to a place where there is only one fashion shop, one jewellery shop or one footwear shop. One wants to visit a selection of such shops.
The opposite to that type of shopping is convenience shopping. This is the type of shopping people do regularly and it often does not suit the centre of large towns. I used the example of Naas earlier, which 15 years ago would have fit into the population category of 6,000 people. The population is now a multiple of that figure and the town of Naas is jammed because it is almost impossible for traffic to get through it in spite of a bypass. This is because the difference between convenience and comparison shopping is not understood.
Convenience shopping in towns such as Naas needs to be located outside the town. If people shop for food and other essentials, they usually purchase fresh, frozen and chilled products. People want to be able to reach their cars quickly. They want to travel by car to the shop because of the weight, bulk and freshness of the products. This is not the type of shopping one does before one wanders around other shops with bags under one's arms for two or three hours. This aspect must be understood. If existing infrastructure in villages and towns is to be maintained, it must be understood that customers will travel by car to do their convenience shopping because people no longer walk.
The lifestyle changes I mentioned also relate to how people live. Our business deals with CTT customers. I am sure other Members will say such customers do not exist, but a CTT customer is a person who cannot cook, who is too tired to cook and who has no time to cook. These customers are now much more prevalent than in the past. I am sure it does not exist in the House.
The Senator knows the feeling.
However, a large number of people nowadays do not want to cook. For example, ten or 20 years ago, a man would arrive home, ask his partner what was for dinner and she would reply. That does not happen now. It is as likely now that the woman will ask the man what is for dinner.
And rightly so.
If the man asked the woman what was for dinner, she might say she did not know and that she had been working all day too. The need for change with regard to cooking and shopping habits will have an effect. Perhaps this is the secret to the success of infrastructure in the core of towns. Towns will succeed if the difference between convenience and comparison shopping is recognised. This is crucial to the planning process and also in terms of how the economy is run in the future and the use made of the legislation. I commend the Bill and welcome it. The Minister has moved much faster than is usually expected of Ministers and I congratulate him in that regard.
I wish to share my time with Senator Henry. I am well inside the time available to me so perhaps she could use some of it.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I congratulate the Minister on the Bill and I wish him well with it. I particularly commend him on the speed with which he grabbed this opportunity.
I thank the House for allowing me to share Senator Quinn's time. My concerns are similar to those expressed by him. I welcome the Bill but I am concerned about the emphasis in all towns on building roads. This is necessary but it is not the only important aspect with regard to development.
I am particularly anxious about the number of towns which are becoming commuter towns for Dublin. I understand the commuting times from towns in Leinster and further afield for people travelling to Dublin are longer than journeys in London. There is a need to keep that aspect under consideration because it will change the character of towns. Planning must not only relate to the development of towns.
I am also anxious about the development of bypasses. Environmental impact studies are carried out but I am not sure how assessments are made with regard to the best routes for bypasses because sometimes they pass through important areas where the conservation of the environment and wildlife is required. I understand that some destruction will take place in all locations, but we should be careful about the impact on habitats around towns which are bypassed, although such bypasses are needed and improve the quality of life of people in towns. I thank Senators for the opportunity to contribute.
I also welcome the Minister. The Bill is laudable and it has my full support. The debate to date is most interesting and I learned a new label that could be attached to me during the contribution of a previous speaker. However, that is a matter for another day and I do not know if it carries a pension.
Regrettably, the introduction of the Bill is 20 years too late. We have a builder rather than a conservation mentality. Builders by their nature are hungry to get their hands on greenfield sites because they want to build as many buildings as possible in as short a time as possible. They have driven the agenda for far too long. We must change that mindset and develop a conservation mentality if we want to meet the objectives of the Bill. However, that will not happen easily or overnight.
I suspect few county councils have appointed a dedicated conservation officer to date. The local authority in Cork city, which is the second biggest city in the Republic, is only now in the process of appointing a conservation officer. If we want to meet the Bill's objectives, we must have dedicated conservation officers who will preach the philosophy of conservation and underline the importance of preserving and restoring that which is capable of being preserved and restored. Builders are reluctant to carry out restoration and renovation work which they regard as being a nuisance. They are not interested in building infill houses or restoring existing houses because it is too labour intensive. Unless we change that mentality, this Bill will not make an impact, although I hope I am wrong.
Today we are celebrating towns and putting down a marker in terms of the way we want to see the physical fabric of this country develop in the new century. We are putting down a claim for the development and maintenance of the town as a centre of population where life is good and is worth living.
I congratulate Kenmare. It was decided yesterday that Kenmare is Ireland's tidiest and loveliest town and a model of what a provincial town can be. It was initially planned and constructed along proper planning and architectural lines and it has been maintained by a proud community, conscious of the importance of keeping the town at a given size and maintaining its physical fabric and personality. It is an example of a town on the western seaboard which has resisted the temptation to over develop, to get more income from tourism and to increase in size. It has kept its character and, as a result, it received an honour yesterday.
That is a model of what a town should be. It should be a good place to live, to earn a living, to raise children and to grow old. That can be said of many provincial towns throughout the country. However, many cities are places where people experience alienation and loneliness. We must revisit the philosophy of good living in towns. If we can change that mindset, it will be easier to realise the objectives of the Bill.
