JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Jul 2006

Rural Planning: Presentation.

Chairman

Members will recall that the issue of rural planning arose during a debate with the IFA last March on the future of farming in Ireland and at our meeting with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government last May. The committee agreed to invite representatives of the County and City Managers Association to come before it to discuss the issue. I welcome Mr. Hubert Kearns, Sligo county manager, Mr. Barry Kehoe from Westmeath County Council, Ms Rose Kenny from Louth County Council, and Paul Ridge from Galway County Council. They are directors of service for their respective councils.

Before asking Mr. Kearns to make his opening statement, I draw the witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but that this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Hubert Kearns

We are delighted to appear before the committee and to hear about its concerns in respect of rural planning. We have prepared a brief document, which I forwarded to the clerk to the committee. It addresses the issues raised by the committee, particularly the sterilisation of land in connection with single rural houses. When I have made my presentation, we will take questions and provide answers.

The committee expressed concern that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's policy on rural housing, particularly where it concerns the sterilisation of farm holdings, is not being implemented by all local authorities in accordance with the spirit of the guidelines. The Minister brought the sustainable rural housing guidelines into effect in April 2005, with the objective of helping local authorities to implement a good and consistent planning framework for rural housing that would make it easier for those who are part of or who have links with rural communities to obtain permission to build private houses and to remain in their communities. The guidelines consolidate the approach taken on rural housing in the national spatial strategy, which aims to support rural communities and provide the framework within which such communities can develop economically and socially.

In the operation of the planning system, local authorities must have regard to sustainability and the economic, environmental and social impacts of development. They are also conscious of the need to ensure a continued supply of housing to assist the national effort to keep house prices at reasonable levels. That issue concerns everybody. In 2005 local authorities granted permission for in excess of 39,000 one-off rural houses. The guidelines are a major and material consideration in both development plans and the consideration by planning authorities of all applications for single houses. Planning authorities were required to review and vary their development and, where necessary, ensure that their policies on rural settlement are consistent with the guidelines. Most local authorities have done this or are in the process of doing so.

Sterilisation agreements come under section 47 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which provides for agreements that restrict or regulate the future development of use of land. These have been used over the years by planning authorities to regulate development in rural areas, usually on land adjacent to major and growing urban centres where particular pressures exist. The agreements provide a useful tool to enable the planning authorities to support rurally-generated housing and to grant permission for one-off houses while preventing the proliferation of houses in these areas, which are usually adjacent to major and growing urban centres.

The guidelines introduced by the Minister advise against the use of such agreements, except in highly exceptional circumstances. We have researched this with our colleagues and the delegation's experience is that such agreements are being implemented on an exceptional basis in a small number of cases. The number of agreements is declining in accordance with the Minister's requirements. In Sligo in 2005, for example, there were 11 such agreements out of a total of 1,100 planning decisions. To date in 2006, there has been only one agreement. I do not have up-to-date information in respect of the position nationally, although, based on anecdotal evidence, it appears that such agreements are declining. We are encouraging this trend in accordance with the guidelines.

Sterilisation agreements were used to permit developments that might otherwise have been refused and the reasons for refusal could be mitigated through the agreements. In all other cases, development is considered in accordance with proper planning and development procedures, Government guidelines and local development plans. I assure the committee that the guidelines are being implemented in the manner intended by the Minister. Implementation is being monitored by managers and directors of service who are responsible for planning. Local authority management continues to be committed to the sustainable development of rural communities and to the continuation of the excellent quality of life our rural areas provide for a large number of people. Issues raised by committee members will be relayed to our colleagues nationally so that they can be taken into account by managers in the implementation of the planning system.

Chairman

Mr. Kearns referred to the rarity of sterilisation agreements but the greatest problem with which I have been confronted is land that remains sterilised following the granting of one or two planning permissions many years previously. I raised this with the Minister and representatives of the IFA when they appeared before the committee. I have great difficulty lobbying Meath County Council to discontinue those sterilisations. If the guidelines state that such agreements should only be arrived at in extreme circumstances, why not disregard them? I ask Mr. Kearns to discuss this issue with all county and city managers because I am sure the problem arises in every county. I know people with only one son or daughter who built a house on a 50-acre farm ten or 15 years ago before the land was sterilised. The position has not changed and it is unfair. People are afraid to sterilise land because it is a disincentive when it comes to selling it on. All the agreements should be discontinued and it would not be a major job. I would be grateful if the association pursued this issue. I thank Mr. Kearns for his presentation.

Mr. Kearns

That is a legitimate issue, which we had not considered. I will raise it with our colleagues. In the light of the guidelines it needs to be addressed. I am aware of occasions where existing sterilisation agreements were broken in my county where the planning authority accepted that due to a change in circumstances in the locality or in a family that the agreement was no longer necessary. I will deal with that issue on a national basis.

Chairman

It can be the case that such an agreement will no longer apply in the case of family members. Many farmers need cash and the proceeds from the sale of a site or two would greatly assist them, but if such an agreement is in place, the local authority will not remove that restriction on the use of land in County Meath.

Deputy Naughten

I welcome Mr. Kearns and his colleagues to this meeting. To follow on from what the Chairman said, a difficulty about sterilisation agreements is that local authorities interpret them differently. Furthermore, depending on senior management in a local authority, there are different flexibilities in the lifting or adaptation of sterilisation agreements to allow for special circumstances. This is especially the case with significant on-farm investment under the farm waste management grants scheme. Many farmers are trying to comply with the rules and regulations of the nitrates directive in light of the grants that are currently available, which hopefully will be increased, but there will still be a significant shortfall in that respect.

The total budget available for this scheme from Government is €0.25 billion but the total cost involved is approximately €1 billion. This deficit will have to be made up from somewhere. Some of that shortfall will be met through the liquidation of part of the farm asset, perhaps through the sale of land some distance from the holding that is not economically viable. Special recognition must be given to this issue given that traditionally up to 40% of the population lived in rural areas. Is that factor taken in consideration not so much by local authority management but by planners? From dealing with planners, their attitude does not appear to take that factor into account in their interpretation of the guidelines.

