Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are being discussed together. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Finneran. Senator Alex White was in possession. In his absence, I call Senator Coffey.
Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 10.
Debate resumed on Government amendment No. 28:
In page 15, line 10, to delete "last made a local area plan" and substitute "last made that local area plan".
I will be brief because I have already outlined my views and some of the views of Fine Gael on this amendment. We see no logical reason the statutory threshold for local area plans should be increased from 2,000 to 5,000 people. I still have not heard from the Government side or the Minister of State why this measure is being taken and the benefit associated therewith. It is moving responsibility for the making of local area plans and development plans further from ordinary people and further depriving them of the democratic right to contribute to the making of the plans.
Consider the number of towns and villages with populations of less than 2,000, not to mind less than 5,000. There is clearly a move by the Government to establish a hierarchy within the planning process whereby local area plans and county development plans are to be formulated and managed from the top down under guidance. Traditionally, development plans were formulated from the bottom up, albeit with faults. Perhaps we should be focusing on the faults. We should be trying to improve the say of local people in local area plans.
The Minister stated there is nothing stopping local authorities from having a local area plan, but the proposal is removing the mandatory obligation on local authorities to have a plan in place for towns with a population of 2,000 or more. We are genuinely concerned that such towns may be neglected in the hierarchy of development that starts with the national spatial strategy and extends down to the regional strategy and then the local area plans. I am interested in hearing the comments of my colleagues on this.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. As Senator Coffey rightly stated, we do not understand the rationale behind this section. In the context of where we are going as a society, local area plans have never been more necessary. If we are to talk of creating hierarchies, let us start at the bottom and work up.
I am interested in determining where we will go. The local area plan is our Bible for the area in question and, as Senator Coffey stated, it allows for the participation of people. The Minister of State said people are not precluded but they will be. Towns of 5,000 or 10,000 will be able to dominate as a consequence, with a spin-off effect. The Minister of State knows that, in the context of the changes to business, commerce and rural Ireland, local area plans are imperative and have never been more necessary. In this regard one must consider population trends, infrastructural developments by the NRA and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and how Bus Éireann and Irish Rail deal with communities. The local area plan is critical to the creation of sustainable communities.
I am disappointed no Member from the Green Party is present. Section 10 goes against the ethos of creating sustainable communities and does not give them a say. Despite the spin, it removes local democracy. The objectives of local area plans are important and must be consistent with the objectives of the development plans. I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say.
Senator Coffey is correct. We have all come through the local authority system. We are now starting to micro-manage from the top down. Is this a case of the Fianna Fáil Government allowing us to sleepwalk into this Bill?
The Senator's party is doing it for 20 years.
Is he taking away the power from his local authorities and members and keeping them like mushrooms in the dark with no sustainable plan?
The Senator's party controls them all now anyway.
Perhaps that is why Fianna Fáil is doing this. It knows it has lost control and will not be back for another generation. This is serious. It is a question of representing people and giving them a say in their own area. We are taking power from them and diluting local democracy. The Minister of State should really examine this again.
Senators Buttimer and Coffey are very passionate about this but local councillors are probably the most passionate about it because they are the ones who wanted certain areas rezoned. Some of them were of questionable intent, to put it mildly, in certain areas of the country. This is to be regretted. It is up to local authorities to decide how to implement the planning laws within certain guidelines. Leitrim County Council has designated areas where development is allowed or otherwise, even in the smallest of villages.
Up and down the country, major towns have been destroyed absolutely by planning decisions that allowed multiples to set up on the outskirts. There is no life left in the middle of some towns as all the business has been taken from their centres. This is more worrying than anything else in the debate on development plans.
While Senator Coffey might see certain merit in what he is advocating, what is probably needed is a strengthening of the powers of local authority members regarding total planning. They should be accountable. I refer to accountability in terms of wrong decisions that are not in the interests of the communities in which councillors live. In many cases decisions are taken by people who do not live in the area, who exempt themselves from certain planning decisions because they know that they have a vested interest, directly or indirectly.
Senator Ellis's party has a good track record in that regard.
Senator Coffey should consider his own party's record.
It is on the public record.
If Senator Coffey wants me to comment on that issue I could embarrass certain Members of both House.
Senator Ellis is pontificating about Fine Gael. He should look more closely at Fianna Fáil.
Only for the shoe was hurting them they would not open their mouths. Senator Coffey knows what I am talking about.
Senator Ellis is pontificating.
It is up to local authority members who are in a position to do so to deal with everything in their own area. They must be vigilant. It does not matter what one sets the limit at, be it two or 2,000, it is up to local authority members and planners to ensure that what is decided is in the best interests of the communities, and not similar to decisions we have discussed where houses were allowed to be built on flood plains. Such decisions were against the environment and the common good.
I will not engage in the manner of the previous discussion where, suffice to say, there are many glasshouses with objects bouncing off them. I will not indulge in that approach. I wish to return to the two issues I raised previously. I was not going to return to amendment No. 28 as the Minister of State pointed out that he is only changing one word but for two reasons I will briefly return to it. First, I noticed that section 20 of the principal Act deals with the problem about which I was concerned. The Internet is a good thing. This is precisely the type of debate we hope the wider community could access, not to participate in the debate but to take an interest in it and to provide an opportunity for people to have their views heard. Over lunchtime I was delighted to receive an email from someone who was doing just that. Mr. Gavin Daly was watching our proceedings somewhere in the country and he pointed out that section 20 deals with the issue of a new local area plan and the notices that are required to be sent out in respect of such a plan. I am sorted in that regard.
However, I still await clarification on the issue we were discussing before we took a break, namely, the question of zoning made pursuant to a local area plan and the provision that it is proposed to insert whereby, "There shall be no presumption in law that any land zoned in a particular local area plan shall remain so zoned in any subsequent local area plan". How does that sit with the generality of the law in respect of zoning? My understanding is that zonings made pursuant to a development plan by a local authority continue in being from year to year or from development plan to development plan. Are we now to have a distinction in respect of the longevity of zoning decisions between local area plan zonings and mainstream zonings?
I intended to ask the exact same question as Senator White. Will all areas that have been previously zoned have to be revisited in every plan? I was of the opinion that once a decision was made on a zoning that it would remain in force. Does it mean that when councillors adopted a plan they would have to go through the plan again and reconsider all zonings?
