Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 2004

Vol. 175 No. 20

Draft Guidelines on Rural Housing: Statements.

I thank the Seanad for arranging to take statements today on this issue and welcome the opportunity to outline for the Members of this House the provisions of the new guidelines on sustainable rural housing which I published last week. People have lived in rural areas in Ireland for a long time. About one third of our people overall live in the countryside. In some parts of the country, a much higher proportion of people than that live in the countryside, especially in parts of the midlands and in the west. People will continue to live in rural areas for the foreseeable future. We owe it to rural communities to support the future viability of all rural areas.

The guidelines have two main objectives. First, their implementation through the planning system will facilitate people who have roots or links to the rural community and are part of or contribute to that community in getting planning permission for their housing proposals, subject to normal planning requirements. Second, in the interests of sustaining population levels in the future, planning authorities are required under the guidelines to ensure that any demand for housing in rural areas suffering from population decline is, subject to good planning practice, accommodated.

Recognising that the circumstances in different rural areas vary depending on whether they are, for example, near a large urban area or are very remote, the guidelines outline the planning policies which planning authorities need to incorporate in their development plans to respond to these different circumstances. In rural areas close to larger urban areas, such as the gateways and hubs identified in the national spatial strategy, policies need to be directed towards achieving well-planned residential development which avoids urban sprawl. In remoter rural areas where there are relatively few towns and villages the emphasis is on respecting and consolidating the traditional forms and patterns of housing development. In stronger rural areas development plan policies must strike a balance between accommodating proposals for individual houses and stimulating housing development in smaller towns and villages. This is necessary to ensure a balanced range of choices in new housing development. I want to emphasise again, however, that the guidelines are based on a presumption that people who have roots in or links to rural areas and are part of and contribute to the rural community will get planning permission for houses, provided that they meet the normal planning requirements.

The draft guidelines are far-reaching. For the first time they provide a policy framework setting out in detail how Government policy on rural housing as set out in the national spatial strategy is to be taken forward by local authorities in planning more effectively for rural areas. The guidelines deal with how development plans can support the development needed to sustain rural communities, how development can be guided and facilitated at the right locations and how planning policies should be tailored to respond to the different circumstances in different areas.

I want planning authorities to adopt a much more positive and pro-active approach in dealing with rural housing. They should act as facilitators in bringing together the elected members, officials, farming and community organisations, organisations representing rural dwellers, environmental organisations and the wider public to create a shared view of how rural housing is to be addressed. The development plan is adopted in a democratic manner and public ownership of it is paramount.

For the individual applicant for planning permission the guidelines provide extensive guidance to help them through the process of obtaining permission without delay. The information which planning authorities require is outlined, as are the sources of that information. The guidelines call for applicants to be treated sensitively and courteously by planning authorities. Today when there is much emphasis on the quality of service which public authorities provide I want planning authorities to take as constructive an approach as possible in helping applicants through the process of obtaining permission. In this regard, I am examining the possibility of publishing a leaflet or brochure to complement the guidelines I have already published and to provide further assistance to applicants in taking their proposals through the planning process.

I have heard and read views to the effect that the guidelines will open the floodgates by abandoning any sense of a planned approach to rural housing. My response to those views is that it is more than reasonable that persons who are an intrinsic part of and contribute to the rural community should be accommodated by our planning system. The guidelines make it clear, however, that housing development in rural areas should complement rather than dominate its natural surroundings. I have seen very good examples in many parts of the country of this being achieved. The site for a new house in a rural area should allow it to "settle into and integrate with its surroundings" to quote from an excellent rural design guide recently published by Cork County Council.

The guidelines also make it clear that protecting water quality must be a leading consideration in determining whether sites are suitable for development. Where sites are to be developed, waste water systems must be designed, installed and monitored to ensure that they operate and continue to operate to the required standards. I am considering whether additional measures to ensure that septic tanks and other waste water systems are monitored and maintained regularly are necessary.

Another tax.

That has nothing to do with it.

Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.

I do not know how the Senator can conclude from what I have said——

The Minister will find a way.

I have not come into this House to listen to the pathetic ramblings of a party in disarray.

Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.

The Senator should listen to the one sensible voice in his party at the moment, Deputy Tom Hayes.

This is good news.

We are taking statements on rural housing. Senators are drifting. Let the Minister continue.

The necessary environmental safeguards will continue to be implemented. As I have said publicly, I welcome the fact that the Irish Rural Dwellers Association which very much represented those concerned about one-off rural housing made all of these points in an up-front way in its submission. I would advise those who have not read it to do so. They will find that the Irish Rural Dwellers Association, An Taisce and others brought these points to the fore. I compliment them because it was extremely helpful in bringing balanced order to this debate.

I am satisfied that the provisions of the 1997 document, Sustainable Development — A Strategy for Ireland on Rural Housing have sometimes been operated over-rigidly in a way that has not always been in the best interests of the rural community. Sustainable development captures the important ideas that development has economic, social and environmental dimensions which together can contribute to a better quality of life; must strike a balance between these three dimensions to be sustainable; should allow future generations to enjoy a quality of life at least as high as our own; and should respect our responsibilities to the wider international community.

Regarding rural housing, sustainable development is, therefore, much more than an environmental concept, although it includes that important element. It requires an explicit acknowledgement of the role that people living in rural areas must play in supporting a dynamic rural economy and social structure. For example, rural areas experiencing substantial and persistent population decline may lose the viability needed to sustain essential public services such as schools, local shops and sporting clubs leading to difficulties in supporting the economic and social fabric. Reversing population decline by accommodating new development may require some modest increase in the demand for private transport and energy use but would be sustainable in a broader sense because the additional development delivers strong social and economic benefits to rural areas.

The guidelines make it clear that the new Government policies on rural housing outlined in the national spatial strategy, and now set out in greater detail in the guidelines, supersede the provisions on rural housing contained in the sustainable development strategy. We have had an extensive public debate on this issue and I have met and carefully listened to the views of many of the parties, including members of Fine Gael, the Labour Party and others, to that debate. I am particularly grateful to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government for its careful and detailed consideration of the issue and for its recommendations, which have been taken on board in finalising the guidelines.

As is the normal practice under the Planning and Development Act, I have issued the guidelines in draft form to give all those interested a further opportunity to comment before they are finalised in statutory form under the Planning and Development Act 2000. Comments are to be submitted to my Department by 30 April next. I will carefully consider any suggestions for improving the guidelines before they are finalised.

Just in time for the elections.

Order, please.

Does Fine Gael want rural housing? It has been baying for it for months.

The Minister to continue, without interruption.

The people would not get rural houses from Fine Gael.

We introduced sustainable development.

However, in view of the importance of the rural housing issue and the fact that there has already been extensive opportunity for public debate, I have urged planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála to take them on board immediately, even though they are still in draft form. The guidelines will be put into effect both in development plans and in the processing of planning applications. They have the capacity to and will deliver a new era of fairness and transparency in planning for rural dwellers.

The Ard-Fheis is over.

I welcome the Minister. It is a cure for sore eyes to see the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the House. He has been absent for the last three or four Bills sponsored by his Department that were passed by the Seanad.

That is not true. He has been here on many occasions.

However, he has returned and has taken a new-found interest in local——

The Senator should confine himself to remarks on rural housing. We are not dealing with legislation that was taken previously.

It goes without saying that any opportunity to discuss rural development or the lack of it must be welcomed. It would be impossible to consider rural development without giving due regard to the people who live and work in rural areas and giving priority to ensuring their economic and social well-being. That is what the guidelines do not do.

The guidelines do not consider the good of the people of rural Ireland, they are rather another attempt by the Government to manipulate the people in a pre-local and European election fanfare that is not worth the paper on which it is written.

Why then is Fine Gael seeking rural housing?

(Interruptions).

Senator Bannon, without interruption.

These guidelines have been introduced in contemptuous disregard for the House and they signal nothing more than the start of the local and European elections campaigns.

Wait until the people in Ballymahon discover that the Senator does not want rural housing.

(Interruptions).

Order, please.

I am sure Fine Gael councillors will be happy with the Senator's comments.

This is despite the fact that most local authorities have already made provision in their county development plans for the categories outlined in the Minister's proposals.

The Minister's once-off housing guidelines will have no effect on the success or otherwise of rural planning applications. This is the view of many planners from different local authorities to whom I have spoken in recent days.

Senators

Hear, hear.

It has always been the policy of Fine Gael to allow and encourage people to build houses in rural areas.

The Senator does not know his head from his elbow.

(Interruptions).

The Minister should have a chat with Mr. Gilmartin.

Order, please.

At least we stick with our own party.

The Government's U-turn on the eve of the local and European elections and the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis is nothing short of opportunism. I was interested to note that Mr. Ian Lumley, heritage officer of An Taisce——

I will tell the Senator something——

The Minister praised An Taisce.

——who one assumes to be impartial, attended the Ard-Fheis last weekend. Was he present as a member of the party or is there more to his attendance than meets the eye?

The Senator should ask Mr. Lumley.

This is the man who has accused the people of rural Ireland who are trying to build homes for themselves of massive fraud in their planning applications. Mr. Lumley is not worthy of his position and should be removed without further delay.

The Senator must not refer to anyone outside the House.

He should withdraw that remark.

The Senator must withdraw the remark.

I have my own views and I am entitled to them.

No, before he proceeds the Senator must withdraw the remark.

I have my own views and I am entitled to them.

I am asking the Senator to withdraw the remark.

If it hurts the Cathaoirleach, I will withdraw it.

It does not hurt me at all.

It hurts the Minister.

Many people in rural Ireland who have had planning permission refused for once-off housing——

Senator Bannon must withdraw the remark——

I said that if it hurts the Chair I will withdraw it.

It must be withdrawn without qualification.

He must withdraw the remark without——

It is withdrawn. Many people in rural Ireland who have had planning permission refused for once-off housing will, in light of the new guidelines, make new applications and will have high hopes of them being accepted. However, those hopes stand a good chance of being dashed.

Who told the Senator that?

Senator O'Rourke should not interrupt.

Regardless of how they are wrapped up, these proposals, which were conveniently published not only before the elections but also before the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, are nothing but the empty words we have come to expect from the Government.

I have been accused of many things but I have——

Not one foundation stone has been laid, nor one architect or design team appointed in respect of the 10,000 affordable houses promised under the terms of Sustaining Progress.

Senators

Hear, hear.

That is because, unlike Fine Gael, we observe the planning laws.

Listen to the hypocrite.

(Interruptions).

Senator Bannon, without interruption.

Since the announcement 14 months ago that these houses would be provided, nothing has been done. The Minister bears responsibility for that.

The Senator should address his remarks through the Chair.

The Minister should not——

The provision of 68,000 houses was not too bad.

——think that we are foolish enough to continue to believe the promises of his Government.

What will the people in Ballymahon say?

Where are the schools that the Government promised to build before the previous general election?

(Interruptions).

Order, please.

Unsuspecting school principals thought that these schools were nearly built. Where stands the national spatial strategy?

It is gone.

It has taken the same road as the Hanly report.

After two years, the strategy remains dormant. Where are the 2,000 extra gardaí that were promised?

The Senator must speak to the draft guidelines on rural housing.

I am doing so.

The Senator is not doing so.

These are all rural matters.

The Senator must adhere to the motion.

If I am given the opportunity I will do so.

