I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley.
Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I welcome the Minister. I sympathise with and congratulate him on his party's acceptance of the renewed programme for Government at its recent conference. After two and a half years in government, it is time for the Green Party to allow us to clean up the mess that now exists. I appreciate that the Bill represents an attempt to start the clean-up of the planning sector. I am concerned that this legislation unfairly blames councillors for the woes and ills of the sector. Members of county and city councils have served those who elected them well by representing their interests.
At its core, planning must be about the people. It must be driven by a desire to create new and better communities for the people. To use a new buzzword that has recently emerged in the Irish lexicon, such communities must be sustainable. I welcome any attempt to create accountability in the planning process. To borrow an old cliché, it is time to provide for openness and transparency in the interaction between planners, councillors, other public representatives, land owners and developers of all scale and denomination.
I was worried by the Minister's reference to the need for a two thirds majority if development plans are to be amended. Like Senator Coffey, I am afraid that this proposal will give significant powers to a small group of people who may use their influence badly throughout the planning process. Senator Bradford referred to the need for substantial change in the scale of design guidelines. People must be helped to operate within such guidelines. There has been significant development in my local area of Bishopstown, just as there has been in many parts of Cork. A development on Curraheen Road is a great building in the eyes of the planners, but some of us do not agree. Design guidelines need to be issued.
The Minister knows better than anybody that An Bord Pleanála needs to be reformed. I question the regulation that allows the board to overturn a decision or recommendation that has been issued by an inspector who has made an evaluation and produced a report. I am familiar with cases in Cork in which the board wrongly overturned inspectors' reports. While I agree that An Bord Pleanála needs to be reformed, I am a little worried about the Minister's plans for it.
I will support the Minister if he tackles properly the huge issue of the taking in charge of housing estates. As a consequence of the failure to take vast housing estates in Cork South Central in charge — I deliberately refer to estates that are new and not so new — developers have been able to get away with unfinished business. Local authorities have said they cannot do anything about issues such as public lighting, traffic calming, footpath renewal and road surfacing because these estates have not been taken in charge. It is important that we examine this issue and take on board people's concerns.
This is a timely debate in the context of the whole planning process. I am glad we can now make planning work for people. It is important that we say to developers and councillors that permission for developments cannot be given unless community facilities, such as pitches, playgrounds, roads, lighting and traffic calming, are put in place in tandem with such developments and are completed prior to the handing over of such developments and their putting on general sale. Many urban jungles and concrete sprawls have been created in this country. Houses and apartments have been built across vast parts of Dublin without accompanying amenities or infrastructure.
I ask the Minister to examine how the development of certain institutions, which are necessary aspects of community living, is planned in urban areas. He might be familiar with the manner in which the growth of Cork Institute of Technology, University College Cork and Cork University Hospital, to cite three specific examples, has led to significant frustration for local residents. It can be difficult for local people to find on-street parking or avoid traffic congestion. The residents of Bishopstown estates like Uam Var and Melbourn cannot get in or out their gates because people are choosing to park on the road rather than in the CIT or FÁS car parks. The motorists in question are not breaking the law. We have allowed institutions to develop in the absence of ample infrastructural development, such as car parks and park and ride facilities.
As Senator Glynn said on the Order of Business, the issue of enforcement needs to be examined in the wider context of the environment. It is fine to talk about increased efficiencies within An Bord Pleanála, but we should also concentrate on the enforcement of planning decisions by local authorities. This Bill is like the curate's egg — parts of it are good and parts of it are not good. I am frustrated about the dilution of the power of local councillors who have served us well.
The Minister mentioned that members of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party have received money from developers. I assure him I have never received a brown penny from a developer. I fought developers when I thought they were wrong. My strong history of constant opposition to unsustainable development in Cork city that does not create a better community has cost me votes among some people. I have an open mind on this Bill. Parts of it are wrong. I commend the Minister on taking this initiative in the first instance. I hope we can change the Bill to make it better.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach chun an Bhille tábhachtach seo a phlé. I commend the Minister, Deputy Gormley, on his propensity for attending the Seanad and listening to debates when legislation from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is being considered here. He has displayed a strong inclination for taking on board the comments and suggestions of Members, which is the essence of what the Oireachtas is about. I acknowledge that he has shown an understanding of his ministerial obligations and responsibilities.
I welcome the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009, which deals with an issue that has come under the microscope in recent times. The Minister has had a keen interest in planning matters for a long time. His efforts to channel this legislation through the Oireachtas is a labour of love rather than a chore for him. It is important, in light of the serious economic and property downturns we are experiencing, that we consider the extent to which the planning process contributed to the glut of home ownership and, in particular, to inflation in the cost of residential properties. This is not an insignificant point for very many people as they struggle with negative equity and to meet the cost of increased borrowings.
