Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Jun 1999

Vol. 507 No. 1

Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983 (Increase in Number of Ordinary Members of An Bord Pleanála) Order, 1999: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983 (Increase in Number of Ordinary Members of An Bord Pleanála) Order, 1999, a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on 11 June 1999.

–(Minister of State at

the Department of Public Enterprise)

Mr. Gilmore

I welcome this debate on the appointment of an additional member of An Bord Pleanála. It gives us an opportunity to discuss the work of An Bord Pleanála and to touch on some wider issues relating to planning and development.

The specific Government proposal is to appoint one additional member to An Bord Pleanála. Given what the Minister of State has told us this morning and what we know about the delays in the planning process, this measure is simply not sufficient to deal with what is clearly a crisis in the processing of planning appeals by An Bord Pleanála.

The extent of the problem was outlined by the Minister of State in his speech, when he stated "At the end of May 1999, the four month rate had dropped to 41 per cent, which is unacceptable, both to the Minister and to the board itself". It is unacceptable that six out of ten planning appeals are now taking longer than the statutory four month period to determine. In a country where we have an acknowledged housing problem, where – irrespective of the view one takes of the housing crisis – housing supply is part of the solution, and where we pride ourselves on a high level of economic growth and where economic development is clearly important, it is unacceptable that we have a blockage in our planning system which delays the processing and determining of planning decisions. We simply cannot have that.

We are not just talking here about the four month period it takes to determine the appeal – we are talking about the pre-planning application period of time for the erection of notices and the placement of advertisements and the two month minimum period it takes for a decision to be made by a local authority. In practice, many planning authorities are also taking longer than the two month period to make a planning decision, in some cases for the same reasons An Bord Pleanála is having a difficulty. It is now quite regular for planning authorities to either extend the period of time in which a decision is made or to seek additional information on a planning application, which is another way of extending the time period for a decision. There is then a period of months in which an appeal can be lodged. It takes a minimum of four months and, as the Minister of State acknowledged, in 60 per cent of cases it now takes longer than four months to determine the application. In other words, from the moment a person decides to proceed with a development, it takes almost a year to complete the planning process. Given what we know about the housing situation and the general desire of the House and the public for economic development and prosperity to continue, this country cannot afford such delays in our planning process.

I am not sure what is being proposed this morning will resolve the problem. All that is being proposed is that we appoint one additional member to An Bord Pleanála. I agree with that and the Labour Party intends to support the motion. However, the Minister of State has also indicated there is a further problem in An Bord Pleanála, in that the board has experienced difficulties in recruiting professional planners. The proposed solution is to recruit in the United Kingdom. That may provide some short-term relief. However, we need to look at this in a much wider and more long-term context. This problem has not arisen overnight. We have known for some time that delays have been occurring in the entire planning system. Anybody who has knowledge of the local authority system or the construction industry here knows there have been delays in our planning process for quite some time and that those delays are directly attributable to a shortage of staff and resources in the local planning authorities in the first instance and in An Bord Pleanála specifically. I cannot understand why we have not made better provision in the longer term for the training, education and provision of a corps of professional planners in order to meet this growing need.

A cohort of students have just sat their leaving certificate and are anxiously awaiting their results to see whether they acquired the number of points necessary to get onto various professional courses, including the courses that train and educate people to be professional planners in our planning system. It is quite inexplicable that on the one hand we are telling young people who have just sat their leaving certificate that they have to reach such enormously high standards in order to get onto the courses that will qualify them as planners and on the other hand we do not have enough planners in the country to the extent that we have to recruit abroad.

There are two measures that could be taken, and I am disappointed the Minister has not addressed them this morning. What are we doing about the training and education of additional people with the professional qualifications to qualify them as planners in the longer term? What is our anticipation of the needs over the next ten to 15 years and what provision is being made in our education system in order to equip us with the corps of professionals that is required to meet that need?

Are there measures that can be taken now to bring into the planning system people who, perhaps, have not gone through the full professional training in planning in the normal post-school circumstances but who, through their own professional careers or involvement with or knowledge of planning, might be in a position where they could, with shorter courses, be brought to a level of competence to work in our planning systems? Is it a problem of pay? Is it the case that the levels of pay which are paid to professionals in the public service are no longer sufficiently attractive to the numbers required in the public service planning system at a time when, perhaps, there are more attractive offers and more attractive opportunities available to people with planning qualifications in the private sector? That issue needs to be addressed. Not only does this problem exist in An Bord Pleanála, it also exists in local authorities.