(Interruptions).

What about the appalling situation in our hospitals? The Taoiseach has been forced to go against the Hanly report and has committed——

The Senator must adhere to the motion.

——to 24-hour medical cover in our small hospitals.

Hospitals have nothing to do with the motion.

Can we trust the Government in respect of this matter?

Is the Senator going to speak to the motion?

Of course. I am a member of a health board——

That has nothing to do with rural housing.

(Interruptions).

The Senator is a member of LAMA.

The Senator is a member of the county councils group which made a submission to me to the effect that this should be implemented. He is now reneging on what that body is seeking.

Who is the Cathaoirleach of the House?

The Senator must speak to the motion.

What of the stealth taxes that are imposed one after another? I could go on but none of this would be news to the Minister.

I will have to ask the Senator to resume his seat if he does not stick to the motion.

I am sticking to the motion.

The Senator is not.

Decentralisation affects rural housing and the Taoiseach has been forced to admit that it will not be completed before the next general election. Everyone except the Government could see that its plan to move 10,000 civil servants out of Dublin was hastily conceived without cohesive planning.

The Senator must resume his seat.

I am dealing with one-off rural housing.

The Senator is not dealing with one-off rural housing. He is entitled to speak to the motion only and must resume his seat if he does not do so.

Am I embarrassing Fianna Fáil?

The Senator is embarrassing himself.

I am suspending the House for five minutes.

Sitting suspended at 2.20 p.m. and resumed at 2.25 p.m.

I hope there will be no further interruptions.

On a point of clarification, I think it would be very unfair to name someone in the House who attended the Ard-Fheis as an observer on behalf of An Taisce and who was not there as a member of Fianna Fáil.

I do not want any interruptions from Senator Leyden.

I am glad Senator Leyden has confirmed his attendance.

Senator Bannon must speak to the motion only.

It is outrageous that the Leader accused me of being opposed to rural housing, an issue I have championed on Longford County Council for years.

I ask the Senator to speak to the motion or I will adjourn the debate completely.

One-off housing currently accounts for more than one third of our annual housing output. Some 85% of applicants for this kind of housing are accepted by local authorities. The local authorities have this matter under control. Some 90% of the applications appealed by An Taisce are turned down by An Bord Pleanála for sound planning reasons. Nobody wants to deprive the sons and daughters of our farmers and rural dwellers the opportunity to build on their homeland, where they have grown up and where they have family and friends. I have always been a strong supporter of rural housing and I want the Leader to check the records of Longford County Council on that matter. It is essential that these houses fit in with the local landscape and are properly sited.

The rash of unsuitable holiday homes is a blight on our landscape. What about the Minister's guidelines which will allow anyone to build a house in an area of declining population merely because they want to? His response is that these guidelines will encourage balanced regional development in line with the national spatial strategy. In addition to rural housing, we need regional and local services. The Minister referred to schools, local shops, sporting clubs and other facilities closing down in rural areas. However, it is up to the Minister and the Government to ensure that those services are in place for rural communities. Perhaps the Minister could explain his idea of the national spatial strategy, bearing in mind that it has been lying dormant for the past two years. Building more houses in the countryside will leave the areas identified by the national spatial strategy without the necessary building programmes.

The national spatial strategy initially appeared to be a lifeline for rural development, but the reality is that it is nothing more than another headline grabbing exercise and another under-resourced white elephant.

Senators

Hear, hear.

The midland triangle of Mullingar, Athlone and Tullamore does not even have a decent road connecting the three towns and the National Roads Authority has stated that it has no funding available to develop such secondary roads.

We are discussing rural housing.

The Senator should speak to the motion.

This is all happening in a rural housing area. While Castlebar and Ballina have a first class rail line they have no services and no prospect of obtaining any.

Is Senator Bannon a county councillor?

The strategy contains proposals for the development of Galway, Sligo, Ennis, Shannon and Limerick but the Minister has given the go ahead to Irish Rail to pull up the rail track.

The Senator's contribution has nothing to do with the motion.

He has nothing to say on the subject.

The Senator has one minute remaining and should speak to the motion.

Local authorities are being forced, under county development charges, to hit new home builders, with effect from this month, with a bill of approximately €7,000. This is another stealth tax introduced by an untrustworthy Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government.

Senators

Hear, hear.

I appeal to the Senator to stick to the motion.

The Minister is forcing local authorities to increase their revenue because contributions from central Government are to be reduced.

The Senator voted for this as a member of Longford County Council.

Order, please.

This is blackmail of the most overt type. Feelings in Longford County Council are running high——

And rightly so.

——with the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government being blamed for passing charges down the line. Councillors in Longford have spoken of their anger at the manner in which this issue is being handled.

The Senator must conclude.

The Government, while supposedly opening the gates for rural house building, is penalising builders.

The Senator voted for it as a member of Longford County Council.

Senator Bannon must conclude.

I am entitled to finish my contribution. It is now incumbent on the Minister, his Department and the Government to tell us how the guidelines are to be implemented.

I am calling Senator Kitt.

Will the Minister deal directly with local authorities on this issue?

Senator Bannon, please resume your seat. I have called Senator Kitt.

Am I not entitled to 15 minutes?

The Senator's time has extended to 20 minutes as a result of the disorder.

The Government's lies and innuendo in the run-up to the local and European elections are shameful.

I welcome the Minister and in particular I welcome the good news——

I notice the Opposition did not applaud Senator Bannon.

Allow Senator Kitt to continue, without interruption, please.

I wish to share time with Senator MacSharry. I welcome the good news announced by the Minister last week and in this House today. As a leading light in LAMA are Senator Bannon's views representative of the association? They are not the views of those with whom I have met. I would like to put on the record that the General Council of County Councils has welcomed the guidelines introduced by the Minister.

Senators

Hear, hear.

They serve no purpose; they are hypocrites.

Senator Kitt, without interruption, please.

Senator Bannon's comments about blatant and cynical moves——

(Interruptions).

Senator Bannon stated that the guidelines offered no hope to people in need of housing in rural Ireland. That could not be further from the truth.

It is pre-election gimmickry by the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, is giving rural Ireland back to the Irish people. That is what we want to see happening.

Senators

Hear, hear.

(Interruptions).

The comely maidens are dancing at the crossroads once more.

The Minister said in the guidelines: "People who were born in an area, who live in an area, who contribute to an area will be entitled to build their home in that area."

Hear, hear.

That is the current position.

That was endorsed by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív.

Those remarks illustrate how little Senator Kitt knows about the county development plan for Galway.

Senator Bannon had an opportunity to contribute. He should not interrupt Senator Kitt.

I am sure that having lived there I know more about it than Senator Bannon.

It is obvious from what the Senator says that he does not.

I am sure everybody knows more about it than Senator Bannon.

Senator Bannon, I will have to ask you to leave the House if you continue to interrupt business.

Most of my remarks relate to County Galway. I am sure Senator Burke is aware that Galway has had and continues to have difficulties.

It will also have them in the future.

Order, please.

However, changes made by councillors to the previous county development plan have helped in terms of planning in rural Ireland. I will provide an example. Under the previous system, only one child of a farmer with four or five children was entitled to permission to build. That situation has now changed in County Galway. Councillors have done a good job in tackling that issue.

That was never the case, the Senator is wrong.

Senator Burke will have an opportunity to contribute later.

The Minister spoke of proper planning and sustainable development. This is important whether it relates to the building of one or more houses in the countryside. Galway has encountered difficulties as regards heritage towns, an important status for many towns such as Athenry and Gort.

And Tipperary.

I am speaking about County Galway. One cannot refuse permission to people because they live in or near a heritage town. The Minister touched on these issues earlier. The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, spoke of the environs of protected structures, aspects of heritage, natural habitats and SACs. They are important issues which need to be considered.

The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs also spoke of people having links to rural areas. This issue has also caused some difficulty in the past. People living outside an area, even though they were working there, had difficulty obtaining planning. That situation has been improved by county development plans. The Minister pointed out that people with links other than being natives will be dealt with under new guidelines. Many of the comments about people being blow-ins are totally unfair. There must be discussions at an early stage between applicants and planners to tease out any difficulties that may arise. There is enormous interest in this matter and we need more planners. Galway, the second largest county, is receiving more applications than other counties.

Councils state they are granting permission in more than 80% of the applications they receive. Many applications, withdrawn and resubmitted six or seven times with different proposals, are often refused. It is important discussions take place at an early stage. We should also look seriously at the refusal by An Bord Pleanála of many applications, an issue to which Senator Bannon referred. The real problem arises in the context of refusals at An Bord Pleanála level.

I would like now to refer to the draft guidelines in the context of the national spatial strategy. Many of the problems arise in structurally weak and predominantly dispersed settlements in Galway and, indeed, in Longford. I am delighted the Minister is attempting to deal with this issue. Athenry is a heritage town. Many people——

Are we speaking about rural or town housing?

I am giving an example of the situation in a heritage town. No planning is granted within one and a half miles of a heritage town. I hope the two issues to which I have referred will be dealt with. The Minister has made a good start in that regard. I compliment the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, who has campaigned on this issue for many years.

He felt the breeze from the Atlantic.

He has brought together councillors and public representatives in County Galway to deal with this problem.

And the Taoiseach.

Do not forget to mention the Taoiseach in Sligo.

Or the Taoiseach in Mullingar.

Galway, as the second largest county in the country, is facing many problems in this area. The holding of early discussions will help to alleviate the problem. The Minister has done a good day's work.

I am delighted to welcome the Minister. In my short political career it is great to be able to speak on such a positive development. If I had to oppose it, not even the fiction writing abilities of Steven Spielberg could come up with a speech criticising this common sense measure that gives rural Ireland back to the people of rural Ireland——

Hear, hear.

——in a structured, positive, proactive, constructive fashion that will not have an undue ribbon effect throughout the country but will meet the needs and wants of every Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour and Independent person in rural and regional Ireland.

I wish it were as easy as that.

I wish——

Senator Burke, please let Senator Mac Sharry speak without interruption.

I welcome the fact that no longer will rural Ireland be preserved as the weekend retreat for urban dwellers or people who misrepresent the great work An Taisce does from time to time.

Now we are getting to the jargon and the clichés.

The criticism of An Taisce from particular quarters can sometimes be negative and have an ulterior motive. I welcome the fact that there will now be clear planning structures for planners.

They are not clear. That is the problem.

Thank God the Minister, Deputy Cullen, and his officials had the vision to come up with a set of guidelines that will improve this situation no end. People from farming backgrounds with limited means can now look forward with confidence in the knowledge that they will be able to acquire a site on the family land at a reasonable price on which they can develop their homes and live and work in their own area. I cannot understand why anybody would be against that.

I cannot either.

It represents the kind of objectionism we were giving out about earlier, and Senator Bannon mentioned An Taisce. That objectionism has prevented planning throughout this country, and now we have to listen to it from the Opposition benches.

Rubbish. Dream on.

Order, please.

The guidelines represent a huge step forward and anybody who has read them will understand that.

More Fianna Fáil propaganda.

I took time to speak to a number of planners about the guidelines. They are being broadly welcomed by people with common sense.

I agree with Senator Kitt's point about the need for more planners. There should be more centres where planning qualifications can be obtained.

We want more action, not planning.

That would help speed up the process in terms of interpretation of the guidelines. There should be a broad interpretation of the guidelines, not just one which is coming out of UCD.