Mr. Kearns made the point that in the past 18 months there were 12 sterilisation agreements in County Sligo. During that period the was only one sterilisation agreement in County Longford, but in some local authorities there were significantly higher rates of sterilisation agreements. Therefore, management teams in local authorities interpret sterilisation agreements differently. Mr. Kearns might indicate how he intends to square off that issue. He stated that agreements are broken only in highly exceptional circumstances. If that is the case, there seems to be many more highly exceptional circumstances in some local authorities than in others.

I draw to the attention of Mr. Kearns that if there is a delay in the planning process in the granting of planning permission for the provision of farmyards and farmyard sheds under the farm waste management grant scheme, it will hold up the process of approval and sanction of grant aid. I ask him to work with his colleagues around the country to ensure that these applications are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Such delays are holding up the implementation of the grant aid scheme and the facilitation of the rules and regulations under the nitrates directive.

Deputy Carty

I welcome Mr. Kearns and his colleagues. To follow on from what the Chairman and Deputy Naughten said, I find that more often than not in my county there is a lack of consistency in planning decisions. I often wonder if the planners ever meet to discuss planning. There are six electoral areas in Mayo and each planner is a boss in his or her area. We hear of a decision on a development in one electoral area that will not be made in another electoral area. Such inconsistency in planning is difficult to deal with as a public representative.

Apart from the sterilisation programme, a pattern has developed recently whereby a five-year occupancy clause has been applied to property, even in rural areas where there is little housing in County Mayo. I know of a farmer who is experiencing severe financial difficulties who wants to sell a site but is restricted from doing so because of the five-year occupancy clause applying to his land. There is little housing in the area and even the director of services for the area agreed with me on that point, but the five year occupancy clause has been applied to the property. When that clause has been inserted it cannot be lifted unless a person submits for further application but that involves a considerable cost. I would like if planners within counties arranged to meet occasionally together with their county manager and director of services to ensure there is a uniform policy rather than planners having their own fiefdoms and introducing their own policies.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl

I welcome Mr. Kearns and members of the delegation. As I thought of this meeting on my way here, I reflected on the major influence county managers have on the formation and implementation of public policy at county level. Many of us would be of the opinion that they have even greater influence now since the demise of the dual mandate. The association has been something of a reclusive body. We do not meet the representatives of the County and City Managers' Association often enough and perhaps we should invite them here more often. Are directors of services members of the managers' association? The Chairman might advise me on that.

It is interesting that Mr. Kearns referred to the sustainable rural housing guidelines because a number of interesting issues arose when they were published. One was that the Minister responsible said at the time that he wanted the public to be treated courteously in their dealings with planning departments. It must be without precedent that a Minister had to say to officials in any area of the public service that members of the public dealing with them should expect to be dealt with in a courteous manner. There was a major emphasis in those guidelines on the fact that if one met certain general categories, there should be a positive presumption. My experience in this area is limited to County Kildare and areas across its border. The negativity that was a feature of planning in my county is even more negative today than it was before the sustainable housing guidelines were produced.

The guidelines also refer to not being unduly prescriptive. The new county development plan in Kildare could not be more prescriptive. For an applicant to have any chance of success, he or she needs to fit into one of five narrow categories. To prove that one fits into them, one needs to produce among other documents — this is set out in the application as required documentation — one's birth certificate or baptismal certificate, a letter not from a clergyman but from a priest, and five years' P60s or five years' certified accounts. Other items are also sought as prescribed documentation. That does not seem to fit in with the order or sense that characterises this sustainable rural housing document.

The association's report indicates that there were 39,000 one-off houses in the country in 2005. When the County Kildare development plan was being prepared in 2005, I recall a number of councillors in Kildare asked the county manager if he could indicate the number of one-off houses built in rural areas in the county as that information would assist them in the formulation of policy for the county development plan. They were told that he could not tell them that number and that it was not possible to give them the information. I wonder from where did Mr. Kearns obtain the figure of 39,000 one-off houses. Of these, how many are in village or settlement developments and how many are in urban areas on zoned land? How much of it is one-off housing in what one might classify as rural areas?

Over the past four years this committee has spoken at length about alternative rural enterprise and there are various programmes in place to encourage development in rural areas. With the single farm payment and various changes happening in agriculture, there are an ever greater number of farm buildings becoming surplus to farm needs and farmers are looking at getting involved in alternative types of business and making practical use of their buildings. While I cannot speak for every county, in County Kildare it is inordinately difficult to do anything of a commercial nature with a farm building. It is easier to let such farm buildings fall into dereliction than to make some productive use of them and the problem lies in the planning system.

I echo Deputy Carty's comments on consistency. Whereas people say that planning is a science, I think it is an art form. Consistency may be difficult to achieve. My experience, in 21 years of dealing with the planning system in County Kildare, is that the only consistency is the inconsistency.

Deputy Hoctor

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl will be a hard act to follow. I welcome Mr. Kearns and his colleagues to the committee to discuss rural planning. On a matter related to a question from the Chairman, has planning been removed completely from county managers? In light of Better Local Government and the positions of directors of services, do county managers know about planning permissions, both approved and not approved, on a daily basis within the organisation of a county council? What, if any, communication is there between the county manager and the director of services?

In light of what Mr. Kearns stated about the section 47 decisions, how many such decisions have been reversed? It is my understanding of section 47 that all parties must agree to have the agreement reversed. In my experience as a former member of the county council, the local authority was often the obstacle to the farmer, due to changing circumstances, getting the agreement reversed.

Traditional farming practice is another issue particularly pertinent to the committee, which regularly meets members of the farming community. How important is traditional farming practice to the planning system? In Mr. Kearns' experience, is it given priority of place when planning permission is sought for houses in rural areas, where the milking parlour must continue to operate and where the slurry must still be spread? Local authorities are prompt in replying to complaints they receive from once-off house residents, who often are from the town originally. As the committee will be aware, that is no longer so much the case.

While the local authority will respond and inform the farmer that he or she cannot spread slurry within such a distance of houses, etc., we as a largely rural country must see traditional farming practice continue. Where is it written? Is it written into the development plans? The county and city managers are the people who present the development plans, although the local authority members sanction such plans finally. It is an important matter. If it is not already in the county and city managers' discussion documents, I would appeal to them to include it to ensure that traditional farming practice continues.

