Deputy McCormack was in possession. He has five minutes remaining.
Planning and Development Bill, 1999 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
In my contribution last week I dealt with some of the frustrations experienced by applicants as a result of delays in dealing with planning applications. I hope these can be addressed in the Bill, particularly delays in relation to planning applications for single houses. In many cases these are straightforward but on the day or the day before the two month period expires further information is generally sought from the applicant. This delays the applicant getting planning permission for at least another two months. This should not happen in planning applications, particularly straightforward, once-off single house applications.
The maximum period in which further information should be sought after an application has been lodged should be two weeks. If further information on a planning application is required, it is as easy to seek it or to discover that further information is required in the two weeks after the application is lodged as in the two months. The resulting delay can cause great frustration because the applicant might have a builder and other tradesmen lined up to build the house. It is unnecessary.
There are also delays at An Bord Pleanála level and these should also be dealt with in legislation. Currently, An Bord Pleanála can take three months to deal with a planning application. If at the end of that period the board is not ready, has not made a decision or is overworked, it can extend the time to a further three months. This should be dealt with in the Bill. The maximum time for An Bord Pleanála to deal with an application should be three months and there should be no option to extend it.
Planning offices should be provided with the necessary staff to carry out their functions. They are often required to deal with numerous new Government and EU directives which add more to the burden of planning staff. Staff are periodically moved from one section to another to deal with these directives, yet the planning office is not allowed to recruit additional staff. This must be examined and addressed by the Minister and the Department.
I foresee a difficulty with section 34, which deals with the £20 fee for appeals, in that appeals to An Bord Pleanála will only be accepted from someone who has originally appealed the decision at local level. A person may examine a planning application and decide there is no need to appeal it, yet the granting of the permission may be with conditions which might not be acceptable to the person who did not appeal. One cannot know that until a decision is made at local level, so it is unfair to debar a person from appealing a decision to An Bord Pleanála on the grounds that he or she did not lodge an appeal at local level.
Some councils allow for what is known as a prior notice on an application whereby, if a prior notice is placed on a file, the person who placed it will be advised two or three days before the decision is made if there is difficulty with the file. He or she will not be advised if there is no difficulty because it is unnecessary. Some councils implement the system. Is it at the discretion of the council or is it a legal requirement for councils to implement the prior notice system?
A section deals with permission for building and development by local authorities. It is a matter which can be dealt with on Committee Stage by an amendment, but I would like clarification on it now from the Minister. If a local authority carries out a local authority development in its own area, is there a provision in the Bill whereby this decision can be appealed to An Bord Pleanála? If there is, it is a dangerous and unusual development. At present, if a local authority builds a housing scheme in its area, it must undergo something similar to a planning application. Naturally it cannot apply to itself for permission, but it undergoes a public notice process and invites submissions. The decision goes before councillors who decide to sanction or not to sanction the permission. That is a much more democratic way of dealing with permissions than the normal way of dealing with them. It would be unnecessary and frustrating for local authorities in their house building programmes if third parties could appeal to An Bord Pleanála after such a democratic process had been undergone.
I support the Minister in his presentation of the Bill. It fulfils the specific commitment given in the programme for Government and it will address many matters which have needed attention for a long time. It contains radical new measures for housing supply. I wish it had gone further in certain respects but I am sure any shortfalls which become apparent when it is enacted will be addressed in future legislation.
Under the terms of the Bill, statutory recognition is given to regional planning strategies undertaken by regional authorities. This represents a significant empowerment of those bodies. For the first time ever, the Bill allows for structural ranking of plans from national to local development level. The Ireland of the new millennium needs planning laws to take account of the unprecedented growth which has taken place, particularly in the past few years. The Bill not only addresses matters relevant to local planning authorities in their current roles, it also allows matters to be tackled on a regional basis. It enhances the powers of regional authorities in terms of strategies for the regions they represent. These changes are long overdue.
Cork Corporation's local authority area is greatly in need of expansion. It is severely limited by the reluctance of the neighbouring authority, Cork County Council, to allow for the extension of the city boundaries. Cork city is corralled by Cork County Council and is hemmed in on all sides. The area neighbouring the city should be under the control of a greater Cork city and county planning authority which would take into consideration areas from the centre up to a six to 12 mile area limit. This would allow for the growth which is inhibited at present. Any developments at this stage are done piecemeal and that is not the way local authorities should do their business. To be cost-effective, they must plan and work together.
All city services reach out to the edge of Cork city and development in a greater Cork city area would be considerably enhanced by the availability of those services. It would be of immense benefit to Cork County Council as well as to Cork Corporation but the council insists on "greenbelting" the entire ring of Cork city and allowing for its own developments in satellite towns around the city. It would greatly enhance the possibility of providing additional housing for an authority which is rapidly running out of land for the essential needs of those who wish to be housed. Land must be made available to all city authorities so that they can address the pressing need to acquire land to develop sites and estates to reduce the spiralling waiting lists for local authority housing and private housing. There is also a great demand for land for private building and commercial development which would generate employment in the areas where businesses are located.
Another matter which needs to be addressed is the restrictive nature of A3 zoning in county authority areas. This planning rule is unconstitutional. I cannot accept that persons can be lawfully forbidden from building a home where they can purchase a site. The stipulation that they can be refused planning permission on the grounds that they have not lived in close proximity to the site for seven years is unlawful. What would be the reaction of county authorities and those who live in rural areas if urban authorities such as Cork Corporation placed similar restrictions on persons wishing to build within the city boundaries? I would anticipate an outburst on the grounds of human rights being violated. I will never understand why this ruling has not been challenged in the national courts or in the European Court. Cork County Council has this policy in place.
Public representatives are often faced with the problem of seeking information about planning decisions. They regularly meet with prospective home owners who have chosen a site on which to build their future home. In the event of their application for permission to build being refused, they normally go to a public representative to seek advice. They ask how they might resubmit an acceptable proposal or they seek a logical explanation for the application's rejection. The decision is often based on density of housing, road access, land drainage and other excuses or reasons. The normal response to any representations is that the planners must adhere to the guidelines imposed on them by a development plan. When the unsuccessful applicants are told this, they invariably quote instances where the exception seems to be the rule. They bring the local representative on site to show examples of recent planning permission decisions in the neighbouring locality which seem to contradict the reasons given to them for their refusal. Planning decisions appear to be arbitrary and this is unacceptable.
It is important to note that, in the Bill, compliance with a housing strategy is part of the proper planning and development of an area. Under section 86, housing strategies may be drawn up jointly by planning authorities. I proposed this recently at a meeting of Cork Corporation but nothing meaningful arose from it. It will only work if Cork Corporation and Cork County Council co-operate and work together, and I fear they will not. Local authorities throughout the country jealously guard their areas and will not co-operate with other local authorities.
Under the new housing strategy, local authority housing must be available to those who qualify for it. Some who need housing may not qualify for social housing but they may not be able to afford their own homes.
There is provision for as much as 20% of land which is being developed to be made available for local authorities. This proposal is causing contention with the CIF and other development agencies but the Minister is determined to proceed with it.