I thank the Minister once again and wish him luck. I would like to think these guidelines do not represent an end in themselves but rather a beginning through which we can develop rural Ireland proactively and constructively.

The beginning of the end.

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Cullen, and I want to record my appreciation to the Leader for organising this debate.

I thank the Senator.

I requested this debate last Thursday, although that should not be construed to mean I support Government policy in any way.

Like some people in this House I was elected to a local authority five years ago and one of the overriding issues at that time was the difficulties people were facing in terms of the planning system. It appeared to me that the typical cases ran into difficulty for a number of reasons, some of which concerned bad planning agents, the people between the applicant and the planning authority. There was not sufficiently strong regulation in terms of who was allowed to lodge applications to local authorities on behalf of applicants. That in turn led to a very broad system where sloppy applications arrived in local authorities which only added to the woes of those applicants. As soon as these applications run into difficulty, either for planning or engineering reasons, more often than not the response they get from their planning agencies is to go to their local councillors, Deputy or Senator. These people were happy to take €2,000 or €3,000 from a young applicant, not put in the effort to which they are morally entitled in terms of pursuing their application and then expect somebody else to pick up the pieces. That was one issue.

The second issue is the rigid application of the interpretation of development plans by a new generation of young planners in particular, including those who came out of UCD. They regarded the development plans as their bible and decided to work to them but once they took that attitude and adopted that policy, difficulties immediately arose for the applicants.

I have had cases where the sons or daughters of landowners applied for planning permission. I am not necessarily talking about farmers but a broader term of landowner where people who lived and worked in an area felt entitled to get planning permission and live in that area for obvious reasons. People are entitled to live within reasonable parameters of their home area. There is also the cost issue. Some of these young couples would not survive long in the housing market, given the way prices have gone in recent years and the most cost effective solution was to get a site from a relative and build a house. Many of them took the route of building through direct labour, which again reduced costs.

Up to three years ago Cork County Council only had approximately 40 planners. There was a huge shortage of planners in the system despite the fact that it was the largest local authority outside Dublin. That speaks volumes about the difficulties applications in that area ran into because the planners were working to the optimum but were still unable to cope with applications which in turn led in some areas to a deferral of applications just to allow the people dealing with them time to do that work.

I never had any sympathy with anybody who wanted to build a South Fork-type house or mansion in a rural area.

Or a house with ten balconies.

In the south, and other Members may articulate on this aspect later, we have special areas of conservation and areas zoned for particular usage in terms of the inhabitants of the area, which poses difficulties for the people outside of those zones. There are also the coastal areas which are extremely sensitive and undergo rigid procedures in terms of planning. That is understandable in some cases because of their proximity to tourist areas.

In one instance, for example, somebody from the United Kingdom built a type of mansion and the genuine young applicants in the area who had been refused planning permission were naturally aggrieved by this decision. They investigated it and discovered that planning permission had not been sought or obtained in that case. The roads committee in this area had a meeting at which we were lectured by a planner about how this decision was wrong and the person who had erected the mansion would be told to reduce the height of the building by approximately four or five feet. That is not the way to administer any system. That case rightly aggrieved the people in the area who had been refused planning permission because this guy breezed in, with all due respect to anyone who is a blow-in, and put up a building as he saw fit. That is not good enough and it is an inconsistency in the system in terms of how it is administered in different local authorities.

The people for whom I always felt sorry were the genuine applicants, young couples with a housing need. I have seen a great sense of reasoning with these people when their plight becomes known to the managers and assistant managers. We must not forget that the executive function in terms of granting permission is the sole responsibility of the managers. As we were dealing with a generation of planners who were applying the letter of the law rigidly, planning and engineering issues, for example, had to be considered in coming to a decision on an application.

I have always had recourse to the management of the council and I do not necessarily believe that should be the case. We also have recourse to management to say as regards an application, for example, that the landowner who has applied for planning permission is heavily in debt, for whatever reason. This person may have an asset and wish to dispose of 2% or 3% to get himself or herself out of financial difficulty. That is not being unreasonable. Situations arise where there are a number of children in the family who may be going on to third level education, which is expensive. There have been cases where people have applied for planning permission in order to be able to raise the revenue to fund their children's third level education. In these cases the planning permissions when granted were structured so that while no large-scale development was allowed, a halfway solution was found which catered for the needs of applicants and the requisite housing needs within proper guidelines.

One section deals with guidelines and I would be interested to hear the Minister's response on the compilation of development plans. I raised this last Thursday with the Leader during the Order of Business. My interpretation is that the compilation of the development plan is the responsibility of the members of the planning authority, working with the officials. I am interested in particular in how the guidelines will affect that particular system. Do they supersede the development plans? In Cork we are in the first year of the current five-year development plan. There are four more years to go.

If I may assist the Senator on this point, all county and city development plans will now have to be reviewed and the guidelines taken on board. They will now go back to the councillors so that the guidelines are incorporated in the development plans. They must take account of the way the plans are done, so the members in all the planning authorities around the country, working with the managers, will now decide. The will go back for a full review to take on board the guidelines. All the local planning authorities have been written to in this regard.

I appreciate the Minister's reply. Another point of interest concerns conditions attached to a planning permission as issued by a local authority. Time and again, if a planning application was for the benefit of a family member with a housing need, in the majority of cases I have dealt with a residency clause was attached to the permission, preventing the sale or use of the dwelling by anyone other than a family member for five years. A good way of getting planning permission, in some cases, is to ensure that conditions as regards a stipulated beneficiary are strictly adhered to.

It must be possible to make another case as regards councillors. We as public representatives will get the "no hoper" cases, that is people who have no hope of getting planning permission. There may be good or bad reasons involved, but they are generally no-hopers. One discovers in such cases that one may be the eighth or ninth public representative to have been approached.

It should never be forgotten that it is the members of the local authority who compile the development plans. It was not the managers or State Departments that compiled them but the members of the local authority, as appointed by the people. This is something people quite conveniently forget at times. As regards the role of outside bodies, we have had a debate on the role of An Taisce in particular at the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Representatives from that organisation appeared before the committee and underwent a fair degree of questioning and debate on this issue. I accept that the organisation was set up for good reasons. In recent years, however, there has been a proliferation of cases where many people believe its influence is more than it should be. In some cases this resulted in just making life more difficult for applicants.

We are all aware of the role of An Bord Pleanála. In Cork there is a particular issue involving the toxic waste incinerator which has been granted planning permission. I know it is national policy in terms of the issues associated with incineration and so on. However, in this particular case, the planning application was refused on a number of occasions by Cork County Council. There was unanimous agreement in the council chamber on a number of occasions with that particular line. The decision ended up with An Bord Pleanála for review. ABP's inspector came out and cited reasons in double figures as to why the plant should not be sited at Ringaskiddy and why the decision of the local authority should be upheld. After all of that the board, in its wisdom, decided not to take into consideration the advice of its own planning inspector and granted permission anyway. That is a sore point. It is undemocratic and I do not believe it serves the greater good at all. If one ignores the reason for the application, it is not fair that this decision was taken by a board which went completely against the advice of its own inspectorate.

I remind the Senator the House is considering draft guidelines on rural housing.

Of course. I am referring to the current planning system as regards the role of outside bodies, which has a direct impact on rural housing. I have qualified my remarks by saying there are implications in terms of the roles of outside bodies. As regards the guidelines, the public consultation process will close on 30 April. That is close to 11 June and we are all aware-——

That is a statutory matter.

I understand that. It is 12 weeks from Friday next to the local and European elections. This issue has been around for much longer than the last six or 12 months. I want to put forward a reasonable argument and debate in terms of my own experience of the planning system. I believe it smacks of political opportunism. I have always pursued the case for genuine applicants who have a housing need. The current system is hard on young couples in particular, in terms of how it is applied. When Cork Country Council began a recruitment drive for planners to deal with the backlog of applications, it had to go to career seminars in London and Paris. It had to go abroad and actively seek planners from other countries to come over here. That in itself has helped to deal logistically with the thousands of applications a local authority this size has had to deal with. I have always found the recourse to management to be good.

We must not forget that the local and European elections are 12 weeks away. The guidelines have no legislative footing. I would appreciate if they had and I could see a stronger role for them.

If I may again be helpful to the Senator, the guidelines are issued on that basis, but then they become statutory.

Is that with immediate effect?

We cannot have a question and answer interval on Second Stage.

I hope on behalf of the many thousands of young people around the country that this is not another cynical attempt to assuage the electorate before an election. We have seen enough of that. This is an issue that is too close to people's hearts. Nobody in this room can say, with hand on heart, that he or she has not witnessed the difficulties such people go through when they apply for planning permission. I hope this is not an attempt to buy votes. I hope these guidelines will be in place post 11 June and that they will do what they set out to do. If not, we will be here to remind the Government.

I congratulate the Minister and the Government on recognising the strong and continuing tradition of people living in rural areas. Those who are born in an area can live there and people who contribute to the local community will be entitled to build their family home in the area. The guidelines bring clarity to applicants and planners and are clear, consistent and readily understood. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, will now ensure that all the county development plans are re-visited and take into account the new policy on one-off housing.

This also applies to regional development plans at the draft stage and has a role to play towards ensuring that the relevant counties fully endorse, on an equitable basis, what is laid down in the guidelines. More importantly, An Bord Pleanála is now obliged to implement the guidelines with immediate effect. It is important the guidelines make it possible at the pre-planning stage for applicants and planners to tease out difficulties. Everyone has the right to build in rural Ireland, but not on a particular site. That is important.

What is new in that?

Senator Brennan, without interruption.

It is very important that the Government recognises the need to protect the environment. I also pay tribute to councillors throughout the country who have attended general council meetings, and I am sure that Senator Bannon's LAMA meetings have the same people in attendance and the same representation from political parties which have endorsed, to a man and woman, the protection and the right of a person to live in rural Ireland.

As I do. I am on record as encouraging rural Ireland.

Senator Brennan without interruption.

The Members on the other side of the House are not listening.

It has been twisted into a lie, which is typical of Fianna Fáil.

Senator Brennan to continue.

It is good that the Senator favours something. Only this morning he had a motion down on the Order of Business condemning the move. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, is bringing forward guidelines for rural housing.

They are structured on lies spoken on that side of the House.

Senator Brennan without interruption.

They have got away with lies and mistrust for too long.

I ask Senator Bannon to withdraw that last remark.

Mistrust.

Is Senator Bannon withdrawing that?

They have got away with it.

Is he withdrawing it?

It is my opinion, and I am entitled to it.

I ask Senator Bannon to withdraw the remark.

I withdraw it.

I give the Senator the opportunity to withdraw his comment.

He has withdrawn it.

Planning authorities should now adopt a more positive and proactive approach to dealing with rural housing, working together with the applicants as facilitators in bringing together all interested parties to create a shared view on how the question of rural housing is to be addressed. We should protect the environment — waste water has been mentioned — and monitor and maintain water quality. The guidelines also take that into consideration. The controls on occupancy of housing have been mentioned by a previous speaker, and I also ask the Minister to tease out that issue in the context of sustaining the population of rural areas to ensure that we do not have unsustainable developments.

For the first time we have a national framework setting out in detail Government policy as laid down in the national spatial strategy. It is to be prepared for implementation by all local authorities. I thank the Minister for taking into consideration the submissions by the General Council of County Councils, the Rural Dwellers Association and An Taisce. At a meeting of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government attended by Senator Bannon, all the submissions were made by architects and taken into consideration by the Minister.

I thank the Minister once again for moving forward. This is above politics. The future of rural Ireland is in the hands of politicians, and local authorities throughout the country have acted on cross-party lines. I am surprised to see the issue become so divisive here today. Charges have been mentioned. Counties have adopted those, and members of Senator Bannon's party have voted for them because they see the merit of waste water treatment and sewerage plants being built in rural areas. That is very important.

They are a Fianna Fáil stealth tax.

On the environmental issue, the number of houses per square kilometre is 19.4 in rural Ireland, one of the lowest figures in Europe, since it is 100 in foreign parts. It is very important that Fianna Fáil recognises the development of rural Ireland and allows it to continue to grow.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I hope that, before he leaves it, despite his earlier address, he might clearly indicate how he sees the guidelines making a difference. Regarding what Senator Brennan said, I was a member of Galway County Council until very recently. On a cross-party basis, we had to engage a consultant to provide global professional guidance to us, at our own expense, to make such adjustments as we wanted, fairly and legally, to bring about a proper county development plan. We were the first county under the new legislation to draw up such a plan.

The issues the Minister is now including in future guidelines for change and improvement have already been incorporated into our plan. I am not being political when I say that the guidelines that he has now introduced to bring about massive change to improve the situation of someone from rural Ireland applying to build a house are already in existence. I say this with the greatest respect to him and regardless of whatever political reason was behind his raising this issue now in the current climate of the run-up to the local and European elections. Be that as it may; let that be his political outlook, if such it is.

These guidelines will not make any change whatever. I have consulted the planners in the council and it is clear that the local authorities which devise the county development plans and the officers who implement them, including the county manager, are bound by the legislation that has been in force from 2000. We must work within those restrictions. Nothing in these guidelines shows any variation or change from that.

I was surprised and disappointed that the Leader of the House was trying to say that we are against rural housing.

It is clear from party's motion.

The important thing is that we succeed in bringing about change now by allowing people to build in rural Ireland. Will the Minister clarify the documentation published last weekend by his Department which stated: "However, the Minister is requesting planning authorities in each county and An Bord Pleanála to take the guidelines on board and put in place the measures necessary to implement them with immediate effect." Any applicant who has been disappointed by a refusal over the last few days should re-apply. Under the new guidelines, the Minister, understanding that there are difficulties in certain situations, has given power to the planners and the managers of local authorities throughout the country immediately to implement these new guidelines where they apply and improve the situation.

All the councils must now review their own county development plans. That is the first thing.

No, that is not the answer that I want. The Department document states that the guidelines are to be implemented with immediate effect. It is on page 2, paragraph 3, in the last line.

The Senator does not believe in local democracy.

Senator Burke to continue without interruption.

The whole purpose is the empowerment of councillors. Councillors have been told that they are responsible for their own development plans. They must now review those plans and take on board the guidelines. I will not override the councillors' role in the matter. I was happy to listen to all the bodies, including the General Council of County Councils, LAMA, the Rural Dwellers Association, An Taisce and everyone who has spoken over the past 18 months on this. As the Senator well knows, I had intended to publish these guidelines before Christmas, but the General Council of County Councils asked me to delay that so that it could make a submission, and I gracefully acceded to its wish. It was not my timing that brought them out; I acted on that basis. I have now moved ahead on the basis that all the discussions have taken place——

The Minister can make that statement later, but not in my time. I would believe him had we not had the experience of the Taoiseach saying in Sligo that it was a major issue. Before the General Council of County Councils made the decision requesting that the Minister delay publication, a Minister and Minister of State in County Galway — Deputies Ó Cuív and Fahey — were vying with each other, demanding to meet the local authorities so that they could have input — in other words, so that their arrogance could be imposed on us. The Minister is not aware of it, but it is the reality.

(Interruptions).

Senator Burke without interruption.

If the Minister does not want to hear it, that is his problem, but that is the reality of what we must endure regarding the planning situation in our local authority in County Galway and the pressure that has been brought to bear. I was present at a meeting with the manager, the Minister and Minister of State and the members of the local authority, as well as Oireachtas Members, when they clearly demanded change from the manager, knowing that they could not have any input. Either one is a member of a local authority and has responsibility, or certain Fianna Fáil Ministers have something special to offer. Perhaps they do, but there is a place for that at the Cabinet table, and not in this instance.

(Interruptions).

I ask for the Chair's protection.

Senator Burke to continue without interruption.

If I followed the Senator's line I would not have spoken to the general council.

On the issue of planning in County Galway and elsewhere, will the Minister indicate whether any guidelines which are to be implemented will take immediate effect? We are sick and tired of equivocation on the matter.

Did the Senator read my statement?

I have read it twice and will read it for the third time. In his address the Minister says that he will postpone implementation of the guidelines until 30 April, after consultation.

Yes, it is in the Minister's speech.

What does it say?

On the statutory planning order, the Minister states, "comments are to be submitted to my Department by 30 April and I will carefully consider any suggestions for improving the guidelines before they are finalised". Are they finalised or not?

Of course they are.

Are they to be implemented now? The Minister cannot have it both ways. If we are to have improved possibilities for people in rural Ireland to live in areas where they have connections, it is important for the people to have ownership of the planning process and that ownership is not on a political basis as has been adopted by some people. The Minister has taken on this issue as if it involved ownership of the planning process.

It is called democracy.

Senator Burke without interruption.

We had too much of that ownership in Fianna Fáil and the result is inquiry after inquiry. The Minister knows this and is part of the situation. How can he extricate himself? He now has the opportunity to do something better but he still wants to own the planning process.

Fine Gael will return in a minibus after the next election.

We will draw them from the prisons.

The Minister still wants to own the planning process. Unless people make representations to a Fianna Fáil Minister, Deputy, Senator, local representative or whatever, they will not get planning permission. That is the mentality and culture that exists. Let the Minister bring about change on this issue.

If the Senator is half a man, let him withdraw that remark. It is an appalling slur.

It is the reality, the truth and the reason we have such costly inquiries associated with abuse in the area of planning.

The Senator should withdraw the remark.

Senator Burke without interruption.

The Minister released ownership to the public bodies, yet day after day we hear criticism here of the work of An Bord Pleanála, an independent body which interprets the planning decisions coming before it and upholds the decisions of local planners.

It overturned 76% of the planning permissions given.

We, and the Minister, in particular, should not undermine confidence in local planners by issuing further guidelines. These people are charged at local authority level with bringing forward and implementing the local authority members' plan. The issuing of guidelines suggests there is a difficulty. The local planners have a difficult task and we, as local authority members, support them and want to ensure the Minister does not undermine them. Many of the insinuations in the Minister's address clearly question their effectiveness.

The more I listen to Fine Gael, the more I realise that there are too many——

Senator Burke without interruption.

That is a rich statement from the Minister. When he was a member of the Progressive Democrats he criticised Fianna Fáil, but he is now a member of that party. Let him look in the mirror.

There is a big difference between me and the Senator. I can look in the mirror.

I ask the Minister to respect the Chair. Senator Burke without interruption.

One third of the population lives in rural Ireland and the greater proportion of them are on the western seaboard. It is in these areas that we have our greatest problems with regard to planning. Can the Minister stand over what he has presented as other than a pre-election gimmick and say that these guidelines will make a change and make it easier for people in rural Ireland to get planning permission? That is the problem in a nutshell. Can the Minister tell us if there is anything in what he said which is not already in our county plans?

The Senator said the guidelines will make no difference but is now saying they will make a huge difference. He should make up his mind.

Allow the Senator to continue.

If the Minister can tell us there is something in the guidelines which is not already in the county plans, we will say it is a job well done. The Minister has failed. This reminds me of what has happened with regard to the smoking ban. Last Thursday the Minister said his guidelines would have immediate effect but now it has changed to 30 April. We will then have the final draft and implementation post the 11 June elections. This comes as no surprise to anybody. We see the same cynicism in connection with all legislation. If it is topical, it is postponed until the day comes when it can be eased through, perhaps during the holidays or silly season. It is all these proposed guidelines would deserve.

The only thing being postponed around here is the demise of Fine Gael.

When the Minister thought the demise of the Progressive Democrats was on the way, he jumped ship.

I am delighted the Minister is here to listen to this debate. Is it any wonder the public and those in the Visitors Gallery are confused by the previous speaker? Nobody could understand a word he said during the debate.

If they apply for planning permission, they will be confused.

I wish to inform Members that the people in the Visitors Gallery are from County Mayo. They are very welcome.

I appreciate that. I am pleased the Minister has come to the House and listened to what we have to put up with day in and day out. Whenever we have good news to present, this is the kind of reaction we get from the other side of the House.

This is great news. The Minister is bringing life and vibrancy back to rural Ireland. It is good news for those who live and work in rural Ireland and who want to return to their roots. I am from a rural background. I love rural Ireland but it was slowly going down the tube.

Fianna Fáil was bringing it down the tube.

We brought it back. The bottom line is that if we had not made an effort to do that, we would not have a rural Ireland in ten years' time.

Fianna Fáil has now done a U-turn.

I am a member of South Dublin County Council and have been a member of the General Council of County Councils for the past ten years. Like the Senator, I attended many conferences where debate took place. I remember being in Ennis 12 months ago when a member of Fine Gael sat beside me and a Labour Party member on my other side. They came out strongly and attacked An Taisce and I was delighted because I felt it was a non-political issue and that we could work together on it.

I was disappointed with the Fine Gael motion, especially when it states: "considers that there is an urgent need for the Government to make a statement on the position of local authorities in readjusting their County Development Plans to facilitate the Government's U-turn on this matter."

Did the Minister not say earlier that we will have to go back to our county development plans? I asked the question and the Minister answered it. The Senator is contradicting herself.

Senator Ormonde without interruption.

I am concerned that I would get confused if I kept listening to the Senator.

The Senator is confused, one way or the other.

That is one thing that cannot be said about me; I am as clear as a bell. Let us look at the benefits we will get from the implementation of these guidelines. We will identify again with a parish, our grassroots and our schools. Many rural schools are unviable because of the declining rural population.

We want clarity on the matter. That is all we seek.

If the situation continued as it is, we would only have older people in rural Ireland, which would be an enormous burden on the health service. The benefits are enormous. This is great news and long may the Minister last to deliver on it.

What I liked about these guidelines is that the Minister said there would be a shared view. He received submissions from the General Council of County Councils, LAMA, the Rural Dwellers' Association and An Taisce. It is great to have them all involved. I do not have any difficulty with these people. They were all of the one opinion except for An Taisce, which kicks with a different foot according to whom it is talking. I agree that this is the way we should proceed.

The Minister also stated that planners will have to facilitate people in order that applicants will not feel daunted. We have been put in that position because planners have not shared the ethos of rural Ireland. They come from other areas and countries and have no feeling for what rural Ireland is all about. I welcome that planners will have to be facilitators. They will also have to listen to key players such as the General Council of County Councils, the wider community, local residents' associations and so on.

There is no question of opening the floodgates to the development of South Fork-style buildings. I would hate if that were the case as that is what put everybody off development in rural areas in the past. Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and everybody else, including planners, are guilty of taking that approach. As a result we had awful monstrosities of buildings, which were not properly integrated into the landscape, stuck up in the mountains. The Minister has recognised this and I applaud him for it.

It is important that we develop a style of building that is properly integrated into the landscape. Such an approach would facilitate a population move from urban areas to rural areas, which would allow for the development of rural pursuits. Hill walking, fishing and parish sports days are nearly things of the past. It almost appears as if nobody is living in rural Ireland at the moment. All Senators undertake election campaigns. The countryside is beautiful but nobody appears to be living there. Parts of the country are dead and it is time to revitalise them. I am delighted that these guidelines have been introduced and I congratulate the Minister on them.

The Minister stated that the situation would be monitored to prevent the proliferation of septic tanks. I was a member of South Dublin County Council where this subject was discussed in regard to the Dublin mountains. I encountered many people who cannot get planning permission to build houses in the mountains. I agree that developments must be in keeping with the local area, which the Minister has recognised. The General Council of County Councils and LAMA will be thrilled with these regulations, as will county councillors who will be delighted to pass on this good news to their constituents.

I welcome the Minister, although I have mixed views about his proposal. Like everybody else, I would like to believe what he said, but the reality may be different. The majority of Senators come from local authority backgrounds and have great experience of studying county development plans. The more one studies them, the more frustrating they become. One has to ask how it all went wrong in the first place.

The problem originated with the Planning and Development Act 2000. I am delighted the Minister is making a U-turn on that Act. Will the Minister explain what the term "sustainable development" means in the context of that legislation? Planners give several different interpretations of sustainable development.

That is an interesting point. I recently placed my view on this matter on the record, which is that there is no sustainable development without people. However, the legislation was being interpreted in a way that almost excluded people. People are at the heart of sustainable development. I cannot be clearer than this. The interpretation was the reverse of how it was intended.

That is helpful and I hope the Minister will go to the trouble of notifying county managers and planning officials of this interpretation of sustainable development. Interpretation is what gave rise to problems in the first instance. Planners were of the opinion that sustainable development implied cluster developments, that is, the building of villages and small towns. There was little scope for those who wished to get planning permission for a development outside this parameter. This is a crucial aspect of the strategy and guidelines that are being introduced.

From my perspective as a member of a local authority for nearly 25 years, in the past, the interpretation of the term "sustainable development" resulted in many applicants for housing in rural Ireland being refused planning permission. No matter what case local authority members made, even with the agreement of the council, they could not get around the planner's interpretation of sustainable development.

I am pleased the Minister shed some light on this matter, but it will not be sufficient unless his view is notified to planners. Planning permission is not rocket science. It ultimately depends on the subjective view of one person. While certain matters such as sewerage and water services, road access and so on come into play, ultimately the type of house to be built depends on somebody's view. People hold different views. Clear written guidelines would, in part, help to clarify the matter as the 2000 Act is open to wide interpretation. In the context of this discussion, the Minister stated that developments must be sustainable. If planners take the wrong interpretation of this, then the old system will prevail and there will not be any change. This is a cause of great frustration to many people.

Local authorities and their members go to great lengths to compile county development plans that best suit their areas. However, a planner's interpretation of this can be completely at odds with the original intention. When we drew up the county development plan in Mayo County Council I requested that a register of interpretations be kept. I wanted a record of councillors' interpretations of their proposals but the county manager ruled this out. He alleged that it would give rise to two plans, the actual plan and a separate version of how it should be interpreted. However, there was considerable merit in my proposal. The 2000 Act has specified that there must be a new plan every five years. Some of the previous plans covered periods of seven and eight years. A plan put in place today could be interpreted differently in seven years. A new planner or county manager would have a different interpretation of it than the councillor who proposed it on day one. I hope the Minister of State will take this on board.

Every councillor or public representative is in favour of rural housing. Over the past 25 years I have not met anyone who is against it and I know of no Senator who is against it. I agree that monstrosities should not be built although there are many of them in existence. Everybody can associate with what is bad planning but, for some reason, there are huge inconsistencies in the planning process. The views of one planner seem to be completely different from those of another. Regulation is required in this respect.

What is good planning? To some, it involves getting a house wherever they want it, but this is not necessarily desirable. The majority are in favour of sustainable rural development. If the Minister's interpretation of sustainable development is such that the local GAA club, soccer club and community can be regenerated, I believe it. However, under the previous Act, sustainable development was interpreted in a different way by planners and county managers than the way outlined by the Minister of State this evening.

Senator Ormonde made an interesting point about rural decline. Mayo County Council analysed the number of applications for planning permission for houses over a five year period. It is interesting that, towards the end of the 1990s, 17,500 people applied for planning permission. About 1,500 applications were refused and roughly 16,000 were granted. This is a very high grant rate. However, interestingly, 10,000 new houses were built although the population outside the urban areas of Castlebar, Westport and Ballina declined by 2,500 between the publication of the 1996 statistics and those pertaining to 2002. In light of these figures, we must ask what is really happening. Are we building the wrong types of houses? Are they holiday homes? Many genuine applicants were refused, including those trying to build on the home farm or on a site obtained from a relation, father or mother. Therefore, good planning should be coupled with common sense. Several Senators and I know that common sense seems to go out the door in many cases. While it would have no standing regarding a planning Act or planning guidelines, we should do whatever is necessary to have it adhered to.

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. I declare an interest in that my brother is a member of the planning profession, although he operates in a different county from that in which I live. Therefore, I hear the views of both sides, namely those of constituents and colleagues and those of planners.

I am glad the heat of this debate has lessened considerably, thanks to contributions from Senators McCarthy and Paddy Burke, among others. There is a fairly strong consensus in the House regarding the draft regulations. They are as much a clarification and codification as something radically new or different. Some county developments plans will reflect or anticipate fairly closely what is in the guidelines. In other counties modification may be required, which may not just be in the plan but in its implementation and the way it is supplied.

I take Senator Paddy Burke's point that one of the biggest complaints has concerned the lack of consistency in the application of planning guidelines. Some years ago, there may have been a view that planning was too lax, to the point of being non-existent. Now there is a view that it has gone to the opposite extreme in some instances and that there is too much rigidity. Applications for sensible developments in respect of which there would have been no problem a few years ago are now being stopped.

There was a certain amount of crossfire across the floor of the House regarding development levies. Some development levy is needed to reflect the social cost of housing, wherever it may be situated. It is a question of determining the appropriate level. The guidelines will also be very useful not just to councils but also to An Bord Pleanála in dealing with appeals.

Senator Paddy Burke referred to the well-known fact that rural depopulation has been particularly strong in the north west. I cannot get it out of my head that this island had a population of 8.2 million people 160 years ago. Many, if not all, of these people lived in the countryside. They lived along peninsulas and in what were called "congested districts" in the late union period. Such districts were in the west and north west. The notion that barren and empty landscapes represent a more aesthetic ideal than that of having life in an area is questionable. I have relatives in Scotland and I find depressing the amount of barren landscape in that country. Obviously, I am not talking about high mountain tops, but certain areas of the country are completed depopulated. This is not exactly replicated anywhere in Ireland. It is nice to see a few twinkling lights at night in the countryside for example when one looks across to islands such as Inishboffin. I do not accept the idea that even a coastal landscape is more interesting if it has no population whatsoever. However, there should not be too many holiday homes which are occupied for only a few weeks of the year, particularly in an area of high amenity. A policy is needed for that. The type of holiday home which is let for nine months of the year is a very different proposition. Planners should maybe find out what is the planned letting period.

There is a genuine debate behind all this, namely, to what degree there should be development into the country in the vicinity of towns and villages on the edge of some of which there is attractive housing. It would be very hard to forbid people to build or live in a place at the edge of the countryside although it is necessary to avoid too much ribbon development in large towns. There is also a great deal of snobbery about bungalows. A few thousand years ago most people lived in huts, which became cabins and later cottages, and now the modern cottages are bungalows. It is not true that a two or three storey house is necessarily or intrinsically more attractive. Some people in this debate have referred to South Fork and so on. Any new house will initially intrude on the landscape, no matter how it is situated. If one allows time for plants and trees to grow around it most settle very nicely into the landscape within five or ten years. Some environmentalists have an ideological and passionate hatred for the motorised society. That is understandable in one who lives amidst the congestion of the centre of Dublin but we are talking about the countryside here, not the cities. They feel that houses in the countryside generate traffic whereas if everyone is concentrated in close proximity preferably in the type of apartment blocks familiar in some continental European cities, of which we are seeing more here too, everyone would walk, cycle, or take a bus or train. That vision, however, cannot dictate our planning or our approach to developing the country.

We will face great development pressures in the next few years. By the end of this century, although none of us will live to see it, we will return to a population of 8 million, many of whom will be people whom today we call immigrants. We have become a prosperous country and there is no reason that we should not remain so, in a temperate climate which will remain even in conditions of global warming. I can see the population rising considerably. The result will be bigger cities and towns and more people living in the countryside. There is no harm in vitalising rural communities, within reason. My father who was born in 1910 on a country road two miles outside Tipperary said there were far more people living on that road in his youth than in his old age even though a few single houses were built there in his latter years.

There are many ruined houses, cottages or two storey houses which I would like to see being restored. Once as I walked in an overgrown area on Gorumna Island, with which the Leas-Chathaoirleach is probably familiar, I saw a German family restoring a ruined cottage and thought "good luck to them". There ought to be more encouragement for that sort of work. I do not refer to someone who buys a cottage alleging that he or she will restore it but who knocks it and builds something completely different. Maybe there should be some public assistance to encourage the use and restoration of derelict houses which are one-off houses, albeit not occupied, in the countryside already. The planning profession in some of the big counties is under a heavy pressure as development increases and people must work way beyond their normal hours, very often without any overtime payment. We should expand those offices.

These guidelines are a necessary clarification which should not be caricatured as they have been in some of our national newspapers which describe them as covering the country in concrete or a bungalow blitz. They are very well balanced and not a free for all anything goes and should not be misrepresented as such. It is one thing to lay down guidelines, and quite another to see them implemented. People will want to watch carefully to see if there is some modulation of policy which takes account of people who have a legitimate wish, as defined in the circumstances given in the guidelines. Is that going to be granted rather than refused? We must recall that we live in a democracy and this is relevant to other debates scheduled for today. This is not a bureaucracy or a technocracy of experts, planning or otherwise. One must have some regard to what people want and to direct that into constructive channels. Good quality design is very important as building increases in the countryside. Allowing the principle of a house does not mean to say that it is allowed anywhere and the Minister of State is not suggesting this.

The guidelines and the Minister's contribution should be accepted as a serious, responsible, forward-looking, enlightened and well-balanced statement of where we should be. Some people have tried to make an issue of the timing. Government cannot be suspended because elections are scheduled in a few months' time. If we were to end all government and politics in an election year the country could not make progress. These guidelines should be judged on their merits and not simply denigrated as some kind of——

Empty waffle.

——political stroke or manoeuvre.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I have read both the guidelines and the Minister's speech with interest. I do not believe they will make a great deal of difference as most applications for planning permission are granted anyway. I am somewhat bemused as to how this will address the problem of rural depopulation. I had understood that the main reason people were not living at every crossroads, as was the case when I was a child, was that there was a lack of jobs in the countryside. Now that fewer people are employed in agriculture and as many people cannot find jobs in the nearest town, they have to seek jobs further away.

If they feel it is appropriate, farmers should be allowed to let all their children build houses on their land. Such children with their spouses and their own children will all need to commute some distance to work and school. I have no obsession with cars except that it is better to walk and get some exercise.

However, there is no public transport in rural Ireland. This document makes no mention of the cost of supplying services to all these people. I presume they will need to be paid for by the rest of us taxpayers. Waste services need to be provided. While I know they will pay electricity and water services, will school busses need to go to more remote places simply because a person, who had some connection with the area, can now build there? There is a real difficulty with older people living in isolated places. What thought has been given to providing services for them?

I am particularly concerned about transport, which is very difficult for those in rural Ireland already. I see nothing in the guidelines indicating that this will improve. I presume the people will be allowed sell the houses, which could result in them becoming holiday houses that are only occupied for a small proportion of the year. I have great doubts about the vibrant, thriving crossroads we will get with such development. However, as I have said, I do not believe it will make much difference.

Apart from the cost of the services, for which we will all have to pay, I am deeply concerned about water pollution. Since I was first elected to this House, I have heard about improvements to address water pollution. I am sure the Minister of State reads the Environmental Protection Agency's reports with even more vigour than I do. Some 45% of private water schemes are polluted with faeces coming from septic tanks that are not maintained. In some areas where there is limestone with little topsoil for drainage the problem is serious and one person's septic tank is leaking into the next person's water supply.

In his speech the Minister piously stated: "Where sites are to be developed, wastewater systems must be designed, installed and monitored to ensure that they operate and continue to operate to the required standards." However, as this is not happening at present, why is it likely to happen in the future? Septic tanks are frequently never cleared out. While I had heard the Minister was to introduce regulations requiring them to be cleared by a registered professional capable of doing so, this has not happened. If we will not enforce existing regulations, there is no point believing this will happen. This problem causes serious illness. The major problem we have regarding rural housing and water supply is being completely disregarded. It is clear from the Minister's speech that the same old practices will continue.

I doubt that these guidelines will make much difference given that most houses already get planning permission. If a farmer has six children, I presume all of them would be entitled to build houses. It would be regrettable if most of them ended up being sold as holiday homes, which would result in empty houses for most of the year as happens in parts of Ireland already, which is pretty depressing.

I shall finish on a cheerful note. There is much discussion about a bungalow blitz. I believe this is because for a while we built houses resembling Spanish haciendas. They were so un-Irish looking that it made people pretty depressed. While some people may not think it attractive, we have managed to develop a style of our own. However, some houses are being built which are much better. I applaud that we have reverted to painting our houses brightly, a sight we used to see in our youth. Clonakilty and all around it is a joy to behold. In many other places new houses have individual character without being a copy of something the owner saw while on holidays in Santa Ponsa or Marbella. I applaud those planners who have shown such initiatives.

I regret we have no data on the cost of these developments. I wish someone in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would take the pollution of the water supply more seriously.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I welcome the guidelines and I commend the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, on introducing them. It is important to understand why they have been introduced. I was a member of a local authority for 24 years up to my resignation five or six months ago. I have been involved in the compilation of a number of county development plans. Difficulties with the interpretation of this matter have resulted in the need for these guidelines. When my local authority made a very clear statement as to what we would like in the context of rural one-off housing, it was the interpretation of our plan that resulted in the Minister speaking here today on the guidelines he recently published.

The local authority also had a number of meetings to address the matter such was the frustration and the indignity of the relevant members. While I cannot speak for other local authorities, I can speak for Westmeath County Council. A number of measures were introduced and, to be fair to the management, things improved. However, while a step was taken in the right direction, there is still a considerable way to go.

As somebody who lives in a town but who was born, bred and reared in a country area I can go back to the townland and parish just outside Kinnegad where my mother was born and reared, where 25 farming families lived in a very remote area. However, one would need the Time Team in that area and others around the country to find evidence of habitation. We must ask ourselves what is rural planning and who drives it? The answer is that people drive rural planning.I am sick and tired of the pious platitudesand the craw-thumping of certain self-styled environmentalists who tell people who were born in a rural area that they cannot live there. The message to them from the Minister and this Seanad group is that they can. Someone mentioned common sense and courtesy which is so pertinent, but when certain planners consider certain issues neither common sense nor courtesy obtains. However, that is the exception, not the rule.

Rural areas are in decline. One has only to count the number of GAA clubs that have had to amalgamate in order bring out one team and the number of hurling clubs, soccer clubs and community games areas that have amalgamated just to remain in existence. It is an indication of what is happening in rural Ireland. The cause is lack of planning. Churches, post offices and schools are closing. Need I go on?

I appreciate constructive criticism. There is no doubt that it is pertinent to good governance. However, destructive criticism only demonstrates a bankruptcy of alternative proposals. In this case the Government is damned if it does and damned if it does not. There were calls ad nauseam from both sides of the House for the Minister to come here to address the issue of planning. That has been done.

This is not addressing the planning situation.

That is the destructive criticism about which I spoke. I thank the Senator for reminding me.

There is nothing in this.

I did not think the Senator would take the bait so soon. Senator Henry made a comment, which I partly support. It pertained to the elderly in the community. When I was a gossoon, which was a while ago, great attention was given to the care of the elderly. People looked after their elderly father or mother, their uncle or aunt at home. Now the principle of honouring father and mother, that well learned commandment of olden times, is no longer pertinent to everyday life. The moment ill-health presents, elderly people are put into the local geriatric hospital so that the health board can look after them. I am honoured to know many elderly people, the founding fathers and mothers of this State who built it up. If they want to live in rural communities they are entitled to do so and to be supported and provided with services.

Hear, hear.

On water pollution, the Minister's guidelines are clear and concise in stating that everything should be subject to good planning practice. One would not expect the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to oversee the installation of a septic tank. In most cases of septic tank installation where there is what is known as impervious soil, a hydrological survey will indicate that the soil can take only so much rainfall which will then make its way to the lowest water source, most commonly a stream or a drain. That is a fair point. However, Puraflow treatment is available. One does not have to be a rocket scientist, an environmentalist or an engineer to work out the implications. We also have planning enforcement officers. We have all been members of local authorities. It is up to them to drive that situation.

I am aware of ongoing rows, and that is the word to use. A recent example is the case of a lad farming almost 100 acres who cannot get planning permission.

He should contact Senator Bannon.

Whatever Senator Bannon put forward today, he must be suffering from withdrawal symptoms, because most of what he said had to be withdrawn.

He has not gone away.

He is welcome. He is a good friend of mine when he says what should be said, but that does not happen often.

I agree with the Minister on rural planning when he stated: "I want to emphasise again, however, that the guidelines are based on a presumption that people who have roots in or links to rural areas and are part of and contribute to the rural community, will get planning permission for houses, provided that they meet the normal planning requirements." That is fair.

That already covers almost every county development.

That will not change. If we are to be practical about it, what else can be said. There must be a multi-faceted approach to this whole problem.

The guidelines are specific on the issue of protecting water quality. The Minister also stated: "Where sites are to be developed, waste water systems must be designed, installed and monitored to ensure that they operate and continue to operate to the required standards." That is clear and unambiguous.

I could go on, but most of what I would like to say has already been said. Lack of jobs was put forward as one of the reasons for rural decline. However, we are now a very car-orientated society and many people from mine and other towns as far away as Mullingar are driving to Dublin to work. Lack of jobs, therefore, is not a reason in itself. The new focus that has been brought to the improvement of public transport will contribute to the regeneration of rural populations.

Irrespective of what begrudgers might say, in bringing forward these guidelines the Minister has responded to a clear request from local authorities and from Oireachtas Members. They are a step in the right direction. The county development plan is a reserved function of the members of local authorities. Now is the time for every local authority that is a planning authority — not all local authorities are planning authorities — to review their county development plans and stitch into them the clear message that is being given here by the Minister in these recent guidelines.

It is important that the Minister consult. If he did not, the Opposition would say he is a dictator.

He is a dictator.

The members of the Opposition cannot have it every way. They must come down on one side or the other. I welcome these guidelines and commend them to the House.

We are all singing from the same hymn sheet regarding planning guidelines and trying to accommodate and facilitate people in rural communities. That is what we all want to do. Without people, there can be no communities. We have been requesting a debate on planning, rural housing and once-off housing for approximately 18 months.

The Minister and members of the Fianna Fáil Party stated that Fine Gael is not in favour of rural housing. That is not the truth. We are in favour of rural housing and we are trying to engage in a debate on the matter.

Planning is not an exact science. We have all served on local authorities and we know about the difficulties involved in obtaining planning permission, the fights with planners, etc. We are trying to engage in a debate in order that people in rural areas will be facilitated.

I wish to comment on the process which led to Fianna Fáil using its recent Ard-Fheis as a local election launch pad in terms of the announcement of once-off housing. When did the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting in Sligo take place?

Last September. We reflect during the autumn and plan for the future.

Senator McHugh, without interruption. The Senator should not invite comments or interruptions.

The information provided by the Minister of State will be useful to my contribution. Preparations started in September and the outcome of the meeting to which I refer was that rural housing would be the focus.

RTE facilitated the process by placing a good spin on the issue of once-off housing in September. A few weeks later, Brian Dobson travelled to Galway to interview the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, in respect of such housing. This created momentum, expectations were heightened and people thought that there would be a relaxation of rural housing laws. Between late December and early January, a quiet time for the media, the Minister, Deputy Cullen, and rural housing were the subject of a full front page report in one of the tabloids. I do not know whether it was The Irish Times or the Irish Independent.

They are broadsheets.

I apologise. I am from Donegal and we sometimes do not even get newspapers because we live so far away.

They have never seen a broadsheet.

There was a major build up and people's expectations were high. Everything was waiting for the Ard-Fheis to be used as the launching pad. Everyone on this side of the House was aware of what was going on.

We have now been presented with the guidelines and they are only that. There is a consultative process and the guidelines are not set in stone and no legal mechanism has been created. They are only guidelines.

I am a local representative and I still serve on the council. I am glad that the Minister, Deputy Cullen, is not present because he would admonish me in that regard. After I was elected to the council in 1999, we formulated a county development plan which recognised the need to facilitate people in rural areas. Every item included in the guidelines announced by the Minister is already contained in that county development plan. I do not understand how the situation has been improved or matters progressed. Even though my local council has its own county development plan which facilitates people in local rural areas, these people are still being turned down for planning permission. There are various reasons for that. The guidelines will not have an impact in terms of environmental issues or matters relating to location and settlement patterns. The specifications in the guidelines will not address problems of this nature in Donegal.

What is the position regarding the regional planning guidelines which will be enacted on 30 March? Do they contain a legal mechanism? As far as I understand it, under the regional planning guidelines we will not be able to tell individual local authorities how to formulate their plans. As matters stand, local authorities have the autonomy to make their own decisions within the regional framework. How can we put in place a blanket guideline for the entire country at central government level when the regional planning guidelines indicate that there are too many settlement criteria and pressures involved? There is a view that this matter must go back to local authorities, which will argue that it must go further to a decentralised level. The system cannot work on a centralised basis. For example, the pressures and settlement patterns which exist in the east of the country do not match those in Galway or Donegal. Each local authority has autonomy and I find it difficult to accept that the guidelines will change the pressures that exist.

Under Better Local Government, we were promised additional staff and resources in respect of planning. My local authority's planning office is under-funded and under-resourced. A senior planner indicated last week that the staff there work until midnight. How can we relax the planning laws if the resources are not in place? I want planning restrictions to be relaxed and, as already stated, Fine Gael is in favour of one off housing. However, the Government cannot state that it is in favour of such housing if it is not prepared to provide the necessary resources.

In the past year in Donegal, the most difficult thing for a local representative to do was to organise or hold a site meeting. I intend no disrespect to the planners in the county who have been snowed under by paperwork, administrative work and bureaucracy. That is the fundamental difficulty with the guidelines. We must be sensible and we must be in a position to say to local authorities that we will relax the guidelines and make it easier for people to build houses in rural areas. However, that will not happen until we provide the resources. Senator Glynn referred to this matter when he referred to the checking of plans etc.

People's expectations have been heightened. I have received telephone calls on a daily basis since last weekend from people who were turned down for planning permission on numerous occasions and who are now determined to resubmit their applications.

They want the Senator to join Fianna Fáil.

What confidence will they have when they discover that nothing has changed within the county development plan, that the policy has not been altered and that they will again be refused? That is wrong, it sends a negative message and it does nothing to instil public confidence.

I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, will convey my views to the Minister, Deputy Cullen. I intend no disrespect to the Minister of State but I am disappointed that the Minister is not present. Am I allowed to talk about the Minister in his absence?

As long as the Senator says nice things about him.

That depends. As long as the Senator does not impugn his character.

The Minister can, at times, be erratic. When we tried to engage him in debate earlier, he became defensive. Senators Paddy Burke, Bannon and others from my party have been calling for this debate for a long period and it would have been good if the Minister could have remained in the House for the duration of it. I ask the Minister of State to convey to the Minister that we do not have the resources to implement these guidelines.

I welcome the Minister of State and I recognise that the Minister, Deputy Cullen, is obviously busy and is not in a position to be in the House. We are very fortunate to have the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Treacy, in the House, as he comes from the very heart of rural Ireland. He is well aware of the difficulties that have surrounded planning in rural areas, especially in the west.

I agree with the Senator.

I welcome the publication of these guidelines. They are a vital element of the redevelopment and the substantial work associated with the population regeneration of rural Ireland. This is the second piece of critical work done by the Oireachtas in the past 18 months. The first piece was done on the Nice treaty soon after the elections. Anyone who lives in, comes from or has a regard for rural Ireland will agree. There is a level of consensus developing between both sides of the House. I was somewhat disappointed with the earlier contributions from the Opposition because it was an attempt to play politics while the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was here. It does nothing for those of us who have great regard for rural Ireland and the difficulties it has faced.

Senator Henry understands some of the problems clearly. I do not share her view on how to answer these problems. She talked about the lack of jobs in rural areas. We are well aware of the difficulty associated with the move away from the agricultural sector and a consequent loss of jobs, something with which the Minister will be familiar. Those of us involved in the agricultural sector will be familiar with the difficulties in that regard due to the latest proposals from Brussels which will have implications for those who work on farms. We will see less people involved in farming over the next number of years. Larger farms will develop and less people will work in that environment. It is incumbent on this Government and future governments to develop a strategy for job creation in rural areas. We will soon debate the work of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in terms of job creation.

It is a chicken and egg scenario. Business people and industrialists interested in investing in Ireland tend to go where the labour market is situated, which is significantly based around large urban areas, generally on the east coast. Unless we can assure people that it will be possible to get planning permission in rural areas, it is unlikely that industrialists will want to base themselves in an area where it is virtually impossible for their workers to live.

Senator Henry raised the issue of the urban-rural bias. Certain people in urban areas are concerned that it is their tax euro that are subventing those of us based outside the pale. Who has paid for the infrastructure projects on the east coast, such as Luas, the port tunnel and other large-scale multi-million pound projects? Senator Henry spoke about the cost associated with providing transport networks to assist people. Senator Glynn spoke about adequate levels of public transport for the elderly. The costs associated with this transport are negligible in comparison to the investment that has been made in the east coast. If we are serious as a society, as the Government is, about balanced regional development and if people on the east coast are prepared to see investment in the west, creating a counter-base on the west coast, there is a benefit to people in the cities. The more people who decide to live outside the large urban areas, the greater the capacity there is to alleviate congestion. Balanced regional development works for everyone, including the west and small communities. Senator McHugh addressed that necessity to build and develop strong communities. The only way to do this is to let people live and work in their own area. These guidelines have clearly focused on this issue.

There were comments that the guidelines are an election ploy. I will not discuss it as it was addressed, but the bottom line is there will be an election every second year anyway. Should the Government do nothing for the year or should it run the country? Senator McHugh spoke about the period from September to the present, when the Minister announced these guidelines. That is five months and much work was done. The Senator will be aware of the detailed documentation surrounding these guidelines as he has an interest in this area. It was a marvellous achievement to get that amount of work done. The Minister and his officials should be complimented on the immense amount of work they have done to develop the details behind the policy statement made. What is wrong with Fianna Fáil backbenchers meeting in Sligo, identifying a problem and doing something about it? It shows that parliamentary democracy works and that democracy within Fianna Fáil works. It shows that when we represent views to the leadership and the Cabinet they listen. I am delighted that the Cabinet and the Minister in particular have listened on this occasion and have delivered a set of guidelines which will see significant changes. In my county of Clare there are changes which will make it easier for people to live in the more depopulated areas, especially on the west coast. That is important as large tracts of County Clare fall within the CLÁR area because it has suffered depopulation between the two censuses. It is vitally important that areas like those in Clare are assisted to allow housing development to anyone who has a credible site, has safety measures built in and has the capacity to have acceptable percolation tests done. That is the only way people will return to rural areas.

I compliment our councillors and officials in Clare who have done tremendous work in developing conditions to permit a reduction in planning refusals over the past number of years. Clare has been to the forefront in addressing many of these issues. There has not been the same level in other counties. A great difficulty for Clare County Council was the concerns expressed by An Taisce which appealed decisions to An Bord Pleanála. I am delighted that An Bord Pleanála will be required to observe the guidelines for its decisions. That is critical. Many councils were concerned their work would be overturned by An Bord Pleanála and that created a type of big brother situation. Obviously that provision remains, as it should. It will be useful in terms of adherence to the guidelines.

An Taisce has been a hobby horse of many in this House for some time, myself included. The issue of people in ivory towers dictating to those of us who live and deal with people in rural Ireland who fail to obtain planning permission is of grave concern. Such people have a genuine contribution to make to such areas. Often people in An Taisce and other organisations fortunate to buy land and obtain planning permission seek to build five mile walls around their land to ensure no one else can build in the area. That type of mentality must stop and will stop as a result of these guidelines. They will cause a seismic shift in terms of assumptions associated with the delivery of planning. The assumption now will be that one is entitled to planning permission rather than that one is not entitled to it. Many issues such as safety and so on remain to be addressed.

The term "bungalow blitz" coined by The Irish Times resurfaced at the weekend. On the one hand, the Opposition, for its own reasons, is saying the guidelines will have no real effect and will not improve the lot of people seeking planning. On the other hand, The Irish Times tells us there will be a bungalow blitz, with little bungalows mushrooming all over the country. There is obviously a gap somewhere in the middle.

The Minister has included in the guidelines a reference to the use of natural products and materials in local areas. Local authorities have made some sensible decisions over the past number of years in terms of the quality of design and insistence on design in particular areas blending in with the natural background. Another issue not mentioned in the guidelines is the safety aspect of site specific issues. This matter needs to be addressed. Many people are refused planning because their proposed house would be too close to a turn in the road or because the site is unsuitable. There is a need to put pressure on the professionals who draw up plans for houses and undertake site surveys. We must pressurise such professionals to recognise a difficulty in advance rather than submitting an application which is in breach of certain guidelines, thereby leaving local representatives to deal with the problem. Perhaps the Minister would consider establishing a code of practice or guidelines for professionals involved in this area.

There have been a number of holiday home developments in County Clare given the nature of its tourism. Such developments, some along the west coast, which are tax designated probably do no good for the area in terms of aesthetics. They are utilised for a short time during the summer months which provides some positive impact. I welcome the provisions relating to the development of such holiday homes in a cluster rather than a fragmented formation. That would help to overcome some of the concerns raised by Senator Henry as regards one-off holiday homes which do nothing for a community. Many Senators have expressed concerns on this issue. However, the Minister has dealt with the matter sensibly.

The guidelines form part of the overall approach to the national spatial strategy and that is to be welcomed. It shows a type of cohesive approach to regional development. Previously, a site located in an SAC or NHA was automatically excluded from planning. That provision created many difficulties for farmers throughout the country. Farmers were unable to go ahead with planning as a result of that designation. In many cases, such areas were so designated against the will of the farmer concerned and often rendered his or her land useless. Under the new guidelines, such planning will be permitted and that is helpful.

Another hobby horse is the idea that the only time a farmer should be allowed to build on his land is when the dwelling is for his son or daughter. I have a fundamental objection in this regard. Many small farmers with sites that have a little road frontage might wish to sell off a site to obtain money to educate their children. There is nothing wrong with that. I am against locking people into situations where they can build a house on their land for only one child. They should be permitted to build whether they have five, ten or 15 children. However, a farmer with 15 children would end up with a pretty big village and would probably have to seek some other type of designation. That is an important issue. We all know people in rural Ireland who have sold a site to educate their family or to get out of a financial crisis.

I wish to share time with Senator Finucane. I was not impressed with the Minister's attitude earlier and with his refusal to listen to Members on this side of the House. Fine Gael is not against one-off housing. It is against the cynical con job by the Minister and the Government on rural housing. This document contains nothing new. Having spoken to planners — they are not members of Fine Gael——

They are probably members of Fianna Fáil.

——they say that this document contains little that is new. I have just had a telephone call regarding two planning permissions in County Carlow.

Did the Senator succeed?

No. The reality is that this document will make no difference in such cases. Were it not for the Famine and ensuing emigration, our population would be approximately 21 million. We are unable to plan for a population of less than five million people. Senator McHugh raised some very valid points. Planning departments throughout the country are completely stretched. Why are they not receiving extra resources? Will the Government, at this late stage, provide them with extra resources?

Carlow has a massive turnover of planners, so much so that one genuinely would not know who deals with planning because every time one telephones, one planner is leaving and another is arriving. That problem is duplicated throughout the country. Unfortunately, the side effect of that is that advice obtained from one planner is contradicted by another and an application is often refused for a completely different reason. That is happening all the time and it is totally unfair. We need consistency. We must examine the terms and conditions under which our planners work. They are under tremendous pressure. Most of them are leaving for the private sector where they can earn more money for far less hours. I am not surprised to hear Senator McHugh's comments about planners in Donegal working until midnight.

The point made by Senator McHugh about the one glove not fitting all mentality is true. Carlow is a small county, the northern area of which from Hackettstown to Tullow is under enormous pressure from Dublin. Many people from Dublin not wishing to live full time in Carlow would build houses there if its housing policy were more relaxed. However, that would not be appropriate in my view. Areas such as Bagnelstown and Borris would welcome such housing developments because their population is decreasing.

I am wary of this measure. We take a common sense approach to planning in Carlow but, if anything, these guidelines might restrict us even more. That view has been expressed to me by independent sources in Carlow.

This Government's record on housing is atrocious. It was the same Minister who abolished the first-time buyer's grant without any warning but the Fianna Fáil Members have conveniently forgotten that. That measure had a huge impact on young couples. The Government also increased VAT on building products by 1%, which had a huge impact on building, and it has now increased development levies which will have a major impact on people building their own homes. On the Government's record on affordable housing, the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, admitted in a reply to a Dáil question from Deputy Allen that not one foundation for affordable housing has been laid so far this year, out of 10,000 houses promised.

Senator Mansergh referred to 60,000 units having been built so far this year but he failed to mention that half of those are for investors. Even the Minister for Finance has grave difficulty with that area and had planned to cut back on the tax reliefs on housing but did not do it in the budget. The Government's record is atrocious in this area.

Will the Minister of State clarify with the Minister whether Fianna Fáil is now recommending that those who were refused planning permission in the past two or three years should now reapply? That is a straightforward question and it will be the proof of the pudding as to whether this measure will work. Is Fianna Fáil recommending that those people should reapply for planning permission? If so, we will see where we are in eight or nine weeks time.

That will be the test.

It depends on what they will get——

Senator Brennan is introducing new factors now. I am asking a straightforward question. Fianna Fáil is promoting this measure as if it will allow everyone to live in rural Ireland when it knows in reality that the same problems will exist. We all know we will get many telephone calls, as Senator McHugh and everyone else is getting, from people who have been refused in the past and who will be extremely disappointed. I suspect, however, that they will be disappointed after the local and European elections when they have given their vote to Fianna Fáil and cannot reverse their decision. Unfortunately, they will not realise they were conned until then. The story of the emperor with no clothes comes to mind when I hear people speak here.

Carlow has one of the lowest development levies in the country. That is because we have a Fine Gael-led council since 1985. We have worked very well with Labour but if Fianna Fáil had the chair, the charges would be much higher, like those in Kilkenny. Is the Minister of State aware of a recent case involving a constituent of mine from Carlow who is building in Kildare? Kildare brought in new development levies on 24 February and a decision was due in this gentleman's case on 18 February under the old development levy system. On the week his planning decision was due, however, he got a letter seeking further information from the council and he is now liable for the higher development levy — in this case an additional €13,000. That is wrong and unfair.

That is a matter for the council to decide.

That is the reality of the issue. I ask the Minister of State to investigate that case because if someone makes a planning application before the deadline but the council has a difficulty about which it informs the person at the last minute, it is unfair to push him into the new development levy period where he has to pay extra charges. That is totally unfair and in fairness to those on the Fianna Fáil side, they could not stand over that. I ask the Minister of State to investigate that.

Fianna Fail's record in this area is atrocious, going back to 1977 and the abolition of rates, which has starved local government of funding and has led to the various development levies being brought in. In years to come, people will be very bitter. They are currently paying development levies but are being told not to worry about it. I understand that under the local amenities heading the provision of footpaths, lights, benches etc. is being considered but in a few years time when the people involved are settled in their new houses and there is no sign of these amenities coming into the area, they will question where the money went and will suddenly realise they have been conned.

I read this document. I have been in a council for 18 years and of all the issues raised the most vexatious for any public representative is that of planning. If anybody analyses the various requests they get during a week they will find the largest number of requests relate to planning. In many cases we give advice and try to expedite and facilitate the planning process but I would like to compliment the planning department in my own county, and Senator Brennan would be aware of this, which is over-stretched but whose staff are very tolerant and understanding.

We take up issues but we may disagree on occasions with the advice from the professional planners. In many cases in the past people who became planners were civil engineers who probably took a more realistic approach and understood the councillors better with regard to planning and design. When people become planners directly after leaving university, obviously they have a good deal of theory which they then try to translate into rural thinking. That often initiates a clash with the person applying for planning permission and leads us to get advice from people at a senior level within the office with a view to teasing out the various roadblocks.

If we want to analyse the reason for planning application refusals in many cases we must recognise that they revolve around one aspect. If the health board advises that the percolation quality and the site is not suitable, no change in sustainable rural housing will amend that situation. We cannot be threatened by the European Union with regard to the contamination of ground water and in a situation where professional advice goes against this, the Minister would be putting his head on the block if he felt we should give contrary advice to put in a biocycle or septic tank system which could lead to contamination of water.

There are other areas where refusals occur. In large urban areas like Limerick county there is a pressure area, of which Senator Brennan would be aware, and in that case severe restrictions are imposed by the council officials. In many cases those restrictions have to be imposed because that pressure zone would be regarded as suburbia in Limerick city, where in every small cul-de-sac there is an extension of houses. There is reference in the guidelines to the fact that the Minister is not encouraging ribbon development. What, therefore, are the planners doing wrong in refusing people in those situations? Not a lot if they are conforming to the new regulations.

I spoke to the planners in Limerick County Council and I will give the House a classic example of where I argued on behalf of a person whose site is regarded in planning terms as being 300 metres from a junction. There is a bend on the junction. The farmer owns all the hedgerow on one side and is prepared to take away as much of that as possible but it was pointed out to me that if the planners are to interpret the new guidelines correctly, and the officials might take notice of this, many issues will arise in regard to hedgerow landscaping and retaining the rural profile. Where a degree of flexibility existed in the past, that flexibility could be constrained if the planners implement these guidelines. Often the practice was to ask the next-door neighbour to help by removing part of their hedgerow in order to make it possible for the person to get planning permission for the site. I now understand from the officials that such flexibility will no longer exist. One could say a constraint is being put on that person.

Another constraint is that in the pressure zone area it is stipulated that one has to live in the house for five years but the Minister's guidelines refer to seven years. Where would the flexibility be in such cases? In his contribution the Minister made an issue of the fact that schools and shops were closing down. That is happening in small rural communities and in villages because during the Celtic tiger period, about which I have spoken a number of times, a functional sewerage scheme was not put into operation in particular locations. The planners will say that the only way to revive and sustain those villages is by putting in place proper sewerage schemes. It does not matter if there is ribbon development alongside it because if the soakage does not suit, the houses will not be built, regardless of the willingness or flexibility of the planners.

I am sure Limerick County Council mirrors every local authority at this stage where the biggest months of the year for planning applications are January and February because on 5 April next, the increased planning and development fee comes into operation. People are aware of that. In our county they pay a development fee of €1,200 to €1,800. From 1 April it will be €2,700 and from 1 September it will be €3,500. They are already paying the charge, but they want to avoid paying the excess amount involved and want to have applications approved before April. Meanwhile, planners are stretched to the limit. They are currently deliberating and pondering over the new guidelines to see whether they will change the whole process.

I listened to the debate from which we should remove raw emotion. We can all get emotional on this issue. I would be conscious of the arguments and would want people to build, as much as possible, in rural Ireland. Will house building expand dramatically? This might solve a situation for Senator Dooley in Clare or on the coastline where applications have been rejected because the view of the Shannon would have been impeded. People may now get permission in areas where planners were not amenable in the past. That will happen as changes are modified from county to county in line with the interpretation of planners.

I cannot see a dramatic change, however, as regards the counties I am involved in. I would agree entirely with Senator Dooley's assertion that a farmer should not be confined in his or her application to obtaining permission for a son or a daughter to build on his land. I encountered a farmer recently who wanted to sell a site because two members of his family were at third level. He found it impossible to educate them. He wanted to obtain permission for just one site to sustain his children in third level. That would have taken much of the financial burden off him and was a reasonable point. He was not successful, but he may be considered for another site on that land, which could rectify the situation for him.

I could go on for much longer but I hope this initiative improves the situation although I am somewhat sceptical as to whether it will.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Treacy. Having listened to the excellent debate this evening and heard the views of people from all parties in my own county, it is clear there is a general welcome for the decision to allow more proper development to occur in rural areas. At present, approximately one third of the population lives in the countryside. People want to continue to live in rural areas. Steps must be taken to support the future development of such communities.

Houses can be built in back gardens on small areas of land throughout Dublin and in urban areas, but families with a substantial acreage have not been allowed to build a home for a son or daughter. That had to be addressed. Only people with roots and links to rural areas will get planning permission in certain regions. This will prevent an influx of people seeking to build holiday homes in more scenic parts of the country, without depriving local people of the opportunity to continue to live in an area. It is each local authority's responsibility to define those who will be entitled to build houses because they are part of the rural community, including farmers, their sons and daughters and persons taking over the ownership and running of farms, as well as people who have lived most of their lives in a particular area. Other people to qualify will include those who work full-time or part-time in rural areas such as teachers, forestry and marine workers and those involved in other rural-based occupations. The case for all people who want to work and live in rural areas must be examined on its merits. Those who receive planning permission to build homes will contribute to the local community and will help to revive rural life. That must be considered as a positive development.

New houses will continue to be designed to integrate well into the physical surroundings and be compatible with the conservation of the sensitive areas such as natural habitats. That is important and has been covered today in the Minister's speech. However, special areas of conservation, SACs, special protected areas, SPAs, and natural heritage areas, NHAs, will not, per se, justify blanket refusals for one-off housing applications. This is welcome. There are parts of the country with substantial areas designated as NHAs, SACs etc. that are merely proposed as being suitable for this purpose, without having been formally approved as such by Brussels. Local authorities have been refusing planning permissions in such areas and this needs to be examined. Even farmers have been unable to build on their own land because of such proposed NHAs or SPAs.

This initiative will help to revive areas and communities that suffer persistent and substantial population decline. In such areas people without roots in the locality will be accommodated in order to provide a social and economic boost and help rebuild the rural community. Everyone is in favour of preserving our ground water, which is the envy of most countries in the world. The new guidelines will help to protect our water and to ensure it is of the highest quality.

Planning authorities now need to examine their development plans to ensure they are in line with the Government's proposals. Some speakers have argued that their county's development plan is in line with them. Nonetheless, in many parts of the country such plans inhibit development in rural areas and the public representatives who introduced them have a responsibility in thisarea.

I support An Taisce in certain ways, but it has shown a blatant disregard for Government policy on rural housing. Public representatives of all political persuasions who have sought planning permission for deserving families have simply been opposed without An Taisce, in many instances, even inspecting the sites. Its representatives even went into the local authorities to see the site maps and house plans and successfully appealed against them to An Bord Pleanála. In my opinion city dwellers in An Taisce should not be able to dictate how rural communities live. Guidelines should be about making the best use of the available natural resources and should guide people in the planning decisions they make, not rule out development and create a rural wilderness. An Bord Pleanála's rejection of 75% of planning applications previously approved by local authorities leaves much to be desired. All public representatives are aware of inspectors going to sites and recommending planning permission; yet for some strange reason An Bord Pleanála refuses them. One wonders why and for what reason, given the expertise involved in such recommendations.

There have been situations where An Bord Pleanála has had to take the decisions it did because the application was for an inappropriate type of house at an inappropriate location. It was probably right in this.

The Government is working to retain as many rural families on the land as is sustainable. The national spatial strategy lists sustaining and renewing established rural communities as one of the four broad objectives of the sustainable rural settlement policy. It also states as a general principle that rural-generated housing needs should be accommodated in the areas where they arise. The national spatial strategy also distinguishes between rural housing needs for rural communities and rural housing sought by urban dwellers and second-home owners. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, has proposed taking into account that the majority of rural dwellers are either farmers or directly dependent on farming. Less than 8% of the population is engaged in farming.

Barr
Roinn