There is evidence throughout the country that this Bill has come too late. The stand alone houses are one example. Many villages in the centre of parishes are dying, yet the countryside is peppered with new houses. Approximately 80% of the houses in a village in County Kerry beside where I was born and raised are vacant. The streetscape is slowly dying and drifting into dereliction. Ten years ago Kerry County Council built new local authority houses at one end of the village and approximately five years later it built more houses at the other end of it. The village is dying, yet it has new county council cottages. That is the essence of bad planning.
I have used a pocketful of biros writing to the county council asking it to buy houses on the existing streetscape as they become vacant and to spend £25,000 or £30,000 on basic plumbing, electrical work or roof repairs. It should put people into those houses and keep the existing village alive. I do not know if the impetus is coming from builders, but that is not happening.
That is just one county council where this has arisen. I do not know if this is the case in other county council areas, but I suspect it is. These are the county councils on which we depend to meet the objectives of this Bill. County councillors and officials must rethink what is being done if we want to make the objectives of the Bill a reality. If county councils build houses in greenfield sites and allow existing villages to die, they are setting a poor example for other developers in the private sector. We must call a halt to such developments and that is what the Bill is trying to do.
We must seek to reinforce what already exists in our towns. Senator Quinn mentioned shopping. Towns must be commercially viable and centres for shopping. However, they must be more than that. Senator Taylor-Quinn mentioned local history. Towns should have branch libraries and arts centres which could be made into small heritage centres. Our thinking seems to have become compartmentalised. We often establish a stand alone heritage centre when, in many cases, we could also locate a heritage centre or an arts centre in an existing library building. There must be a cultural and social centre in a town which will keep local history alive, give it a distinctive personality and make it an interesting and challenging place in which people will want to live rather than leaving it for the bright lights of the cities where it appears interesting things happen. Interesting things should be made to happen in a town.
We must be coherent in our thinking about the public and private sectors. It is a devastating blow for a town when an established bank branch decides to close. I know that as a Government we have no control over that but we should seek to influence and, if possible, maintain these basic services. If a town is to thrive commercially and be energetic, it needs to have the services of a bank. Bank branches are pulling out of towns as large as Lismore and Sneem in County Kerry. That is a backward step and it is going against the thrust of the Bill. We must seek not alone to preserve the physical fabric of houses and make them stronger residential centres but to have a focus of commerce and culture so that towns will continue to be good and vibrant places in which people can live.
I see a number of gaps in the way local authorities deliver their services. I am very concerned, and I have said this many times in this House, about the way our planning laws are being applied. When I travel up and down the country I see whole areas where there is no other kind of building except this new fangled dormer bungalow. I know of people, again in County Kerry, who wanted to build a traditional two-storey house in a rural area but they were required by the planning officer to build a dormer bungalow. There is nothing wrong with dormer bungalows but when a whole parish becomes a forest of dormer bungalows, that is a different story. When people who want to build new houses are not given the choice but are required by planners to build either bungalows or dormer bungalows, that is something that has to be examined and ought not to be allowed to continue.
In essence this is a good Bill but to make it happen the Minister of State will have to drive the agenda of conservation. There will have to be an active conservation officer with a sufficiency of supporting staff in every local authority area and regardless of whether towns are designated, and not every town can be designated, we must have the philosophy of rehabilitating that which is capable of being rehabilitated and we must seek to keep the structure and streetscape of existing towns alive.
The Minister rightly pointed out that towns must be encouraged to preserve their own natural and inherited personalities. Tourists are beginning to complain that a number of our towns are pale shadows of towns they visit in other countries or pale imitations of each other. That is the wrong direction for this country to be taking. I hope public money will not be spent on encouraging that kind of development. Towns must be encouraged to build, where possible, on what is there already, to use local materials and to preserve the personality of a given neighbourhood because that is what gives richness and diversity to a place. That is what helps a population in an area to become rooted and to feel that they are somehow distinctive because the place in which they live is distinctive.
I welcome the Bill. I hope its provisions are met and that the resources are made available to local authorities to enable them ensure that the towns they have submitted for designation will be developed in accordance with the plans. Plans on paper are one thing; making them happen is another. One way or another, as we go into a new century we should seek to propagate the philosophy that towns are good places in which to live, that the social life in them can be good and that thriving towns will act as magnets to over-developed cities where the quality of life is no longer as good as it ought to be. This Bill sets out provisions that should go a long way down that road and I hope its objectives are met in full.
I welcome the Minister and I welcome the Bill for a number of reasons. Not too long ago we saw a decline in inner city areas and urban areas throughout the country. The urban renewal Bill introduced at the time brought new life back into our larger cities and towns, which was welcome. I am glad the Government is introducing this scheme which will give an opportunity to smaller towns, which are the backbone of rural Ireland, to avail of all the incentives that have been successful in reviving the larger towns. I am delighted this type of scheme is being put in place for smaller towns.
I am grateful that the Minister has made it clear that the county councils should engage in the appropriate consultations with the relevant heritage towns because I live in Listowel, which is steeped in heritage. It has a Writers' Week and a new heritage centre has been opened also. Some time ago I tried to have Listowel designated a book town. That was done in Hay-on-Way in Scotland and it brought a large amount of business and industry into that particular town. I am delighted that this new initiative is being introduced by the Government.
I want to refer to the planning that has taken place over the years in Kenmare in my own county of Kerry. I am delighted that Kenmare got the award yesterday and I compliment the local authority for maintaining the heritage of the town. I compliment the local people also who have been involved in the planning and development of Kenmare over the years. I am sure many other towns in County Kerry and throughout Ireland can avail of the same type of opportunities.