On the increase in population from 2,000 to 5,000, Senator Coffey made the point that there is a hierarchy of towns. We discussed that issue on Second Stage and in earlier sections on Committee Stage. Unlike previous Bills, this one contains a reference to a hierarchy of towns. It takes into account the national spatial strategy and gives priority to gateway towns, hub towns and smaller towns and villages. It has been decided to increase the population requirement from 2,000 to 5,000 for areas in which a local area plan can be made. The Minister specifically outlined that development plans must take into account the national spatial strategy and that gateways, hubs and other urban centres must reach a certain level of population before development can take place. That will hinder development in smaller urban centres, as all of the investment will be made in gateway towns and hub towns at the expense of smaller towns. I refer to towns with a population of between 2,000 and 5,000. When the population increases to 5,000 there is an obligation on a local authority to put a plan in place. That will affect large urban areas more than rural counties such as Mayo.
I wish to ask the Minister of State about hub towns. In my county, Castlebar and Ballina are hub towns. Claremorris has a population of less than 5,000 and it is equidistant between Castlebar and Tuam, which is also a hub town. The Minister indicated in the context of the Mayo county development plan that councillors there did not adhere to the national spatial strategy on hub towns. The reference was to Castlebar and Ballina and there was no reference to Tuam. I seek clarification on hub towns that are in other local authority areas but that are within striking distance of towns, which under this plan will probably be required to put local area plans in place. In some cases those towns will have a population of approximately 5,000.
I am still not happy with how area development plans will be carried out. The Minister of State indicated the Bill will not take any power away from local authority members in terms of designing plans. Senator Ellis said development plans in Leitrim were drawn up for all towns and villages. We did that in my county also. Funding will be geared towards gateways and hubs for water, sewerage and waste water. There will not be an onus on county managers to draw up plans for smaller areas. That is where we will lose out. There will be nothing in the legislation to say we must put a plan in place for a town with a population of less than 5,000. It can be done if need be, but there is no compulsion. There will not be any rush with such plans. That is one of the big problems I have with the proposed hierarchy of towns. There are some lovely small towns. For example, great work could be done in Louisburgh in west Mayo by local authorities but there would not be any onus on the county manager to bring forward a plan for it and it would probably lose out under the proposals by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, whereby a town such as Castlebar would be allowed to grow to the detriment of Louisburgh. That is the reality of what is proposed in the Bill.
Under section 18 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 a planning authority may, at any time and for any particular area within its functional area, prepare a local area plan in respect of that area. I want to elaborate on the way that is happening currently. If I were to accept the argument that only areas with a population of 5,000 will be developed, am I to conclude that any area with a population under 2,000 does not have an area plan? I know that not to be the case. I am aware that in local authority areas throughout the country there are area plans for small towns of 1,000, 1,200 and 1,500. Why does the Senator say this section will change the operational work of the local authority? It must be remembered that all area plans are madein the context of the existing county or city development plan. That is the position. Nothing is being taken away from local authority members in this Bill. The opportunity presents itself in the 2000 Act but that is not being changed in this legislation. I would expect that local authority members throughout the country will continue the current practice.
I spoke about this matter in Limerick recently. There appears to be a perception that in some way the intentions of the national spatial strategy are to the detriment of rural areas and smaller areas generally. I state firmly that is not the case. As a Minister from a rural area I appreciate people's concerns but I reject that perception. The national spatial strategy, which has been raised on a number of occasions in the debate, is not just about the development of the gateways and hubs to the detriment of all other areas. It is about maximising the potential of all regions, both urban and rural areas, to the benefit of inhabitants and the country as a whole. That is fundamental to the national spatial strategy. I want to reassure Members that there is no taking away from the entitlement of local authorities in session with their executive doing a local area plan for a village with a population of 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 or 3,000. I am accommodating a position whereby it is mandatory to have a plan for development in areas with a population of 5,000.
Senator Butler spoke earlier on that issue and it is important that areas have a plan that refers to amenities such as schools, roads or other infrastructure. That is what is involved here. I do not see the position in the way it has been stated. That is not my intention.
I thank the Minister for putting that view on the record but if that is the view and if nothing changes with regard to the local area plans and the way councils operate them, why is it proposed to insert a new section in the Bill which changes the way local area plans are to be managed within the councils? What is the rationale for doing that if there is to be no change? Are we further complicating an already complicated Bill? If there is to be no change, why are we inserting new interpretations in the Bill? This represents a change. The threshold is being increased from populations of 2,000 to 5,000. The Minister is saying there will not be any material change on the ground but if that is the case what is the rationale for inserting this section with regard to the local area plan? Are we meddling in something in which we should not be meddling in terms of a centralised, top-down approach? That is the problem we have with it.
With regard to the national spatial strategy, I hope the Minister is not of the view that those of us on this side of the House believe the national spatial strategy will have a detrimental effect on development throughout the country because that is not the case. Fine Gael believes there should be a national spatial strategy and we agree with 90% or even more of the content of the existing national spatial strategy but our problem is with the way the national spatial strategy is formulated and implemented. Fine Gael is concerned that this has not been subjected to the same rigours of a development plan. It is formulated by the Department and by the Minister of the day and that Minister, whomever it is and from whatever party, can change the national spatial strategy. That change can then have a knock-on effect throughout the entire planning system. That is our concern. We do not believe the existing national spatial strategy will have a detrimental effect on development but we believe changes could be brought in easily by any Minister or senior officials in the Department that could have a serious effect on development plans from the top down to local area plans and county and city development plans. I wanted to clarify that important point. We are not opposing the national spatial strategy. We are opposing the way it is framed and adopted. It does not have the endorsement of the Oireachtas and under this new Bill that measure can materially affect every local city and county development plan throughout this country at the whim of a Minister of the day.
The Minister seems to be at cross-purposes regarding this because if what the Minister is saying is correct, why is a new section being inserted in the Bill? I have a difficulty with this. The Minister is erroneous in his view that Fine Gael is opposed to the national spatial strategy. It is not, but who endorses it? Who writes it? Where are the checks and balances in the national spatial strategy? It is not endorsed in the council or in the Oireachtas. Does it come before the environment or transport committees in the Oireachtas? Where is it scrutinised? All of us understand the issue of the hub towns and cities and the gateways. There is no difficulty with that. The difficulty, as Senator Coffey said, is in the formulation of policy. My difficulty with this section is that a small area is being excluded as the Bill refers to a population in excess of 2,000 persons and less than 5,000.
