I welcome the Bill, which is comprehensive and consolidating by nature, but a number of amendments need to be made to it. I have a number of suggestions to put to the Minister during my contribution and on Committee Stage. It is a pity that Members have only 20 minutes to make a contribution because one could spend that amount of time discussing each section because it is such detailed legislation and all of us have a huge interest in it.
I have serious concerns about the blanket removal of the exemption for turf cutting and peat extraction from the provisions in the legislation. Both of these practices are of major economic importance to the midlands with thousands of jobs directly or indirectly reliant on them. A number of small farmers are employed by Bord na Móna on a seasonal or full-time basis. Their farms would be uneconomic without such off-farm income. Four peat fired power stations, namely Lanesboro, Shannonbridge, Ferbane and Rhode, are currently under threat of closure following a recent International Energy Agency report on Ireland. The Minister for Public Enterprise has done little to allay those fears. If additional regulations and restrictions in regard to peat extraction are put in place, it would further compound the viability of these plants and the new peat fired power station which is about to be commissioned in County Offaly. Many small commercial producers have invested heavily in equipment and the development of bogs and their livelihoods are in jeopardy as a result of this legislation.
A farmer who lives near me has developed his own bogs and has reared his family on the income he has earned from saving and selling turf. Four of his eight children attended university and he was able to fund their education through the living he earned from cutting turf on his own bog. The Minister is introducing legislation which will restrict that practice. The problem lies in section 2, page 17, lines 17 to 23. This section provides definitions which are referred to later in the Bill. The definition of "agriculture" has been changed from that in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, by omitting any reference to the use of turbary.
Given that agriculture is exempted development and the Bill does not further refer to turbary, it is, therefore, no longer exempted from the planning controls as forming part of agriculture in the normal sense. While this explanation may be complex, it equates the requirement of planning permission for turf extraction and boglands, thereby removing a long held right of people to cut turf and greatly restrict the traditional right of turbary, which many families hold and which is unique to Ireland. If the Bill remains in its current format, it would then fall to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to enact regulations which would exempt some turf cutting from the requirement to seek planning permission.
However, two further issues must be taken into consideration. First, the recent case of the European Commission vs. Ireland on 21 September 1999 in which Ireland was held to have failed to properly transpose the environmental impact assessment directive, 1985, by failing to assess its effects on the environment of afforestation projects under 70 hectares and peat extraction projects in sensitive bogland areas. One element of the judgment regarding the need for an EIS on sensitive bogs has already been resolved through the introduction of two regulations, namely SIs 22 and 23 of 1999. The second element of the judgment, which expressed concern about the cumulative effect of a number of small projects, could be resolved through the county development plan.
Second, as many people involved in the campaign against the implementation of the habitats directive have realised, the interpretation of any regulations set down by the Minister of the day can be re-interpreted at a future date. For example, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, who signed the Habitats Directive when he was Minister, recently informed an Oireachtas committee which debated the issue that it was his intention when he signed it that it would only prohibit the use of sausage machines on designated bogs, not stopping turf cutting on these bogs completely.
This is not how the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands interprets the directive currently and a similar problem may arise at a future date regarding the interpretation of this legislation in terms of the regulations on turf cutting. Requiring impact assessments of small bogs would prevent extraction due to the cost of such assessment versus the value of the turf which would be extracted. Large tracts of bogland in the midlands have already been designated special areas of conservation and if this legislation is enacted in its current form, it would sterilise further large tracts of bogland with a major impact on the rural economy of these areas.
The European Union cannot be allowed to override Irish rural life to the detriment of those who are forced out of their communities into major urban centres. This completely contradicts its stated policy of rural development. However, the EU is willing to take the economic significance of its directives into consideration and provide opt-out clauses to member states if they are willing to make a case on behalf of the people affected. A Minister who introduces legislation such as this and whose sole argument for its introduction is the fulfilment of EU directives is clearly indicating that he is incapable of making a case on behalf of the people and he should consider his position.
The Government has adopted a policy of rural proofing, which it claims will assess all policy and legislation to ensure that it will not impact to the detriment of rural life and its traditions. This Bill was not rural proofed and the Minister is taking a jaundiced view of EU directives by not seeking a balance between environmental concerns and the traditional rights of the people. There have been numerous debates in the House on the habitats directives and the preservation of bogland. Over the years, it has been stated that we need to conserve our bogs and the flora and fauna in them. Large tracts of land have been designated for conservation. If people who live in areas surrounded by bog, which is worthless and much of which is ploughed by Bord na Móna anyway, can earn a little income from it they should not be prevented from doing so.
