I support this amendment. Surely it should be specified in a permission granted to a developer that site preparation, such as removing certain hedgerows or other features on the lands, would have to be in place before any works commence. Perhaps this issue should be dealt with at the planning permission stage rather than at the definition stage. When permission is granted, and perhaps following some consultation which is also provided for in the Bill, an authority will tell an applicant to remove hedgerows or other features from the site before building on it. I support the concept of the amendment.
Planning and Development Bill, 1999 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 2.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 34:
In page 22, line 13, after "construction," to insert "site preparation,".
-Deputy Gilmore.
Having given some thought to this amendment over the lunch break, I am still of the view that we are not dealing with it in the appropriate section. I have a clear understanding of what Deputy Gilmore is trying to achieve in the amendment but it would probably be more appropriate to deal with this aspect in section 3(1), (2) and (3) which contain the definition of "development". We could consider for Report Stage the insertion in section 3, at the appropriate place, something to the effect that major site preparation constitutes "development". I am not saying that will be easy because it raises the question of what is and is not "major" but it would be more appropriate to deal with the matter at that stage and in that section rather than where it is now.
In deference to the fact that the Minister mulled over the amendment over his soup and sandwich, I will withdraw it now and wait for it to be dealt with in section 3 on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 22, subsection (1), lines 44 and 45, to delete ", except where the context otherwise requires,".
On reading the Bill I could not understand the reason for including the words "except where the context otherwise requires". Will the Minister explain the other contexts in which it could possibly arise? I am querying this from a drafting point of view. In the Bill "development" means the carrying out of any works on, in, over or under land or the making of any material change in the use of any structures or on land, but I do not understand the reason for the inclusion of the words "except where the context otherwise requires".
I could get very technical with this but sometimes "development" appears on its own in the Bill and sometimes it appears as "sustainable development". We are talking here specifically about development. Section 3 in general defines "development" for the purposes of this Act. We are saying that in this case we are specifically talking about development, which sometimes appears as "sustainable development". Another phrase that is used in the Bill is "economic and social development" and so on.
So every time the word "development" is used it does not necessarily follow that it refers to "works", for instance.
Exactly.
I withdraw the amendment.
Before the Deputy withdraws it, does Deputy Gilmore want to contribute?
I do not want to rehash yesterday's discussion but I now understand where we are at on this question. The word "development" in the Bill has two meanings. Where "sustainable development" is referred to it has a type of conceptual meaning and where "development" appears on its own it relates to somebody doing something specific. What is the Attorney General's view on this in terms of whether it will open up a wonderful scenario when it reaches the courts as to which development is meant for where? Different criteria are being applied to development in the specific rather than to development conceptually.
The Deputy is right in saying that sustainable development is in a sense conceptual, but it is also a framework against which specific works, which we call development, will be judged. There is no conflict as such. A development is a subset - I am going back to my maths which I was not good at in school - of the larger sustainable development concept. We have used the phrase "proper planning and development" in the planning laws since 1963 and it has not caused a problem. This Bill has been put through the wringer by two Attorneys General. While there is no conflict in this regard, that is not to say a lawyer might not argue a case on this, but we are satisfied that the terms used are clear and one does not contradict the other.
I was no better at maths than the Minister claimed to be. Development is not necessarily a subset of sustainable development, otherwise we would not have the Act. Some developments may not be sustainable.
Absolutely.
That brings to mind a reflection that is probably mischievous and time wasting. Some of the discussion we had yesterday might be resolved if we called this a "Sustainable Development Bill" and included a definition of the term "sustainable". That term would be as difficult to define as the term "sustainable development". We have planning law because not all development, in the sense of development here, is sustainable. Controls are in place to try to ensure development is sustainable.
That is why we have planning laws.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 39 is related to amendment No. 38 and they can be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 23, subsection (2)(b)(i), line 10, before “or” to insert “or habitation”.
I do not like to disagree with the Chair, but I cannot understand how amendment No. 39 is related in any way to amendment No. 38.
That is the ruling. It is related.
I do not like to be disruptive.
I know that.
I do not like to act like Alice in Wonderland.
I will accept the two amendments.
The Queen of Hearts said, "Words are what I say they mean." Amendment No. 38 specifies another purpose that we need to examine. Caravans are used for caravanning and camping for the purpose of holidaying, but they may also be used as habitations. Two years ago a person in my constituency moved a number of caravans on to land, jacked them up and rented them out to a number of lieutenants who were getting rental subsidy from the county council. That was done without planning permission and is the type of activity we do not want.
Section 3(2)(b)(i) provides that where land becomes used for the keeping of vans, tents, etc. for the purpose of caravanning or camping it is considered a material change of use. This amendment proposes to add the words “or habitation” to the phrase “caravanning or camping”. I have no objection to that amendment and can accept it. It would probably strengthen the section and avoid the situation the Deputy mentioned.
I thank the Minister for that.
With regard to amendment No. 39, it has been suggested there is some precedent for arguing that when motor vehicles have their interiors stripped out and their wheels taken off they are no longer regarded as motor vehicles. In the words of the late John Kelly, when they become glorified hen coops they may be regarded as something else. The addition of the words proposed in that amendment would make it clear that, irrespective of whatever happens to them, they are still motor vehicles for the purpose of this section.
With regard to the use of caravans for the purpose of habitation, owing to the numbers on the housing list, a practice has developed where members of a family or a couple, who have been on the housing list for a long time and live in overcrowded and stressful conditions, live in a caravan parked in the back garden of one member of the couple's family. They may live in the caravan temporarily for six to nine months and it provides them with some respite from the rest of the family. Will planning permission be required to do that?
Will members of a family require planning permission to park a caravan at the back of their house for the purpose of living in it for a short period? Will groups, such as the eco-warriors, require planning permission to build tunnels underground or to live in tree houses? Would their form of habitation contravene the Bill when passed?
It is common practice for Traveller families who have been settled to park a caravan in their driveways. The publication on planning for housing for Traveller families includes a concession that they may park a caravan in their driveways. Will Traveller families require planning permission to do that? Is it legal for them to do that?
We do not propose to change the regulations on exempted development in terms of class 18. It provides that the keeping or storing of a caravan or boat within the curtilage of a dwelling house is exempted development at present, subject to the fact that no caravan or boat shall be so kept or stored for more than nine months in any year or occupied as a dwelling while so kept or stored.