Building more homes means that there will be more local authority and private housing estates. The taking in charge of estates is causing a great problem in many local authority areas, particularly in the Cork County Council area. There has been blatant neglect of this matter by Cork County Council. The large number of estates not taken in charge is unacceptable. Many of these estates have been waiting for far too many years, some as many as 21 years. The inordinate delays are not acceptable and the reasons given for the dragging of heels do not stand up to scrutiny. I understand that £1 million would be required for Cork County Council to take in charge estates at the edges of towns which have been waiting for the past 15 or 20 years. We in Cork Corporation put £250,000 from our revenue account into a fund to complete unfinished estates which were left uncompleted by builders who went into liquidation or otherwise.
The abuse of the right of persons to make third party objections to planning applications causes major problems. It is totally unacceptable that persons living up to 100 miles or more away can lodge objections to applications for planning in an area in which they do not reside and which is far removed from their own homes. I commend the Minister for making the relevant changes. The right of objection should apply only to persons or bodies that are locally based. Objections should be accepted only if they are based on logical and sustainable grounds. Far too many objections are made in the name of the environment when the real motivation is jealousy and begrudgery. We have all seen the "thou shalt not have" mentality in action. The Bull McCabe was not the only man to begrudge his neighbour her land. John B. Keane made a very shrewd analysis of a facet of our Irish character when he wrote his classic, The Field.We are all aware of the underlying reality in relation to housing. Planning is the key issue. Until such time as this problem is tackled, nothing will change. For many years we have been tinkering at the edges of problems created by the current planning laws. We are now introducing positive measures to help An Bord Pleanála deal with rezoning appeals. Unfortunately, such measures only partly alleviate the problem and other changes must take place. A number of complaints have been made about the time limit for planning decisions. Many people have complained that planners seem to look for loopholes to enable them to delay planning decisions that they cannot resolve because of a heavy workload. I have seen offices in planning departments where applications sit on the floor in bundles, identified by date tags. I was told this is due to the lack of personnel to tackle the backlog. The staff involved should not be working in pressurised conditions caused by staff shortages. The public deserves a better service than this. Both public and staff deserve better.
The Bill addresses the matter of the time allowed for planning decisions. The maximum period of waiting for confirmation of planning has been reduced from eight weeks to seven weeks. Where the planning authority requires further information on the application, the additional period during which a final decision must be made has been cut from two months to four weeks. This is a step in the right direction that will be welcomed by those making planning applications. I note some of the changes being introduced to streamline the planning system. I welcome the fact that pre-planning discussions are provided for. Revised outline permission proposals will give a greater guarantee of the granting of full planning permission and those who apply for planning permission will be pleased with the change in the Bill that stipulates that a local authority cannot refuse full planning if it is sought within three years of a successful application for outline planning permission. There is also a stipulation that third parties must initially lodge their objections locally, prior to submitting them to An Bord Pleanála. I agree with this and disagree with Opposition speakers and with those who have given media interviews tonight on this matter. Fees must now be paid for the submission of observations on planning to the planning authority. I agree with this also. Development plans will now be up to date, speedier procedures will be in place for varying and amending development plans and a person must prove a substantial interest before taking a judicial review of a planning decision.
I express my satisfaction with all these measures, particularly the provision regarding judicial review. This will ensure that persons or bodies not affected directly by planning decisions will find it harder to make objections just for the sake of it. There is no use in setting planning targets unless the plans are dealt with effectively. They must also take into account the radically changed economic, technological and environmental conditions of today's Ireland. We must adopt and enforce a strategic approach that will enable our development aims to be achieved in relation to local, regional and national objectives. The role of the public in this regard is of prime importance. Prior consultation with the public is vital but it must be enabled to contribute in a positive way to the preparation of our development plans. This will help us to avoid the confrontation and delays which occur when major changes are introduced at the end of the preparation process. It will also help to ensure that plans will be prepared and adopted within specified time limits and it is vitally important that all elected representatives are involved in the policy making function of planning.
The Bill sets out the development plan system. This provides the framework within which decisions are made and incorporates a control system for decision making on planning applications and on provisions made for the preparation of housing strategies. This will ensure that adequate land is zoned for housing and the emphasis is to be put on the provision of sufficient social and affordable housing. The Bill has comprehensively addressed the many issues that needed to be addressed under this heading.
The Bill's provisions are directed at the need for streamlining and greater speed in dealing with planning of public and private developments. There is a growing need for greater efficiency in the process. There will be a welcome for the move to ensure that administrative fees in relation to submissions on planning applications will be at a low level. This will ensure that persons will not be deterred from making submissions on cost grounds.
The Bill further sets out the grounds for development contribution costs. This is very important. Local authorities must set out the basis for determining the levy. They must give a breakdown of the contribution in regard to the services – roads, community facilities, water and ancillary services. I wholly endorse and welcome this provision.
The mobile phone has taken the country by storm. There are now more than one million mobile phone users in Ireland. We cannot ignore the importance of this development and the impact the next generation of mobile phones – the third generation – will have on our daily lives. Through this technology we will have high-speed access to the Internet via our mobile phones. In addition, we will have the mobile video phone; its palm size will let us see who we are talking to and allow us to make electronic transactions, e-mail people, browse the Internet, organise our diaries and recognise handwriting on a larger screen. In addition, the mobile phone will have many business applications in the future. Within a few years there will be hundreds of millions of mobile phones capable of accessing the Internet and processing electronic transactions. Already e-commerce transactions are estimated to be worth more than $100 billion per year. By the year 2003, the number of transactions will have risen to one trillion.
As an economy heavily dependent on high technology, we must prepare for this development. Ireland is poised to be at the forefront of this revolution. To achieve this a proper up-to-date infrastructural network must be provided nationwide. I understand from the mobile telephone utility companies that up to 300 new base stations per annum will be required for the next five years.
In its present form the Bill could potentially thwart rather than encourage this key development. The third generation mobile phone system will have such a revolutionary effect on our lives that it needs to be treated as an essential utility which will support our social and economic development. The national development plan clearly states that future public policy will be designed to increase the capacity of the economy and that the lack of telecommunications services will hinder business in the new e-commerce area. The plan specifically refers to the importance of a modern and efficient telecommunications network. The telecommunications-electronic commerce sector has a key input to make to our continued economic development. The development of this infrastructure must commence soon; otherwise Ireland will fall behind other industrialised nations and many parts of the country will be further disadvantaged.
The Bill will give effect to the 1996 telecommunications planning guidelines of the Department of the Environment and Local Government. A number of deficiencies have emerged, particularly in relation to how they apply to residential areas, temporary permissions, local authorities creating exclusion zones and monitoring of emissions. The Bill risks perpetuating these deficiencies and giving them the force of law. Its proposals do not adequately reflect the country's needs in the area of telecommunications and mobile telecommunications in particular. I ask my colleague from Cork to look at this matter with his officials.
New developments in antenna technology have given us structures which look like standard street lamps. The ugly mast on the mountainside, overlooking large urban areas will soon be extinct. These installations offer great opportunities to local authorities to combine the various utility requirements and there is a window of opportunity to create a revenue stream from these structures. To provide for this, an appropriate clause or section should be inserted in the Bill which should have regard to the strategy on telecommunications outlined in the national development plan. I understand antennae between 500 and 600 metres apart will be required to cater for the third generation mobile phone system.
Dr. Upton
This is of one of the key Bills which will determine our quality of life well into the new century. It will determine whether individuals will be in a position to access jobs and services in the areas in which they live in the next ten, 20 or 30 years. Following initial perusal, however, it appears that it lacks sufficient vision to ensure planning in the future will take account of the need to integrate housing with services and adequate infrastructure. My constituents sit in traffic jams for anything up to one hour to get to and from work. This journey can be prolonged for those who have to access child care services en route to their place of employment.
The huge struggle which has to be endured is not all down to planning. Resources and inadequate public transport provision also have a bearing on the accessibility of services and employment. I hope my criticisms of the Bill and those of my party will be adequately addressed on Committee Stage. Nevertheless the planning process has a major role to play in the development of the environment in which we live and work.
As it stands, the Bill fails to address the serious quality of life issues which are under severe strain because of the pressure being placed on existing infrastructure. During the past 40 years or so we have moved from a predominantly rural based to an urban based society but we have failed to put in place structures which adequately support a heavily urbanised society. The Bill does not provide safeguards to ensure communities can live in a clean, safe environment in which there is complete integration of the services and leisure facilities they require.
The constituency of Dublin South Central presents some glaring examples where there is a clear failure to integrate housing with appropriate services and facilities. The result was the emergence of disadvantaged communities which have been characterised by problems of drugs, early school leaving and unemployment. The lessons of these poorly planned housing developments have not been sufficiently learned as is evidenced in a Bill which will allow more factories to be built and more shopping complexes to appear on the horizon. It also provides for some new housing. What it does not provide for is a definite commitment to green spaces, transport facilities and overall integration plans to bring work and home together in an acceptable integrated format.
Today a campaign was launched to highlight the danger the Bill poses to the democratic process. I am happy to say that the Labour Party supports this campaign and will vigorously oppose the Government's proposal to introduce a £20 fee for objecting to planning permission. The Bill seriously erodes the rights of the public because for the first time citizens are being asked to pay a fee if they wish to submit an opinion or comment or objection to their local council about a planning application. This proposal to charge ordinary citizens who wish to take an active part in the planning process makes the Bill highly anti-democratic and unjust. It effectively makes the planning process a commodity which will only be available to those with the money to pay for it. Will the Government include a new provision in the Social Welfare Bill which is to be published next week to allow hard-pressed social welfare recipients claim an extra £20 whenever they wish to avail of their democratic right to make an objection, comment or appeal in the planning process?
It is often the most disadvantaged communities which have suffered the brunt of poor planning decisions. The Minister should be warned that these communities are now highly motivated and are prepared to take a stand in their development and will resist any attempt to mute their voices in the planning process. This is simply unacceptable. The planning system has been designed in such a manner as to allow the public to participate. Development plans must be publicly advertised and site notices placed for individual planning applications. The introduction of a fee will damage public participation in the planning process and most definitely discriminate against those who can least afford to pay.
The Bill proposes a range of other barriers to public participation in the planning process. The introduction of a fee to appeal planning decisions is another attempt to undermine democracy. The public can easily miss planning permission notices. Not everyone purchases newspapers every day and even if they do, not everyone will read the planning notices daily. Instead of penalising individuals if they miss the deadline for objecting to planning permission we should be seeking to make the process more transparent and democratic. The Bill seeks to do the opposite.
The attempts to undermine democracy in the planning process do not end there. The Bill also attempts to limit a judicial review of a planning decision to those with a substantial interest in the development. Does this reference to substantial mean money, profits or property? If so I would not be surprised.
Another significant element of the Bill is housing. The housing boom has been characterised by soaring profits for landowners and developers while the citizen in search of public or private property is expected to pay exorbitant prices for a home. If he cannot afford to pay he must join the housing waiting list which effectively means he must do without, because even the public house building programme over the next three years will hardly absorb the numbers currently waiting for housing, never mind the expected growth in the numbers seeking local authority housing.
The Government lacks an overall strategy on housing. Only now, thanks to the Labour Party's initiative on a housing commission, have we arrived at a point where the Government is beginning to accept the notion of social housing allocations. While the Bill provides for a 20% social housing provision, a provision largely motivated by Labour Party policy, I am concerned there will be a time lapse before the Bill is enacted which will allow landowners to dodge their responsibilities.
The housing crisis is bursting at the seams. Local authority waiting lists are completely out of control and, to date, the Government's programme for local authority house building has been inadequate. Our homelessness figures make us the disgrace of Europe. We may have the fastest growing economy in Europe but the economy is growing in a way which excludes vast numbers of people, including children, from the basic right to a roof over their heads. For those who have always assumed that at some point in their lives they would own a home, the new reality is that they must do without. They must continue to exist in the private rented sector which is completely unregulated and in which rent costs are highly unrealistic. I do not see how this Bill can rid our society of these problems.
We must secure new land banks, particularly in urban centres, which are placed securely in the ownership of local authorities and which will provide housing based on access to services and adequate infrastructure.
(Wexford): I welcome the Bill which allows us to put on record our views on planning delays, An Bord Pleanála, development plans etc. The Minister has invested a great deal of time and effort into bringing together all aspects of the planning process. The Bill, which runs to more than 200 pages, was significantly amended in the Seanad.
I have concerns about some of the provisions we are being asked to accept. The Minister wants to speed up the planning process and introduce affordable housing in order that people on local authority waiting lists and others who cannot afford to build their own houses can be housed as quickly as possible. I refer to a case in regard to Dúchas, the national heritage service, which is currently causing major building delays. I am aware of one builder who had to let 60 workers go in recent days because he was unable to obtain a licensing system from Dúchas.
On 18 January, Dúchas issued a letter to people who had obtained planning permission but who required a licence to fulfil the conditions of the permission. The letter reads:
At present, there is a serious backlog of archaeological excavation licence applications waiting to be processed. The problem is compounded by an inability to update our essential database or to maintain our archive applications and incoming reports. In such a way, the professional integrity of the archaeological licensing system is undermined and urgent measures are required to resolve these problems. Therefore, no excavation licence applications will be processed from Monday, 17 Jan uary for a period of eight weeks. Furthermore, we would recommend that no licence applications are forwarded to this office until further notice.
According to people in the building industry, some 200 major developments are dependent on these licences being issued. In this era of computerisation, it seems strange that Dúchas is not in a position to deal with the applications which come before it efficiently and as a matter of urgency. I have already written to the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in regard to this issue in reply to which I received some kind of holding letter recently. I urge the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, to use his good offices to address this issue. While the Minister for the Environment and Local Government is attempting to speed up the process, another arm of Government is seriously delaying it. It is disgraceful that people are being advised not to forward applications to the office and that builders have had to let workers go because they are unable to obtain licences.
I live in a county in which there has been a major increase in the number of planning applications over the past three years. The figure has risen from 1,400 to 3,500 in a three year period, thereby placing major burdens on the planning office and creating problems and delays in regard to planning decisions. There seems to be a great reluctance in County Wicklow to grant any planning decisions, as a result of which we are witnessing an influx of people from Dublin and Wicklow into Wexford.
We are sending them down to Gorey to Deputy D'Arcy.