This legislation is important from my point of view, and I will refer later to the applications we made in County Kerry. In the last two censuses taken in County Kerry there was a drop in the population in the northern part of the county. There was a decline in the population of all our villages, whether it was Ballybunion, Ballylongford, Asdee, Listowel or Tarbert, due to the closure of creameries or whatever, which led eventually to the loss of school teachers, the closure of small shops and so forth. That can also be seen throughout the northern part of Kerry. This scheme will bring back life to the inner parts of those types of towns and villages.
As a young man I often walked through Listowel after 6 o'clock in the evening when the businesses were closed. It was full of life but now one would not see a soul at that time. The people have moved out to big estates and built up areas. The inner parts of towns throughout Ireland have seen a huge decline in the number of people living in them. It is important to have a scheme like this, with its tax incentives, etc., which will attract people back into the town centres and bring a bit of life into them. Such a movement of people would bring life back into our towns at night. Many people who live in small towns in countries throughout Europe tend to congregate around the town squares and chat about their daily activities. Such a community spirit is important.
While Senator Taylor-Quinn said the introduction of the seaside resort scheme was not a good idea, I believe it was a fantastic idea. Such a scheme was badly needed to upgrade many seaside resorts that depend on income accrued during a season that lasts four to five weeks. Many of the people living in the seaside resorts selected may not have been prepared for the introduction of the scheme and much of the infrastructure that was needed to upgrade the resorts, such as swimming pools and other facilities, were not provided. Those with extra money who could afford to invest in such resorts were able to avail of the tax incentives under that scheme. Their families and a large influx of other people have moved to live in such seaside resorts, which has resulted in an increase in the units of accommodation in such resorts. I strongly believe that scheme should have been expanded to enable people who were not in a position to benefit from its introduction, or people who applied for planning permission for the building of new apartments in old style resorts to which neighbours objected because they were not use to such developments, to benefit from it.
People who applied for and were granted planning permission for developments at that time – many such decisions were appealed to An Bord Pleanála which resulted in permissions being delayed for another six or 12 months – have slipped through the net. I am aware of four to five sites in Ballybunion that are derelict and awaiting approval for development, but I am not sure if such developments will proceed as they may not qualify under section 23. Access to the considerations on such development proposals should be open to the investors.
Under this Bill the Minister of State should consider favourably proposals on decentralisation. The decentralisation of public service personnel to rural areas would bring back life to small towns.
Ten towns in Kerry would qualify under the criteria for eligibility for this renewal scheme, which stipulates that a town must have between 600 people and 5,000 or 6,000. Kerry County Council has submitted an application to the Minister of State's Department for four such towns in Kerry, two in my constituency of north Kerry, Castleisland and Listowel, one of which has a population of 3,000 and the other has a population of 2,000. Rather than submitting applications for the ten towns that meet the criteria of this scheme, Kerry County Council selected these towns carefully on the basis of the need to develop the centre of those towns. I hope the applications will be successful.
Other speakers referred to bypasses and it is important there should be bypasses around towns of this size. They may create a false impression of a town being busy and there are traffic jams with people trying to get to and from work. However, bypasses are necessary and it has been proven where roads have been built bypassing towns that the towns can remain viable once the necessary infrastructure is provided.
The development of small towns will involve the upgrading of derelict buildings and other facilities in the centre of such towns. Given that the necessary water and sewerage systems and road infrastructure are in place in such towns, all that is needed is a movement of people from urban areas to live there. Such a movement of people would result in a decrease in the number of people on the local authority housing waiting lists and people could not live in a better place that in our towns where they would be near churches and schools. Such an influx of people would increase the level of activity in our towns and bring back life to them.
I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister of State on introducing it. I hope this scheme will continue in operation and that not only the towns selected will be approved but that the scheme will be expanded by way of introducing further incentives for development in such towns and further incentives will be introduced to develop our smaller towns. I would like the scope of the scheme to be expanded to include towns with populations ranging from 600 to 800, of which there are many in County Kerry. My village has a population of 610 and I would welcome the development of the centre of the village.
Through an initiative introduced by the Minister of State, my local community is organising the provision of social housing for elderly people living in poor housing conditions in rural parts of the county who wish to move into the village where they will be near churches, schools and shops and the local community can look out for them. That is what rural life and the provisions of this Bill are all about. If we continue in this direction, we will bring life back to rural Ireland, which is badly needed. I commend the Bill to the House.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House and the opportunity to contribute to the Bill. While other speakers were contributing, I thought back to my youth when I identified with a quality of life that was rural and village based. Many of those who were not brought up in such an environment have missed out a good deal.
As I passed through many towns and villages on my Seanad election trail, I was shocked by the number of derelict sites in many of our towns. Many shops, schools, barracks and GAA clubs were closed in many of the towns, which now face the threatened closure of post offices, as many people moved from rural areas to urban areas in the 1980s and early 1990s when there was economic gloom. At that time many people who would have preferred to stay in their own environment had to leave their towns and villages and move to bigger towns and cities to get work to enable them to have the lifestyle they desired.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. The implementation of its provisions will restore some of the backbone of rural Ireland. It will stop it from being swallowed up in the large urban sprawl in our cities, which are top heavy with houses, infrastructure, cars, congestion and other negative factors of urban life. The reverse of that is to be found in rural Ireland where there are not the required level of facilities to create a proper balance in society. It is great that the Government is prepared to distribute the benefits secured under our Celtic tiger economy throughout the country and to open up a new life to people who want to live in the country and do not want to be caught up in the way of life in Dublin and our other major cities.
