Vol. 3 No. 3
I wish to inform the committee that Deputy Kirk has been appointed to the committee by the Dáil to replace Deputy Eoin Ryan, who has been appointed a Minister of State. I welcome Deputy Kirk. I also welcome the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, and his officials.
Amendments Nos. 44 to 50 were being discussed together, by agreement, when we adjourned.
We had a good debate on these amendments yesterday and there is not much more to be said, certainly in relation to amendment No. 49. I will put the amendment, although I do not propose that the committee divides on it. However, I give notice that if we do not make progress on the issue covered by amendment No. 49 by Report Stage I will ask the House to divide on it.
We are not making any progress on it so we will have to agree to disagree.
Fine.
On a point of clarification, if an amendment is put and declared lost on Committee Stage, can it be moved on Report Stage? I think it can.
I understanding it cannot be done once an amendment is defeated.
I will withdraw the amendment with leave to re-enter it to be on the safe side. That can be done through this procedure. The old procedure existed because Committee Stage took place in the House. Under this committee system it can be done.
The same amendment can be put on Report Stage if it is defeated on Committee Stage.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 23, subsection (1)(f), line 37, after “authority,” to insert “and which falls expressly within the statutory powers and competences of that local authority,”.
Did the Minister say this amendment is redundant?
As the law stands, local authorities can only get involved in initiatives where they have a statutory competence. Accepting the amendment would change that. The other point I raised with the Deputy was the meaning of the phrase "falls expressly within".
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 23, subsection (1)(g), line 41, after “undertaker” to insert “for the time being”.
This amendment is for the sake of clarity. There is a definition of statutory undertaker here. They are public companies. Would we regard Esat as a statutory undertaker?
Yes, once such a company has a licence.
Once it is operating on licence with a statutory basis, it is a statutory undertaker.
Yes.
My concern was to ensure that the situation where a statutory undertaker at a given time subsequently became something other than a statutory undertaker was covered. In paragraph (g), dealing with exempted development, a situation might arise where one might look back to see if, at a given time, a development was exempted if the company that was then a statutory undertaker had become, by the time contention arose, something other than a statutory undertaker. This will make it clear that, as long it was a statutory undertaker at the time, the development would be exempt.
I have no difficulty with that. I was not sure of the meaning at the time. The best thing to do is to look at the definition of statutory undertaker on Report Stage and then insert the phrase.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 23, subsection (1)(g), line 45, after “purpose;” to insert “save that, in relation to works carried out by a statutory undertaker, the planning authority shall require that any land affected by the works shall be restored to a satisfactory condition on completion of the works, and the planning authority may, in the case of unsatisfactory restoration, recover the cost of restoration as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction;”.
I am moving this amendment because I cannot see a connection between the two amendments. Amendment No. 52 deals with cases where the restoration carried out by statutory undertakers leaves a great deal to be desired. We talked yesterday about the difficulties in co-ordinating the work they carry out. It is important to take the opportunity presented by this legislation to make it clear that we expect statutory undertakers to restore works to the condition in which they were before the work was done, if possible. That is not always the case.
Local authorities must grant a licence before works to roads occur. Is the licensing system strong enough? There are many examples of these undertakers applying for and getting a licence but there is no monitoring of the work by the local authority. The work carried out by Cablelink has left roads and footpaths in an appalling condition. Are there any proposals for a more effective monitoring of the licences which have been handed out?
I indicated yesterday that the only real answer to this was separate legislation. The licensing system, as currently operated, is not strong enough - local authorities have not enforced it sufficiently. All of us have had such experiences. Deputy Gilmore gave some good examples of what is happening and made the valid point that this is likely to increase with the new operators. It merits examination on a separate basis; it is not suitable for a planning Bill. It would be unsuitable to impose the licensing system onto the planning system. The amendment means, notwithstanding the fact that the repair or renewal by statutory undertakers of underground pipelines and cables is exempted development, the planning authority shall require that roads are reinstated to a satisfactory condition. The two major problems which arise are, first, because it is exempted the statutory undertaker does not need to get permission from the planning authority by which conditions regarding reinstatement can be imposed and, second, a mechanism must be provided whereby the conditions can be attached. This amendment does not provide one and we are back to what we said earlier.
As Deputies will be aware, there are a number of controls on the opening of roads under section 101D of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by the Dublin Transportation Authority Dissolution Act, 1987, which empowers designated local authorities to issue directions. There is also other legislation relevant to Bord Gáis - the Telecommunications (Infrastructure) Bill, 1999, which is going through the House, and the Gas Act, 1976, which contains additional controls over road openings by telecommunications companies. They are all very well on their own but I have a strong feeling from a local government point of view, apart from anything else, that we need to have separate legislation which will give local authorities power to issue licences with conditions attached and, perhaps, a mechanism for enforcing those conditions. This is probably a cleaner and better way of doing things. I have given a specific reason why the amendment cannot be accepted as it stands.
With respect, I am not convinced. A local authority is giving a statutory undertaker the right to interfere with a local amenity. It is logical that we are entitled to require that roads be restored to their previous condition.
Will the Minister consider section 230 which states:
The planning authority may grant to any person a licence to erect, construct, place and maintain. . .
(e) a cable, wire or pipeline, or
(f) any other appliance or structure specified by the Minister by regulations as suitable for being licensed under this section,
on, under, over or along a public road.
