I welcome the Minister and his officials. We will meet until 1.30 p.m. I remind members that the next meeting to discuss this Bill will take place on Tuesday, 2 May, from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m.
Planning and Development Bill, 1999 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 121:
In page 31, subsection (4)(b)(iii), line 48, to delete “response” and substitute “opinion”.
-(Deputy Gilmore.)
How stands amendment No. 121?
We got bogged down on this. I indicated that I could accept amendments Nos. 122 to125, inclusive, but that there was a problem with amendment No. 121. We had a long discussion on this issue yesterday. I circulated the procedures we were discussing in relation to the development plan. This is the pre-draft development plan stage. Once the initial consultations, submissions and so on are made, before the draft is actually drafted by the council, the manager will prepare a report on the various submissions that he has received and so on. We had a long discussion on that issue and one of the things he will do in his report, referred to by amendment No. 121, is to state the policies the manager intends to pursue in preparing the draft development plan. I understand the difficulty that members have in that this seems to imply that the manager makes and pursues the policies but that is not the intention.
Having looked at this again, and remembering that we are talking about a report that the manager will bring to councillors as part of preparing the draft development plan before it goes on public display and having had some consultations, perhaps the provision should stipulate that he will state his recommendations on the policies to be included in the draft development plan. This will make it clear that the manager will make recommendations but the members will agree whether these are the policies to be pursued. The new subsection would read, "In Page 32, lines 3 and 4, to delete subsection (iv and substitute "(iv) state the manager's recommendations on the policies to be included in the draft development plan."
Will we do that now?
If members agree we can do it now.
Amendment No. 121 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 122:
In page 32, subsection (4)(b)(iv), line 3, to delete “pursue” and substitute “recommend to the council”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I propose the following substitute to amendment No. 122:
In page 32, lines 3 and 4, to delete subparagraph (iv) and substitute:
"(iv) state the manager's recommendations on the policies to be included in the draft development plan."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 123:
In page 32, subsection (4)(d), line 11, to delete “recommendations” and substitute “directions”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 124:
In page 32, subsection (4)(d), line 13, to delete “recommendations” and substitute “directions”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 125:
In page 32, subsection (4)(d), line 18, to delete “recommendations” and substitute “directions”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Amendments Nos. 126 to 128, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 129 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 133, 156, 163, 209, 513 and 519 are cognate and amendment No. 140 is related. These amendments may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 129:
In page 32, subsection (3)(b), line 42, before “submissions” to insert “written”.
Will the Minister tell us what he is at here? He is proposing to add the word "written" before various submissions. In a later amendment I propose to delete the word "written" on the basis that these submissions should not be exclusively written. We had wise discussions about electronic communications and we ought to align what we are doing here with those discussions.
The Deputy and I are trying to achieve the same thing. Electronic communications will be regarded as written.
There is a provision which states that this covers electronic communications so why does the Minister wish to insert the word "written"?
The reason is that I do not want oral submissions, such as those where a councillor or official is met on the street by someone who argues that such a thing should happen, to be regarded as a formal submission to the development plan. Everything should be on paper. This protects everyone. In light of what we have heard and seen, this is the safer thing to do.
What is written is more revealing.
Yes. In a sense it also guards against a situation where, if officials do not wish to consider or highlight an issue, they can ignore such an issue if it is not given in a written or electronic format. This is important and not just for development plans. We are talking about more than development plans, we are talking about variations to those plans, rights of way, regional planning guidelines and special development zones. It is important that these submissions should be in writing.
I agree and I am happy as long as we are sure that electronic communications are covered in all cases.
In deference to what the Deputy said earlier, we are coming back with an amendment and we can discuss it further at that stage.
Are there any points on the other amendments?
What is the status of oral presentations? Occasionally, during the review of a development plan, an opportunity is given to those who make submissions to make an oral presentation to planning officers. What becomes of those oral presentations?
In practice, before anyone gets an opportunity to make an oral submission, a written submission is made on which the oral presentation is based. I do not know of any case where someone, except perhaps a council official, would be asked to make an oral submission without having first made some kind of written submission. Decisions by local authorities, An Bord Pleanála or whoever else as to whether oral submissions are made are based on written submissions.
I think there are occasions when a large representative body, such as a residents' association or community organisation which represents a disadvantaged community might write in saying they represent so many people, state in very general terms the nature of their submission and ask to be heard. The planning authority might agree to hear from such groups because of their representative nature, but the actual written submission may be quite limited. I presume they would rely on the written report of the oral presentation.
It is important to be sure about this as the point made by Deputy Gilmore is good. There can be occasions when such a body will make an oral submission which for various reasons they may not have the facilities to make in written form. Will the Minister consider returning on Report Stage with a suitable enabling paragraph or subparagraph to provide that at any stage during the making of the plan the council could arrange for oral submissions to be made as it sees fit? This would ensure that a body such as that referred to by Deputy Gilmore would have access, but that the council would not have to hear every individual cockamamie, weird and wonderful collection of people who always make submissions on such things.
I will examine that as it is a valid point which might be considered. The pre-draft contains a looser procedure while what we are discussing here is statutory in nature. I will examine the matter and try to include such a provision. Given the two year timescale associated with development plans, there should not be an automatic right because if everybody submitted a very loose and vague written submission and then demanded the right to expand on it at an oral hearing the process could be delayed. The provision will have to be drafted in a very tight manner, but it has merit in terms of a good submission or serious concerns being raised which are not fully expressed in the plan.
I am conscious of that and that is why I am proposing - exceptionally for an Opposition Deputy - that the provision be that the council "may" rather than "shall" do certain things. It can help when a residents' association or a chamber of commerce brings together views on three or four different aspects of a plan.
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 130 not moved.
I move amendment No. 131:
In page 32, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) Where the draft includes any provision relating to the rezoning of land, the planning authority shall arrange for the erection on the land concerned of hoardings or such other public display as will notify the general public of the proposed land rezoning.".
This is probably a timely amendment. I am proposing that part of the public notification procedure of the proposal to rezone a parcel of land should be the placing of a notice or hoarding at a prominent place on the land concerned so that the rezoning is brought to the attention of the public.
One improvement in planning legislation has been the requirement that the notification of planning applications include the placing of a notice on the site where the application is being made. As we have mentioned in the course of our debate over the past number of days, the notices which appear in newspapers are often not seen. This problem existed in relation to planning applications, with people who might have had an interest in them or who might have wished to comment on them not seeing the newspaper advertisement. As a result the practice developed of placing a notice on sites. It is fair to say that the way most people become aware that a planning application has been made for a particular site is by seeing the site notice. Indeed, there have been many disputes as to whether notices are properly erected, are in the correct place and are displayed for a sufficient time.
The same principle should apply to notification for the rezoning of land. Currently public notice of the rezoning of land appears in the newspapers, in the draft development plan when it is on public display and through whatever attendant publicity may attach to rezoning proposals, most of which concentrate on the larger and more controversial proposals. The land is identified on maps which form part of the development plan or of motions on the plan submitted by members of local authorities. My specific proposal relates to draft development plans, but the same principle should apply to amendments to plans. It would be enormously helpful to the public if there was a standard requirement for a notice to be placed at a prominent position on the land concerned. This would reduce the possibility of people, who may have felt that certain areas would never be rezoned and who never examined the draft development plan in the public library, being unaware of rezoning.
The amendment would also bring the practice in relation to development plans into line with the current practice pertaining to planning applications, and I strongly recommend it to the Minister.
The amendment says "shall" and would require hoardings to be erected on land where rezoning was proposed. In general I sympathise with the desire to ensure the public is notified of the content of a development plan, but how much hand holding must we do in relation to this? A person who does not read newspapers, is not aware of public meetings which take place almost everywhere when rezoning is proposed and who does not hear of the controversy on national and local radio, will not go around looking for hoardings or signs, and I enter that caveat. Also, while it might be simple to put a big sign on a green field site signifying a proposal for rezoning, where could signs be placed in urban areas? How many signs or hoardings would there be in the context of a development plan being drafted? There would be a huge amount of clutter. There would be the argument that if a large green field site of hundreds of acres was being rezoned, in what field would a hoarding be put? Would it be put in every field to ensure no property owner could say he is being discriminated against because it appeared that his was the only land being rezoned when his neighbours are also involved? Our concentration has been on looking at other ways and means of ensuring the public knows. This proposal would not be helpful in any way. The disadvantages would far outweigh the advantages.
I am disappointed to hear that. The practical difficulties to which the Minister referred can be dealt with by way of size of the sign being adapted to meet the circumstances. Under a proposal to rezone commercial premises to industrial premises, there could be a sign at the common entrance to the premises concerned which would state what is happening. The type of sign involved would not have to be the same size as a sign on land some distance from a public roadway which is proposed to be rezoned. I am talking about a general indication, not an indication of individual plots of land to be rezoned. When road developments or major infrastructural developments are being undertaken, there are no difficulties with the Department advertising the fact that it is the funding authority. We see such hoardings everywhere.