If rural areas can be opened up through the development of our towns and villages, it is to be welcomed. It would bring a new lease of life to them and create a fabric of community life. It will result in the opening up of schools that have been closed. It will also result in the opening up of shops rather than supermarkets and the building of an integrated community within towns rather than having people scattered in the surrounding areas.
If we can move in this direction, it will lead to a decrease in house prices and create a balance in the housing market, as there are many fine old houses throughout the country that are derelict. There are very nice shopfronts in our towns that need to be refurbished and restored in the old style and they will reflect the Ireland of yesterday and tomorrow.
This measure will bring about the necessary decentralisation. There are many young boys and girls who have completed their education and cannot get a job down the country because none is available. If activity was regenerated in the towns and villages it would create a community infrastructure and an integrated community which would attract the business community into the towns and villages to create industrial parks and the necessary jobs.
There is also the question of shifting local authorities and the Civil Service to town and villages. The sooner that can be done the better. This Bill will create the infrastructure to move quickly into that whole area. People in Naas, Portlaoise, Portarlington and Navan commute to Dublin daily and there is a huge tailback of cars to and from Dublin every morning and evening. That way of life will have to stop. The infrastructure needed to create the jobs will have to be provided to allow people to live in their own communities rather than being compelled to move to the bigger cities for work purposes.
Everything I have to say is positive. The question is how best can county councils and local government get involved in the implementation of this new strategy. I am concerned because in any new development scheme there must be action plans for the area and there must be consultation with developers and residents' associations. There is a need also for staff resources which is the major impediment to the implementation of this new strategy. I know from experi ence in dealing with my own council that there is a lack of planning and back-up staff but without the necessary staff, the process will be delayed.
In regard to the implementation of the Bill I would like to think we have the resources to build the physical and cultural environment, to protect our heritage and the infrastructure already in existence and to bring about a way forward without opposition from those in situ. A new plan for an area is often stalled due to lack of consultation or preparation. That is a weakness in the Bill. I hope the county councils will have the wherewithal to implement this new concept. That is the future of Ireland and the balance we must seek to bring about, otherwise there will be a top heavy city way of life and we will forget our rural areas and that a good quality of life comes from an integrated community of shops, schools, cinema, debating societies and the various clubs, be it bridge clubs, GAA clubs or soccer clubs. All these must be part of life of the future. That is the way forward. That is my vision of the future. I do not want a top heavy city way of life as I have seen develop in the past ten years where people spend two and a half hours in their cars morning and evening getting to and from work. That is not a way of life I would like for the younger generation. I want it as it was in the past where people were brought up in their own area, their lives were not dictated by the car. It was not a case of unless we had a car we did not have a life. I would like to think we can have everything, but in our own community.
This Bill is a way forward to implementing my vision of the future.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and compliment him on the great work he has done since becoming Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government particularly in respect of all the housing areas for which he has responsibility. I congratulate him also on the introduction of this Bill which I welcome. I wish to refer to one or two items in the Bill which can be improved on. However my comments are not meant as a criticism.
The Bill provides for the possibility of physical renewal for smaller towns with a population of from 500 to 6,000. This has come about due to the extension of the urban renewal and seaside resort renewal schemes implemented earlier. There were a number of towns which did not qualify in the last round of urban renewals, two of which are in my county – Ballybofey and Ballyshannon. This scheme is introduced to make up for those which were not sufficiently large to qualify for urban renewal. A substantial amount of groundwork has gone into the scheme. Even though the Bill has only been introduced today it was announced last year. Councils were supposed to submit their town renewal plans before October but this was extended to December. I know from my conversations with the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, that most of the local authorities put substantial effort into setting up town renewal plans. However, there were one or two blips. Council officials examined all the towns listed as qualifying and checked the core area of the pre-1942 areas of those towns.
The purpose of the Bill is to revitalise smaller towns. Many small towns have suffered from the enlargement and development of some provincial towns. For example, in Donegal, Letterkenny has expanded beyond everybody's wishes and is one of the largest growing provincial towns in Europe. However, the downside is that many of the small towns in the county suffered. There were huge developments in Senator Quinn's business in supermarkets in that all the major supermarkets are based in Letterkenny with the result that all the small towns suffer.
The scheme has been extended, based on the urban renewal scheme. While the urban renewal scheme had some pitfalls it revitalised some of the large provincial towns which had many derelict buildings and had become rundown. The biggest difficulty I had with the previous scheme was that many of the developments were of a similar nature. Many of these areas have become concrete jungles because little planning and design went into the actual development. The aim of the scheme is to preserve and restore the unique features of smaller towns. Hopefully, there will not be the same type of development as occurred in urban renewal areas.
I have another objection which will surprise many people, given that I am a practising accountant and tax consultant. Many of the tax reliefs in the urban renewal scheme went to outside developers and investors. I hope that local people and small businesses will benefit from the tax relief under this scheme. I have no wish to see properties being bought up by developers and speculators. Some of the residential incentives are framed in such a way that greater relief is available for owner occupation than for providing rented occupation.
I welcome the speed with which the Bill has been brought before the House. Basically, we are legislating retrospectively for the groundwork which has already been carried out by the local authorities. However, there are flaws which should be mentioned. The Bill treats all counties equally, regardless of the deprivation and dilapidation of some areas, particularly counties in the west, caused by emigration and lack of investment. Low profits are generated by local business people because of larger multiple stores locating in nearby provincial centres.