I recognise the situations Deputies Gilmore and Kelleher mentioned. There are many cases where families have parked caravans or mobile homes in their gardens and some of them are connected to the electricity supply, water supply and even the sewerage system. That is against the law, unless they have got planning permission to do that.
The Deputy is correct on that.
Does the Minister wish to reply to amendment No. 39?
Yes, I will. With regard to Deputy Dukes's point as to whether a vehicle with its interior stripped out would be still regarded as a motor vehicle, it would be safe to assume it would be regarded as a vehicle. Amendment No. 39 clarifies that the vehicles in question do not have to be in a useable condition. I am advised it is not absolutely necessary. However, if people are using that loophole it would be as well, for the sake of clarity, to make it clearer so I will accept the amendment.
What is the position regarding caravans in Travellers' conventional housing settlements?
There would be no distinction. The Deputy is talking about a Traveller family that might have got a house and brings a caravan on site. There is no distinction with regard to caravans.
In the proposed amendment?
In the amendment or in the Bill. Under the law at present, if one is living in a caravan one is supposed to have planning permission for the caravan.
Yes. However, where a local authority is building houses, it is not subject to planning regulations except the public notice regulations. Does it have to mention if it is acceptable for settlements of houses for the Traveller community to have caravans adjacent to the houses?
Each local authority operates this in its own way. In some cases when the authority provides permanent accommodation for Traveller families, it is often part of the agreement that no caravans can be brought on site. In other cases, where the accommodation is less permanent, such as halting sites and so forth, obviously they use caravans——
I am talking about conventional housing.
That would normally be dealt with by agreement. In some cases, local authorities will provide a caravan bay with the housing and that is okay. However, if a house is provided for a Traveller family and they decide to bring other members of the family to live in a caravan beside it, the law applies. That is an illegal dwelling.
What about a landowner with 50 to 100 acres who parks his old car in a field and leaves it there? Would he require planning permission for that purpose? If we take into account the amendment put down by Deputy Dukes——
Deputy Dukes has put down two amendments, one to deal with caravans and camping and the second to deal with abandoned vehicles. The abandoned vehicle does not have to be there for nine months or otherwise. The Litter Act deals with that issue.
Does the Minister not intend to deal with it in this Bill?
No.
That provision is to stop people using places as car breakers' yards without permission.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 23, subsection (2)(b)(iii), line 12, after “vehicles” to insert “whether or not usable for the purpose for which they were constructed or last used,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 23, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Any intensification of an existing use that leads to a greater impact on the adjacent environment particularly its residents due to increased noise, odours, wastes, including slurry and more transportation, shall be regarded as a material change of use which shall require permission under section 34.”.
We had a brief discussion this morning on intensification of existing uses. There should be a specific subsection to deal with that issue which makes it clear that intensification of an existing use which impacts on the adjacent environment should require planning permission. What constitutes intensification is a grey area. It is happening to a large extent in the case of commercial activity in the vicinity of residential areas. A typical example would be a garage, petrol station or car sales outlet on a road or street.
A politician with an office in his house?
I have heard that being mentioned too, although intensification would probably be regarded as an advantage in the case of the politician, until the Minister abolishes it.
We need to deal with the issue of intensified use. The Bill should provide rules for it. I represent a largely urban constituency and it is one of the issues that arises most frequently in the context of enforcement. For example, a person had something operating there previously and, given what is happening in the economy, it gets bigger and the usage intensifies. The issue constantly arises and we will have to deal with it by way of legislation. What exactly constitutes intensification and where enforcement action is taken is ambiguous at present. The issue is clear cut where there is an expansion in the building but it is now arising more frequently with regard to the use of a building. That needs to be addressed.
We had a brief discussion of this earlier. It also came up in the Seanad where there was a long and intense discussion on it.
The intensification of use, because of various court judgments, is now accepted as a material change of use in certain circumstances. It is a complicated matter. That is confirmed by even a cursory look at the decisions of the courts in both Ireland and England on the matter. Intensification means more use and the development becomes more productive, or more clients can be seen in the case of politicians' clinics. They would probably regard that as a measure of success. It is not often that this greater use is per se detrimental to the proper planning and development of the area or that additional planning controls are needed. If it is, however, the planning authorities have the power to step in. They have done that in a number of cases.
There was a long discussion about this in the Seanad and I indicated that we would take a detailed look at the possibility of introducing definitions. We did that but I was given strong legal advice that I should not try to define it because, in doing so, we might unintentionally omit something. The latter would be even worse than the former and there could be problems at a later date. It was in this context during the Seanad discussion that there was much talk about quarries and so forth.
The Deputy spoke about it being a problem in urban areas and that is true. The biggest problem that arose in rural areas in this regard was in relation to quarries, the intensification of use and pre-1963 permissions. I intend to introduce a special amendment to clarify intensification in relation to quarries but we will come to that later. Despite the innate prejudice Deputy Dukes attributed to me earlier with regard to the legal profession, I am inclined in this case to take its strong advice that we should leave the position as it stands. It is well defined in the courts.
Apart from the courts' judgments in both Ireland and England in relation to intensification, a number of matters have been referred to An Bord Pleanála in this regard and the board has issued decisions on it. Those decisions are generally used as a guideline for local authorities and individuals.
I would prefer not to accept the amendment and to continue using the guidelines based on court and An Bord Pleanála decisions rather than trying to define intensification and what it constitutes over a range of different activities. No matter how clearly we try to define it, there will always be circumstances we will not be able to predict and which will cause difficulties in the future. I, therefore, ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.
I hear what the Minister is saying but a series of situations could result in something approaching an intensification of use. If, for example, a shop in a residential area which has always been a traditional huckster type shop or a newsagent and confectioners specialises in something popular without a change of use, that could be construed as an intensification of use. If someone develops a shop to the point where it becomes a popular place to go or a pub becomes more of a meeting place than it had been before, that is an intensification of use.
Some of the manifestations of intensification of use are nothing more than the normal process of getting better at one's business. On the other hand, there are cases where what appears to be an intensification of use is more a matter of perception than anything else. If, for example, there is a large piggery in a rural area - our research shows they now need planning permission - nobody worries about it as long as it is in the middle of the countryside. They are not pleasant places at the best of times but time after time people choose to build houses in the vicinity of these legitimate operations. Everything is all right if they are there during a cold winter but during a cold wet spring they suddenly find the odour is a lot worse than in the winter because the cold keeps the smell down. There have been poisonous arguments between people in local communities not because the piggery has extended its influence elsewhere but because people have chosen to live near it.
