We are taking amendments Nos. 32, 54, 95, 106, 115, 124, 177 and 279 together. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, is in possession.
Planning and Development Bill, 1999 [ Seanad ] : Report Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 32:
In page 29, line 14, after "statement" to insert "or linguistic impact statement".
–(Deputy Gilmore).
I had just concluded, a Cheann Comhairle.
Are the Deputies pressing amendment No. 32? Deputy Gilmore to reply to the debate.
As I said, I acknowledge—
I should say Deputy Gilmore has two minutes. He can reserve his right to reply to a further contribution. The Deputy has made one contribution on this amendment.
Am I time restricted in my right to reply?
The Deputy's second contribution will be two minutes. As mover of the amendment, the Deputy has the right to reply which is unlimited. The Deputy can now take two minutes and other Deputies who have spoken once may take two minutes.
If I take two minutes now, do I still have the right to reply?
As mover, the Deputy has the right to reply without a time limit.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, your generosity knows no bounds.
It must be relevant to the amendment.
Did the Deputy hear that? It must be relevant.
It will be relevant. The Minister both on Committee Stage and with this amendment has gone some way towards acknowledging the special position of the Gaeltacht in relation to planning and development. However, his amendments relate largely to the development plan and regional planning guidelines and not to the individual planning application. As I stated on Committee Stage, An Bord Pleanála has power to override a development plan. A local authority could have a development plan acknowledging the position of the Gaeltacht and regional planning guidelines that would have the same effect. A planning application for a large housing development, holiday homes and so on, the effect of which could be to dilute the use of the Irish language in a Gaeltacht area, could be turned down by a local authority but could succeed on appeal. I do not believe that what the Minister is doing, welcome as it is, goes far enough.
The Deputy's two minutes have expired but as no other speakers are offering he may make his reply.
We will not have a second shot at this. The Minister spoke about the commission on the Irish language but this Bill will determine the physical developments that will take place in the Gaeltacht and other areas. The impact of development on the Irish language has been severe. Yesterday Deputy McCormack spoke about the spread of suburban Galway. As he pointed out, the only way Galway can expand is to absorb the Gaeltacht areas on its east and west side. It cannot expand to the north because there is a lake nor to the south because there is the sea. Some people on the eastern side of Galway city speak Irish as their daily language but the numbers are diminishing and it is only a matter of time before Carnmore, Castlegar, Menlough and so on where Irish had been spoken will be developed at the rate at which the city is expanding.
One now has to travel quite a distance west of Galway city before one comes to what one would recognise as a Gaeltacht area. The village of Barna is no longer recognisable as a Gaeltacht village and Spiddal village is just about so. There are people living there, both native to the area and others who moved there, who speak Irish. The spread of development along Cois Fharraige westwards of Galway is gradually absorbing the Gaeltacht areas. There is new development further out. The same is happening in Donegal, Kerry and other Gaeltacht areas though it is not to the same extent in Ring and Rath Cairn. In Galway, Kerry and Donegal there is considerable absorption of Gaeltacht areas by increased development.
There are two pressures causing this and it is important to recognise them. One is because of the remoteness of Gaeltacht areas they are seen as desirable places in which to live. The irony is it is only a short while ago that they were seen as anything but desirable and the State had to introduce special mechanisms, such as Údarás na Gaeltachta, to encourage development in these areas. There has been a dramatic change particularly as regards housing development. The second pressure comes from within the Gaeltacht itself. The sale of sites is the new cash crop. Those who own land which in the past was not seen as attractive land to farm is now desirable as sites and there is an understandable wish on the part of such landowners to cash in on it. The problem that generates for local people who wish to set up home in the area is they are priced out of the market. If we are serious about preserving the language we need young people to remain living in the areas. Such people grew up with the language. It is the first language they spoke and learned as children but they cannot buy sites in these areas. Gaeltacht areas, where officially we want to preserve the Irish language, are rapidly becoming places where only those who have money can afford to buy sites and settle there and those who grew up and lived there must move into the suburbs.
This is a serious issue for Gaeltacht areas. There is an official policy on preserving the Irish language and Gaeltacht areas. We spend quite an amount of money on it. There is a special Department for it and Údarás na Gaeltacht. There is support for the Irish language through various grants and official speak in many ways yet, at the same time, we are permitting Gaeltacht areas to be developed in ways that effectively undermine them.
My amendments are essential if we are to protect and preserve the Gaeltacht. They relate directly to individual planning applications. I acknowledge that the Minister's amendments, which relate mainly to the development plan, will improve the position but they are at one remove from dealing with the problem. I want us to deal with it when the planning application is made so an application for a scheme of houses, an individual house or any development in a Gaeltacht area would have to outline the linguistic impact the development would have on the Irish language. In other words, there should be an obligation in the first instance on an applicant to show the development will not have a damaging effect on the language.
Someone who is native to an area and who submits an application to build a house in Carraroe or any Gaeltacht area would be able to show the development would have a beneficial effect on the language. It is also fine if someone proposes to move in from outside a Gaeltacht area and he or she is able to speak Irish, has a great love of the language or whatever. However, it is a different matter if someone proposes to build a development of holiday homes or whatever which would swarm an area with people who have no interest in or knowledge of Irish.
I wish to press this amendment as this is an important issue. Officially at least, the Irish language has always been one of the main concerns of those in public life and this is a critical issue for the future of the Gaeltacht.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Cosgrave, Michael.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John. |
Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ryan, Seán. Tá–continued |
Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Stagg, Emmet. |
Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Yates, Ivan. |
Níl
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Callely, Ivor.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe. |
Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kitt, Michael.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett and Stagg; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 34 is an alternative to amendment No. 33 and amendment No. 118 is related to it and, therefore, they may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 29, to delete lines 16 to 21 and substitute the following:
"(c) where a development, to which an application relates, comprises or is for the purposes of an activity in respect of which an integrated pollution licence or a waste management licence is required, or a licence under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977, is required in respect of discharges from the development, a statement as to that requirement,".
I tabled this amendment is response to an amendment tabled by Deputy Dukes on Committee Stage, which requested that where a development required a discharge licence, that fact should be indicated on the register. The amendment meets the intent of the Deputy's amendment. I cannot accept his amendment which explicitly states that planning authorities have to have regard to the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts, as they have to have regard to a range of Acts and regulations, including the Air Pollution Acts, the Building Control Act, the Fire Services Act and so on. It would be invidious to single out an Act and name it in the Bill. I ask the Deputy to accept my amendment.
