Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Mar 2000

Vol. 516 No. 5

Planning and Development Bill, 1999 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I wish to make a short contribution. One of the difficulties with the Bill is that it continues the existing system without changing even the method of work. County development plans are generally drawn up in a hurry by busy planners and county managers. They are put together in such a way that councillors and the public discover the difficulties much later. The county development plan for Clare was approved last September, and the former chairman who proposed the plan was threatening section 4 actions in December. The Minister should have set guidelines for local authorities devising county development plans The process should be done area by area and there should be development areas within a constituency or county. It should begin with four or five areas and be continued on an ongoing basis. It would make for better planning and would connect with the public in that they would have an opportunity to see what is proposed. As it stands, the development plan publication is viewed as a nuisance by local authorities.

One of the reasons local authorities do not have architects on their staff is that architects would have to be given responsibility for this role in the county development plan. If no architect is involved, there will be no problems with the good ideas he or she might devise for the county. A Deputy tabled a question recently asking about the number of county architects employed, and there are very few. The profession was created because architects are different from planners. It is wrong that planners should have an architectural role. There is also a problem with the employment prospects for an architect employed by a local authority. If the Minister allows contract solicitors to provide legal advice to local authorities, the same should apply to architects, and I am sure the profession would oblige in that matter. I do not know why the Minister would not then insist on county development plans being devised by the appropriately qualified people.

Regarding contraventions of county development plans, it comes down to a political voting block voting one way or the other depending on what is politically right at the time. It does not have anything to do with proper planning in the county or the area, and that is regrettable. My party would be as guilty as the others in that respect. It is for that reason an ongoing examination and creation of county development plans is desirable. It would bring about a greater understanding on the part of the public as to what is involved and it might give people the opportunity to develop a spatial or landscape policy within a county. We have no proper landscape policy and I do not know if the Departments of the Environment and Local Government and Agriculture, Food and Rural Development have met to discuss that. I did not hear any Member who spoke on the Bill mention it. It is possible, even at this late stage, to rescue some of the great landscape developments of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The lack of waste disposal systems is a major problem. A great effort was made by the Department to get schoolchildren to help with recycling waste, but unfortunately the Department has withdrawn the subsidies at a time when we are experiencing huge growth. I do not know if the Minister has reconsidered grant-aiding primary schools to encourage them to set up a recycling system. This system seems to be working in areas of County Clare where teachers set it up. I pay tribute to some of the major companies in Clare, such as Dunnes and Tesco, which have designated special areas where tins, glass and other waste products can be disposed of. This has helped to segregate the waste.

Clare County Council put forward a number of proposals for a new waste disposal site. A plan was drawn up behind closed doors. People in the Inagh area are unhappy with the way the council and other experts examined this new location. I do not understand how the National Roads Authority could accept this undeveloped site which is along a national secondary route. It is right that Clare County Council's application for a licence to the Environmental Protection Agency has been challenged. The local authority has given minimal information to the public. There should be more consultation with the public. If meetings took place and people were briefed properly, there would be fewer concerns about the difficulties which arise in these areas.

I am disappointed with the Department for the way it orders new sewerage developments in certain areas. There was a hullabaloo before the last election, particularly between 1992 and 1994, about the water quality in Lough Derg. Consultants repeatedly said that the Nenagh and Scariff sewerage schemes were affecting it and that something should be done about it immediately. However, the Scariff sewerage scheme has not been started. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister on this issue a number of weeks ago. Clare County Council sent an application to the Department two years ago but it has still not been approved. I do not understand that. If good water quality is the aim of the Department, surely priority should be given to allocating funds to the county following the recommendation of the consultants employed by the Department.

Deputies have received letters from the Irish Home Builders' Association about the Bill. The latest letter referred to section 82 which, if enacted, would result in eight out of ten house buyers paying more money for their houses to subsidise the remaining two houses. That is the view of the Irish Home Builders' Association, the Irish Planning Institute, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Consumers' Association of Ireland and other bodies. Will the Minister review the proposals in section 82 before Committee Stage? According to Ciaran Ryan of the Irish Home Builders' Association, the Bill will have a significant impact on second hand house prices. He believes there is an opportunity to make a change through consultation. Has the Minister met the Irish Home Builders' Association? It has stated it will always be available to meet him and to discuss any aspect of this matter.