It seems that planning law should not take account of the behaviour of people who decide to live or to be in the vicinity of what was up to then not a nuisance because there was nobody around. Someone who buys a house next door to a pub or an existing garage is inviting trouble. Someone who buys or builds a house in a rural area near a piggery or a place where slurry is being spread is voluntarily putting himself or herself in that situation. Planning law should not exist to provide remedies for people's lack of wisdom.
I will not withdraw my amendment. The Minister's logic supports the case for including it in the legislation. If, as the Minister said, the courts have addressed this issue and there is a body of case law dealing with intensification, in addition to An Bord Pleanála decisions, then it should be possible to reflect that in legislative form. It is not enough to say the issue will be dealt with on a case by case basis and that it will either go to An Bord Pleanála or the courts which will make a decision. There is a duty on the Legislature to provide a steer on how the issue of intensification should be dealt with.
I expect my amendment would need to be expanded to outline how this issue could be dealt with. We are dealing with a range of issues in this planning legislation, such as retention and unauthorised development, but this one has a considerable and widespread impact. It is a complex issue which would not lend itself to something overly restrictive. However, there is a need for a legislative framework for the planning authorities and the courts to consider how to deal with issues of intensification when they arise. It is a cop out for the Legislature to say the courts and An Bord Pleanála are dealing with this on a case by case basis so we will not provide any steer on it.
Deputy Dukes, Deputy Hayes and I have withdrawn a lot of amendments in response to positive signals from the Minister that he was willing to consider something else on Report Stage. In the absence of any consideration or prospect of this issue being addressed, I will not withdraw my amendment.
I come from an area which was once rural. What Deputy Dukes outlined will create huge problems in the future. If we change the planning laws in this area it will have a dramatic effect on rural Ireland, particularly for the agricultural sector and small businesses. If, for example, a farmer has 30 cows and he buys 20 more, that is an intensification of use because it means more trucks are bringing food to the farm and taking produce from it. Under this amendment the farmer would have to apply for a change of usage.
A court order was issued recently to a farmer which prevented him from starting to milk his cows prior to 7 a.m., although he always started at 6 a.m., because people who purchased or built homes in the area decided they wanted to sleep until 7 a.m. We must address this problem. If this amendment is accepted, it could bring rural Ireland to a standstill. If a person took a case against a farmer for buying more cows or pigs, it could tie their hands. I understand the Deputy's point but he should try to protect people in this area.
Perhaps we could look at this issue. If I accepted the need for a definition of intensification, I would not use the definition in the amendment. If one person goes to a shop and then a second person goes to it, that is an intensification of use. A major difficulty in defining intensification is defining exactly where the base line is set. How does one judge that? From what level do we measure intensification? Obviously, that will be different for different types of development and also within each development. Each shop, garage, farm, pig rearing unit and so on would be different. A definition that was too wide-ranging could cause huge problems.
I ask the Deputy to look again at section 3(1), which defines development as "the making of any material change in the use of any structures or other land". That is the definition of intensification used by local authorities, An Bord Pleanála and the courts. If an increased usage leads to the making of any material change in the use of any structures or other land, it is regarded as intensification.
As I said, the current situation has not caused huge difficulties, except perhaps in the area of quarrying and so on. Deputy Kelleher cited instances of court cases. I could cite a couple of very similar court cases. Even if all these were not successful, we could tie up the courts and the local authorities for a long time trying to split hairs on what constituted intensification. I prefer to leave the situation as it is.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 23, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this section, the erection of telephone kiosks or of any other structures to which telephones are fixed, constitutes development.".
This amendment was tabled before the Minister tabled amendment No. 595 to section 230. If he can confirm his proposed amendment deals with this issue, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment.
The erection of kiosks currently constitutes development. It is exempted by virtue of the planning regulations. However, the Deputy will be glad to know that the amendment to section 230 will explicitly require a licence for the erection of kiosks, pedestals and so on on public roads and streets. There were section 89 licences under the 1963 Act. The revised section will give full power to local authorities to control the erection of kiosks. Therefore, the Deputy's amendment is not required.
Although we can discuss this under section 230, will ATM machines be included in the category of items requiring a licence?
They require planning permission.
ATM machines are quite a big issue in new estates. A lobby has emerged in the past year in part of my constituency where three years ago there were 20 houses and there are now 850 houses. A big issue of concern for people in that area is the need for an ATM machine close to the shops and banks. We, as politicians, have been lobbying the banks to provide this public facility, so that people can get money and complete transactions. There may be an argument that an ATM machine is more of a public facility or service and might be exempted development.
We will look at that between now and when we reach section 230.
This is particularly prevalent in new areas of the city——
I know the point the Deputy is making.
——where there are virtually no facilities in place. Regulations can be made under section 230, but I am not sure if they would cover that.
That would be the exempted development regulations or regulations under what was the section 89 licence. We will look at that. One of the items listed in Part III as community facilities are shopping and banking facilities. We will look at that before we reach section 230.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 53 is related to amendment No. 42 and they may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 23, subsection (1), line 20, after "Act" to insert "so long as such development does not impinge on a protected structure, any structure or area protected under the National Monuments Acts, a European site or a National Heritage Area".
This very important section will require some scrutiny. It lists categories of developments which will not require planning permission and, therefore, will not be subject to any planning control. Therefore, we must give quite an amount of consideration to what should be in that category. We will end up with a list of developments which will be exempt from planning permission. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that, whatever list of exempted developments we end up with, a proviso will be included in the legislation that such exempted development should not impinge on any structure or area protected under the National Monuments Acts, a European site or a national heritage area. That speaks for itself. Although we have legislation and rules for national monuments, national heritage areas and so on, they will, effectively, be undermined if we permit exempted development to have no regard to the existence of these sites or areas. The purpose of the amendments is to copperfasten the protection of national monuments and heritage areas. A limit should be put on the very considerable freedom given under the exempted development provisions in section 4.
I understand what Deputy Gilmore is trying to do. I assure him that his genuine fears that the exempted development section of the Bill could lead, inadvertently or otherwise, to a national monument, European site or national heritage area being affected cannot happen. They are protected in the existing legislation and we are strengthening that in the Bill. If a development materially affects a protected structure, which is the first category the Deputy has mentioned, under section 49 it needs planing permission. Therefore, that part of the amendment is superfluous in that it is covered. If it is going to impinge on or materially affect a protected structure it is catered for in section 49.