I thank the Minister for his amendment which covers my concerns. I accept his amendment and I will withdraw amendment No. 34 in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 30, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
"(q) particulars of any declaration issued by the planning authority under section 86, including the details of any review of the declaration,
(p) particulars of any notice under section 87 in respect of land in an area of special planning control, including, where such notice is withdrawn, the fact of its withdrawal,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 194 are consequential on amendment No. 204 and they may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 30, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
"(q) particulars of any certificate granted under section 96,".
Section 95 currently provides that applications for developments of five or fewer houses or for land of less than 0.2 of a hectare are not subject to the requirements of Part V. On Committee Stage I said I would introduce a provision to prevent people trying to avoid the application of Part V by splitting up their land into small allotments or by making multiple applications either individually or in concert with others. In the interest of the equitable operation of Part V, it is essential to have those robust procedures in place to ensure people cannot deliberately avoid their obligations.
Amendment No. 204 which brings in a new section 96 is intended to achieve this. The building of up to four houses or development of housing on land of 0.2 of a hectare or less will be exempt from the requirement to transfer land to the local authority for social housing. To avail of this exemption a person who wishes to obtain permission for the building of up to four houses or up to 0.2 of a hectare of land which is zoned with the social and affordable housing condition will have to obtain an exemption certificate in advance by applying to the planning authority. When applying for this certificate the person will have to swear a statutory declaration stating certain things such as the history of the ownership of the land and whether they have an interest in land in the immediate vicinity to allow the authority to take a view as to whether this is a genuine application or an attempt to avoid the social and affordable housing obligations. This certificate should normally be granted without difficulty but if the authority is of the view that the applicant is trying to avoid the provision of section 95 the certificate may be refused. The planning authority can refuse to grant a person a certificate if, based on the information provided by the person and any other knowledge it has, it believes that a person is trying to avoid the application of the section. If the certificate is refused the applicant may appeal that decision to the Circuit Court and the court will decide whether the authority was right to do so.
There is a very strict time limit on the period for the authority to make its decision on an application for a certificate of four weeks from application or from receipt of further information, if requested. If the authority does not make its decision in that time, a certificate is granted in default, which is similar to the planning permission procedure.
The section also introduces major penalties for obtaining certificates fraudulently or for providing false or misleading information or whatever. In addition to the normal penalties set out in the section, the court can revoke the certificate and make the person pay to the planning authority the equivalent of any gain they made by their crime.
There are a number of consequential amendments. Amendment No. 36 to section 7 provides that particulars of the certificate must be put on the register – that is important for subsequent conveyancing of the land. Amendment No. 194 to section 95 provides that the application of that section will be subject to the provisions of section 96. I am satisfied that these amendments will achieve our objective of ensuring that the provisions of Part V cannot easily be avoided and, therefore, will operate fairly as between all developers of housing. The twin aims are to counteract any attempts at avoidance of Part V and to ensure a level playing field for developers.
I do not intend to oppose this amendment. However, I wish to make it clear to the Minister that in not opposing the amendment and in not taking up the issues in the other two amendments linked with it, I am not agreeing with the provisions in the Bill that have to do with housing generally. I have tabled a number of amendments to those parts of the Bill. That I am not opposing this amendment is not to be taken as an indication that I will not oppose the later parts. If the Minister is to go ahead with the very ill-advised scheme he intends to bring in for housing in Part V, he will need something like this. If, on the other hand, he were to take wiser counsel and substantially change that scheme, the anti-avoidance provisions would have to be of a different nature.
In general I support the provisions in Part V. However, my criticism of Part V, given the size and scale of the housing crisis, is that I do not think the 20% provision for social and affordable housing will be sufficient to meet the need. The Minister acknowledged on Committee Stage that the affordable schemes would apply typically to a couple on a combined income of about £40,000. Given that it is people on that level of income who will have to qualify for affordable housing, clearly 20% land provision will not be sufficient. My second criticism is that the 20% social and affordable housing provision is linked to the adoption of housing strategies by local authorities which will take some time to come to fruition. It will be at least three years before any houses are provided under these measures. Having said that, I support the inclusion of the provisions in the Bill.
The purpose of this amendment and amendment No. 204 in particular – I ask the Minister to explain it more fully as this is the first time we have seen it, given that it was not before us on Committee Stage – is, as I understand it, to prevent a situation arising where a landowner or a couple of landowners who divide a plot of land will be exempt if the site is 0.2 hectares – a half acre of thereabouts – or if it is for the provision of four or fewer houses. Am I correct in stating that the original provision related to two or fewer houses? Is the number of houses to which the social provision will not apply being increased? Am I right in saying that this amendment will prevent the owner or owners of a site dividing up applications, in other words, if a person owned a site of two hectares and instead of making a single planning application for the two hectares divvied it up in ten different applications, all at 0.2 of a hectare, he would avoid the social housing provision?
If that is the purpose of the amendment I would support it because obviously we cannot have a situation where there is circumvention of what is intended. Given that I thought the provision applied to two or fewer houses rather than four and since this is a new amendment which we did not have an opportunity to examine in detail on Committee Stage, perhaps the Minister will say if there are any further changes of substance in relation to the social housing provisions of the Bill contained in this amendment, other than the avoidance aspect, which had not been before us on Committee Stage.
I acknowledge what Deputy Dukes has said. He has been consistent in his opposition to Part V. The fact that he is not opposing this amendment does not mean he has changed his mind. I confirm to Deputy Gilmore that there is nothing of substance in this amendment to change the substance of the provisions but the amendments are substantial to prevent avoidance. The Deputy asked about the number of houses. Originally it was five rather than four – we reduced the number so that if a person wants to build five houses, one of those or its equivalent will come under the social and affordable housing scheme. That is simply a matter of mathematics. I confirm that this does not change the substance of Part V or reduce its power in any way. It ensures there is no loophole to enable a person to avoid the provisions of Part V, which we have gone through so painstakingly.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 30, to delete lines 21 and 22 and substitute the following:
(u) particulars of any public right of way created by order under section 204,
(v) particulars of any information relating to the operation of a quarry provided in accordance with section 251, and".
This amendment is consequential on the amendment I introduced on Committee Stage concerning quarries. Section 251(1) provides that details given to the planning authority concerning the operation of the quarry must be included in the register. This amendment reflects that requirement in section 7, which I was asked to do on Committee Stage.
While I am not opposing the amendment, I have put down an amendment on the type of information we require about quarries. My agreement to this amendment is not prejudicial to my position on the subsequent amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 30, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
"(v) a record in summary form of all previous applications relating to this land since 1 October 1964,".
