I propose to share time with Deputies Boylan and McGrath.
Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1997: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill. At the outset, I compliment the staff of An Bord Pleanála on the effective and efficient way they carry out their work. I understand the Bill is designed to give the Minister the power to add to the membership of the board. While I have reservations about the method he is using, the Bill is welcome if it means that existing delays in the processing of applications will be shortened. On that basis, I welcome the Bill's provisions.
In recognising the effectiveness and efficiency of An Bord Pleanála in carrying out its work and processing appeals brought before it and taking account of the recommendation that we add to its membership, I hope the Minister will recognise that the number of applications received at the lower level, namely, by local authorities, have also increased dramatically. Additional staffing should be provided to help the authorities process these applications.
I acknowledge that the 4,000 appeals made to An Bord Pleanála last year required a major effort on the part of its officers and staff. At present, there is a delay of 16 weeks in processing such applications and a minimum eight week delay at local authority level which is unacceptable Additional information is often required by local authorities which further extends the period required to process applications.
Ireland is unique in so far as it has an independent authority to adjudicate on planning appeals. It is also unique in that individuals or agencies retain the right to object and, in so doing, delay applications on small, technical or trivial points. The Minister of State is aware of that from the many years he spent as a member of Galway County Council. At one point, members of the council were so frustrated by An Taisce's objections to the legitimate rights of individuals living in localities classified as highly scenic amenity areas that we used the section 4 process to direct local authority officials to grant planning permission. We knew this would prompt An Taisce to appeal the decision. I am glad that process has been discontinued to a large extent as a result of greater consultation between public representatives and planning officials and the introduction of greater flexibility in county development plans. However, it is wrong that faceless individuals within these organisations can object to people living in rural areas by citing them as national heritage areas. I hope that when new recommendations are introduced on planning, this unusual, unique facility which is not common throughout the EU, will be restricted.
An Bord Pleanála is inaccessible to people with a legitimate point to make whether they are involved in an outside interest group or their application is being processed. The procedures for applicants are difficult, aside from paying a fee, and the board must do a big public relations job. Its activities are not well known and it appears as if it has something to hide, which is not the case. However, it must be more forthcoming and transparent as the public is not aware of its work and the parameters within which it operates.
There is great concern, particularly in rural areas, about mobile telephone masts. The issue has been raised several times in the House but it seems that an agreement has been reached between the Government, the Garda and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform where no planning permission is required for the erection of such masts. It is not fair to people who have concerns that no one can provide a clear indication on the safety of the masts. If people have a legitimate fear they are entitled to have recourse to an agency which will give them an opportunity to express their views and have them examined.
In some countries, masts are erected a minimum distance away from residential housing and it is unfair that Garda stations in residential areas are used as sites for them. This concern has been highlighted by one family, in particular, in recent times. Esat should not continue to tap into local sites. For example, the mast in Portumna is located in the middle of the town. Apart from the visual impact, it is also a highly residential area and that is not acceptable. There is a fear that people who object legitimately will be penalised and identified for the wrong reasons and the Minister must take cognisance of this.
With regard to the composition of An Bord Pleanála, is the Minister taking on the function of appointing new members to the board and increasing staffing to an appropriate level or will new members be drawn from the four panels in existence since the inception of the board as is the norm? Despite the fact it must be sanctioned by the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Minister should only be allowed to do this for a fixed term and we should then revert to the original procedures for appointing members to the board. It is important this is clarified before proceeding.
Today the Government was asked by the European Commission to account for the expenditure of EU funding on projects which have changed our environmental heritage. It has queried the implementation of certain EU directives and environmental impact assessments, particularly in the area of architectural heritage. Another agency has taken great pleasure from the fact that the Commission responded to its initial complaint. I am not happy that the agency could bring this matter to the notice of the Commission and it in turn could respond in such a fashion. This has serious repercussions for many fine projects in Dublin and nationwide which were EU funded, but which will now be queried unless Ireland complies with the directives.
I welcome the sentiments in the Bill to speed up the planning process.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Ring.