Towns in Leinster, particularly those close to Dublin, get the same reliefs under the Bill as towns in the west of Ireland and in rural areas. The scheme is based on the town's population and every county can submit its proposals. Every county, therefore, is given an opportunity under the scheme. The scheme will assist housing provision in towns located close to large population centres in Leinster and, for example, in the Minister's constituency in County Galway, although it is not a complete solution to our housing difficulties. The housing problem is not as great in rural areas.
My difficulty with the scheme is that County Donegal had 22 qualifying towns but was allowed under the criteria to submit only five of the towns for selection by the forward planning division of the council. Many towns in west Donegal were not included. Many of them are suffering a second time. Donegal was isolated from the rest of the country for many years due to the troubles in Northern Ireland. The county is connected to the Republic only by a three mile wide corridor in the Sligo-Leitrim area. As a result the west of Donegal has suffered tremendously.
There has been great regeneration in the east of the county owing to its closeness to the Border. It has benefited from the various cross-Border schemes such as IFI and the Peace and Reconciliation Fund. The rest of the county has gained through the initiative of Donegal County Council in setting up its own development fund and being able to draw funding from IFI and cross-Border groups to facilitate village renewal schemes. These have regenerated the appearance of the county's towns but have done little for employment or business opportunities. My constituency suffered because towns in the east of the county gained most from cross-Border funding.
Council staff in County Donegal were quick to go through every town in the county, drawing up reports and renewal plans. The difficulty was that the speed with which they were expected to deliver the material to the Department meant that much of the initial examination was done by sight. It was impossible to spend more than a day in each town. The towns which appeared prosperous because property owners tried to maintain their appearance even in difficult times suffered because they did not appear to have the same degree of dereliction. In reality, however, many of the shop fronts were only patched up and what was behind them was not examined. I have in mind the five towns in my electoral area which qualify but were not included in the scheme. They include Dungloe, Glenties, Gweedore and Falcarragh. The duration of this scheme is three years but I hope it will be extended and that more towns, such as the towns I mentioned, can be included.
The Minister said the designations will be made next month. Is there a specific date? I spoke to one of the officials in my county's forward planning office earlier today who suggested that the date might be 31 July. A number of people from the towns that will, hopefully, be designated on the basis of their submissions to the Department have been in contact with me and they are raring to go. They feel they are being held back and are anxious to know the commencement date.
There is a great deal of dereliction in the town of Ardara. It is designated a heritage town and attracts many tourists in the summer season. There is a possibility, however, that many of the properties which might be designated will not be able to benefit from the scheme when the time comes because of financial considerations. On the other hand there are many properties which were not included, even though some of them were within the pre-1942 core area of the town. What are the provisions with regard to them? Donegal County Council officials have told me they have no means of redress. They have sent their submission to the Department. I wrote to the Department and received a reply that the scheme is based on the designations made by the county council. Is there any possibility that where there is no take up in respect of certain properties, other properties within the designated town can avail of the scheme?
While initial work on the scheme was reasonably thorough, the time element did not allow full structural reports to be carried out. There are situations where properties were designated under the renewal plan as suitable for refurbishment but when the properties were examined in greater detail it was discovered that structurally it was not possible to do that. What is the position of those property owners now? Will they be allowed to demolish the properties and avail of reliefs based on new construction rather than refurbishment?
I have raised the problems of the west of Ireland with the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and particularly the problems of west Donegal. The tax reliefs and incentives in these schemes are great for encouraging investment and refurbishment. The reality, however, is that they do little to create employment. There is little employment in rural areas to attract young people and many such areas in west Donegal are depopulated with only the very young and elderly people remaining there.
I have asked the Minister for Finance to consider extending one of the most successful schemes, the upper Shannon region rural renewal scheme. While it was slow getting started due to the delay in securing the agreement of the European Union, the development that has taken place, particularly in County Leitrim, is an example of how successful a scheme can be. I asked the Minister to extend it because I foresee no chance of securing major inward investment in west Donegal. The fishing industry is going through difficult times and the coastal area from Dungloe to Killybegs relies entirely on it. The textile industries in areas such as Glencolmcille have collapsed and there is no sign of alternative employment.
The tourism industry is one of Donegal's great hopes for the future. The rural renewal scheme should be extended to west Donegal to encourage people to invest in property and tourism infrastructure. Tax reliefs are important because many small businesses, particularly small family run hotels, do not have the wherewithal to invest without the provision of some type of relief. A similar scheme to that in the upper Shannon region could revitalise the west Donegal area, particularly with regard to the tourism industry.
My comments are not meant to be a criticism of the Bill, which I welcome. The concept and the incentives provided under the scheme will do a great deal for the designated towns and, hopefully, more towns will be designated. I congratulate the Minister and commend the Bill to the House.
Leitrim will always be pleased to support its good neighbours in Donegal.
Like the other speakers, I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate him and his officials on this important initiative which will undoubtedly contribute to the revitalisation of many small and medium rural towns.
Many important lessons have been learned from the Government's experience in tackling the problem of urban decay in our major cities and larger towns. Many smaller towns have suffered from the problems of dereliction and the Bill will enable many small rural centres to regenerate themselves along the lines that will make a contribution to rebalancing development in a way that will take the pressure off the major urban centres. I welcome the recognition given to smaller towns because they have a right to the same type of development many major urban centres enjoyed over the past decade.
The Bill contains a number of important principles relating to the physical renewal and revitalisation of towns, the promotion of towns as cultural, commercial, residential and social centres, the enhancement of existing amenities, heritage and environment and the promotion of sustainable development patterns. County councils have an important role to play in this regard and I am pleased that Limerick County Council has taken an active interest in the scheme. The towns of Castleconnell, Abbeyfeale, Kilmallock, Croom and Rathkeale have already been submitted by the council for designation under the redevelopment incentive package. However, I should point out that drawing up the submission proved to be most divisive for a number of reasons which I will outline briefly. Like my colleague, Senator Bonner, I do not wish to criticise the Bill, which I welcome. However, it causes divisiveness when one is asked to make choices in any county between towns two or three miles apart which fulfil the qualifying criteria and have engaged consultants to look at their situation. Naturally, when it comes to making a decision people will be disappointed.
Limerick County Council considered this scheme at length during its December meeting and the members are very concerned that the scheme is restricted to five towns. The council was unanimous in its view that a very strong case could have been made for all or any of the 17 towns which were described in the guidelines for the town renewal scheme as being potentially eligible. I understand fully that we had to fulfil a certain criteria and we could not submit all or more of the 17 towns. Limerick is unique in that it has no town with a population of more than 6,000 and it has no urban councils or town commissioners. However, it has many villages and small towns dotted around the county; therefore, it is easy to understand why people felt aggrieved that we could not submit more than five towns.
On receipt of the circular from the Department, the county manager arranged for the preparation of plans in respect of ten towns so that members would have a number of options to consider in relation to the five towns which could be submitted ultimately. It built up people's hopes and ten towns were surveyed and consultants employed. As a result of the time constraint, it was necessary to employ different consultants and more than one group of consultants looked differently at the issues. However, at the end of the day decisions had to be made. The meeting decided that, under the terms of the present scheme, there was an outstanding case for the inclusion of the towns of Askeaton, Bruff and Caherconlish. A planning application was lodged recently for an extra 150 houses in Bruff which would make a huge difference to any village or small town. As stated previously, plans are available in respect of these towns and can be obtained from the Department on request.
Members were also at a loss as to the application of the population criteria in 17 towns in County Limerick with potential eligibility. The issues that concerned them included the boundaries within which the population statistics were taken. Examples were given of towns and villages throughout the county which in reality had populations in excess of 500 within the town and village and its immediate hinterland and which had the proven capacity to rise to the challenges presented by a scheme such as this and derive considerable benefits for the towns and villages concerned. Members requested that serious consideration be given by the Minister, whether in the context of the current scheme or future schemes, to the inclusion of the abovementioned towns. I would like at this stage to compliment our county council staff who did an excellent job at reasonably short notice. It was important that they were able to respond for the sake of the county. Other counties might not have done such a good job, but that is their business. From my point of view and from the point of view of County Limerick, I congratulate all concerned because it was difficult to have plans prepared and ready on time.
I mentioned towns with a population of approximately 500 or 600 people which apparently did not qualify for the scheme. My town of Drumcollogher has had huge public investment from the Minister's Department, for which I thank him. It was probably a first in relation to social housing and won national recognition on two occasions. A scheme such as this would have brought extra investment, including private investment, which would have been an advantage because one would have complemented the other. I look forward in years to come to seeing that scheme extended to towns such as Drumcollogher.
It is important that small towns have an opportunity to build themselves up as part of our new found prosperity. The Government's White Paper, A Strategy for Rural Development in Ireland, published last year provides a coherent strategy to address the problems of social and economic development in rural Ireland. It must never be forgotten that just because a county such as Limerick has a major city within its boundaries it can also contain many towns and villages which have yet to benefit from the boom of recent years. This is important not just in this situation but in relation to capital investment for other services such as the Limerick main drainage scheme. In fairness, this includes part of County Limerick and the extremities of the city but, by and large, it covers the city and its environs to the detriment of other towns which are badly in need of investment in water, sewerage and so on.
The Bill provides the framework for the development of these towns and villages and I hope the towns for which applications have already been made for designation will be supplemented by additional ones from my native county. The town renewal scheme is another element of the integrated plan which the Government is preparing for the whole of Irish society and the economy in the coming decades. The Government has a responsibility to ensure the benefits of the current economic boom are spread as widely as possible. We have all heard the criticisms that parts of the country have not benefited from the effects of the Celtic tiger in relation to capital investment and so on. I believe this scheme is all inclusive and I would like to see more towns in County Limerick involved. However, I believe all counties are being treated reasonably equally and that any prosperity that can will be spread to these towns. I hope there will be a good take up from the scheme. We had many divisive meetings in County Limerick and people were very keen to be included in the scheme. These included business people who were prepared to invest money in their own communities.
In relation to the urban renewal scheme, Newcastlewest qualified for this scheme but the take up has been somewhat disappointing. I hope this will improve in the coming months and that the other towns I mentioned, which have been submitted to the Minister, will be in a position to take up the scheme. This will be an advantage to their respective communities and, overall, will be good for County Limerick. I welcome the Bill and commend it to the House.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This is an important Bill and there is no doubt that many people throughout the country are looking forward to having their towns included in the scheme. I compliment local authorities for the work they have done in preparing these plans. The Minister was correct to set a figure of under 6,000 because this recognises smaller towns which have not been developed. Under the town renewal scheme, we must be careful to preserve the facade of our towns. There are a number of listed buildings in all towns and it is important, irrespective of the development which is taking place, that we maintain the facades and streetscapes of our towns.