I support the plea made by my colleague, Deputy Ó Fearghaíl on rural enterprise. There are many old farmyard buildings, some of which are magnificent and some of which are not so, which are only waiting to be developed for all kinds of rural enterprise. While country roads often will not sustain traffic that might be generated by such proposals for commercial ventures, nevertheless we are talking about keeping rural Ireland alive and I hope that is the intention of everyone here.

Deputy Crawford

I also welcome the delegation. I make no apology for extending a special welcome to Mr. Hubert Kearns, who is not only the Sligo county manager but also a fellow County Monaghan man. I was glad to hear him speak of the sterilisation of land in connection with single rural housing and make clear what the position should be. Unfortunately, my experience would be somewhat different, where individuals have received permission for 12, 13 or 14 houses in quite built-up areas and yet right behind my farm in a rural area a young man was forced to sign a land sterilisation agreement to get permission for a second house on the farm. His brother had got one first and he was getting the second. There was a house on a field a considerable distance from the houses, but what occurred seemed strange and very much out of place with what was said here.

I support the Chairman's call for the need for a relaxation of what happened many years ago because there are farms in serious difficulties. In light of the comments made by my colleague, Deputy Naughten about the problems of farm income at present and with meeting regulations, some of these people will go out of business if they do not have the right to sell-off a site. The sale of a site could allow the farmer update the farm and bring it into line with good farming practice. That is a matter we need to look at positively.

There are a number of other planning issues worth raising. I, for one, welcomed the idea of pre-planning. I thought it was a great idea. Unfortunately, the same planner does not get the file when it is submitted for operation and the position on it can change dramatically. Recently, I encountered a case where a person was applying for quite a big project, to which the executive engineer and the senior planner agreed. However, when the project was submitted for full planning permission following purchase of the site, etc., it was simply torn down on four or five different issues relevant to the points agreed before it was submitted. If there is to be development in rural areas, there must be some degree of honesty and follow through on such issues. It is not that difficult to put a note on a file so that a person dealing with it subsequently can see to it afterwards.

There seems to be a much bigger problem with An Taisce in the other part of my constituency, County Cavan, than in other areas. In Belturbet I visited a farm on which there was just one house. When another daughter wanted to build a house on the farm in an isolated area three fields from a lake which would cause no difficulty to anybody, the farmer was turned down for all sorts of spurious reasons by somebody unknown. The local authority is totally in favour of granting planning permission for the house but An Bord Pleanála turned it down.

These are matters on which we would appreciate clarification. The Minister's new proposal sounded like a breath of fresh air when it was first issued but it has not necessarily filtered down through the system to that degree. My constituency of Cavan-Monaghan has had the lowest level of increase in population in recent years. If the trend continues, we will be the first to lose a Member of Parliament. Cavan-Monaghan is at the lowest level to allow for five Members. County Louth is at the highest level to allow for four Members.

Chairman

Perhaps they would give a bit of it to Meath.

Deputy Crawford

My point is the need for rural housing in such places is vital. The cost of those sites are much too high because of the restrictions on others getting them. I ask that the most realistic and common sense approach be adopted. Hundreds of houses have been removed from parishes over the years and if regeneration is not permitted, schools and churches will lie vacant and no sports teams will be able to compete. The association has a major role to play and I appreciate the delegation's willingness to discuss the issue with the committee.

Deputy Collins

I welcome the delegation. I understood that all directors of services were in charge of planning. Will Mr. Kearns clarify whether this is the case? I also understood that directors of services do not communicate with county managers regarding planning applications.

Planning is the bane of county councils and politicians. Since the dual mandate was abolished, we have been pushed aside and local authorities have more contact with the planners. It is difficult to obtain information on applications. I agree with the Chairman that sterilisation agreements and the five-year occupancy clause should be relaxed. Agreements have been nullified in a number of cases but local authorities have refused to cancel them in other cases. It is difficult for a public representative to explain this to a constituent.

There is a problem in my area, which was inherited from County Meath because the former county manager moved from there to Limerick. He is a nice man but because of the number of houses built in the suburbs of Limerick city, which are officially in the county, he introduced a pressure area. When a person wanted to build a house, a number of conditions had to be met. One had to need a house, one had to have lived in the area before a certain date and so on. That worked for a while but he left his post when he fell ill and his replacement extended the pressure area. Now, one must live within 14 miles of the city to build a house. This rural area represents the only opportunity young married couples have of building their own houses, otherwise they will remain on the local authority waiting list. It is wrong that a person must have ties with the area. One could be from another county and take up a job in Limerick and one would not be permitted to build a house.

The other issue about which I am concerned is the lack of consistency among planners. I was a member of a local authority for 20 years and I always got on well with planners. I never hassled them but it is difficult when they say that three 0.5 acre sites can be built on in one area, while, a mile down the road, permission is granted for four houses and, one mile away, it is granted in respect of ten to 20 houses. That is inconsistent and it is difficult for us to explain to the public why the planners operate in this way.

Deputy Grealish

I welcome the delegation, particularly Mr. Ridge from Galway County Council, with whom I work regularly on planning permissions. The bulk of public representatives' time is taken up with rural planning issues. When the county development plan was adopted by Galway County Council, it was difficult to strike a balance to cater for everybody. Unfortunately, it is not possible to do so but we spent long hours and many late nights attempting to arrive at a solution in rural areas. Galway is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe and there is significant pressure on planning. The price of sites has gone through the roof. A 0.5 acre site where I live can fetch up to €300,000. A person was recently offered €270,000 each for two sites. People who own land are driven mad by these prices because they think they can make €1 million per acre but a line must be drawn in this regard. Significant numbers of planning permissions have been granted on the outskirts of Galway city, as a recent map provided by the council shows.

A balance must be struck. I agree that the children of the landowner must be catered for first. A provision was included in the county development plan to cater for persons who were an intrinsic part of local communities. People who are born in an area but who do not have a site will be catered for in the plan. There is a ten-year clause and they can buy sites from local farmers. The policy in Galway is good and it is working exceptionally well. However, many elderly farmers attend my clinics. They have three or four children and they want to hand over the farm to one of their sons. The problem is that their sons will not take the farm because of the level of debt for which they are obliged to assume responsibility. They have jobs, working 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., and they do not want that responsibility. One farmer had a debt of €30,000 and he asked his son to take over the farm. The latter refused point blank because he could not sell a site to clear the debt and he did not want a noose around his neck. Eventually, somebody who fitted the criteria under the county development plan came along and the farmer managed to sell a site and secure planning permission. A neighbour bought the site and the son took over the farm.

Who makes decisions on sites along national primary and regional roads? Where a child takes over a farm beside such a route, the guidelines state that he or she shall be entitled to planning permission. If a farmer has four or five children, only one can obtain planning permission. That is unfair because the other children are forced to buy houses in nearby towns or villages. Do the officials agree that cluster developments should be permitted in these cases? One entrance can be provided off the road and two or three houses could be built on a site solely for the family members. When a county development plan is adopted, landowners and their families should be catered for.

Deputy Callanan

I welcome Mr. Kearns and, in particular, Mr. Paul Ridge, director of services in Galway. Mr. Ridge has been courteous to all of us and his planners are always available, although we do not agree with many of their decisions. I come from the opposite side of the county to Deputy Grealish and my problem is that the pressure area around Galway city is extending into rural parts of east Galway. The seven-year clause makes life very difficult. Are the Minister's rural planning guidelines being implemented now or must the county development plan be changed first? We feel that some areas of the guidelines are not currently implemented.

Mr. Ridge would know of my long-time concern about town environments. Areas within a mile and a half of town limits are highly restricted. This is not good planning because it results in the town coming as far as the green belt of a mile and a half, but then there is development further out. This is noticeable around some of our towns, Athenry for example. It does not make sense and I would like to hear some comments on it.

Senator Coonan

I welcome the delegation and thank it for its briefing. Hopefully this is the start of more frequent meetings with the association and we look forward to that. I agree with most that has been said and will try to avoid going back over the same issues.

The Minister outlined the guidelines to the committee previously. Some planning people have said to me that guidelines are only guidelines. How does the County and City Managers Association see the guidelines? Does it see them as laws that should be incorporated in planning decisions as they are meant to be?

People have mentioned inconsistency in planning decisions. I could give several examples of such decisions from the years when I was on the council. One planner hated red brick buildings and as a result housing applications were turned down one after the other. Another planner would not allow a house be built unless it included some form of brick. These decisions demonstrate the frustration that can be caused. People used to ask who would want to be a politician, but now people ask me who would want to be a planner. Other speakers have pointed out the frustration experienced as a result of planning decisions.

Another issue is the service offered under the name of better local government. People used to be able to phone a planning section and if they did not get the right person, someone else would answer and pass on their message. Now all they get is a message machine and they rarely get a reply. I can empathise with planners in this regard because they say, in my county anyway, that they are very understaffed. What is the association's view on staffing and the service provided by local authorities?

Another cause of frustration is that despite pre-planning meetings and the engagement of a top architect to present a planning application, people often receive a letter from the planning authority about two or three days before a decision is due seeking additional information. This drives people demented. I do not know whether it is related to lack of staff, but it is a problem.

Another inconsistency relates to development charges, particularly for once-off housing in rural areas. In some counties the charges do not exist and in others they are only half of the exorbitant charges imposed elsewhere. There is inconsistency across the board. What is the association's view on that?

A figure of 39,000 was mentioned with regard to permissions granted for once-off houses and there is some question as to whether they are actually once-off developments. How many such housing applications were refused? How many were not granted because people were advised or directed to withdraw their applications?

The role of An Taisce in respect of planning was raised in the Seanad this morning. It was claimed that An Taisce would like to turn the countryside into a type of zoo that town people could visit to see the animals and rural people in their cages. I appeal to the County and City Managers Association not to let that happen to our countryside. People who want to build and live on the land should be accommodated. In pre-famine times we had 8 million people in the country and the ruins of some of their derelict homes can be seen scattered throughout the land. If people want to build on or renovate those sites, they are not allowed — at least in my county — unless there is a roof and a door on the old building.

Some houses being built around the country on half acre sites are 3.500 sq. ft. in size and have big railings around them. They are like Fort Knox and should not be allowed. The size of a house should be proportionate to the size of the site. Wherever possible, there should be a drive into such houses as in former times when people built their houses in the heart of their farm rather than up against the edge of the road.

Chairman

One issue of concern in County Meath is the high turnover of planners, but this does not appear to be the case in other counties. The most significant problem confronting us in Meath is the conditions under which planners must work and one can understand why so many leave. The situation is so bad that recently a young part-time farmer came to me about his planning application. He had agreed to change his plans and remove certain things with which the planner was not happy. He did this for three different planners in a short space of time. He resubmitted his application for the fourth time and the new planner rejected his application. This situation is deplorable. Unfortunately, the planner is out on sick leave and I have not had an opportunity to discuss the decision with him. The situation is unreal. It is very unfair that a person should be put to the cost of making all these changes to keep three different planners happy and then be told the application is not acceptable.

As part of his planning application the person in question also had to indicate the organisations with which he was involved. It appears that if applicants are not involved with a local organisation, they will not get planning permission. Many people are not involved with an organisation in their area. It is deplorable that they are asked to submit this evidence.

Another issue concerns the removal of hedgerows for visibility purposes. I raised this matter in the Dáil and asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food whether there was any difficulty with people in REPS removing hedgerows and replanting them if this would benefit an application for planning permission. The Department has no problem in that regard. I raised the same question with the Minister at this committee and was told there is no difficulty provided the hedgerow is replanted. However, the planners in County Meath have a serious problem with this. I have raised the matter with the directors of services and the county manager time and again and have been told it is an environmental issue. This is no good as a response to unfortunate young couples who want to build a house. These are all issues that cause us serious concern.

Another area where there are serious problems relates to entrances on to regional roads. I do not remember any condition incorporated in the development plan to the effect that people could not make a new entrance on to a regional road. On national primary and secondary routes, people must get permission from the NRA. It is unfair that if people cannot avail of a joint entrance — for example, one shared with parents or a brother or sister — they will not get planning permission on a regional road. However, some people receive planning permission and this annoys me. In County Meath a young couple were refused permission to build on land — it is the only land they own — beside a regional road, whereas a mile and a half down the road, the son of a farmer who owns 600 acres, with a large amount of the land adjacent to county roads, was given permission on a regional road. Inconsistency in this regard is a serious problem in our county and has been for the past number of years.

The situation is not improving. The reason for this is the frequent turnover of planning officials. I do not think the representatives from counties Westmeath and Louth who are present encounter these difficulties but it is a serious problem in County Meath. I understand the frustration of the planners who have stayed with us for the past number of years. The problem is not the same in every county. I am not afraid to say it is due to the disgraceful conditions under which planners in County Meath must work.

If any of the directors of services wish to speak, they are more than welcome. I invite Mr. Kearns to speak.

Mr. Kearns

The members raised quite a few issues. I will deal with the issue of inconsistency, which was raised by many members. I understand the frustration of members and it is an issue with which I am concerned at times. It is a major issue in respect of customer service. The planning service should be reasonably consistent.

In my experience, one of the difficulties is that because the terrain differs, even within small areas in all counties, this sometimes leads to inconsistencies. For example, a couple of hundred yards of good land, a stretch of bog or hilly ground, may all be located within a small area and this can lead to some inconsistencies being almost necessary. We discussed the pressure areas around the bigger towns, where more restrictions apply than in rural areas. Even within the same county or electoral areas, different policies will be in place for what I would argue are quite good reasons. The message we hear from the committee is that even allowing for those issues, significant inconsistencies exist in the application of the rules by planners and by directors and county councils. This is an issue we will take on board and relay to our members. We will tell them this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

A staffing structure is in place in the counties and this should mitigate the effects. While there may be a turnover in planners, senior planners, directors and managers should be able to monitor the implementation of the planning system in a way to correct a good number of those inconsistencies.

Some members raised the issue of pre-planning. This pre-planning is very useful and important. However, when it is agreed, it should be adhered to. This is a question of good customer service and a decent service to the public. If something is agreed with the local planner it should be documented so that future planners can look at the files and see that such a plan has already been agreed. Unless that particular planner has some fundamental reason to change it, which he or she could then discuss with his or her senior planner or director, then what was originally agreed should stand. We will relay the point to our members that members of the committee are concerned about this matter.

People rely on what council officials tell them. They go to the trouble of making appointments and listening to what planners or council officials say. There is a certain contract of agreement in small letters between the parties that should be adhered to unless there are very good reasons for this not to happen.

I wish to make a point to members which we also make to our staff, namely, that the planning system is very complex and on occasions unnecessarily complex. Perhaps, however, I should not say that. The system is very busy and local councillors, Deputies, the staff and people trying to start homes and rear families are coping with a great deal of pressure. This causes its own difficulties when coupled with the complications in the system. There is a significant inequality in bargaining power.

Building their own home is probably the biggest investment a young couple starting out will ever make. It is understandable that they will feel at a disadvantage when dealing with the council officials. The latter know all about the business and have many years of knowledge and experience. The young couple are often in a sensitive frame of mind and may sometimes interpret a planner's use of very technical language and the reference to regulations as a lack of courtesy. I understand how this may happen because the gulf in bargaining power is enormous. They feel the planners hold all the cards and have all the power and influence. The young couple may feel powerless in those situations. I have reminded our planners to be acutely aware that they are dealing with people who are not experts in the business and who are making a huge investment and they should be treated very sensitively because of their position. We will include this matter in the future training of people and train them to be aware of such scenarios.

Another important issue relates to the depopulated areas and this was raised by some members. Many rural communities are still suffering depopulation and are not benefiting from the Celtic tiger as well as others. In large parts of south County Sligo adjacent to the borders of counties Roscommon and Leitrim, we have a very different planning policy compared to the areas close to urban centres that have good economies. We welcome anyone building houses in those depopulated areas because our community facilities, such as schools and Gaelic teams, are all suffering. This is an opportunity when the economy is doing well of strengthening those areas, which in many cases suffered hundreds of years of depopulation.

On the question of the position of managers and directors, it is difficult to speak on behalf of all my colleagues throughout the country because practices vary. I would expect that managers, while they may have delegated to directors the planning function of making individual decisions, would closely monitor what is happening in planning. They should ensure that the system operates consistently and fairly and that good customer service is provided to clients. I hold regular meetings with Deputies and councillors regarding planning cases that are not going well, so to speak. I use these meetings to see that the rules are being applied in those cases. I intend to continue this practice because the operation of the system needs to be monitored. I can only speak on my behalf but I will relay the message that there is a need for continuing consistency and managerial control over the system.

I will ask my colleagues to deal with the other points raised.

Mr. Barry Kehoe

I thank the committee for inviting us to attend.

We are conscious of the needs of rural communities. I am from a relatively rural county, Westmeath. We are made aware of those needs on a daily basis by local members and councillors. We are aware of the pressure on farming and rural communities. Our policies and decisions take those factors into account, in so far as is possible. We are aware of the significant need for farm diversification and this issue was raised by members of the committee. We support farm diversification as much as possible. There will always be limits to what we can do because other areas within the county are designated for certain types of development. Some types of development are not suited to rural areas and other types are. Where diversification is appropriate in a rural area we support it in so far as we possibly can.

Pre-planning is an important area to which we in Westmeath have given considerable attention. We can possibly address it back through the CCMA. Our policy in Westmeath is to make a record of all pre-planning meetings and where any agreement is given or any meeting of minds is reached regarding design, eligibility or anything else, it is put on the record, sent to the applicant and his or her agent, and placed on file. Once a person makes an application for permission, a record of the pre-planning meeting goes on to the public file. We honour agreements reached by a previous planner or anybody else. We hope that addresses the issue of the turnover of planners, which is a problem. Planners move on quickly and they represent a limited pool of people. At least the record exists. In fairness to planners, they are trained to keep a very accurate record of meetings they hold and to record whatever takes place on a file for public scrutiny. It is part of their training to have everything on the public file. I hope the same is happening throughout the country.

I wish to comment on the support that applicants get from agents. We often find that applications are poor, which leads to a problem for us and for the applicant. While applicants would not be expected to know the ins and outs of planning policy and legislation, the agents should and they should advise applicants as to what they need to put in to get permission in a particular area. They should be aware that different policies apply in different areas and that the application should be tailored accordingly. In many cases this does not happen, which gives rise to requests for further information, as mentioned by some members.

Before handing over to my colleague, I wish to comment on the issue of access on to national primary, secondary and regional roads. We are given very strict guidance on those issues by the NRA regarding national primary and secondary roads. As everybody is aware we have a major road safety problem. Many of our roads, particularly the national secondary roads, are not up to the standard we would wish. It would not be in the general public interest to allow many more entrances on to poorly aligned national secondary roads. The volume and speed of traffic on national primary roads makes it very difficult to introduce new accesses in a way that is safe. Safety must be of paramount concern. Unfortunately this means in some cases that people who might have no other option but a site on a national road cannot avail of it because we must take into consideration public safety issues.

Mr. Paul Ridge

I thank the members of the committee for giving us the opportunity to express our views on planning. In Galway the rural dimension is extremely important. Unlike the rest of the country, approximately 70% of the houses for which we grant permission are in rural areas, which is a reversal of the national average. As Deputy Grealish said, the issue that exercises us most of the time is how best to achieve the correct balance. Galway is an unusual county in having very weak areas and very strong areas. It has some very scenic areas and some areas where scenery would not be so important. Our policy is largely based on a settlement strategy whereby we try to ensure that development takes place in a balanced manner and is spread throughout the county.

I will give some figures to support the strategy in place and to show that it is working. In the three years prior to the adoption of our current development plan, inside what we call the GTPS, which is a planning boundary, we granted permission for 6,125 rural houses, and outside we granted permission for 2,481. After the implementation of the county development plan which includes restrictions on houses within the GTPS, the number of houses granted permission dropped. These are houses that result from urban-generated demand from the city. The number reduced to 4,183. However, outside the GTPS in the weaker part of the county the number increased to 3,131, an increase of nearly 700 houses in a three-year period. This must be significant for the rural economy and the rural communities that have benefited from that growth.

Having said that, I accept that there is always room for improvement. We are now working very closely with the members on the variations to the development plan. The central issue will be the issue of rural housing policy, whether the policy we have in place is meeting the desires of the members and what changes need to take place. We have also moved the debate on substantially from just rural housing as being the key issue for the rural economy. We are also considering rural enterprise centres. We are very conscious of the need to ensure a smooth transition from the existing rural economy to a post-Fischler type of enterprise economy. We are debating the matter at local electoral area meetings. The big issue for us is to ensure that good intentions do not get misinterpreted and in trying to create rural enterprise we do not find that we rob towns and villages of the enterprises they already have. We are trying to get a policy that will let rural enterprise grow organically from the rural communities rather than it transferring out from towns and villages. We have done considerable work on the matter and I am quite hopeful that at the end of the process we will have a policy with which we can experiment for two or three years, which has become standard practice for us. After that period we can review it and if necessary change it.

The issue of consistency is not unique to planning authorities in Ireland, but applies to all planning authorities. As Mr. Kehoe said, we try to address it by keeping the applicant more informed. We have a process which involves giving a pre-planning report to every applicant who sends us details of the site of the proposed house. The pre-planning report, sent within one week of the request, outlines the planning constraints on that site. We also supply the applicant with an extensive 17-page report. It is extensive because it reflects how complex planning is. The report explains the significance of each of the planning restrictions. I accept, as Mr. Kearns has said, that giving this report to planning applicants may not fully meet their needs, as it is difficult to interpret. However, at least they have the information which allows them to ask their agent whether particular considerations have been taken into account.

Some of the provisions are so simple that people might ask why we put them in. However, they are issues that are not being addressed by agents when they make applications to us and which we require to be addressed. Such issues can result in the generation of requests for further information at the last minute, which causes so much irritation to the applicant. There is a chain of communication. The planning authority communicates primarily with the agent. Not all, but some agents will then communicate to the applicant what suits the agent best. The applicant might then give a local authority member his or her interpretation of what has happened. In some cases local authority members know that what they have been told is not the truth. However, in other cases they come back and ask us what has happened. Some effort is being made by all planning authorities to short-circuit that route and deal directly with the applicants to bring them into the frame and ensure they are fully informed.

Pre-planning is an essential part of that process. However, the difficulty is that many applicants and agents are not fully prepared. Our insistence that applicants go through the pre-planning process and get a document stating that they must take 23 considerations into account prepares them better. We would like to move on and reach a stage whereby we could inform people that based on the information they have supplied they qualify for a rural house, so they can proceed to purchase a site from a farmer that would enable them to build such a house. I am not sure whether resources will permit that to take place within the next 12 months but that is where we want to be and where we are aiming to go. If we do that, we will stand some chance of controlling the price of housing sites.

If planning restrictions are not sufficiently rigorous, all the land in a local area will be almost sterilised when someone in the area sells a site for a big price like €300,000 or €400,000. If land owners know that one of their neighbours up the road got such a price for a site, they will not sell their sites for less. That results in people from the locality getting priced out of the market. The big issue for the County and City Managers Association is to ensure that people can build houses in their localities which comply with the principles of proper planning and sustainability, etc. It is easier to achieve compliance with such principles than to strike a balance by putting in place a system that is rigorous enough to ensure that local people can build houses but people who are in there with money cannot do so. It is something we will have to keep working at.

There are different policies in different counties because there are different pressures in different areas. Different priorities may be established by elected members of different local authorities. I could speak all day about these matters, which is part of my problem, but I will leave it at that.

Ms Rose Kenny

I support the view that pre-planning is vital. The better the pre-planning process is, the better the system and the final service is. Thankfully the planners in County Louth are not moving on, they are quite settled in the county. We have a fairly good pre-planning system. Our area executive planner holds a clinic all day every Wednesday. A report of exactly what transpired at the various meetings is given to the people involved. The entire process is logged, so that when the application comes in it does not matter which planner gets it. It is very important that the pre-planning notes are available to everyone. The planners meet every Monday morning to discuss what will happen that week. If a planner knows something about a particular application in which he or she has been involved, he or she can mention it at a Monday meeting. That is necessary to ensure that the process is consistent. County Louth does not have area-based officers — all the planners are based in the headquarters, which makes it easier for them to contact each other and for me to have a consistent approach.