(Wexford): We have been trying to increase staff levels in Wexford County Council for the past year but it is very difficult to get qualified, experienced staff. People take up the positions for a month or two but then move into the private sector in which salaries and working conditions are far better. In some areas, as many as five different planning officers have been employed in a one year period. If the Minister is serious about dealing with planning issues, he must look at providing planning officers and technical staff with proper remuneration in order to encourage them to stay in local authorities.
There does not appear to be any consistency among planning officers. There is not a problem obtaining planning permission for a two storey house, a red brick house or a house on a half acre site in one area of the county but similar applications are refused in another area. That is causing uproar in County Wexford and I am sure the same situation obtains elsewhere. If the Minister does not urgently address the remuneration issue, we will continue to experience difficulties in regard to planning.
Planning decisions must be granted within eight weeks but more often than not, planners will request additional information at the end of the eight week period, prolonging the process by a further eight weeks. People may still have their applications refused at the end of the 16 week period. Even if permission is granted, major delays will have been experienced. Most people do not expect to have to wait such a long time for planning decisions. If people intend to build a house, they draw up their plans and apply for planning permission having done a deal with their builder to commence construction within a three month period at the latest. The delays incurred through the requests for additional information result in builders moving on elsewhere. The planning system is being clogged up as a result of planners seeking further particulars for the most flimsy reasons. Planners are often afraid to make decisions. They cover every angle and as a result there are major delays.
An Bord Pleanála is probably the greatest delaying factor in the development of the building industry. I do not say that lightly. An Bord Pleanála wants extra time to deal with even the slightest of appeals – four months is turning into eight months. It is time to seriously look at its staffing levels, how it operates and perhaps the establishment of regional offices. It is hidden in Dublin, away from the hub of planning applications – there are another 25 counties which must be dealt with. Appeals are made to the board in Dublin. It is becoming a nightmare for developers and almost every application for large housing developments is being appealed. I am not questioning the right of people to object. However, I am questioning the long delays in An Bord Pleanála. Some say this is because of staffing levels and others say there is no great urgency to deal with appeals. The area needs to be seriously looked at. The establishment of regional offices, based on existing regions, should be examined.
The previous Deputy mentioned the £10 fee for an appeal. I welcome that because there are many cranks and others who object for little reason. The Deputy mentioned poor people. In County Wexford, very few poor people object. It is usually people from bigger cities who build big houses and as soon as they are completed, if anyone else applies for planning permission to build beside them, more often than not they object. They seem to think that not only have they bought half an acre or an acre site but they also have a monopoly on the adjoining land. The £10 fee is not enough to deter some of these people who wish to deprive local people. They feel they have a divine right to live in an area without anyone else living beside them. The £10 fee is not enough and should be looked at again.
Sustainable development is a term frequently used in Bills and by every Department. Proper planning and development of areas is the way of the future. There has been an increase in planning applications in many counties, particularly in seaside resorts. I am sure Deputy Timmins and others living in coastal counties find there is a huge demand for holiday homes. The Celtic tiger has ensured people have a few bob to spare. The best place to invest one's money is probably in a holiday home or some kind of property. It is important there is proper planning. In Wexford and other counties there are development plans for many of the seaside villages.
About 1,500 houses and apartments have been built in Courtown Harbour in the past three years. In Blackwater, a small village not far from Enniscorthy, about 1,000 applications for houses have been made and they have all been sold. There is major demand in Curracloe, Blackwater, Courtown, Coolgraney, Castletown and other seaside areas. It is important to have proper development plans to ensure villages are preserved and protected. Given the massive increase in applications for development in these areas, it is important there are proper sewerage and water schemes and that we are not overstretched. I welcome the Minister's provision for proper planning and sustainable development. I hope all councillors will take this on board, as most have already done.
The Minister said the local authority remains the key decision making body in relation to planning control. I hope this will continue to be the case. We may not always agree with the decisions of planning officers, many of whom refuse permission. It is important that local authorities continue to have the main planning function. All the decisions are local and it is important that councillors are, in conjunction with the county manager, to the forefront in the proper planning and strategic development of counties. I welcome the clear provision in the Bill for the continuing involvement of local authorities.
Housing supply and the building industry have been mentioned a great deal in this debate. The building industry do a reasonable job dealing with the demands of the Celtic tiger. House prices are now beyond the reach of some people. It is up to the Government, local authorities and the building industry to put forward proposals to deal with this. Housing development needs to be speeded up and more lands must be made available to builders and councils. The Minister is proposing a partnership between local authorities and builders to provide affordable housing. None of us expects builders to give away houses. However, we would expect the building industry, which is experiencing a boom, to go along with the Minister's plans to make a certain amount of affordable housing available on major developments in towns, villages and cities.
If 40 or 100 houses are being built, it is more important to get a builder to agree to sell a percentage at an affordable price rather than making land available to local authorities. In many cases, particularly in rural areas, local authorities have enough land but they find it difficult to get builders. The Labour Party shout for more housing allocations for local authorities. However, I know that if the Minister announced in the morning that he was going to allocate 1,000 local authority houses to Wexford, there would not be a hope in hell of getting enough builders to build them. I am sure that applies in many other counties also. We are at the limit as regards finding builders to build present allocations. It is important that some means is found through legislation or by way of goodwill to make a percentage of houses available at affordable prices to people on the housing list, that the council, in turn, would make shared ownership loans and the banks would make low interest loans available to people to buy their own house. It is only through a combination of local authority house building, affordable housing, private sites and sites made available at a reduced price by the council that inroads will be made into the numbers on the housing lists at present.
It is true that the numbers are increasing and that the Government is trying to do something about it. The previous Government, which was in power two and a half years ago when the Celtic tiger was beginning to roar, made no plans to deal with the problem that lay ahead for people trying to obtain housing. This Minister is moving in the right direction in this area. I ask the building industry not to take all. It is making a lot of money on housing sales at present but it is important to recognise that it will not augur well in the future if significant numbers of people who cannot afford houses are living in flats, hovels and bad conditions generally while certain sectors get richer. From talking to those involved in the building industry generally, I believe they want to play a part in partnership with the local authorities and not be bullied into anything. They want to do things correctly and they are prepared to get involved in building affordable housing if encouraged to do so.
I welcome the Bill. It is important that the Minister should include all the different strands of planning in one Bill. However, he must look seriously at some of the problem areas such as the lack of proper salaries for technical, engineering and planning staff in local authorities. He must endeavour to deal with the major problems in An Bord Pleanála at present and look at the possibility of setting up regional Bord Pleanála offices rather than having this monstrosity, An Bord Pleanála, hidden in Dublin, away from the real problems in rural Ireland.
I concur with Deputy Browne's point regarding the proposed fee for objectors because generally it is wealthier people who object. In relation to all the non-planning permission applications from Wicklow being sent to Wexford, this has been done at the request of Deputy D'Arcy who wants his base around Killinierin built up. I was going to tell Deputy Browne how to do this but, regrettably, the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, came to the House. However, I am sure the Deputy will eventually get them up to Vinegar Hill.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. I welcome the Bill and the time and effort put into it by all sides since its publication, particularly by Members of the Seanad. It is one of the most important Bills to come before this House in recent years. It is of extreme importance that the measures it seeks to implement will have the desired effect. The Bill has a very strong social element and I am sure the Minister is well aware that it has stirred much emotion. He very wisely went on tour with the Bill and, unlike some other legislation, this will definitely impact on all of us. Planning takes up an inordinate amount of my time as a politician. While I do not believe this is correct, it is an indication of the depth of concern among the public, whether in relation to one's planning permission for a house or concern about a telephone mast or impending landfill site.