As for the other areas, national monuments are covered under a completely different legislative code which requires that any types of work within a certain distance of a national monument, whether they are exempt under the planning code, have to be notified to the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. It gives the latter Minister extensive powers to protect national monuments. I do not propose to add confusion to that. There is sufficient protection there. My colleague, the Minister, Deputy de Valera, is satisfied that extensive powers exist to protect national monuments and that they are in no danger under this legislation.
The EU wildlife habitats directive controls exempted development of such sites, such as for agricultural use, in a manner which planning control cannot do. The EU controls are even stronger than national ones and it is not a good idea to try to regulate this matter under the planning laws. It can be done more effectively under the EU wildlife habitats regulations. In addition, at the end of last year I introduced EIA regulations under which an environmental assessment must be carried out where a proposed development could have a significant effect on the environment of an SAC. That system is better and more workable than including anything that "impinges on an SAC" - a term which is a bit too vague and does not enable people to understand their duties and obligations concerning such EU-designated wildlife habitat sites.
The last point, which is slightly unsatisfactory from everybody's point of view at this stage, concerns the national heritage areas. Legal provisions for the NHAs will be provided for in the recently published Wildlife (Amendment) Bill, 1999. However, until the latter Bill is enacted the NHAs have no status in law. Therefore, I cannot protect them or refer to them under the Planning and Development Bill at this stage. The definition of European sites provides that other types of site may be prescribed as included in the definition. It is intended that such sites will include natural heritage areas once they are given the legal status.
I share the Deputy's concern about ensuring that there is no gap in the laws for protecting protected structures, national monuments or EU wildlife habitat sites. I am absolutely satisfied that the legislation as it stands, and legislation that already exists such as the EU wildlife habitats regulations, adequately covers the Deputy's concerns.
We are also discussing amendment No. 53. Section 55 provides that, notwithstanding paragraph (h), works to a protected structure or a proposed protected structure, are not exempt if they materially affect the character of the structure. It is unnecessary, therefore, to include this amendment for protected structures. I share the Deputy’s concerns but they are well catered for in this Bill and in other legislation. I do not wish to cause confusion between different legislation, thus perhaps defeating the purpose and aim that both the Deputy and I have that such places are properly protected.
I may have raised this point previously when discussing the Architectural Heritage Bill. We all value national monuments and protected structures but in the case of a major road development, a small national monument could be moved to another area, using modern heavy lifting equipment. In other countries buildings have been dismantled and rebuilt elsewhere, stone by stone, because that is a more suitable system. Are there legislative provisions to allow this to happen here? It could be useful in the case of a major road development where the road cannot be diverted around a national monument. Some mechanism should be in place for that.
The short answer is yes but the responsibility rests with the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.
So in that case she would have powers stronger than An Bord Pleanála.
In that case, yes. Obviously, the primary method of conservation would always involve leaving a monument in situ. It is emphasised both in the national development plan and in the commission’s response to that plan that all these things must be taken into account prior to final decisions being made. Basically the message is to avoid national monuments if one can, but the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands would have the power to move something from a particular location.
I accept what the Minister has said about the legislation meeting the objective of the amendment so I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 23, subsection (1)(a), lines 22 to 24, to delete "and development consisting of the use for that purpose of any building occupied together with land so used".
Under the Bill as proposed, development consisting of the use of land for agriculture is exempt and obviously I accept that. However, as I understand it, subsection (a) goes on to state that buildings which are associated with agriculture are also exempt. That needs to be reconsidered. With a smaller number of much larger agricultural units operating on a much more intensive basis, the use of buildings associated with agricultural activity will obviously increase. I am not sure the proposal is a good idea. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but is it the case that under the Bill any building on a farm which is associated with agricultural use will be exempted development?
I have a long list of them, but it is not the case that any structure that goes up is exempt. Class 6 of the exempted developments lists: "works consisting of the provision of a roof structure for the housing of pigs, cattle, sheep, goats, poultry, donkeys, horses, deer or rabbits [I notice they do not have ostriches included], having a floor area not exceeding 300 square metres, whether or not by extension of an existing and any ancillary provision for effluent storage." That is exempted development but a number of conditions are attached to that. It cannot be used for any purpose other than agriculture. The total areas are defined. The building itself, or any other combination of buildings within 100 metres, shall not exceed 450 square metres. An effluent storage structure must be that specific size and shall not be within ten metres of any public road. Any structure exceeding eight metres in height shall not be within 100 metres of a public road and no such structure shall be situated, and no effluent in it shall be stored, within 100 metres of any dwelling. It must also be used specifically for agriculture. There are also a series of curtailments on that. In some respects they are probably more generous than most of the other exemptions, but they are probably all necessary.
Is the Minister saying that, broadly speaking, the current situation will continue where, generally, buildings used for agriculture are exempt except in certain cases to which he has referred, where they are less than ten metres from a public road and so on? If it is any comfort to Deputy Gilmore, I suspect that given the way agriculture is going and its prospects for development, it is likely to be less intensive in its use of buildings than it has been, because margins are declining and the larger the farm units the greater the chance that any buildings associated with them will be further from a public road.
I appreciate what the Minister says about restrictions on the exemption, but they are not very strong. To specify that buildings be not less than ten metres from a public road means that they can still be very near one. A building eight metres in height is a high building, a building of 300 square metres covers a substantial floor space and there is reference to 450 square metres with regard to another class of building. These are substantial buildings, yet they are exempt from having to apply for planning permission.
The Minister is not disposed to accept the amendment, but this issue will have to be returned to. I understand why in 1963, when the original Local Government (Planning and Development) Act was enacted, a number of blanket exemptions were granted. That was at a time when I doubt if there were many farm buildings of 350 or 450 square meters in size.
Notwithstanding Deputy Dukes's comments, we cannot frame legislation on the basis of what we think may or may not happen. Clear issues arise from the planning aspect to agricultural buildings and they may have a significant environmental impact, including on neighbouring farms. The question about whether there should be a blanket exemption of this kind, albeit with the fairly loose restrictions the Minister referred to, will have to be revisited.
Did the Deputy consult with Deputy Penrose on that?
I do not think there are too many large agricultural buildings in his constituency.
There are a surprising number of them.
Deputy Gilmore's concerns can be better addressed in the context of the regulations. They were introduced after 1963 and they were most recently revised in 1994. They can be amended to reflect the changing circumstances in farming.
Even small exempted developments that are allowed to houses appear to cause great difficulties in towns and cities. There appears to be a more "live and let live" attitude in rural areas because neighbours take the view that they must make a living. Before I became Minister for the Environment and Local Government, I dealt with the issue only two or three times in my public life. When the Bill is passed we will look at all the regulations and we will then be prepared to consider any views the Deputy may hold.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 45 to 50, inclusive, are related and all may be taken together by agreement.
Why are they related?
That is the information before me. Do you disagree with it?
Yes. For example, I cannot see the connection between amendment No. 44 and amendment No. 48 or between amendment No. 44 and amendment No. 50.
They all refer to local authority developments and exemptions.
I could imagine cases where the Minister might accept some of these and not others.
I can still do that if they are being taken together.
If it makes the bureaucracy comfortable to categorise them together that is all right.
They will all be dealt with. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 23, subsection (1), lines 25 and 26, to delete paragraph (b).
This legislation inherits some of the old chestnuts from the 1963 Act, which provided that works carried out by county councils and other local authorities did not require planning permission. That has been qualified by the Part X procedures, which require county councils or local authorities undertaking certain works, such as building a housing scheme or doing work which would normally require planning permission, to advertise, allow a period of public notice and receive and consider observations from the public and make a final decision. It is now time to require local authorities to go through the formal planning process in the same way as other developments. This should include requiring developments undertaken by them to be subject to appeal to An Bord Pleanála, which is not the case at present.
The argument often used against this is to ask how a county council applies to itself for planning permission? There is a way to deal with that. We have not seen the Minister's reform legislation, but if consideration is given to the structures that are devolving - SPC type structures, directors of services and so on - it is becoming apparent that local authorities are developing distinct authorities for specific functions. For example, the local authority is also a housing authority and at least the larger authorities have a separate housing department, in many cases headed by an assistant county manager. Similarly, with regard to sanitary services, community development, etc., the county council operates as a number of different authorities. In many respects its role as a planning authority is quite distinct within the umbrella of the local authority itself. It is staffed by professional planning staff who are recruited separately from the normal recruitment of staff.
I do not think there would be anything out of order in the local authority, as the housing authority, applying to the planning authority, although it is under the same umbrella, for planning permission because it must do that anyway, in a fashion, under Part X. Under the Part X process the application ends up before the planning department, which gives its views on it.
The advantage of requiring local authorities to go through the planning process is that it is more transparent, it puts everybody on the same basis in that it is not a case of there being one rule for a private development and another for a public development, it makes all development subject to appeal to An Bord Pleanála and it provides the same set of rules for everybody. The time has come to do that and to end the situation whereby planning, as it is commonly understood, does not apply to local authorities.
It would also provide for better planning, to get back to development as a concept as opposed to an act. If local authorities were required to apply for planning permission and to go through the planning process, it would provide for better planning of areas, etc. If we look at it in the context of the fact that there must be local area plans - and there will be plans, for example, under Part V of the Bill, on a housing strategy to set aside land for social and affordable housing - the point at which that becomes integrated in reality is not just in this conceptual sense where there are all these grand plans, schemes, etc., which are adopted by local authorities. The test will be that the local authority goes through the planning process in the same way as everybody else.
What needs to be done is what will probably happen more often anyway, that is, that the function of the planning authority would become more distinct under the local authority umbrella. That is what has happened in practice and is likely to happen under the development of SPCs and directors of services, etc., that each of these separate arms of the local authority will have a separate identity and there will be no reason a formal application for planning permission cannot be made.
There was a time when I took a view similar to that set out by Deputy Gilmore but I have gone past that. There is a difficulty, which no administrative astuteness will get around, in requiring a planning authority to be the judge and jury in its own case. No matter how one shifts things around from one department to another or from one function of the executive in the local authority to another, it is at the end of the day the same local authority and the chief executive is still its manager. I see a difficulty there.
There was a time also when I felt that perhaps the way to deal with that was to set An Bord Pleanála in a similar relationship with the local authority as the relationship in which the local authority is set with an applicant for planning, which is an idea which seems to have a certain attraction, but that is not the real purpose of An Bord Pleanála. An Bord Pleanála would need to be much bigger to deal with this.
The scheme which is set out in the Bill appeals to me for one reason in particular, which is, that where it is development being proposed by the local authority, the decision on the development is made by the elected members of the local authority. I welcome that. I know there are people who criticise the quality of judgment one can expect in such cases but I do not, although I do not have an unduly rosy view of members of local authorities any more than they have of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas - I am not insulting anybody when I say that.
The fact of the matter is that if one gives people no responsibility, they will be irresponsible. There are plenty of instances of local authorities acting in a responsible way when the responsibility was squarely placed on the members of the local authority. I would put more of the responsibility for decisions on the members of the local authority because, among other things, I am a believer in representative democracy. There has been a downgrading in practice of local authorities for many years and every time we put more consultative structures and more separate channels for consultation in place we downgrade the role of local authorities. That is not what we should do.
I like the scheme in the Bill because in this case, as in a certain few other cases, it puts the responsibility for making decisions squarely on the shoulders of the members of the local authority. If I am not mistaken, there is a fail-safe clause, as is in the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act, 1998, and in other Acts. It is that if the members of the local authority do not make a decision within a certain time, the manager will step in. I do not like that provision because it gives rise to too many opportunities for cuteness on the part of members and managers of local authorities, but I like the scheme in that regard which is contained in the Bill.
After all, the people who will be making decisions on the kind of developments to which we are referring will be making decisions on issues which are almost by definition of immediate community interest. They will be talking about developments to be carried out by the local authority. These will be substantial infrastructural works, housing and, in some cases, the provision of community facilities. These are all developments for which members for the local authority should properly be answerable at election time to their electorate. Under the scheme in the Bill by and large they will be the people who will have decided and they will have to defend or explain the decisions. That is a satisfactory and democratic system. In addition, I cannot see another authority which we could put in place which would guard the guards.
I find myself agreeing with much of what Deputy Dukes said. The effects of amendments Nos. 44, 46 and 47, as Deputy Gilmore outlined, would be to require a local authority to obtain planning permission for itself. In making the case, Deputy Gilmore spoke of equality of treatment, etc., but the point made by Deputy Dukes is valid. A local authority seeking to provide housing, for instance, for people on its housing waiting list or affordable housing for people who cannot provide houses for themselves should not be treated on the same basis as a private builder trying to build houses for a huge profit.
As Deputy Dukes stated at length, the merit of the Part X procedure in the Bill is that it makes it subject to the democratic control of the elected members. That relates to relatively small scale developments in a local authority area. If there are large-scale developments which require EIAs, under section 159, they are subject to approval by An Bord Pleanála and, therefore, there is sufficient control in place.
Amendment No. 48 states that the development of a new road would only be exempt where there is an objective in the development plan to provide for the road. That is unnecessary because section 162 prohibits a local authority from carrying out any development which would materially contravene a development plan. New roads require provision in development plans and the amendment would not add to that stipulation. Even if the amendment were accepted, a local authority would be obliged to apply to itself to obtain permission to do something.
Amendment No. 45 provides that development by a county council in its functional area would be exempt "save as otherwise provided by this Act". Perhaps Deputy Dukes could expand on what is contained in the amendment because I am not sure what it adds to the provision which is already in place. The Bill does not provide for a local authority to apply to itself for planning permission. Therefore, I cannot see a need for the amendment.
Amendment No. 49 proposes the removal of the exemption for development carried out in partnership with a local authority. This amendment is critical to our overall plans to introduce public private partnerships to the local authority infrastructure. These developments will be subject to the same democratic controls locally as developments carried out by local authorities or, if they are large scale developments, they will be subject to the approval of the board where an EIA is involved. I want local authorities to be involved in as many developments as possible and to be more proactive in trying to improve local communities by providing infrastructure, etc. I do not intend to tie their hands behind their backs by stating that they cannot become involved in public private partnerships.
I do not believe that amendment No. 50 is necessary. The amendment proposes that the exemption for development to be carried out on behalf of, or in partnership with, a local authority would only relate to development which "falls expressly within the statutory powers and competences of that local authority". However, as the law stands, local authorities can only become involved in initiatives which come within their statutory competence. Therefore, the proposed restraint is already in place and the amendment would not do anything to change that. I am not sure what is meant by the phrase "falls expressly within" and perhaps the Deputy will provide an explanation. I do not wish to do anything which would stymie the opportunity for local authorities to become involved in PPPs and I am sure the Deputy shares my concern in that regard.
I accept that local authorities operate under different programmes and will increasingly move to a situation where they will be answerable to directors of services and, as Deputy Gilmore stated, different areas will almost become independent units of local authorities. However, at the end of the day one manager and one chief executive - in theory and, on certain occasions, in practice - will be responsible for making the final decisions in this area. I am not disposed, therefore, to accept any of these amendments, except, perhaps, amendment No. 50, in respect of which I have requested clarification from Deputy Dukes.
The fact that the Minister is not disposed to accepting any of the amendments is as good a reason as any for grouping them together.
My intention in amendment No. 45 was to make it clear, if necessary, that, under the Bill, another procedure - the EIA procedure - may be used. I was seeking to make clear that this exemption does not apply in that case. The amendment refers to an area that is within the competence of a local authority but where, because of the specific nature of a development, there is another procedure to be followed. That is the reasoning behind amendment No. 45.
I accept the Minister's point in respect of amendment No. 50. I preface my remarks by stating that I do not have great expectations for PPPs and I am somewhat sceptical about some of the claims that have been made about them. However, there will be cases where they will undoubtedly speed up the progress ofdevelopments. My only concern here is that when a local authority becomes involved in a partnership with some other interest or agency, I suppose it is conceivable that the authority could find itself involved in a particular project with a partner which is involved in some other project. This might have a bearing or effect on what the local authority intended to do and, indirectly, draw it into some other area of activity.
Let us suppose, for example, that a local authority entered into a partnership to build a swimming pool with a private sector partner which was involved in building the pool as part of a wider ranging complex. Is there a danger that the local authority, through that public private partnership, could become, de facto, involved in a wider operation which might involve a substantial commercial element? I intend no criticism here because the development might include the construction of a pool hall, a bowling alley, etc. Would it be proper, however, for a local authority to be involved in a development through which it could be indirectly linked into a commercial operation which falls outside its remit?
The Minister made a number of extraordinary comments in his reply, particularly in relation to amendment No. 49. With regard to the general question at issue in respect of this group of amendments, the Minister provided the example of local authority housing development. Why should such development not be subject to the normal planning process? I see no reason for it to be exempt. I do not know whether the Minister was implying that, from a planning point of view, a lower standard should be applied to local authority housing than is applied to private housing. I would not agree with such an assertion. In my experience the standards applied to local authority housing, in terms of planning, quality of building, etc., are far superior to those applied to private housing developments. I do not believe different standards should be applied.
Due to the fact that local authorities are not required to make planning applications, different standards arise from time to time. For example, a housing refurbishment scheme in my constituency was advertised under the part 10 procedure and approved by the council. The scheme involved the construction of a series of single storey extensions at the rear of a row of older houses. At some time subsequent to the approval of the part 10 process, the local authority decided to construct two storey extensions. The distance between the upstairs windows of the extensions and those of properties adjacent to them was significantly shorter than would be allowed if it were a private development. A complaint has been made to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government that the part 10 procedure was not used properly and that it should have been re-used when the change of plan occurred. This is an example where the local authority decided to do something that its own planning authority would not approve if it were a private development.
There should not be two standards and the only way to avoid it is to subject all developments to the planning process. One of the advantages of doing so is that the same appeals board will ultimately adjudicate on a private development or one pursued by a local authority. The fact that the appeals board will address such developments will discipline the local authority to comply with what would otherwise be its normal planning standards. There is an issue here which must be resolved.
I draw attention to section 4(1)(f), which states that “development which is carried out in the functional area of a local authority, which is a planning authority, on behalf of, or in partnership with, the local authority, or pursuant to a contract with the local authority”, will be exempt from planning permission. Until the advent of public private partnerships such an exemption applied to local authorities developing a road, for example. The contractor did not have to apply for planning permission. Similarly, a contractor building a housing scheme for a local authority does not have to apply for planning permission.
In this new era, which I welcome, local authorities will have the power to enter into PPPs with private companies to develop various facilities, for example, waste facilities. Local authorities will make arrangements with private companies for the development of recycling parks, dumps, incinerators and other waste treatment facilities. The same may happen in the provision of water supplies. The local authority could contract a private company to construct a water treatment plant and down the line the company could become involved in the direct supply of water.
The Minister proposes that they will not be obliged to apply for planning permission because the development is under contract or in partnership with the local authority. He said that he did not want to tie the hands of local authorities in entering partnerships with private companies, which is a fascinating use of language. How are their hands tied? This is just about applying for planning permission. Nobody is saying that it prohibits the partnership arrangements. Why is it unacceptable that if a company wishes to build an incinerator or a waste treatment plant in partnership with a local authority, it should not have to apply for planning permission?
Section 4(1)(f) is one of the most dangerous provisions in the legislation. We have argued whether local authorities should be subject to the planning process but this allows, particularly in the context of PPPs, developments which will not be subject to the planning process. In order to apply for planning permission, a development must be undertaken on behalf of or in partnership with a local authority. Significant developments will be involved.
Councillors must agree to the developments. Who better to decide?
Yes, but An Bord Pleanála is not involved.
Unless an EIA is needed.
That is right. There is no obligation to apply for planning permission. For example, over the next seven years approximately £650 million will be invested under the national development plan in waste facilities and because virtually all that money will be invested in partnerships with local authorities there will be no obligation on contractors to apply for planning permission.
Councillors must agree and an EIA will be required.
Deputy Gilmore, without interruption.
I am trying to help the Deputy, not interrupt him.
I thank the Deputy. It is great to get such assistance - I do not know what I would do without it. It is important that what is proposed in this section is understood. There will be a raft of developments over the next number years for which planning permission will not be required. When the next incinerator lobby calls to Deputy Dukes and asks why planning permission was not needed, he can explain to the group, as he did to me, that he is in agreement with it.
The end of Deputy Gilmore's contribution was much less convincing than the Stalinist passion of the middle.
I understand the contradiction which Deputy Gilmore has exposed but I suspect there are valid reasons for it. For instance, if one is consistent with the argument made duringthe debate on the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Bill, 1998, the development of every halting site or group water scheme would not be appealed to An Bord Pleanála because it is recognised that there is a fundamental need which must be adhered to. I am a county councillor and it is virtually impossible to reach agreement on public housing schemes because of the snob elements in some sections of our community. If we add more bricks to that, there will be longer housing lists and increased suffering for people because every time agreement is sought, whether it is for an in-fill development or a new development in an open area, there is complete opposition because of the NIMBY syndrome.
A distinction must be made between what is in the public interest and what is in the private interest. Deputy Gilmore referred to waste incinerators under section 4(1)(f). In my council area, we have been trying to develop an enterprise centre in one of the most deprived parts in Ireland, in which the local authority is the majority partner. It has managed to amass money between five or six other agencies. By having An Bord Pleanála as the final decision-maker, the cost for the production of that enterprise centre will have escalated eight or nine months from now. At present, we cannot afford to build it because building costs are so high. If it had been built last year, it could have been built at a reasonable cost. There have been objections to it even though it fulfils an important village aspect of a housing development which needs to be put in place.
I am sympathetic to what the Minister has said. There are two sides to this story. We must accept that some things must be done for the common good which require that type of contradiction. It is a bit Orwellian - two legs good, four legs bad. I support the Minister in what he is trying to do, especially with regard to public housing. Deputy Gilmore is well aware of the culture of objection to council housing and to people living in council estates. It is one of the things I observed most in entering politics. There is rampant opposition to people living in council housing and to councils building such houses. If we put more barriers in the way of that, we will have longer housing lists.
That argument is a bit disingenuous. On the one hand, Deputy Dukes say this is being decided by the elected members of the council under the Part X procedure. On the other hand, Deputy Hayes says there is a culture of objection, the logic of which I presume is that it is more difficult for elected members of local authorities to make the decision, which would seem to reinforce the argument to have it done through the planning process.
That is not the argument I made, it is just the Deputy's interpretation of it. Putting more barriers in place delays the implementation of a goal we have all accepted is in the national interest and the common good and to which we have all acceded.
If we go that route, one must ask what is the necessity for planning? One could have made the same argument, for example, when this country was starved of employment, that industrial development should not have had to go through the planning process.
That is not the argument.
Perhaps the Deputies can explain why a person building a house in a field in County Kildare and who is perhaps a member of the owner's family must apply for planning permission, but a private company——
Or a public housing scheme.
——in the next field, provided it is building something for which it is in partnership with the local authority, does not have to apply for planning permission?
No, what happens in that case——
That is what the Bill says.
That applies where a local authority uses a public-private partnership as a method of securing its objective.
The Deputy is wrong.
The best person to answer that is the Minister.
We had best get back to first principles on this. There is no suggestion that a person would be able to build a development without planning permission.
There is. It is exempted development.
The Deputy should look at the rest of the Bill. This is the problem with dealing with the definitions in a Bill. I mentioned this before we began.
It has nothing to do with definitions.
The Deputy should look at section 163. I know it will not suit his argument if he looks at it.
We are discussing exemptions. If a company builds an incinerator or any type of waste treatment plant on behalf of a local authority, does it have to apply for planning permission?
If a company builds an incinerator on behalf of a local authority, it will have to undergo the environmental impact assessment procedure and the decision will be made by An Bord Pleanála. It will also have to undergo Environmental Protection Agency procedures to obtain an IPC licence.
That does not answer the question. Does it have to apply for planning permission?
Having previously gone through the county council.
Does it have to apply for planning permission?
The Deputy should not try to be smart about this.
I am not being smart. I merely asked a straight question.
I know. I can already see the headlines about this. However, the Deputy should not be smart about it. He knows as well as I that, looking at the Bill in its totality and specifically at section 163, which outlines developments by local authorities on their own or in conjunction with others, a number of options are available. One can apply for planning permission, as he or I would, there is a Part X procedure for local authorities and there is the EIA procedure, all of which mean planning permission is being sought.
There are different methods of obtaining planning permission. The incinerator goes through a planning procedure which ends with An Bord Pleanála making a decision. The Part X procedure means local councillors, who are democratically accountable to the local people, make the decision rather than An Bord Pleanála, the manager or someone else. The normal planning applications of a private citizen or company are processed by local authorities and applicants have the right to appeal to An Bord Pleanála so that either the local authority or An Bord Pleanála makes the final decision.
Local authorities cannot decide willy-nilly to build houses, incinerators, halting sites or anything else anywhere they like in their functional areas. They are subject to their county development plans. In the specific case the Deputy mentioned, if there were stipulations in the county development plan relating to distances, etc., as there should be, the local authority in the case in point was wrong and illegally contravened its own development plan. Thankfully that does not happen often but it happens on some occasions and there are remedies for that.
I emphasise that no one is exempt and we are not making anyone exempt from planning. The Deputy must take the Bill in its totality and I refer him specifically to section 163, which deals with the points he mentioned, and section 159, which deals with the Part X procedure. In case the Deputy interpreted what I said earlier in a certain way, the standards which apply to local authority housing at present are such that the quality of the housing is higher than much of what is built in the private sector. That is how I would like it to remain. I do not want the Deputy or anyone else leaving with the impression that we are trying to exempt people from planning restraints and controls. That is not the purpose of this Bill. I have not spent the past two and a half years with officials drafting a Bill so that we can exempt people from planning.
There is a certain logic to Deputy Gilmore's point but, as a member of a local authority, it is not a logic to which I would subscribe. It is right and proper that developers, be they a local authority or a private company, who provide something in the common good or that people would like to achieve should go through a process, whatever that might be. In the case of private or local authority developments in my area, the first one might know about them is that the application is placed on public view. As a councillor, one has the option to raise it at the planning meeting, discuss it, make a submission and recommend refusal. That is the easy option for a politician who then hopes that an official or An Bord Pleanála will save him or her and do what is necessary and right. This will happen with the incinerator.
There have also been local authority part 10 procedures where there was much consultation so that by the time the work went to formal part 10 it was in a format acceptable to councillors and the public. I know of one particularly contentious case where this happened over a couple of months so that everyone was happy by the time it went out as a part 10 and it was just a case of getting it through. I am concerned that if a local authority had to go through the full process it would not engage in prior consultation which is the mechanism by which a residents' association or councillor can make a meaningful input. Once a formal application is made it is not always possible to alter it to a manner acceptable to the public.
As regards the incinerator, I am in favour of democratic accountability and it is harder to get by councillors than An Bord Pleanála. Whatever the Minister may think, An Bord Pleanála is a bit of a lottery at the best of times. Councillors often refuse an application knowing that someone else will bail them out.
Although he says otherwise, the Minister is talking about exempted development.
I am talking about exempting development from planning permission or planning withdrawal. The heading refers to "Exempted Development".
It says that the following shall be exempted. This means that these developments do not have to apply for planning permission. There is no other meaning. Section 163 is basically a restatement of the part 10 process as we understand it.
Which is a planning control.
However, it is a different process and there is no point in trying to give the impression that it is normal planning permission. It is a different process which is not subject to appeal to An Bord Pleanála. The environmental impact assessment process is a different process and is subject to certain thresholds. The EIA procedure does not apply to a range of developments below certain——
Part 10 applies where the EIA does not.
Yes, but part 10 is not planning permission and is not appealable. There is a need for some honesty.
I would appreciate that.
There is provision in this legislation, some of which repeats the existing arrangements, that certain types of development do not require planning permission. Farming does not have to apply for planning permission, neither do local authorities carrying out developments on their own land. Paragraph (f) opens a Pandora’s box and stipulates that a development does not require planning permission if it is in partnership with or on contract to a local authority. There will be many developments over the next six or seven years involving public private partnerships which would normally require planning permission if carried out by a private company. Arguments can be made about who should make decisions. I agree that decisions in many cases should be made by the elected members of local authorities. However, there is no point——
They do in some cases.
Some members of the Deputy's party did not exactly distinguish themselves last night when they had to make a decision under certain circumstances.
Now we are getting to the nub of the matter.
Should decisions on halting sites also be made by An Bord Pleanála?
I am glad the Deputy asked that question because that was the example to which I was referring. The Deputy would be well advised to talk to some of his colleagues.
Deputy Gilmore should get down off his pedestal.
Will Deputy Gilmore answer my question?
Deputy Gilmore is calling for honesty so he should get down from his pulpit and talk about the reality.
I am not on a pulpit.
He has been Bible thumping for the past 30 minutes.
I have not been Bible thumping and I am sorry if I am irritating the Deputy.
The Deputy is the one who has been calling for honesty.
I have had a belly full of the Deputy's patronising nonsense since this debate began.
Deputies should address their comments to the Chair.
Deputy Gilmore is calling for honesty.
I am tabling an amendment which requires people to apply for planning permission for a range of developments which currently require permission but which will not if they are done in partnership with a local authority.
The Deputy's proposal is utterly unfounded.
It is not unfounded. It is a fact that any development——
It is a different kind of control.
It is here is black and white.
It is a different kind of control.
Any development which takes place in partnership with or under contract to a local authority will not have to apply for planning permission. At some point in this debate we will divide on this issue and make a decision.
On that occasion I will argue for giving power to elected members of local authorities and we will see where the democrats are.
The Deputy should address his comments to the Chair.
We have to be honest with the public and say that there is a proposal before the committee to exempt a range of developments from having to apply for planning permission. Members are free to support or reject my amendment which stipulates that these developments should have to apply for planning permission. Part 10 and the environmental impact assessment procedure have their uses but they do not constitute planning permission. There is no point in trying to pretend they are planning permission. If they were we would not have separate procedures.
Should the provisions of the traveller accommodation Act apply?
That legislation has been enacted and is being implemented.
I am seeking to clarify the Deputy's proposal. Should An Bord Pleanála be the final court of appeal for all developments under the traveller accommodation Act?
Should they have to go through the section 36 procedure?
That is already being done under the traveller accommodation Act.
As I understand the situation, An Bord Pleanála does not have a say under that Act.
That is correct and that is the law.
Would the Deputy change that?
I am not proposing to change that provision.
So that is exempted development.
There is a range of exempted developments, including agriculture. There are different types of exempted developments. What we are talking about, particularly as regards paragraph (f), are different types of developments carried out in partnership with or under contract to local authorities.
At the behest of local authorities.
Perhaps.
Clearly at the behest of local authorities.
What is so heretical about requiring them to apply for planning permission? We ask people to apply for planning permission if they are converting the garage beside their house.
The Deputy may have a distaste for it but if, for example, a private operator wishes to build an incinerator in a field which he or she is about to buy he or she would have to apply for planning permission, carry out an environmental impact assessment and expose the company to the planning process, a possible appeal to An Bord Pleanála and the EPA would issue the licences required. However, if a local authority adopts a waste management plan consistent with its county development plan which requires it to build a particular type of waste management facility but does not have the money to do so, it can negotiate a deal with a private partner to provide some or all of the money up front and to design, construct and build the facility. The local authority can claim that the work is being done on its behalf so the decision can be made by the elected members of the council. If the plant is large enough it will require an environmental impact assessment. If there is a problem An Bord Pleanála will adjudicate on it. What is wrong with that?
Why should we not have to apply for planning permission?
The Select Committee adjourned at 5.05 p.m. until 10.00 a.m. on Thursday, 13 April 2000.