Planning is a matter for all Departments. The Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, for example, has a role to play in developing areas for heritage purposes. Has an expert group been set up in the Department of the Environment and Local Government to provide advice? Is there liaison between Departments so that the difficulties are outlined? Are decisions by Dúchas or the time it takes for it to make a decision analysed? Are other Departments experiencing the same difficulties which are currently holding up progress in building new houses?

I hope the Minister of State will give a comprehensive reply to the contributions made in recent weeks. I do not disagree with the Government Chief Whip's intention to take Private Notice Questions at 2 p.m.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil le gach Teachta a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht ar an mBille tábhachtach seo: An Bille um Pleanáil agus Forbairt, 1999.

I thank all the Deputies who took part in the debate on this important Bill in recent weeks. I appreciate the positive and constructive approach taken by Deputies even if there is not agreement on every aspect of the Bill.

It is important to bear in mind that this Bill is the result of a wide-ranging consultation process with the public and all the major stakeholders in the planning system. While it is impossible to meet everyone's wishes, the Bill strikes the right balance. Efficiency must be balanced against the need for full consideration of all the issues, physical development to provide for our social and economic needs must be balanced against the protection of the environment and housing needs must be balanced against the operation of the property market.

One issue which almost every speaker raised was the need to provide the resources to ensure that the Bill's provisions can be put into effect by local authorities. I agree this is the biggest chal lenge in implementing the Bill. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, readily acknowledged that in his opening speech.

Since coming to office, the Government has taken a pro-active role in seeking to increase the resources, both professional planners and otherwise, of local authority planning departments. In April 1998 my Department wrote to planning authorities asking that they avail of the opportunity presented by planning fee increases, which were effected by new regulations at the time, to consider the possibility of employing more professional planners. My Department again wrote to local authority managers in July 1998 asking that they review the adequacy of their professional, technical and administrative clerical staffing in order to ensure the planning system does not cause bottlenecks in meeting demand and delivers the best possible service to consumers. The Department has approved almost all requests for additional professional planners since. The most recent survey of local authority planning departments carried out by the Department showed that the overall level of administrative and professional serving staff in county councils and county borough corporations had increased to almost 900 in September 1999 compared with 753 in May 1999 and 660 in June 1998.

The Minister has also been in contact with Ireland's only planning school in UCD. He wrote to the president of UCD indicating that the expansion of the economy has made for a greatly increased workload on the planning system and that there is evidence of a shortfall in the number of professional planners available to meet present requirements. The letter indicated that the Planning and Development Bill and future EU requirements will confer further functions and place new obligations on planning authorities and on An Bord Pleanála. All these developments will call for increased professional planning resources and any increase in the number of planners qualifying will be welcome.

I express my thanks for the work of planners and local authorities. I appreciate that everyone is under pressure to deal with the huge increase in planning applications. The number of applications rose from 39,500 in 1993 to 67,000 in 1998, the highest on record, and the final figure for 1999 is likely to be over 75,000. This will represent a doubling of applications in the past seven years.

Without wishing to sound complacent, the system has shown a remarkable increase in productivity over the past few years. In 1998, 69% of all planning applications were decided by local authorities within the statutory two month period. This represents only a small drop from the 73% of applications dealt with within the two month period in 1993 and suggests that some of the more extreme claims about the system creating huge delays may be exaggerated.

The Bill represents a new set of challenges to local authorities but I am confident in their ability to meet them. The new local government fund introduced last year has put local authorities on a firm financial footing and will ensure that they have sufficient funds to carry out their functions efficiently and effectively. Last year the fund made £625 million available to authorities towards their general day-to-day expenditure needs and their non-national roads programmes. The figure this year should exceed £665 million. Notwithstanding the importance of providing local authorities with funding to meet their needs this year, the legislation governing the new fund goes even further. It guarantees that the Exchequer contribution to the fund will be adjusted annually, at least in line with inflation, and that account will also be taken of the emerging expenditure needs of local authorities. This means that any extra costs which authorities face as a result of the new planning regime will not be overlooked. On the contrary, such costs must, under the law, be factored into consideration when the size of the local government fund is being decided in the future. The Government is the first to ensure under law that extra responsibilities for local authorities are coupled with extra resources.

There was some confused thinking on the Opposition benches regarding the provisions in Part V of the Bill. Deputy Michael D. Higgins accused the Government of being in cahoots with the building industry. Deputy Dukes stated that the provisions of Part V would not work because the CIF is opposed to them. This indicates that we are doing something right. Deputy Dukes also contended that one of the reasons the provisions of Part V would not work is that it would not increase the supply of land and suggested other means of achieving the provision of affordable housing such as allowing local authorities to build houses or provide sites, or when granting permission requiring that 20% of houses be made available at an affordable price. The Deputy will find that his thinking is closer to the provisions in the Bill then he realises.

The Bill as a whole will deliver better and more up-to-date development plans which will allow for better forward planning. It is also important to bear in mind that the housing strategies which must be prepared under the Bill will identify total housing needs and will address the specific needs of different sectors of the population, for example, first time buyers, single person households, the disabled and so on.

There is no reason addressing the need for social and affordable housing should reduce the supply of private housing. The Bill specifically requires local authorities to ensure that sufficient land is zoned for housing development and that a scarcity does not arise. The Bill will allow local authorities to build houses or provide sites and will facilitate developers in providing affordable houses in estates which they build.

This issue of supply was raised by the Irish Home Builders Association in its submission which was referred to by many Deputies. The IHBA carried out a high profile campaign against the provisions in Part V of the Bill and made some one-sided and misleading statements in the pamphlet sent to Deputies and in its expensive newspaper advertisements. It is not possible in the time available to answer all the statements, but a few points cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged.

The IHBA incorrectly claims that the Bill will not help first time buyers or those on the average industrial wage. The average industrial wage is just over £16,000 and the eligibility criteria for affordable housing in the Bill should, having regard to present price levels, offer the prospect of affordable housing to such people. The vast bulk of affordable housing will be for first time buyers. The IHBA also failed to take account of the benefits to it of higher residential densities which, in many cases, will more than offset the proportion of sites to be reserved for social and affordable housing. The association contends that the provisions would raise the price of land for the 80% of houses not required for social and affordable housing. However, house prices in the present sellers market are determined by how much the builder can get on the market and bears little or no relation to the costs of providing the house.

There is no evidence to suggest that the price of houses is in any way being kept at a reasonable price by members of the IHBA in the absence of these proposed measures. On the other hand, the proposals should moderate the huge increase in the value of land conferred by zoning for residential development because developers will have to factor the requirement to reserve a quota at existing use value into what they are prepared to pay for land.

The IHBA also dismisses the Government's efforts on increased residential density and the serviced land initiative. Contrary to the impression it attempts to give, I reassure the House that returns available from local authorities confirm that the target of producing an additional 100,000 sites by the end of this year will be realised through the completion of current water and sewerage schemes. The association seems to be working to an agenda of social exclusion, particularly with its idea that land be specifically zoned for social housing. For the good of society the Government is committed to working for social integration and rejects any such proposal which is akin to a new form of apartheid. In support of its case, the IHBA produced a carefully selected line of comments critical of the Government's proposals in the Bill, some of which may be taken out of context. For example, there is a quote from Peter Bacon, taken from his second report in April 1999, which predates by five months publication of the Bill. I will not bore the House by quoting from the many knowledgeable people who supported the Bill, including the editorial in today's edition of The Irish Times.

Many Deputies spoke of the need to expand the social housing programme. The Govern ment's approach is two pronged, to increase traditional local authority house building and to expand voluntary housing activity and output under other complementary schemes such as the shared ownership scheme. This year will see the beginning of the four year multi-annual programme for local authority housing to provide 22,000 local authority housing starts. Significant increased funding is being provided for voluntary housing and site acquisition. Funding has been included in the national development plan for the provision of over 15,000 dwellings by the voluntary sector. I am surprised that I continually have to repeat to members of local authorities and Deputies that the construction of local authority and voluntary housing is only a part of the picture for social housing. A further range of social housing measures is available to local authorities to supplement their housing programmes in meeting social housing needs. With the increase in local authority and voluntary housing programmes, together with output from the complimentary social housing measures, and casual vacancies occurring in existing local authority stock, the needs of more than 50,000 households will be catered for over the next four years. Would it be too much to ask Opposition Deputies to stop equating the number of local authority housing starts with the number of households housed from the waiting lists? That is not the full picture.