At the coalface the local authority takes all the hits. While I am conscious of the amount of time, effort and sacrifice most officials apply, I regret they have been starved of human and financial resources over a long period. Due to this shortage, it is difficult for members of the public to elicit information and very often planners can make decisions without referring to the human aspect. In Wicklow this can manifest itself in the local occupant being stuck in a hollow, praying the water table does not rise lest he must leave his house, while the visitor is afforded unimpeded views as he drives along the N11 or N81. I realise this is outside the scope of the Bill and the responsibility of the Minister, but it is something which needs to be addressed at local authority level. Nevertheless, planning and its many related aspects often make their way back to central Government.
An increasing level of frustration with the planning system, aligned to the crisis in the provision of public housing and the affordability of private housing, are the catalysts for the Bill. It is presented as the most fundamental reform of planning in Ireland since the enactment of the Planning Act, 1963, and it has been preceded by a two year review of planning law. We all appreciate that the Bill is very extensive, running to over 200 pages. The Minister stated that it would be impossible for him to go into detail on Second Stage. Notwithstanding that, I hope the points raised by many Members on Second Stage will be taken on Committee Stage and the relevant points addressed.
In the time available to me, I would like to take a brief look at some sections. Part I deals with what development is, what is exempted, the powers of examination and an obligation to give information. I mentioned previously that the Bill will impact on all citizens. Hardly a day goes by that I do not receive a call inquiring whether planning permission is necessary in a particular case. Due to the pressure on the building industry, one is often tempted to let the builder build, change or extend, if one is lucky to get him or her on site. This could lead to undue hardship and difficulties in the future. While many masquerade as innocents abroad, on occasion they actually are, as there is a lack of knowledge as to one's obligations. As this is a large Bill, it would be difficult to produce a small booklet on the main points. I ask the Minister to examine the feasibility of publishing a short and simple guide which could be distributed or put on sale at a nominal charge to the general public if the Bill is eventually passed. This small gesture might save a lot of difficulties in the future. Equally, I would like copies of the development plan to be made available for a nominal sum as opposed to the present glossy version which normally retails at £10 or £20.
Part II deals with the provision of development plans. This concept is admirable, as an obligation is placed on the local authority to produce a development plan every six years. After four years, notice of intention to review the plan must be given and the process will recommence. However, every local authority is starved of qualified planners. The Minister, together with the Minister for Education and Science, will have to address this issue. At the end of July last year, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government launched a renewal scheme for smaller towns. In most counties, five to six towns would qualify and the relevant local authorities were required to prepare and submit town renewal plans to the Department by 1 November 1999. To make such a request at the beginning of the traditional summer period, and with such a short timeframe, was a clear indication that this was a Department without a plan. However, the submission date was extended to 31 December 1999. In addition, a change of policy was implemented when the guidelines on the new Bill were changed to allow a maximum of three hectares in all qualifying towns, irrespective of population. A directive on the restraint of application of section 23 designation may also have been issued during the process. In Wicklow, as I am sure was the case in many local authorities, staff could not cope with this request. As a result, the work was farmed out. Within the timeframe, it proved most difficult for private consultants to familiarise themselves with the relevant areas. While excellent work was carried out, I am concerned that these plans may cause difficulty in the near future.
Despite my criticisms of the logistics of the scheme, I am convinced it is an excellent development and I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, on its launch. I realise that one of the main aims of the project is to encourage people back into town centres which may have become night time vacuums. In small towns, it is a fact of life that much of the property is owned by a few individuals and, as the scheme is aimed at owner-occupiers, many areas may not benefit fully as the current owners will be reluctant to part with their long held holdings. I realise that a special group comprising civil servants and others from the private and public sectors is currently examining approximately 100 town plans. I encourage the Minister to take a hands-on approach as it may be necessary to change the policy direction of the section 23 designation to ensure that certain works are done. While I appreciate that the scheme was not put in place to make the rich richer, it is much more desirable that people who have the wherewithal to carry out the developments do so and make much needed rental accommodation available rather than leave the areas derelict. I realise this is not directly related to the Bill but I cannot over emphasise the concern I have with respect to the points raised. I hope the Minister of State will raise this matter with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government as the reports may be finalised by the end of next month.
Section 2 also deals with public rights of way. This area is fraught with danger because many rights of way have been interfered with in recent years. The town renewal scheme will ensure that many rights of way will become the topics of conversation in the months ahead. It is also important that many old mass paths and so on are preserved because, due to public liability and a lack of available open spaces, the number of areas where one can go for a casual walk has greatly reduced.
There is an obligation to prepare a local area plan for towns with a population of more than 1,500 within two years of the making of the development plan. This calls for more resources and while I agree with the principle, will this section outlive itself if the current pressures recede, particularly in areas where the population may be relatively stagnant? In the future it may give rise to an unnecessary process and perhaps a certain flexibility should be built into the section on Committee Stage.
Part III deals with one of the most important areas, planning applications. For almost all politicians in County Wicklow, the planning department is like a second home. Many hours are spent poring over files and putting forward constituents' points of view. At best, one is a step ahead of the posse, but often one is way behind as the dreaded refusal notice arrives in the post.
Deputy Dukes spoke in a colourful manner about the wrong James Byrne getting a midnight call seeking further information. This scenario is familiar to all Members. Local authorities, to fulfil their statutory obligations and through no fault of their own, often send out unnecessary further information requests which afford them some breathing space. However, the knock-on effect can be dramatic for the applicant as time clauses and building costs come into play and the prospect of moving in with the future mother-in-law is not too welcoming.
A common sight around the highways and byways of Wicklow on a Monday afternoon or a Tuesday is a head planner in a car laden down with files who, due to a vigilant group of planning observers, must examine all sensitive applications. Late at night he writes up reports and the clerical staff are on a continual deadline to catch the carrier pigeon.
It is an unnecessarily stressful atmosphere in which to work, particularly when they know there is some hostility towards planning authorities. I compliment all those involved in the planning section of Wicklow County Council and I hope this plug will assist me in the many differences of opinion we have. It is a thankless job which is not helped by the unrecognised fact that, while no two planning applications are the same, the concept of precedence is often used as a battering ram.
Under the Bill, the time consideration for planning will be eight weeks as opposed to two calendar months. Requests for further information will have to be dealt with within four weeks. This is a welcome development but the provision needs to be more explicit to cover the working day aspect and deal with permissions that may be due on a bank holiday Monday or over a holiday period. In some cases, due to holiday periods, the eight week period may be reduced to seven weeks. The Department should address this aspect vis-à-vis the working day concept.
Section 34(7) deals with the concept of a section 4 motion. Unfortunately, this provision is dear to my heart. In a single local electoral area, it must be signed by not less than three members of the local authority concerned. To initiate a section 4 motion in an electoral area of greater than three members, three quarters of the number is needed with any fraction above that number disregarded – the number is rounded down. Therefore, in an electoral area of seven, the number of supporting members required to initiate the section 4 is five. There was a basic flaw in section 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, and this has been repeated in the Bill. If one member in an electoral area of only three members has an ideological difficulty with a section 4 motion, which is one of the few powers of a local councillor, the electorate in that area can be disenfranchised to a certain extent.
I am conscious that this power should be used sparingly. In addition, if this measure remains, it can place too much power in the hands of one individual. This should be amended to permit two members in a three member electoral area, plus four or five other members, to initiate a section 4 motion as this would restore equity. I hope this matter can be addressed on Committee Stage and that the Fine Gael Party will table the necessary amendment.
The measures that dealt with previous compliance are welcome. It is a common complaint that many developers do not finish off relevant developments. In addition, there is a worrying trend where some developers during the construction process ride roughshod over the community by using routes and work practices which were explicitly excluded in the original permission. Many local authorities have been weak on enforcement, giving the impression that some groups are above the law. Any progress in dealing with this unsavoury aspect is welcome.
Section 36 deals with the appeal process and I also welcome the development whereby a submission or observation must be made in writing in the first instance to the relevant local authority. This is desirable because I have often encountered situations where an applicant whose application has received a positive outcome is then faced with the difficulty of a hitherto unknown objector making an appeal to the board. During the initial stages the appellant may have only made verbal objections in the hope of remaining anonymous or may have used his or her local representative to do so.
I have no difficulty with somebody making objections or observations – it is a basic right – but an individual has the right to know who is objecting. Unfortunately, in this self-proclaimed era of openness and transparency, this is not always the case. I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle remembers the Latin phrase that an accused should know his accuser but I cannot recall it. There may be some scope for extending this section and insisting that all representations from elected members or the public have to be recorded. This should be done in the interests of fairness.
Sections 44 and 47 are welcome. The provision of open spaces has in general been loose, with no overall plan for development. To ensure this is no longer the case, local authorities must ascertain the extent of a developer's land to enable him to plan a proper lay out for the total area. Ireland has been weak on the provision of parks and correctly managed open spaces. Local authorities should have a parks section and I hope the Bill will encourage them to create such sections.
Many small towns are contemplating future development projects. Many of these towns have few facilities. This applies to Delgany, Dunlavin, Blessington, Baltinglass, Greystones and Newtownmountkennedy among others in County Wickow. I hope section 47 is used wisely and I look forward to many fine community centres in these areas. I trust the temptation to use the levies collected as a prop, due to a lack of central Government funding, is resisted. The section leaves that open and perhaps there is a case for an amendment to ensure the levies are put into community facilities.
Part IV deals with architectural heritage. In the context of Deputy Browne's comments, Dúchas has adopted a policy of requesting archaeological digs and surveys on many individual planning applications. While I do not necessarily believe this is a bad thing, it adds an extra cost to an already expensive business. A young couple starting out may have to pay £2,000 for the necessary requirements to be fulfilled. I have tabled parliamentary questions on this matter in the past and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands should discuss it with the Minister for Finance with a view to having the cost of such sur veys allowable as a tax relief because, in many cases, they provide valuable information.
Other aspects of the Bill are welcome. The restructuring of An Bord Pleanála is required and the measures to make decisions more open and visible are a timely development. The disclosure of interests is imperative in an age of suspicion and it is desirable as local authorities as currently constructed can assist in shielding corruption. There is much work to be done in this area and the long awaited Bill relating to the reform of local government will be expected to deal with these matters. Due to the lack of reform over 100 years, the checks and balances in place are inadequate and archaic.
Part V deals with housing supply, which is perhaps the most important and emotive part of the Bill. I welcome many aspects of the Bill, but this section is its Achilles heel. Our housing policy has remained basically unchanged for many decades and, regrettably, it has now only become a major political issue for the first time in three decades because affordable housing has become a middle class problem. Due to the interaction of socio-economic and demographic trends, there was a dramatic increase in the need for housing in the mid-1990s. We should have seen it coming. The baby boom of the late 1970s, allied to increased wealth, decreased unemployment and emigration reversal have brought us to the stage we are at today, where it is almost impossible for first time buyers to make a purchase in the greater Dublin area or in the surrounding areas of most large Irish cities. The downward trend in interest rates fuelled the incentive for higher borrowings and there has been a huge increase in new loan approvals. In the early 1970s there was a demand for mass housing which was solved with a combination of flexible planning policies from local authorities, which led to the suburbanisation of towns and cities, the easier availability of mortgages, as developers establish links with building societies, and an increase in public housing output. In 1975 there were 8,794 local authority completions and 18,098 private completions. Yet in 1997 private completions had almost doubled to 35,454 while local authority completions had decreased by more than 60% to 2,632. We must be honest and acknowledge that over the past 30 years there were times that public housing stock was increased partly by Government desire to assist the then hard-pressed construction industry. It is hard to visualise that today.
This Government has taken some measures to address the crisis by following the Bacon recommendations and many investors were removed from the market. However, the Minister has not warmed to the concept of a housing commission and he now discovers the crisis continues. A helpful measure such as Deputy Hayes' anti-gazzumping Bill was knocked on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. This is incorrect, as Article 42.2 of the Constitution refers to the exigencies of the common good over individuals' rights.
The provisions of Part V will not work in relation to the 20% proposal. It is an abdication by the Minister of his responsibilities to provide funding to local authorities. At present, developers are dictating to local authorities what land should be sold by virtue of the fact that all suitable land is in their possession. Local authorities zone the land, place a levy on the developer and everything is rosy. However, in most cases this land has been purchased some years before at a relatively low price. In addition, the cost of providing the services are merely passed on to the house buyer. The proposed measures is a penal tax that will ultimately filter down to the house buyer. The local authorities should be funded to enable them to purchase the necessary land. Then, and only then, will the local authority be able to compete and set the agenda.
This Bill has been widely welcomed. Given the broad consultation the Minister has encouraged, I welcome his attitude to consultation. He has also said that he is open to further alterations to continue to improve the Bill. This Bill comes after a two year review of planning law, European directives and other related items that date back to 1963. Its touchstone is proper planning and sustainable development and it proposes to consolidate existing legislation, change some current planning procedures, introduce new arrangements for drawing up development plans and facilitate the provision of more affordable and social housing. It is all-embracing.
I welcome the fact that it covers a structured hierarchy of plans, from the broad national picture to the local development level and vice versa. Co-ordination is badly needed from the bottom up. As I understand it, the national development plan will have a national spatial strategy to which regional guidelines and the development plans must have regard. At the regional level, population trends, housing strategy, location of development, transport, waste and the protection of the environment will be dealt with. On a local basis there is the development plan which looks at land zoning, infrastructure, conservation of the environment, regeneration, accommodation for travellers, amenities and community facilities. The status the local development plan is given by the Minister is seen by his acknowledgment of it as the anchor of the planning system.
Given that the Bill gives statutory recognition of the local area plans, I was happy the National Heritage Council has asked the Minister and other authorities to consider the work of Donegal County Council with its Taobh Tire project as an example of how to engage maximum public participation and valued community opinion. I hope the Minister takes that recommendation on board. The Bill addresses the need for more public consultation and a more defined role for elected members of local authorities, something with which all Deputies who are members of local authorities will be pleased. As a councillor in Donegal, planning matters are among items most regularly brought to my attention by locals, returning emigrants or strangers looking for planning permission for family or holiday homes. The level of applications has mushroomed. It seems the drafting of the new county development plan has sparked off what can only be called hysteria in Donegal, but I suppose it is also a vote of confidence in our region from those who wish to settle down there. The rising national debate County Clare has helped to generate means many of the issues Donegal County Council is trying to grapple with are getting a substantial airing in other fora.
There is a difficult balance between encouraging people to invest in our county and maintaining the beautiful countryside. There is also a difficult balance in making our limited infrastructure cater for existing settlement while providing funding for new, large-scale developments. There is a difficult balance between sustaining a vibrant rural countryside and becoming a seasonal holiday village for the rich, Northern, foreign or urban dweller who can avail of the present advantageous exchange rates. There is a difficult balance between enabling landowners to supplement their incomes from the poor fishing and farming that prevails in Donegal by selling off sites and the issue of keeping site prices within the scope of the local person, no matter how one defines local people.
Given that the Inishowen area is an area to which one third of all planning applications for Donegal apply, these balances are rightly of great concern to those living in the peninsula. The work of finalising the county development plan will have to take into account each of the concerns. While I commend Donegal County Council on its high level of interaction with the community, the debate in other counties will be helpful when we return to the local community for their thoughts on the revised draft development plan in coming weeks.
The Bill will make many improvements to the system and I ask the Minister to look at resourcing the planning offices. It is important that decisions can be made speedily on applications, but this cannot be done without adequate resourcing. Pre-planning should be encouraged, particularly with multiple developments, given the cost of plans. This week I met someone making a large scale application who had spent £5,000 on plans and application fees, only to be refused and to be told that he would never have a case for the site he had chosen. A pre-planning inquiry would have cut his costs substantially. Architects also have a duty to digest the development plan and make an effort to work in tandem with the views of all those who had an input on the plan, which usually means the general public and local public representative. I would not like to tie the hands of an architect or applicant, but there is a need for a level of co-operation once one has decided on a county development plan. Similarly, it is important that those who are building without permission can be challenged in an effective and efficient manner and their affairs put in order. The Minister should, when considering the whole issue of retentions, look at the cost to the councils of taking legal action. In our council we have had cases whereby the council has taken out injunctions against offenders and yet it is the council which has had the initial expense. While understanding that a person is innocent until proven guilty, the injunction costs, should they be attributed directly to the offender, particularly where there is a clear breach of planning permission or a blatant lack of an application, would be a deterrent. A fund or float that could help the council take such actions would also send its own message. A strong issue which I am glad to see will be dealt with in the Bill pertains to retention. Too often it is found that some judges let building continue until the retention application has been dealt with which enables the offender to "spin the process" out to his advantage. In certain cases when it is not a house but a commercial venture on which retention is sought, three or four months of spinning the process out can lead to their having made enough money to give up until they are refused and can start something else.
I was going to ask the Minister for his thoughts on the need for a directive that there should be no discretion available to a judge to allow an unauthorised development to proceed and that such development would have to be stopped until a decision on the retention was forthcoming, but I understand the matter is addressed. I note the maximum fines have increased to £10 million and that it will no longer be possible to use retention permission as an escape hatch when enforcement action is threatened. A planning authority can seek a court order to refuse permission based on a developer's past record where that developer has been in breach of a planning permission. Conflict may arise where a developer says he has cleaned up his act and does not want to be branded. The branding is in their hands if they can abide by the regulations and the planning permission.
It is important that these ideals in relation to how applications can be made, followed or pursued, are not just words on paper but are resourced in a manner that these speedy turnovers of work can realistically occur. One of our greatest difficulties in County Donegal is the sheer turn-over of planning officials. The Inishowen region has been one of the hardest hit. During the four or five years I have been a member of the council we have had 14 or 15 planning officers in that region. This can be attributed to many factors depending on who one speaks to, but in reality it is the sheer volume of work that has been the culprit and the proximity to an easier alternative in the Northern offices. No region can develop a consistent planning policy or deliver an adequate service in terms of unauthorised development follow-up, etc. without a con sistency of personnel. I trust that simultaneous to new time limits will come new bodies.
It is great to see the amount of development in one sense. It is important that in any development or multiple developments, which are taking place in the Donegal County Council area, there is provision for a green space. People do not realise there is an absence of green space until they are in a house for a number of years and have children. They then go to a local authority member and complain that the development does not have this or that facility for their children, adequate footpaths and lighting, and is not connected to the town. Various problems emerge after a developer has left. That a green space should be mandatory in large developments is common sense. It remains a difficulty for local authorities and voluntary groups to obtain land. The Bill addresses the issue in a manner that helps to overcome the huge prices paid for land. Accessibility of land is vital if the targets set in the national development plan are to be met. I note in the national development plan an additional 35,000 local authority units, an increase in the voluntary housing sector provision from 500 a year to 4,000 a year and an increase of 2,000 units per year under the current local authority affordable housing and shared ownership schemes.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the many voluntary housing groups for the very significant and worthwhile work they are doing in the provision of housing for the most needy. I trust the support for their endeavours will continue. I ask that in this increased allocation within the voluntary groups policy they deal with the issue of providing a single house for those who for one reason or other are not receiving priority from the local authority. The need for flexibility in the work of the voluntary sector is an extra recognition of the value of its contribution.
Each development plan must now contain a housing strategy that looks not only to the present but to the future needs of the population in the area. Land is to be zoned appropriately and should cover the needs of all types of household. The Minister has earmarked that up to 20% of land zoned for housing in any case should be reserved for social and affordable housing. The 20% maximum would ensure there is not a disproportionate impact on landowners, developers or the market. When a country has 40,000 households in need of local authority housing there is a need for substantial measures to address the issue. This will be an aspect of the Bill to which people may pay positive lip service and then battle against on the ground.
Outside the land issue is the issue of water and sewerage services. I congratulate the Minister on the progress being made nationally on both issues but suggest he take a look at the Donegal programme where there is action on the Carndonagh sewerage scheme and completion of the major Pollan Dam project but there is a desire for some new starts. Declaring an interest, in my home town, Moville sewerage scheme has been prioritised as the first and the Malin town scheme is also in the top three priorities, as agreed by the council. I hope funding will be made available in the immediate future to commence these schemes and thus move other long awaited and very necessary projects, such as the Buncrana phase V, up the list. These resources are vital in the proper planning and development of housing or industry. As I come from a county and a part of a county that has serious difficulties in attracting employment, I hope the infrastructural deficits that exist will be addressed under the national development plan and Objective One focus.
While the increase in affordable housing is important, I am glad the Bill not only deals with housing per se but there is a positive development in relation to aspects of the national development plan and particularly the roads programme. With the local authority's power to acquire land clearly stated with compulsory purchase orders and responsibility passing to An Bord Pleanála, the implementation process has to start within 18 months of the order being confirmed. The board must decide appeals and referrals within 18 weeks. These provisions will reduce the time taken to complete statutory approval procedures for roads projects. Projects which had taken more than five years to start will be in a position to start within three and a half years of initial planning. This has obvious implications for the major road improvement programme that is foreseen in the years up to 2006.
In this context I assure the Minister that the engineers, particularly in the Inishowen area, are eager to follow what he is endeavouring, that is, they would like to develop large stretches of road, be it from Buncrana to Bridgend, Muff to Moville or Quigleys Point to Cardonagh, three important arteries. In Inishowen there are no regional, primary or secondary roads. Therefore, the Minister should not be shy in allocating suitable large amounts of moneys to these non-national roads. I am confident our engineering staff would rise to the challenge of ensuring that it was properly spent in an appropriate manner. I look forward to their getting a chance to prove me right.
The role and make-up of An Bord Pleanála is changing. Its membership is increasing and it will operate in divisions which maximise its efficiency. Functions that were previously in ministerial hands are being moved to the board. It is important, therefore, that decisions and procedures that lead to decisions are transparent and consistent. It is good that there will be an obligation to explain decisions to the public. I firmly believe in a person's right to appeal but I also believe it is in everyone's interest to have a timescale and whichever way the decision goes it can be outlined.
I note that the Bill establishes statutory recognition for submissions and observations made by the public and that the right of appeal to An Bord Pleanála is reserved to those who made an initial observation on the application to the local auth ority. This is an interesting alteration. Some people will argue that it is possible that planning permission can be obtained without anyone knowing about it. I assume the Minister is confident the statutory notices in papers and on site are adequate.
The Bill gives the Minister new powers to dismiss appeals made with the intent of extracting money from a developer or solely for the purpose of delaying a project. On the question of delaying a project, locally I have encountered situations where planning permissions have been granted by the council but where, out of the blue, objectors have appealed to An Bord Pleanála and have often been successful. In terms of the rights of objectors, what are the Minister's views on whether those who own holiday homes in an area are able, by appealing to An Bord Pleanála, to prevent a local person building a permanent family home on virgin ground, given that the local authority granted the application?
A vital issue for every councillor is the provision which obliges councils to respond to genuine concerns. In this regard the Bill deals with the ongoing and longstanding difficulties of unfinished estates. Many such estates now seek to prevent others from getting planning permission and this process delays what should be a straightforward procedure. Many people feel their concerns are not being taken seriously and that there is foot-dragging by councils in dealing with these estates.
In the past, councils have taken a relaxed attitude to developers and as a result many estates have been left in various stages of disarray. As residents who buy houses in such estates realise that nothing further will be done as the developer has left, or as neighbouring residents realise that the one storey house, for which planning permission was granted, has now turned into a two storey building, the problem is soon left with the council to resolve. In many cases answers are still waiting to be found 20 years later.
With the significant increase in building activities recently, there is a greater need to become focused on compliance with planning regulations. Again, part of the problem here has been the issue of staffing in the enforcement section of the planning process. It is a resource that can no longer be done without. The current message is to say "not to worry, they will never come after you or force you to do x, y, or z". It is important, therefore, that the Bill sends a different message and that developers acquire a sense of responsibility with regard to how they complete their developments and comply with best practice. Councils also need the power to help members of the public understand that their concerns are genuine and are being pursued.
I was asked to raise the issue of wildlife and hedgerows. Many developments currently under construction are replacing hedges with one or two trees and a much greater area of concrete and/or grass. There is concern that apart from the visual aspect, we are also losing essential locations for certain species of birds in which to nest. At times the criteria regarding screening has been a factor in the granting of planning permission, yet natural screening has been uprooted and inadequately replaced.
Has the Minister considered including representatives of the Heritage Council and/or the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands on the newly constituted board? The issue warrants the inclusion of the Heritage Council on the list of representatives on the committee for the purpose of appointing the chair of the board. As an organisation concerned with the preservation of the national heritage and having a strong ethos for nature conservation and protection of the countryside, it is appropriate that it should have an input.
I appreciate the efforts the Minister is making to deliver a planning system with quality development plans, quality and timely decisions and an accessible and transparent planning service and proper enforcement. I also appreciate his determination to assist people in retaining their aspiration to own their homes and I trust the resources necessary to make these aims a reality will be provided. I wish the Minister success in achieving his aims.
The consolidation of the various Acts and regulations under which planning matters are decided is to be welcomed. The ongoing delays and difficulties experienced by all within the planning process must be addressed when the supply of new affordable, compatible housing designed to meet the needs of modern society is so fundamentally important. The requirement that all development plans be renewed within a six year timeframe is a positive advance, as is the outline of the proposed consultation process, which now forms part of the review, with its built in time schedule for each phase. It also forces the issue with members of local authorities to deal with the matter.
It is now more appropriate that given the fast moving economy and the levels of growth we currently enjoy, to put in place the requirement for a ten to 15 year plan with five yearly reviews to moderate the flow of development land onto the market. If such a timeframe were used it would provide an element of certainty with regard to the planning of required services, while addressing the question of speculative profit, with the landowners afforded an opportunity to assess the real value of their holding and pricing their acres accordingly. This policy, taken in conjunction with the withering of development zoning would make communities far more proactive, ensuring a vibrancy to maximise the shape of community developments.
The Minister should consider providing for an extension of the current requirement that the publication of planning applications in one newspaper which circulates in the area be extended to require that the notice must also be published in the local journal or paper. This will ensure that local residents are properly informed. It is insufficient to place an advertisement in The Irish Times or the Irish Independent and, perhaps, the Evening Herald while excluding journals and newspapers which circulate locally, such as The Northside People and City Wide News, two very good local papers in my constituency. The local council could take a page per month or per fortnight in these publications and advertise, or make applicants advertise, the proposed planning developments. This would ensure that all people in an area were properly informed of the applications before the council.
This method of communication should also be prescribed with regard to the draft and review of the development plan. Every effort must be made to engage the people in the process of the shaping of their communities. I recently attended a public meeting concerned with Grange Abbey, an estate within the Dublin Corporation area beside the M50, which is almost complete. The residents were promised that on completion of the M50, Grange Road and Grange Abbey would be turned into a cul-de-sac and that they would not have to put up with bumper to bumper traffic, with which they have had to endure for years, obliging them to live as virtual prisoners within their homes. However, since Dublin Corporation rezoned part of these lands, the proposed developer, who plans to build 2,000 units, wishes to use their road to access and exit his development, despite the fact that there is a way for him to enter and exit on the other side. Developments such as this are unfair to communities. In this instance it arose because when the draft development plan was under consideration by Dublin Corporation the residents were not properly informed.
When Fingal County Council was examining the draft development plan of the Baldoyle Racecourse beside this development I ensured that the plan was available in my office and that a letter was circulated to all households informing them it was on display and that part of their area was due to be considered for rezoning. The council also liaised with the community by placing advertisements in the local papers and by ensuring that meetings were held to inform the local community of what was proposed and how they could interact with local representatives and the local authority. This is the way matters should proceed, but in the case of the Grange Abbey estate people feel it was rezoned behind their back because they were not consulted. They are most unhappy about this. They require that the new development should not access onto their roadway and I support them on this.
The concept of the promotion of sustainability through local area plans is very important. It will afford people the opportunity to share their views and dreams with those who will decide how their local community will live and grow. While this consultation is important, it is no reason to take away the citizen's right to comment on and, if necessary, object to local development. My colleague, Senator Coogan, raised this issue in the Upper House. A family may live in an area and be happy with the surroundings.
Debate adjourned.