The Bill provides an ideal opportunity to bring life back into our towns. Many people commute from small towns to work in larger ones and this trend will continue. However, these commuters will not live in small towns which do not provide the facilities they require.
It will be evident at an early stage of the scheme that development will not take place in some areas because property owners will not wish it. Local authoritites should inquire of property owners in designated areas if they wish to proceed with development so that the designation can be transferred to other areas of the same town in which owners are keen to develop their property. I agree with the Minister of State that development must be balanced and sustainable. The Bill provides an opportunity to develop smaller towns and relieve pressure on larger towns where people are paying excessively for residential and commercial property.
I am concerned about one aspect of the development of apartment blocks in smaller towns. Some developers may wish to bring large groups of people who are neither native to nor working in an area into their apartments as anchor tenants. We must ensure that developers do not rush to build apartment blocks for this purpose.
Much work will need to be done in planning the various schemes over the next three years. Planning offices are already choked up with planning applications and town renewal schemes will bring them even more work. We must ensure that applications under the town renewal schemes are given priority so that development can take place as quickly as possible.
The centres of many small towns have become derelict. Local authorities must be prepared to spend money on street and footpath development and proper street lighting to enable developments to prosper and to encourage people to live in town centres. Ribbon development is expensive undesirable. However, many people prefer to live on the outskirts of towns because the law is not enforced in the centre of towns at weekends and late at night and residents suffer disturbance and inconvenience. We must ensure that the law is implemented so that people are encouraged to live in town centres.
Most counties were permitted to submit only four towns for designation although every county would have wished to submit more. Nevertheless, I compliment the Minister of State for ensuring that at least four towns are included from each county and more from some of the bigger counties. The contribution of the Minister of State is recognised in all those towns. I hope the Minister of State will include as many towns as possible when he makes his decision in the near future and I look forward to that announcement. I hope local authorities will not place obstacles in the way of development in the designated areas. Public representatives have been asking for a scheme such as this for many years. We saw urban renewal schemes working well in bigger towns and we now look forward to seeing this scheme working equally well on a smaller scale in our small towns.
I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to seeing improvements in many small towns.
Gabhaim buíochas le gach Seanadóir a labhair sa díospóireacht agus a thug tacaíocht don mBille. Tá scéimeanna athnuachana éagsúla ar siúl le 14 bliana agus glactar leis go bhfuil an-tairfe bainte as na scéimeanna sin ag na bailte móra a fuair seans forbairt a dhéanamh fúthu. Tugann an Bille seans do na bailte beaga nach bhfuair seans go dtí seo agus a bhí ag titim siar in ionad bheith ag dul ar aghaidh, toisc go raibh daoine ag tógail tithe amuigh faoin tuath seachas i lár na mbailte agus go raibh na bailte beaga ag meath.
I am pleased to have listened to the support given to the Bill by Senators on both sides of the House. I thank Senators for speaking so generously about the terms of the Bill and of its intention, which is to ensure that smaller towns will have a scheme which is devoted to attracting the right type of investment to reverse the decline, decay and dereliction of many years.
We are proud of our towns and of the economic growth our country is experiencing and we are concerned that this growth is not benefiting every area. We want to see that benefit extended to the heart of rural Ireland, the small towns, which have been the backbone of our economy in the past. To date they have not been the focus of adequate attention in official policy.
This scheme was not designed, as has been suggested, just to include towns that did not qualify for the urban renewal scheme. This is a totally different scheme from the urban renewal scheme. A town must have a population of between 500 and 6,000 to qualify for this scheme. There are totally different terms of reference, criteria and objectives in regard to what we want to achieve with this scheme. The urban renewal scheme was aimed at larger towns. Many towns qualified for this scheme but less than half of them met the terms that we laid out.
The town renewal scheme is a pilot project. This is the first phase of this scheme, as I have continually said. Towns that have not been included on this occasion can have a reasonable expectation of being included in a second phase. It is important to get this scheme off the ground and operating so that we can see how local authorities and property owners react. In most cases it will be individual property owners in small towns who will take the initiative to avail of a tax concession. We can analyse the scheme to see what way it needs to be steered or tweaked in order to achieve the overall objectives of sustainability, renewal and creating towns where communities can develop in a proper way. It is my intention, after looking at the operation of this scheme over a short period, that we will come back to it. This scheme will last for three years and the designated towns will receive whatever is approved when the plans are launched in about three weeks' time.
I have not been able to meet the earlier deadline because of difficulties I experienced with some applications submitted. For example, poor quality maps were submitted. I had to seek extensive clarifications but all of these problems have been sorted out. I have been told that the committee will finish its work on the plans very soon and then they will make recommendations.
Senators Quinn and Taylor-Quinn expressed concerns that there might be political bias in the selection process and they wanted more clarification, openness and transparency on how this process worked. Looking back, they may be entitled to seek clarification and transparency because the selection process has not always been open. In the past decisions about designations for this type of schemes were made in a very arbitrary way.
Senator Taylor-Quinn spoke for the Opposition and on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. She was very critical of a scheme that her party introduced and I agree with her criticisms. The seaside resort scheme was very arbitrary. No preparatory work was carried out and it was not based on proper guidelines. There has been a very mixed outcome to that scheme and hence it has been the subject of much criticism. The urban renewal scheme is very focused, as was the town renewal scheme. We will try to avoid the mistakes made in past schemes.