I welcome many of the provisions of the Bill and I will comment in more detail on some aspects. Development plans and housing strategies must now show compliance with the national spatial strategy and with national and regional plans. That is desirable. There used to be an obligation on councils to "have regard" to national guidelines. The position is strengthened in the Bill by stipulating that separate reports addressing Ministers' comments be produced. Such a report should highlight how a plan is meeting the national guidelines.
I take on board some of the comments made by previous speakers on this matter. This is the second occasion on which we have been considering Second Stage of this important Bill. Where material changes will be required to a development plan, a majority decision by two thirds of the councillors will be required. This is to ensure there is a democratic decision-making process. This is a kernel of our democracy. Too many people, even in this Chamber and the Lower House, often try to denude the democratically elected people of their mandate and responsibility. I do not agree with this approach. There should be checks and balances in the system to ensure one's duties are exercised responsibly. I do not know if a majority of two thirds of councillors is the correct majority. I was a member of two local authorities for a long time and noted that elected members invested tremendous time and energy to ensure they made the correct planning decisions. I am conscious that a certain amount of lobbying took place but I do not see anything particularly wrong with that. However, it means those who are making a decision should obviously air their independent views with regard to the quality of the lobbying and the comments brought to their attention.
The Minister served on a local authority, as did many Senators. In the drafting of development plans, quite a bit of lobbying was directed towards officials, particularly county managers, who had primary responsibility for shaping development plans. When trying to strike a balance, the finger must not be pointed continually at councillors, as Senator Buttimer suggested. One must also take into account the overall process. This process starts at official level where the development plan is shaped.
Officials and managers are no less susceptible to lobbying than elected members and I would not make a distinction between them. This is an important balance in the equation that we must seek to protect. The Minister, having discussed this matter with me, is aware that I have long been a critic of the fact that our overall system of local government has invoked the executive powers to a far greater extent than the powers associated with the reserve functions. I strongly believe there is an imbalance and that it is wrong.
I spoke to one of the Minister's predecessors about local government reform. I was and still am of the view that there should be no executive decision-making powers. All decisions should be made democratically by the elected members, who should be held accountable for them. I advocated that powers be extended to the area of planning. The Minister asked me what I would do in respect of planning and I stated the planning power would be the first I would transfer. If checks and balances were put in place, the inspector of planning would come with his director of services to the corporate policy meeting, which would have to be held weekly. He would make a recommendation and if the members overruled it, their reasons would be recorded clearly in the minutes. That would place responsibility on the members. At present, there is no such system. There are private meetings, the minutes of which are often not recorded and at which one person can influence the outcome of a decision. This is the way the process works under the managerial system. It is not as good as the one I advocate although many people would shy away from the latter on the basis that it could be abused. Abuses would become very transparent very quickly because people would have the power to appeal. Where a local authority is found to be a perpetual delinquent in regard to exercising its decision-making powers, it would be very evident and sanctions would be brought to bear on it.
I make this point because there is a need to recognise the reality. It is too simplistic for commentators to state the democratic process has let us down. In the past over-zoning took place and I objected to it. Equally, I saw local authority areas that were under-zoned, thus leading to a spiralling of land prices. This was equally bad for the economic climate in terms of residential housing.
Modifications to a draft plan can only be minor in nature and must be subject to further consultation. Additional land cannot be zoned and buildings cannot be removed from the record of protected structures. I question the wisdom of that.
Let me raise the issue of the definition of a draft development plan, although it is not contained in the Bill. When I served on a local authority, the plan presented initially by the manager to the council was called the draft development plan. It was examined by the council, which could make amendments thereto before it went on public display. We need to ascertain whether the draft produced by the manger is the draft development plan, to which plan restrictions and inhibitions attach in terms of its being changed. In this regard, I am seriously concerned about the efficacy of the system proposed.
My next point is a moot point but requires very clear definition. If a plan becomes a draft development plan only when the councillors have had their input and it is endorsed before going on public display, that is a different matter and my reservations are taken account of. A plan is put on display for three months. During this period, extensive public consultation is engaged in. The local authority in my area and, I am sure, in other areas has public meetings at which the planning officers involved in the drafting of the plan, who are very familiar with the detail, present the plan to interested parties. Attendees have the opportunity to make submissions at the meeting and subsequently as part of the process.
I have lists of protected structures that were absolutely incomplete and in respect of which a minimalist approach was taken. That was corrected with a maximalist approach. I have great difficulty in that regard.
Refusal of planning permission for unauthorised developments is a good discretion to give to local authorities. I welcome the extension of the duration of planning permissions, which makes a lot of sense in the current economic downturn as sites that have planning permission will not be developed in the next two to three years. The Bill provides for a simple approach to extend the duration of permission.