On Committee Stage, I sought to require that the planning register would include a record, in summary form, of all previous applications relating to a site. This amendment proposes that the planning record of a site would be on the planning register and easily accessible. One of the difficulties many people have with the planning register is that it is difficult to trace the planning history of a site. One hears about planning permission being granted for a site, a subsequent planning application being granted for another part, another application being refused, and then a Bord Pleanála hearing about another matter. The tracing of the planning history of sites can be difficult. This amendment proposes that the planning history of a site is recorded on the register. The Minister did not agree with this on Committee Stage. I hope he may have reflected further on this matter which must be decided.
On Committee Stage I said the planning register is already a permanent record, in summary form, of the details of all planning applications made since 1964. The Deputy's amendment restates what the register is and, therefore, is not necessary. What the Deputy is trying to achieve is already in the Bill. This amendment may have arisen because the records of some local authorities are not as good as they should be or they have misplaced some registers but there is a legal obligation that the details to which the Deputy referred should be on the plan ning register. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 30, line 34, to delete "offices" and substitute "head office and each district office".
I put down this amendment on Committee Stage in an attempt to ensure all these matters would be more accessible to the public. I had put forward a formulation that the relevant records should be accessible to the public, not only at the headquarters of the planning authority but at its district offices. The Minister had a difficulty with this because in some cases local authorities have district offices for engineering and technical staff which are not necessarily open to the public, which I appreciate. However, many local authorities now have district or regional offices which are accessible to the public and are there to give the public a greater choice of points of contact with the planning or local authority to use various services.
The Minister indicated on Committee Stage that he would reflect on a formulation of this because my impression was that he agreed people should be able to gain access to records at local authorities' satellite offices or offices which the Minister has been heard to describe, at the level of ambition as least, as one-stop shops. The Minister has been commended on his work in encouraging local authorities to have more locations where the public can gain access to their services. If that is the case, I do not see why the Minister cannot adopt a measure of this kind. Perhaps the wording in my amendment is not exactly what is required.
Deputy Gilmore supported my amendment on Committee Stage. I wish to bring about a situation where, for example, in the Minister's constituency, a resident of Summerhill would not have to go to Navan to gain access to records if Meath County Council had an office accessible to the public in Summerhill or a resident of Athy in my county would not have to go to Naas to gain access to records if the county council had an office in Athy. In the local authority areas where we still have – until the Minister perpetrates his violence on the system in the Local Government Bill – the offices of urban councils or town commissioners, there should be no difficulty, in this information technology age, in providing access to county council records, etc. This could be done through a unit installed at the offices of the local urban district council, town commissioner, or the local town council, as it will be if the Minister has his wicked way in abolishing the boroughs.
As the Minister has pointed out, a number of local authorities have offices, other than their headquarters, which are accessible to the public and where they can conduct their normal business. My amendment proposes that they would have access to the planning register. The Minister is keen to increase the use of information technology to improve access for the public. I may be wrong but I do not see any amendments in the Minister's name in this series of amendments which go any way towards meeting this concern.
I do not disagree with the thrust of Deputy Dukes's argument about trying to ensure the maximum amount of information is available as conveniently as possible to the public. However, this amendment proposes that the availability of the register at all local authorities offices, district and otherwise, should be a statutory requirement. That is not very practical for a number of reasons, not least of which is that someone would have to physically update the register on a daily basis and transcribe it, by electronic means or otherwise, to the area offices.
The amendments we made earlier in relation to the use of electronic mail and so on will largely meet the Deputy's general point, with which I do not disagree, about making the information available to as many people as possible. It will mean, in the context of the changes we are making to the planning system, including the electronic formats, that the register will be available to everyone with a computer with Internet access. That will make almost obsolete the need to have copies of the register in each district office.
As the Deputy said, with the one-stop-shops, the local area offices and the way in which councils are reorganising their businesses and using electronic means of communication, what he is requiring in this amendment will happen automatically. If it does not, subsection (5)(b) allows a Minister to make regulations to prescribe additional requirements in relation to the availability for inspection by members of the public of the register. Should it be necessary, that can be done by means of regulation or direction, rather than putting a statutory provision in the Bill that could be used at some stage by someone claiming their constitutional or legal rights were interfered with by the local authority because the register was not up to date or whatever.
I am wary of making it a statutory obligation. However, the spirit of Deputy Dukes' amendment is well recognised in the Bill and under subsection (5)(b) I can expressly prescribe additional requirements if that is necessary. We will keep the situation under review.
I fully appreciate there is a provision under which the Minister can make extra requirements. However, I am not happy. Not everybody who wants to consult the planning register has a laptop computer and access to the Internet. Subsection (7) deals with the status of copies of the planning register as legal documents without proof of signature and so on.
The situation will be that the local authority will keep a central planning register. Local authorities are going on-line and are getting information technology. Once that is done, a central planning register will be accessible by electronic means. Local authorities are also increasingly providing outreach offices, so that members of the public who need to contact the local authority for various services do not have to go to its headquarters, which might not suit elderly people, people will limited mobility, people with family commitments who cannot afford the three quarters of an hour it would take to travel to the county seat and so on. Those offices should be equipped to communicate electronically with the head office of the local authority and have access to everything that is accessible in the head office. It is reasonable, when we are requiring this register to be available for inspection at the local authority's office, to also require it to be available for inspection at offices other than the head office. That seems very simple to me to do.
The Minister has inserted a statutory requirement in the Bill that the register should be accessible at the offices of the local authority. I cannot see how it will create any further problems or complications to extend that statutory authority to cover the outreach offices. I cannot see any problem with the updating. People might grumble if the planning register is not updated immediately. However, I think most citizens who go to consult the register at a local authority office will understand if they are told the matter was sorted out only yesterday and there has not yet been time to enter it in the register. We do not all expect everything to be done immediately, although the Minister is smiling at that.
Many people expect everything to be done immediately.
Some people tend to be less than reasonable about these matters. However, by and large, we do not demand instant pluperfection from local authorities. I cannot see why the Minister has any problem with the expression of a statutory requirement. To make the point, I would like the question to be put.
The current wording in the Bill says the register shall be kept at the offices of the planning authority. That does not necessarily have to be the head office but can be any of the offices of the local authority. As functions are devolved, the people in Summerhill will be able to go to Trim to see the planning register for their area. The current wording of the Bill is probably much better than the wording suggested by the Deputy, which would mean it would have to be at the head office and each appropriate district office. There is nothing in the current wording that prevents it being kept at the head office and district offices.
There is nothing that requires it to be accessible at the district office.
No, but it refers to the offices of the planning authority.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 are consequential on amendment No. 40 and all may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 31, line 5, to delete "planning" and substitute "local".