Chairman

That is a better system.

Ms Kenny

Exactly. Everyone is present at the meetings. I support what Mr. Ridge has said about commercial enterprises and farms. Such an approach would be welcomed in County Louth if it led to an improvement in employment opportunities in rural areas, without taking such opportunities from somewhere else. We are aware of the need for small businesses to be developed to supplement farm income. I refer, for example, to activities in farm buildings which are not needed for the general purposes of the farm.

Deputy Hoctor spoke about people who move into an area only to find that ordinary practices like slurry spreading do not necessarily suit them. That is an environmental issue rather than a planning issue. Complaints in such circumstances are invariably made to the environment section and are referred to the EPA. They can be dealt with by environmental technicians who visit farmers to talk about the guidelines and the nitrates directive, etc. While it is not a planning issue, it is certainly an environmental one.

Deputy Hoctor

The proximity of the house to the various parts of the farm, such as the milking parlour, is an important issue in this context.

Ms Kenny

That is absolutely true. Having worked in the planning and environment areas, I am aware that the issue raised by the Deputy often arises. Even if the proximity issue has been properly addressed, problems associated with smells can arise.

The issue of farm levies was raised by Senator Coonan. The relevant scheme in every county is adopted by the members of the local authority. It is a function of the local authority. It has been decided in County Louth that farm levies should not apply in cases of farmers who are in compliance with EU directives. If a farmer is engaging in a development, Teagasc submits a notice declaring that it is being done in accordance with the regulations, and the farmer is thereby exempted from the levies.

The issue of refusals was also raised. Permission was granted for approximately 700 rural houses in County Louth last year. The service indicators can be used to ascertain what the refusal rate is at any particular time. The refusal rate in County Louth last year was approximately 13%.

Chairman

Mr. Ridge referred to a document that can be used to indicate the patterns in this regard. Such a document is not available in every county. I assume he was referring to County Galway alone.

Mr. Ridge

I am aware of what we have in Galway. I do not know about other counties.

Chairman

Would it be possible to get a copy of the document in question?

Mr. Ridge

I will e-mail it to the committee secretariat.

Chairman

We would be very thankful if we could give it to the members of the committee.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl

From where did the County and City Managers Association get the figure of 39,000 that it cited? Does the figure relate to one-off houses alone or does it also relate to houses in villages, settlements without designated development plans and individual houses in urban areas?

Deputy Crawford spoke about the pre-planning process. I compliment the officials in County Galway on their highly professional work in that regard. However, I suggest that it is extremely bad management practice to engage in a process of pre-planning consultation without any follow-up process. That is a management problem. The planners are not responsible. The managers are ultimately responsible. Such circumstances arise on foot of a complete management deficit. Are the directors now members of the County and City Managers Association?

Mr. Kearns

No. There is a committee structure within the County and City Managers Association for dealing with the various services. The directors are represented on the five standing committees in question.

A question was asked about An Taisce. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make a comment in that regard.

Chairman

No.

Mr. Kearns

Deputy Naughten spoke about people who are involved in farm modernisation. We will remind our colleagues that when people are re-investing, and they need to get it done for grant purposes, those applications should be dealt with reasonably quickly. That is a legitimate point.

I understand that the figure of 39,000 one-off houses includes all houses which are built on their own — all houses which are not part of larger developments. Deputy Ó Fearghaíl correctly suggested that the figure could include single houses which have been built in towns or villages. We do not think many houses in urban areas are built on their own. Most houses in towns and villages are built as part of larger developments. That is where the figure came from.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl

Given that the officials in County Kildare were unable to agree on a figure for that county, how did the association arrive at the figure of 39,000 for the country as a whole?

Mr. Kearns

The statistics were collected from the service indicator reports which are produced each year.

Chairman

A figure will have to be produced in County Kildare.

Deputy Naughten

I would like to ask three brief questions, the first of which relates to an issue that has arisen in my home county for the first time in recent days. A certain degree of flexibility is applied to the conditions which are laid down in the County Roscommon development plan in the cases of farmers. They do not have to comply with all the rules and regulations which other people have to comply with. Mr. Kehoe spoke about the limits on access to national primary and secondary roads. In Roscommon, one is not allowed to develop a property that relies on access to or from a national primary road unless one is a farmer. There have been some changes in farming, however. As many farmers are unable to earn full-time livelihoods from agriculture alone, they are taking up part-time and full-time employment. Local authorities are starting to question whether people can be deemed to be farmers if they are working full-time elsewhere during the day and part-time as farmers in the evening. The issue of how one defines a farmer will become more significant as time goes by. It was quite easy to reach such a definition in the recent past. I ask the County and City Managers Association to comment on that.

The second issue I would like to raise is development in rural areas. I will address my comments specifically to my two neighbours, Mr. Ridge and Mr. Kehoe. Some of the pressure in rural areas that is coming from urban areas is caused by the failure to provide serviced sites in many rural communities. The last time the committee discussed this matter, I cited the example of the area in south Roscommon between Athlone and Ballinasloe because it is the case I know best. Other than the community of Monksland and Béal na Moille, there is no serviced land in the area in question, where there is considerable pressure for development, mainly as a result of the massive growth that has taken place in Athlone. That is putting pressure on rural communities, especially as many young people want to remain in County Roscommon but no serviced sites are available for them. The same thing is happening in other local authority areas throughout the country.

What is currently being done to address that problem? There is pressure for rural development in the immediate vicinity of small villages with ten or 12 houses, a pub and a shop. When, however, the local authority applies to the Department to draw down funding to install a sewerage scheme, it is told that because there are so few houses the cost of developing it, which would be millions of euro, does not balance out in a cost-benefit analysis. That is a cause for concern.

I have come across cases such as those to which Deputy Hoctor referred where people who move into rural areas complain about the smell of slurry or noise from milking parlours. The difficulty is not so much with the original applicant who knows what is involved in the area to which he or she is moving, but with the next owners if the property is subsequently sold on. In my area, farmers submitted observations to the local authority regarding specific areas adjoining certain properties where it is necessary for them to spread slurry and in certain cases such conditions can be included in the planning permission. Usually the applicant writes in and states he or she has no difficulty with a farmer continuing to spread slurry once it meets the various rules and regulations such as the spreading not being done against a wall and so forth. In the case of my local authority, this allows it to circumvent some of the difficulties.

Deputy Grealish

I will follow up on a point made by Mr. Ridge on pre-planning meetings and the role of engineers. Galway County Council recently held a seminar in Galway to which it invited all engineers. Last week, I received a telephone call from a young couple who were hoping to get planning permission for a house. They attended a pre-planning meeting with Galway County Council at which they were informed that they would not receive planning permission in respect of the site on which they proposed to build. I welcome the fact that this was made quite clear to them. However, when they approached the engineer, he told them to submit an application in any event and go to their local politician to get him or her to fight their case. He told them it would cost them €2,200 up front. I do not say every engineer is doing this but it is happening. This is very unfair on individuals or young couples and we must get that point across.

Deputy Collins

And the politicians.

Deputy Grealish

Yes. What happens is that the onus is put on politicians to try and convince the planners and if they are not successful, they get the blame.

Two planning applications were made recently in Galway. One was granted and the other was refused. When I was in my local pub, the person who was granted planning permission whispered in my ear, "Fair play to you, you got the job", but the person who did not get planning permission called me every name under the sun in front of everybody. Politicians get blamed. I am not saying that all engineers take this approach but some of them are putting the onus on politicians to lobby planners and the directors of service of planning when they know planning permission will not be granted.

Chairman

I recall a time when engineers told applicants not to go near politicians. However, because planning issues are much more difficult now, people are being advised to go to them.

Deputy Collins

We had a county manager who took a certain approach prior to meetings with a difficult issue on the agenda. He announced to politicians who had made representations on behalf of constituents that planning applications might be accepted if they were given a bit of time so that we could not open our mouths for the duration of the meeting.

This meeting has been most informative. I thank the members of the delegation. Perhaps we should invite them to return on another occasion.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. Two questions remain outstanding, one on hedgerows and the other in respect of a matter to which Mr. Kearns referred, namely, the training of planners. Training is probably given in some counties. However, in Meath there is a high turnover of planners. The senior planner in the county spoke to me about this recently. He said it is difficult to find the time to train staff. Many planners in my area come from Northern Ireland. In many instances, new planners do not know the area. They treat areas in north Meath near the Cavan border or areas on the Westmeath border the same as areas on the east coast, which are completely different. Training is important for planners but unfortunately it does not happen in every county. It is necessary to explain to them the priorities in different parts of the county in terms of planning. I hope the members of the delegation will take this advice on board and ensure that training is provided for planners in every county.

Mr. Kearns

Perhaps Mr. Kehoe will deal with the issue raised about the lack of services in small towns and villages.

Mr. Kehoe

I will comment on that issue for Deputy Naughten. We are aware of the need for serviced sites in Westmeath. First, I will comment on urban dwellers who would like to design and build houses on sites they own, which is a legitimate aspiration for many people. To address that need, we try to identify appropriate villages that could benefit from development as third-tier settlements. We encourage people who own land in those areas to develop serviced sites with small treatment plants. Such sites can be sold to people from urban areas who wish to move there. There would not be any question of local need applying. Anybody could buy the site and build a house there.

The only way we can deal with unserviced sites in rural areas is by having small treatment plants. It is difficult to deal with such towns and villages. I refer, for example, to settlements situated at crossroads. In those areas, we would envisage unserviced sites where people would put in their own package treatment plant or septic tank and build on what we describe as an unserviced site rather than a serviced site in terms of wastewater treatment. The water supply and other services such as electricity, telecommunications, etc., may be in place but not wastewater treatment. We do not envisage wastewater treatment being extended to all those crossroads-type developments in the near future. The resources just are not available. The bigger towns and villages require a great deal of investment to bring them in line with the water framework directive and other EU directives. While that is where the money for wastewater treatment will go, we do facilitate people with unserviced sites who do not meet local need.

There is a difficulty with part-time farmers. Planning permission for a site is a valuable commodity in practically every county. If one can obtain permission, this substantially increases the value of the land. Unfortunately, this brings out the worst in people and on occasion individuals make false claims and submit applications that contain incorrect information. That happens and we have to guard against it. We must ask questions and check if people are genuine farmers or have links to rural areas. In essence, those who have genuine links have nothing to fear from the questions we ask. As the committee is aware, part-time farming, as it becomes more common, will be a difficult issue with which to deal in the future. We will have to adapt our policies to deal with it. I am afraid there is no easy answer to it.

Mr. Kearns

There are so few full-time farmers in Sligo that we regard all farmers as such, whether they are full-time or part-time. Full-time farmers are rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

Mr. Kehoe

In my experience, hedgerows can be moved back to accommodate site lines. There is no difficulty with that. Perhaps in certain circumstances trees may be protected, views may be listed, the area may be a special area of conservation or a natural heritage area but, in general, hedgerows can be moved back to accommodate sight lines.

Chairman

It is good to hear that.

Deputy Crawford

I can give an example of that. A new school is being built in a certain area of County Monaghan and hedgerows are being removed to accommodate the sight line. A neighbour, hoping to take advantage of that submitted an application for a house to one side of it. He was told this was impossible because the hedgerow could not be moved, although that was part of the other planning permission. There were two different planners involved.

Chairman

That is a problem we face. I am pleased to hear it is not a problem in other counties.

Deputy Callanan

Mr. Kehoe's answer made me nervous. Is he saying that the son of a farmer, who may not be working full-time on the farm, may not receive planning permission?

Mr. Kehoe

In my experience, the Minister's guidelines and policies across the country allow anybody with such an intrinsic link to a rural area to obtain permission. There should not be a difficulty in regard to such people.

Chairman

The authorities in every county operate differently. They should operate as stipulated in the guidelines but unfortunately they do not.

This has been an excellent exercise and I hope it can be repeated. It allows for many matters to be raised. On behalf of the joint committee, I thank the delegates, wish them well and apologise for the delay in meeting them.

Mr. Kearns

I thank the Chairman.

The joint committee went into private session at 2.44 p.m. and adjourned at 2.50 p.m. sine die.