Section 164 requires local authorities to take housing estates in charge where they are requested to do so by the residents. This applies to existing estates and I assure Deputy Gilmore that there is no need to re-introduce the Labour Party's Private Members' Bill concerning unfinished estates. Deputy Ryan, the sponsor of that Bill, welcomed the provisions of this Bill.

Deputies suggested that builders should be licensed. The 1997 report of the Strategic Review Committee on the Construction Industry included a recommendation for a registration system for building contractors and subcontractors. In December 1999 the Forum for the Construction Industry submitted an interim report setting out preliminary detailed proposals for the registration of contractors, including subcontractors. My Department is now considering the report, the implementation of which would require legislation to protect the title of registered contractor. The Minister has accepted the forum's proposals in principle and, subject to a number of modifications designed to enhance the coverage and independence of the registration system in the interests of consumer protection, these views have already been conveyed to the forum and a response from it is awaited.

There was general agreement that the revised enforcement provisions in the Bill were welcome but that resources were needed to make sure they worked. As well as my general commitment to providing resources to local authorities, the Bill provides that any fines or costs incurred by a planning authority in taking enforcement action will be recoverable. This will provide an incentive for planning authorities to operate the system effectively.

A number of Deputies mentioned the fee for making submissions and observations on planning applications and the requirements that third parties will have to make a submission to appeal a decision to An Bord Pleanála. I assure the House that any such fee will not be at a level which will deter any person or body who is genuinely concerned about a planning application. The Bill gives significant statutory recognition to submissions made in respect of an application. Submissions, therefore, will have to be given full consideration by planning authorities. People who make submissions will be entitled to be notified of the planning decision and will, therefore, be in a position to appeal to An Bord Pleanála if necessary. The rights given to third parties in the planning system are unprecedented in the European Union. No other state gives unlimited rights of appeal to an independent body.

Third party appeals make up 40% of all appeals to An Bord Pleanála, a rise from 30% ten years ago. With rights go responsibilities and it is not much to ask that those with an interest in a planning application should voice their concerns at local level before taking their appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

We also intend to look at the planning regulations to see if the various notification provisions can be improved. Improvements would ensure that everyone is aware of when submissions or observations on a planning application have to be made and that people have sufficient time to comment on an application.

There was reference to the national spatial strategy, which the Government sees as being of crucial importance in translating its policy on balanced regional development into a more detailed blueprint for spatial development throughout the State over the longer term. Some Deputies have suggested that the two year time scale set for preparing the strategy is too long. That would be the case if we wanted to produce a rushed, poorly thought out and ill considered proposal that would be of little use or relevance to the development of the regions. That is not our intention. The Government is determined that the strategy be comprehensive and well thought out. The preparation of the strategy will be subject to an extensive bottom-up consultation process, involving all levels of Government, the social partners, private sector organisations, regional and local authorities, community level organisations and the public generally. A commitment to such a consultation process has been included in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.

Given these parameters, the two year time frame for the production of the spatial strategy represents a considerable challenge. One has only to look at the time scale for similar exercises in other countries. It is, however, a challenge which we are determined to meet. In the meantime, immediate investment decisions, based on the national development plan, to provide urgently required basic infrastructure will not be delayed pending the development of the national spatial strategy.

Deputy Dukes questioned the transfer to An Bord Pleanála of the functions of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government regarding the approval of CPOs and road schemes. The Government considers this change to be appropriate. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government has responsibility for setting out policy in relation to local authority infrastructural development and promoting and funding broad programmes of investment. It is appropriate that decisions on individual projects be left to an independent expert body. Deputy Dukes stated that under the present system the Minister could discuss matters with concerned people. Adjudicating on CPOs has always been a quasi-judicial role rather than a policy role and the Minister has always been constrained in his actions in this area. It is a role which suits An Bord Pleanála and I note that Deputy Olivia Mitchell, the Fine Gael spokesperson on transport, welcomed the proposed transfer.