I appreciate what the Minister has said about the increase in the number of staff who are being recruited in local authorities, but it is generally accepted and known that throughout the local authority system there is a shortage of professional planners, and local authorities are having difficulties in recruiting professional planners at this time. That, in turn, is delaying the processing of planning applications, but it is also creating dangerous short-cuts which will ultimately undermine the public credibility of the planning process and the quality of good planning in our local authorities. Planners no longer have the time that is required to have pre-planning discussions with developers, to talk to third party objectors about planning applications or, in some cases, to deal with the queries and representations made by public representatives in relation to planning applications.

I suspect that if there were better resourcing of the planning system and more planners at local level, the number of appeals might be reduced. If one can deal with some of the problems in the planning application as it is going through the local authority system, if one can deal, for example, with some of the objections from third parties by the placement of conditions on the planning permission which is granted, and if there were a greater degree of consultation at local level, perhaps the scope and extent of appeals which are subsequently lodged to An Bord Pleanála might be reduced.

There is a further issue which also arises as a result of the shortage of resources in the planning departments of local authorities, and that has to do with the enforcement of planning decisions. There has been a very significant deterioration in the degree of enforcement of planning permissions, in the conditions attaching to planning permissions in recent years. That is directly attributable to the inadequate resources which are available at local level as against the increased number of planning applications which are being submitted and the complexity of many of these planning applications, many now carrying either as a requirement or on a voluntary basis the submission of quite detailed environmental impact studies. Planners at local level simply do not have the time or the resources to follow up on the enforcement of planning decisions. This undermines confidence in the planning system and encourages appeals to An Bord Pleanála. People see that a development has occurred where conditions have not been enforced, where inspectors of the local authority have not come out when requested to do so to look at some aspect or other of the development. Inevitably, when the next development comes up in that locality, there is an automatic encouragement for people to appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

The whole question of the resourcing of our planning system needs to be addressed given the increased construction activity, with increases in the amount of residential development as well as physical development which is taking place for economic purposes. It is no longer a question of shortage of resources because planning fees are submitted and developers have to pay various levies and contributions to planning authorities in order to get planning permission. It is lack of organisation, lack of preparedness and lack of good government which has resulted in a mess as far as the processing of planning applications is concerned, with delays occurring, an inadequate enforcement regime and other problems such as those we all encounter in our work.

An Bord Pleanála fashions and shapes the entire complexion of the planning system. It interprets the planning Acts and regulations and, at a practical level, the guidelines which are issued. In many ways it functions similarly to the Supreme Court in relation to our general body of law. Before this motion was tabled for discussion in the House, I had asked at the Select Committee on the Environment and Local Government that the chairperson of An Bord Pleanála should be invited by the committee to address it to deal with some of the issues in the planning process that are of concern to us as public representatives and as Members of the House. I understand that meeting is being arranged for next week and I look forward to it. I very much respect the independence of An Bord Pleanála and the integrity of its members and staff. I would not wish in any way to get involved in a discussion at the committee about individual planning decisions, because they are matters to be decided on their own merits by the board. These are issues which need to be addressed and I hope the chairperson of An Bord Pleanála will address them when he appears before the committee.

Circumstances in planning have changed. In addition to the Planning Acts and the normal regulations, there is now a body of guidelines on residential density and retail development, there are strategic planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area, a new planning Bill will shortly be published and unprecedented levels of residential development and construction activity are under way. There is also increased pressure to integrate residential, economic and transport factors into planning.

How does An Bord Pleanála deal with applications in that context? How is its thinking changing? We need to know that. As the Minister pointed out, the reasons given by An Bord Plean ála are often difficult to understand. The rationale of An Bord Pleanála must be spelt out in its decisions. We need to know what it thinks because that thinking will shape the ideas of planners at local level which, in turn, will influence the applications submitted by developers.

My colleagues in the Labour Party, Deputies, Senators and members of local authorities, in the few months I have held the environment and local government portfolio have drawn to my attention cases in which An Bord Pleanála's decisions are not only at variance with the recommendations made by the inspector, but in some cases stand the inspector's recommendation on its head. I accept that the way in which An Bord Pleanála operates allows for it to make decisions which are at variance with the inspector's report but anecdotal evidence points to an increase in the incidence of decisions being made which overturn the inspector's recommendation. The incomprehension of the logic for the overturning of the inspector's recommendation gives rise to a requirement that, where An Bord Pleanála is going to depart from the recommendations made by an inspector, it should explain in detail why it has departed from the recommendation. If it does not do that, it leaves open the possibility of reasons being attributed to it which may be unfair but which will undermine public confidence in An Bord Pleanála.