That would obviously include a statutory undertaker. We are providing for assistance under which people are given a licence. The licence lays down certain conditions about granting the licence; it requires persons to furnish plans, specified design and capacity and so on——
The Deputy is right but we are talking here about exempted development which pertains to the inspecting, repairing, renewing, altering or removing of any sewers, mains, pipes, cables or wires.
That is exempted development. In section 230 we are talking about licensed development. In both cases the local authority is giving persons a right to do things. In one case it gives them a right to do certain things because it is classified as exempted development and in the other because it is licensed. In both cases people are being given a facility to do something which is conducive to the pursuit of their business. In both cases, the activity they carry out interferes with, modifies or alters a public amenity. I cannot see a logical reason the local authority - whether the development is exempted or licensed - cannot state that it expects things to be restored to their pristine condition when the work has been completed.
In the exempted development case, the statutory body does not have to go near the local authority. At present the local authority issues nothing to them, therefore a condition cannot be imposed when a certificate or so on is not provided. I am not saying that should continue. I agree with Deputy Dukes that there should be licensing, even for exempted development, particularly where it entails digging up roads, amenities or so on. There is no such licence at present.
In the category of exempted development, turf production was discussed in the past day or two and the Minister said he wished to take out some things but some parts would be put back in by regulation. Under section 4 of the Bill, the Minister has the power to make regulations about certain matters. Would he consider that he should be given power to make regulations about some additional matters such as, for example, the restoration of roads and footpaths even where the development is exempt? I do not think anyone would disagree that it is desirable, no matter what type of development exists, that our roads and footpaths should be reinstated to a reasonable condition after works are carried out.
The first problem is of exemption. I do not think anybody argues with the idea that if a local authority has to repair a water main, an electricity supply company has to repair an electric cable or whatever, there is a necessity for speed and so on. There cannot be a cumbersome or bureaucratic procedure whereby if there is a power failure on a Saturday night, a person would have to try to contact local authority officials to give approval for the repairs to be carried out. That situation should not be allowed to exist. There is a necessity for an initial approval system or an initial permission system when the cabling work or the laying of pipes is first involved. There is a need for a procedure to deal with that. I was encouraged yesterday when the Minister said he felt new legislation would be needed to deal with this issue. It is not an issue about reinstatement because, in a sense, this problem has been dealt with under the road opening licence procedure. Under this procedure, local authorities imposed a condition that when reinstatement work is to be carried out it has to be reinstated to its former state. The problem is that cannot be done. This is not possible even with the best reinstatement. If cabling or pipes are put under a road and good reinstatement is made over it, within a reasonably short period there will be a degree of subsidence and problems will arise.
The other problem is in regard to destruction caused and the lack of co-ordination when work is being carried out on the same section of road. There is much anecdotal evidence of this. Morning traffic programmes get regular calls and reportage in regard to problems with electricity cables this month and then in regard to telecom, gas and so on the next where, very often, the problems arise on the same stretch of road. This problem must be controlled and the works co-ordinated. One way to do it might be to impose a charge on the utility for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of a particular stretch of road, even if the utility reinstates it immediately and does a good job on it. Some of them do a good job.
As regards my own area, there is less of a bucketful of bitumen being poured into the place that has been dug up. Even if a good reinstatement job is done, however, within a number of years the local authority has to come back to lay a new road surface where, in some cases, the road has been dug up a number of times. There should be a charge on the utility which contributes to the cost of doing that.
I agree with Deputy Gilmore. We all agree that there is a problem with road openings and that there is a need for better regulation. As regards section 4, I am saying that the Planning and Development Bill is not the legislation by which to do this. The way to do it is by a licensing system that has to be renewed every one, two or three years, which would cover the cost. We are talking about exempted development. As Deputy Dukes said, licensing is an option but we are specifically exempting those groups I mentioned earlier from the planning laws as regards inspecting, repairing, renewing, altering or removing any sewer pipes, etc.
It is not appropriate to go down the route the amendment suggests. I have conceded, however, that something needs to be done in this regard. We are agreed on that. I have a feeling from this discussion and from the intricacies of the legislation, that the Planning and Development Bill is not the place in which to do it. Local government legislation would be a more appropriate vehicle, or perhaps separate legislation that would deal specifically with these statutory and non-statutory bodies through a licensing system whereby conditions could be imposed. It is not just about the reinstatement of roads but also the hours during which the work could be done. Provision could be made for ongoing payments to local authorities, perhaps by a bonding system, to ensure that roads are reinstated and kept in a proper condition. That is a more appropriate direction in which to go, rather than the one we are discussing in this amendment.
When somebody wants to lay a water main under a road, is there provision under existing legislation for a bond or contribution to made in advance? Are we saying that is inadequate to meet the requirements that Deputy Gilmore is setting out?
There is an insurance requirement system in place for anyone opening a road for group water schemes or anything like that.
I am talking about a road cutting for an individual supply. My understanding is that the individual applying under licence can be obliged to pay a given sum to the local authority towards the cost of restoring the road.
There is a contribution system as well, yes.
They are not statutory undertakings and it is not exempt.
No, it is not exempt.
What resources are needed to police the system? It was one thing when there were a few statutory bodies doing such work, but there are now 30 cable companies digging up the streets. I do not know if the Minister is aware of that. He may be right in saying that this is not the way to tackle the matter but it highlights the need for resources. There is literally war on the streets in terms of competition between cable companies. In some cases, companies have full-time security on their ducting to prevent others getting into it. There is no co-operation. There is so much activity going on now that my own local authority has no idea who is digging up the streets. It does not have the staff for enforcement and it has become a war between the cable companies and the local authority. I am not saying that all of them are not reinstating the roads as they should, but a great many of them seem to be paying more attention to getting on with their job than in cleaning up afterwards. The common good is not being looked after and I suspect that is due to a lack of resources.
The Deputy's comments reinforce the need for separate legislation which could include provision for payments to local authorities for such licences. That could go towards the cost of policing this matter. If such a payment system was in place some of these bodies might decide to share facilities rather than paying individually. The State provides many roads and there is a case for the NRA and the local authorities themselves to lay ducting in advance during road construction, and renting it out later to cable companies. They could make an income from that.
The Minister said he was considering future legislation. Will that be done through his own Department, the Department of Public Enterprise or both?
I said I thought that legislation was needed. Since I am thinking specifically of roads, my Department may be more appropriate. Even though officials in certain sections of my Department will not welcome this, I think it is more appropriate that the Department of the Environment and Local Government should look after this matter because it is a local government issue.
As regards Deputy Dukes's point, what would be the difference in giving the Minister power to make regulations to charge people an ongoing cost for maintenance if the road subsides?
We are talking about what happens under the provisions of section 4. It may not be the appropriate one, however, and we can see if there is something we can do under the licensing system mentioned by Deputy Dukes. Increasingly, the courts are not satisfied with regulations when they affect the property rights of various people and, therefore, we will need the primary legislation. There may be regulations under that primary legislation but at least we now have to spell out the policy considerations that would give rise to the regulations so they can be judged against the policy and the primary legislation. We will examine that matter and if there is any change between now and Report Stage I will notify Deputies.
I am wary of putting this matter into planning legislation because it will go into the planning departments of local authorities. We all agree that they are over-stretched at the moment and are having difficulty in obtaining resources for personnel because of the capacity constraints. It could be done more effectively away from the planning system.
Yesterday and again today the Minister has signalled the need for new legislation in this area. Has any preliminary work started on this? I am not proposing to use this as a stick with which to keep beating the Minister. I welcome what he said yesterday but there is a certain urgency because much of the initial cable laying will take place soon. The Minister should give some early attention to legislating in this area.
A fairly constant complaint is the lack of co-ordination between the various public utilities or agencies when they are digging roads. One always must allow for emergency work by Eircom, etc. Is there a provision to plan its work at least a year in advance to ensure minimum disruption given that the restoration of the road surface is based on the completion of the work?
The other issue relating to many towns and villages is ducting whereby overhead cables, power generators and telephone cables could be placed underground. Work could be co-ordinated in this regard. When tidy towns committees reach an advanced stage of local development they tend to focus on placing overhead cables underground and co-ordinating the planning for ducting, which can be problematic from time to time.
In response to Deputy Gilmore, my comment was made as a result of the valid points made by Members opposite. Given the arguments put forward and my own knowledge, I felt separate legislation would be the best way to address this issue. That is as far as it has got. It might be beneficial if the committee were to discuss it again so that people can bring forward ideas. We will give it as much urgent attention as we can but the Department is involved in a great deal of legislation, including this Bill. It will introduce the local government Bill - which will be equally as large and involve a lengthy debate - a major water services Bill and an electoral Bill to keep us all going over the coming years. However, I take the point in regard to the urgency of the issue.
Deputy Kirk and others referred to co-ordination. Local authorities have power to issue directions in regard to the timing of road works and the manner in which they are carried out. Some are good and others are not. The Dublin local authorities in more recent times have managed to substantially improve their record in this area, although it can still be chaotic. The Telecommunications (Infrastructure) Bill, 1999, which is before the Seanad, provides additional controls over road openings by telecommunications companies and there is a requirement on them to try to reach agreement on sharing ducting.
Perhaps that legislation should be strengthened and it should be compulsory that the first company in on a project lays ducting of sufficient size to carry the cables of three or four more companies. Such cabling may not be needed in a few years because of satellite transmissions but that is one way to address that issue quickly. There is also a provision whereby if a local authority undertakes road works and within six months a utility company digs up the road, it will be fined or the works delayed, which is not satisfactory if one is trying to develop the infrastructure. There are a number of provisions in this regard in that legislation. Opposition parties could examine it again while I could consult officials in the Department of Public Enterprise to ascertain whether the legislation can be strengthened.
I withdraw the amendment but I will table it again for Report Stage so the Minister can update us on his reflections at that stage. I had a long conversation some time ago with a man involved in engineering design and he told me that it was very difficult to get planning authorities, and almost as difficult to get architects and engineers, to use the capacities of design work that are available. The technology exists to design ducting which can carry water, electricity and telecommunications networks in one complex duct to any plant with the necessary separations and insulation to maintain safety. He finds it very difficult to get people to design ducts in that manner because they must deal separately with the ESB, Eircell, Esat, Eircom, gas providers and various other companies. He suggested that it was something which could be examined in the context of planning regulations. It could be a requirement, where possible, that ducting should be reduced to the absolute minimum. If that is done the proliferation of overhead lines could be avoided in many industrial estates. It might be worth examining the application of a similar provision to road authorities generally so that they design roads properly with plenty of capacity for ducting along them.