Decisions regarding the urban renewal scheme have been made not just at arms length but at double arms length from the political establishment. The advisory group that I set up on a previous occasion, and who are in the main handling the advice on this occasion, are totally independent. I have had no consultations with them about any of the plans that have been submitted. I have no idea what recommendations it will make. On the previous occasion I advised the Government to accept all of its recommendations in toto. The minutes of its meetings were published and put on a website so that everyone could see the reasons they arrived at their decisions. This will be done again on this occasion. There is as much transparency as possible. No one need be afraid that there will be political interference at Government level.
Decisions on selection were left to local authorities in order to implement the principle of subsidiarity and my long held view of strengthening the role of local government in the political system. Local authorities employed different methods of selection. As we heard earlier, 17 towns met the population criteria. Local authorities may have been authorised to select five or six towns because of their population requirements and then they had to make hard choices. The decisions were made openly. Reports of meetings are available and the public can see how decisions were reached. That is the way that it should be.
Senator Taylor-Quinn said that the success of this scheme depends on the availability of proper infrastructure, a point made by a number of Senators. The aim of the new rural villages initiative announced in 1998 was to provide for the construction of water services infrastructure in rural areas. This initiative supports development and it was introduced to help combat rural depopulation. Initially £45 million was allocated for this scheme to cover the years 1999 to 2001. Due to the large number of schemes suitable for funding submitted, the allocation has been increased to £80 million and will be spread over four years up to 2002. To date 66 schemes with a total value of over £74 million have been approved for funding. This initiative provides an opportunity to advance small to medium sized schemes in rural areas which have not benefited from EU funding to the same degree as larger towns and cities in recent years. Funding has focused previously on larger and mostly urban projects. As Senators can see, as well as utilising existing infrastructure in towns to a much fuller extent by encouraging investment in development, some of the towns that might not be able to cater for the development they have planned will be able to do so. Infrastructure will be provided under this very advanced scheme and an extensive amount of funding has been provided.
Senator Taylor-Quinn wants the type of development to fit in with the surroundings, character and facade of the designated towns. She was critical of the developments under the seaside resort scheme in her constituency and other places. This project has been criticised in the media and by other people, particularly what took place in Achill and Donegal. I am critical of the scheme as well. I have seen holiday developments in my constituency which were not well planned. They were not planned with the express intention of helping to integrate these new developments into the surrounding countryside. They are a bit stark.
I emphasise that all town renewal plans have been prepared in the context of proper planning and development of the areas in question. The guidelines which I issued to local authorities drew specific attention to the importance of county development plans. I also advised that local authorities might, in exceptional cases, need to amend the existing plans to cater for the developments they wish to pursue. In all cases the town renewal plans will address areas that have been identified as obsolete, derelict or in need of rejuvenation. I expect that the completed work and the recommendations from the committee of experts will include proposals for developments which fully comply with the terms of county development plans.
Senator Quill and others mentioned the need for conservation. The guidelines for the schemes advised the county councils to carry out an inventory of buildings of architectural, historical, industrial or archaeological interest in the context of town renewal plans and to consult with Dúchas, the national monuments and historic property service, and the heritage division of the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, as it was considered appropriate. Expanded powers are now available under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1999, which introduced the concept of protected structures. This places duties on owners and occupiers of protected structures. It has also given planning authorities additional powers to ensure that protected structures are preserved.
The House should be aware of the scheme of conservation grants launched for privately owned protected buildings, which totalled £3.9 million last year and £4.125 million this year. The standard amount of grant is 50% of the approved cost subject to a maximum of £10,000 and the local authority may vary this amount to 75% of the approved cost or £20,000, whichever is the lesser. This must be approved by the Department in each case.
Incentives under the scheme are structured to favour refurbishment, thereby encouraging conservation, and a sum of £300,000 is available this year towards meeting the cost of conservation officers in local authorities. I am surprised Senator Quill referred to the fact that Cork did not have a conservation officer. Assistance and extra funding is being provided, following the commitment given by this Government when introducing the new funding method for local government that where new functions were added to local authorities, which would involve some additional cost, the annual funding from the Department would have to include a provision for those additional costs.
We will return tomorrow with the discussion on Committee Stage.
What about EU approval for commercial development?
That whole issue was debated here during the urban renewal scheme and the European Commission made it quite clear last year and the year before that they considered the tax incentives under urban renewal schemes for commercial and industrial developments to be State aids to industry in certain circumstances. As we saw in the Dublin areas where there were larger proposals, changes had to be made. In the case of the urban renewal scheme, they agreed to measures where capital investment was involved but matters such as rate remissions cannot be written off now. There had to be an adjustment. The changes arise because of their interpretation of what was and what was not a State aid to industry. That was the explanation for it.
As I have said, we will have to obtain European Commission approval for any tax incentives in the industrial or commercial area resulting from development in that area. That can only be applied for after the Bill is passed.
I cannot announce the results of the applications we have received in the Department until this Bill is passed. Because of the unfortunate delay that took place with a set of major plans from one large county, the plans will not be finalised by the committee of experts for perhaps another two weeks. The announcement should be made around the middle of July.
I look forward to having the Bill passed through Seanad Éireann tomorrow and then going back to the Dáil for final approval. I also look forward to announcing these plans because I know there is great interest in them. There is a desire on the part of the 102 towns that have applied to know the outcome of their application so that they can begin to promote the attractiveness of their area utilising the tax benefits that will then be available. I hope they will attract very satisfactory, well ordered, well designed and well focused development which will be to the benefit of people living in those communities and that they will go from strength to strength because of the help that will arise from this.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Tomorrow.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 28 June 2000.