We have been promised a new planning and development Bill for some time. The consultative work about the planning system was begun by my colleague Deputy Howlin when he was Minister for the Environment. I am disappointed that it is taking the Government so long to produce this Bill. The Minister told us today that the heads of the Bill were approved by the Government in January. What is causing the delay? I asked the Minister when he appeared before the Committee on the Environment and Local Government some weeks ago if he would make the heads of the Bill available. I still think they should be made available to us. We are now told that the Bill will be published in a few weeks time. It is a pity that we have lost the opportunity of the past six months when the Minister might have usefully taken on board some of the suggestions of Members for the heads of the Bill before final drafting takes place.

I hope the Bill will be published soon. There is need for a comprehensive debate on planning. The 1963 Act was introduced when this State was changing from a rural to an industrial base. This State has changed in many ways since 1963. We need a new legislative framework for planning which integrates with social needs to bring us through the next quarter of a century. The sooner the Bill is published and we can begin to debate it properly, the better.

Mr. McGuinness

I support the motion to increase the membership of An Bord Pleanála by one. I only do so because the increase will assist in dealing with the backlog of appeals and applications currently before the board.

I join previous speakers in their analyses of the workings of An Bord Pleanála; there is a great deal of public anger about how it operates. There are many examples which explain why that anger is running at such a high level. The fact that local authorities can pass or refuse an application, submit it to An Bord Pleanála to be dealt with by an inspector and that inspector's report can be overturned is unacceptable.

The time has come to overhaul the board. In my own county the local authority refused planning permission to a development. Consideration was given to the application by the members of the authority, the engineering staff and the county manager. It was then sent to An Bord Pleanála, where a 20 page report signed by the inspector recommended refusal. A single page attached to that report issued permission for the development. It gave no reasons to support the granting of permission. When the local community tried to determine why such a decision had been taken, they were not given any reason.

There was a similar case in County Carlow with the same result. Because of cases of that type, confidence in An Bord Pleanála is at an all time low. To correct the anomalies we must look at the board itself. That a quorum of three can adjudicate on an application which has come from the local authority through the inspectors to the board gives rise to many questions. Procedure within the board must be examined.

Although comprehensive legislation is being prepared, there is a need for a Bill between now and the completion of that legislation to deal with the serious situation which exists in planning. There is a need to look at local authorities and ensure they are properly resourced so they can play a more proactive role in planning applications.

There is an immediate need to ensure An Bord Pleanála takes into account county and city development plans because, at the moment, it totally ignores those plans. In one county, an application was refused by An Bord Pleanála but a similar one made in the same location was granted. It used the opposite argument to grant the permission than it had used to refuse it almost 12 months earlier.

Because the public can access information and see the files, I clearly understand why they cannot comprehend what method is used to grant or refuse these permissions. There is a need to establish proper staffing levels within local authorities. There is also a need to ensure there are town planners in planning sections so that an application can be teased out with the applicant prior to being considered by the local authority. Any assistance necessary should be given to the applicant or the local community so that they understand exactly what is going on.

There is a need for An Bord Pleanála to have a special unit to deal with applications relative to medieval cities, such as Kilkenny. Professor John Bradley from NUI Maynooth gave a lecture recently in which he said that more damage was done to Kilkenny in the past 20 years than was done by Cromwell when he visited the city. That comment forced me to look at the applications. I found that most of the applications which were successful and granted by An Bord Pleanála were more offensive to the development of Kilkenny. To add insult to injury, the board did not deal with the issues, as the local authority did, when granting the applications. It ignored the traffic implications and the issues with which the local authority had dealt and said they were issues for the local authority. I find that unacceptable.

I have served on a local authority for 20 years and I do not understand how an outside body dealing with a medieval city like Kilkenny can begin to understand from where we are coming or how we feel about the fabric of the city. An Bord Pleanála deals with an application from afar and does not understand or have to take into consideration our city development plan and what we are trying to do in terms of protecting the heritage there. It ignored the fact that some of these buildings were beside heritage sites and included listed buildings. In one instance, it allowed a shopping centre to be developed on lands behind the High Street in Kilkenny. It gave no consideration to the traffic problems or the historical element of that site. In fact, it gave permission to take down a shop front which was listed and have it erected elsewhere. It gave no assistance to the local authority in policing that development or in enforcing the conditions laid down. All in all, there is a serious problem with planning.

The Minister referred to satellite towns. We must take into consideration that people will no longer buy into that concept and will live in a place where they will have the quality of life they require. They will no longer go to where the jobs are and are prepared to travel to their place of employment so that they can enjoy a good quality of life. If we continue to move the problem out of Dublin, surely it is reasonable to expect that cities, such as Kilkenny and Carlow, will begin to prosper and feel the pinch of extra development and high density. If that is the case, what protection will legislation extend to those counties, and to the planning and development of those counties, particularly when one considers the present law which allows An Bord Pleanála to ignore city and county development plans. We must put in place a plan which will look at the impact of this new development on rural towns and cities, such as those I mentioned.

The judicial review process which is open to any member of the public after An Bord Pleanála makes its decision is deplorable. Effectively, it is open only to those with money and who can afford to engage in that process. Local communities, because of the cost, are almost debarred from engaging in the legal process and end up running race nights and cabarets to take on the large developers and developments. Any new legislation will have to deal with those issues. I am happy to see that across the political divide in this House there is a reasonable understanding that something needs to be done urgently.

Mr. Hayes

The motion will make very little difference in terms of the planning and development problems faced by every county council, particularly those in the Dublin area. If there is one issue which can affect people's quality of life it is planning. Some monumentally disastrous decisions taken in this city and county in the 1960s have affected the quality of life of the people and have caused unbelievable prejudice within our communities. The Minister has been around long enough to know of the decisions taken in this city which resulted in the destruction of some of the finest buildings of which any European Union capital would be proud to boast. Some of these decisions were taken in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

In my area, there was virtually a mushrooming of a new conurbation in the south-west of the city. The problems associated with some of those estates were caused by bad planning. It is virtually impossible to get agreement on additional local authority housing, in-fill housing or large scale public housing because of the prejudice which exists within residential communities and the fact we do not have mixed development. In many parts of the European Union, there is good quality mixed development which brings together public and private housing and people of different ages. A community cannot be created with only one age group or one type of social housing; it needs a variety of uses and attachments.

The ESRI report published recently states very clearly what needs to be done. We need additional housing, infrastructure, transport routes and so on. Everyone is agreed on what needs to be done but when it comes to the implementation of those plans at local authority level, some members move away from those objectives. As we face the new millennium, we need to debate what needs to be done at an infrastructural level and how we will implement those plans. There is no point in the ESRI telling us or lecturing us, quite frankly, on what needs to be done from a residential or transport point of view if the proper mechanism is not in place to implement those decisions. We must concentrate on this issue as much as we talk about how we are going to find additional houses.

There is no doubt that one of the reasons house prices continue to spiral out of the grasp of most people on average incomes relates to supply. The Minister said there has been an additional supply of housing, which is welcome, but one of the reasons supply has not been more forthcoming is the slow rate at which planning applications are processed by local authorities in Dublin city and county. This must be addressed. People must recognise that a component of increasing house prices is the stagnation in planning departments throughout the country. The issue cannot be addressed simply by appointing additional planning officers, although that is essential. We must also streamline the resources of planning and development departments in local authorities.

I was interested to hear Deputy Gilmore refer to the need for additional planning officers, which is self-evident. What work is being done in terms of recruiting additional planning officers? Have negotiations been taking place between the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Department of Education and Science in terms of making a career in planning more attractive to young people? There must be a positive campaign, in the third level sector in particular, to encourage more people to take up a career in planning. There are people working in development who could become planners following a one or two year training course. We must consider how we can best use the available employees in local authorities. We must address the issue of planning delays as it is part and parcel of the house prices issue.

I wish to raise third party rights of appeal. I think Ireland is the only EU member state where somebody from Malin Head, for example, can oppose a development taking place in my constituency or in west Cork. This has led to quite a number of vexatious appeals to An Bord Pleanála. As the leader of my party said on this morning's Order of Business, there are already cases of developers using the appeal mechanism to delay developments by competitors. This is a corrupt practice which must be addressed. Is the appeals system being used against the common good? Is it being used directly by people against competitors? If this is happening, and I believe it is, it must be stamped out.

This is related to one of the reasons the Government has been criticised in the debate, namely, that it has not yet published the planning legislation. The Government has been in office for two years and it is unbelievable that the legislation has not been presented to the House. The Minister said the legislation will be published and presented in the very near future, I suspect during the summer recess. It is major legislation on which substantial work will be required on Committee Stage and it is unlikely to be in force before well into next year. How seriously can we take the Government's commitment to streamline, modernise and make more effective the planning laws when two years into office this legislation has not been presented? As Deputy Gilmore said, in January this year the heads of the Bill were agreed in the Department, so why has it taken so long for the legislation to be published? If the Government is serious about addressing, reforming and modernising planning, it should have published the legislation in the period from January. The Government stands indicted for not publishing it and failure to do so is directly contributing to the levels of disenchantment concerning the planning process.

We must look in a radical way at the manner in which local authority planning departments are advancing planning applications. On 1 April I proposed that a specific section in the Department of the Environment and Local Government should be established to monitor the progress taking place in key areas throughout the country where housing applications are required. This hands on approach by the Department is necessary in terms of local planning departments, particularly in areas where there is a substantial need for additional housing.

The Minister mentioned two matters close to my heart and on which I would like to make brief comments. The first is the issue of increased densities. It is necessary that the new planning legislation sets out specific obligations on developers to provide social housing or a substantial contribution towards social housing in all new major developments. I would argue that this does not require legislation and that it is quite possible that a general directive from the Department of the Environment and Local Government could be given to local authorities mandating them and demanding that all major developments in future have a social housing component, or that a contribution be made towards social housing. Recently I met a local authority official in Belfast who told me that in Belfast the local authority is making provision whereby developers would provide schools and community services and facilities as part of the conditions under the planning laws. Developers are making substantial amounts of money in Dublin city and it is only right that they give something back.

Ms Hanafin

I wish to share time with Deputy Callely.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Hanafin

I welcome the proposal to increase the membership of An Bord Pleanála because the board's operations at present are slow and cumbersome. I hope this measure, small though it is, will in some way speed up and make more efficient the system which exists. The system has slowed down to an extent because of the rate of development which we have had over recent years. While growth is welcome, there is always the challenge of achieving balance between protecting the environment and preserving the surrounding area while at the same time meeting the needs and demands of housing development.

Housing applications have caused the system to grind very slowly. In particular the Dublin area is witnessing such change that we will end up with a situation where it will stretch from Dundalk to Arklow and as far as Mullingar. Yet we still cannot meet the requirements and demands for housing, particularly from young couples. We could increase supply by increasing density. It is important to acknowledge that increasing housing density does not mean decreasing quality. Good quality houses can be provided at lower cost in areas where they are urgently needed. Given that we do not have a huge land bank in the Dublin area, it is very important that we apply our minds to this issue very quickly.

The problems with An Bord Pleanála relate not only to the rate of reply to applications, another problem arises where people submit simultaneous applications. During the week we read about a man who objected to permission granted by his local council. This was refused by An Bord Pleanála. What he did not notice was that an identical application had been submitted at the same time and of which he was given no notice. If somebody is trying to get around the system by submitting simultaneous applications, at least the covering notice on the premises should be in a different colour and should be notified to the objector to the original development.

I often question why an inspector from An Bord Pleanála recommends one decision while the board, in its wisdom, gives an entirely opposite view. In those circumstances it is necessary for the board to outline in detail the reason for its decision rather than just saying the proposal is not in keeping with the development of the area.

A third problem concerns enforceability when An Bord Pleanála makes a decision. An individual or developer may go ahead with an application and months later nobody has decided to enforce the decision taken. There is not enough correlation between the work on the ground and the decisions being made by the board.

In the area of planning related to the child care issue, an area where we have fallen down seriously in recent years, we have reached a crisis where couples cannot find a place for their children. It is not only a finance issue, it is a planning issue.

When we consider the Bill on the wider planning issue, I hope we will insist that each new housing estate must provide a child care facility and a crèche. Currently there is not any co-ordination between the planning authorities and the the Department of Health and Children. People are working in opposite directions. I recommend some co-ordination between them. The responsibility should lie with the planners, who would give guidelines to people on how to fulfil Department of Health and Children, fire and safety, and planning regulations.

In the Dún Laoghaire development plan, there is a ludicrous suggestion that permission will not be granted for a crèche with more than eight children. If we are serious about tackling the problem, while acknowledging the reservations of residents, we need to ensure that a place which is suitable for a crèche is allowed to take the number of children recommended by the Department of Health and Children.

More particularly, I want the Minister to address the fact that if a woman decides to look after one child in her home and is paid for it, she must seek planning permission to do so. A woman could have ten children of her own in the house and would not need planning permission to look after them, but because the word "crèche" is listed in the Planning Acts but is not defined to mean a particular number of children, child minders throughout the country could be affected by the planning laws. These are issues which are relevant not just to An Bord Pleanála but to the whole idea of planning. The Minister should redefine the use of the word "crèche" for child care purposes, allow tax relief on premises purchased for child care facilities, and recommend to the Minister for Finance that tax relief be given to those for which it is not currently available under the Bacon proposals and that co-ordination of the system between planning regulations, health regulations, etc., is taken into account.

Having referred already to decisions not being enforced, the opposite seems to apply regarding child care. Recently a crèche had to close its doors on a Monday night because it had been refused planning permission. When parents arrived on the Tuesday morning to drop off the children they received an apology and were told they must take their children home. It simply is not good enough that no account is taken of the critical child care situation. It is an issue which relates to many Departments but particularly to the Department of the Environment and Local Government.

Mr. Callely

I appreciate the work of all involved in processing planning applications. By and large they do a good job. I am particularly proud of my association with Dublin Corporation and with the assistant city manager in charge of planning, Mr. Seán Carey, and his principal officer, Mr. Geoghegan, both of whom have proved to be dedicated and committed and have a tremendous track record in the area of planning. I also congratulate all those involved in the planning department of Dublin Corporation with whom I have worked closely.

I support what the Minister said regarding the challenge facing the planning system and urge him to ensure that it is done in an efficient, economical and environmentally sustainable way. I particularly noted the Minister's comment that Ireland has the highest growth rate in building output in Europe and in the history of the State. I support the view that the planning system has done well to facilitate this unprecedented level of building activity. I am pleased to note that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has asked the local authorities to review the operations and to employ additional planners.

My colleague, Deputy Hanafin, referred to child care. In a unique provision in the last budget the Minister for Finance encouraged the development of crèche facilities by providing for 100 per cent capital allowances. On the other hand there are real difficulties in the planning aspect of this and this shows the contradictions involved.

The Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, Deputy Jacob, indicated that An Bord Pleanála has won widespread respect for doing its job impartially and perhaps it is fair to say that. However, it is equally fair to say that, while I appreciate that the board is impartial and the inspector is there to make the report, it is a matter of serious public concern when the board does not support the inspector's recommendation. It is important to note that in 1998 the board accepted the general thrust of the inspector's recommendation in 91 per cent of cases. It is also important that we underline that the Minister also stated that in overruling the recommendation of an inspector the board must be satisfied that the facts before it support such decisions. In light of freedom of information provisions, etc., it is important that all those facts are available to people looking at the file.

As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, I am particularly happy to note the Minister's comments regarding the guidelines for consultation on retail development and the location of large-scale retail development, and its influence on the viability of town centres and regions. It is important that we undertake more work in that area. As the House will be aware, a number of recommendations have been made.

While we all appreciate that it is important that one may make a third party appeal, surely An Bord Pleanála should recognise, endorse and uphold the work which goes into development plans of local authorities. Local elected public representatives participate with local authority officials and planning departments to come up with plans, and it is important that we send a clear message to An Bord Pleanála to uphold the local development plans on all occasions.

Mr. Durkan

I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Joe Higgins.

I am sorry this motion comes before the House in this truncated way. The issue of planning, An Bord Pleanála and all that is associated with it requires more debate than the short time available allows.

When An Bord Pleanála was set up, it was deemed necessary to take planning and development appeals out of the hands of Departments and place them in an impartial arena. In theory, that was a good idea. However, in the intervening period people have said the board should be accountable to somebody. These are not my words but the words of the public. I presume the reason is that when a decision seems at variance with commonsense, it is obvious that people will ask questions. We are not in a position to answer such questions and consequently the public criticises politicians for their alleged inability to intervene in an arena from which they are debarred in any event.

This motion should have been introduced by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey. I mean no disrespect to my good neighbour and colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, Deputy Jacob, who resides across the county boundary from me. Having had some experience of standing in for other people, I know that in issues of this nature the responsible Minister should be in the House. If he is not available on the day, then the item should not appear on the Order of Business.

A couple of things have changed since the mid-1970s. First, the rate of development has accelerated dramatically. In the 1970s a member of a local authority could look at a planning proposal and conclude in 20 minutes or less that it was either valid or invalid and that it would be successful or unsuccessful. That happened because there was consistency in the system. Then the system changed; we had court challenges to the Act and modifications were made to it. We had Part Xs, planning guidelines and exempted developments. Each of those, in turn, was challenged in court at various intervals. We no longer have the same degree of consistency as existed 25 years ago. The system has changed dramatically.

We now have the phenomenon of mischievous objectors, people who object to applications for the hell of it. Such objections may hold up a particular development, such as a hospital or social housing development. By virtue of the fact that an objector recognises the power they are entitled to exercise, they hold up the entire system.

We also have business objectors, people who object to other business developments which may threaten them. I can never understand why such objections are entertained because they are merely used as a means of ensuring there is no competition in the objectors' particular marketplace. People want to ensure that their businesses will not be put at risk by competition. That is unacceptable.

Particular objectors will maintain appeals to An Bord Pleanála until such time as they are compensated. Such mischievous objection is merely designed for the objector's gain. I am not criticising An Bord Pleanála or local authorities; I am merely outlining the facts.

I have personal knowledge of particular industries, of crucial importance to investment in an area, which have been objected to by people seeking compensation, although the development had no bearing whatsoever on their lifestyle or quality of life, but until such objectors receive compensation, they will sustain their objections. If the business or investment goes elsewhere, those people walk away scot-free. They are not accountable to anyone. People are being paid off in some circumstances and applications are being appealed. That is not what was envisaged by the planning legislation and it is not the purpose for which An Bord Pleanála was set up.

Several references were made to situations in which an inspector or technical officer of a local authority or the board makes a report. I accept the executive authority of such people but I find it difficult to understand that, where there is a pattern of recommendations in favour or against a particular development and the logical con clusion is that a decision would be in accordance with those recommendations, that is not always the case. Some decisions made by the board turn the whole system on its head. That is extraordinary and must be changed.

In order to meet today's requirements, the board needs to be totally reconstituted. The system should be changed dramatically as it is currently creaking and breaking down under the volume of objections, counter-objections, correspondence and queries. Unless the system is changed to meet the requirements of the new millennium, we will find ourselves in the same position in two or three years' time.

Mr. Higgins (Dublin West)

I thank Deputy Durkan for sharing his time. It is regrettable that this motion merely deals with the numbers on An Bord Pleanála when vital planning issues and the procedures governing planning need to be discussed.

I want to hammer the growing lobby to outlaw third party objections. Not all third party objections are mischievous, although some may be totally frivolous or unjustified. People who are intensely affected by developments must not lose their democratic right to object to developments. There is an agenda among powerful people in the building industry and other sectors to do away with third party objections which is particularly directed at community organisations. Such organisations may be intensely affected by developments and have every right to object to those which would be detrimental to the community. Any move to erode the right to object should be strongly rejected.

It is all very well to say that An Bord Pleanála should not interfere with the development plan. However, in the case of Fingal in Dublin, a plan which resulted in unjustified rezoning in some cases was lashed through by a Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael coalition without proper consideration. What route of appeal do communities or members of the public, who want to see proper planning, have in those circumstances?

Mr. Kelleher

I welcome this motion which recognises that as a result of increased development in recent years, An Bord Pleanála is under-resourced to effectively assess and adjudicate on cases coming before it in a fair, impartial and speedy manner. The delays experienced in recent years are wholly unacceptable. We are now doing something to address the problem.

I would like to refer to the broader issue of planning. We now have a situation in which there is no accountability in the planning process due to a lack of input from elected representatives. Once a county development plan is passed, it is up to individual planners, county managers, inspectors and An Bord Pleanála to adjudicate on planning matters. When we talk about planning, we are talking about people's lives and communities. I am concerned that we do not have a consistent system in place throughout the country which allows communities to develop, particularly in rural areas.

We are trying to encourage people to settle in rural Ireland and halt depopulation along the western seaboard and other isolated parts of the country, yet, it is almost impossible for people who wish to move to those areas to acquire planning permission. We must consider this issue seriously. The opposite case applies on the eastern seaboard. The island is almost tipping into the Irish Sea because of the numbers moving into Dublin and larger urban areas, not purely to avail of the services which exist there but because they cannot obtain planning permission in the areas in which they would like to live.With modern telecommunications systems, including the Internet, there is no reason many thousands currently working in Dublin and other large urban areas could not work from isolated rural areas if planning permission could be secured. Conditions in large urban areas are not conducive to rearing a family.

There is a lack of vision in the preparation of county development plans. The blame for this rests not only with the planners and management but with county councillors. As most of the land zoned for development has been developed, county councils have been asked to revise their county development plans. This should have been foreseen, given that everybody has been talking about escalating house prices for the past four or five years. We are now playing catch-up. The increase in the price of development land has been passed on to the purchaser. This is placing a heavy burden on families on average income.

We have a duty to indicate that the planning system is not proactive. The housing crisis will never be resolved if it is left to the unimaginative people who draft county development plans. Guidelines should be issued to planning officials to ensure a certain percentage of land is rezoned each year for residential development. This will enable us to plan ahead taking demographic changes into account. This should be seriously considered if we do not want to place a millstone around the necks of young people of house buying age who are paying inflated prices.