Deputy Gilmore made the accusation that the Bill did not integrate transportation with its provisions. A cursory glance at the main provisions of the Bill for development plans and regional planning guidelines shows this is clearly not the case. Deputy Gilmore stated that the Planning and Development Bill should challenge but had failed to do so. I agree that it should challenge; the Bill poses huge challenges. When the Minister for the Environment and Local Government started the review of planning legislation he said the planning system of a prosperous Ireland should be guided by three principles – its approach must be strategic, its ethos must be one of sustainable development and its performance must be of the highest quality. That was the challenge and the Bill meets it successfully. In their joint submission, the Irish Planning Institute and the Royal Town Planning Institute stated that they believed the Bill would achieve the Minister's objectives for the planning system. Independent endorsement is always welcome and Deputies do not merely have to take my word for it.

Deputy Gilmore has been inconsistent in opposing the deadlines for the adoption of a development plan while, at the same time, calling for development plans to be made every five years instead of every six years, as is provided for in the Bill. The whole thrust of the development plan provisions is to provide for a two year review and adoption period which allows for extensive and open public debate in the first year followed by a more formal adoption procedure in the second year. The idea is to resolve issues of principle early in the process so they do not become sticking points toward the end.

The Bill also enhances the role of the public representative and improves public consultation in relation to the development plan. The objec tive is to encourage a sense of ownership of the plan in the community which it serves and among the councillors who will adopt it. The draft development plan has, in the past, been seen as a manager's or planner's document to which councillors react. This could result in planners becoming defensive about the draft plan and the public reacting negatively to it. Under the Bill, the thrust of the new procedures is to involve the public and councillors at the earliest stages of planning – before the draft plan is produced.

Many Deputies spoke of the difficulties in selling single sites or getting planning permission for one-off housing in rural areas. Refusals for one-off houses are based on the provisions of development plans which, in turn, are matters for local councillors. It is no use people complaining about the provisions of a plan which they have adopted. We must, however, be imaginative in our approach. Local authorities make every effort to facilitate planning permission to those people who must live on their farms but urban generated, one-off housing in rural areas creates problems with groundwater protection, access to roads and protection of the landscape. I fully support the policy of maintaining vibrant rural communities but this can best be achieved around villages rather than in ribbon development. The challenge, therefore, is to make development plans which facilitate the objectives of vibrant environmentally sustainable rural communities. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government is strongly committed to building up the physical infrastructure of existing small towns and villages.

There is no attempt in the Bill to prevent councillors from obtaining full copies of submissions on development plans, as has been suggested by a number of Labour Deputies. The Bill provides that the manager must prepare a report on submissions made in relation to a development plan in order to summarise and highlight the issues raised for the benefit of councillors. Councillors are not precluded from considering the original submissions.

Deputy Fleming considered that public bodies should have to undergo the same rigorous procedures as private individuals in the planning system. The State is required to obtain planning permission as with any private developer save in certain circumstances related to justice and national security. Local authorities have to undergo the Part X procedure. The Bill considerably tightens up this procedure which is now contained in section 163. This requires the planning authority to give the same evaluation to its own development as it would to a planning application. The decision on this development is a matter for the democratically elected members of the council.

Some Deputies have decried the position given to the manager in the planning process as against the position of the elected members but when power is given to the members, as in section 163, they protest as loudly. The Government is com mitted to enhancing the role of the elected member. The strategic policy committees will see the extension of a national partnership-type model to local government and will deepen the policy making role of councillors. The local government reform programme is geared towards developing and enhancing the role of councillors and practical measures, such as the development and implementation of a training programme for councillors, have been introduced.

The proposed local government Bill, which the Minister hopes to publish in this Dáil session, will provide a legislative basis for our new local government system. It will help to tilt the balance in favour of the democratically elected members by providing for a range of mechanisms for the councils to oversee and shape the implementation of local authority policy.

Has spatial planning in terms of the NESC report been done away with? Is the Minister pursuing that report?

It will be taken into consideration in the preparation of the spatial plans.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn