Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 2009

Vol. 696 No. 4

Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to bring the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 before the House. Planning is an issue that affects all of us in many aspects of our daily lives. As I have said on many occasions, planning is about people. For this reason, I have adopted a very hands-on approach when it comes to improving the planning system.

Since coming into office, I have introduced a suite of guidance on sustainable residential development and on the integration of schools provision with the planning process. New guidance is also in preparation on local area planning and controlling development along national roads.

I also introduced regulations last year to encourage the uptake of cleaner and cheaper energy from renewable sources in the industrial, business and agricultural sectors by providing exemptions facilitating a greater penetration of renewable technologies in these sectors. I have also taken a strong stance with certain local authorities by issuing directions requiring them to amend their development plans where they have included excessive or inappropriate zonings. It is the problem highlighted by this latter issue that has been a strong motivating factor in developing this Bill.

The zoning of land through the development plan or local area plan processes is the basic decision that determines the quality of individual planning decisions on the ground. The majority of planning issues we face as a society today — such as over-zoning, inadequate provision for public transport, flooding, community infrastructure and amenity, and fluctuations in house and land prices — can be addressed and corrected. The lessons of the very recent past and the current flooding catastrophe have shown that we are suffering from inappropriate and chronic overzoning. The evidence is there for all to see and, frankly, it is a damning indictment of our system.

I am determined to put an end to the type of needless suffering and hardship we witnessed in the past week due to flooding. The Bill provides the central lever in this respect by providing for the inclusion in development plans of an objective for the carrying out of flood risk assessment as part of the control and regulation of development in areas at risk of flooding. My aim is to ensure that detailed flood risk assessment is fully integrated into the planning process. The inclusion of this provision in the Act will work in tandem with the guidelines on the planning system and flood risk management published on 30 November.

The key message from both the new provision in the Bill and the guidelines is the critical importance of addressing flood risk at the earliest possible stage in the planning process through the development plan. In this context, the guidelines highlight the need for a review of land which has been already zoned for development without the benefit of a detailed flood risk assessment in accordance with the guidelines, and where flood risk is now shown to be potentially significant.

It is no coincidence that our commuter towns are now suffering the most from the economic downturn. These are the towns where house upon house was built, and field upon field re-zoned, with little thought given to flood risk assessment, or where nothing was provided by way of community facilities or amenities. This is not my idea of sustainable communities. Scatterings of estates, poorly linked by transport, under constant threat of flooding, distant from schools and dependent on transport by car, must become a feature of our past, not our present or future. Sustainable, high quality living communities are what this country needs to assure its progression and competitiveness in the future.

The Bill before us addresses the planning issues I have identified and deserves the support of Deputies. I heartily welcome and acknowledge the constructive and robust contributions Senators have already made in developing this Bill. I would also like to thank my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, for taking the Bill through Committee and Report stages in the Seanad.

The purpose of the 2000 Planning Act, as stated in its long Title, is "to provide, in the interest of the common good, for proper planning and sustainable development". I have the greatest respect for locally elected councillors and people in planning departments across the local government system. They have managed to deal effectively with the large increase in the number and complexity of planning applications in the past few years. I do not want their work contaminated by that small number of people who use the planning system for their own gain.

I have already stated my intention to strengthen further the wider ethical framework for local government. The Green Paper on Local Government examined the operation of the regime at local level and concluded that greater coherence could be brought to its operation. The White Paper, which will be published shortly, will present a set of measures in that regard. My Department is also preparing a Bill to provide for the election of the directly elected mayor of Dublin in 2010. It is intended to use this Bill to introduce statutory protection for whistleblowers in the local government system building on the approach that has been introduced in many areas of the public service.

This planning Bill ranges over a number of different areas in the planning code. There are three parts in the Bill, which contains 40 sections, and I would now like to refer in some detail to the main provisions. As I said earlier, a sound development plan is the key to ensuring good planning at local level. Decisions taken at the development plan stage affect all other planning decisions.

A key element of the zoning reform is the introduction in section 5 of a requirement for an evidence-based core strategy in development plans which will provide relevant information as to how the plan and the housing strategy are consistent with regional planning guidelines and the national spatial strategy. The location, quantum and phasing of proposed development must be shown as well as growth scenarios, details of transport plans, retail development and proposals for development in rural areas. This more strategic approach to zoning will allow development take place at the right time and in the right place and will allow the State to plan for the provision of infrastructure with much greater certainty. This is key to the economic renewal agenda.

Requiring tighter management of land zoning and ensuring that the location and quantum of land zoned for development is in line with regional and local targets for growth over the period of the plan will help local authorities prioritise the provision of their own infrastructure and services to those places most likely to be developed during the plan.

Where the amount of zoned land in an area far exceeds the likely demand, as quantified in the core strategy of the development plan, I encourage planning authorities to consider using the existing down-zoning provisions in the 2000 Act. Alternatively, the development plan needs to make it clear that zoned land will be serviced, and prioritised in local area plans, following a sequential approach, that is, developing within and out from existing urban areas, using public transport corridors as far as possible. Development on "excess" zoned land will be regarded as premature until the need to develop such land is established in the core strategy of a future plan.

Amendments passed on Committee Stage in Seanad Éireann will further obligate planning authorities to vary development plans to provide for a core strategy not later than one year after the making of regional planning guidelines. This section provides that development plans will contain mandatory objectives for the promotion of sustainable settlement and transportation strategies in urban and rural areas, including appropriate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Section 6 provides for the scope of submissions and observations on development plans to be much more strategic in nature. The development plan-making process will be more transparent and will move away from being distracted by proposals for zoning particular land parcels to a more strategic land use planning approach.

As a general approach, this Bill strengthens the status of regional planning guidelines and the role of regional authorities in the preparation or variation of such plans. Development plans will have to be consistent with the relevant regional planning guidelines and regional authorities will be required to make submissions to planning authorities on the key issues which a regional authority believes should be considered in the preparation of a draft development plan. The ongoing review and update of the regional planning guidelines to be finalised in the middle of next year, will be crucial to giving effect to this new legislative requirement.

I have heard the concerns attributed to the Carlow strategic planning committee and indeed noted the press release issued on its behalf following on from its members' recent visit to the Seanad Committee Stage proceedings. I hope they have listened carefully to the responses in the debate concerning the role of regional authorities and regional planning guidelines.

These guidelines are a combination of top-down and bottom-up contents. While regional planning guidelines are required to give effect to national spatial strategy objectives at regional level, they also reflect specific regional priorities. These can include regional economic strategies, to address identified strengths and weaknesses within a region; regional flood risk management, for example where a river catchment crosses county boundaries; and conservation of the built and natural heritage within a region.

These regional priorities are identified by the elected members and planning officials and are fed into the regional planning guidelines drafting process from the earliest stages, namely, the publication of the regional planning issues paper. The draft regional planning guidelines are prepared on foot of this public consultation and feedback from the members of the regional authority who will eventually give their approval to go on to the next round of public consultations. On foot of this the draft guidelines are modified as necessary and subsequently adopted by the members of the regional authority as final regional planning guidelines.

Sections 7 and 8 deal with the making and varying of a development plan, including a requirement that the manager's report addresses separately the issues raised by the Minister or the regional authority and that the report must include appropriate recommendations in relation to how these issues are to be addressed. This recognises the Minister's responsibility in law for the planning system and, in relation to the regional authority, its role in ensuring that regional planning issues are given due consideration in the shaping of the development plan.

The introduction of new land zonings late in the development plan process without consultation does not accord with the principles of fairness or transparency. All land zonings will now have to be the subject of public consultation at plan making stage or in a draft variation of a development plan. This is crucial from the point of view of ensuring public confidence in the zoning process.

Under this Bill, any further changes proposed by members to those amendments to the draft development that had been subject to public consultation — that is, the second consultation period — must now be supported by a two-thirds majority vote of the total number of members as opposed to a simple majority. I believe that this higher approval threshold should apply as such proposed amendments would not be subject to any further public scrutiny. I also believe that decisions on development plans, one of the most fundamental powers available to elected members, must involve the majority of the members. Similar provisions are also introduced under section 11 in relation to the local area planning process.

I recognise that the intent of the two thirds majority voting threshold provisions could be made clearer in this Bill and it has been agreed with Senators that my Department will work with Parliamentary Counsel to bring forward Committee Stage amendments in this House to improve the text of these provisions.

Section 10 provides that the mandatory population threshold for preparing local area plans is raised from 2,000 to 5,000 persons. This move will in no way be to the detriment of rural settlements. It will remain the case under section 18 of the Planning Act that a local area plan may be prepared in respect of any area which members of a planning authority consider suitable and, in particular, for those areas which require economic, physical and social renewal, irrespective of their population.

The Bill provides that the discretionary threshold for the preparation of a local area plan will be where the population is between 2,000 and 5,000 and where the relevant area is to be subject to large scale development within the lifetime of the plan. I believe that locally elected councillors are best placed to decide what areas would benefit from a local area plan. This Bill in no way ties the hands of councillors nor interferes with their legitimate decisions to develop particular local area plans. In order to ensure local area plans are comprehensively linked to the city or county development plan, which are reviewed every six years, their lifespan is being increased to 10 years under this Bill, although where a local area plan is no longer consistent with the city or county development plan because the development plan was reviewed or varied, there is a requirement to vary or review the local area plan within one year.

There is also provision made for the phasing of development within a local area plan, as already provided for within a development plan, particularly given that zoning objectives are provided for in a local area plan on foot of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002. Section 12 explicitly provides for the link between regional planning guidelines and the national spatial strategy. Under this Bill, regional planning guidelines shall be set within the policy framework of the national spatial strategy, including its population targets which are updated from time to time. Sections 13 to 16 strengthen the status of regional planning guidelines in relation to development plans and also strengthen the role of regional authorities in the preparation or variation of such plans. Section 13 provides that a development plan must be consistent with the regional planning guidelines in force for the area to help achieve coherence between the hierarchy of forward plans.

Regional authorities are, through sections 14 to 16, inclusive, given an explicit role in the pre-draft and the draft development plan preparation. They are also given a role in regard to the variation of development plan. The key aim is to ensure consistency and coherence between local planning and regional planning guidelines.

Sections 14, 15 and 16 also set a broader perspective for the areas to be covered in the regional authority's observations report. These can include co-ordinating development objectives across local authority boundaries and the strategic infrastructure requirements within a region to ensure regional priorities are being delivered.

Section 17 provides that a planning authority must demonstrate, by way of a statement when preparing and making a draft development plan, how it has implemented the policies and objectives of the Minister contained in guidelines issued under section 28 of the principal Act. Equally, as the case may be, planning authorities must detail the reasons such policies and objectives were not implemented. This will bring much greater clarity into how key guidelines prepared at national level regarding, for example, sustainable expansion of small towns and villages or the development of wind farms in scenic areas, are being dealt with at local level.

Section 18 deals with the complex and sometime controversial area of ministerial directions under section 31 of the Act. The simple fact is that planning decisions at local level cannot fly in the face of wider regional and national interests, especially those agreed and endorsed by the Government. For the sake of consistency, this Bill extends the ministerial powers to issue a direction to include local area plans, where many zoning decisions now are made by planning authorities. This Bill also introduces new consultative arrangements for section 31 directions. Once the Bill is enacted, and where the need arises to use these powers, a proposed or draft direction will be issued in the first instance to seek local views before any final direction is issued. These new processes take full account of the recommendations of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in its March 2009 report.

Section 18 also provides for a discretionary provision for the Minister to appoint an independent inspector to review the manager's report prepared on foot of the public consultation on the proposed direction. Section 20 proposes an amendment to section 35 of the Act, which will allow a planning authority to refuse permission where the applicant has carried out a substantial unauthorised development, including a development with no permission, or has been convicted of an offence under the planning Acts, subject to certain conditions.

Section 21 amends the principal Act by providing for the extension of cost recovery to pre-application and scoping requests related to environmental impact assessment for strategic infrastructure development cases under the Seventh Schedule of the principal Act, in addition to cost recovery for cases that proceed to full application and determination by An Bord Pleanála. The amendments in section 22 are designed to remove any legal impediment to e-planning. The principal Act is amended to prescribe, for the avoidance of doubt, that a planning authority is authorised to display planning application documentation on its website. I have encouraged planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála to make greater use of information technology in processing planning applications and appeals. This can enhance the level of service provided to users of the planning system, whether as applicants or as members of the public, and it can bring efficiency savings to planning authorities and statutory consultees. My Department is such a consultee with regard to heritage issues and has developed pilot projects whereby planning applications can be referred to it electronically.

Section 23 amends the principal Act to provide for the extension of permission, for a period of up to five years, in circumstances where substantial works have not been carried out but in which commercial, economic or technical considerations existed, beyond the control of the applicant, which substantially militated against either the commencement of the development or the carrying out of substantial works. This section was amended on Report Stage in the Seanad to provide for the additional conditionally pertaining to the extension of such permissions.

Section 28 amends the principal Act to empower An Bord Pleanála to reduce the quorum for its meetings from three to two members on the recommendation of the chairperson that such a reduction is necessary to ensure the efficient discharge of the business of the board. This amendment, which has a number of built-in safeguards, aims to improve the throughput of An Bord Pleanála and to secure a higher compliance rate with the statutory objective period of 18 weeks for appeals.

Section 29 provides for an increase in the maximum fine to €5,000 for a summary offence under the planning Acts and for an increase to €1,500 for the maximum daily fine for a continued offence. Section 31 amends section 180 of the principal Act, which provides that a housing or residential estate would be taken in charge by the planning authority, in certain circumstances, on foot of a request from a majority of the owners or occupiers. The Law Reform Commission report on multi-unit developments recommended that it should be owners of units only who would have the right to determine whether the estate is taken in charge. This amendment implements the Law Reform Commission's recommendations.

Sections 32 and 33 amend sections 182B and 182D of the principal Act, respectively, to provide powers for An Bord Pleanála to recover costs at pre-application and determination in respect of applications for electricity transmission lines and strategic gas infrastructure. Section 35 modifies certain provisions of section 212 of the principal Act as they relate to the functions of the planning authority regarding the development of land. This amendment is intended to extend the scope of the powers of planning authorities to allow them take action to secure the creation, management, restoration or preservation of any site of scientific or ecological interest.

Section 37 was passed on Committee Stage in the Seanad and provides for the discounting of the Christmas holiday time period from any time limits in the development planning process. This section reflects the current provisions that apply to time limits in the development management process. Section 39 amends the First Schedule of the principal Act to provide for the inclusion in development plans of an objective for carrying out flood risk assessment as part of the control and regulation of development in areas at risk of flooding. This is to ensure that appropriate flood risk assessment is fully integrated into the planning process. To facilitate the provision of information to stakeholders on these new mechanisms for incorporating flood risk assessment into the planning process, as I mentioned earlier, my Department, in association with the Office of Public Works and following a comprehensive public consultation process, published guidelines for planning authorities on the planning system and flood risk management on Monday last. These guidelines explain in detail how to assess and manage flood risk at all stages of the planning process. The guidelines contain a commitment to a review of the exempted development provisions in the planning and development regulations, which currently allow for paving residential gardens to provide off-street car parking or hard landscaping. The review will be conducted as part of the overall review of these regulations to follow enactment of the Bill. The review will consider ways of ensuring that future exemptions will only apply where such developments comply with sustainable drainage principles. A definition of "flood risk assessment" is also provided under section 3.

Section 40 amends the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 to provide An Bord Pleanála with powers to recover pre-application and determination costs in respect of applications for railway orders.

It is appropriate at this stage to signal some of the amendments I intend to introduce to this Bill on Committee Stage. Building on the action I took last year to close the legal gap with regard to planning applications for retention permission for developments that should have been subject to environmental impact assessment, I also intend to bring forward specific provisions on Committee Stage that will remove the possibility of retention for unauthorised development which should have been subject to environmental impact assessment, other than in very exceptional circumstances. In tandem with these amendments, I intend to revoke the current seven-year time limit within which enforcement action may be taken in respect of unauthorised development that should have been subject to environmental impact assessment.

The European Court of Justice also has ruled against Ireland with regard to failure to implement and transpose adequately into Irish law elements of the birds and habitats directives. It now has become necessary to integrate the requirements of these directives into Irish planning law. There are two central issues that need to be addressed. These are the screening and assessment of proposed land use plans and development proposals for their potential impact on European nature sites for the protection of birds and other species and habitats, collectively known as Natura 2000 sites, and measures to protect species of flora and fauna that are protected under Irish law from disturbance and destruction as a consequence of development.

I am confident the proposed reforms to be introduced on Committee Stage will address the recent European Court of Justice judgments against Ireland in this regard. I also intend to bring forward, by way of Committee Stage amendment, proposals to provide for the mandatory objectives in development plans for the protection and listing of undisputed rights of way and to provide for a legislative definition of "landscape" based on the definition of landscape set out in the European Landscape Convention.

This Bill is about enabling us to better deliver competitive and dynamic cities, towns and regions which will help to improve our quality of life in economic, social and environmental terms. It will contribute to the vision of a sustainable future for all and strengthen transparency, openness, democratic involvement and public participation in the planning system. More focused land-use strategies will also result in more efficient use of taxpayers' money by allowing the State to target investment in essential infrastructure and services more accurately.

I look forward to engaging in these provisions and in the Government's and Opposition's amendments which I hope will be constructive and helpful on Committee Stage.

I commend this Bill to the House.

When I hear the phrase "more focused" resources, I know immediately there will be a reduction in some moneys for Estimates.

It means value for money.

I can understand the context in which the Minister is making that assessment.

The Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 is a last gasp of a failed approach based on centralised planning obsessed with housing and settlement to the exclusion of positive planning for economic revival or sustaining communities. It is about planning and development, yet often local authorities and Departments are consumed with only one aspect of it. The Bill is illegal, illogical and indefensible. It seeks to support a system of planning based on a national spatial strategy that is unsustainable, unaccountable and uneconomic.

The Bill is an attempt to bolster a failed approach to planning by seeking to use the force of legislation where the force of argument has failed. It addresses the very real issue of people in rural areas seeking to build houses for income instead of the urgent need to understand why they are seeking income from such sources in the first place, namely regional inequality. This planning Bill wants to address the symptoms not the cause.

The cause of what is worst in Irish planning lies in its overly centralised nature. The command and control attitude of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government feels is based on the view that authorities are not to be trusted to determine their own future. I am not surprised that a Green Party Minister adopted a centralised approach. Deputy Gormley is the leader of a party that is now very much in tune with the wishes of Fianna Fáil whose members over the years have become masters in centralising authority. The best example is the Health Service Executive. Have we got a better service as a result?

In this legislation, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is seeking to enshrine enormous powers of influence for any Minister of the day. While the Minister has all the well-meaning objectives of good planning, his successors might not. We have plenty of examples of past environment Ministers who subsequently became subject to intensive investigations in the Mahon and Flood tribunals. The Minister is giving a dangerous precedent to his successors with the powers he will give them in this legislation. On Committee Stage, will he examine how more controls can be placed on a future Minister who might lose the run of himself and undo some of the worthy objectives of the Bill?

The Bill does nothing to address the lack of devolution which corrodes the effectiveness of planning, especially in regional rural economies. Nor does it address the lack of integration between the planning of cities and counties. Instead, it seeks to create a top-down system whereby unaccountable civil servants in Dublin can send out letters to dictate the population for every major town in the State. This Bill seeks to fundamentally and finally secure this control by compelling the plans for every region, county, city, town and local area plan to conform to the national spatial strategy.

Stalin would be proud to see such centralised planning is alive and well in Ireland. How can the Minister claim this Bill improves accountability and local democracy when it seeks to strip local government of the last vestiges of its authority? How can he claim to be ensuring balanced regional development while this Bill transfers back to the Department in Dublin all power to plan for the future of regions and rural areas?

At the heart of the legislation is a proposal for a core strategy that will compel plans for every region, county, city, town and village to demonstrate they conform to the targets of the national spatial strategy. These targets are being set by unelected and unaccountable departmental officials without reference to economic, environmental or demographic reality. In the mad world envisioned by this Bill, every area will not only be forced to comply with a plan that has been unaccountably prepared, they will be forced to comply with a plan that is wrong.

The economic reality is the majority of Ireland's tax revenue is generated in the east. However, now when we are most desperately in need of national economic regeneration, we are asked to conform to a national spatial strategy that seeks to contain and control the nation's main economic engine — Dublin. This is wrong.

The environmental effects of the implementation of the national spatial strategy are unknown. What will its effects be on air pollution, noise pollution, energy construction and road building? What will be the effects of a strategy which proposes to create significantly more population in more widely dispersed places that lack adequate public transport while suppressing growth in the area with the highest concentration of high capacity public transport and the highest levels of public transport use? We do not know. What will be the effect on scenery, habitats, groundwaters and surface waters due to a strategy based on moving more population into the some of the country's most beautiful and fragile ecosystems? Again, we do not know. The national spatial strategy has never been discussed in the House or adopted by it. It will be decided by the Minister and his officials in the Customs House.

Basing our entire planning system on a strategy we do not know about is illegal, unwise and wrong. A national spatial strategy that behaves like a misguided rural county councillor who believes that granting more houses will somehow magically make more people is deluded. Settlement strategies do not make populations grow. Yet this failed strategy, which the Bill will enforce using the core strategy provision, is solely based on settlement strategies. How many circular letters does the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government send out about targets for jobs, facilitating rural enterprise or job creation? Where are these targets? Planning to grow based on settlement alone is wrong.

The Bill is illegal because it seeks to create a framework for all planning decisions on the basis of a national spatial strategy that has not been subjected to a strategic environmental assessment, or appropriate assessment, as required by two separate EU directives. The irony is the Department will strenuously insist that every plan subsequently based on the strategy must comply with these directives. This is a gross illegality.

The Bill is indefensible because it seeks to enforce settlement targets. It treats personal decisions about where people will choose to live and rear their families as if they are boxes on shelves that can be re-arranged at the whim of an official in the Department. The Minister will agree we live in a democracy. His Green Paper on local government sought to bring about the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity. However, since the June 2009 local elections he is moving away from that.

The Bill's provisions, requiring all development plans to contain a core strategy in compliance with the national spatial strategy, which itself is demonstrably wrong, are a mistake. All such provisions must be removed from the Bill because they are illegal, illogical and indefensible.

The wonderful economist, the late Mr. Paul Tansey, used to bemoan that so few understood the difference between administration, the prudent use of public resources, and management, which is about making plans, having vision, taking risks and providing leadership. It is important in times of financial crisis to understand the difference. In such times, it is tempting to see the world solely in terms of the symptoms of a problem, which is essentially finances and figures. Administration, which is the proper business of the public service, will never beat a path to the future. The accountant is only put in charge when the company is in receivership. Only dynamic leadership can tackle the root cause of today's problems and provide the growth, competitiveness and tax returns that will pay for social betterment. Administration, by its very nature, cannot and will never deliver this.

Irish public administration is one of Europe's most centralised. Report after report from official bodies and commissions have pointed out how inefficient and damaging this is, in particular for peripheral and rural areas. Genuine efforts to address this problem were made in the Barrington report 1991 and by the devolution commission in 1997. However, vested interests, some political but mostly from within the public service, have prevented or diverted efforts at real change. In times of stress, we all revert to familiar patterns of behaviour regardless of how destructive. One of Ireland's worst habits is centralisation. Evidence of this reflexive behaviour when faced with stress can be seen in the McCarthy report proposals to abolish the Western Development Commission, Shannon Development, the regional authorities and 30% of local authorities. The coming months will see many more proposals. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, got in on the act when he said we should abolish city and county councils. All of these proposals which are put forward on the basis of lowering costs, creating greater efficiencies, will further remove from specialist agencies any control or accountability.

What is it about centralisation that so excites those in power? Centralisation offers the promise of effectiveness through greater oversight, efficiency and co-ordination. While this sounds reasonable, to date centralised Departments have provided no effective oversight of children's welfare, the banks, the health system, export guarantee systems or any of the other scandals that have cost us hundreds of millions of euros in inquiries. I do not believe that locally autonomous governance would be any worse.

In practice, centralisation reduces the effectiveness and efficiency of public action and spending while at the same time suppressing local initiative, responsiveness and competitiveness. For example, a new public marina in Connemara would require the involvement of at least four central Departments, namely, the Departments of Arts, Sport and Tourism, Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Finance and that of local officials and agencies. Every extra layer guarantees more delays, more administrative and compliance costs and less likelihood of meeting anybody with the narrowest of local needs. On many levels, therefore, it is a poor use of resources.

Irish people are often surprised to learn that throughout most of the European Union regional and local authorities collect local taxes. They oversee and pay for a range of services which we have come to accept as the sole prerogative of centralised Departments and agencies. Such authorities are usually responsible for services, including public transport, education, policing, energy, tourism and environmental protection. This devolution of responsibility, from which the Minister is moving away, offers significant opportunities to plan and integrate the delivery and operation of these functions to ensure maximum use of all public spending and administration. A locally controlled public bus can do school runs, hospital drop-offs for the elderly, local deliveries and support local tourism facilities and as such is responsive and responsible for local needs, which is good planning.

Devolution is not decentralisation or relocation or the type of policies we have had during recent years dressed up as decentralisation which merely transfers the seat of a centralised authority to a regional location. This is, at best naive and at worst cynical. It does nothing to address the fundamental problems of an excessively centralised State, the size and cost of bloated and centralised Departments or their inflexibility, unresponsiveness or lack of accountability.

What is the opposite of centralisation? It is not every county for itself: that cannot be the case. It is about co-ordinated competition and agreement and assignment of specialisations and roles according to the needs and strengths. A one size fits all system will not work. It is not about a Stalinist centralised plan for Ireland: it is about a mosaic of different and distinctive destinies, some large, some small. Some regions have greater strengths than others. Some locations will have an industrial future and others will have a future in tourism. Some will have service sectors based on educational cultures and others will have a future based on science and finance. While some will have all of these, others will have only a few.

The McCarthy report merely treats the economic symptoms and is not a plan to tackle the root causes of our current problems. A collection of cuts should not be mistaken for a plan. Positive, proactive planning lies at the heart of good management. Right now, Ireland needs a plan. However, the only plan that appears to emerge is a reining in of power to an increasingly small number of more centralised institutions.

Ireland's current model for economic growth which is principally based upon attracting mobile inward investment is now defunct. We have lost our competitiveness and distinctiveness. Many nations are now significantly cheaper, better regulated and more responsive than us. We may never again be a low cost country. Perhaps we do not want to be but we must plan for this. We need a long-term plan based on capitalising on our many unique selling points, including the demographic, educational, technical and entrepreneurial skills we have developed. A further entrenchment of the already negative effects of excessive concentration would be damaging to this effort.

There will always be a place for national planning in regard to national major infrastructural needs such as energy and transport. We will also need centralisation in terms of fairness, equality and competitiveness. A properly ordered State has layers of government, some central, some local to deal with the challenges locally and nationally. In a properly ordered State, there is a clear and coherent division of roles which accord to two fundamental tenets, including how the EU interacts with member states. The first is to have a clear and coherent hierarchy of where power is administered, the principle of subsidiarity. It is rather ironic that we recently voted for this in the Lisbon referendum and are now seeking to again take centralised control and defy the principle of subsidiarity of which the people want more.

We need positive planning, not a patch and fix of the McCarthy report nor the economic and social negativity of a national spatial strategy, of which we know little, to get us out of our mess. We need a purposeful plan for Ireland to foster the island in all of its diversity, large and small, regional and local where every region is able to play to its strengths and exploit opportunities.

The Minister has brought forward in the legislation a number of proposals which seek to confirm the tenet of centralised planning. He mentioned the attendance of Carlow County Council SPC at a recent committee meeting on this legislation. It is distressing to members of Carlow County Council that the implications of this legislation will be the building of 60 houses over a seven year period in places like Tullow, Rathvilly, Bagnelstown and the rural hinterlands. I do not know if that information is correct.

The Deputy should check it out.

I am relying on information given to me by officials and which they received from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This is the information that was sent to them from the Department. Perhaps the Minister should check this out with his officials. The population targets are set out in black and white in the circular issued by the Department. I have every confidence in public officials to tell us the truth. If the Minister says this information is wrong, then the director of services in Carlow County Council is wrong. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he is correct.

There is a herding mentality, given the information made available in this instance, which I hope is not replicated throughout the country. An issue I would like the Minister to address is that of development contributions. Perhaps the Minister will bring forward an amendment that will allow a local authority, at a time when it is hard to get money from development due, perhaps, to excessive charges that were imposed when times were better, to look at part of the scheme without actually reviewing the entire scheme and adopt more conciliatory pro-employment measures that would make a difference at this time.

It was interesting recently to hear a rural chief planner explain to a local representative that the county development plan currently being prepared was not about facilitating the future of the county but mostly about protection of the landscape and the control of housing. I do not know when a county development plan became about those sole objectives. I always thought planning was not about maintenance of the present but planning for the future. Planning, even in its ancient format, has been with us for a long time although it has only been regulated here since 1963. We know the reasons the 1963 Act was necessary and why there have been amendments to the Act from time to time since then. However, planning always retained the flexibility to allow local elected representatives and communities to have a say. This legislation moves away from that.

In the past few decades mapping has increasingly become confused with planning. The instruments that are used to prepare for planning, such as the mapping of land uses, demographics and density, have become ends in themselves. Such records are then converted to zoning maps that restrict future uses to those that conform with existing ones. Each new provision of the planning Acts has also moved further away from any concern about the future, to become increasingly associated with forces that seek to limit, control or prevent development necessary to sustain economic or community activity. It is unfortunate that planning is now often synonymous with blocking progress. With tribunals, political corruption and prevention of development, planning has not moved far from former Deputy and Minister, Michael Smith's, 1993 description of planning as a debased currency, associated with bureaucracy, interference, administration, red tape, incomprehensible decisions and detachment from the very people for whom the plans are supposed to be created.

More important than all this, however, is the fact that we are far more influenced by what happens outside Ireland than ever before and there is a greater obligation to respond to those outside influences. European Union directives, CAP reform, the global economy and foreign direct investment are determining our planning for the future. It is critical, therefore, to reflect on the role of planning in creating and sustaining what has become known as the housing bubble, which had little to do with increases in the cost or value of bricks and mortar and more to do with the value of the sites, which was solely the result of planning. All market economies rise and fall on the back of supply and demand. Land use planning determined the timely supply of available and appropriately zoned and serviced land. Poor planning is a classic example of market failure. It is surprising that planning has not yet been put on trial anywhere, along with the greed of speculators and the carelessness of banks, for being partly to blame for current upheavals in the property market. It should be. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority, which has been the subject of much investigation by the Oireachtas Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, offers a clear indication of how not to engage with an organisation that is a non-commercial State body. It ensured the State sustained a loss of €213 million over a number of years. It was led by banks and greedy developers rather than a proper master plan.

We can plan for many things for the future and we must do so not by looking back to the past, but at the opportunities that Ireland might be able to address in the future. There will be tough questions because we are competing with many other jurisdictions. This legislation should be reconsidered. It seeks to put everything together under the umbrella of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and to corral all local decision making to conform with the diktat of the Custom House. That is totally at variance with so-called Government policy, as laid out in the Green Paper, on devolving power to local authorities. The opportunities that planning offers to boost economic activity now are being straitjacketed through the Minister having the ultimate decision on every plan, local and county. It is a micromanagement that is not healthy for democracy. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to revisit the important issues in planning and development that are essential to giving people hope of living in a sustainable way in their communities, which we all support, and to providing employment opportunities so people can live and work in their own areas. There are several examples of where that has not happened.

The manner in which the Minister seeks to centralise everything is not the way to go. For that reason I have grave reservations about the thrust of this policy and the damage it will do to the political system in the future, notwithstanding the Minister's bona fides in bringing forward the legislation.

The next speaker is Deputy Joanna Tuffy, who has 30 minutes.

I apologise to the Deputy but I must go to a meeting. I will read her contribution in the Official Report.

I wish to share time with Deputy Shortall.

That is agreed.

It is a pity the Minister must leave but I accept his word that he will read my contribution.

The Minister has good intentions with regard to planning and development. However, the Green Party is a small part of the Government and the problem is the culture that has existed over the years in terms of Fianna Fáil's policy on development. The Minister is possibly limited, therefore, in what he can do. There are many welcome proposals in the Bill and I hope that on Committee Stage the Minister will accept some of the Labour Party's suggestions to improve the Bill.

I believe the Minister should be far more radical than he has been with this Bill. Fianna Fáil, as the main Government party with the major influence, must look at what is happening now with planning, flooding and the many other issues we have to deal with in terms of our economic collapse and sustainability. Before our economy went into recession we had increasing carbon emissions that we were unable to address properly. I believe we are now on the brink of a state of emergency with regard to planning and flooding. My suggestion, and I am sure the Minister can find the power to do it, is to impose a moratorium on rezoning for residential building for a period of time to allow the Government, local authorities, the Office of Public Works and the different agencies involved to take stock. We have had a very bad experience this year and the situation has the potential to get worse as time passes.

A large amount of land is already zoned for housing. In Lucan in south County Dublin, there is probably enough zoned land to keep us going for decades. In other areas there is also too much zoned land, even if it might be concentrated in particular counties. The Minister said the flooding was caused by inappropriate and chronic rezoning, and he is correct. There is much talk about the different factors that cause flooding. People discuss climate change but there is no evidence to suggest that it caused the increased flooding of the past decade. That said, climate change will be a factor and must be taken into account.

The major factor in flooding is development. The problem is not just that we are building on flood plains, but that we have been building too much too fast. We need to take stock before going any further. In my county council, there was a recent attempt to rezone a few hundred acres. This would have been unsustainable and was against the manager's advice, but it would have been approved if not for some councillors stating that it made no sense. Many landowners, councillors and people in the commercial, banking and political worlds are in denial about the situation. They believe that we can revert to how we used to be and they will make a quick buck if more land is rezoned. They are being unrealistic.

While we state that the problem owes to building on flood plains, the issue is more complicated. If one builds virtually anywhere, there will be a flood risk. It is a question of what level of risk we can take and whether the necessary measures to deal with it can be put in place. Most of us live in towns or cities that were built around rivers or on the coast. There are many reasons to develop towns around rivers, but we have been building for a long time in areas at risk of flooding. There can be no developments without some flood risk. It is obvious that if one builds on green land, one will take up space where water would have gone.

The Minister's mantra has been not to build on flood plains, but dealing with flooding is more complicated. One must consider the level of risk prior to building. If one decides to rezone land and build, one must manage the associated flood risk. In some areas, a development's risk could be too high or implementing the necessary flood relief measures could be too costly. They should not be rezoned and the Minister should have strong powers to ensure they are not.

One might need to build a particular type of building, but certain buildings are not appropriate in some areas because of the attached flood risk. However, other buildings could be suitable. All of these factors must be considered. It may need to be decided that key infrastructure should not be built in areas where the risk of flooding is high. For example, we saw pictures of people travelling to hospital by boat. We must consider whether such infrastructure should be built in certain places.

Much of what I am discussing has been covered in the report of the flood policy review group, which was published in 2004. The group involved stakeholders and operated under the auspices of the Office of Public Works. The report was adopted as Government policy, but it has not trickled down into planning.

The cumulative effect of rezoning and commercial and residential development must be examined. There is no point in telling local authorities to consider the flood risk of building on certain lands. One must view the bigger picture. The cumulative effect is a major factor in the current flooding. It is not just that we built where we should not have built, but that there was so much building so quickly. In many areas, flood relief measures have not kept pace with the rate and quantity of development, creating more flood risks consequently.

When the report of the review group was being drafted, 300 sites were identified as being at risk of flooding by taking into account historical flood patterns. However, the resultant flood relief works programme takes no account of future flood risk, particularly in areas that have not been flooded previously. Some of them have since flooded. There are different reasons for not enough money being spent on the programme. The Government has received reports on why the delivery of flood relief works has been so slow and one issue has been lack of manpower, which will become a greater problem if we start reducing public sector numbers. Another factor is the need to streamline planning processes. I do not know how that situation stands, as the Bill does not address it, but the planning of flood relief works should not take too long from the point at which works have been identified as being necessary to the delivery stage.

The plans relate to the past and, while we must consider the future, we must get through the current programme of expenditure on flood relief works if we are to be able to identify new areas in need of flood relief works. We are falling behind in this regard, which is one of the reasons there should be a moratorium on rezoning. This would allow relief works to catch up with infrastructure and us to take stock of the current situation and what must be done. Everyone involved in the process must be educated on this matter, as people involved in local councils do not seem to understand, not even in terms of the Minister's Bill, that this is a question of the bigger picture. I agree with Deputy Hogan concerning centralised planning. While I am for local power and local councillors having a role, this is a national issue, possibly a national emergency. If we do nothing about it, it will worsen in the coming years.

I looked through parts of the Bill. I hope to be able to discuss them further with the Minister on Committee Stage. He stated that one's objective during the drafting of a development plan should be to conduct a flood risk assessment. I am unsure as to whether the word "objective" is strong enough. I was a county councillor and objectives were vague things that were not often adhered to. How strong would the flood risk assessment objective be? Moreover, will these assessments relate to local areas only and not what is the situation down the road? I live in Lucan and what is done in Leixlip can affect it and vice versa. We must look across boundaries to manage flood risk. The idea is to manage it in terms of river basins, as stated in the report of the flood review group, but the Bill has no provisions on river basin management. Nothing in planning procedures ensures that local authorities co-operate when assessing flood risks.

Development plans are drawn up in many local authorities. I live in south County Dublin and was a member of South Dublin County Council, which is in the process of drafting a development plan. For all I know, a councillor could propose to rezone a plot of land. I hope that such does not occur, but it has been the case previously. The Minister will not be able to do anything about it. He should consider implementing a moratorium on rezonings for a set period to allow the Government to take stock, develop a strategic approach to the delivery of flood relief works, ensure legislation is sufficiently robust to stop bad rezoning decisions and ensure that local authorities look at the bigger picture and co-operate. The Government should provide leadership in this issue. This is my main point on the Bill, but it is a topical one.

Reference is often made to people who live in communities that have a lack of infrastructure. That is a big part of the history of Lucan, where I live. Flooding was the worst thing to happen to people who bought houses and commercial premises in new areas of Lucan. Flooding has a terrible impact on people's quality of life. It is clear from recent events that it causes significant stress to people. Older people do not want to leave their homes, even when water gathers around their houses at ground level. A great deal of stress and difficulty is caused by flooding. The prevention and management of flood risk should be a major part of our planning process from here on in. The legislation proposed by the Minister is not strong enough. He needs to review it. We need a moratorium on rezoning for a set period so that we can all sing from the same hymn sheet and face up to the reality of what faces us in the future.

The objectives of this legislation, like the planning guidelines, are quite weak. The Bill states that councillors should "have regard to" the guidelines in place to help them when they make assessments and compile reports. The significant rezoning powers of councillors are often used in a positive way. People need houses in which to live. I am in favour of sustainable development. The measures being put in place by the Minister are not legally strong enough. He needs a stronger legislative measure that will ensure councillors, planners and council officials are required to do certain things in their development plans. I have spoken about the term "have regard to". I understand the Minister is considering use of the term "in compliance with". One can tell councillors and planning officials that their development plans must be "in compliance with" certain things, but it is a matter of interpretation. Will the Minister overturn the decisions of councillors if they go ahead and rezone anyway? While the Minister has done more overturning than his predecessors — he has asked councils to overturn decisions — he has not done it very often even though a great deal of bad planning has taken place. I suggest that he should be given stronger powers to tie councillors to legislative provisions. They should have to be "in compliance with" or "have regard to" such provisions.

Sustainable planning, which is mentioned in the Bill, is very important. When we use the term "sustainability", we are talking about the protection of the economy as well as the protection of the environment. We messed up the economy by allowing unsustainable development to take place. Sustainability is not just some environmental phrase that is used by An Taisce. It is also of great economic importance. I recommend that the Minister should consider the example of the strategic development zone model, as spelled out in our Planning and Development Acts. When the strategic development zone plan for Adamstown, near Lucan, was being compiled, we found that the legislation was robust. My fellow councillors and I did the things we were required to do. Our actions were legally upheld when they were examined by An Bord Pleanála. I suggest that in the future, we should adopt this model of tying things down in legislation.

We need to do more about quality of design. Many very badly designed buildings were built over recent years. They look terrible on the landscape and they are not nice to live in. Many rural villages have been ruined by the construction of apartment blocks that are totally out of keeping with the local area. We should not allow huge supermarkets or shopping centres to be developed. We should follow the example of countries like Germany and France by promoting small businesses, such as local bakeries and butchers. The relevant stakeholders should be involved in these designs.

Spatial strategy and regional guidelines should refer to river basin management. The spatial strategy, which has been ignored, is totally out of date at this stage. Will a load of development plans be adopted before the next spatial strategy and the next regional guidelines are drawn up?

While I welcome the section 18 provisions, the Minister should make sure that social housing is developed in an integrated way, rather than having 500 such units in one place. If we want more people to progress to third level education, for example, people from disadvantaged backgrounds should live in integrated areas. If they go to school with their peers in the rest of the community, they will be interested in accompanying them to college. That is a major aspect of this issue.

I would like the Minister to explain the reference to "section 180 of the Principal Act". Does it mean that people who live in developments that are managed by management companies can ask local authorities to take such developments in charge? I would like exact clarification in this regard, as I do not think such a provision has ever before been used in the case of management companies. Is this provision workable?

I thank Deputy Tuffy for sharing time with me. The issue I wish to raise — the maintenance of footpaths and private landings outside shops and businesses — does not directly relate to the subject of this Bill. As I have been waiting for some time to draw attention to this issue, I will take the opportunity afforded to me by the Planning and Development Bill 2009 to do so. I hope the Minister might consider the amendment I will propose in this respect on Committee Stage. We are all familiar with the problems associated with the footpaths directly outside older shopping precincts and corner shops in our constituencies. The immediate areas outside shops and businesses, which are referred to as private landings, are often used for display or delivery purposes. All of us have received complaints from constituents about dangerous footpaths and roadways that pose a risk to public safety. When we ask the local authority to take action to repair a footpath or fill in a pothole on a roadway, we often discover that the local authority is not responsible for the areas in question because it does not own them, or has not taken them in charge. A number of problems arise because local authorities have no role in the maintenance of such privately owned areas.

I am sure other Members of the House are familiar with the frustration one feels when one encounters this problem and learns that one cannot deal with it in an effective way. Obviously, it leads to an increase in the number of dangerous footpaths that are not maintained. If something is not done about the law in this area, they will never be fixed. It seems that local authorities have virtually no control over these problems. When they had a few bob, they were quite proactive in improving the appearance of areas in the interests of public safety. However, it is quite common for there to be several dangerous stretches of footpath or roadway in any given area. The relevant local authority is hampered in its work because it has no role in ensuring such areas are adequately maintained. It is also problematic that these areas give rise to trips and falls. Over recent years, five or six people have fallen and injured themselves on a footpath outside a pub in my constituency. The cases in question are backed up in the courts. People who had an accident along this stretch five years ago have not yet received redress, while other people continue to fall into the same pothole. No action is being taken because the law is so weak in this area.