These amendments extend the powers available to planning authorities to require a person to furnish information regarding his or her interest in land, to cover local authorities generally. This will relate to any local authority function, not just planning functions. Changing the wording here means that a similar provision need not be inserted in the Local Government Bill.
If this amendment is made, should the side title of the section also be modified? Or is that just my concern with the kind of pluperfection that the Minister does not like?
I understand that can be done by the Bills office.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 31, line 6, after "this Act" to insert "or any other enactment".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 31, line 17, to delete "planning" and substitute "local".
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 96 are related to amendment No. 43 and all may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 32, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
"(a) the need to integrate the planning and development of the area with the social, community and cultural requirements of the population of the area and with the provision of services to that population;".
On Second and Committee Stages I made the case that our approach to planning is a physical one and that there is a need to integrate the con siderations of people into the process. Social, community and cultural considerations should be taken into account in the planning process.
One frequently hears at meetings of local authorities and at hearings by An Bord Pleanála that certain considerations cannot be taken into account because they are not planning issues. In other words, issues that affect the people in an area are often excluded from planning considerations because they do not relate to the physicality of the area. One can look at matters such as traffic, car parking, water, sewerage, heights, sightlines, widths and so forth. All types of geometric and geographical considerations can be taken into account but the considerations of people are not always included when planning decisions are being made.
This section relates to what will be included in the development plan. The Minister said on Committee Stage that he would consider my amendment and return with his own amendment on Report Stage. He has done that and I thank him for it. However, there is a distinction between what is proposed in the Minister's amendment and what I am trying to achieve in mine. The Minister's amendment states: "in the context of proper planning and sustainable development of an area, the development of that area socially, economically and culturally". There is a slight difference between that and my objective which is "to integrate the planning and development of the area with the social, community and cultural requirements of the population of the area".
Let us take the Spencer Dock development as an example. One can argue that the Spencer Dock development is, in the context of the Minister's amendment, contributing to the development of the area socially and economically. I do not know if it is contributing culturally. However, whether it meets the requirements of the people living in that area is a different matter.
A development might be proposed for a particular area. It might contribute to the development of that area, as we understand development, and to the economic development of the area. What constitutes social development is a matter of opinion. Some people might say a development will raise the tone of an area and is, therefore, social development. However, that might not meet the requirements of the people living in the area.
One of our failures in discussing environmental issues, particularly planning, is that we have forgotten about people. We are great for looking at physical things and the impact of development on the physical environment, but we are not as good, and the planning laws do not permit it, at examining development in the social and community context. Look at what is happening in the housing sector at present. Communities are being ripped asunder. In my constituency there is a long history of communities with extensive networks and extended families within the locality, where three generations might live in close proximity. That tradition is being ripped asunder because the new generation cannot afford to buy houses close to their communities.
A proposed new housing development could be said to be contributing to an area and might pass muster as far as its physical content is concerned. However, whether it contributes to the social integration and community of the area is an entirely different matter. The Minister's amendment goes some way towards meeting my concerns in this regard. It provides that a development plan will have to include some reference to the social, economic and cultural development of an area. However, I am seeking something a little different, that the physical development that occurs in an area be integrated with the social, community and cultural requirements of that area.
I support the amendment. I vividly remember in 1992 asking the then assistant city manager of Dublin Corporation, Mr. Derek Brady, to report back to the committee on how many families had moved into the developments along the quays. The developments enhanced the area physically but one must ask what they did for that part of the city culturally or in terms of enhancing the community. They have made little contribution in that regard.
The assistant city manager did not return with a report because no families had moved into the developments. One can see the same thing happening in the new developments throughout the city, such as in Ringsend and Charlotte Quay. It is better to have something rather than nothing there but the populations in these areas are transient and separate from the indigenous community. In some cases, there is a Fort Knox type arrangement where large gates are installed in the development. This leads to a certain amount of resentment because local people cannot afford to move into them. They are seen as exclusive. If families and children do not move into a development, there will be no community or integration.
My colleague, Councillor Ciarán Cuffe, was on the radio programme "Morning Ireland" this morning talking about this phenomenon and contrasting our attitude to planning with attitudes in other parts of continental Europe. In those countries there is provision for families. There is no problem moving families into apartments because it is the norm. In Dublin, however, the idea, which is profit driven, is to put as many apartments as possible into an area and not to provide ancillary facilities. There is, therefore, no provision of crèches, playgrounds or open space. Instead there is high rise development with apartments packed into them. Deputy Gilmore referred to Spencer Dock. The same mistakes will be repeated there. When will we learn? When will we draft planning legislation to address this problem?
Planning must be about bigger things, it must have vision. Clearly, however, this vision is not encapsulated in this legislation. That is disap pointing and I ask the Minister to look at it again. Yesterday, we discussed sustainable development. The integration of people into planning must be part of sustainable development. If there is no continuity or community, there is no sustainability. There will only be separation. People will move into an area and quickly move out again. The area is simply seen as an investment from which they will move on. As a result they do not care about the area. I am aware of this from personal experience. In the Ringsend area and inner city, these people do not attend residents' associations meetings. They are not interested in the area in which they live. That leads to even more resentment. This issue must be addressed.
Although housing has become far more expensive, people still want to live in a house and have a garden, and I can understand that. However, the reason that attitude persists is that living in apartments is most unattractive for families. Look at the developments by Zoe Developments. The angle of the stairs in those buildings is extremely steep. No responsible parent will move their children into that type of development. In addition, the lack of facilities will just encourage them to say: "No, I need to get out of here and get a house for my children."
I support the amendment. It is an issue we must examine carefully. There must be a responsible attitude to planning. It is not just about the physical nature of the development or about profit. We cannot pander to developers who are simply interested in pushing up their profits.
I take a slightly more positive view of the Minister's amendment than do Deputies Gilmore or Gormley. The Bill would be improved enormously if the Minister's amendment and either Deputy Gilmore's amendment or my amendment were adopted. If anything, my amendments Nos. 48 and 96 are slightly narrower in scope than Deputy Gilmore's amendment, therefore, I would not have a huge preference for either amendment. However, something of that nature needs to be included. The reason I am positive about the Minister's amendment is that the reference to the development of that area socially, economically and culturally is an important starting point for a couple of very specific reasons to do with situations in parts of Dublin and Cork in particular.