I question whether levies which were set at the height of the property boom should continue at the present rate. They are an imposition that will affect people trying to acquire houses and will also have an impact on house inflation, as will Part V. I would welcome a review of Part V. Increased densities might lead to savings on CO2 and in terms of transport efficiency there will be a social cost. The issue should be examined. Rather than take units for social housing perhaps we should consider having more open areas and play areas for children because of the social consequences of some high density developments.
I disagree that An Bord Pleanála should still be given a statutory objective of 18 weeks. It should be a mandatory requirement that it would make a decision within 18 weeks. It is simply not good enough in the current climate when we need to create jobs that appeals on minor developments drag on for up to nine months. I urge the Minister to stipulate that An Bord Pleanála would make a decision within four months unless the development is a major one that requires complex, technical analysis. Time could be allowed for that and a procedure could be put in place to deal with it. A definition could also be provided for what is a major development.
I have reservations about reducing the quorum from three to two. I accept that two out of three votes will carry the decision but the cross-fertilisation of discussion will be missing from that process, which has its own impact on coming to the right decision. I wished to make one or two other points but as time is up I will conclude.
I welcome the Minister for this debate. I quickly perused his opening address on the Bill and there was much to which I could subscribe. I especially liked his opening comment that planning is about people not buildings. The Minister continued to outline what was important in the following paragraphs, namely, schools, public transport and shops being provided in properly planned, convenient places.
We have seen in many parts of the country that planning has been developer led rather than planning led. Sadly, in a number of towns we have witnessed sprawling growth on one side or another. An even distribution never seems to have been achieved. That is due to developers and land owners petitioning and lobbying hard for councillors to rezone. I did not agree with that approach. I fought against it as a member of two local authorities.
Senator Buttimer alleged at the end of his contribution that the Minister said something about members of my party taking inducements. In the same way as Senator Buttimer, I never took any such inducement.
I did not say that.
I am sorry. I did not think the Minister did but I was tuning into what Senator Buttimer said. That is neither here nor there. My record as a member of two local authorities is clear. I always opposed such promptings when they came — never accompanied by brown envelopes, nor envelopes of any other colour. I always followed what I thought was correct in the interests of the proper planning and development of the town or particular area in the county.
I fully concur with what the Minister said about people. This matter is not strictly about planning but it is about people. The Minister is probably aware of the blockade in my part of the world on Killarney National Park. I would have thought that mediation was the only game in town. I accept the Minister's motives are good but I do not see the sense in the National Parks and Wildlife Service seeking more time in a court case, which it was granted, and then while that process was ongoing, imposing a lockout. That is neither here nor there. I will talk to the Minister about that on another occasion. I have tabled a request to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Everything in the explanatory memorandum is laudable, for example, supporting economic renewal and promoting sustainable development, targeted investment on infrastructure and modernising land zoning. It states: "The Bill is driven by the overarching ambition to strengthen local democracy and accountability". In due course in the debate I might be able to point to some contradictions. The explanatory memorandum states: "A key objective in accordance with the ongoing process of local government reform being pursued in the context of the White Paper on local government, by maintaining the central role of local government in the planning process". Again, I very much agree with "maintaining the central role of local government in the planning process". I am also in favour of the "closer alignment between the national spatial strategy, regional planning guidelines, development plans and local area plans". However, that may somewhat distract or skew the Minister's maintenance of the central role of local government in the planning process. It is desirable that, "The location, quantum, and phasing of proposed development must be shown as well as growth scenarios, details of transport plans, and retail development, and proposals for development in rural areas".
Senator Walsh referred to the reduction in the statutory quorum for decisions by An Bord Pleanála from three to two. I presume that will only be for routine cases. Senator Walsh's point was valid, and I am sure it is not the Minister's intention that decisions on detailed cases would be made by two members. Reference was made to the implementation of the Law Reform Commission's recommendation on multi-unit developments as they relate to planning. I inquired about that Bill on the Order of Business today. I am unclear as to how it is proceeding based on the response I received from the Leader of the House.
The intention to strengthen the legal effect of ministerial guidelines is outlined in the explanatory memorandum. This could be seen as a move towards centralisation and that would conflict with the earlier stated objective of maintaining the central role of local government in the planning process.
While much of the Bill is technical in nature and represents a tidying-up exercise, some people in local government have suggested that some changes are being provided for in it on the QT, so to speak. The matter concerning An Bord Pleanála is interesting. I note from an article in The Irish Times of 9 July 2000 that Mr. Justice MacMenamin was very harsh in what he had to say about the board displaying objective bias. Apparently he regarded its decision as unfathomable and that it did not have a proper reason for overturning the recommendation in its inspector’s report. I regarded that comment as serious because this case appeared before two judges, Mr. Justice Kelly in the first instance and then Mr. Justice MacMenamin. The inspector twice made a recommendation to refuse permission, but that recommendation was overruled. This is a specific case in Kildare but the Minister might comment on it in his response. According to the judgment the board had simply stated that it took a different view and it appears from this article that there was no proper reasoning for the board overruling the recommendation of its planning inspector. I did not understand that was something that was provided for legally and perhaps that was the basis of the judgment. Provision in this legislation in this context could be a move to bring power to the centre, to the Minister and his civil servants, and it may lack accountability to the public. If it is a move towards more regional planning, that could provide for less accountability and would be a retrograde step.
Returning to the Minister's central point about people, it appears that most planners in towns, counties and in an An Bord Pleanála are urban planners. There are no rural planners as such. Sadly, that is a neglect in our country, much of which is rural. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comment on this. I accept he might have commented on it already and I missed his response.
I agree with a number of Senator Walsh's points. I have not served on a local authority since 1999 but Members keep in touch with the local authorities as they are required to do and they receive representations all the time. The power in the local authority lies with the management rather than with the elected councillors. In every instance, the draft comes from the manager and his officials.
I concur with what Senator Walsh said about the need to avoid delays at An Bord Pleanála level. It appears that time taken for it to make decisions are consistently overrunning the limit that applies, but we will discuss the other matter in this respect anon.
An article by Frank McDonald in The Irish Times of 15 October 2009, entitled “Bord Pleanála warns on relaxing planning rules”, states:
Mr. O'Connor [the chairman of An Bord Pleanála] said that the public-service reform agenda must include rationalisation of the number of local authorities with planning functions — currently 88 county, city and town councils.
"Many of these authorities have administrative areas that are much too small and fractured to constitute meaningful planning units," he said, adding that he would not favour "one big monolithic planning authority".
There is a conflict there and I look forward to hearing the Minister address some of Mr. O'Connor's points.
The requirement in the Bill that amendments to draft development plans and variations to development plans will require support of at least two thirds of the council will need to be revisited. Similarly, a resolution to make or amend a local area plan will require the support of two thirds of the council, and the support of two thirds of the council will be needed to grant planning permission to a development that would contravene materially the development plan. The legislation provides for an extension of ministerial power so he or she could issue a direction on a local area plan and he or she already has similar powers in respect of a development plan. With respect, that represents centralisation. I do not disagree with the evidence-based strategy requirement. However, the two thirds requirement could allow spoilers to oppose a worthwhile proposal. In other words, it is anti-democratic in its thrust in that it gives huge power to a minority, to a rump that could form in a council, and it could have a hugely detrimental effect. I would like the Minister to explain the rationale behind that move.
The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 is thought off as seminal legislation in our legal canon. It was important in that it drafted, for the first time, legal principles on planning. It is disappointing that the means to enforce the principles included in that Act were never applied. The 1960s were seen as a time of attack on our built infrastructure. There were many campaigns to protect Georgian Dublin and the required personnel in local authorities charged to put in place these planning principles under the new legislation did not exist in many county councils until 30 to 40 later.
The planning process in many local authorities gave an undue amount of authority to the county or city manager and the development of a trained planning core has slowly come into being in many local authorities. Despite that, there is an imbalance in many local authorities in terms of their structures and their capability to define properly what is good and bad planning.
I listened with interest to Senator Coghlan's contribution and I am not sure if I would fully support what he said about the need to make a distinction between urban and rural planning. As far as I and my party are concerned, there are only two distinctions in planning — good or bad planning.
Absolutely, I was referring to the qualifications of planners.
Senator Boyle to continue without interruption.
I will get to that point. Access to services, the existence of a transport infrastructure, the provision of key elements of infrastructure such as shopping facilities, schools, access to Garda stations and libraries are the principles that should inform the proper planning of any community but, sadly, they have not done so in too many of our communities.
While the 1960s were a time of trying to protect, fruitlessly in some cases, the built infrastructure, the 1970s was the start of a period of rampant development, underpinned by the notion of building anything anywhere. We saw that, both in terms of private developments and local authority developments, where one of the distinctions between the local authority being both a development authority and a planning authority came very much to light. We would not have had communities such as Ballymun in Dublin, Knocknaheeny in Cork or South Hill in Limerick if planning principles existed in local authorities.
The 1980s and 1990s became periods where those bad planning principles were translated completely into the private sector and where Dublin, in particular, became overrun with a vast urban sprawl for which we are still paying the price. Of course, that was informed by a level of corruption with which we are still dealing in what was the Flood tribunal and is now the Mahon tribunal, and we await the findings of that tribunal with interest. However, there was a coalition of developers, people within local authorities, which is regrettable, and people within the political process who helped bring about an Ireland which is not the Ireland it could have been. That, above all else, is why planning legislation has failed in this country.
That was a minority.
I would argue that much of the planning that has occurred over the past 30 years has been bad planning. That is to our shame as a country and to our failure as a political system.
The bits of planning legislation there have been since 1963 have only involved tinkering around the edges. Senator Coghlan spoke of the overuse of what was section 4 and, I believe, is section 32 in more recent legislation——
Section 140.
——to overturn the decision of county managers in particular planning decisions. The rules in relation to three quarters in a local electoral area and two thirds of a local council are meant to be a constraint in preventing that being done.
These are for variations of plans and adoption of plans, not for initiatives under section 140.
Of course, they are for material contraventions and amendments of the development plan itself. Because these things have happened, and in a quite cynical way, all of us who have been involved in local government have seen where political parties collectively have protected their representatives where a controversial planning application has been made to allow their three, four or five councillors in that area to vote according to their conscience while the other party representatives vote in requisite numbers to allow the planning either to change or to go ahead unhindered. That has reflected badly on the political process. In fact, the process should change to ensure that in voting for particular planning, the matter must have required support among the elected representatives of the area concerned.
Absolutely.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has earned a reputation among some county councils for intervening more than his predecessors. The two interventions he has made have been more than justified. The interventions in Mayo County Council and Monaghan County Council raised serious questions about the scale of development that was being proposed which was far higher than that warranted by the population of the area and by the likely population for many decades to come.
One of the more valuable aspects in proposing the changes in the Bill is that the Minister has supplied a list of some of the main urban areas and how they have been proposed to be overdeveloped in years to come. Dundalk, which is one of major urban centres, already has enough zoned land to see it through to 2075. There are examples of urban areas in this country where the zoned property is three times the existing built property and the needs of the population of the areas. That is madness. In fact, it verges on the obscene to abuse a planning process that does not look——
I certainly was not arguing for that.
——at present needs and does not build towards future progress in the communities concerned.
Much of the debate on planning in this country has been about blind alleys. There has been much talk about one-off housing. Most of the planning permissions in this country are for one-off housing. There are said to be difficulties in obtaining such permission, especially for family members. I must admit that has not been my experience, not only as a Member of this House and the other House where my constituency was a mixture of urban, suburban and rural, but also in my private life as a rural community development worker with Muintir na Tíre. The question we have never asked ourselves in this debate is why Irish settlement patterns in rural communities are different from those in rural communities in other countries. In other countries with similar patterns of small-sized farms and similar spatial population the rural settlement policies are nothing like the Irish experience.
In fact, in another of my employment experiences, while working with the then National Rehabilitation Board in what was a vast area, what in church terms is known as the diocese of Cloyne, the largest Roman Catholic diocese in the country which takes in the north and east of County Cork and is one of the biggest geographical areas in the country, one of the main areas of work with which I had to deal was persons with psychiatric difficulties living in isolation. There are difficulties in not having an effective planning policy that takes account of people living in isolated areas and the cost of the services to each individual housing unit. Such difficulties result in the failure to achieve a cohesive community. It is amazing that rural Ireland works so well despite that. Rural communities operate to a higher level than urban communities where people live on top of each other. Despite that, they are properly more distant from each other than their rural counterparts. However, that does not change the fact that in rural communities it costs more to provide services for people living in these communities and we must achieve an appropriate balance.
I do not see why there should be a difficulty, not in discouraging one-off housing but in encouraging greater town and village development. I must admit I find it difficult to understand the arguments that have been made along these lines in the past 20 years. One organisation for which I have had much time in the past is Rural Resettlement Ireland, which established itself to rebuild the fabric of deserted properties in rural Ireland and quickly changed its reason for being as a defence of one-off housing in any circumstances in any location, which is not a good use of planning principles.
The reason this Bill needs to be supported is that we need a planning system that suits the needs of the 21st century. We need to ally the broad principles that existed in the 1963 Act with the further improvements that were introduced such as limiting the power of the manager and the elected representative and introducing An Bord Pleanála so that there is greater cohesiveness and consistency in the planning process.
As someone who has been an activist on local grounds, I share the frustration that many Members of this House and persons in public life must feel about An Bord Pleanála. It has made many decisions that have been the right decisions, but it has made decisions that seem beyond explanation for reasons that cannot even be understood when an official explanation is offered. One of the saddest grounds on which An Bord Pleanála has either accepted or overturned decisions in the past is its refusal to state that a particular planning decision should be made on sound planning grounds but rather that sound planning grounds are overridden by whatever Government policy is at a given time.