The normal parking rules cannot be enforced in these cases. They do not apply in the areas to which I refer because they are not public roadways or footpaths. Interestingly, when I looked for the Garda to take action with regard to speeding and parking in one of these stretches I discovered the rules of the road do not apply there. Normal speeding and parking legislation does not apply to these areas because they are not public roadways. Apart from that, these areas can be eyesores and very much militate against local residents who are trying to improve the appearance of the area. Some businesses may be interested in doing that also but their colleagues do not co-operate.

I ask the Minister to consider introducing legislation to tackle this problem. There is general agreement that this area needs attention and local authorities need to have a role in it. That requires legislation. In my own constituency I have gone into detail trying to research some of these areas to see what exactly was the problem. I discovered that in some cases these areas are owned by the business owners and in other cases are owned by people who may or may not still be alive. Such people may have formed part of a trust fund, or whatever, going back many years. In many cases there is a real difficulty in identifying who is the actual owner.

I shall table an amendment to the following effect but I ask the Minister to consider paying attention to this matter and allow for local authorities to require owners to maintain these areas to an acceptable standard. If they are not prepared to do that I ask the Minister to consider giving local authorities the power to impose fines. There is no doubt there are negligent owners of these areas, among whom, I suggest, are some who do not realise they are the owners. There may have been a deed of trust or some other event that took place many years ago and the owners may not realise they own these places. There should be a power to impose a fine if owners fail to protect these areas. After all, these are public areas but are not publicly owned. They are used by the public and a public safety issue is involved. Somebody must ensure public safety is not compromised.

It is important in cases where local authorities cannot identify the owner, or where endless trouble would be entailed in identifying the owner or making contact with him or her, that local authorities should be given the power to carry out repairs and take these areas into public ownership, taking charge of them on a compulsory basis. That is essential. This may seem to be a small issue but when one thinks about it, it is not so.

I am sure this issue will resonate with many other Members of this House. Throughout our constituencies there are areas that are dangerous, that pose a risk to older people or those who are not perhaps as mobile as the rest of us. People should not be exposed to such risk. There are ways of dealing with it, straightforward ways of tackling this problem effectively which would not be too complicated from a legislative point of view. I ask the Minister to give consideration to that.

I understand Deputy White wishes to share her time.

I am sharing my time with Deputy Ciarán Cuffe. This is a most important debate and I am delighted to welcome this legislation. It should have been put in place many years ago because we are now reaping the rewards — probably the wrong word — or the pain of poor planning over many years. All of us in the House have experience of bad planning, particularly those of us who came through the local authority system which has ravaged many of our cities, towns and small villages. Coming up to the Dáil this week, I took a photograph of a flood plain which had a planning application and outline planning permission for three sites. The water from the River Barrow was 100 yards away but the flood water had come right up to the road. I have this on my mobile telephone if the Acting Chairman would like to look at it.

It might be against the rules of the House.

This is still going on and we must stop it, otherwise we will have the worst name in Europe for not looking after our small towns and villages and even our bigger towns.

The most important aspect of this Bill is the provision for evidence-based core strategy in development plans. These development plans and the housing strategy must now be consistent with regional planning guidelines and the national spatial strategy. That is good.

Some Opposition politicians have decried this legislation and I am sorry that Deputy Hogan has left the Chamber. In my presence he described this as "social engineering at its worst". This was with regard to local area plans. I would like to query Deputy Hogan on that and find out where he is coming from with this kind of logic.

The Deputy can meet him at the ballot box.

He also called it an assault on local democracy. It is certainly not the Minister's intention to have an assault on local democracy. He wants to give more powers to local authorities and reform local government to ensure we have good sustainable planning. I do not think anybody in local government should fear this legislation if planning is sound and sustainable. Ireland is a small country and one in which there must be a regional and national co-ordination of planning. We cannot plan our towns and villages without considering population projections and dove-tailing county development plans and without having knowledge of the national infrastructural projects so that the provision of services would be linked to density of population.

Across the country, bad planning has been responsible for satellite towns springing up all over the place. One newspaper published a supplement that showed all the flooding around the country. One could see from the aerial photographs the madness of some planning. Some of the estates had names such as "Waterside" and "Bog Road". That was for obvious reasons. We should not be building houses in those places. Now these unfortunate people are suffering because of bad planning. This new Bill will put a stop to that.

The names are better than "Dallas Park". Local names should be used.

I will be very interested to hear Deputy Bannon's contribution. We must look at how we do our planning and plan our towns. A place is not a home for a child if the child cannot go to school nearby or play sport in the locality, if all time is spent being taxied around by parents because the local infrastructure is not there. That is not what memories of childhood should be. When we are planning our towns and villages, we should put in the infrastructure.

An important component of this Bill is the new ministerial guidelines which will examine local planning. This is to be welcomed. In a local area plan in the Carlow town area, there were 2,500 objections to rezoning because the people in that area thought it was fantasy planning. Unfortunately, the plan went ahead but perhaps because of the recession we are now dealing with some of that crazy rezoning will now not go ahead.

I am delighted that local area plans will have to tie in with regional planning guidelines and the national spatial strategy. We all know that local area plans have been used often as the back door for dodgy rezonings. I remain confident that localities can be given the necessary planning despite the raising of the threshold to a population of 5,000 because county development plans will make the provisions for economic planning and ensure we have a good spread of housing and development in our towns and counties.

Unless we do this it will be too late. Now there is a chance that for the future we will have sustainable planning and towns and villages we can be proud of, not lovely villages with local vernacular architecture and, beside them, 150 brand-new houses that are completely out of character with the architecture and are not in keeping with the local towns and villages. As we all know from those who drop leaflets into them, many of those houses are empty. The only things that flutter in their letter-boxes are advertisements for supermarkets and cheap services people are trying to offer others because they are down on their luck due to the recession.

What will happen to all those empty houses? Planning will have to be examined. The Minister stated that where over-rezoning has taken place he will have the power to de-zone. If, as the Construction Industry Federation tells us, there are thousands of unoccupied houses in Ireland — the figure ranges from 50,000 to some hundreds of thousand — why are some county councillors now getting into a tizzy about this new Bill which will provide them with proper planning? It will not bring down the wrath of An Bord Pleanála or the Minister.

This Bill makes good sense for the future development of our country. The Minister said that many councils may be asked to de-zone in coming years to take account of the developer-led rezoning which occurred during the boom years. I hope we see this happen as it will help to prevent the rise of another crazy property boom. The amount of housing provided by some county councils, which made provision for many thousands of houses more than were necessary and for many decades, fuelled speculation and ill-advised property investment, which have led to so many problems. We only have to look to Monaghan for an example.

We all want to mend our ways and ensure that our planning can stand up to scrutiny. We should spare no effort in condemning councillors who want to assist developers and landowners against efforts to dezone. We need to ensure that we leave our murky ways behind us. Developer-led rezoning should be a thing of the past. When this Bill comes into force, one of our good legacies will be that we will not have developer-led planning but sustainable, well-thought-out planning that will enhance towns and villages and of which we can be absolutely proud.

People are saying flooding of the kind we just witnessed occurs only once in 800 years but many people, including Professor John Sweeney, an expert on climate change, stated that such floods will occur more frequently. Therefore, we must ensure that the appropriate infrastructure is in place to protect towns and villages.

Clean the rivers; it is as simple as that.

If one cleans the rivers, one pushes the problem somewhere else.

That is not true. One should clean the full river. The Green Party is hiding from the facts the whole time. Its members are talking about climate change and Dr. This and Dr. That — they should get to the facts.

Deputy White without interruption.

I was a member of the Barrow catchment initiative and know how the Barrow drainage system works. One must drain rivers very carefully. Draining of rivers can cause problems.

Not if they are drained fully.

Although farmers are suffering, they sold lands at the time of the boom and we must now consider what has happened because of the over-development of some lands and over-capacity in the housing market.

That is a Government excuse.

Unless we recognise that, we will be in real difficulty.

How long do I have left?

The Deputy has just under two minutes but if her colleague does not arrive, or if he arrives late, she can have more.

I hope he has winged feet when he comes.

He is cycling in.

When I was a councillor with Carlow County Council, there was contentious rezoning in the county. The most foolhardy example of rezoning to take place when I was a councillor was to allow for an industrial development quite a distance from Carlow town on a flood plain. Bingo — what happened last week? The whole place flooded.

The Deputy was a member of the council and allowed that to happen.

Green Party councillors, who were not rezoning land on flood plains, did not rezone the land. It was Fine Gael and Labour Party councillors and councillors of all parties except the Green Party.

Fine Gael was one of the worst.

If we want to go back to the old way of ensuring that every green space on a map is filled in by a development, it does not bode well for the future of the country. Deputies Bannon and Hayes only need to consider their own constituencies to find examples of bad planning.

I welcome this Bill. It will do tremendous good——

The Minister, Deputy Gormley, has a lot to answer for.

——for the future development of our towns and villages. I look forward to hearing Deputy Bannon speak on sustainable planning and sustainable local area plans produced in tandem with regional planning guidelines and the national spatial strategy. I will be transfixed in my seat as I hear him.

I wish to share time with Deputy Tom Hayes.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am sure Deputy Ciarán Cuffe got caught in traffic on his little bike coming here this evening. I am surprised the Green Party did not use all its time on this very important Bill.

Consider the quotation: "It is often forgotten that people are also the first victims of bad planning." These words are not mine but were spoken by the Minister, Deputy John Gormley, when he introduced this Bill in the Seanad. These are words I am sure came back to haunt him over the past week. So well they might. So many people, houses, farms and businesses are victims of the Government's mismanagement. Having shamefully refused to draw up planning regulations to prevent the building of houses on flood plains, what can the Minister of State, Deputy Trevor Sargent, or the Minister, Deputy John Gormley, do for or say to those who have lost everything? I have witnessed the dreadful losses people incurred on foot of the recent flooding. All the Minister does is blame the problem on bad planning. He should remember this Government has been in situ for the past 20 years.

In his contribution in the Seanad, the Minister referred to the lessons being learned and the legacy we have inherited from development plans in recent years. That is certainly a lesson hard learned. The Minister's policies have forced people to build on lowlands and flood plains rather than prime sites on their own farms, as was the traditional safeguard against flooding.

I live in the midlands in a house that was built in the 18th century on an elevated site. It would be a good exercise for the Government, including the Minister, to ascertain the number of recently flooded houses that were built prior to the issuing of the 1963 planning and development regulations.

Over-development with no consideration given to outlets for flood water and the granting of planning permission to speculators to build on every square inch of land without leaving green areas have caused water traps for unsuspecting purchasers. I highlighted time and again as a member of the local authority that we need to provide more green areas in housing developments. I am aware of cases in Longford, Westmeath and many other areas throughout the country where drains were closed and homes were built on the sites. This was wrong. Drains and small rivers to allow for the movement of water were closed up by greedy developers and planners. This happened nationally.

Lessons must be learned from the property boom. Ill-thought-out and unsustainable policies, with an eye not to the needs of buyers but to taxes such as capital gains tax, stamp duty and development levies, ought to be policies of the past. Over-development in the interest of developers, speculators and the Government, which has led to the awful sight of "ghost estates" throughout the country, particularly in the midlands because of the tax incentive scheme, which should have ceased years ago had the Government had any cop-on, must be legislated against strongly. There were crazy schemes in place allowing speculators from the capital to go down the country and build houses that were not even needed just because there was a tax incentive for doing so.

We must consider the role of An Bord Pleanála and the lack of transparency that has dogged its decisions. I recently raised the difficulty in obtaining a reply from the board to my representations or queries. They were ignored and never responded to. I raised this at a committee when we had personnel from An Bord Pleanála present, including the chairman, to discuss its annual report.

As I have said in the House on many occasions, it is a crying shame that young people are forced into substandard accommodation in local towns rather than being allowed to build on their family land. It is extraordinary that builders and speculators have been allowed to build on flood plains and every other inch of land they could find while rural families' building traditions have been overturned by the planning authorities.

For too long, rural Ireland has been at the mercy of a system that displays an anti-countryside bias, resulting in the sons and daughters of country people who have lived for generations in one area being forced off the land into urban areas. I am sure Deputy Mary Alexandra White is aware this occurs in County Carlow, just as I am aware of its occurrence in counties Longford and Westmeath.

An Bord Pleanála must be accountable to the people because bad planning decisions are having an adverse impact on their lives. Unjust and untenable planning decisions are resulting in social problems and unfinished estates. I pity people who are forced to rear families in conditions of extreme anti-social behaviour caused by the failure of planners to ensure adequate infrastructure, transport, leisure facilities, schools and child care facilities are in place in residential areas. Any other country in Europe has a better planning system in place than that in Ireland because in such countries there is an obligation on the developer to install the infrastructure first and then build housing or apartment units.

Despite the havoc they can cause to the lives of people, planners are currently unaccountable for their decisions regarding rural towns and villages. Some 1.8 million people live in the countryside and they need proper representation. Where is the balance in An Bord Pleanála in regard to rural-based people which was promised by the Government? We were promised that people with a background in the rural way of life would be involved with it, but that has not been provided despite numerous representations to the Minister to ensure it would happen. Legislation passed more than 30 years ago provided for representation from rural areas. I regret that has not yet happened. I would appreciate if Deputy Mary Alexandra White would request that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, ensure there is rural representation on the board of An Bord Pleanála.

Currently the ethos of most planners is towards urbanisation and an anti-rural housing bias exists when assessing individual applicants. Radical change is needed to bring about positive planning for rural areas. It is scandalous that 49% of all planning reports carried out in Ireland up until recently were by part-time planners based in the UK who had no recognition of the Irish position and our unique historical and cultural traditions. While these planners might have had qualifications from the Royal Town Planning Institute in London, they should have to study courses on how Ireland operates. They had no idea of the Irish dimension before taking up employment in this country, something with which I was very disappointed. We urgently need regulation of the planning sector and personnel in line with other professions such as teaching or nursing, with qualified planners being registered by Irish authorities and bodies as a requirement of practice.

There is one area of Government policy that I particularly want discuss, which while not directly related to planning is by extension relevant to this issue, namely, the new annual charge of €200 on second homes, which was payable by 31 October 2009 and will now have to be paid again early in the New Year. It is an absolute disgrace. The imposition of the charge was another stealth tax and difficult to justify. What possible justice is there in setting a rate for a 12-month period and then obliging taxpayers to pay it again three months later?

The issue emerged at a meeting of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, of which I am a member. Why were taxpayers not informed of this dubious practice? The Minister of State should ask the Minister, Deputy Gormley, to rescind this decision and allow all those who paid the tax to get a full 12 months out of it. This is simply a rip-off by Fianna Fáil and the Green Party which once again fleeces taxpayers.

I have been made aware of a person in my constituency of Longford-Westmeath who owns only one house but is forced to rent a room in Dublin during the winter months at a cost of €600 per month to ensure access to her employment. She is shamefully being charged the €200 tax on her one and only home. This is wrong and unfair. When the tax was introduced we were told it would be a tax on a second home, but the person to which I referred has only one home and is still obliged to pay the tax.

This country has gone mad regarding development plans. We have county development plans, regional development plans for counties and towns, town area plans, district plans and BMW regional plans, to name but a few. There is all planning and no action, which is part of this Government's report mountain which leads us nowhere. There is a huge lack of consistency between one county and the next. Much of the current planning policy must be blamed for the decline in rural schools and closure of rural post offices, shops and other services.

I ask the Deputy to allow his colleague to speak.

I could speak on this issue all night.

I am afraid the Deputy cannot do that.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill. This discussion is timely, in particular when there is so much discussion in the media and on the airwaves about flooding and bad planning. Ministers who visited various constituencies blamed bad planning for causing the flooding. The reality is that people were also beginning to blame bad planning for the flooding.

I am not an expert but I live in a constituency which has many rivers and waterways, including those close to where I live. Without fear of contradiction, the cause of the flooding in this country is the silt and filth left in the bottom of the rivers which has been allowed to accumulate over a long period of time. No matter how one examines the issue, if the rivers and drains were cleared we would not have had the type of flooding we have experienced. No-one can prevent, stop or blame the Government for the rain. However, it can take responsibility for the lack of drainage throughout the country.

I understand the Green Party has an interest in this issue because it has often said flooding is caused by various issues. The Government should develop a comprehensive drainage programme to alleviate the major hardship which was caused to many people in towns and villages across the country. If such a scheme were put in place, we would then be able to deal with the many issues which surround planning. There is no doubt many bad planning decisions have been made in the past. Decisions were made which would now not be made. Panels have made decisions they probably regret.

I am very concerned about the thrust of the Bill, namely, that it takes away power in terms of local knowledge from local people. That is a fundamental problem I have with the Bill. There is nobody who is better able to deal with local knowledge than local councillors. This Bill lacks a provision that would allow councillors have an input into local decisions. In recent years we have relied on An Bord Pleanála to make decisions in this regard. Who comprises its board? It is appointed by the Minister and comprises specialists who live in Dublin, miles away from the problems of rural Ireland, who sit in judgment of the planning decisions which go before it. Instead of passing this Bill we should give extra powers to local government members to have an across-the-board say in planning issues.

Area development plans are essential to many villages throughout the country. If we had a system in place with restrictions on the amount of land they can zone and planning permissions they can give with their local knowledge and input, we would have considerably fewer bad decisions. I challenge the Government on this matter. It is taking the democratic decisions. Whether the Government likes it or not, we are living in a democracy. We all want democracy. Democratic decisions are made for and on behalf of the people. That is what the Government is about and that is what we should be doing. If we want to see local government developed and strengthened, planning needs to be a responsibility of the local representatives who have the knowledge.

I recently met a man in my locality who sensibly told me that the maps used by An Bord Pleanála and the local authority are the wrong maps because they do not highlight the flood plains. The small 6-inch old-style maps that were in use many years ago point out every single area where flooding might take place. That is a major difficulty that has found its way into the present system. If the local representatives were able to use their knowledge, they would be able to install the sewerage schemes that are badly needed in almost very village in the country. For example, in my village of Golden, County Tipperary, for the past 20 years raw sewage has flowed from a pipe into the River Suir in one of the most beautiful and scenic parts of the country. That has been allowed to happen because we depend on central Government for funding to put that in place.

Most important local government decisions take place at a central level, including those taken by An Bord Pleanála. We need to bring back that power to the people and allow people who are proud of their areas to draw up the plan that would put in all the facilities, the sewerage schemes, the plans for the schools and the number of houses that need to be built. Experience is a good thing. These people can learn from their past experiences. We all like to develop the country and make it a better place in which people can live, work and educate their children. We all know the rural areas in which we live.

Certain parties in government have spoken out against rural housing policies. Whatever we do into the future the one-off rural house and the housing of families in rural areas needs to be protected. It is unfair for any party in government to put a stop to that. One of the finest qualities of life is to be had in rural areas of Ireland with fresh air, nice people, good road structure, etc. People want to live in rural areas. The Government, An Bord Pleanála or anybody else should not stand in the way of allowing people to live in the houses they want in such rural areas.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I wish to deal with a number of issues in the legislation, which I am very happy to see introduced at this stage. The key features of the legislation are the introduction of a requirement for an evidence-based system to ensure greater coherence between county development plans, the housing strategy with the regional planning guidelines and the national spatial strategy. I shall return to that point shortly. The Bill provides for more synergies between these various plans, including local area plans, particularly in so far as zoning of land is concerned. I support the provisions changing the rules for the making or variation of a development plan or local area plan, which will require the support of two thirds of the total number of members of the planning authority instead of a simple majority at present. The Bill provides that only minor amendments will be permitted to draft development plans or local area plans which have been the subject of public consultation.

Ministerial guidelines will have greater legal force and I will deal with that in greater detail. I am Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which completed a detailed report on the matter. It has been quoted extensively and it has contributed to an improvement in this legislation as a result of the recommendations that I, as Chairman of the committee, would have brought forward with the committee some time ago, especially following the issue with the Mayo county development plan. A section of the Bill strengthens the powers of local authorities to refuse planning permission to applicants who have been convicted of serious breaches of planning legislation. Improvements will be made to effectiveness, including the use of e-planning. Local authorities will have greater flexibility regarding the distribution of existing development levies.

The legislation essentially boils down to the one issue of greater synergies between the national spatial strategy, regional planning guidelines, county development plans and local area plans. While I support the general principle, I wish to highlight a number of issues of particular concern in that regard. I am about to make a controversial statement. At a recent meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government representatives of An Bord Pleanála brought to our attention that there are approximately 88 planning authorities, between city councils, county councils and urban councils, which is wrong. It is far too many. Many of the counties should have only one. Some urban councils within modestly sized counties are individual planning authorities in their own right. It is impossible for the senior planners in those areas to have the breadth of experience necessary to deal with a complicated planning application if it happened to come their way. Given the limited number of planning applications that go through some planning authorities, some of them may never have any cases going to An Bord Pleanála and so are not gaining benefit from the interaction of having some of their cases being reviewed and adjudicated by an inspector from An Bord Pleanála and, ultimately, a judgment from the board.

The An Bord Pleanála annual report produced the figures for appeals on a county-by-county basis. It has promised to supply information in respect of each planning authority. I was shocked to hear there were 88, which is wrong from a planning point of view. It results in too much fragmentation and it would not be possible to have the required skills base. It is wrong for the urban council of a town of 10,000 people to be a planning authority. An area should have a minimum population of 20,000 to 30,000 before justifying a planning authority. While I know some people will disagree with me, I believe it would lead to more coherence.

Most of the Bill's provisions hinge on the national spatial strategy. As a Deputy representing the Laois-Offaly constituency and primarily representing County Laois, I have a fundamental problem with the national spatial strategy. County Laois hardly featured in that document. I believe it made its way into one half-sentence in the entire book. I made a submission when it was being prepared in 2000-01. The national spatial strategy is seriously out of date. It was published in 2002, long before the economic boom or major increases in population. The Ireland of today is fundamentally different from when the strategy was drafted almost ten years ago. It now needs to be reconsidered. Some areas were not adequately dealt with.

I recall the submission I made at that time. I live in County Laois, which is part of the greater Leinster area, less than 50 miles from Dublin. All development in such areas — Kildare, Carlow, Wicklow, Meath, Louth or Laois — is related to the greater Dublin area. Many people in Laois commute to Dublin every day and many people from Dublin have come to live in Laois. I asked that we be included in the eastern midlands area or be more integrated with the east coast, but when the national spatial strategy was issued we were lumped in with Longford, Westmeath and Offaly. They are lovely counties, but there is zero synergy between Counties Laois and Longford. Nobody commutes or travels to shop from the Longford-Westmeath area to County Laois or vice versa. It makes no sense that we are tied into this area under the national spatial strategy. There are probably historical links through health boards or something similar. However, Laois, as a county, has much more affinity and synergy with the counties to the east of it, such as Kildare, Carlow and Dublin.

The national spatial strategy needs to be re-examined because it is now almost ten years out of date. I would like to see the Minister comment on this at some stage during the passage of the legislation. Regional guidelines should not be formed from a national spatial strategy that is out of date.

One of the problems with the national spatial strategy was that it was an attempt at social engineering. There is such a thing as economic gravity. People in Laois gravitate to Dublin, but the national spatial strategy said we should gravitate to Lanesborough in Longford. It does not make sense. It was an attempt to keep populations in certain areas and reduce the expansion of the greater Dublin area. However, if we know anything about world populations it is that they tend to gravitate towards the major population centres. This is the case in Leinster, but the same applies in Munster; people from outside the cities gravitate to Cork or Limerick. To try to create a gravitational pull towards an artificially created region makes no sense and it should not be the basis for regional planning guidelines in the future.

Laois is also part of the BMW region. There is zero synergy between Laois and Donegal, Mayo or Monaghan. We should not be in the BMW region; it makes no logical sense. It was set up to help draw down funding from the EU for a particular purpose several years ago. That is the only reason that region exists and I do not see any practical benefit from it. Such things should be reconsidered.

I mentioned earlier the issue of ministerial directions. There is a special section in the Bill changing the way these are handled when an amendment or variation to a county development plan is sought. The Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government had a meeting with representatives of Mayo County Council who were not happy with the procedures that were carried out with regard to their county development plan. This also happened in my county in 2006 when there was an element of over-zoning by local council members. Local councillors are not the best people to decide on zoning of local land. When a request comes in to a local authority about zoning of land, many councillors, if they are honest, will admit that they first ask whose land it is rather than where it is or what it will be used for. Most Deputies here who have been members of local authorities will know this question is asked by local councillors every day and is an influence on their decisions.

I said at a conference more than a year ago that there must be some new mechanism for zoning land whereby a simple majority is insufficient. I proposed a double-lock mechanism under which the county manager and the majority of members would have to agree. What is being proposed here is that there must be a two-thirds majority for rezoning decisions, which is good because it means the party that controls the council by a simple majority cannot make such decisions unilaterally and, in some cases, in spite of professional advice to the contrary. I am not saying professionals are always right, but neither is it right that such decisions can be made by a simple majority. The proposed system is more democratic and gives a say to a greater number of people. I consider it an enhancement of local democracy, which needs to be pursued.

What the committee stated in its report, which has been made available to Deputies here, is that the problem is that under the current law, if a Minister is not happy with a completed development plan, the next step is a directive, out of the blue, to the local authority, with no consultation or discussion. We made a recommendation that there should be a consultation period and the Minister should first issue a draft directive, obtaining submissions from the local authority and other interested parties. The Minister should have an absolute right in legislation, as a representative of the national Parliament — because we are a relatively small country — to force local authorities to make changes to their county development plans. However, under the existing legislation the process is weak and faulty. I am pleased the Minister has considered the recommendations of the joint committee in that regard. Our meeting with the Mayo councillors was attended by about 35 Members of the Oireachtas, which shows that the issue has exercised the minds of many people. This represents an improvement of procedures that are not adequate under the existing legislation.

The issue of housing strategies is pertinent to this legislation and was mentioned by previous speakers. I ask the Minister, for Committee and Report Stages, to reconsider such issues. The majority of local authorities were not committed to the concept of a housing strategy and asked consultants to prepare reports. The only outcome in which the local authority was interested was what percentage of Part V houses it would get from particular developers for affordable or social housing. The concentration of housing strategies in most counties is geared towards waiting lists for council houses. In most counties or cities local authority housing represents about 5% of the total housing stock — certainly not as much as 10%. In most housing strategies the local authority's housing needs had an undue influence and the vast array of private houses being provided were not considered.

I would like to see an amendment to the Bill dealing with affordable housing. There is a serious problem in this area. The people who dreamt up the concept of affordable housing had an excellent idea, but they only considered it on the basis of prices rising; they never considered that prices could fall. The legislation in this area states that the price paid by a local authority for an affordable house is the actual cost of construction plus a profit margin for the builder, which can be up to 15%. In my local authority the price being paid on this basis is more than the market value. Affordable houses, believe it or not, are on sale in County Laois for €150,000 but the market value for better houses in a neighbouring estate is about €125,000.

We are in the perverse situation, because of falling prices, that affordable houses are costing local authorities more than their open market value. It was never considered that prices would drop. I have heard this from builders and they are laughing. They say they are being paid more than the market value for these houses, but if the housing officer has a problem with what they are saying they will win because the legislation states that the price should be the cost of building plus a margin for profit. House values have fallen below the sum of cost plus profit; many houses are being sold for less than this. That is something that has come to pass in recent times and the legislation should deal with it by changing the formula for pricing.

There has been much mention of planning and the planners. It is easy to dump on An Bord Pleanála, but I am always a great believer in bodies like An Bord Pleanála and the Office of the Ombudsman because I do not believe that front-line staff, whether in social welfare, housing, the tax office, the HSE or planning offices, should have the ultimate say on anything. There always must be a court of appeal like An Bord Pleanála. We may not always like what An Bord Pleanála does but we would be in a fair worse situation if we did not have it in operation.

The problem with many of the house designs, which is a big issue in rural areas, is that practically all of the planners who are on the front line making decisions across the country have been trained in the UK. Many of them are Irish, but they went to the UK and most of them got their training over there. They have a UK urban-orientated mind-set on proper planning. The Department is continually having to send out manuals about rural housing and such issues.

On rural housing, I was born and reared, and have lived all my life, in a rural area in County Laois. I do not live in a town and I am all in favour of that. The main reason we have a problem with so many people wanting to build individual houses in rural areas is because the Government consistently over the decades refused to provide funding for waste water sewerage schemes in the villages and small towns. There are at least 12 villages without a sewerage scheme in County Laois. It is impossible for anybody to get planning permission in one of those village because one needs sufficient area coverage for percolation and the only option is to buy a field from a farmer out the road, leading to ribbon development. The principle reason we have had so much one-off rural housing is that we were not providing the ability to build houses in villages. What happened in every village during the boom was that if a developer built 100 houses, he would put in a sewerage scheme. It was the only way some villages ever got such a scheme in the past ten years.

My single biggest criticism of Governments over the past generation has been their refusal to provide adequate funding for waste water. Much money has been allocated to provided public water supplies and we can even see that the grant for a water scheme for a group of houses is substantial — I am not sure whether it is €6,000 or €8,000. There is on paper a grant for individual sewerage schemes, but it does not get drawn down often because it is so complex to do so. In addition, there are many towns where people cannot get planning permission at present because the sewerage systems are at full capacity.

Deputy Bannon stated he could speak all night, but I will not do so. Most Deputies have a keen interest in this area. I am pleased with the provisions in the Bill dealing with the taking charge of estates, especially where the majority of people in an area want that done. There is also provision in this legislation to deal with situations where there is a majority of multi-unit owners. This follows the recommendation from the Law Reform Commission on the taking in charge of those areas.

I am pleased with the issue of e-planning. When a person gets a receipt from a local authority or An Bord Pleanála he or she should be able to accept a copy of that receipt by electronic means. The board refuses many applications because the person cannot produce the individual receipt.

The European Court of Justice made decisions as a result of the Lemybrien case it dealt with last year where it stated that if an environmental impact assessment was required in relation to retention of a particular development, no planning could ever be granted because one could not do an assessment. This would be because the scheme, or what had happened so far, was so big one could never assess what was the original environmental situation for the purpose of drawing up a proper EIA. This applies to a few quarries and sandpits around the country which have been caught in this quango situation. I hope the Minister will bring forward transitional recommendations on Committee Stage to deal with those developments caught temporarily in this situation.

As Chairman of the Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I look forward to the Bill coming before us in due course and to it passing through the Oireachtas in the coming weeks.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Pat Breen.

Like Deputy Fleming, I will be bringing my own experiences to speaking on this Bill. His contribution was coloured by his upbringing in Laois and by living in a small rural area. As a member of Cork City Council for nine years and also dealing with Cork County Council, I suppose I bring much of that experience to bear on this debate. The breadth of issues with which I would be dealing stretch from rural scenic areas to urban areas.

Interestingly, in Cork City Council's housing strategy, 20% of housing would be social and affordable housing. It is a demanding issue for members of the council and for the housing authority, particularly when one considers that the city has quite a small area and there is a high demand for housing, as there is in all cities because people naturally gravitate towards the services.

I welcome much of this Bill. It is important that it ties in the national spatial strategy and the regional planning guidelines to the development plans and, in turn, to the local area plans. The network has always been there but it is important that adherence to the various guidelines would be reflected right through to the development plan.

As a member of Cork City Council, I was involved in making a number of development plans. They are demanding. The local representatives have a substantial input. They are the people living in the area who can bring the needs of the communities to the table. I would never reject or ignore that input. It is extremely important and should always be protected. It is the essence of our democratic system.

However, in my experience there is a case to be made for supporting councillors in their work, particularly when they are dealing with the development plan, by providing independent planning advice to councillors. The councillors are presented with the development plan by the planners and the management of the local authority and councillors should be given independent support in putting forward their views.

The development plans in which I was involved reflected national planning guidelines. I do not think I was ever involved in a rezoning motion — maybe I was fortunate that there was not much land to be rezoned. It is important that rezoning should be taken seriously. I am inclined to agree with the proposal that no rezoning should be implemented unless it has the support of two thirds of the council. It is difficult to get two thirds of a council to vote in favour of a motion. To get such an outcome would deserve much attention and persuasion on behalf of those who proposed the motion. It is a good development. Others, probably even those in my party who have spoken, would not agree with that, but planning is so important in how we develop our areas that such motions should be put to the test and the bar should be set high in any changes that any local authority or local member should propose to make.

The national spatial strategy is in place. The debate here is about councillors trying to overturn decisions locally but on the other hand, there was the decentralisation proposal in a recent budget which paid no attention to spatial planning or national development plans. Under the decentralisation programme, Government bodies and Departments were allocated to areas that did not reflect the objectives of the national spatial strategy.

The national spatial strategy has been spread too thin. As a small island with a small population we cannot develop hubs and gateways everywhere at once, so we must prioritise. We need to examine our regional development and how we will move forward in that respect. I recognise, as the previous speaker said, that people will continue to migrate to cities. Trains coming in and out of Dublin at weekends are packed with young people who are working in the capital. Many people have settled in Cork city from Limerick, Clare, Tipperary, Waterford and Kerry. Cities attract a young migrant population because that is where the jobs, services and quality of life are.

Following the last review of Dáil constituency boundaries, Cork city and county lost a seat which went to the east. Seats were also lost in Limerick and Kerry, which also went to the east. No matter how often we produce plans to resettle population, such as the national spatial strategy, people will still migrate. This is reflected in recent changes in the allocation of Dáil seats, which went eastwards in line with population movements.

The National Competitiveness Council recently produced an excellent report. All the NCC's reports should be debated in this Chamber, but I wonder if they receive the attention they deserve. The most recent one was on prioritising our cities, which is critical for sustainable economic growth. We need to prioritise investment in our main cities to enhance long-term competitiveness. The report referred to the need for key planning decisions to be made by strong leadership with responsibility for providing a co-ordinated approach to issues faced by greater urban areas. That reflects the point that local people — those in leadership positions in their own communities — have better knowledge of how to develop such areas in future. That includes improving the urban land use and planning policy, which was recommended in the report. It also identified the need for higher residential density in cities. Density is an issue as our cities change and older three-bedroom semi-detached houses no longer serve the needs of communities. People want to live near services, so density is important in that respect.

When I visited New York, I was struck by how many millions of people were living on an island as small as Manhattan. Given that so many million people are living there, they have the services and quality of life, but a balance must be struck.

The refusal of planning permission in cases of previously unauthorised development is an old chestnut for all of us who have been involved in local authorities. A developer might obtain planning permission but then walks away, leaving a development half finished. The houses may be there, but the services are not in place, yet such a developer can get planning permission to start work again in another area. There should be a facility for local authorities to clamp down on such people.

The provision for extending planning permission for five years on the basis of commercial, economic or technical reasons is important, particularly in light of our current economic position. People may have obtained planning permissions but are not in a position to develop them, so a facility to extend them would be important.

Taking charge of housing estates is another bugbear with local communities. The Bill contains a provision to move that forward so that property owners can vote to ensure that a housing estate is taken in charge.

Like my colleague, Deputy Clune, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. The recent flooding crisis has made it extremely important. We have witnessed the worst flooding in the history of the State. It is a timely reminder of the importance of proper planning. Lessons must be learned about the impact of past decisions. Deputies will have seen pictures of many areas affected by floods, with people being removed from their homes. I witnessed this recently myself in Ennis. In low-lying areas, people were evacuated from houses that had been built only in the last few years. The property boom of recent years accelerated the problems. The country is facing serious difficulties now due to planning and what was built in the recent past.

At yesterday's meeting of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW, Deputy Mansergh, said there will be some relocations of the 1,700 people who were evacuated from their houses in recent days. Many of them will not be able to return home. In the Springfield-Clonlara area of south east Clare — part of my own constituency, which is familiar to the Acting Chairman, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan — houses have been flooded by up to four feet of water. The same houses were flooded three or fours ago also. Will the situation recur in the next few years? Clare County Council and other local authorities around the country will have to deal with these problems.

The programme for Government was supposed to introduce greater accountability for the planning process. However, even though the Minister, Deputy Gormley, has put this firmly at the top of his agenda since his appointment, his partners in Government may have a different view. They have dragged their heels on the issue of proper planning, including the implementation of radical reforms. Nonetheless, reforms are required in our planning system and the Bill goes some way towards dealing with them, but not all the way.

Over the past ten years, the number of planning applications has soared. We have all seen that happen along with the birth of the commuter belts. The Government's policy was to build as many houses as possible to earn tax revenue from stamp duty. That fed the boom, but it was a flawed policy. This country is now in the midst of a recession, which is deeper than any before.

The boom is over and the construction industry has collapsed. This is reflected in the number of planning applications that have been lodged with various local authorities. In County Clare, up to June this year, some 680 planning applications were lodged, compared to 1,750 applications in 2007. It illustrates what is happening. Planning authorities were unable to cope with the amount of applications over the past ten years. The last decade created many of the problem we must now face. Lessons have to be learned about the planning system and we must reflect on this matter.

Forecasters are predicting that Ireland's rainfall will increase even further in the coming years. This must be taken into account for good planning. I am not just referring to the danger of building on flood plains, which has happened, but also the lack of infrastructural planning and development which is making the situation a lot worse. This is particularly the case in many rural communities which have been affected by the recent flooding. Flooding brings with it the risk of water contamination, which we have seen in many areas, including south County Galway. In my constituency the community in Bridgetown was affected by the recent floods and many people there were left without safe drinking water. A "boil notice" has been issued by the local authority for people living in the Bridgetown-O'Briensbridge area. In the constituency of the Acting Chairman, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, at Montpelier, there was a serious problem, as regards serious contamination of the water system after the recent flooding.

I have asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government many questions in relation to this, particularly with regard to the O'Briensbridge scheme, but there are other schemes around the county as well. The Minister understands that additional information is being sought by the Department, and I would appeal that these schemes be fast-tracked, now that we have learned our lesson from the past. We did not dwell sufficiently on the importance of proper sewerage schemes during the boom for existing towns and villages, and that is a great pity. Many of them lack the necessary infrastructure.

The legislation promises that the planning system will support more targeted investment in infrastructure. Up to now the system has failed miserably. Housing developments have sprung up all over the country, and no further infrastructural needs were factored into the equation. We did not have school infrastructural development for instance. Neither were there transport facilities, adequate sewerage schemes or proper green area facilities. As a result, we face many economic problems in the immediate future. This will happen in the next few years. People have to commute long distances to work. There are now more cars on the road and a great many schools face problems as regards new extensions and facilities that are still not in place.

Irish Planning Institute president, Mr. Gerry Sheeran, recently said that good planning should serve society. I ask the Minister of State whether this Bill will serve our society any better. As others have said, the Bill plans to dilute the powers of local councillors and local authorities. Are we creating another layer of bureaucracy? There were problems in the past, but Fine Gael believes we should strengthen local government. As a former county councillor, I believe we all know our territories and are aware of where people should and should not build. Councillors should have a say in proper planning. A triple lock system is in place, in any event, because ultimately it is the planners who make the official decision as regards planning.

The Bill gives the Minister more powers to direct planning issues at local level. We have seen the way this Government has managed policy in this area by feeding a false boom. Are we now to have a Minister with the power to direct local authorities as and when this is deemed necessary?

The public has only two weeks in which to inspect such ministerial directions in terms of submissions. I ask the Minister when he is reviewing the amendments to the Bill to consider that such a two-week timeframe is much too short. People would need a longer period in which to make submissions. It is not practical.

The national spatial strategy, which is often feted by Ministers as the Government's way of ensuring balanced development, is a blueprint prepared in Dublin with very little input from local representatives. I thought that we were moving away from evolved decision making and towards more democracy at local level. However, those of us in rural areas know only too well how the policy of increased urbanisation has affected our communities and how young people in rural parishes are being denied planning permission for single houses. We have seen planning applications for dwellings at too low a level because planners have asked people to build much lower as they were infringing prescribed ridge heights. Now we see that many such houses are flooded.

Like Deputy Clune, I should like to say much more on this, particularly as regards the fact that local authorities will no longer be able to draft plans for centres with populations of fewer than 5,000. There are implications and I hope they are dealt with on Committee Stage so that we in Fine Gael may also have an input.

Running through this debate in the last few hours has been a consistent theme as regards people asking themselves what is meant by planning. There is room for considerable confusion and words such as "hierarchies" and "strategies" tend to cloud the essence of what is involved. It is best illustrated by examples. For me good planning is when children can be allowed to walk or cycle to school by themselves. Good planning is when an aging mother or father is safe in the family home at night. Good planning is allowing people to live, work and relax within a fairly short space of each other, rather than being forced into commuting long distances by car every day.

It cannot be overly prescriptive and needs to be consistent. The planning documents and plans we have need to form a consistent whole, and that is part of what this Bill is doing. In many ways it was inspired by a key problem, as identified in a court case, McEvoy and Smith v. Meath County Council. Until then we thought there was some coherence between the national spatial strategy, regional planning guidelines and the development plan. In that court case, however, it was shown that the wording in the 2000 Act which referred to having regard to the national spatial strategy and the regional planning guidelines did not cut the mustard. It did not have the strength that was required. That is why section 13 of this Bill provides that a planning authority shall ensure, when making a development or local area plan, that it is consistent with any regional planning guidelines in force for the particular area. That is a major step forward, as we have to integrate the national spatial strategy at a national level, the regional planning guidelines, county and city development plans and local area plans. Essentially, planning is about making all of these, what I may term “ducks”, line up in a row and work well for the entire community. That is so important if planning goals are to be achieved.

I have difficulties with the national spatial strategy. It tried to deliver far too much for too many. If we had a choice, regardless of whether we live in Loop Head, Dún Laoghaire or Gweedore, we should all like to have a high-tech cancer centre five minutes down the road. However, that simply cannot be done, given the available resources. A plan or national spatial strategy cannot deliver everything. The national spatial strategy was compromised in trying to deliver to too many people, and accordingly was diluted through trying to achieve all of that. If we can concentrate the right type of development in the appropriate areas, however, there will be a win, as regards education, health and job creation in so many areas. That will be to the good.

Deputy Clune earlier raised concerns about the requirement for a two thirds majority in certain instances. It should be relatively easy to adopt a draft plan that provides for, say, 50% approval, but if it is to be changed at a later stage, then the bar needs to be set fairly high. One of the difficulties is that amendments to the draft plan may not have been put on public display, so that members of the public will not have had a chance to make their views known. I believe the bar should be set fairly high for those last minute changes that can come about in the plan.

Before the debate is adjourned, I should like to deal with the issue of flooding over the last few days. If anything has concentrated minds as regards the need for proper planning it is the floods which have brought misery to so many people. We need consistent strong good planning to stop areas from becoming flooded. I mentioned this to one of the Fine Gael backbenchers earlier and he put it to me that all we needed was good drainage, rather than good planning. I believe we need both. We need the good drainage but we need the good planning as well.

I ask the Deputy to move the adjournment of the debate.

As I do so, I wish to add that I am heartened the Bill makes reference to climate change because this is a crucial issue for our times.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn