Before the debate adjourned, I said I welcome section 12 (15) which provides that if a development plan is not made within two years, the manager would adopt the amended plan.
I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister my experience prior to and during my membership of Dublin County Council where the first development plan was laid before the members in 1972, the revision commenced in 1977 and it was eventually completed in 1983, a period of six years. During my period as a member of that local authority, the review of the development plan commenced in 1988 and was completed in 1993, a period of five years. That was a very large local authority which has since been broken up into three smaller and more relevant local authorities. It is unbelievable that the review process of a development plan would have taken 11 years, therefore I welcome the fact that the Minister proposes in this legislation a two year period for dealing with this process. I would like the Minister to refer to the Athy case, which deemed that any representations made, regardless of whether a motion was tabled, would have to be considered by the members. This would slow up the review of the plan.
Section 15 refers to the development plan achieving its objectives. I was involved in one review of a development plan and when we looked at what had been laid down in the previous development plan review – those of us who were new members at the time had lofty ideas for our areas – we discovered that these objectives were enshrined in the previous development plan. However, the objectives had not been achieved and the manager simply rewrote them into the plan. I do not know how we can ensure that objectives are achieved but it seems they can be repeated year after year. If finance is available, they can become a reality and, if it is not available, nothing happens.
Section 19 refers to area action plans. We had area action plans when I was a member of Dublin County Council. I am now a member of the corporation and I am not sure if these plans exist. I am not sure if the stipulation that these must be made within a two year period is achievable given the volume of work in the eastern region. It would be difficult for planning staff and council staff to ensure area action plans are completed within two years of the date of the adoption of the plan.
Deputy Broughan referred to regional planning guidelines and development plans. He mentioned he was a member of a regional authority. It was thought at the time that they would be a good idea. I know nothing about how they work, despite the fact that I am currently a member of the corporation and a former member of Dublin County Council. The Deputy said they were just talking shops. It is time we addressed this issue. I do not know whether they are achieving anything or are managing to harmonise or regulate development in the eastern region. Perhaps they work better in other areas.
I wish to put on record that in stating objectives local authorities must provide for a number of things. One is the provision of accommodation for travellers and the use of particular areas for this purpose. This is an area where most local authority members have been found to be very lacking. On becoming a member of a local authority in 1985, I said to the then Minister for the Environment – I have said it since to his predecessors, including the current Minister – that some sanction should be applied to local authorities which do not provide for traveller accommodation in their areas. This happens in the area of housing whereby if an allocation is not used, it is lost. This should also apply to the provision of accommodation for travellers. This issue is always long-fingered and needs to be dealt with given the leap in house prices. In the meantime, more and more travellers are ending up on the side of the road. The Minister should consider placing sanctions on local authorities which do not live up to their responsibilities.
Section 34 seems to be a new section. Under the 1955 Act, the manager has the right to bring forward material contravention. It is proposed that if a resolution referred to in subsection (4) is duly passed, the manager shall decide to grant the relevant permission. I presume "shall" means he must. There may be a slight change to that. The change to section 4 of the 1955 Act, which required that three quarters of the members had to be present when voting in favour, also required, where the material contravention was being brought forward by members as distinct from the manager, that it had to be three quarters of the members from the local ward. I do not see that in this section, therefore I wonder can a material contravention now be brought forward by any member of a local authority in any ward or council administrative area.
I am pleased with the provisions in section 34(11). This provides for the first time that a local authority can take into account the track record of a developer or applicant. Deputy Broughan said this was not as strong as the proposed Labour Party Bill. However, it gives a local authority the right to refuse to grant planning permission where an applicant has failed to comply with previous planning permission. There could be a difficulty with, say, Marian McGennis, Building Contractors, putting in an application, not complying with the conditions laid down and simply re-applying as MMcG. Will the local authority be able to enforce the provisions of this section where a company changes its name? Can the company's track record be followed up? If so, this is a worthwhile provision. The section also proposes that where an applicant has not complied, he or she will not have the right of appeal.
There is mention of acquisition for open space and land for housing is also dealt with. Section 47 refers to financial contributions. This posed a difficulty for local authority managers who found themselves in court on a regular basis with developers who would not complete estates. Very often cases were settled on the steps of the courthouse. My experience as a member of a local authority was that this resulted in absolute misery for people who lived in estates built by these people. Does the financial contribution requirement replace a bond and make access to the courts easier? I am concerned that we should not do away with the bond requirement.
I have little or nothing to say about An Bord Pleanála. I must admit that I did not go through this in any great detail because I find it difficult to figure out how the board reaches its decisions. In some instances where the local authority, for good reasons, refuses planning permission, the board then seems to grant it for the oddest of reasons.
Something must be done to make affordable housing available for those who cannot provide housing for themselves and those who are trying to buy their first house. I am not sure if the 20% allocation will work. I believe that builders will pass on the cost to those buying in the higher price bracket.
I know this development because it was in Dublin County Council's administrative area and the land was bought at a particular price at a particular time. In 1995 the houses cost £65,000, in 1996 £69,000, in 1997 £95,000 and in 1998 £120,000. In July 1999 they cost £135,000 and this year they cost £160,000.