I do not want to hog this issue but if we were to believe what the Minister is telling us one would say there will be no change from the previous position. At the same time the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has said on television and radio programmes that there will be major changes in planning laws and that he will control planning. The Minister of State appears to suggest there will not be much of a change but the reality is that there will be changes.
On the hub towns and gateways, the Minister has said clearly that the hubs and the gateways must grow to a certain population. We are aware from the Central Statistic Office figures that there is no growth in population but the Minister has said they must grow to the projected figures. If somebody brings forward a plan for a village or a small town which involves any small amount of zoning, the Minister will reject it because all those plans will have to go to the Minister's office. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, put his hand on the Mayo county development plan and said the plan did not take into consideration the hub status of Castlebar and Ballina and that it had to grow to a projected population before any of those other towns could grow or that a certain area within towns would not be released for development until Castlebar and Ballina have grown to a certain population. That is the crux of the issue, and that is the reality. We can have all the plans we want but the Minister, Deputy Gormley, will not allow them because they will involve extra zoning around small towns and villages which will curtail the hub towns and gateways growing to their projected populations.
The third point, which the Minister has not answered, concerns hub towns in different local authority areas such as Tuam in Galway and Castlebar in Mayo, and a town like Claremorris that is equidistant. Castlebar could have grown to its projected population but Tuam may not have done so, or vice versa. What will be the position with towns like Claremorris when it comes up for consideration for an area plan? The Minister will probably say that cannot be allowed because Tuam has not grown to its projected population or that Castlebar has not grown to its projected population. The Minister of State’s office made clear to me that hub towns have been taken into account to allow for development in smaller towns. Will smaller towns have an effect on area plans if they are in a different local authority area?
It is important to restate that all area plans are set within the context of a county development plan. That is a given. This gives greater flexibility to local authority members. The opportunity they have to draw up area plans is not being changed, it will continue to exist once the Bill has passed. I was asked of population bases of up to 2,000 being left to one side at the moment in the relevant local authorities because of the 2,000 limit. That is not the case. This gives flexibility to the elected members of local authorities by increasing the threshold. There is no ulterior motive.
It is important we address matters related to where development is taking place and the opportunities it presents. It is important that if there is a population of 5,000 in an area that there is a mandatory obligation for the local authority to have a plan. That is what the Bill does and I have tried to explain that as clearly as possible.
The point was made about two different jurisdictions and obligations on county development plans to take into consideration regional planning guidelines. The Bill offers an all-encompassing approach to planning and development of areas whether they are in one jurisdiction or two. That is common sense.
Amendment No. 29 inserts a new section 5 which proposes that there shall be no presumption that any zoned land in a particular local area plan shall remain so zoned in any subsequent local area plan. This arises from section 8 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002, which provided for zoning in a local area plan by the incorporation of zoning provisions in section 19(2)(a), which heretofore was only possible in a development plan. Consequently, this led to a greater level of zoning in local area plans and therefore it is now considered appropriate that the development plan provisions for down-zoning or de-zoning land, namely section 10(8) of the Act, must be applied equally to both the local area plans, replicating the provisions within the local area plan provisions of the Act. We are bringing local area plans into line with county development plans.
Would the legal position of the survivability of the zoning be no different irrespective of land being zoned in a development plan or a local area plan?
At the moment, in subsequent county development plans, land can be de-zoned. We are bringing local area plans into line with that.
I can understand the rationale behind amendment No. 29, whereby there shall be no presumption in law that any land zoned in a particular local area plan shall remain so zoned in any subsequent local area plan. We agree with that, because it clarifies this whole area.
What is the present position regarding zoning? Is the Government introducing this amendment because there are problems around the interpretation of zoning? During the debate on NAMA, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government signalled there will be de-zonings in many areas. Does the amendment address an anomaly in the existing law concerning de-zoning?
There is no presumption in law at present that zoning in a county development cannot be changed in a subsequent plan. We are bringing that idea to bear on local area plans.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 15, line 27, to delete "of the development plan" and substitute "of the development plan.", and
(e) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (4):
"(5) There shall be no presumption in law that any land zoned in a particular local area plan shall remain so zoned in any subsequent local area plan.".".
Amendment agreed to.
Question put: "That section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Boyle, Dan.
- Brady, Martin.
- Butler, Larry.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carroll, James.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- Daly, Mark.
- de Búrca, Déirdre.
- Ellis, John.
- Feeney, Geraldine.
- Hanafin, John.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McDonald, Lisa.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- O’Brien, Francis.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Phelan, Kieran.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Walsh, Jim.
- White, Alex.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bradford, Paul.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Cannon, Ciaran.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- Norris, David.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- O’Toole, Joe.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Ross, Shane.
- Twomey, Liam.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Déirdre de Búrca and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paudie Coffey and Paul Coghlan.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 11.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are related. Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are alternatives to amendment No. 31. Is it agreed that amendments Nos. 30 to 33, inclusive, may be discussed together? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 15, lines 29 to 34, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(a) in subsection (1) by the substitution of “including consultations with the Minister, any local residents” for “including consultations with any local residents”,”.
Amendment No. 30 proposes to amend section 11 by the insertion of a single reference to consulting the Minister before a planning authority prepares, amends or revokes a local area plan. Amendment No. 31 proposes amendments to section 11 to provide for consistency of the terminology used in the local area and development planning processes. Essentially, it now is proposed to delete that which already was put forward in the Bill to take the opportunity to provide comprehensively for greater consistency in the terminology used in the local area plan and development planning process.
In the light of the good observations received since the publication of the Bill and recognising that the local area plan always is subservient to the development plan but with which it must be consistent, a more significant overhauling and streamlining has been proposed for the local area plan process.
I believe the proposed amendments will create a great deal of red tape. I do not know how many towns have a population of approximately 5,000 people. Moreover, the Minister of State noted earlier that this legislation will not prohibit any local area plan from being put in place. Consequently, hundreds of local area plans may be produced. If local authorities prepare plans for hundreds of local areas, they will be obliged to notify the Minister and An Bord Pleanála regarding any consultations that took place with residents. Will this not necessitate the movement of a great deal of information from local authorities to An Bord Pleanála and to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? Who will read all this information? The county manager and his or her planning officials will have dealt with the matter in detail with locally elected councillors and probably with the residents' associations. However, that will not be good enough as the Minister and An Bord Pleanála must be notified. While Members probably will deal with An Bord Pleanála in another section, I note it is unable to deal with its existing workload as it takes it six months to deal with anything at present. Nevertheless, the board must receive all this information. I consider this to be a wasted exercise in red tape. It probably will entail departmental officials reading details of meetings that took place between residents, local councillors and local authority staff in the formulation of local area plans.
I refer to Government amendments Nos. 30 and 31 and to amendment No. 31 in particular. I take it that the two amendments I tabled still must be taken. I draw the Minister of State's and the Cathaoirleach's attention to amendment No. 31 because it seems to propose deleting lines 1 to 41 on page 16. Am I correct?
Is this amendment No. 30?
No I am talking about amendment No. 31 which states: "In page 15, to delete lines 39 to 46 and in page 16 to delete lines 1 to 41".
The Senator should look at the Act.
Yes, I have the Act here.
It is there twice, under (i) and (ii) in line 30 and the amendment puts the two into one.
Do the two subsections of the Bill that I propose to amend survive? Is the Minister of State proposing to delete them? Will the two sections that I am trying to amend survive the Minister of State's change? I am referring to amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
I will deal with amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
Amendment No. 30 proposes to delete lines 29 to 34 on page 15.
I understood that the amendments were being taken together. Are amendments Nos. 30 to 33, inclusive, being taken together?
Yes.
My amendments are Nos. 32 and 33. Is the Minister of State trying to remove the section that I am trying to amend? I will in any event make the points that I want to make on these amendments, which have been made in the earlier discussion.
If amendment No. 31 is agreed, those amendments cannot be moved. They can be discussed now as part of the group of amendments Nos. 30 to 33, inclusive.
That was what I thought because if amendment No. 31 is agreed, it would render my amendments void. In respect of amendment No. 32 we believe that we should have an exception in respect of a resolution where the manager approves an amendment. Why should there be a two thirds majority? We want to make an exception for that type of circumstance. The question remains whether it is necessary or appropriate to require a two thirds majority. We will probably have a fuller debate on this on Report Stage so I will not press the point. I wanted to mention it on Committee Stage so that it can be dealt with on Report Stage.
I have responded to amendments Nos. 30 and 31. Are amendments Nos. 32 and 33 being taken too?
Yes we are taking amendments Nos. 30 to 33, inclusive, together.
In response to the question about the two thirds majority, I am prepared to discuss this with the Parliamentary Counsel to see if we can have a simple majority decision. I will return to the House on that matter.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 15, to delete lines 39 to 46 and in page 16, to delete lines 1 to 41 and substitute the following:
"(ii) by the substitution of the following for subparagraph (I) of paragraph (d)(ii):
"(I) subject to paragraphs (e) to (q), decides to make or amend the plan otherwise than as recommended in the manager’s report, or”, and
(iii) by the substitution of the following for paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i):
"(e) Where, following the consideration of the manager’s report, it appears to the members of the authority that the draft local area plan should be altered, and the proposed alteration would, if made, be a material alteration of the draft local area plan concerned, the planning authority shall, not later than 3 weeks after the passing of a resolution under paragraph (d)(ii) (inserted by section 9 of the Act of 2002), publish notice of the proposed material alteration in one or more newspapers circulating in its area, and send notice of the proposed material alteration to the Minister, the Board and to the prescribed authorities (enclosing where the authority considers it appropriate a copy of the proposed material alteration).
(f) Notwithstanding paragraph (e), in the performance of its functions under regulations made under section 10(5), a planning authority shall determine if there is, or may be, a requirement to carry out an assessment of the effects on the environment of one or more than one of the proposed alteration that would, if made, be a material alteration of the draft local area plan.
(g) The manager, not later than 6 weeks after a determination under paragraph (e) shall specify such a period as he or she considers necessary following the passing of a resolution under paragraph (d)(ii) as being required to facilitate an assessment referred to in that paragraph.
(h) The planning authority shall publish notice of the proposed alteration, and where appropriate in the circumstances, the making of a determination that an assessment referred to in paragraph (f) is required in at least one newspaper circulating in its area.
(i) The planning authority shall cause an assessment referred to in paragraph (f) to be carried out of the proposed alteration of the local area plan within the period specified by the manager.
(j) A notice under paragraph (e) or (h) as the case may be shall state that—
(i) a copy of the proposed material alteration of the draft local area plan may be inspected at a stated place and at stated times during a stated period of not less than 4 weeks (and the copy shall be kept available for inspection accordingly), and
(ii) written submissions or observations with respect to the proposed material alteration of the draft local area plan may be made to the planning authority within the stated period and shall be taken into consideration before the making of any material alteration.
(k) Not later than 8 weeks after publishing a notice under paragraph (e) or (h) as the case may be, or such period as may be specified by the manager under paragraph (g), the manager shall prepare a report on any submissions or observations received pursuant to a notice under that paragraph and submit the report to the members of the authority for their consideration.
(l) A report under paragraph (k) shall—
(i) list the persons who made submissions or observations under paragraph (j)(ii),
(ii) summarise the issues raised by the persons in the submissions or observations,
(iii) contain the opinion of the manager in relation to the issues raised, and his or her recommendations in relation to the proposed material alteration to the draft local area plan, including any change to the proposed material alteration as he or she considers appropriate, taking account of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, the statutory obligations of any local authority in the area and any relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or of any Minister of the Government.
(m) The members of the authority shall consider the proposed material alteration of the draft local area plan and the report of the manager under paragraph (k).
(n) Following consideration of the manager’s report under paragraph (m), the local area plan shall be made or amended as appropriate by the planning authority by resolution no later than a period of 6 weeks after the report has been furnished to all the members of the authority with all, some or none of the material alterations as published in accordance with paragraph (e) or (h) as the case may be.
(o) Where the planning authority decides to make or amend the local area plan or change the material alteration of the plan by resolution as provided in paragraph (n)—
(i) paragraph (p) shall apply in relation to the making of the resolution, and
(ii) paragraph (q) shall apply in relation to any change to the material alteration proposed.
(p) It shall be necessary for the passing of the resolution referred to in paragraph (n) that it shall be passed by not less than half of the members of the planning authority and the requirements of this paragraph are in addition to, and not in substitution for, any other requirements applying in relation to such a resolution.