It appears that no one can change the system. If politicians try to be proactive, they are accused of interfering with the planning process and the rezoning of land for development. There are, however, tens of thousands on waiting lists while the cost of private housing has gone through the roof. This has a knock-on effect in increased social problems.

Legislation has been introduced to ensure crèches are run in a proper manner in a healthy environment for children. Because of this it is proving difficult to secure planning permission. Most applications have been turned down. This is creating a further problem. Those who want to place their children in child care facilities and take up employment to meet exorbitant house prices cannot do so because of the inability of the planning system to look ahead.

The legislation has to be looked at again. Parking is cited as a problem in most areas. Most parents, however, would like to be able to drop their children off at a crèche in their residential area. There is, therefore, a need for consistency. We have to ensure applicants will be able to secure planning permission in residential areas.

There is a lack of imagination when it comes to architecture. Only buildings which date from the 1800s stand out. While I appreciate that finance is a factor, planning officers and departments do not encourage the submission of imaginative projects. Few buildings erected this century could be deemed to be imaginative and will not be described as such by tourists 100 years from now. This is embarrassing.

Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise (Mr. Jacob)

I thank all the Deputies who took part in the debate on the motion. There is general agreement that An Bord Pleanála should be properly resourced at staff and board level to ensure the planning appeals process operates effectively and efficiently. I have explained the steps the Government has taken to provide extra resources at staff level in the past year. The provision in the draft order for an additional ordinary member of the board is a necessary complementary measure to the increase in staff resources.

There is a noticeable sensitivity among the public to proposed development which is reflected in the increase in the number of third party appeals to An Bord Pleanála. While we all value the openness of the planning system in allowing for third party appeals – this imposes a certain discipline on developers and planning authorities – objectors must recognise the unique position granted to them under planning law. They should use their rights constructively at all times. We must guard against vexatious and mischievous appeals which introduce unnecessary delay to the planning system. Section 14 of the 1992 Planning Act allows An Bord Pleanála to dismiss appeals which it considers to be vexatious or without substance or foundation.

The issues raised about the planning system generally will be addressed in the forthcoming Planning and Development Bill, 1999, which is expected to be published in the next few weeks. It will provide an opportunity to have a more comprehensive debate, for which Deputy Durkan and others called, on all aspects of the planning code, including the provisions relating to An Bord Pleanála.

It would be unrealistic to expect unanimity throughout the country on all planning decisions. What is required is an independent consideration of the planning authority's decisions. We must be satisfied that the board applies the principles of administrative justice in arriving at its decisions. We must accept that different people will arrive at different decisions based on the same facts. The courts have accepted this and have ruled that as long as the board adopts due process and basis its decisions on the facts before it, they will not question the planning merits of the board's decisions.

The Government is extremely concerned about the housing situation, as evidenced by the preparation and rapid implementation of the two Bacon reports. There is an obligation on us to ensure the planning system does not contribute to increasing house prices by, for example, delays in granting planning permission.

Legislation and Government measures on their own will not protect our heritage. Respect for the built heritage must come from society itself, and attitudes have changed considerably over recent years. There is now more appreciation for the buildings bestowed on us by our ancestors. However, our heritage can still come under threat and, regrettably, there has been recent experience of this. It would be indefensible if anyone could benefit from illegal action in demolishing a listed building. The key to this process lies in enforcement. The greatest deterrent is the knowledge that the full force of the law will be brought against such transgressors. The planning code also provides for the reinstatement of an illegally demolished building. The existing powers are strong and it is intended to further clarify and strengthen the enforcement powers under the Planning Acts in the planning and development Bill to be published in the next few weeks.

The powers of legislation are not sufficient in themselves – they must be used. We need a stronger enforcement culture. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, indicated that he intends to hold discussions with local authorities, the Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions to see how the powers can be used most effectively. The issue of enforcement will be returned to when the House debates the planning and development Bill.

The shortage of professional planners was raised by a number of Deputies. In my earlier contribution, I stated that this problem has been resolved and the board is about to appoint additional professional planners.

Deputies Hanafin, Callely and Kelleher raised the issue of child care. This matter is being considered in the review of submissions on the residential density guidelines and it will be addressed in that context, at least in so far as the provision of crèches in higher density developments are concerned. Other matters regarding crèches and planning permission may be considered in the context of the planning and development Bill. Deputy McGuinness referred to a case in Kilkenny, but a Minister cannot comment on individual cases.

I thank Deputies for their contributions to this worthwhile debate. I have not been able to respond to all the comments, but the views of Deputies will be taken into consideration before the publication of the planning and development Bill.

Question put and agreed to.