The Minister stated that he will exempt turf cutting for domestic use from the requirement to seek planning permission. I hope the Minister will bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage to define that, because the people affected will not stand by and allow him to bring in regulations when the legislation is passed which can be interpreted to the liking of somebody who wants to make a point at some future time. The Minister must write into the legislation the restrictions he wants to put in place and ensure that small rural communities can produce small levels of turf on a commercial basis.
An issue relevant to my constituency is planning permission along the river Shannon. It is extremely difficult for young couples to get planning permission in parishes along the banks of the river Shannon. If the top of a chimney would be seen through the trees from a boat on the river, the local authority will refuse the planning application. We all want to ensure that communities are supported in rural Ireland yet we are forcing these young people out of their own communities because they are unable to obtain planning permission. Once an organisation in Dublin sees a planning application in a townland along the River Shannon, it immediately lodges an objection without even seeing the site or the way it will impact on the Shannon. These bodies are not accountable to anyone, yet they can dictate to communities up and down the River Shannon in terms of where they can and cannot build.
Every Member of this House has had visits from young couples who received a letter from their local authority on the last day of the two months period requesting further information. Much of the time the further information has already been supplied and the only reason for the request is that the local authority does not have the staff or the ability to deal with the process. Rather than giving a decision within two months, the authority gives them the decision within four months. I know the Minister will address this issue in the legislation and will restrict the waiting time to a certain extent, but there will be an increase in the length of time people have to wait for planning permission which is delayed by stupid queries from the local authority. These queries are designed to give the planning officer more time to examine the file.
There are serious problems in local authorities in terms of the ability of staff to deal with planning applications. In my electoral area we have had five planning officers in the past 12 months. The latest planning officer is only just out of college and when she is making a decision on whether to grant planning permission, she refers to her text book. It is not acceptable for somebody just out of college to have the responsibility of a planning officer and to use a text book to decide whether to grant planning permission or to decide the conditions she will impose.
An example of this ludicrous situation is that in rural areas, according to the text books, houses should have traditional small windows. This planning officer has given planning permission for a house which has six small narrow windows on the front, which is supposed to blend in with the rural area, while every other house around it has big bay windows. It is the most stupid decision I have ever come across, but that is what it says in the text book and that is the restriction she will put in place. It is ludicrous that planning officers are now deciding the type of glass that should be put into the window of a house.
Another aspect concerns pillars on the porch of a house. In my electoral area, the planning authority will not allow concrete columns on the porch of a house yet it allowed a house to be erected with six two-storey high columns. These are big, white monstrosities. The house looks like the Southfork ranch we saw on "Dallas" many years ago. This was allowed by the local authority because when conditions are imposed, they are not followed up. Roscommon County Council has not ever taken a case against any builder or householder who has broken the planning con ditions, and anyone who has applied for retention has received it. There are a number of elements to the reason for that but that is the position in my local authority. A slatted house was built beside a householder, not the width of this Chamber away from his house, yet an application was lodged for retention of planning permission and was granted. That means that other people are losing their rights because the local authority does not have the ability or the powers to enforce the regulations as they stand. I know the Minister has examined this issue in the legislation and I hope we will see change in it.
I refer to cowboy developers who come in, slap up six or eight houses in an estate and take off again without completing it. These estates end up looking like somewhere in Bosnia rather than Ireland. Yet, when these builders apply to the local authority for planning permission for another development, it is granted. As for the bonding system, that is a complete joke because the moneys involved would not be sufficient to carry out the work if the local authority took it over. Serious restrictions must be put in place for this type of development. A developer should not be allowed to re-apply to a planning authority for additional planning permission without having met all the conditions of the previous application to the satisfaction of the local authority. It is ludicrous that estates are left unfinished and I hope that problem will be addressed in this legislation. However, what about the estates that have been left unfinished to date? This legislation is not retrospective and those estates will be left high and dry. The local authorities washed their hands of them because they do not want anything to do with this type of estate.
There is a major problem with the management structure of local authorities. I am a member of a local authority but I have no say in planning applications. The only say I have as a local authority member is in the county development plan and the officials will re-phrase that document to suit themselves and then take a completely new interpretation of the plan when it is completed. Part of the problem is that we, as local authority members, have allowed management to pull the wool over our eyes. The system currently in place, where we are a glorified rubber stamp, is a disgrace. People do not realise that their elected public representatives have no say in what goes on and that the county manager dictates to us. The planning officials, county engineer and county manager come together to decide what course to take. What the local authority members say or do makes no difference.
We also need to examine the situation regarding amenities. There are instances of local authorities, like private developers, developing estates without amenities. I am aware of one estate, started 25 years ago, which does not have a green area even though there are 1,000 houses in the development. There are many social problems in the estate and the buck stops with the local authority. It reneged on its duty to those people.
There will be a better opportunity to discuss the Bill's provisions in detail on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.