I hope with this legislation and with legislation that is to follow soon that the principles underlining any planning decision and any development plan would always be based on sound planning, that there would not be political or commercial criteria and, above all else, that it would be the needs of the people living in the immediate area that would get prime consideration. After almost 50 years of planning legislation in this country, we have yet to get that balance right.
I applaud the Minister for the efforts he is making in this initial legislation. It is the most significant planning Bill since 1963. It will change the Statute Book in the right direction in a way that it has not been changed to date and I look forward to the House making further improvements to ensure finally we can have a planning system in which the citizens can have faith.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent. Like Senator Boyle, I compliment him on bringing the Bill to the House. There are some aspects of it which are very important and with which we agree, while there are other aspects with which we do not agree. However, it is a genuine attempt and, as Senator Boyle said, we can make the necessary amendments on Committee and Report Stages. While we will never satisfy everybody, we can do our best to improve the Bill as much as possible.
The explanatory memorandum states: "The purpose of the Bill is ... supporting economic renewal and promoting sustainable development by ensuring that the planning system supports targeted investment on infrastructure by the State and further modernising land zoning". That is laudable and nobody could disagree with such aims. How we achieve it is another matter.
A number of items arise. An Bord Pleanála has been mentioned by a number of speakers. I see no problem in reducing its quorum from three to two. My difficulty, however, is that we have seen many An Bord Pleanála decisions go against the recommendations of its own inspectors. For the ordinary person in the street, this is difficult to understand, particularly where professional inspectors inspect sites and give a recommendation only to be overruled by two or three members of the board. Nobody could consider that as a transparent system, and it needs to be examined.
Over the years, there has been much scepticism about decisions made by An Bord Pleanála. It is said it is made up of faceless people and that there is very little transparency to their decisions. Some credence must be given to that viewpoint. The issues involving An Bord Pleanála need to be addressed further than they have been in this Bill, which is somewhat superficial in this regard.
I agree that development plans should be in line with regional planning guidelines. We are proposing in this Bill that this should be mandatory rather than such plans simply "having regard to" the guidelines, which was the term used in the previous Act. Nonetheless, we will have to beef up the regional authorities in a major way. I sat on a regional authority and know their members will have a greater need to be acquainted with the problems and plans of the local authorities within their areas. At present, this issue is not being addressed within the regional authorities. More meat will have to be given to them to address the greater role it is intended they would have under the Bill.
Some of my questions on planning are addressed in the Bill, particularly with regard to developers and unfinished estates, which is a major problem in many areas. The whole question of the bond causes major difficulty. Developers put a bond in place to pay for unfinished estates but if they go out of business, the value of that bond is often not sufficient, and it needs to be increased. Moreover, local authorities will claim the use of the bond is worth very little in the context of having it as a stick to hold over developers to ensure they finish estates. I am sure we have all come across such estates. Only recently, I received correspondence from residents in Dunmore East in my constituency who have a number of items that have not been addressed.
There is also a situation where the developer who got the original planning permission may have gone out of business or sold on the other part of the land to another company, in which he may be a sleeping partner — who knows — and that company can then apply for permission and there is no black mark against it. There are not sufficient penalties for developers who do not finish estates.
This is also a problem for local authorities, which do not have the funds to meet the cost of repairs to footpaths, green areas, roads, lighting and so on that are deficient when these developers walk away from the system. It is just not good enough and to expect local authorities to pick up the tab where there is not enough money available through the bond is not acceptable. We are cutting local authority finance and to expect local authorities to finish estates where developers have walked away, perhaps through no fault of their own but in some cases through their own fault, is not acceptable. The question of responsibility for unfinished estates and the raising of the amount of the bond are issues that badly need to be addressed, and it should be done in this Bill.
There is another area of planning which I am surprised the Green Party has not addressed to date. Throughout the country, we can see in fields close to roads, particularly roundabouts, lorries and trailers carrying advertising. Any wheeled vehicle is exempt from planning. I would call the advertisements placed on broken-down trailers and lorries in the middle of fields and unsightly caravans litter. This is a blight on the countryside, a greater blight than many of the issues discussed here today. I hope this issue will be addressed in the planning guidelines and planning legislation. When one asks about these vehicles, one is told they are exempt from planning regulations because they are on wheels. I might add they have also been used by political parties which have used this exemption to promote candidates and parties, a practice I disagree with. It is a blight on the countryside and should be addressed in a Bill such as this.
Some sections of the Bill will add greatly to bureaucracy, particularly those concerning the interaction between regional authorities. There is certainly a need for interaction between the plans of local authorities, regional authorities and the national spatial strategy. However, the national spatial strategy was introduced by one Minister of one Government. Another Minister can change that policy without reference to any of the local area plans or the regional authorities. The national spatial strategy is a political measure but by whom was it overseen? It is used by county managers and others when it suits them but it is not used on other occasions. Waterford is a gateway city. Under the national spatial strategy it was geared for all sorts of things but they have not happened. Other towns in the region are being promoted at the expense of Waterford city. People ask about the national spatial strategy but political expediency exceeds it whenever it is deemed necessary.
Section 5 deals with the promotion of sustainable settlement and transport strategies in urban and rural areas, including taking appropriate measures to reduce man-made greenhouse gases. We all support that objective but it is a very broad statement. In the early days of our urban jungles, in which flat complexes were simply thrown up, I was criticised for opposing them and some critics accused me of being anti-development. These complexes have continued to be built in the past ten years but they are now turning into ghettos.
I would never support houses being built on every acre of land around the country but the monstrosities in cities and small towns show that the building boom was not geared to people but to developers so that they could make a quick buck at the expense of the Exchequer or others. Who could blame them when the Government advocated and fuelled the policy? The bubble had to burst and now the people who had no hand, act or part in the creation of the problem are suffering. They will suffer most at the next budget, not the developers, not the bankers and not the politicians who have been responsible for this economy in the past ten years. It is unacceptable that ordinary people, including public servants, should suffer because of the mistakes of others, but that is what will happen.
I welcome the Minister of State and the opportunity to debate the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009. This is very important legislation of which the Green Party, particularly the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, can be very proud. If I have any regret it is that the Bill is only being introduced now, after a huge amount of damage has been done by irresponsible planning policies during the Celtic tiger period. It is unfortunate that, when the property bubble was inflating and we had a huge amount of development across the country, we did not have legislation such as this. Instead, we will be left with the legacy of irresponsible planning, something of which we will become aware during the NAMA process, when white elephants in the form of rezoned land which never had development potential and apartments, built in rural areas, which were neither necessary nor in keeping with the local landscape, will become apparent.
We will have to face up to the irresponsible practices which reigned during the developer-led boom. I hope this legislation ushers in a new, smart era of planning. The relationships of economic renewal, development and proper planning are very strong. If we plan according to proper criteria we will encourage economic development. One of the purposes of the Bill is to ensure that the national spatial strategy, a rational plan for how we roll out infrastructure across the country, will be consistent with regional planning guidelines and development and local area plans so that there will be synergy in the various levels of planning.
Having been a county councillor on Wicklow County Council for eight years during the development boom, I was always struck by the lack of synergy in the national spatial strategy, strategic planning guidelines for the Dublin area, county development plans and local area plans. While higher level plans, such as the national spatial strategy and regional planning guidelines, required local councils to have regard to the overall strategy, they seemed to completely disregard it and drew up development and local area plans as though they were free to zone wherever they wanted according to their own rationales, instead of following a more coherent national approach in line with the Government's commitments to both physical and social infrastructure. In the case of Wicklow, there was massive over-zoning of land without the infrastructure to back it up. Land would be zoned regardless of whether there was a commitment to provide the necessary infrastructure and the price of the land would shoot up as a result. The individual or developer who owned the land benefited significantly but it contributed little to the proper development of the county. The process of drawing up development and local area plans in Wicklow was ad hoc and based on who knew whom and who had a word in a councillor’s ear to exert pressure.
It would not be tolerable to continue that approach to planning so this Bill, into which the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has put so much time and thought, is very welcome, even if it would have been much better had it been produced during the life of previous Governments when the building boom was at its height. In his analysis of zoning patterns around the country, the Minister has concluded that enough land is currently zoned to provide development land up to 2075. In their enthusiasm to zone land, certain councillors provided for a population which will be here long after those councillors have passed away. It is important to build some headroom into a local area or development plan, but the year 2075 is 66 years away. Rezoning enough land for six or seven decades, when the lifetime of a development plan is five years, is ridiculous.
The Bill before the House will require that local authorities have an evidence-based core strategy which underpins their development plans. In other words, they must have a sound evidential basis for the development plan and for the housing strategy which examines population trends to ensure it is based on realistic projections. The Bill will also ensure there is total consistency between local area development plans, regional planning guidelines and the national spatial strategy. It will result in a more focused land use strategy, which is badly needed. More focused land use strategies will result in a more efficient use of taxpayers' money by allowing the State to target more accurately investment in essential infrastructure and services.
It is to be hoped the Bill will mean we will have a more compact land use strategy, which will help to ensure the proper provision of physical and social infrastructure. As we are aware, there is a lot of infrastructure that needs to be modernised and developed, including waste water treatment facilities. We also need schools, community facilities, roads and public transport infrastructure. I hope that the proper, coherent planning envisaged by the Bill will make it more feasible for Governments to be confident about investing in public transport in future. We need to bring public transport up the standards we can see in other countries, including many EU member states. We will not be able to do so, however, unless we ensure planning and land use happen in a focused and reasonable manner, based on proper population projections. Scatter-gun, ad hoc development makes it very difficult to plan for proper infrastructural provision.
The Bill will result in stronger management of land zoning. It will ensure the location, amount and phasing of land zoned for development is more closely linked to the Government's economic policy, including the national spatial strategy, regional planning guidelines and capital investment programmes for national infrastructure.
There are other positive elements in this legislation. I note that the making or variation of a development plan or local area plan will now require the support of two thirds of the total membership of a planning authority instead of a simple majority. I am delighted to see this. I recall debates being held between councillors who wanted to promote a particular zoning about whether to go for a material contravention or a variation. Very often, the variation was chosen because it only required a simple majority of councillors. In discussing land zoning, we must ensure a significant majority of elected members of a council support a zoning according to clear criteria. For that reason, this change in the legislation is welcome.
The legislation will ensure that only minor amendments will be permitted to draft development or local area plans which have been the subject of public consultation. That is a welcome provision. In my own experience of local area plans and the Wicklow county development plan, such plans go on public display followed by a reaction from the public and developers. However, very often at the last stages of a development plan, elected members would introduce large-scale rezoning which would be thrown into the mix late at night. Planners often had to work hard to try to have those zoning proposals modified or thrown out. It was an inappropriate practice, but the Bill will ensure such practices no longer happen.
Ministerial guidelines will have greater legal force under this legislation. In all the statements that go into a development plan, the local authority will have to show how it complies with the guidelines set down by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The powers of local authorities to refuse planning permission to applicants who have been convicted of serious breaches of planning legislation are strengthened under this Bill. In addition, the use of e-planning will be improved and made more widely available. In this day and age, we need a greater use of e-planning which will make the planning code more efficient and sustainable in the long run.
I welcome the Bill and congratulate my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, on introducing it. It is substantial and important legislation that will ensure proper planning for years to come. We must put the past behind us and hope that from here on, once the Bill is enacted, we will see the right kind of planning in this country.
I call Senator Ryan who has 12 minutes remaining. However, he has four minutes before I must ask him to report progress. He will be first to contribute when the debate on the Bill resumes.
I welcome my constituency colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, to the House. On the previous occasion, my colleague, Senator Hannigan, broadly welcomed the Bill on behalf of the Labour Party, as do I. We intend to table some amendments on Committee Stage, however, to improve the legislation.
I wish to make a few brief points. According to the explanatory memorandum, section 20 will empower planning authorities to refuse permission where the applicant has previously carried out a substantial unauthorised development or has been convicted of an offence under the planning Acts. I am not sure how far that will go or what the Minister intends with regard to this element of the Bill. However, I think it should go beyond the specifics referred to in the explanatory memorandum and, if necessary, I will table an amendment to that effect.
The previous track record of developers must be taken into account in a variety of ways. As the Minister of State will be aware, there are many estates in north County Dublin where developers have abandoned sites leaving unfinished estates. They have moved on to the next estate, however, having obtained multiple planning permissions. This causes massive problems for the residents concerned. This is particularly the case in Balbriggan and Swords where problems have arisen with unfinished estates. Residents are unable to move on and settle their affairs. They become engaged for far too long in trying to solve these problems. Local councils cannot take charge because the estates are unfinished. It would be a major advance in planning legislation if these matters could be taken into account fully, including the potential for local authorities to refuse planning permission in such cases. I hope that can be done.
I also wish to discuss general planning enforcement because there is potential in the Bill to do something positive about this issue. I have a general decision from Fingal County Council which goes with every decision where permission is granted. It basically says: "I recommend a decision to grant permission." It lists conditions and reasons, however, and the first condition is: "The development is to be carried out in its entirety in accordance with the plans, particulars, specifications and information lodged with the application, save as may be required by the other conditions attached hereto."
If only that were the case. In many instances developers go ahead and infringe against what they have been permitted. They carry out things that, perhaps, they have been asked to change. They ignore the conditions and do what they had intended to do initially, which is not in keeping with the conditions. If that happens and they are not in compliance with the conditions, perhaps someone will notice and there is an opportunity to report the matter to the local authority. However, if it is not noticed the likelihood is it will never be discovered.
In the case of a neighbour, perhaps, reporting such a breach to the local authority, the complaint is made, the inspector despatched to take a look at the issue and the decision made.
As it is 5.30 p.m. I must ask the Senator to report progress. He will have eight minutes of his time left when the Bill resumes.
Debate adjourned.