The Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994, are an important initiative in the physical planning sphere. They bring subordinate planning legislation up to date and establish new procedures of public notice and consultation for certain development by State and local authorities. In addition, they have the considerable advantage of drawing all relevant provisions together between two covers, thus making life a good deal easier for planning practitioners and the public alike. The regulations are, by any measure, a positive and progressive step and are underpinned by the principle of ensuring that the planning process is as open, transparent and understandable as possible. I am surprised and disappointed, therefore, that the response of Fine Gael has been to table a resolution seeking to overturn the regulations, which would nullify the many improvements they have introduced. I do not believe that such a course of action can be justified by reference to the content of the regulations and I hope that the statements will show that we are not witnessing an instance of opposition for the sake of opposition.
It will help to put the regulations in context if I look briefly at their background and the reasons they were necessary. A lot of the administrative detail under which the planning system operates is spelt out in regulations made under the Planning Acts — it is there, for example, that one will find the requirements about what has to be included in a planning application, what notice has to be given of an application, most of the exemptions, the fees payable for planning applications, appeals and so on. The basic regulations prior to the regulations we are addressing today dated from 1977, the last time there was a major overhaul of subordinate planning law. However, the 1977 regulations had been amended on numerous occasions in the meantime and we had arrived at a situation in which no fewer than 19 separate sets of regulations were in force. I do not need to emphasise how cumbersome and confusing this made matters, for people directly involved in the planning system and, more particularly, for members of the public. I decided, therefore, that the time had come to clarify and rationalise the position, by replacing the 19 sets of regulations by comprehensive new regulations containing all relevant provisions. I came to the conclusion also that it would not be appropriate simply to draw the existing provisions together in a single document, because experience since 1977 had shown that there were quite a number of provisions requiring modification or improvement. Accordingly, the 1994 regulations contain amendments considered necessary or desirable in light of experience, following consultation with planning authorities and other public bodies.
Taking an overview of the regulations before moving on to address some of the new provisions, I would make the point that all parts, except Parts X and XIII, correspond, with modifications and adjustments, to provisions of the regulations that have been revoked. Parts X and XIII, dealing respectively with development by local authorities and Government Departments and the Office of Public Works, are new provisions which were signalled clearly when the necessary enabling powers were enacted last year in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1993.
It would not be possible, in the time available, to go through the regulations point by point and to detail all the changes made. What I propose to do, therefore, is to highlight the more important alterations, concentrating in particular on new public notice arrangements for planning applications and appeals, changes in the categories of development exempted from planning permission requirements, alterations to the fees provisions and the new provisions concerning development by State and local authorities. I am confident that this exposition of the changes will show clearly that they will operate to the benefit of the planning system.
Looking first at the public notice requirements for planning applications, Deputies will be aware that, before the 1994 regulations, applicants generally had a choice between publishing notice of the application in a newspaper or erecting notice of the application on the site in question — the only case in which newspaper notice was obligatory was for applications involving an environmental impact statement. There were complaints, however, that these arrangements did not ensure that people would learn of applications of interest or concern to them. During the debate on this matter last year I gave a commitment to take account of the views expressed by members of the Progressive Democrats Party, Democratic Left and Fine Gael. I decided, therefore, that the existing provisions would have to be reinforced. I concluded, following careful consideration of various options, that applicants should be required both to publish newspaper notice and to erect a site notice. In other words, the choice between the two forms of notice no longer exists and both are obligatory for any planning application received by a planning authority on or after 16 May. These new requirements, coupled with the new requirements for weekly lists, go as far as possible in ensuring public awareness of development proposals, thereby seeing to it that interested persons and bodies can avail of the extensive opportunities for participation which our planning system gives them.
There was already a requirement, under the 1977 planning regulations, for planning authorities to produce a weekly list of planning applications received. However, the 1994 regulations have extended the scope of this list and it must now give details also, among other things, of applications decided and cases in which the planning authority receives further information. This considerably more informative list will be more widely available than hitherto; as well as being displayed in the planning authority's offices, it also has to be displayed in public libraries. Moreover, copies will have to be made available to interested persons and bodies, free of charge or for a reasonable fee, as the planning authority decides. It will also be open to a planning aurthority to display the list elsewhere, or to publish it, or make it available for publication, in a newspaper.
The regulations also establish a new requirement for An Bord Pleanála to publish a weekly list of planning appeals received and decided. Like the planning authority list of planning applications, the board's list will have to be available by the third working day following the week to which it relates.
I would like to mention also another change that has been made in the regulations in the interest of openness and transparency in relation to planning applications. It will now be obligatory to make available for inspection, along with other relevant documents, any submissions or observations made to a planning authority in relation to a planning application. There has been no legal obligation up to now to make these submissions or observations available and, in practice, only some planning authorities have done so. I believe, however, that an applicant has a right to know of submissions made about his development proposals. The new provision will ensure that the applicant has access to them. This is another matter which was referred to in the debate last year to which I have responded.
I do not believe that any sustainable objections of principle can be raised to these new measures aimed at maximising public information. I am satisfied, moreover, that they are practical and effective initiatives and I await with interest Deputy Barrett's rationale for tabling an annulling resolution, the effect of which would be to set these changes aside.
The next area I propose to address is the changes made in relation to exempted development. Exempted development is development which does not require planning permission and is specified in section 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 and in regulations made under that section. The 1994 regulations update and modernise this area by terminating some of the exemptions which existed under the previous regulations, placing restrictions on other existing exemptions and establishing some new categories of exempted development.
The existing exemption for the laying out and use of land as a golf course has been removed and any development of that nature commenced after 16 May will, therefore, need planning permission. This change has been made because the development of a golf course is significant in terms of the proper planning and development of the area concerned and should be subject to scrutiny by the planning process before it may proceed. Similar considerations underlay the decision to terminate the exemption for the use of land as a burial ground.
A number of the new restrictions on exemption will be important in conservation terms. As matters stood before the 1994 regulations, the demolition of any building other than a habitable house or a listed building could be carried out without planning permission. The exemption will not now apply, however, to a building which forms part of a terrace of buildings, or which abuts on another building in separate ownership. This will allow the development control process to evaluate the streetscape and other implications of demolition proposals affecting such buildings. There is also a new restriction on placing advertisements on listed buildings. Planning permission will have to be obtained for any advertisements, other than small "brass plate" type signs or "For Sale-To Let" notices on such buildings. This will permit the planning process to adjudicate on the appropriateness of proposals to exhibit advertisements on buildings which development plans have identified as being important for architectural or historical reasons.
Other new restrictions include an overall limit of 25 square metres on the area of garages, sheds and similar structures that can be erected without planning permission in the curtilage of a domestic dwelling. This class of exemption was open-ended prior to the 1994 regulations and had on occasions given rise to problems because it was used to construct large and obstrusive structures. I have also placed an overall height limit of 40 metres on navigational aids, and any structure higher than this will need planning permission. This restriction was necessary because structures higher than 40 metres could have significant visual implications and should be subject to authorisation through the planning process.
The new exemptions in the 1994 regulations include the use of a house to accommodate up to six persons with a mental or physical disability and up to two resident carers. This provision was included because of a ruling by An Bord Pleanála, on foot of a reference under section 5 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, that use of a particular house for this purpose needed planning permission. I considered, however, that this use of a house could not be regarded as significant in purely planning terms and should not require planning permission. The new exemption will facilitate the policy of care in the community being pursued by health boards and other bodies and groups who assist persons with a mental or physical disability. Among the other new exemptions are minor works by Government Departments and the Office of Public Works, such as provision of temporary structures in connection with visits of foreign dignitaries, maintenance of inland waterways, erection of minor structures and provision of car parks in public parks, etc.
I have acted also to clarify the position of television satellite dishes, which were not provided for in the regulations replaced by the 1994 regulations. One satellite dish will be allowed on a house, but subject to a size limit and other restrictions aimed at minimising visual obtrusiveness. This exemption will not apply in the case of listed buildings.
A new provision which has attracted some comment is the exemption from planning permission requirements for use of up to four bedrooms in a house for bed and breakfast purposes. I would like to explain the background to this and to allay some of the unfounded concerns that appear to have arisen.
Before the 1994 regulations, the planning code contained no provision in relation to bed and breakfast accommodation. In practice, many such establishments had operated for considerable periods of time without planning permission. Their planning status came to the fore last year when An Bord Pleanála decided, on foot of a reference made to it under section 5 of the 1963 Planning Act, that planning permission was required for the use of a particular house for bed and breakfast purposes. While this decision strictly related only to a particular case, it created a degree of uncertainty as to the planning status of bed and breakfast accommodation generally. Against this background, it was decided to include a clarifying provision in the 1994 regulations, which were then in preparation. The regulations provide that the use of up to four bedrooms in a house for overnight guest accommodation is to be exempted development for planning purposes and, accordingly, will not be subject to planning permission requirements. However, the exemption will not apply if the use for such purposes contravenes a condition attached to the planning permission for the house, or would be inconsistent with any use specified in the permission.
This exemption was granted on the basis that bed and breakfast operations of such a small scale will not have significant effects in terms of the proper planning and development of the areas in which they are located, and will not result in a significant change in the de facto position which has obtained for many years.
I want to emphasise that this new exemption relates only to planning permission requirements — it does not affect in any way the application of other statutory requirements to bed and breakfast accommodation. For example, the fire safety, ventilation and other relevant requirements of the building control code will continue to apply where there is a change of use of a house to use for bed and breakfast purposes, and the application of the fire safety requirements of the Fire Services Act, 1981 to premises providing sleeping accommodation will not be affected. Also, the requirements of the Food Hygiene Regulations, 1950 to 1989, apply to any premises on which food for public consumption is prepared and bed and breakfast operations, irrespective of their planning status, will have to observe proper hygiene standards. Accordingly, it is simply incorrect to say that the new exemption means there are no controls and standards for bed and breakfast premises.
To summarise in relation to exempted development, the changes made as regards exemption from planning permission requirements constitute a balanced and coherent package which will enhance the effectiveness of the development control system by focusing its attention on those forms of development which are most significant in land use terms.
In the case of fees, new rates have been established for development, such as golf courses, which has been brought within the scope of planning permission requirements. Existing fee rates have generally been retained, but a higher fee has been imposed on applications for permission to retain development.
There have been suggestions over the years that retention applications should be discouraged by applying higher fees to them. I agree with this and believe that retention applications should really only arise where an applicant is seeking to renew a temporary permission, or where there has been an inadvertent departure from the terms of a condition of a permission. For this reason, the new regulations provide that any other retention application will be subject to one and a half times the standard fee and a higher overall maximum fee of £15,000. This will apply, for example, where an application is made to retain development carried out without planning permission and should act as a disincentive to such applications. It is not, of course, the only disincentive to carrying out development without the proper permission — anybody who does so faces enforcement action and prosecution under the planning Acts — but it will serve to reinforce the existing deterrents. The Opposition has advocated higher fees for retention applications on a number of occasions in this House and I find it strange that it now seems to have difficulty with this and many of the other progressive measures in the regulations.
Another change made in the fees area is a new exemption from planning application fees for voluntary housing bodies approved under section 6 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992. Such bodies have an important role to play in the provision of social housing and I considered it inappropriate to require them to expend funds on application fees. While the change is important from the point of view of the bodies concerned, it will not have a significant impact on planning authorities' overall income from fees.
One of the completely new parts in the 1994 regulations, Part X, relates to certain developments proposed to be carried out by or on behalf of local authorities. It establishes a procedure of public notice and comment for such development which culminates in the preparation of a report on the development proposal for submission to the elected members of the local authority.
Development by a local authority in its own functional area is exempted development for planning purposes, on the grounds that it would not make sense to require an authority to apply to itself for planning permission. Certain local authority development is nevertheless subject to public notice and comment through environmental impact assessment procedures. However, for most development proposals by local authorities, there are no formal procedures for public information and participation. Part X of the 1994 regulations brings about a significant change in this position, by applying a new procedure of notice and participation to a wide range of development proposals. The procedure will apply, for example, to construction of houses and other dwellings, certain road works, bridges and tunnels, waste water treatment works, water treatment works, swimming pools, burial grounds, landfill sites, fire stations and so on.
A local authority will have to publish newspaper notice of proposals for development to which the Part X procedure applies and give details of the proposal to specified bodies. Documents and plans describing the proposed development will be made available for public inspection and a period of at least a month will be allowed for the public and interested bodies to make submissions on the proposal. When the period for making submissions is over, the officials of the local authority will prepare a report on the proposed development. This report will include a summary of the points made in submissions, the local authority's response to the issues raised and an indication of whether it is proposed to proceed with the development, subject to variations or modifications or not to go ahead at all. This report will then be submitted to the elected members of the local authority and it will be open to the members, if they consider it appropriate, to direct under section 3 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955 that the proposals are not to proceed.
This new procedure reflects the commitment to openness and transparency that underlies many of the new provisions in the 1994 regulations and it will lead to significantly greater accountability in relation to local authority development. How, therefore, is it possible to respond to an initiative of this nature by seeking to overturn it?
The other entirely new part in the regulations is Part XIII, which deals with certain development by Government Departments and the Office of Public Works to whom I will refer from there on as State authorities. Before addressing the specific provisions, I would like to remind Deputies of the position under planning law of development by these bodies. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in the Mullaghmore and Luggala cases this time last year that development by State authorities needs planning permission. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1993 regularised the position of development already carried out without planning permission by those bodies and established the framework for the future application of planning controls to their development proposals. Following a transitional period which ends on 15 June, development by these bodies will need planning permission unless it is exempted development and is covered by regulations under section 2 (1) of the 1993 Planning Act or is the subject of a ministerial order under that section declaring that it is necessary because of an accident or an emergency.
Section 2 (1) of the 1993 Planning Act provides that the Minister for the Environment may, by regulations, provide that the Planning Acts will not apply to proposed development by a State authority if the development has to be authorised under another enactment or if, in the Minister's opinion, it is in connection with or for the purposes of public safety or order, the administration of justice or national security or defence.
Part XIII of the regulations constitutes the exercise of the powers under section 2 (1) of the 1993 Planning Act. The only development left outside the scope of the Planning Acts on the basis that it has to be authorised under another statutory procedure is arterial drainage works by the Office of Public Works, which must be approved by the Minister for Finance in accordance with procedures in the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. The development excluded from the remit of the planning Acts on national security or related grounds includes courthouses, prisons, Army and Garda premises and installations, and office buildings used for the purposes of in connection with the business of the President of Ireland, Dáil Éireann, Seanad Éireann, certain Government Departments and the offices of the Attorney General, the Chief State Solicitor and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It is evident that developments of the categories I have mentioned cannot be subjected to the planning system's requirements of public disclosure of detailed plans and particulars. To take just two examples, I do not think that anybody would seriously suggest that detailed layout plans of a prison or an Army barracks can be put on public display. Nevertheless, I was determined that there would be as much public information about, and involvement with, the excluded development as security considerations allow. Accordingly, I have provided in Part XIII that much of the excluded development will be subject to alternative requirements of public notice and involvement.
These alternatives requirements will oblige a State authority proposing an excluded development to which they apply to give public notice of the proposal and to notify the planning authority in whose area the development would be located. Outline plans and particulars of the proposed development will have to be made available for inspections and there will be a period of six weeks for making submissions. The State authority concerned has an express legal duty to have regard to submissions received, and must give public notice of its decision on whether it will proceed with the development.
I indicated at the time of enactment of the 1993 Planning Act that it was my intention that development would be excluded from the scope of the planning Acts on security grounds only where this was unavoidable in the public interest. The limited range of development to which Part XIII applies shows clearly that I have operated within those parameters and we are moving towards a situation in which, as and from 15 June, most development by Government Departments and the Office of Public Works will be subject to the planning Acts in the normal way.
Parts X and XIII of the regulations, taken together, complete the process of movement towards greater openness in relation to public development started by the 1993 Planning Act and bring us into an era in which there will be greater entitlement to know about and be involved with development by local and State authorities. Once again, I feel compelled to express my puzzlement as to why there is an apparent wish on the part of the main Opposition party to set aside progressive changes of this nature.
The pursuit of openness and clarity in planning matters led also to a second initiative which I took in conjunction with the 1994 regulations. This is a series of 11 public information leaflets dealing with various aspects of the planning system. They cover a wide range of issues such as how the planning system works, completing an application form, the avenues available for commenting on planning issues, the planning requirements when building or extending a house and sectoral matters such as the planning requirements for farmers and business people. The series builds on the leaflet on the new planning appeals process which I published in 1992 following enactment of the 1992 Planning Act and which was instrumental in ensuring a smooth transition to the new arrangements. There was a considerable demand for that leaflet and this brought home to me the need for clear and readily available information on the planning process and how it operates. In designing the new leaflets, the central objective has been to set out the provisions of the planning code in a concise manner which is readily accessible to all and free of legal jargon. I have aimed for a series that is as comprehensive as possible and which answers the questions most often asked by members of the public. The leaflets will promote a greater public awareness and understanding of the planning system, will explain the changes brought in by the 1994 regulations and should help to ensure that there is nothing mysterious or off-putting about the planning system for anybody.
The leaflets have been made available to the public through planning authorities and there has been a considerable demand for them. This is a clear demonstration of people's interest in and their desire to be informed about planning matters and underscores the importance of the many changes in the 1994 regulations which are aimed at public information and participation.
The 1994 regulations are a considered and comprehensive response to the need to streamline and update secondary planning legislation. They will facilitate the efficient and effective operation of the planning system, and will, in conjunction with the new leaflets, make it more comprehensible and less daunting for people generally.
A considerable amount of work went into the preparation of these regulations, including a consultation process with local authorities and the wider public. I am grateful to the planning section in my Department and my colleagues in this House for contributions which were of great assistance to me in determining the final layout of these regulations. I look forward to the widest possible participation in and the opening up of the system to make it as transparent as possible so that everybody can be more confident about the way State and local authorities administer their business.