Similarly, there are no difficulties after the land is rezoned with developers erecting large hoardings advertising the houses for sale and their different phases. These are lands which end up with hoardings on them one way or another. The appropriate time for a public notice to be put on these lands is at the outset when the proposal to rezone is being made. It would be of assistance to drawing public attention to the fact that the land is proposed to be rezoned. After that it is a matter for the public whether they want to look at the plans in detail and make a submission on them. The Minister's response is lame given that almost of all of the land about which we are talking ends up with several hoardings.
Since the introduction of site notices, it has become more commonly accepted that the way the public is notified of some planning applications is by site notice. There is an increasing expectation that the zoning process, which is also a very important part of planning, should also be notified using a site notice.
The amendment states that the planning authority shall arrange for the erection on the land concerned. That means all the land that is being rezoned. In the two year time span, with a local authority following the procedures outlined in relation to development plans, its time would be better spent in consultation with the public through advertising and meetings than going around erecting signs on all land it intendsto rezone. It is not practical. There are areas which cannot be seen from the road. Erecting a sign on one field representative of a large area being rezoned does not solve any problems because it gives no idea of the extent of a rezoning.
Hoardings appear once zoning is completed and the builders arrive, but it does not take up the time of local authority staff. It is a private act. When the Department and NRA consult about national roads, they do not erect signs to say this is route A or B. They send the material out in the post and let the public view it in various places.
It cannot be said that there is a lack of knowledge for those interested in development plans about proposals to change them. Mention a change to a draft development plan and there will be residents' associations, developers, individuals and councillors who know about it straight away. The information is already widely available and this would not add to it. The advantages, slight as they are, would be severely outweighed by the disadvantages and could hinder the completion of the development plan within the two year period.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 132 not moved.
I move amendment No. 133:
In page 33, section 4(b)(ii), line 7, before “submissions” to insert “written”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 134:
In page 33, subsection (4)(b)(iv), lines 15 to 17, to delete “, if the proposed addition or deletion was recommended by the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands,”.
Was this discussed with a previous amendment?
No, Deputy, but it was discussed at length in the Seanad. The effect of the deletion would be to require the planning authorities to send copies of any submission or observations received on a proposed addition to or deletion from the record of protected structures to the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. The Bill, as it stands, reflects the provision agreed in the 1999 Act that there is no need for an inclusion of this nature. The Bill requires the Minister to be notified of any addition or deletion but to be sent copies of submissions only when he or she recommended the addition or deletion.
The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands intends to recommend to planning authorities that they include in the record, structures of international, national or regional importance, based on their status in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage and where they recommend such structures for inclusion, theneed to know of any submissions so that they can respond to them.
The national and international ones are catered for but the local authorities are being encouraged and they can include other structures of solely local importance on their own initiative. While planning authorities will notify the Minister of the proposal, he or she will have no role in recommending its inclusion and, therefore, does not need to see submissions on the matter. Decisions on buildings of local importance are a matter for the planning authority The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands does not see any reason for it and I do not think we should burden that Minister or Department with additional work. She will be informed of everything that she currently needs to know relating to structures of international, national or regional importance. The other ones are local and are a matter for the local authority. I think the purpose of the amendment is covered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 not moved.
I move amendment No. 137:
In page 33, subsection (6) (a), line 46, to delete “(4)” and substitute “(5)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 138 and 143 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 138:
In page 33, subsection (6)(b), line 48, to delete “8” and substitute “12”.
These amendments have to do with the length of time the members of the planning authority have to consider the draft plan. Amendment No. 138 relates to subsection 12(6)(b) which states that the consideration of a draft plan and the manager’s report shall be completed within eight weeks of the submission of the manager’s report to members of the authority. Amendment No. 143 proposes that consideration of an amendment should be completed not later than eight weeks after the submission and not four weeks, as stated in subsection (10)(b).
These are rather short periods for elected members to have to consider what could, in some cases, be rather complex issues. These two amendments propose to add four weeks to each of those periods to ensure that members have sufficient time to consider them.
This amendment is quite important, particularly for the larger local authorities and for local authorities where there is significant potential development. This is the first time that it is proposed to put a time limit on the period which the elected members of the local authority will have for the consideration of the development plan. I see some value in that. We have had the experience of development plans taking a very long time to be considered by local authorities although, in fairness to the local authorities concerned, that has had more to do with the size of the authority and the number of proposals for rezoning and redevelopment. The classic example of this is the old Dublin County Council. The length of time development plans took in that council had to do with the extraordinary number of proposals for land rezoning and development activity of one kind or another which was proposed around the perimeter of the city.
In principle, I am in agreement with a period of time being set down within which the members of a local authority should consider and make decisions on the development plan. However, eight weeks is too short, certainly for the larger authorities where there will be much development. It is too short, bearing in mind that elected members of local authorities are, for the most part, part-time councillors. They have a day job to attend to and then have to attend council meetings where they must grapple with very complex issues and consider submissions and representations. They must also attend public meetings and so on in relation to the proposals.
Eight weeks is too short. I am not even sure that, for the larger authorities, 12 weeks is sufficient but I suggest 12 as a reasonable extension. I do not think it will be done within eight weeks and too short a time limit will create the danger of bad decisions being made and members of local authorities not having had sufficient time to consider the complexities associated with the plans. Very often a major proposal in a development plan might take more than one meeting to be considered. In the larger authorities eight weeks is not sufficient and I ask the Minister to consider extending it.
Similarly, for the amendment stage, the Minister proposes four weeks. Most local authorities only hold one meeting per month, although they may have one or two special meetings. Practical difficulties arise if more meetings than those are held. It is all very well for a member of a local authority who is a full-time public representative or has a business or job which has a degree of flexibility. Some employers are quite reluctant to release their employees every two or three days, as would have to happen in this process, to attend council meetings. It would be an unfair burden to expect a member of a local authority who is involved in some professional activity or business to be away from his or her business every second day over that period of time. A longer period of time will be necessary.
My overriding concern is that we have a fixed timeframe in which the development plan is accepted. I do not want to revert to the situation where a local authority can take 12 years, no matter what size it is, to deal with a development plan. This leads to all sorts of problems. Proposals were made in the Seanad to change the time span. I made it clear at that stage that I was not absolutely hung up on anything other than that this had to be completed within the two year period. If not, there would be consequences. If members have not completed it by the end of year six then those parts which had the agreement of the council are automatically deemed to be passed. The rest has to be done by material contravention but I do not want that to happen too often.
I hear what members are saying and there are possibilities. There is a timetable for year six. If we tighten up on the resolution by members so that there is a set time for it and it will not drift three or four weeks into year six then we can extend some times.
As regards the time frames identified, there are 38 weeks, with a question mark over the length of time required for the preparation of the amendment and, possibly, a shorter period at the very beginning for the resolution by the members. This means that 14 weeks are unoccupied. Deputy Gilmore and I are proposing that eight of those weeks be allocated. That leaves six weeks which is still feasible within the period.
The reason there are 14 weeks is to allow for some slippage. We are back from 14 weeks to six weeks slippage, maximum. That is very tight.
There is no point in inserting a time frame into the Bill which is not achievable and which will give rise to difficulties down the line. We are talking about a two year process involving public consultation and so on. We will get bad decisions if the period when the plan is under active consideration by members of a local authority is such that they have to rush matters so that chunks of the development plan are taken together in order to meet the eight week deadline. This will bring the process in for criticism. People who make submissions will go to council meetings and see an area to which they had given much attention being dealt with by the council in half an hour or whatever because it is trying to meet the eight weeks deadline.
What makes this provision different to previous efforts is that a public consultation process will have taken place before the pre-draft process during which the more controversial issues would have been raised and discussed. This means that, before the draft is prepared, people will have the opportunity to put their views and the manager will have the opportunity to point out issues which need to be addressed and to prepare the draft development plan taking those issues into account. It is not quite the same as before but I accept the thrust of the Deputy's remarks about rushed decisions and so on.
A practice is emerging whereby local authorities prepare a draft county development plan and bring it to area meetings so that it can receive closer scrutiny by area members before being finally brought to the council as a package. I have no problem with that but I would have a problem if area committees were preparing their own draft development plans and lumping it all together.
I accept the points made by the Deputies and they may wish to come back to me before Report Stage having considered this further. Mindful of the fact that people have had the opportunity to make submissions at the pre-draft stage we might make the initial public display and submissions period ten weeks rather than the current 12 weeks. The crucial period for the consideration of the draft plan and the manager's report might be included in the 12 week period. At the end of the process we might give six weeks for consideration of amendments and the manager's report. This leaves room for slippage. If Deputies wish to consider this we will table an amendment on Report Stage. I am not looking for an instant answer and they may wish to think about it and come back to me at some stage.
There is a cushion of six weeks left in year five.