There has been reference to Spencer Dock. When the Town Development Bill was debated, I referred to another proposed development on the south side of the river at Ringsend. This is a monstrosity of a development which will have a 36 storey round, glass fronted, tower at one end which, in the absolutely inane blurb which accompanies these matters, is now being presented as a gateway into Dublin. Who needs a gateway into a perfectly attractive port? No one will come up the coast, see this monstrosity and say, "Ah, there is the gateway to Dublin, turn to port and go in there." The stuff these people produce as a justification for their proposals is nonsensical. Spencer Dock and the other proposed development have one thing in common which gets away from the concerns of Deputy Gilmore and me, that is, there is no population in the area at the moment. If we talk about the need to integrate the planning and development of the area with the social, community and cultural requirements of the population of the area, it could be argued there is no population, therefore the requirement does not have to be complied with. Similarly, in relation to my amendment which proposes the promotion of the economic and social integration of disadvantaged groups, it could be argued there is no population in that area of Ringsend, it is currently a wasteland, therefore the requirement is not relevant. The Minister's amendment captures all of this. We must remember we are talking about making a development plan which will cover the whole of the city of Dublin.
I recommend that the Minister, in making his amendment which I accept, accepts one or other of the other amendments to allay our specific concerns in areas such as the Spencer Dock area, where there is already an indigenous population who have been living in the area for generations. That combination would help to avoid some of the worst planning features put forward for these areas. The Spencer Dock development will have a residential component. Deputy Gormley is correct in saying that a big proportion of those who will live in the area will be transients. This means people are going there because it is their first independent residence and they know they will go somewhere else when they settle down. This happens because of the way in which accommodation is built in these areas. I disagree with Deputy Gormley's view about families living in apartments. Families the world over, not just in cities but in quite small towns in many parts of Europe, live happily in well designed apartment blocks surrounded by amenities.
I agree. That is what I am saying.
There is no reason this cannot be replicated in Dublin, Spencer Dock and Ringsend on the south side of the river.
However, this has not yet been done.
It has not yet been done because we do not create the kinds of conditions, draw up the kinds of plans or include the kinds of requirements that would oblige people to build these developments. Deputy Gormley is correct because, for example, in the Customs House Dock and all that area apartments are built to suit the requirements of young upwardly mobile people. These are often one bedroom apartments – not studios anymore because they do not seem to be very profitable – with reasonable living accommodation, which are suitable for single people or couples. These apartments are largely occupied by lone parents, sometimes with one, two or three children, who are on the local authority housing list. If the local authority does not have a place to house these people, the rent supplement is then paid by the local health board. This results in a constant turnover in the population of the area, with no sense of community. The main objective in life of these people in relation to housing is to get out of the area and find somewhere else to live. We invite this attitude by building that kind of apartment.
I have not seen studies, but the yuppies or young upwardly mobile market at which these areas were aimed will not go near them anymore because they do not like the company among which they might be living. They may or may not be correct but it is not the kind of group among whom they wish to live. Therefore, the original purpose of the development is lost and the current use of the dwellings adds nothing to the quality of community life in these areas. It is a matter of specifying the kind of development which is allowed in the area. This is why we need to include something like Deputy Gilmore's or my amendment, in addition to the Minister's amendment which is the key that opens up this aspect.
I will make one other point about these kinds of development which applies in Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Galway, Limerick and, I hope, one day in Sligo where there will be development. It is absolutely crazy that in major sites such as Spencer Dock and Ringsend people are encouraged to build offices, conference centres, shopping malls and commercial developments with large numbers of car parking spaces. This will add to the number of people coming from outside the city into these areas in the morning and to the numbers trying to get out of the areas in the evening. In this city there is a movement in in the morning between the centre of the city and the C ring where most of the outward bound lanes are virtually empty most of the time, while they are clogged in the evening and the inner bound lanes are empty. If there was a policy of encouraging more residential development in central areas and pushing commercial development to the periphery, we would get a far better use of our road infrastructure, produce a better market for all types of public transport and produce a good deal more comfort for residents of the city. There is no reason a great many people who are now commuting from 30 or 40 miles away to office developments in the centre of the city should not be able to commute a far lesser distance to office developments on the periphery of the city. This would benefit traffic flows and add to comfort on the periphery and centre of the city.
I urge the Minister in addition to his amendment No. 47, which stands perfectly validly alone, to consider adding either Deputy Gilmore's amendment No. 43 or my amendment No. 48 to ensure we get the proper steer for the people drawing up the development plans.
I have listened carefully to what Deputies have said and agree with much of it. However, I take issue with Deputy Gormley who talked about pandering to developers, etc.
That is just ceremonial green speak.
One would not find too many developers who would accuse me of that.
I do not disagree with the general points made by the Deputies arising from the various amendments. That is why I brought forward amendment No. 47. On Committee Stage there was criticism that the development plan did not provide for social, economic and cultural integration in the proper planning of the local authority area. That is a concern and it is worth noting that while there is validity in the points about mistakes made in the past, some of which have been rectified, it is important to stress that there are many initiatives at local authority level aimed specifically at addressing these issues.
When drafted originally it was felt that we should not overload the Bill, which concerns physical planning and sustainable development in general, with other issues. However, I accept the argument put forward and we have had a good discussion on it. It is necessary not to lose the focus of the Bill, but, as Deputy Gilmore said, the social, cultural and economic needs of a local community should be central to the development plan and the planning process.
Various points were made about apartments and urban renewal. It is probably fair to say that mistakes were made. It is also fair to acknowledge that the previous Government examined the type of developments referred to by Deputy Dukes and the urban renewal scheme under the guidance of Deputy McManus and produced a report making various suggestions in relation to future urban renewal schemes on the basis of integrated area plans. The quality of the urban renewal schemes and integrated area plans currently being produced, which take into account fully the issues under discussion, is very welcome.
People are aware of the legal position in which I find myself in relation to Spencer Dock, but I can talk about the docklands in general. Those who read carefully the master plan for the docklands, as I am sure Deputies have, will know it is much more than just a commercial development. The development has been planned very carefully and it is important that the master plan is put in place and that we have the social integration about which we speak.
Developments have taken place in local government which encourage local authorities to take a much more active role in the social, economic and cultural development of their areas. I refer specifically to the county and city development boards which have been given the task of drawing up a social, cultural and economic plan or vision for their areas over the next two years. Work has already started in this regard and I am sure Deputies are aware of the activities in this regard in their constituencies. The Local Government Bill contains specific recognition of the social, cultural and economic plans which the boards will put forward. Local authorities will be obliged to ensure the provisions of the plans are recognised in their development plans. Therefore, there are many positive changes taking place along the lines mentioned by Deputies.
In an effort to be as all-embracing as possible, I take the point made by some Deputies that my amendment refers to the "context of proper planning and sustainable development of an area, the development of that area socially, economically and culturally" and that there is no reference to the population of the area. Deputy Gilmore said the word "integrate" should be included in the amendment, and I propose to withdraw my amendment No. 47 and suggest the following amendment:
In page 32, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:
"(d) the integration of the planning and sustainable development of the area with the social, community and cultural requirements of the area and its population;".
I think this includes all the essential elements referred to by the Deputies – the concept of integration, the linking of planning and sustainable development with the social, community and cultural requirements of the area and the inclusion of a reference to the area and its population.
I thank the Minister for responding to the debate and congratulate him on redrafting the amendment while on his feet. It captures what I have been seeking to achieve in my amendment, namely, the concept of integration. Issues such as where children will go to school and provision for child care must be addressed if an area is to be developed. Some planning authorities would not allow child care facilities to be developed in residential areas because they considered they would not be in keeping with the area. Manifestly they are. In commercial and industrial developments car parking, canteen facilities and even hotels are provided but often child care facilities are not, even though it is known that children will be living in the area. There is a need to integrate recreational and community amenities as part of the physical planning process to meet the social, community and cultural needs of the population of an area. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the amendment to his amendment which meets what we are seeking to achieve.
I endorse what Deputy Gilmore said and thank the Minister for meeting us in the way proposed. It will improve the Bill and make it a more useful tool in seeking the desired integration of development.
This certainly marks an advance. Mistakes were made in the past and continue to be made. Initially Deputy Dukes misunderstood what I said. What I am saying is that we can have apartment living. Berlin, Barcelona, Rome and Stockholm are examples of where apartment living has been integrated with community and family life but to date it has not been achieved in this city – I do not know of any examples – and that is regrettable.
I hope the initiatives taken in the Bill will prod the planning departments of local authorities and that they will begin to see that they should have a more urbanised vision of what planning is about. All too often the city is seen as a place where one works and one gets out of as quickly as possible. We are moving to a stage where the city is seen as a place where one works, young people buy their first flat and then get out, but we will have to move a stage further where families will live in the city. A person complained recently on the Marian Finucane show that a few years ago we heard about various initiatives under which individuals would live over shops, for example, but nothing was forthcoming, that facilities were not being provided for children in the city and that he, like others, had to get out. This is the wrong direction to take. High density is perhaps the key to sustainability whereby people live in apartments close to good public transport links and facilities for their children. That is the way of the future but to date it has not happened.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Carlow-Kilkenny): We now proceed to amendment No. 44. Amendment No. 50 is related. Is it agreed that they be discussed together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 32, to delete lines 33 to 36 and substitute the following:
"(b) the provision or facilitation of the provision of infrastructure including transport, energy and communication facilities, water supplies, waste recovery and disposal facilities (regard having been had to the waste management plan for the area made in accordance with the Waste Management Act, 1996), waste water services, and ancillary facilities;".
On Committee Stage there was a discussion about the need for the development plan to better reflect the requirements of waste management. Section 10(2)(b) provides that the plan must provide for waste services. The amendment strengthens this provision in relation to waste management and ties the development plan provisions into the waste management planning system. It meets the point raised by Deputy Dukes on Committee Stage.
I thank the Minister for bringing forward the amendment which meets the point raised on Committee Stage.
The amendment refers to a waste management plan made in accordance with the Waste Management Act, 1996, under which local authorities can come together to devise a regional plan. This is a reserved function. I seek clarification on what the position would be if one of the parties to a regional plan decided to amend the waste management plan in its functional area. Let me give a concrete example. There are four local authorities in Dublin. If Dublin Corporation decided, for example, to delete from its waste management plan all references to incineration-thermal treatment-recovery, where would the regional plan lie? While it is new ground, what would happen in that instance? What would the consequences be for the development plan and how would it relate to the amendment?
Waste management plans are a matter for local authorities. It was stated in the policy document, Changing our Ways, that local authorities should deal with waste on a regional rather than an individual basis. On taking office I quickly found that individual local authorities would not be in a position to provide an integrated waste management system on their own because of the volumes involved. Each local authority must, however, have its own waste management plan. If a local authority which is a party to a regional plan decides to drop out, it will still have a responsibility to have a waste management plan for its functional area. This is reinforced by the provisions of the Bill. Nobody will be able to opt out of the obligations imposed under the 1996 Act. The decision which has to be made is whether waste will be dealt with on a regional rather than an individual basis. If a local authority decides to go it alone, it will have to deal with all the waste produced within its functional area.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 32, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(c) the provision by the planning authority of social housing to accommodate, as far as possible, all in need, including, in particular, those on low income and the elderly;".
We addressed on Committee Stage this amendment to section 10 which deals with the content of development plans. I wish to address some of the points I raised then and others that I wish to develop now. We would all recognise that the two key and critical areas of responsibility – roads and housing – have been the traditional preserve of local authorities and any public analysis or awareness of the roles of local government will focus on those.
The development plan, both for municipal and county authorities, is a critical document. It lays out the stall of the respective authority in the five year period then before it. The most recent instance in my own areas of experience, cover the period 1999-2004. The failure to refer to social housing in section 10, which addresses the content of the development plan, is alarming. The Minister has stated, and I expect he will state again today, that he addresses this area elsewhere. I do not dispute that. However, I ask him to accept that the omission of social housing from section 10 is open to interpretation. It will feed into a sector of opinion that, at best, will regard it as a very worrying signal. In many cases it will be interpreted as an indicator of the current reality and the future intent of Governments, not necessarily this one alone, regarding the provision of housing by local authorities.
I know the facts will fly in the face of that fear. When the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dan Wallace, responded yesterday to the Private Members' motion on housing and social housing, which I support, he said investment in local authority and social housing programmes is more than £440 million in the current year. That is a sizeable commitment. Other Deputies and I argue it is not enough, but it is a significant advance on previous figures and commitments to address the housing crisis. It is the intention to provide some 22,000 additional local authority houses over the coming four years. On the basis of the 1999 annual assessment, the need is of the order of 50,000.
As I did on Committee Stage, I welcome the Government's introduction of the multi-annual allocation to local authorities. That is a very important development and it shows a realisation of the seriousness of the problem and that it must be addressed in new and imaginative ways. Given what I have said, and speaking without any edged address to the Minister, it is imperative to ensure that the development plan reflects the importance of the provision of local authority and social housing within the roles and responsibility of local government.
In examining any example of development plans the centrality of housing in key and critical areas is evident. I have before me one such plan pertaining to a local authority in my constituency and it appears in three sections, in both the survey and analysis, the implementation and in relation to development control. Housing is a key area in any development plan and any diminution of that reality would be a very retrograde step.
A consideration of the other areas prescribed by the Minister in section 10 will show that they reflect a broad and realistic view of the areas of responsibility and address that must be included in a development plan. We must also ensure, and enshrine, the commitment of local government as the primary means of addressing the housing needs of the least well off in our society, of those who are socially deprived, economically challenged and, very importantly, of our growing elderly population. The omission of this commitment from section 10 is very worrying and will cause untold disquiet, which will be unnecessary because the Minister will point out that he has made provision and reference to this key area elsewhere in his proposals. I appeal for a common understanding and acceptance of the importance of accepting my amendment, which proposes the insertion of a new paragraph (c) in section 10(2). I will reserve further comment until I hear the Minister's reply.
I support the amendment. It is important that a commitment to social housing be enshrined in this section. We face the worst housing crisis ever. It affects not only those on low incomes and the elderly, but also those on average incomes. We perhaps need to extend the remit of social housing even further. For example, in traditional working class areas in this city, such as Ringsend, where I live, houses that were available for £50,000 eight years ago are now selling for £200,000, which is way outside the reach of people who live locally. It is an impossible situation.
Housing lists are getting longer. They comprise people on low incomes and the elderly. Increasing numbers of people are being evicted because landlords want to refurbish their apartments and make a profit. There are loopholes in the housing legislation which allow even for the eviction of sitting tenants. These are going on to the housing list, creating an impossible situation.
The Bill provides for social housing. However, if people are going to move into apartments as part of that programme and if we are going to allocate 20% to social housing – that was part of the original docklands plan – amenities must be put in place. Housing and social housing are not merely concerned with physical structures. Much more is involved. The amendment sends out the right signal by making it clear that the problem must be addressed comprehensively.
The Minister said he was getting grief from developers because he is doing a great deal of work in this area. That is fair enough. I hope he can withstand the pressure. In each area – in Deputy Ó Caoláin's, Deputy Gilmore's, Deputy Dukes's and in mine – this is now a problem of crisis proportions. We cannot be complacent about it. That is why I support the amendment.
I do not need to say I have great sympathy with the case made by Deputy Ó Caoláin and Deputy Gormley. We have battered at it in this House for the past three years, as has Deputy Gilmore, without getting a great deal of satisfaction from the Government and without getting any satisfaction at all from the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy. We would very much like to get to Part V, which deals with housing, in order to discuss it. It covers the issue raised here, as well as others. Since it is proposed in the Bill that a housing strategy should be part of the development plan, it would be much more effective and probably more to the point to discuss it in that context than separately in this context. It is with an anxiety to get to the housing part of the Bill in order that we can deal properly with the issue that I make that remark and not for any other reason.
I hope we get the opportunity of debating the housing part of the Bill on Report Stage because there are a number of things with which we must deal in that part. I support Deputy Ó Caoláin's amendment. He proposes that there would be a requirement to include in a development plan a section which deals with "the provision by the planning authority of social housing to accommodate, as far as possible, all in need, including, in particular, those on low income and the elderly". A development plan should include that provision. A development plan should state clearly what the local authority intends to do to accommodate all of those in need.
However, putting it in the development plan and making it happen are two different things and, therefore, while I do not wish to anticipate the Private Members' debate, the proposals the Labour Party has made to deal with the housing crisis currently before the House in Private Members' time are highly relevant to this particular proposal. I agree that it should be inserted in the development plan, but we need to do a great deal more than put it in the development plan. We need to make sure that the land is available to enable local authorities to provide social housing.
And even make sure the land is zoned.
Indeed, land being zoned and land being available are two different things; in my local authority, for example, there is a critical shortage of land.
In addition, we need to make sure that the resources are provided to enable local authorities to provide the housing needed and that local authorities are equipped with the professional and managerial staff capable of advancing house building programmes. I agree that we should put it in the development plan but it will require subsequently a degree of activity in order for it to happen in practice.
We had this debate on Committee Stage and I dealt with this amendment in great detail at that time. I want to acknowledge the fact that Deputy Ó Caoláin recognised the efforts being made by the Government to try to meet the needs of the people specifically mentioned in his amendment. Nevertheless, as I said to Deputy Ó Caoláin previously, the needs of people who cannot provide housing for them selves, etc., are dealt with fully in section 93 and subsequent sections. I agree with the Deputy that it is important that it should be clear from the Bill that it is important, but inserting it here does not underline one whit more the importance attached to it in the Bill.
Section 10, with which we are dealing, states:
(1) A development plan shall set out an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area of the development plan and shall consist of a written statement and a plan . . .
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a development plan shall include objectives for–
The first objective is the zoning of land for a variety of uses, including residential purposes. That is the general rule or regulation regarding a development plan. Residential needs are mentioned at the outset. In a sense residential uses and housing are not omitted.
The Bill refers here to general objectives, etc. In keeping with its record in trying to tackle the problems which have arisen in the housing market over the past three years, the Government devoted a complete part of the Bill to the provision of social and affordable housing for the people for whom the Deputy expressed concern forcefully here and previously.
Section 93(1)(a) and (1)(b)(i) and (ii) outlines clearly the idea of the housing strategy, the fact that it must take into account the housing needs of everybody. It also acknowledges that the housing strategy must take into account the most recent housing assessment. Again all the people the Deputy mentioned will be included specifically in that housing needs assessment. Under section 93(3)(b), it must take into account the different levels of income of people looking for housing in the area. It mentions specifically in section 93(3)(c) the necessity to have a mixture of development and the elderly as part of that development and again mentions the aim of counteracting rather than avoiding social segregation in the housing strategy.
With respect to the Deputy, inserting an amendment in section 10 will not make it any clearer. If people do not have the message at this stage that housing for the people about whom the Deputy has spoken is such a high priority that we will ask local authorities to put housing strategies in place and they will become part of the development plan for that area, and that it must be done within a particular timescale, then I do not think his amendment will convince them or make it any clearer for them.
Deputy Gilmore referred to the Labour Party's Private Members' motion. At the tail end of Committee Stage I stated, in reference to the critical shortage of land for housing in Deputy Gilmore's local authority area and without wishing to become involved in the deliberative processes of a local authority, that there is land available in that area. Although I may be wrong, it is my understanding that one or two of his party colleagues are preventing discussion on an integrated area plan regarding the provision of housing in that particular area. Therefore if I could see a little more action supporting some of the developments to provide housing and integrated area plans in various places, I would be much more convinced about the bona fides of the Labour Party at a local level – I am not questioning the Deputy's bona fides.
The efforts are being made by management of local authorities around the greater Dublin area and, indeed, throughout the country to meet these needs. The Government indicated that the finance is available. We indicated that the necessary staff is available to them, particularly in the planning and development area, although I recognise that many of the local authorities are working below staff quota levels in the area but that is not because the Department or the Government prevented them from recruiting people – it is one of the constraints of the market at present. We are giving every assistance possible to local authorities to provide the necessary housing. We are doing that, whether that is assistance for local authority housing or the voluntary sector or getting the provisions of this Bill through the House, so that we can initiate the land strategies and obtain land at a reasonable cost to provide houses for the people to whom we refer. It is a priority for the Government. I share the concern of Deputies that these measures be passed as quickly as possible so that the problems faced by many young people are dealt with fully.
It is a pity the Minister was not present in the House when I moved the Private Members' motion on behalf of the Labour Party last night. It is wearing a bit thin three years into office for the Minister to try to shift the blame for the housing crisis from himself and the Government to anyone else he can think of. He chooses a different target every week – it is the builders one week and local authorities the next. He has had a go at banks and, this week, he is having a go at the Labour Party. When one is three years in office, one stops blaming other people for one's failure to deal with a problem.
The Government now presides over the worst housing crisis in the history of the State. House prices in Dublin have doubled under the Government. Rents in the private rented sector have doubled and the number of people on local authority housing waiting lists has doubled. It is high time the Government stopped blaming others for that, took responsibility for it, apologised to the House for the fact that the policies it has adopted until now have manifestly failed and dealt with the problem. If the Minister addressed the problem rather than taking swipes at everyone else, people would not be waiting years for housing and would not be in a position where they cannot afford to buy or rent.
In the points made by the Minister on section 10(2)(a) which refers to "the zoning of land for the use solely or primarily of particular areas for particular purposes (whether residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, as open space" or otherwise, he suggested that the reference to residential goes some way to meet the concerns I expressed. The zoning of land for residential purposes as stated in the section does not meet the requirement of my amendment. Not only that, it does not even address it. That must be patently obvious to all here, including the Minister. My amendment seeks to ensure that a housing authority provides for social housing to accommodate as far as possible all those in need with special emphasis on those on low incomes and the elderly. There is no reference to that critical area of responsibility of local government in this section dealing with development plans.
Like other Members, I look forward to engaging with the substantive area of the Bill which addresses housing. However, there will clearly be no meeting of minds between the Minister and me and, I suspect, other Deputies, despite the conciliatory approach I adopted in my opening remarks in support of the amendment. I find it beyond understanding that we cannot include a section in the prescriptive section of the Bill dealing with the content of development plans which accommodates the reference to local authority and social housing.
There is, as I indicated earlier, the potential for misinterpretation. I make an interpretation because I cannot fathom nor understand the resistance and that, therefore, poses questions for me which I have not been able to answer so far. As regards Deputy Gilmore's motion on which I spoke yesterday evening, I reiterate my support for several elements of that motion because it proposes to address critical areas which will impact positively in tackling the crisis we face in this jurisdiction where 50,000 household units seek local authority housing. That fact cannot be disputed and that figure has probably grown since the 1999 assessment of needs.
I will not rehearse the arguments again because I have already gone through them in some detail on Committee Stage and again here. There is a stoic resistance but I am of the view that the amendment is valid and sound and is required in the Bill. Therefore, I give notice to the Chair and Members that I intend to press my amendment.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe. |
Higgins, Michael.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Níl
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam. |
Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus. Briscoe, Ben. |
Níl–continued
|
Browne, John (Wexford).Callely, Ivor.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie. |
McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Reynolds, Albert.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Gormley and Ó Caoláin; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 32, line 38, after "archaeological" to insert ", architectural".
We discussed this on Committee Stage. We seek to include at paragraph (c) in relation to the conservation and protection of the environment, including the archaeological and natural heritage, the word “architectural”. There is reference in the section dealing with the content of development plans to the preservation of the character of architectural conservation areas. There may be architecture which will not reach the required standard to be included in such areas but, in its own right, deserves a degree of protection in the development plan. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment on which we had a long discussion on Committee Stage.
I put my name to this amendment for the reasons mentioned by Deputy Gilmore. I remind the Minister that this concept is accepted in the town development Bill which we debated recently. In the light of that and other amendments the Minister has proposed to this Bill, he should not have any difficulty accepting this amendment.
This amendment seeks to impose a requirement on planning authorities to include objectives for the conservation and protection of the architectural heritage in the development plan. The amendment is not necessary because these obligations are already set out in paragraphs (e) and (f). Paragraph (e) states:
the protection of structures or parts of structures which are of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest.
Paragraph (f) states:
The preservation of the character of architecture in conservation areas.
These paragraphs give specific and comprehensive objectives for protecting structures and areas of special architectural interest and are sufficient to cover the points made by the Deputies. The provisions inserting a new chapter in Part II specifically to deal with this issue strengthens the Bill. On Committee Stage it was suggested that there was an intermediate point between an area that is worth declaring as being of architectural interest and one that is not. It may have been Deputy Gilmore who mentioned a Victorian suburb in Dublin.
I mentioned it.
The Deputy is so well travelled I should have known that. If an area such as that requires special status the local authority should designate it as such. The Bill is not restricted to any particular era. Where an area is designated a higher degree of planning control is required regarding development on the exterior of the buildings. That is as it should be and Deputies would agree with that. What is the effect of having an objective to protect the architectural heri tage in an area that is not designated as such since the higher degree of planning control does not operate automatically? The point raised by the Deputies is sufficiently covered in the Bill and I ask them to withdraw the amendment.
I agree it is covered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 32, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:
"(d) in the context of proper planning and sustainable development of an area, the development of that area socially, economically and culturally;".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 48 not moved.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 33, line 14, after "establishments," to insert "(including, where appropriate, the modification of any such development carried out after the coming into effect of that Directive),".
This concerns areas covered by the major accidents directive. I do not have a difficulty with the Bill as it stands but there is an aspect that should be taken into account. There are installations that come within the scope of that directive that have been in existence for some time. During that time and before the provisions of the directive came into force developments took place around those sites that would not now be permitted or even proposed. The directive and this Bill allow planning authorities to examine the matter and require changes to be made in the installations that give rise to the problem. In fairness, it should be possible for planning authorities to examine some of the development that has taken place since then that comes within the areas that would be affected by Seveso type flights.
It may be that some of those developments could be reasonably terminated or altered to bring the whole area within the scope of the directive.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.31 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.