An Leas Cheann Comhairle
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Bill is very important in regard to planning and the role it plays. I have been involved with Cavan County Council since 1974 and have the highest regard for An Bord Pleanála and the planning department in Cavan. It annoys me that people constantly point the finger. It is a topical subject and the notion of brown paper bags being used to obtain planning permission for various projects is wrong and totally out of line. Local authority officials are honest, hard working and decent as are those involved with An Bord Pleanála. No matter what business one is in there will always be a bad apple that taints the entire organisation.
People tend to get very worked up about planning issues and think a certain agenda operates in respect of planning applications. That is not true. From my experience, local authorities and the planning board hand down decisions in as fair a manner as possible. The board of An Bord Pleanála, which comprises a chairman and five members, is inadequate to deal with the number of appeals that come before it. Some 4,000 were lodged last year. This reflects the amount of development taking place.
While I take issue with the Minister on some matters, I congratulate him on the way he has dealt with the backlog of planning appeals. Time is money for business people and young couples wanting to build modest homes. The price of houses and land is accelerating. It is important, therefore, that decisions are handed down within a reasonable timespan, which should be one month. In the age of computers and fax machines it should not be necessary to wait for a reply by post from a local authority. While I support the right of every individual to appeal a case to An Bord Pleanála, as Deputy Burke correctly stated, the system is being abused by frivolous appeals. A certain gentleman who is masquerading as an environmentalist should get his act together and do something good so that people can get on with their lives. He is creating a great deal of annoyance and turmoil and does not know what he is talking about. He is a nuisance, but out of respect for his family, I will not name him. I am sure the Minister and others know the person to whom I am referring.
It is practically impossible to get permission to build on a good site. Many planning applications are refused because the sites are near bends in the road. I do not agree with that. I accept this is important on national, primary and secondary roads where there is fast moving traffic, but a person should not be refused planning permission for a site along by-roads because of a bend in the road.
The Deputy has only two minutes remaining.
May Deputy Ring share time with a later speaker because he also has an important contribution to make?
People should not travel at 50 or 60 miles an hour on by-roads. Because of the high cost of sites in more open areas, it is not fair to refuse planning permission to young couples who want to buy sites at a reasonable price merely because of the danger of fast moving traffic. I stated many years ago that speed is the main cause of all accidents on our roads. Drivers will have to slow down. It is unacceptable that people should be prevented from building houses along by-roads because of the danger of fast moving traffic. Many of the developments that were built before the planning laws were passed would not be acceptable under current regulations. I know of a filling station adjacent to a dangerous and busy junction, but there has not been an accident at the junction. One would be refused planning permission for a similar site today because of that junction.
We are restricting building on good development land because of these regulations. Young couples have been told that if they have the bends removed they will be given planning permission. That places an enormous cost burden on young couples. I understand the agenda of local authorities is to make roads, not improve road alignment. If hedgerows were properly trimmed and the laws stringently imposed, everybody would have a proper view of our roads and more land could be used for development purposes. That would also relieve the housing problem.
Will the Minister examine the past records of the people who wish to develop piggeries before giving a blanket refusal for that type of development? Alternative enterprises are very important to small farmers.
I wish to share time with Deputy Daly.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Bill. The sooner it is signed into law and given effect the better. There has been a belated recognition of the need for action in the planning process because of the criticisms levelled at An Bord Pleanála for the length of time it takes to process planning appeals. I fail to understand why the problem was so obvious before action was taken. The Minister is taking action, but some of his predecessors and members of the board of An Bord Pleanála should have foreseen these delays. The additional staff will be welcome. In a few years' time there may not be as much demand for these services and the legislation may be excessive in the workings of An Bord Pleanála.
Will the Minister ensure a system of checks and balances is in place? The current criticisms of An Bord Pleanála are valid because of the length of time it takes to process appeals, but more staff is needed. Will the Minister make local authorities accountable for the length of time they take to process applications? The legislation sets a target of four months for An Bord Pleanála to make a decision. I understand that when the two month statutory period for local authorities has lapsed it is common practice for letters seeking additional frivolous information to be sent out one week before a decision on an application is due. This automatically extends the time involved and, consequently, it can take up to 12 months to process such applications. That should not be tolerated. Local authorities should not be able to abuse their position in that way. They may not have enough staff, but it is up to the managers and elected members to ensure they have sufficient resources.
There are wider implications in the planning system. When Minister for Local Government in the early 1970s Deputy Molloy was probably in office when the first county development plan was introduced. What happened to the planning process and the proposed five year reviews of the development plan? The first plan was not reviewed until 1983. That is deplorable. The next time round it took seven or eight years. Over a 20 year period in County Dublin there were two reviews. On top of that Dublin Corporation, at managerial level, had the running of the county as part of its brief in that the city and county manager assigned responsibility to various deputy, city and county managers.
My constituency is unique. In the first plan it was decided to embrace two new satellite towns in Dublin West: Clondalkin-Lucan and Blanchardstown. When I first sought public office in 1974 these were villages with 1,000 to 2,000 people. The proposal to build two satellite towns and the lead satellite town, Tallaght, was visited on that part of the east region. Unfortunately the plan was flawed from the beginning because City Hall decided to reject the Myles Wright recommendation of four satellite towns and put together Clondalkin and Lucan which was never a natural entity. The planning system was used to solve the Dublin city housing crisis and what happened is well documented and is now history. I make constructive criticisms because there are lessons to be learned and the crisis is still visiting the system.
Dublin Corporation set about building thousands of houses in my constituency and in adjoining constituencies. It was not a planning process, it was a housing emergency building programme. Deputy Deasy, in agreement with the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, was able to rattle off place names in north Clondalkin, Neilstown and Ronanstown, in my constituency, as areas which needed some hands-on attention, courtesy of the inefficiencies of an historical planning system. During that period there was the substantial overhang of vast landbanks, owned by the then Dublin Corporation, the private sector was pushed partly to one side and persistently lobbied politicians to take action. The best single example, which is welcome, is that Judge Flood is conducting a tribunal to examine the planning laws in north Dublin.
Why should Dublin north have problems vis-a-vis planning? This is easy to understand because the planning system in the greater Dublin area did not intend that one new house would be built in north Dublin during the lifetime of the previous county development plan. The idea was that those who wanted to set up home in the Dublin region would go to one of the satellite towns, but this ignored the Dublin Airport economic hub, its growth, its prosperity and its potential population spin-off. If you worked in Dublin Airport you did not want to live in one of the satellite towns since we did not have the M50. Those people wanted to live in Swords or — if one was a pilot — in Malahide or Portmarnock. During that period politicians were continually forced into making decisions over the heads of the planners which was seen as contradicting the experts. Subsequently some of the experts left the system, went into the private sector and tried to recommend the policies they had been defending previously. Many times in that period the planners repeatedly said to elected members they did not disagree with what was being suggested but had to put it on record because management was dictating the trend.
Did we ever contemplate a time when an editorial in The Irish Times would refer to the lack of zoned land? That newspaper, through the courtesy of some of its journalists, would have bitterly opposed every decision or view expressed over a period. For the 1990s and beyond it seems the buzz words will be to zone more land. Unfortunately this became a controversial subject but, thankfully, the smaller authorities and the South Dublin and Fingal county councils are in the process of reviewing their plans.
Prior to Christmas, to everybody's amazement, South Dublin County Council decided at managerial level to put to its elected council that it should not put an extra 5,000 population into south Lucan but 5,000 extra houses. This was decided by the planners, managers and experts but there was not a word about it. Many of those on the left of the political divide would have made a strong case for all the negative criticism trotted across the political agenda in the 1980s and early 1990s. They are the people who are now shedding crocodile tears about the price of houses for young couples. They are paying £10,000 to £20,000 more than they should as first time purchasers. The reason for the excessive house prices in the greater Dublin region is that the system was not capable of foreseeing and keeping up with the demand. In reply to how to control the price of building land, Seán Lemass was quoted in the 1960s as saying: "you service more than you need".
Recently the Department allocated £15 million to improve sewerage schemes. Will somebody in the Department ask Dublin Corporation why in respect of the Ringsend treatment works or the proposed so-called north fringe treatment works there is still not a spade in the ground? We scarcely comply with the EU requirement for coastal water clean-up. Why has this taken so long? Why did ESB International get a large consultancy fee from Dublin Corporation to locate a treatment works on the north fringe only to discard the whole project after three years and go to Ringsend? All that work and the 20,000 placement that could have been put on the north fringe will not come about until three or four years from now.
What has happened to house prices in the greater Dublin region is that the incompetence of Dublin Corporation, at managerial and engineering level, and the Department of the Environment under successive Ministers, have not seen the capital works spent. For many years I chaired a body called ERDO, the then east regional development organisation, when its report suggested that to the year 2011 the population in Swords would grow to 100,000 population, north Kildare to 50,000, the satellite towns by an extra 10,000 or 15,000 and the north fringe by an extra 20,000. That report was made available seven or eight years ago, every syllable of which will come to pass. It was representative of management, engineers and planners from the local authorities in the east region. The Minister and Minister of State are struggling to catch up. Consultants have been appointed to ascertain why house prices are so high. The reason is that it took Dublin Corporation, initially, far too long to make planning and, more importantly, engineering decisions.
Dublin Corporation exerted too much influence on the planning process until the then Minister decided to reform the local government system in Dublin by creating three new county councils, following which it dumped on the market vast tracts of land zoned residential instead of allowing it to be transferred to Fingal and South Dublin county councils. As a result private developers are making vast profits. This land should be in the hands of Fingal and South Dublin county councils which ought to be in a position to offer sites at realistic prices to young couples to build starter homes.
I welcome this small step which should speed up the planning process. The more permissions granted the better and the greater the benefits for young couples.
I thank Deputy Lawlor for sharing his time with me. I support the legislation and compliment the Minister on bringing it forward. It is designed to expedite the planning process.
As Members are aware, there have been many delays which have impeded the progress of particular projects. That is the case in relation to some projects under the resort renewal scheme. As the Minister is well aware, the deadline specified will be extended by one year provided a certain percentage of the proposed works is completed by July. The promoters of three major projects in Kilkee, which I represent, with a total investment of between £16 million and £18 million, will find it difficult to comply with the strict criteria laid down. If the decisions are appealed to An Bord Pleanála, it is difficult to see how the projects will be completed within the timeframe specified. The scheme has been very successful. For the first time in many years there is investment in Lahinch and Kilkee. It will be unfortunate if some projects do not proceed because of delays in the planning process.
Last August the Minister announced that he was initiating a planning review. I presume this was one of the areas identified in the review but there is a necessity for greater co-ordination of the activities of local authorities. Limerick city and county, where a by-election is to be held within the next few weeks, and south-east Clare, including Cratloe and Meelick, are stagnating because of the lack of a cohesive regional development plan, incorporating water, sewage and effluent disposal facilities and ring roads. I am not certain whether under current arrangements where each authority has its own responsibilities it is possible to adopt a co-ordinated approach to such development. Unless remedial action is taken speedily Limerick city will continue to stagnate.
There should be greater co-operation and co-ordination between agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and An Bord Pleanála. It appears, particularly in the technical area, that there is much duplication and overlapping. In the Estimates for 1998 £7 million has been provided for the Environmental Protection Agency and £3 million for An Bord Pleanála where there is a huge turnover of staff. This presents a difficulty in ensuring continuity. Is there an explanation for this?
There have been delays in County Clare where there have been some spurious court challenges. Overall, however, the response of the local planning authority and An Bord Pleanála has been positive. I welcome the legislation as it will help to eliminate some of the delays and ensure uniformity. Concessions should be made on the issue of charges. Those living in rural areas, which are in decline, have to pay the same charges as those living in the more prosperous built-up areas.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Browne.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This Bill amends the 1983 Act. As it is clear An Bord Pleanála does not have sufficient members or staff, I welcome this timely initiative.
In a democracy such as ours when a State institution such as An Bord Pleanála is unable to function properly it leads to major problems. People must be listened to. No one seems to know what criteria are used by An Bord Pleanála in deciding whether to hold an oral hearing. The ESB submitted a proposal to Cork County Council to erect 81 pylons around Cork Harbour to supply power from Aghada power station to the opposite side of the harbour. No one is opposed to this proposal. However, many people have objected to the proposed route. Erecting 81 steel towers in an area already littered with them is not welcome. There were many objections to this proposal. Urban district councils passed motions, tourism bodies and Cobh and Harbour Chamber of Commerce objected also.
Debate adjourned.