(q) A change to the material alteration—
(i) may be made where it is minor in nature,
(ii) shall not be made where it refers to—
(I) an increase in the area of land zoned for any purpose, or
(II) an addition to or deletion from the record of protected structures.
(r) When performing their functions under this subsection, the members of the planning authority shall be restricted to considering the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, the statutory obligations of any local authority in the area and any relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or of any Minister of the Government.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 17, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
"(a) The National Spatial Strategy shall be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas.”.
This amendment returns to the argument about the formulation of the national spatial strategy and the effect it has on all county and city development plans and regional and local area plans. It is an attempt to endorse democratically the content of the national spatial strategy. We are concerned that it is not compiled in the same democratic and transparent way as any local area plan or development plan and we believe it should be. The national spatial strategy should be compiled after thorough consultation and engagement with the public.
Section 12 requires explicitly that regional planning guidelines be prepared to support the implementation of the national spatial strategy. Could local authorities not be similarly required to support it? They could be empowered or a direct line could be created from the local authority to the strategy and the same should apply to any other authorities, such as the regional authorities or agencies that would have an interest in formulating the strategy. The recent flooding shows how other agencies such as the Office of Public Works and emergency services could feed into the strategy through a consultation process.
This amendment proposes to address the democratic deficit in compiling the national spatial strategy. The Bill gives an opportunity to enhance the strategy by requiring that the Oireachtas approve it. In that way the Oireachtas could scrutinise the strategy properly. This could be done through the various Oireachtas joint committees, whether on transport, environment, heritage and local government, or whatever. They could all express their views. The national spatial strategy is mentioned so often in this Bill that it will achieve major significance for planning when the Bill is passed. Heretofore it was only a reference guide but it will become obligatory for all regional plans to comply with it.
Fine Gael agrees with the strategy and most of its contents but we are trying to enhance any future national spatial strategies such that the elected Members are consulted and endorse it properly. It must be accountable to the people and the best way to achieve that is to have the Oireachtas approve it. The various Oireachtas joint committees can scrutinise it further. That is the reasoning behind this amendment. I will be interested to hear the Minister of State's views on this proposal.
The national spatial strategy is a Government strategy and is therefore the responsibility of the Government as part of overall Cabinet responsibilities. Therefore amendment No. 34 is not accepted.
I am disappointed by the Minister of State's very short response to a significant and fundamental issue. The Bill, which contains a great deal of detail, with much of which we agree, goes back to the national spatial strategy. I understand that the Government must have policies in place for its direction but the Government of the day holds the democratic majority in the Oireachtas. It does not seem logical to me, nor does it pose any threat to the national spatial strategy, to have the approval of the Oireachtas to implement Government policy.
Almost daily Government policy comes before us in various Bills and the majority rules. As difficult as it can be at times to be in Opposition we are democrats and respect the majority and the Government when it has the numbers to implement whatever laws it sees fit to enact. I can see no reason the national spatial strategy should not be subject to the same scrutiny as the laws we implement every day. This is a fundamental and significant strategy in which every citizen and elected representative should have a say. That is the nub of the problem Fine Gael has with the Bill. It has had to oppose many sections which I do not like doing because we want to see improvements in the planning and development process. Many improvements are needed and addressed in the Bill. Unfortunately, there are some missed opportunities in the provisions, with a democratic deficit in this case. The national spatial strategy has been given much significance and importance but it does not have accountability and transparency through the electoral process or engagement with citizens. That is the fundamental reason the amendment has been tabled.
Until several years ago the dual mandate was in place and provided a direct link between both Houses of the Oireachtas and local authorities. As Senator Coffey pointed out, this Bill very much involves the national spatial strategy. His amendment provides an ideal opportunity to have a link between local authorities' involvement with the strategy and the national Parliament. Such a link would assist local authority members who have a direct input in the adoption of county development plans and how they pan out with the national spatial strategy. While I accept the strategy is Government policy, there are other provisions in the legislation that affect other Government policies. Senator Coffey has put his finger on it, the need for Oireachtas Members to have a role in the strategy and provide a link between local government and the national Parliament on it. This is a good and worthwhile amendment.
I have outlined the position on collective Cabinet responsibility for the national spatial strategy. I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 34.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 17, paragraph (a), to delete lines 4 to 10.
These amendments depended on acceptance of amendment No. 34. They are aimed at ensuring the national spatial strategy and regional population targets would be further endorsed by the Oireachtas.
All powers in the development process are being taken away from local authority members by the Bill. The Minister will have a direct hand in all the policies related to the national spatial strategy. Regional population targets will take effect with no variation for hubs and gateways. I will not labour the point but that is the nub of problem with the Bill.
The Minister will refer to the national spatial strategy when deciding the regional population targets for hubs and gateways. This will be to the detriment of smaller towns not designated as hubs or gateways which we want to make viable. For instance, Belmullet is 50 miles from Castlebar and 45 miles from Ballina. It should be able to grow to become an independent town with transport links to the hubs. However, it will not be able to grow until the populations of Castlebar and Ballina reach the projected target figures set by the Minister as per the legislation. Some guidelines must be introduced for these targets. If they are not reached, the smaller towns should be allowed to develop independently.
The proposed deletions refer to the core of section 12 which provides explicitly for the link between regional planning guidelines and the national spatial strategy which post-dated the passage of the Planning and Development Act 2000. An explicit requirement is, therefore, provided for regional planning guidelines to be prepared to support the implementation of the national spatial strategy. It also ensures the regional planning guidelines shall be set within the policy framework of the national spatial strategy, including its population targets which will be updated from time to time.
Regional planning guidelines also have to address the promotion of sustainable settlement and transportation strategies in urban and rural areas, including the promotion of measures to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and measures to address the necessity of adaptation to climate change.
I cannot accept amendments Nos. 35 and 36.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 17, paragraph (b), to delete lines 12 to 17.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Question put: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 34; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Boyle, Dan.
- Brady, Martin.
- Butler, Larry.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carroll, James.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Corrigan, Maria.
- Daly, Mark.
- de Búrca, Déirdre.
- Ellis, John.
- Feeney, Geraldine.
- Glynn, Camillus.
- Hanafin, John.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McDonald, Lisa.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O’Brien, Francis.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Sullivan, Ned.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Phelan, Kieran.
- Prendergast, Phil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Ross, Shane.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Walsh, Jim.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bradford, Paul.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Cannon, Ciaran.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- Norris, David.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- O’Toole, Joe.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Twomey, Liam.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paudie Coffey and Maurice Cummins.
Question declared carried.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 37:
In page 17, before section 13, to insert the following new section:
13.—Section 27 of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):
"(1) A planning authority shall ensure, when making a development plan or a local area plan, that the plan is consistent with any regional planning guidelines in force for its area.".
The amendment proposes to insert a reference to local area plans which are also to be consistent with any regional planning guidelines in force for the area.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13 deleted.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
Section 14 reads: "27A.—(1) Where a regional authority receives a notice from a planning authority under section 11(1) it shall prepare submissions or observations for the purposes of section 11(2)". In preparing these submissions will the regional authority hold public briefing sessions? Will it receive submissions from agencies other than the local authority? How will it prepare the submissions or observations? Will it be done by the manager of the regional authority or its members? From where will it receive submissions? Will it propose public consultations or how will it gather the information? I understand how there could be communication between the local authority and the regional authority but how otherwise will the regional authority gather submissions and observations?
There must be clear information on how the regional authorities will draft the planning guidelines. The Minister of State said there would be consultation with the various local authorities. My concern is that regional authorities do not have dedicated planning departments. Usually, a member of a planning authority is seconded to the regional authority to co-ordinate the guidelines. Obviously, the regional authorities depend a great deal on the various counties for their submissions and proposals. My fear about the compilation of the regional planning guidelines — this is not a slight on executives, managers or planners — is that while I foresee that there will be consultation with the executives and planning departments of each local authority which will give the regional authorities their views, where will the democratic engagement occur? Where do the councillors, other than those on the regional authority, have a direct say in the compilation by the regional authority? Where does the general public have a say, similar to the input it has in the formulation of a county, city or local area development plan?
That is the reason I posed the question about regional authority members. They are the people who will be required to adopt the regional planning guidelines. Under the current system, they are essentially a delegation representing the views of their local authority on the regional authority. They do not have the entire region as their focus. If this is what the Minister of State wants, should there not be proper regional structures with proper accountability, departments, resources and empowerment? The Bill proposes to give regional authorities considerable power but few resources. Their elected members should be directly elected and be accountable to their regions for any decisions they make.
Clarity on how regional authorities will function in the development of plans would provide a reassurance that is currently lacking, namely, that there is full democratic accountability in the formulation of regional plans. I would be interested in hearing the Minister of State's views in this regard.
In opposing section 14, Senator Coffey proposes to delete the proposed amendments to provide that the regional authority has a more explicit role in the draft development plan preparation process to ensure consistency between it and the regional planning guidelines, including informing the Minster of its views. This is clearly not acceptable for the reasons I have outlined, as the regional planning guidelines are the linchpin between the national spatial strategy, which sets the broader strategic planning framework at central Government level, and local planning, which sets the local context for development planning and management.
To answer Senator Burke, there will be public consultation on regional planning guidelines after their publication in the new year. It is important to state that the guidelines are prepared in consultation with local authorities and their managers.
The Minister of State has gone down the road a good bit in bringing clarity to this issue. According to him, the regional planning guidelines will be the linchpin for a strategy comprising local area plans, county development plans, regional authorities and the national spatial strategy all the way up to Government thinking. However, I am unsure as to the stage at which there will be public consultation. Will it be before the final draft of a regional plan?
According to the Minister of State, there will be consultation with local authorities, but will he clarify whether the main regional planning guidelines come from the Minister? Some will come from county managers, senior planners and the major stakeholders, such as energy companies, within the regional authority areas, but the Minister's office and the Government will surely have some involvement. Is it fair to say the guidelines, which will be the linchpin, will comprise a considerable amount of Government thinking and strategies? If so, is there a need for regional authorities? Much of the contents of regional planning guidelines will reflect Government thinking.
At what stage will the public consultation process occur? Will the Government, working with county managers and regional authority managers, introduce guidelines? They will be published, public consultation will occur for a period and a plan will go on public display. Will it go on display in the same way as a county development plan? When local area plans and county development plans are being adopted by local authorities, will they need to take regional planning guidelines into account?
I cannot give a definite date, but I expect the draft regional development guidelines to be published in the first half of the new year, and perhaps earlier. There will be a public consultation process.
The Senator referred to the Government, but I was referring to the national spatial strategy when I referred to the linchpin. In the planning process, it is practical to adhere to strategic decisions by the Government. Local authority plans receive many inputs that are no one else's business as long as the regional planning guidelines implement Government policy. The consultation process will occur. Every local authority will hold a meeting or several meetings to discuss the draft guidelines, and rightly so, as this will be where consultation occurs. I assure the House that these measures will be introduced early in the new year and that there will be a public consultation process.
I welcome the Minister of State's clarification to the effect that the guidelines will be introduced in the new year and that there will be a public consultation process thereon. However, will they constitute a fait accompli? Although there will be public consultation on the guidelines, there is no reference to their being amended. Local authorities will have an input in them and they will be discussed by regional authorities and various stakeholders.
Let us be fair and frank. These regional guidelines will have a considerable input in county development plans and local area plans. They will form the kernel of every local authority plan. Can they be amended following a public consultation process? For what length of time will they be on public display? When the Government issues guidelines, they are law, a fait accompli. In this instance, there will be public consultation on the guidelines, but we know they must be taken into consideration in every plan that is tabled.
I welcome the Minister of State's assurance that there will be public consultation on the preparation of the regional planning guidelines as it will be essential. As Senator Burke alluded, however, the engagement with the public when the guidelines are being consulted on will be interesting. I doubt that many citizens know who it is that sits on regional authorities and formulates plans that will affect the ways communities develop. This will be the Bill's impact on the ground.
I have attended regional authority meetings. The media do not even attend those meetings. When this Bill goes through, if it will empower the regional authorities like we think it will, it is in the public interest that the media would attend regional authority meetings because it seems important decisions will now be made there. Those are merely some of the practical implications of this Bill.
I say that because I am concerned about the democratic deficit and the lack of transparency around the adoption of the regional planning guidelines. Transparency is certainly not evident at present. I would be interested to know how the Minister hopes to increase public awareness of the importance of these regional planning guidelines and their impact on the development of communities.
How often have we heard managers tell councillors that the development plan is theirs and the planners and the executive are only there to help formulate and assist in its compilation? When this Bill becomes law, my understanding is it will no longer be the councillors' development plan because the contents of all county and city development plans will be dictated by what is in the national spatial strategy and the regional planning guidelines, and by the Minister's view on policy. In turn, it will be only the members who sit on a regional authority who will have the power to amend or change that. The local councillors' say in the development of the local plan will be greatly diminished. That is the reality. I am trying to see how it could be otherwise. In effect, the councillors will just rubber-stamp what will be dictated from national policy through the regional authorities.
Visiting the Oireachtas today is a delegation from Carlow County Council's strategic policy committee on planning. This is a cross-party delegation, including councillors from the Government parties, who are very concerned with the direction in which this Bill is going. I do not know whether the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, has met them, but I will outline some of their concerns which relate directly to the regional planning guidelines and the projections.
They state that the Government, through the national spatial strategy, determined that more balanced regional development should be a priority for the country so as to have a better spread of jobs, a better quality of life and a better place in which to live. We all agree with that.
They go on to say that the regional population targets for 2010 to 2022 were issued in January 2009 giving a low to high range in 2022 of 5,375,000 to 5,523,000. The lower figure would represent a 14.5% increase while the higher figure would mean an increase of approximately 20% over the 12-year period. They state that the higher figure more accurately represents the recorded population changes in the State.
The delegation states further that on 1 October 2009, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, directed that the minimum population targets only should be used for the preparation of the regional planning guidelines. There must be some reasoning or rationale behind this direction. Why take the minimum? The effect of this will be to limit the population increase in the regions. For example, during the period 2010 to 2022 the south east will increase by 72,600, the midlands by 41,500 and Dublin by 207,300. This is the real impact of these regional planning guidelines and the population targets about which the Carlow County Council members and the SPC are concerned.
They state that in compliance with the national spatial strategy, the population will be diverted to the gateways, where there will be a minimum 50% increase, and the hub towns, where there will be a minimum 33% increase. They state that Carlow, as a county town, will also increase by 27% during this period and because of the requirement to boost the gateways and the hubs and in light of the new minimum population targets, the county area of Carlow, including Tullow, Rathvilly, Bagenalstown and many of their rural hinterlands, will be allowed build a total of only 60 houses over that seven-year period under these guidelines. That is what Carlow County Council is stating, and I only repeat it.
I would not expect the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, to answer that today, but perhaps he would address these points on Report Stage. I refer to Carlow only as an example of a local authority. The members stated that there are similar consequences in other counties. The obligation to create the critical mass allied to the new minimum population targets will allow little development outside of the cities.
These are the concerns of an SPC that has travelled from Carlow to Dublin today to outline them because they know this Bill is going through the Houses of the Oireachtas. These are the practical concerns about the implications of the regional planning guidelines and the way it is proposed to manage planning. It stakes up many of the arguments made by Senators in this House where they are concerned about towns and villages which could have genuine aspirations, to which they are entitled. No matter how small a town or village and no matter what background an individual has come from, as an Irish community or an Irish person they are entitled to aspire to develop their communities. This planning process and the Bill will restrict that potential and that aspiration. I cannot see how anybody could argue otherwise.
The answer to the question whether the regional planning guidelines be modified is "Yes". They are draft regional planning guidelines. They go out for public consultation and they can be modified on foot of that.
One of the key objectives in requiring development plans to include a core strategy is to ensure greater consistency between the national spatial strategy and the regional planning guidelines on the one hand and the city and county development plans on the other. This is of particular importance in co-ordinating development objectives across local authority boundaries, for example, where within a national spatial strategy gateway two or more authorities control parts of the city, as in Waterford where there are three authorities within the gateway, those of Waterford city, Waterford county and Kilkenny county, and also in co-ordinating development of strategic infrastructure within the region.
I do not know where the figure mentioned for Carlow of 60 houses came from. Every local authority and housing authority has had engagement with my Department's officials over recent weeks on their plans for the coming year and I have not seen anything to suggest that I, as Minister of State with responsibility for housing, am to instruct housing authorities on their housing needs in their areas. I cannot state off-hand what are the housing needs in County Carlow, but I can state what they are nationally. There are 56,000 people on the housing lists of this country. They are spread throughout all of the local authorities. Without having figures in front of me for Carlow, I would be of the opinion that the members of Carlow County Council have a requirement way in excess of 60 houses. There is no question that any national spatial strategy would interfere with the entitlement of a local authority to house citizens on its housing list. The big issue is whether I have enough resources for them to do it, and that is why I brought in some schemes.
On taking the low figure, the Central Statistics Office figures are being taken. The general expectation now is that population growth will not be as large as might have been expected some time ago. The lower figure is possibly a more realistic figure to be working off at thistime.
I thank the Minister of State. In fairness, he is putting his own interpretation on some of this. He spoke about the lower of the CSO figures, and I welcome what he said in that regard. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, would seem to suggest there is no movement away from the higher figures.
I also welcome his statement that there will be public consultation on the regional guidelines. When these guidelines are to be published, it should be well flagged and the local authorities should be notified. I hope the Houses of the Oireachtas get an opportunity to discuss those regional guidelines before their final adoption. Whether we like it or not, from the Minister's viewpoint, these regional guidelines will be the kernel of formulating area and county development plans. These guidelines are important and will require much debate. I hope this House will get a chance to debate them when they are published.
I wish to raise one matter I omitted to mention earlier and I hope the Minister of State will take account of it. It concerns the resourcing of regional authorities with their new obligations under this Bill. I spoke earlier about the professional resources, directorates and staff of regional authorities. As a result of the significant authority they will now be given, what measures will the Minister and the Department take to ensure members of regional authorities are appropriately resourced and trained to implement these statutory regional planning guidelines? Up to now they have just been rubber-stamping them after they are presented by the seconded planner, although they may amend them to some degree. The bar has been raised with regard to the importance of regional authorities. Local authorities inform councillors, as well as preparing and training them in the implementation process. Are there plans now, however, to use similar measures and resources to assist members of regional authorities? Do those members even know about the new obligations that are being placed on them by this Bill? Do the directorships and executives of regional authorities know about the new obligations? Will there be consultation at those levels prior to the enactment of the Bill? Have the Minister and the Department taken soundings from regional authorities to ascertain their views on the new powers? I would be interested to know whether there has been such consultation with the staff and members of regional authorities concerning the new measures envisaged in the Bill. That is an important question.
The sourcing and funding of regional authorities is agreed between local authorities, managers and directors. I am confident that level of funding will continue and that will continue to be the funding process. As regards the planning areas and what the Senator says will be new responsibilities, I am of the view that the planning sections of our local authorities have a reduced work load on the basis of the number of planning applications they are dealing with, compared to what they have been dealing with in recent years. If anything, I would think that any extra work would be welcome in those planning sections at this time.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 15.
Question put: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 35; Níl, 14.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Boyle, Dan.
- Brady, Martin.
- Butler, Larry.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carroll, James.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Corrigan, Maria.
- Daly, Mark.
- de Búrca, Déirdre.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Ellis, John.
- Feeney, Geraldine.
- Glynn, Camillus.
- Hanafin, John.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McDonald, Lisa.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O’Brien, Francis.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Toole, Joe.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Phelan, Kieran.
- Prendergast, Phil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Ross, Shane.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Walsh, Jim.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bradford, Paul.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Cannon, Ciaran.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- Norris, David.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Twomey, Liam.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paudie Coffey and Maurice Cummins.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
Section 16 deals with the role of regional authorities in variations of development plans. Reference is made in section 16 to section 27C(1), which states: "Where a regional authority receives a notice from a planning authority under section 13(1)". I presume that refers to a proposal to vary a development plan. Section 27C(3) states: "Where the opinion of the regional authority stated in the submissions or observations made and the report issued is that the proposed variation of the development plan and its core strategy are not consistent with the regional planning guidelines". Who will dictate that those submissions are not consistent with the regional planning guidelines? Will it be the Minister or the director of that regional authority?
A variation would not come before a regional authority unless it had been proposed by the constituent local authorities or by the county or city manager and subsequently approved by that local authority. Who has the final say in whether a variation is consistent with the regional planning guidelines if that is proposed in a regional plan? Where does the accountability lie for that decision? Clarity is required in such a fundamental aspect of our planning legislation. If a variation is proposed it will be decided upon by either the regional authority as a body, the director or the Minister. I would appreciate if the Minister of State would provide clarification on that point.
There are inconsistencies in what the Minister of State is saying. We are removing the element of accountability. What is the tic-tac between the county council and the regional authority? I repeat the question asked by Senator Coffey about who has the power to be the final arbitrator. I am concerned that we are vesting this power in the few and that we are making them powerful. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, is on a crusade to be the white knight on the horse for local authorities. We are becoming secretive and pejorative in what we are doing. We must ask what the criteria will be when we vary development plans. What is the pattern and who will activate the process? Who will decide on whether the plans are consistent? Section 27C(3) refers to "Where the opinion of the regional authority stated in the submissions or observations made and the report issued is that the proposed variation of the development plan and its core strategy are not consistent". Who is the conduit between the local authority and the regional authority?
In opposing section 16 Senator Coffey proposes to delete the proposed amendments to provide that the regional authority has a more explicit role in the draft variation process to a development plan to ensure consistency between it and the regional planning guidelines in force, including informing the Minister of its views. That is not acceptable as the regional authority planning guidelines are the linch-pin between the national spatial strategy which sets the broader strategic planning framework at central government and local planning which sets the local context for development planning and development management. It is a matter for those responsible for planning in each local authority to interpret and implement regional planning guidelines. The current position is that all development plans are submitted to the Minister to be signed off. I am not in a position to accept what is proposed by Senator Coffey.
The Minister of State appears to be indicating that the Minister will have the final say on what can be varied in a development plan according to regional planning guidelines. Perhaps he will clarify that. It is not clear in the Bill who will have the final say. If there is to be a variation in a county development plan, it is either proposed by the executive or the manager and then the elected members of the local authority debate and decide on that and vote accordingly. Such a variation involves a transparent democratic process. Reference is made to proposed variations of the development plan that are not consistent with the regional planning guidelines. I am not clear about who makes that decision. Is it the director of the regional planning authority, the Minister or the Department? That needs to be clear.
It does.
We are dictating planning policy from a regional point of view. I do not like to repeat myself but that is the way it is. We are dictating policy from the top down. This will have serious implications for local communities and how towns and villages develop. We need to know who makes the decision if a variation proposed by a local authority to the regional authority that has been proposed by the manager, executive and planners of the authority and approved by the elected members of the authority is found not to be consistent with the regional planning guidelines? Whether we like it or not, we are giving that power in the legislation to regional authorities. We need accountability in our planning decisions.
We will be talking later about An Bord Pleanála. I will discuss that in a more detailed fashion. We are removing another layer of accountability and pushing it out to the regions where a person from a small town or village will not have any recourse. That is the way we are going. It is a sad day that we are taking this approach. I accept improvements are needed in the planning process and that significant mistakes have been made. On behalf of Fine Gael I am the first to admit that. Such issues need to be addressed but I am not sure we are doing so in the correct manner. We are implementing a planning process that will be directed from Dublin and then from the regions where people in small towns and villages will have no say. That appears to be the motive behind the legislation. That becomes clearer as we scrutinise the Bill further.
I agree fully with my colleague, Senator Coffey. The principle of subsidiarity has not been considered in drawing up the Bill. Many people talk about subsidiarity and bringing issues down to a local level for people to decide on them, but this is practically a case of asking the Minister to rubber-stamp everything a local authority or regional authority does. The Minister of State indicated that once a regional authority signs off on a plan then everything has to be approved by the Minister. We have a centralised system where the Minister will decide practically everything in regard to planning. That goes against the principle of subsidiarity. I urge the Minister of State to reconsider that approach. The arguments that are made in favour of aspects of the Bill do not hold up. They are not firm arguments and they have little foundation. The authority of local authorities will be diminished as a result of section 16 in particular.
In some way this debate is a bit unreal, in so far as it is currently the case that county development plans and variations to them are agreed by the Minister. What is involved is that the opinion of the regional authorities is to be taken into consideration in terms of whether those regional planning guidelines are in place. It must be remembered there are regional planning guidelines in place since 2004. They are in place in local authorities. This is not an attempt to take away any opportunity for local authority members. We have a national spatial strategy, regional planning guidelines, county development plans and local area plans. The legislation provides that the local authority, in drawing up or varying its county development plan, adhere to the regional planning guidelines. That is important in the areas the two Senators come from in that there would be a co-ordinated approach for Waterford, Waterford city or anywhere else where there are two authorities dealing with the one area. This is a streamlining measure and it will be beneficial to the planning sections of our local authorities.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.