We will use that to ensure the process is completed and the resolution is passed in this period.
Yes, that is what I was about to suggest. This means that we may be able to gain some time by the beginning of year six by having the resolution passed before the end of the previous year.
Yes, we will try that. I think that might be better.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 not moved.
I move amendment No. 141:
In page 34, subsection (9)(a), line 23, to delete “(7)” and substitute “(8)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 not moved.
Amendment No. 144 is consequential on amendment No. 145. Amendment No. 160 is related and amendment No. 158 is consequential on amendment No. 160. These amendments may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 144:
In page 34, subsection (11), line 47, after "(11)" to insert "(a)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 145:
In page 34, subsection (11), after line 51, to insert the following:
"(b) The requirements of subsections (8) to (10) shall not apply in relation to modifications made in accordance with paragraph (a).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 146 to 150, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 151:
In page 35, lines 30 to 34, to delete subsection (16).
I tabled this amendment to ask the Minister the purpose of this subsection. I am not sure I understand what it means. It states that a person shall not question the validity of the development plan by reason only that the procedures set out in the various subsections were not completed within the time required under the relevant subsection. What is the point of setting out the times required? In other words, this is an escape clause if the programme gets a bit out of kilter and it runs over. That does not invalidate the development plan. Is that the only effect of this subsection?
That is its only effect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 152 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 162 is related so the proposal is to take Nos. 152 and 162 together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 152:
In page 35, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following subsection:
"(17) A development plan made under this section shall have effect 4 weeks from the day that it is made.".
These amendments provide that the development plans come into force four weeks from the making of the plan. This is merely to allow the planning authority time to print the plan and to notify An Bord Pleanála and so on. A variation of a plan under section 13 will have immediate effect as variations usually relate to single issues and the persons involved will obviously be aware of the changes.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I apologise for being absent when amendment No. 150 was reached. Obviously the momentum has picked up somewhat. The subject matter of my original amendment on subsection (15) is something I will want to return to on Report Stage. I give notice that I propose to re-enter my amendment No. 150 on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Amendments Nos. 153 to 155, inclusive, not moved.
If I could find a way, Chairman, of electronically informing you that all the other amendments that are related to these are withdrawn, I would do it.
I move amendment No. 156:
In page 36, subsection (3)(c), line 6, before “submissions” to insert “written”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 157 not moved.
I move amendment No. 158:
In page 36, subsection (6), line 34, after "(6)" to insert "(a)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 159:
In page 36, subsection (6), line 37, after "it." to insert "For a variation to be accepted it shall require the votes of three quarters of the elected members of the relevant planning authority.".
This amendment deals with the variations of a development plan at some point during the normal six year life of the plan. Currently there is a requirement for the making of a material contravention in that it requires the support of three-quarters of the elected members of the planning authority. In a way, a variation of the development plan is not that dissimilar from a material contravention. They both involve making a change in the development plan during the normal lifetime of the plan and outside of the normal period for the reconsideration of the plan. Material contravention usually arises from a planning application made by an applicant which does not conform to the terms of the plan and has to be advertised as a material contravention and proceed in that way. Variation of the development plan is often proposed by a manager or after some collective discussion on the council. Generally it tends not to be prompted by an individual application but arises from some wider policy consideration, change in circumstances or whatever that give rise to the varying of a development plan.
In the interests of consistency, the standard for varying a development plan should be the same as for a material contravention. It highlights the exceptional nature of the varying of a development plan. I would expect that with six year intervals in the life of a development plan, which will be strictly adhered to, the circumstances and the occasions where variations of development plans will arise will be quite exceptional. In practice, where the material contravention procedure is used, there has to be virtually a consensus on the council for a material contravention to be passed. Certainly there has to be a consensus across the main political groupings on a council. The same standards should apply for a variation. There will be really a four year interval between the adoption of a plan and the commencement of the process for the making of a new plan. It would be exceptional for variations to arise within that interval. Therefore a standard of approval should be required of the council which is similar to material contraventions.
I take a different view. Deputy Gilmore has pointed to the fact that there is a substantial difference between a material contravention and a variation. That is the reason we have a rigorous requirement for a material contravention and, as Deputy Gilmore said, requiring a three-quarters majority is requiring a large consensus in a local authority. The position in respect of a variation of a development plan is a different matter. I spoke at some length the other day on the content of plans and the degree to which they can be directive or prescriptive. What I said also applies to a development plan of this kind. As Deputy Gilmore invoked this, in the interests of consistency I cannot understand why we should demand a higher level of consensus on a variation of a development plan than we do on a development plan. I have no difficulty in having a much more rigorous requirement where there is a material contravention because, by definition, that goes against some aspect of the trend, but where there is a variation in the plan I do not understand why we should require a stronger test. I consider consistency on the basis of comparing a variation of a development plan with the adoption of the original plan rather than comparing it to a material contravention, which is different.
The same standard is required in the Bill for the adoption of a plan as for the adoption of a variation of a plan. I do not know whether in the grand tradition of the Minister's party he will describe that as the futility of consistency. I cannot understand the compelling reason for having a more rigorous requirement for the adoption of a variation of a development plan than for the adoption of a development plan. I would be very much against anything that goes down the road of having a more rigorous requirement for the adoption of the development plan. There will be disagreements on development plans and in some cases it will be difficult to reach agreement on them, but that is the result of perfectly valid differences in approach and values that people will bring to the process. Since a variation of a development plan is of a completely different nature from a material contravention, we should not require the same rigour of support for a variation of a development plan as we require for a material contravention.
I agree with the points made by Deputy Dukes and there is no point in my repeating them. I do not propose to accept this amendment.
How stands the amendment, Deputy Gilmore?
Considering that I am an isolated minority on this issue, I with withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 160:
In page 36, subsection (6), between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
"(b) The requirements of subsections (2) to (5) shall not apply in relation to modifications made in accordance with paragraph (a).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 161 not moved.
I move amendment No. 162:
In page 37, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following subsection:
"(10) A variation made to a development plan shall have effect from the day that the variation is made.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 163:
In page 37, subsection (2)(b), line 19, before “submissions” to insert “written”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 164:
In page 37, subsection (3), line 25, after "accordingly" to insert "and a copy of such notice shall be published in at least one newspaper circulating in the area".
While this amendment was discussed with amendment No. 111, it deals with different aspects of the issue. Subsection (3) deals with public rights of way in development plans. It provides that where members of a planning authority have considered a proposal, they recommend the inclusion or against the inclusion of a provision on a public right of way. It provides for a notice to be given to persons, that is, the people whowill be affected, who have been served a notice under subsection (1). While I would be the first to admit that my amendment may not be too lucidly conveyed, it seeks to provide that where members of a local authority agree to include a right of way in a development plan, notice of that should be given in a newspaper circulating in the area.
Did we discuss that already?
When dealing with amendment No. 111 we discussed the earlier part of the process. We discussed the process by which a request for the inclusion of a public right of way in a development plan takes place. Section 14 deals with how the planning authority deals with such a request when it has been put forward. Subsection (3) deals with members of a planning authority who, having considered a proposal and in respect of which notice has been served on the people who will be affected by it, must decide whether they consider it appropriate to include a proposed right of way in a development plan.
The members would decide that.
Where it is proposed to a local authority to include a public right of way in a development plan and members of the authority come to a view on what they want to recommend, that should be made known to the public. Subsection (3) proposes that it should be made known to the persons who were served notice under subsection (1), that is, the people whose land is likely to be affected by it. Where members of an authority make a recommendation on such a proposal, that recommendation should be made public.
It would be made public in a development plan.
Yes, but I am referring to the process before such a recommendation is included in a development plan.
That would add to the bureaucracy. It would involve putting the local authorities through another hoop. I have no strong objections to it. I will accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 165:
In page 37, subsection (4), line 36, after "person" to insert "on whom notice has been served under subsection (1) and”.
Given that the person on whom notice is served under subsection (3) in relation to a public right of way is the same person on whom notice is served under subsection (1), the Deputy's amendment appears to be superfluous.
I agree with the Minister and I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 166 not moved.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Amendment No. 167 not moved.
Section 16 agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Amendments Nos. 181, 182 and 184 are related to 168 and they may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 168:
In page 38, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following subsections:
"(3) The making, amendment or revocation of a local area plan shall be a reserved function.
(4) A planning authority shall give one month's public notice of intention to make a local area plan and shall allow a further period of 2 months within which any person may make a submission, comment or objection to the proposed local area plan.".
I welcome the fact that the Bill provides for the making of local area plans even though the practice is already undertaken by a number of councils. However, the Bill is not clear on the procedure to be used by a local authority in making a local area plan.
The purpose of this amendment is, first, to make it clear that the making, amendment or revocation of a local area plan will be a reserved function for the elected members of the local authority and, second, to provide for a period of public notice and consultation in making the plan. The amendment provides for one month's public notice and a two month period within which a person can make a submission, comment or objection to the proposed plan. The period of consultation is a reduction of that allowed for the county development plan. The same period of public notification and consultation is not required for a local area plan but it is necessary to have a public notice and consultation procedure built into the making of such plans.
The amendment relates to the procedures for adopting local area plans. It has two purposes, first, to make the adoption of a local area plan a reserved function and, second, to provide for a three month period for public consultation before a local authority draws up its local area plan. The first part of the amendment is provided for in section 20(2) which states that local area plans are made by resolution. Section 2(7) provides that anything under the Bill that is to be done by resolution shall be a reserved function. The amendment, therefore, is not necessary.
The section as drafted requires the planning authority to take whatever steps it considers necessary to consult the public. That is a mandatory obligation. Amendment No. 182 put down by Deputy Gilmore would delete the phrase "whatever steps it considers necessary" but that would not change the overall meaning of the provision. This is a mandatory obligation.
Amendments Nos. 181 and 184 put down by Deputy Dukes provide for statutory consultation procedures once the draft local area plans are prepared. Amendment No. 184 suggests that the public consultation procedures which relate to development plans as well as the public consultation procedures which relate to planning applications should apply to the making of local area plans. It does not make sense to apply the two different and conflicting procedures to the adoption of local area plans. It would make it very complicated.
The procedures for the making of development plans, as they currently exist and as they will be under this legislation, are extensive because these plans are the core of proper planning and development in a local authority area. Local authorities are obliged to fit their area plans into the overall planning context set by the development plan. That is obviously decided when the development plan is adopted. Local area plans, therefore, do not require the same public consultation arrangements that are provided for development plans. However, the Bill gives local authorities the flexibility to adopt whatever procedures they consider most appropriate.
There was a debate on this matter in the Seanad and I made amendments to the Bill which require the Minister to make regulations regarding the preparation of local area plans. That amendment is in section 19(5). Formal procedures will be provided for in those regulations, including a minimum period for putting the draft plan on display, as is suggested in the amendment put down by Deputy Dukes. Experience in local authorities so far has shown that the most effective way of proceeding with local area plans is through the maximum number of public meetings and consultations. It is the most effective method of getting everybody on board and giving them ownership of the area plan.
I have a strong inclination, which I believe Deputy Dukes shares, towards giving members of local authorities freedom to make up their minds about what best suits the local area. We do not need to hold their hands in these matters. However, I will draw up regulations and provide for public display and consultation.
Amendment No. 168 is already dealt with in the Bill. Amendment No. 182 does not change the overall meaning of the provision and is unnecessary. The principles outlined in the two amendments put down by Deputy Dukes are catered for by the fact that regulations will be made which will provide for that type of public consultation. On that basis, I ask the Deputies to withdraw their amendments.
Is the Minister disposed to accept an amendment that will bring those regulations, among others, into the more active system of making regulations rather than the passive one?
I will be disposed to it.
If memory serves, this is one of the sets of regulations that are to be provided for in an amendment yet to be made.
We have an amendment later.
If the regulations will include, by and large, the substance of amendment No. 181, I am happy with that.
I am happy that the Minister has clarified that it is a reserved function. Is he saying that it will not be possible to make a local area plan without public consultation?
Yes. There will be public consultations; there must be.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 169:
In page 39, subsection (3)(b), lines 8 and 9, to delete “approved in accordance with the Urban Renewal Act, 1998” and substitute “(within the meaning of the Urban Renewal Act, 1998) for the area to which the application relates”.
Subsection (3) of this section obliges the planning authorities to have regard to the provision of integrated area plans under the Urban Renewal Act as well as to the local area plans. The reference to plans approved under the Urban Renewal Act was not correct and the amendment now refers simply to IAPs within the meaning of the Urban Renewal Act.
How much more of that process remains to be gone through?
We are expecting to have the report from the expert group by the end of this month. I will check it for the Deputy but it is the end of this month or early next month when the final decisions will be made.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 170:
In page 39, subsection (4), lines 12 to 18, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:
"(b) A local area plan may remain in force in accordance with paragraph (a) notwithstanding the variation of a development plan or the making of a new development plan affecting the area to which the local area plan relates except that, where any provision of a local area plan conflicts with the provisions of the development plan as varied or the new development plan, the provision of the local area plan shall cease to have any effect.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 11.30 a.m. and resumed at 12 o'clock.
Amendments Nos. 171, 177, 189, 191, 193, 201, 202, 203, 206, 210, 211, 213, 214 and 216 are related and all may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 171:
In page 39, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) A planning authority, the functional area of which includes a Gaeltacht area, shall consult Údarás na Gaeltachta when preparing a local area plan in accordance with section 19.”.
I hope I have detected from what the Minister said earlier that he has no difficulty accepting these amendments. Amendment No. 171 requires that where a local area plan is being drawn up in the functional area of a planning authority, Údarás na Gaeltachta would be consulted when the plan is being prepared. This is not just a formality. Údarás na Gaeltachta has a specific role in relation to the economic, social and cultural development of the Gaeltacht areas. There have been many reasons for having Údarás na Gaeltachta. It has been there in various forms for a considerable length of time. It would be desirable, and in keeping with how the Minister sees the relationships, for example, between development plans and the national development plan, that Údarás na Gaeltachta would be given a say and have the opportunity to be consulted when local area plans are concerned.
The same would apply to an overall county development plan, but it is even more important if we are concerned with local plans, given the nature and extent of Gaeltacht areas in several counties. For example, I could conceive of several local area plans in County Meath that would not impinge directly on the Gaeltacht in Rath Carin, but there is one that certainly would. I can think of a couple of local area plans in County Galway that would not impinge on the Connemara Gaeltacht, but I can think of one or two that would. Similarly in Counties Mayo, Donegal and Kerry. I am not intimately acquainted with the boundaries of the electoral areas of County Kerry, but if my knowledge is correct, the Dingle peninsula is in the same electoral area as Killarney. A local area plan that would be drawn up for that electoral area would include all of the Dingle peninsula Gaeltacht area, and Údarás na Gaeltachta should be consulted there. Equally, in County Cork, the whole area of the Cúl Aodha Gaeltacht is part of a large electoral area in that county. Údarás na Gaeltachta has a statutory mission in relation to economic, social and cultural development in those areas and it would be inconceivable that a local area plan would be drawn up without reference to it.
I support Deputy Dukes on these amendments. One of the things that has significantly changed is the composition of Údarás na Gaeltachta. It is now composed largely of elected members, which makes a significant change. The number of elected members has also increased, so the spread of elected representation throughout the Gaeltacht areas through Údarás na Gaeltachta is now considerably enhanced.
This also relates to the earlier contributions on the need to protect the language, which is the purpose for which Údarás na Gaeltachta was established as a separate representational and development agency for the Gaeltacht areas. The imposition of a statutory requirement on local authorities to consult Údarás na Gaeltachta when they are making local area plans is wise.
I have no great difficulty with the spirit behind these amendments but I have reservations about them as they are presented. For some time there has been an effort by some people to give a separate planning role to Údarás na Gaeltachta. That is not something that would be wise or sensible and I recognise that this is not what is at the back of these amendments. They are more concerned with consultation and so on. However, for the proper planning and development of counties, etc., it is necessary that there should be only one planning authority and that it should be clear who that authority is. Much of what has been requested in these amendments can and will be dealt with in regulation. That is a more appropriate way to proceed.
Amendment No. 177 would make it compulsory to prepare local area plans for all Gaeltacht areas. In the case of County Donegal that would comprise almost the entire west of the county. In County Galway it would include all of south Connemara and a large part of east County Galway and some part of the city. Those kinds of local area plans would, geographically speaking, be bigger than the county plans in some instances, for example, for Counties Louth or Carlow. It would be unreasonable to impose that kind of condition.
However, in the spirit of what the Deputy is trying to achieve, I suggest that instead of amendment No. 177 we agree to amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 177 which would read:
In page 39, line 26, after "area" to insert ", including a Gaeltacht area,".
If this were to be accepted, section 19(1)(a) would then read: “A local area plan may be prepared in respect of any area, including a Gaeltacht area, which the planning authority considers suitable and, in particular,. . . . ”. That would give specific recognition that it is a possibility. The Deputy’s amendment would make it mandatory and I do not believe we should be that prescriptive.
That is providing that a local area plan could be made for a Gaeltacht area.
Yes.
Is that the full extent of what the Minister proposes?
Yes. That is just regarding amendment No. 177. The thrust of the remaining amendments which are being proposed by Deputy Dukes or Deputy Gilmore will be dealt with in regulations which we are drawing up on foot of the Bill. The amendments in some cases would give Údarás na Gaeltachta a joint role in drawing up regional planning guidelines. Údarás na Gaeltachta is not a planning authority and these amendments would not make it a planning authority. Therefore, there is no possibility that Údarás na Gaeltachta could jointly draw up regional planning guidelines.
There is an obvious conflict here also because Údarás na Gaeltachta is a development authority and it would not be a wise policy to have a development authority in charge of, or jointly sharing the responsibility for the planning in an area.
I agree that Údarás na Gaeltachta should make known to the relevant planning authorities its concerns and visions for the Gaeltacht areas and for development there, and I am prepared to make the regulations. I certainly will make the regulations which will ensure that Údarás na Gaeltachta will be consulted when development plans, regional planning guidelines, etc., are being prepared. That should meet the concerns raised by these amendments. Deputy Dukes's concern to have Údarás na Gaeltachta consulted will be met in those regulations. I can guarantee that.
I thank the Minister for moving in my direction. The amendment he has proposed for section 19 is a useful one.
I take the Minister's point about there being one planning authority in a planning area, and about the difficulty he would have with Údarás na Gaeltachta in a sense being a co-sponsor of regional planning guidelines. Údarás na Gaeltachta is a development authority and, while there is not a direct analogy, there are some similarities between the relationship between Údarás na Gaeltachta and a planning authority and the relationship between Forfás, Forbairt or whatever we call it these days, and the planning authority.
I remind the Minister that there is a provision in the Bill which gives certain development authorities a special role in the SDZs. It is a provision, which I support and which I am glad to see as my party has argued for this for quite some time. The Minister is not looking on that as an interference with the sovereignty of planning authorities but as a means of getting some further focus into some parts of their activity, and in facilitating the interface between these two bodies.
I want to phrase this properly. I can appreciate the Minister's suggestion that a number of things would be done by regulation but, given that Údarás na Gaeltachta is a statutory body and given that it is a development body, I would like to have that specifically recognised in the Bill. Údarás na Gaeltachta is in a position of encouraging people and giving them grants and various other inducements to set up new operations or to expand operations in particular areas. I know that Údarás na Gaeltachta cannot be the final arbiter of that and that where a proposal is made for grant aid by Údarás na Gaeltachta for any particular activity, that activity must get planning permission, and I would not wish to interfere with that in any way. Údarás na Gaeltachta cannot be the body which gives planning permission.
The concern that I wish to import into the Bill would be reflected reasonably well if, in addition to the extra reference that the Minister is proposing to make to Údarás na Gaeltachta in section 19, he would provide in section 18 or in such other place as would be appropriate, a simple statement to the effect that there would be consultation between the planning authorities and Údarás na Gaeltachta regarding local area plans in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister. If that were inserted, I would be quite happy. I am anxious to establish that there would be a formal recognition in the statute that Údarás na Gaeltachta should be consulted.
What the Deputy is requesting would be met in section 20. Section 20(1) states:
A planning authority shall take whatever steps it considers necessary to consult the public when preparing, amending or revoking a local area plan including consultations with any local residents, public sector agencies, non-governmental agencies, local community groups and commercial and business interests within the area.
Údarás na Gaeltachta would be defined under the public sector agencies.
That would leave it to the planning authority to take whatever steps it considers necessary.
To return to the point that we make, that would be on foot of the fact that the Minister can make regulations and issue guidelines relating to the preparation of local area plans.
Is that under section 19(6)(b)?
Yes, section 19(6)(a) and section 19(6)(b). It is covered.
I appreciate that, but I want a specific reference to Údarás na Gaeltachta here because it is not just any public sector agency.
If I include Údarás na Gaeltachta specifically in it for good and valid reasons, the questions would be "Why is the Minister naming Údarás na Gaeltachta?" and "Why does he not mention the Western Development Commission, which is now a statutory agency also? Why don't I mention any one of a dozen other State or other agencies?"
Because they do not have the same function.
The Western Development Commission has the function of co-ordinating all activities and planning. SFADCo has a similar function. They are the same type of body.
No, they are not.
They are not.
There is a difference between those agencies and Údarás na Gaeltachta. Those agencies have been set up for good reasons in most cases to do what is believed is more effectively done at that level than by the Government, but they are activities which are not different in nature from things which the Government normally does. Údarás na Gaeltachta has been set up to carry out a specific range of activities for a specific reason. There is a basic social and linguistic raison d’être for Údarás na Gaeltachta which goes beyond the character of any of the other agencies.
There is also the point that Údarás na Gaeltachta is not just a development authority in the same way, for example, as Shannon Development or the Western Development Commission for that matter. Údarás na Gaeltachta has a representational function. It has a function regarding the representation of the people of the Gaeltacht areas. It is not defined by reference to any specific geographic location as is the case, for example, with the boundaries of Shannon Development. Údarás na Gaeltachta draws its representation from, and has as its remit in, all of the Gaeltacht areas, the areas where some effort has been made to protect the Irish language irrespective of whether they are in County Meath or County Galway.
I take the Minister's point about the development role of Údarás na Gaeltachta and avoiding possible conflict between that and any role it might have in the making of a development plan. If one looks at the remit of Údarás and its history, the original demand of the Gluaiseacht Ceart Sibhialta na Gaeltachta was for a local authority for the Gaeltacht areas and the original Gaeltarra Eireann was established as a compromise. They did not get a local authority but a development agency. In more recent times that role has expanded with those in the Gaeltacht being able to elect people directly on to Údarás na Gaeltachta. In recognition of the representational role of Údarás na Gaeltachta and its brief in respect of the areas where the Irish language is to be protected, there is a case for a consultative role for Údarás na Gaeltachta in the making of plans and in the planning process. There should be a statutory requirement on the local authorities concerned to consult it.
I listened very carefully to the arguments. We are talking about local area plans and there is an obligation on local authorities to consult with the local people. It would be incongruous to mention only one body, Údarás na Gaeltachta, as regards consultations on local area plans. I take the points made, in particular that made by Deputy Gilmore on the representative nature of Údarás. There is a validity in that but we should pause and consider if it is a good idea. As is said, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed but we could amend section 20, page 40, between lines 19 and 20, and insert the following which is based on amendment No. 171:
(2) A planning authority shall consult Údarás na Gaeltachta on preparing a local area plan in accordance with section 19 for a Gaeltacht area.
It will not look great in the Bill.
"For a Gaeltacht area" or "an area that includes a Gaeltacht" - some Gaeltacht areas are smaller than an area for which a local authority might wish to make a plan. If I understand the Minister correctly, he is suggesting I relocate amendment No. 171 and instead of having it in section 18 to insert it in section 20. I accept that. It is reasonable as long as we have the correct wording. It may be incongruous but Údarás na Gaeltachta is specifically designed to be incongruous in the basic sense of the word. It is designed not to be congruous with other things that are done. It is something special, apart and different, for specific reasons. It is meant to be a sore thumb sticking out in the Bill.
It is like the Public Service Management Act where you try to bring together six different Departments that are doing the same thing.
That is incoherence. I take the Minister's point about relocating the amendment and inserting it in section 20. I will cheerfully defend the incongruity of it.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 171:
In page 39, subsection 1(a) line 26, to insert “and including a Gaeltacht area”.
Amendment to amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 171, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 172:
In page 39, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:
(7)(a) Where a planning authority adopts a local area plan within its functional area such a plan shall come into force within three years following its adoption by the authority.
(b) Where the local area plan has not come into force within the three year time frame referred to in paragraph (a), the matter shall be regarded as out of time.”.
This amendment seems harsh but there is evidence that the lack of an area action plan is not helping the supply side of the equation, particularly in Dublin. Where major rezoning occurs it is stitched into the provisions that an area action plan must be part and parcel of the rezoning before housing can come onto the market. I understand there is a difficulty among planners in putting together area action plans for considerable tracts of land. There should be some provision whereby we could encourage and concentrate the mind of local authorities that where they stipulate an area action plan, which I accept is an important instrument, it is important to follow it up and put the plan in place. I am not sure if it should be in primary legislation or done by way of guidelines. Virtually all major tracts of rezoning land, particularly in urban areas, have area action plans attached to them and that is a very important development. There is a need to bring those plans to fruition so that where land is available housing can be made available.
The intention in section 18 is that local area plans will come into force on adoption. The idea of the area plan is to put flesh on the development plan with which it must conform. Section 18(4) provides that a local area plan shall indicate the period for which it is to remain in force, whether it two or four years.
A maximum of four years.
: Yes. I know what the Deputy is trying to do but his amendment would appear to require a separate decision by the planning authority to bring the local plan into force. If it did not come into force within three years of adoption it would then lapse.
Is the Minister saying that if an area action plan has to be prepared and has not come back to the local authority there are only four years before it can be adopted?
No, when it is adopted it can have a two or four year lifetime, or any other lifetime.
There is no limit.
No. They can specify the lifetime. That is a decision for the local authority.
Has the Minister any observations to make on this issue? We heard from the building industry that there is difficulty getting area action plans in place that will lead to a sufficient supply of housing. I do not know how real is that difficulty.
It is real. There is a slowness, largely caused by lack of planning staff or in some cases lack of imagination on behalf of local authorities. However, many more of them are now telling developers to submit a proposal for an area plan. Much of the preliminary work, layout, design and so on, is done and local authorities use that as a model. There is nothing wrong with that provided it is carefully scrutinised. I know there are constraints even in the private sector but local authorities could also use the services of consultants more widely.
There is provision for that.
Yes. What the Deputy is trying to achieve is already covered.
The Minister said two or four years. Could it stipulate eight years?
It could but generally it is within the life of the development plan.
There is no stipulation on the members, if a new council is elected, whereby a two-thirds majority must amend the existing area plan. Does it lapse automatically at the end of the development plan?
Yes but members could decide that it is a wonderful plan and put it back in place immediately or do so with some slight revision.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Amendment No. 173 in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Amendments Nos. 174 to 176, inclusive, are related and they may be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 173:
In page 39, subsection (1)(a), lines 27 to 30, to delete all words from and including “and” in line 27 down to and including “plan” in line 30.
Amendments Nos. 173 and 176 come together and it is a matter of preference as to how they are expressed. What I am trying to achieve is to have a simple statement in the section that a local area plan may be prepared in respect of any area which the local authority considers suitable. There is a requirement that local area plans should be prepared in respect of an area. There are three sets of circumstances given in the Bill and I propose to add the areas that require economic, physical or social renewal or where there is likely to be large scale development.
Amendment No. 174 relates to suburbs or their environs. The proposal is that a local area plan shall be prepared in respect of an area that is designated as a town other than a town designated as a suburb and has a population in excess of 2,000. I do not agree that suburbs should be excluded from the remit of local area action plans. There is a strong case for specifically requiring the making of local area action plans in the case of suburbs. Some of the worst planning that has occurred has been in the suburbs of larger cities. The case for making a local area action plan for suburban areas is extremely strong. We have seen over the years the development of suburbs in a way that can only be described as bad planning, sprawls of housing being developed initially, in some cases not being taken into charge by local authorities for many years, services being in a poor condition, open spaces, roads, public lighting and so on falling very far behind the development of the housing itself. Essential facilities such as schools, shops, transport, places of work, child care and community facilities, etc. are often not provided for many years after the initial development of the suburb. If there was ever a case for the making of local area action plans it is for suburban areas. Local authorities should be required to make local area action plans for suburban areas.
I can see the genesis of this in that it is replacing the scheduled towns under the 1963 Act but there is arguably as strong, if not stronger, a case for making local area action plans for suburbs as there is for towns or areas with a population in excess of 2,000. I would make a strong case for the inclusion of suburban areas within the remit of local area action plans.
I support the amendment. There is a strong case to be made for the inclusion of suburbs in local area plans. There are at least two areas in my constituency that do not have a shop, school or any other service. A local area plan should be developed by those who create monstrosities around our suburbs and bigger towns. If there are not any shops or schools in an area it is very difficult to have a community spirit. Where are people to meet? They do not know their neighbours. Children go outside the area to attend school. It creates dormitory communities. If people want to buy a litre of milk or a newspaper they must go outside the area. There are more people living in Rochestown than there are in Fermoy but there are no facilities there. The county council lately gave permission for 750 units in another area. That will mean a population of 2,000. There is a strong case to be made for this amendment.
With regard to amendment No. 175, I propose the inclusion of "or urban district council" at the end of subsection (1)(b)(iii). I do not know why we are excluding urban district councils from the application and content of local area plans. There are no UDCs in my constituency but I understand a large proportion of them would have a population over 2,000. I know they are always bleating about their lack of responsibilities and the fact that they are not taken seriously. This presents an opportunity for us to take them seriously.
One of the few areas we have left alone as regards responsibilities is UDCs. An urban district council is a planning authority and must do its own development plan. Amendments Nos. 173 and 176 would make it mandatory for planning authorities to draw up local area plans for areas in need of renewal or areas likely to be subject to large scale development. Those amendments would replace the provisions that suggest those types of areas would be suitable for local area plans.
I understand the motive behind the amendments but it does not make for good legislation to impose mandatory obligations in relation to subjective matters. We had this discussion before. There might be many views on whether areas need social renewal, but those issues are better left to the discretion of a local authority without making it mandatory. We should not be overprescriptive. Amendment No. 174 would make it mandatory to prepare a local development plan for all towns of over 2,000 people, including suburbs or environs of large towns or cities. The first thing that should be said is that such areas are included in the plans for boroughs or counties so it is more logical to cater for these as part of the town or city's natural hinterland so that the whole area is dealt with. It is possible that a local plan may be prepared for the suburbs or a part thereof, but that is better left to the discretion of the local authorities. We should not make it mandatory, as it will be needed in some areas while it will not be needed in others. The principle is accepted, but this should be a matter for local authorities. I am also concerned that large towns in county areas should have specific plans drawn up for them and should not just be included in the county development plan. That is provided for and it should not be mandatory, it should be left to the discretion of the local authority.
I have clarified Deputy Hayes's point and that is catered for, therefore, that amendment is not necessary. The census describes census towns as including the suburbs of cities, including some very well established suburbs that Deputies will be familiar with such as Foxrock, Cabinteely and Stillorgan. The definition is a technical device to ensure that it is not obligatory to make local area plans for these areas, but discretion is granted to local authorities to prepare plans for these areas.
On the specific example given by the Minister, of what city are Foxrock, Stillorgan and Cabinteely suburbs?
The Deputy is more familiar with the area than I am, but I presume it is the greater Dublin city area.
In a way that emphasises my point, any area such as Tallaght, Clondalkin or Ballyfermot could be called suburbs of Dublin, yet they are also part of local authorities which are not the local authority for the city of which these areas are suburbs. I accept the Minister's point that it should not be mandatory, but this reinforces my point that we need a reference in the Bill which makes the situation clearer. My reading, which is admittedly a layman's reading, is that it means that local area plans would not be made for suburbs. I expect it may be interpreted that way by many people who operate it. There is a case for including a provision in the Bill that a local authority may make a plan for a suburb which is within its administrative area. The three suburbs mentioned by the Minister are within the administrative area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. We need to be clear about this as there is a case to be made for making area plans for suburbs that already have plans made for them which most people would agree with and there should be a provision dealing with this in the Bill.
Deputy Dukes mentioned Gaeltacht areas in a previous discussion and we included a provision on that matter in the Bill. The Deputy is looking for a positive statement to give a signal to people that this is possible.
Possibly desirable, but not necessarily mandatory.
I will look at this before Report Stage. We might include a provision near the section dealing with Gaeltacht areas which covers suburbs also.
In the context of section 19, how would a town like Newbridge stand? It has a town commissioner, though that is not relevant, but the town commissioner's area in Newbridge is a rather restricted one and the town is a good deal bigger than it. Is that the kind of area that would be envisaged for attention in a local area plan?
We are talking here about population rather than town boundaries.
The population area of Newbridge as defined in the census is considerably wider than the area within the remit of the town commissioners. That could be the object of a local area plan, therefore, under this Bill.
It would be mandatory to have the plan for the area covered by the——
The population.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 174 to 177, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments No. 178 and 179 are to be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 178:
In page 39, subsection (1), lines 39 to 41, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:
"(c) A local area plan under paragraph (b) shall be made-
(i) in the case of the first local area plan, not later than 2 years after the making of a development plan under this Part, and
(ii) notwithstanding section 18(5), at least every 6 years after the making of the previous local area plan.”.
In the original text it was not clear whether it was sufficient to make one local area plan for towns with populations of over 2,000 people and not to renew such a plan. In addition, there was a conflict between the mandatory provision to make a plan for towns with a population of over 2,000 and the provision in section 80(5) that a local area plan may be revoked at any time. This redrafted paragraph resolves these issues. Deputy Clune's amendment, which spotted the conflict and is an alternative to this, would require local area plans to contain the exact same mandatory objectives as development plans and that would defeat the objective of the local area plans, which are focused on much smaller areas. That is in contrast with the development level of the overall strategy. My amendment meets the point made in the Deputy's amendment.
I wanted to ensure the objectives of the development plan were considered in the local area plan.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 179 not moved.
I move amendment No. 180:
In page 39, subsection (2), line 47, after "design of" to insert "developments and".
This amendment broadens and clarifies the scope of local area plans to ensure they can lay down design standards for developments generally within the plan area and not just individual structures. The amendment strengthens the role of design within the local area plans, which is necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
Will the Minister explain section 19(4)? I am a bit nervous when I see "certain classes" and "certain circumstances".
It allows discretion in relation to local area plans. For example, a greenfield site might be one class of an area and an abandoned Army barracks might be another. I presume a suburb could be treated as another class of an area, as could a brownfield site or whatever. We are talking about classes of areas that might have plans rather than making it compulsory that every area needs to have a plan. I will give the Deputy a note on it if he wishes.
These regulations would probably need the active consideration——
If the Deputy has his way they all will need it.
Not all of them. There are probably marginally more in the resolution but the imbalance is not huge. It is much less marked than in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Will the Minister please move his oral amendment?
I move:
That in page 40, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following subsection: (2) A planning authority shall consult Údarás na Gaeltachta when preparing a local area plan in accordance with section 19 for an area which includes a Gaeltacht area.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 181 to 184, inclusive, not moved.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Amendment No. 185 is next. Amendments Nos. 186 and 215 are related and all may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 185:
In page 40, lines 28 to 30, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"(1) A regional authority shall, after consultation with the planning authorities within its region, make regional planning guidelines, and such guidelines must be in accordance with the national policy as set out by the Minister.".
It should be the responsibility of regional authorities to set their own guidelines. I understand they cannot be out of kilter with national policy but if regional authorities are not responsible for setting out regional planning guidelines I do not know for what they are responsible. The Bill states: ". . . a regional authority may, after consultation with a planning authority within its region, or shall at the direction of the Minister. . . ". In arguing for a greater devolution of powers or an enhanced role for regional authorities the reference "or shall at the direction of the Minister" should not be included in section 20(1)(i). It should be the responsibility of regional authorities. I have also stated that their guidelines must conform with national policy as set out by the Minister.
My amendments Nos. 186 and 215 are similar in their objectives to that of Deputy Hayes. Amendment No. 186 seeks to make it a requirement that regional authorities shall, every five years, make regional planning guidelines. Amendment No. 215 would have the effect of removing the making of guidelines at the discretion of the Minister. We should be clear about this. One of the difficulties is that the question of regional structures is confused. We thought we had regional authorities which were made up of groupings of county authorities but now they have been overlaid with another layer the functions about which no-one is clear. Assuming we are talking about regional authorities being those that are described as regional authorities, they either should or should not have the power to make regional guidelines. This job should be given to them if we believe, as I do, there is a regional dimension to physical planning. That should not be something which is left to the discretion of the regional authorities or something about which the Minister sends down an instruction to the regional authorities who subsequently carry it out. The regional authorities must have some life, meaning or authority in their own right. This is an area in which that is put to the test. We should give the regional authorities the job of making regional guidelines. They draw up those guidelines because it is their job, in law, to make them, not because the Minister sends them a circular stating they must draw them up from time to time and not because some regional authorities may decide to draw up regional planning guidelines because they have nothing better to do.
I share Deputy Gilmore's concerns here. We have a very confused structure. We have two regions, the BMW region and the other region, which have assemblies. While I confess that I am not entirely sure what the assemblies do or what their function is, I knew when the Taoiseach informed the House that we would not require any new legislation to set them up, that they would not have any great powers. I was amused some time ago, probably last November, at a conference on regionalisation which I was involved in organising, to hear one of the representatives of the BMW region taking some exception to the manner in which the region was being described. He did not like it being called BMW and he stated that BMW actually stood for "blatantly mistreated wretches" which I thought was perhaps a more accurate description. Those two regions only exist for the purpose of deciding which parts of the country receive higher levels of EU aid. I am in favour of that system although I do not believe that what is happening on the ground is sufficient to meet requirements. However, that is another day's work and is not a matter for us here.
Then we have the other regional authorities to which Deputy Gilmore referred which now have the job of drawing up regional planning guidelines which, in the terms of section 21(1), they may do after consultation with the planning authorities in the region or - and these seem to be alternatives - or shall do at the direction of the Minister. I would like to know where that operates. We have these regional authorities which comprise representatives of a certain number of counties who, having been duly designated, have met. Could they on the one hand, in considering this legislation, decide not to do anything until they receive instruction from the Minister requiring them to make regional planning guidelines which can be drawn up in isolation from the planning authorities in the region? That would seem to be the suggestion here. On the other hand, could they, when this Bill is enacted, get together and decide it is their right to draw up regional planning guidelines following consultation with the planning authorities in the region? Could they do that and still find themselves receiving a directive from the Minister? If a regional authority in region A starts consulting with the planning authorities in that region on drawing up regional planning guidelines, could they still receive a directive from the Minister requiring them to draw up regional planning guidelines and, if so, what would its purpose be? What areas can they deal with in this regard?
It seems to me that there are some areas from which they are excluded from drawing up regional planning guidelines. If I am wrong about that, I would be delighted to be enlightened. Could they, for example, say anything about national primary routes? Could it be their function to state that national primary routes in their area should follow particular routes or that they should be upgraded to a particular standard or is that entirely a matter for the National Roads Authority in conjunction with the Minister and the Department? If two or three planning authorities within a particular regional authority area are co-operating on a major water supply or sewage treatment scheme, would the regional planning authority, in drawing up regional planning guidelines, have any local input? Could it suggest to two adjoining local authorities that they should, for example, modify the north Kildare trunk sewerage scheme, in conjunction with County Meath, to include a part of west County Dublin or would that remain a matter for the local planning authorities? Will there be any limits to what they can do and where will the regional guidelines enmesh with specific planning obligations of the member planning authorities?
Section 21 provides that the regional authority may make regional planning guidelines. In response to Deputy Gilmore, we are giving the regional authority statutory power to make regional planning guidelines. Section 21(1) states "or shall at the direction of the Minister, make regional planning guidelines". That is to cover a situation where regional planning authorities do not fulfil their assigned functions or a situation where the Minister, or more probably the Government of the day, feels that regional planning guidelines are necessary but that the regional authority is sitting on its hands.
One of the frustrations of this job arises from the various powers and responsibilities devolved to local authorities over a number of years which fail to be used or met. Other than calling in county managers, county engineers etc. and cajoling or "threatening" them, there is little else a Minister can do. I get blamed, as we heard yesterday, for the fact that the Litter Act is not enforced among a range of other things.
There is nobody in this room who would not relieve you of that obligation tomorrow morning.
I was not complaining about it but it is a frustrating aspect of the job which anyone who has served in this ministry has experienced when there is a clear need for something to be done from a national or regional point of view but nobody is doing it. That is why the phrase ". . . shall at the direction of the Minister make regional planning guidelines" is included. I have little doubt in this case that the regional authorities will take this responsibility quickly to heart and carry it out because for some time they have been seeking a fairly specific and concrete role. This has already happened in the greater Dublin area, which is an amalgam of a number of regions. We are giving them power and they shall draw up regional planning guidelines if so directed by the Minister.
Deputy Hayes's amendment No. 185 would make it compulsory on all regional authorities to draw up the guidelines and amendment No. 186 would also make it mandatory for a regional authority to draw up regional planning guidelines every five years. Amendment No. 215 would delete the Minister's power to require a regional authority to review regional planning guidelines. I do not believe this is a good idea because it is important that the Minister would have the power to direct regional authorities as well as review them. It is correct that this should be a discretionary power rather than a mandatory function on regional authorities. Deputy Hayes is proposing in this era of devolution that the Minister should not have the power to direct. However, he is suggesting that we include in the Bill a mandatory obligation on regional authorities to do this, regardless of whether it is appropriate.
In accordance with national policy. It would not be a matter of one region doing its own thing separately from another region or from Government national policy.
The effect of the Deputy's amendment would be to make it mandatory.
These are new bodies recently established and they are supposed to have a dynamic. I am aware that other legislation does a type of gender proofing but the same kind of devolution proofing must be done here in every section to see what is appropriate to the Minister's office and to an authority under the Minister.
The Deputy is saying that we should devolve this down, on the one hand, but, on the other, that they must do this. He is not giving them any discretion as to whether it is needed. There is clearly a need for strategic planning guidelines in the greater Dublin area because of the huge problems there. There are other regions where similar pressures apply. In some of these regions, this is not absolutely necessary and it is not something which should be made mandatory. However, I think we all agree that all regional authorities will do this when they have the power.
When the Minister draws up the national spatial development strategy, unless it is pretty meaningless in certain cases, it will point at least to the need for regions to do certain things.
Of course, it will.
A mandatory scheme of regional planning guidelines is perfectly consonant with that.
It is, but I will not impose——
There is a difference between it being mandatory to make regional planning guidelines and making any specification as to what they should contain. I agree there is nothing inconsistent in having the freedom to do something you are obliged to do as long as you decide the contents of it. It is mandatory for Ministers to carry out their job; they cannot simply sit on their hands. If we accept it is a national objective to have a rational approach to the proper planning and sustainable development of the whole physical area of the country, and that that must have regard to all the things to which we have objected, then we are entitled to say that the authorities set up to look after this must mandatorily do so. We are not going to absolve them from their obligations.
Yes, but we are going to put an obligation on them that they must do this regardless of whether it is necessary.
But we would not be talking about this if none of it were necessary.
It can be necessary in one area and it may not be necessary currently in another area. We are not talking about one region as opposed to another.
We are not talking about local area plans where the issue of discretion is perhaps appropriate; we are tallking about regions. The type of planning about which we are talking is not something that is discretionary. We are talking about regional planning which, by its very nature, will be the point at which the physical planning in relation to housing, industry and so on, which is done at local authority level, is integrated with the wider issues of transport, health care, education provision and so on. It is a wider remit. There is general acceptance throughout the country that that type of planning is required. I cannot see circumstances where it becomes discretionary. If every local authority in the country draws up a development plan every six years and if there is going to be some kind of a national spatial strategy, however a national development plan is devised, that is a layer of planning which must be carried out by someone. The regional authorities exist because there is some recognition that there is a regional dimension to the way in which the country is developing. It is acknowledged in the Bill that the obvious authorities to do this are the regional authorities.
That is what they are there for.
It is a bit ambiguous to say you can do it if you want and you will only have to do it if you get a direction from the Minister. We should make the jump now and say regional authorities must draw up the regional planning guidelines. At this stage we must consider guidelines and at a later stage we need to tease out the way they fit into the planning decisions. It should be mandatory on the regional authorities to draw up guidelines.
Perhaps I will be politically provocative about this. Counties Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim are part of one of these regions.
Part of the Border region.
No, I am talking about the regional authorities that draw up the regional plans.
There is a Border region which stretches from Louth to Cavan and Monaghan.
Assume for the moment that the regional authorities in these areas looked at the Bill and decided they are being neglected by the Government which is not putting any major infrastructural plans in place, such as their favourite western crescent route and so on, and that they will not bother drawing up a plan because there will not be a big population increase in the area, huge extra pressure on the environment or huge demand for roads, I would be prepared to bet that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government would issue a direction to them like a light. I can equally imagine that perhaps the south-west region of Cork and Kerry would say they do not want to have anything to do with the crowd in Dublin because they are just getting in their hair, that the National Roads Authority is finally building a national trunk route to west Cork or south Kerry - although we will not hold our breath for that - and that they do not need to draw up a set of regional planning guidelines. Again the Minister would be in like a bullet saying they cannot do that and that he is issuing them with a direction. There is no chance that any regional authority in the south-eastern part of the country or in Leinster will say they do not need to do these things. The reality is that they will all want to do them, so what is the problem about making it mandatory? If they do not do so, the Minister will be after them immediately.
I could give a number of reasons, one being resources.
That means they will be banging at the Minister's door.
There is more to this. Deputy Hayes was indirectly involved in this and knows the enormous amount of work and time taken up with the strategic planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area. A resource implication exists for individual regional authorities. There could also be a problem regarding personnel and qualified planners if we impose this obligation. They are the practical difficulties.
It forces the individual planning authorities within the regional areas to get their act together and engage in finding a response to the issue of planning.
Will the Minister answer one question? It is not a trick question. The Minister will, if it is brought to his attention that a regional authority has not drawn up regional planning guidelines approximately 18 months after the Act has been passed, immediately issue a direction under section 21.
Yes, I will if a problem exists in that area.
What if the regional authority says that it will not draw up the guidelines?
I would only do so if pressures existed for such guidelines. I would not do so willy nilly.
Will the Minister identify an area where such pressures do not exist?
Planning pressures?
Planning, development, infrastructure, growth and lack of growth pressures.
There is a lack of growth in the whole midlands region.
No region can afford not to have regional planning guidelines drawn up.
One does not need regional planning guidelines in places where such pressures do not exist. Problems in some areas are adequately dealt with by the county development plan.
Look at the projected growth of population over the next ten years.
That is why we have planning guidelines.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 186 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Agreed.
I move amendment No. 187:
In page 40, lines 44 to 47, and in page 41, lines 1 to 5, to delete subsection (4).
This amendment relates to the strategic planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area. Will the Minister give the committee an overview of the involvement of, for example, Kildare County Council, in the drawing up of the strategic planning guidelines?
Each local authority in the greater Dublin area, Meath, Kildare, Wicklow and the Dublin local authorities, were involved in each plan. The drafting of the regional planning guidelines for Dublin and the mid-east was overseen by a steering committee made up of representatives of the public authorities in the area, including Kildare County Council, the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the DTO, and included a public representatives committee made up of the local representatives of various councils and a technical committee of expert advisers such as engineers and planners. Each local authority was also represented on that committee.
I am mindful that these strategic planning guidelines invented new towns called Naas-Newbridge-Kilcullen and Kildare-Monasterevin which is monstrous. These guidelines have, in one sentence dealing with transport, dismissed any idea of orbital transport routes or orbital public transport provision in the greater Dublin area. They state there is no demand for it. I do not know how much thought they put into that decision but strategic planning guidelines for such an extensive area, even if it were not the one in which I happen to live, would create grave suspicions in my mind if they dismiss the idea of orbital transport routes in Dublin and invent such fictitious new towns. Regional planning guidelines of that sort are not well founded and are based only on the example of orbital bus routes in Dublin. There is no demand which can be measured today because no such orbital bus routes exist. One or two buses follow a zig-zag eccentric route from Walkinstown through Crumlin and onto Sandymount. I do not know how they have survived the administrations of Bus Átha Cliath for this long.
It is impossible for a resident from Ballymun to get to Tallaght without going to the city centre and out again. Likewise, it is impossible for a resident of Terenure to use public transport to get to Bray without going into the city centre and out again. Such examples could be multiplied. The result is that one thinks there is no demand for orbital transport routes, which do not exist anyway, apart from the M50, and there is no public transport on that route. No public transport route even parallels the M50. I am not a transport economist, nor am I an expert on it, but I have very little doubt that if we had a series of orbital public transport routes around Dublin, which would have to be serviced by buses, from Malahide to the west and Dún Laoghaire on the southside, they would generate a great deal of passenger movement. I have equally very little doubt that if one established two parallel sets of orbital routes, one of which was one third of the way out towards the M50 and the other two thirds of the way, one would find great usage of them.
Strategic planning guidelines which dismiss such an idea in one sentence are of doubtful value, to say the least. I know it will not happen and I propose that we delete this from the Bill. I know the Minister will give me much wisdom why it should not be deleted from the Bill, particularly that it exists already——
It is arguable because his amendment is directly contrary to the Deputy's.
Because it suits the area in which he lives.
That is right.
I do not want local people who cannot afford to buy a house in Kingswood to consider buying houses in Naas, Newbridge, Kilcullen, Kildare, Monasterevin or even Ballymore Eustace because the strategic planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area take as their starting point that the Dublin area will continue to grow almost exponentially as it has up to now. I cannot blame them for that as their job was to handle Dublin's growth. The strategic planning guidelines are only in the context of Dublin, not in the area in its immediate vicinity or in the wider national context. That is not the way regional planning guidelines should be dealt with. My apologies to Deputy Hayes if I appear to be unwelcoming to his erstwhile friends and neighbours.
My amendment is straightforward. It seeks that the various authorities referred to in section 4 shall amend their development plans to take account of the strategic planning guidelines, however good or bad they are.
I will advise Kildare County Council to subvert it.
I am neutral on this issue. I did not see a reference to a statutory provision whereby they must amend the development plan. That is the only point of clarification I want from the Minister.
Section 27 requires a planning authority to have regard to any regional planning guidelines when making a development plan and following the making of such guidelines to review its development plans. Section 21(4) provides that the strategic planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area shall have effect as if made under this Act. The Deputy's point is thereby covered.
To Deputy Dukes, the people who spent so long and worked so diligently in drafting the strategic planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area would be the first to admit that they are not perfect, they need to be revised and constantly updated and the various agencies with whom they have contact need to update their individual plans and concepts. Within 12 months of the strategic planning guidelines being made they are being revised. Population projections must be revised to the upper limits rather than the lower ones. Their task was basically to plan for reality; the reality is that the greater Dublin area will grow in the foreseeable future.
The Minister almost came to the point.
Until the national spatial strategy is in place and we start reversing our trend, something with which we all agree, they have to plan for what is happening in an orderly and straightforward manner. I agree with the Deputy's point about orbital routes around Dublin and the Dublin Transportation Office is addressing this issue very directly within its own revised strategy, with CIE, Bus Éireann and the public transport companies. The Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, is also taking that into account in her plans to reform and review the public transport system. I have no doubt that the strategic planning guidelines will have to be revised again, particularly in that area and the area of public transport.
The Deputy may have an argument with the content of the strategic planning guidelines, in which there is validity, but they are being addressed. In view of the debate we had earlier, I do not believe the Deputy - as he appears to be implying by his amendment - has a difficulty with the concept of strategic planning guidelines. They will probably be revised before this Bill is passed and it will be those guidelines which will be taken into account. There is provision for continuous reviewing and renewing of them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 188 not moved.
We will now adjourn and resume consideration of the planning Bill on Tuesday, 2 May from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. I thank the Minister, his officials and Members of the committee.
Given that everyone cannot be present for the meeting on 2 May it was suggested that if there are votes on that day they should be deferred until the next meeting of the committee.
The Select Committee adjourned at 3.40 p.m. until 10.00 a.m. on Tuesday, 2 May 2000.