I am conscious of Deputy Kirk's comments about what happens to townscapes as a result of overhead cables. Any person who proposes putting all the cabling underground gets clobbered with the proposition that it is difficult to repair it. It is fine to have cabling underground but when something goes wrong the ground must be dug up. Modern ducting design can help to avoid such problems. If there is proper ducting with access at the requisite intervals and everybody knows where they are, the necessity to dig up the ducting could be obviated. With modern cables, pipelines and inspection technology, it is possible to detect where a fault lies in water and gas supplies without digging a hole to find it. If there is proper ducting, one can develop access to it. Perhaps we should examine this in the context of planning regulations because I accept it is an issue for regulation, not primary legislation.
To reinforce the need for legislation, I am aware of one case where my local authority sought co-operation with two cable companies when repairing a road so that all parties could use one hole in the road but it could not get such co-operation because of the level of competition between these companies. It cannot even contemplate the sharing of a ducting system. That will be brought about only through legislation.
Regarding farming development, there are three different categories of exemptions, depending on the structures involved. On the probable changes and rational process which will take place in the industry in the next four or five years, I presume changes in exemption thresholds will be made by regulation.
Yes.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 24, subsection (1)(i), lines 9 to 11, to delete "the construction, maintenance and improvement of non-public roads serving forests and woodlands".
I wish to change the wording of that amendment to confine it to "construction" rather than to construction, maintenance and improvement, which is slightly excessive. The Bill, as drafted, proposes to exempt from the planning process a number of works relating to forestry, including thinning, felling, replanting etc. It also proposes to exempt the construction of non-public roads serving forests and woodlands. This needs to be reconsidered. By any standards, the construction of roads constitutes significant physical development. While I appreciate roads are necessary, particularly in larger forests, I do not see why the developer of a large forest should not have to apply for planning permission for a road which services it.
As Deputy Kirk said regarding agriculture, many changes are also taking place regarding forestry. There has been an increase in forestry activity because of the various grants and incentives. Land which was formerly agricultural is now being converted to forestry. There is speculation - the Minister may know more - about the future of Coillte. If it is to be privatised, as reported, forestry will be developed privately as opposed to by the forestry service, as is traditional. It is unwise to leave the construction of roads exempt from planning permission. I ask the Minister to reconsider this. I have no problem with the maintenance and improvement of existing roads in forests but the construction of new roads needs to be reconsidered.
We are talking about the construction, maintenance and improvement of non-public internal roads in forests which may be necessary to service the felling or thinning of trees. This amendment would remove the exemption for these roads, which I inserted at the behest of Opposition Senators following a long debate before Christmas. Senators were concerned with the wording of the section in the original Bill which could possibly have implied a larger exemption for roads, not just those in the forestry plantation but leading to it, including county roads. However, that is not the case. This exemption facilitates the proper and safe management of forests. It should be clear we are talking about non-public roads. Following the long debate in the Seanad, the Opposition Senators were happy to accept our amendment on Report Stage.
Those who own forests, whether private or semi-State, are entitled to provide a means by which they can harvest, fell or thin trees. I do not propose to accept this amendment because it would tie their hands completely.
I know there was a prolonged debate on this issue in the Seanad. I do not propose to repeat that. I have put the amendment and the Minister is obviously not accepting it.
Perhaps the Minister will briefly explain the planning requirements for forestry development. What is the hectarage above which one requires planning permission? Returning to the agricultural industry and the changes in the different types of crops which may be grown, in a previous incarnation I visited a number of years ago a pilot energy growing crop in Armagh where willow was being grown on agricultural land. They had a harvesting operation known as coppicing. Because of the economics of energy costs I do not think there will be large-scale energy crop growing. However, conceivably that could happen and, having regard to the land use changes which may take place, the definition of forestry for the purposes of any planning legislation in that context may need to be more clearly defined. If planning regulations were applied where energy crops are grown and harvested annually, it would have clear implications for such enterprises.
Anything above 70 hectares of forestry requires an EIA. Regarding coppicing, that would be a matter for regulations. As Minister, I have the power to regulate or exempt.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 24, subsection (1)(k), line 19, after "1995" to insert ", save in the case where the use of land for such purposes is being proposed to replace the use of other lands traditionally used for those purposes".
This amendment involves the Casual Trading Act, under which local authorities were obliged to draw up criteria or by-laws regarding places where casual trading can take place. A number of local authorities have not done so. In some cases, they want to change the locations where casual trading can take place. If that type of development is classified as exempt, in the way proposed here, local authorities will be able to issue a diktat to casual traders to trade somewhere else and they will have no say in the matter. This amendment requires a local authority to make a non-exempt decision about a new location. Under the provisions of the Bill regarding developments by local authorities in their own areas, they will move casual traders to a public area. The acceptance of this amendment would mean the change in location would have to be agreed by the elected members of the local authority. That is what I want to bring about, as traditional marketplaces are being interfered with in some cases and local authority members have no say in the matter - the local authority manager simply acts by fiat.
I was not 100% sure what the Deputy was trying to do with this amendment, but the situation the Deputy seeks is in place. The reason this is deemed exempted development is that it is dealt with fully under the Casual Trading Act. It is not a good idea to have two or three Acts dealing with one matter. The establishment of casual trading areas is a matter for elected members of the local authority under the Casual Trading Act.
It is a matter for by-laws to be made by the local authority. Is it the case that the making of by-laws by the local authorities is a function for elected members rather than the manager?
Yes.
That is fine.
So if there is a change in the location it goes back to the Casual Trading Act.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 24, subsection (1)(l), line 22, after “land” to insert “(including rivers, lakes and estuarine waters)”.
The definition of land in the Bill already includes land under water. If a lake has been open to the public it may not be enclosed in accordance with this provision. This is aside from any other public right of way that exists. Land as defined in the Bill covers rivers, lakes and estuarine waters.
I am very glad to hear that because, as the Minister may be aware, there has been an increasing problem of late with people attempting to close off access to rivers and lakes in areas where people have traditionally enjoyed access to those rivers and lakes - angling clubs and others wish to use such waters for public amenity but often a new landowner with little sympathy for the traditions of a community may decide to fence it off. I was concerned that the Bill might grant exemptions in such cases and I am glad it is not so.
Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 are to be taken together. Amendment No. 58 is an alternative.
Amendment No. 58 is more modest.
I move amendment no. 57
In page 24, lines 26 to 39, to delete subsection (2).
We spent some time dealing with exempted development, which reflects the concern about exempting particular types of development from the planning process. We debated whether certain developments should be exempted and, if so, what kinds of qualifications should be put on such developments. We have agonised over this matter, but subsection (2) gives the Minister the power to add to the list whenever he feels like it. It states that where he is of the opinion that by reason of its size, nature or limited effect on its surroundings it would not be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development the Minister may, by regulation, provide for any class of development to be an exempted development for the purposes of this Act, either with or without conditions. The subsection goes on to state the way in which those regulations can be made.
It is not appropriate that, after the Oireachtas has debated and then enacted a substantial planning Act and having given detailed consideration to the type of development which should be covered by it, a Minister for the Environment, at any time afterwards, for any reason and with no approval from the Oireachtas, can add to that Act. If the Minister wants to exempt a development after the Act is passed he should introduce amending legislation. It should not be done by regulation. There are certain matters it is appropriate to deal with by way of regulation and many of those are covered by the Bill - the issuing of various guidelines and refinements of the Act's provisions and so on. However, a regulation enabling the Minister to say that a particular type of industrial development does not need planning permission is not appropriate. This should be removed from the legislation.
An example the Minister may appreciate was that of a previous Minister for the Environment exempting bed and breakfast activity in houses with up to four bedrooms. I can understand why that makes sense in an area like the chairman's region and I understand why. However, in some suburban estates in Dublin people are operating bed and breakfasts in highly inappropriate circumstances and have not applied for planning permission under this provision. There are consequences for car parking, congestion and interference with the residential amenities. There should not be a provision to add to the list of exemptions by regulation. If we are to exempt development, fine - let us legislate for that and debate it openly. If additional types of development need to be exempted, then amending legislation can be debated in the future. However, it should not be done by regulation as the Bill proposes.
The Chairman will be glad to hear I agree with the linking of the two amendments. They seem to be linked. My reason for tabling amendment No. 58 may be laziness. I read the relevant paragraph and did not find its meaning very clear. I know I did not spend enough time studying it and the Minster probably has a very lucid explanation for it that will resolve my problems.
I am facing the same way as Deputy Gilmore but with a different suggestion to make. The way legislation generally is drawn, though the subsection looks as if it can be fairly general, it is not because it falls within the context of this part of the Bill. My concern is not that variations to the list of exempted activities can be made by regulation but with the form of the regulation. I went to the trouble of looking at the section later in the Bill that defines the type of regulation that will be used.
There are only two cases in the Bill and both concern Part 5 where the form of regulation is one that will come before the Houses of the Oireachtas and would require their positive assent. In almost every other case the form of regulation that is being proposed - and as I understand it, the Bill as it now stands proposes that for subsection (2)(a) - is that the regulations would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. They would come into effect and remain in effect unless within the 21 sitting days following the laying of the regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas an annulling motion is passed by both Houses. There are always arguments about what kind of situations are appropri-ate to regulations of that kind. Although it is not a personal criticism of the Minister, as regards this Government and all the preceding Governments that I have knowledge of, there has never been a case in the 19 years I have been a Member of this House where a Government has made time available to debate regulations of that kind. However, I can recall a number of cases in which that request was made. That form of regulation puts the Government totally in control. If the Government does not order that particular regulation on the Order of Business it cannot be discussed. If my memory serves me correctly, on one occasion we tried to get a debate on a regulation of that kind in Private Members’ time and it was ruled out of order because we were told that it was not a fit subject for Private Members’ time.
I agree with Deputy Gilmore that the things that can be done under this section are potentially of significant importance concerning planning. That form of regulation which is simply not accessible to the Opposition is not the appropriate way of doing this. I am putting the Minister on notice that some time over the next few days I will table another amendment to the later section of the Bill dealing with regulations, to specify the sections where I believe the appropriate form of regulation is one that requires a positive assenting vote by both Houses of the Oireachtas before it can be made. Section 4(2)(a) is the kind of case that absolutely requires the type of regulation I have in mind - a positive regulation requiring an affirmative vote of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Deputy Dukes and I have been discussing regulations at various stages, both in Opposition and in Government. I do not disagree with the general principle that where regulations are being introduced and where they may have a profound effect on particular aspects of life or business, they should be debated in the Dáil. I have to say, however, that if all the Bills that were being passed in the Dáil and all the regulations under them were to be debated, we would have to order our business much better than we do at the moment.
That is not what I am proposing.
As I understand it, the Deputy's later amendment is proposing that, in so far as possible, regulations should be subject to a positive affirmation in the House, rather than what we do at the moment. As I have said, in most cases I do not disagree with the Deputy but we do need to reorder the way we do our business in the House. There is probably a role for committees whereby once a Bill is passed and the Minister wants to introduce regulations, there should be an obligation on the committee within a 21 day period to ensure that the regulations are not delayed unduly and to discuss them and make recommendations to the Minister and, if it comes to that, even vote on it. I do not think, however, that many of our colleagues will thank us for proposing such a move. It is a move we should make, however, because that is what we have been elected for. I will not go off on my other hobby horse about the manner in which we do our business and our electoral system, but Deputy Dukes has been consistent in this matter and I like to think that I have been also. There is a very valid point to be made.
Deputy Gilmore's amendment would mean that everything that is not exempt under subsection (1) would require permission. I do not think it is practical to introduce primary legislation wherever we want to change the definition of an exempted development. The Deputy has cited one case but he well knows that the power to exempt has been used only in very small developments and has been used fairly by every Minister. He mentioned the specific case of bed and breakfast establishments, which is a subject very dear to the Chairman's heart. The reason that exemption was included was that in some cases local authorities required planning permission for every kind of bed and breakfast in operation. Other local authorities, however, did not require such permission at all. All the matters the Deputy mentioned, which are rightly considered, such as parking and traffic movement, were being totally ignored. That particular exemption was included to clarify the situation so that if there were more than four bedrooms used for bed and breakfast purposes, then it required planning permission and was no longer exempted.
Since the regulations were introduced, it has been the general approach of every Minister not to use them to exempt large-scale industry. One would not get away with it because the courts would throw out any attempt by a Minister to exempt such large-scale developments that would have a significant effect on the environment. I am quite satisfied that the position on exemption has been used fairly by all my predecessors and by myself. Hopefully, it will continue to be used in such manner.
As Deputies are aware, there was a concern about this matter in the Seanad. We introduced an amendment there which tightened up the existing provision. Prior to this the Minister could exempt development and there was no restriction on that. However, we have now added an amendment providing that he or she must be satisfied that by reason of its size, nature or limited effect on the environment it would not be contrary to proper planning and development. That is a safeguard whereby a Minister cannot allow things to happen that we all know should not occur.
If this power to make the exemption regulations was removed no planning authority would be able to cope with the level of applications that would flood in. There would be widespread public civil disobedience as regards the planning laws because they would be asked to apply for planning permission for all sorts of silly things. I do not think it is a good idea. If the Deputy has specific fears concerning existing exemptions or the exemption regulations generally, he can discuss them with me directly. We will be making new regulations and if the committee wishes to make a contribution to suggestions on that matter I will be glad to receive them.
I cannot accept Deputy Dukes's amendment No. 58, mild as it is, because it would delete the explicit power the Minister has to declare changes of use within particular classes as exempted development.
Is that what it means?
Yes, that is what it means.
Changes of use will be exempted?
Yes.
Thanks. Now I understand it.
If the Deputy is withdrawing the amendment, then I will save him the problem of having to listen to me telling him about changes of use from a shoe shop to a clothes shop, etc.
I am fascinated by a few of the points made on this particular provision. As a newcomer to the committee, I am just beginning to wonder if in the future the Minister for the Environment and Local Government can, by way of regulation, set aside all the primary planning legislation. I do not think that was the intent of this provision. My interpretation of it is that the Minister's room for change would be quite limited and the impact of the overall development for the population would be minimal.
I am fascinated by Deputy Gilmore's point when he focused on a bed and breakfast in an urban setting. In a case of which I became aware, where the breadwinner of a young family died suddenly and resources were limited, the widow who was quite resourceful in her own way used the additional space in the house for bed and breakfast accommodation, the development of which provided an economic lifeline to the family.
In the course of our work as politicians, we see the pressure in the housing market. The housing stock is seriously under utilised. While I am going off an a tangent, it is relevant. In a situation where a family, which lives in a four or five bedroom house, grows up and the children move out, there is a serious problem of under utilisation. The proper utilisation of this resource could make a meaningful contribution not only to the economic well-being of the family or extended family but to the economy as a whole. It is worthwhile to have the provision where people can utilise that space for bed and breakfast accommodation at a time when we are developing the tourism industry.
I am not so sure that the Minister is right, that the courts would throw out some exemptions which a Minister might introduce. As I understand it, the state of the courts' thinking on regulations is that they may not trespass on the area which is proper to primary legislation unless it is expressly provided for in the primary legislation, and of course in this case it is proposed to be expressly provided for that the Minister may make regulations on this area.
I am not arguing against, for example, the kind of circumstance for which Deputy Kirk argued. In fact, many developments which are brought into the formal planning system might usefully be dealt with in a much simpler way, and I made this point on Second Stage. For example, one area might well be the question of small domestic extensions, which tie up about a quarter of all planning applications and must receive the same attention as big developments. Would small domestic extensions, for example, be the class of development which might be exempted by ministerial order? Planning departments devote a great deal of time to such applications and there is a case for a simpler procedure for dealing with them. In my experience, which is probably similar to that of most members of the committee, some of the most bitter planning controversies, rows, objections, etc., relate to small domestic extensions.
My objection to the procedure which is proposed here is not whether they should be included but the process by which it is done. If, for example, a Minister decided that small domestic extensions such as garage conversions or attic conversions will be dealt with in a way different to the formal planning application, it should be done by way of legislation, that is, it should be brought before the House, debated, voted on and passed. My objection is to its being done by way of regulation. That is my argument here. There may well be a case for exempting or having a different process for dealing with particular types of development to which I would not necessarily be opposed, but having enacted the Bill I am opposed to the decision being then made by the Minister and, as Deputy Dukes stated, there being limited opportunity to amend or reverse that decision.
I take Deputy Gilmore's point. He thinks there should be formal legislation in this regard rather than guidelines on exempted developments. Some 27% of all planning applications relate to small domestic extensions - the figure is much higher in the greater Dublin area. That is an estimate because the planning statistics do not allow us to go into a huge amount of detail.
I also agree that often the thing which causes the bitterest disputes relates to the exempted development, the local neighbour, etc., but one cannot legislate for that. If one deals with this area under the planning process, it must be processed in the same way, for example, as a factory which will provide 1,500 jobs. At present there is no provision, as such, to allow it to be done any other way once one decides to take the route of the planning process as opposed to the route to which we are referring here, which is the exempted development route. That is something at which I am looking at present because the planning system is clogged up with huge numbers of applications for small domestic extensions which must undergo the full planning process involving engineers, planners, etc.
The Deputy referred to the courts' attitude to regulations and primary legislation. Unless there are clear policy aims stipulated which limit the regulations to be introduced, one will run into difficulties with the courts. The Laurentiu judgment means that a Minister making regulations must outline in general terms the policy considerations. That is why, following the debate in the Seanad, we provided for the limiting factors in this regard, that is, that by reason of its size, its nature or the limited effect on its surroundings it would not be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development. The courts would rule against a decision by a Minister to exempt 20,000 square feet of industrial units in a particular area. It is not an arbitrary power which is abused.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 24, subsection (5), line 50, after "she" to insert "or that other State authority".
This subsection requires the Minister to consult with any other State authority which he or she considers might be affected by proposed regulations. My amendment proposes that State authorities may consider whether they might be affected. This is a one way process - the Minister considers whether they are affected. It could arise that another State authority might feel it was affected, which may not have occurred to the Minister, although given the accuracy and wisdom of the advice offered to the Minister, it is unlikely that would happen. However, there have been cases in the past where people have overlooked necessary consultations.
That is true. The amendment does not add a huge amount to the Bill. The Deputy is aware of the procedures between the Government and State agencies and the consultations which take place. If the Deputy feels strongly about it, I do not mind accepting the amendment. I do not feel strongly about it, it is what happens anyway.
I would be happier if the Minister accepted it.
I will accept it.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 25, subsection (1), lines 3 and 4, to delete ", on payment of the prescribed fee,".
Section 5 (1) allows a potential developer seek a declaration from the planning authority as to whether or not the proposed development is exempted. A fee is prescribed for this. It is not reasonable to charge such a fee. We have had a long discussion on some of the complexities of this Bill and the classes of development which are exempt. We are providing for the Minister to make variations in the classes of development which will be exempt. We are making it possible for those interested in undertaking a development to ask beforehand and in prudence, whether it is exempt.
This appears to lie within the domain of public information. I cannot see why the planning authority should charge for informing people of the law. It is costly enough in some cases to find out the law from legal practitioners, of whom the Minister has a certain view. It is enough to pay a lawyer for legal advice but to have to pay a planning authority to find out one's entitlements seems excessive. That is why I have proposed the deletion of the reference to the payment of a prescribed fee.
This fee is already in existence and has been for some time. There may be some confusion about what we are talking about. This involves a formal declaration of whether a development is exempt, not an opinion or an interpretation. The issue of such a declaration is a valuable service to the public because it informs them with certainty whether they should take the time and effort to apply for planning permission, which in some cases, particularly commercial developments, can be extremely costly. I do not think it is unreasonable to seek a fee for such a service. We have discussed the need to increase local government resources, with which I agree. We cannot continue to impose further obligations on them and say they should not be paid for some of the services they provide. This service provides declarations not only regarding new developments but also for change of use.
The current fee for making a reference to the board is £120. The principle of charging a fee for the declaration service is long established in the planning system. In An Bord Pleanála's annual report for 1998, the projects on which people have sought opinions include use of land for filling with builder's waste, road making materials and similar waste in County Sligo and internal alterations comprising conversions of a public bar, disco etc. A reference was also made on Mondello Park in the Deputy's constituency. If the declaration has the right outcome, this service can save people a great deal of money. It is not unreasonable to impose a fee.
I insist on this. I know a charge already exists but in my view this is unreasonable. The Minister is saying we should charge people to tell them whether or not they will incur a cost. I have no difficulty whatsoever for charging for an application for planning permission or an appeal because the matters at issue are ones of value. However, it is wrong to charge a member of the public for information on what the law requires them to do. Section 55 of this Bill deals with architectural heritage, on which we had an interesting discussion last year. It provides for people who want to carry out work on protected structures to ask the planning authority for a declaration on the kind of work they can carry out. There is no charge for that information. In the case of renovations on a listed building, the local authority must be applied to for a declaration. This is proper and I am sure the local authority gives it proper consideration.
We require no charge to be made for that. I cannot see why in one case no charge is made when in most cases a charge is made. As I said, I have no difficulty with the concept of a charge for processing a planning application, because a planning permission is something of value. I have no difficulty with a local authority charging to give something of value to a person. Neither do I have any difficulty with charging for an appeal to An Bord Pleanála - we will be discussing some of those issues later - as that also relates to something of value. However, making a charge for telling people what the law provides seems to me to be excessive. I can think of very few other areas of public administration where we charge people for telling them what the law is.
I agree with Deputy Dukes's amendment. This type of issue, where someone seeks a declaration from the council as to whether or not something requires planning permission or if it is exempted development is going to occur in marginal cases. It will largely occur in cases of small development or in cases of marginal change of use. Otherwise it is fair to say that if people are doing something substantial they will require planning permission. From my experience, the type of situation where this will arise will be where someone wants clarity from a council as to whether planning permission is needed for an attic conversion, for example, regarding the height of a wall for the front or back garden, the size of a porch or the conversion of a sweetshop to a hairdressers. That is the kind of question likely to arise and for which this fee will be charged. By and large it will apply not to big developers but to those proposing small or marginal changes.
It is interesting to contrast this with section 223, which provides for consultations in relation to proposed development. It is a procedure I agree with, though we have not come to it yet, but it means that a big developer with a large plot of land for which he wants planning permission can arrive at the planning authority with architects, drawings and briefcases. They will sit down in the board room with the planners - quite properly - for a discussion as to what will or will not be allowed in that development. They will receive guidance as to what will fit in with the development plan and so on and, if it is a large development, this may continue for two or three meetings. There is no charge for this information and advice, which is valuable to the developer as he will not then submit an application that will not succeed, thus wasting time and so on. There is no charge for this and I have no problem with that as it is a good process and will save everyone's time, resulting in better planning. However, I cannot see why, if a big developer can go in with an army of advisers to get advice from the council under section 223 on a major development, someone going in to seek a declaration as to whether one must apply for planning permission for velux windows for an attic conversion will be charged a fee. That is not equitable.
We should tread warily here. In my county and elsewhere planning officers and officials are actively encouraging consultation with architects and others by those contemplating the submission of planning applications. They believe that refusals and toing and froing at a later date can be obviated in this way. It affords planning officials the opportunity to explain in more detail how the county development plan applies in a particular area and how relevant it is to individuals. They hold weekly clinics in Louth and there is no charge I am aware of for this advice. I imagine the number of inquiries or applications for determination of whether developments are exempt or not is relatively small. Building up a good relationship between planners and the local population is desirable.
We all know there is confrontation at other points in the planning process apart from the urban setting mentioned by Deputy Gilmore, where two neighbours may be at loggerheads over a development. Anyone who visits a planning office may hear high-pitched tones there also. The Minister might revisit this matter and consider the broader implications of this with regard to the need to encourage consultation generally with people considering submitting planning applications.
There is nothing in the legislation that requires anyone to look for a formal declaration. A person with a query about a velux window can ring the local authority and ask for an opinion as to whether permission is required. They are not charged for that and that will continue to be the case. This does not mean that every minor query needs a declaration; that can be put to one side.
The current situation is that under the 1963 Act, if a person wants a declaration as to whether a development is exempt or not, he or she must go to An Bord Pleanála. That is the only recourse they have to An Bord Pleanála. They may also go to the High Court, but that generally arises where a dispute has already occurred - where something has been done and someone has taken umbrage at it, deciding the developer should have sought planning permission. It is not always the developer who looks for an opinion; people who object to a development may also look for an opinion. That is the situation under the 1963 Act. A person may go to An Bord Pleanála and then to the High Court.
This section proposes introducing a new and simpler procedure by going first to the planning authority. There is obviously some expense but, as Deputy Gilmore pointed out, people are there as public servants and their time is their money. That is how it would be seen in private business if people were being consulted. A person might contact a planning office and say: "There is a fellow putting a window in the gable end of his house and he is only five feet from me. Is he allowed to do that without planning permission?" No one will ask such a person to write that query down and charge them for answering it, nor is that intended. Usually the planning official will give his opinion. If someone wants something more definitive with a greater legal status, they can seek a formal declaration, but they will be charged for that piece of paper which is a legal document. The alternative is to leave the situation as it is and let them pay the fee to An Bord Pleanála, or we can remove the provision in the 1963 Act and let them go to their local solicitor who will charge for professional services.
Is it intended in the case of a declaration such as this that a visitation would be involved - that the planning official would actually go out on site?
Yes, there could be a visitation.
If there is a visitation involved I have no great problem with the payment because there is obviously a cost to the local authority, but I have a problem if it concerns straight advice.
That is the distinction I am making. People are entitled to opinions but as somebody once said, verbal opinions are not worth the paper they are written on - particularly from various places. That is the basis of what we are talking about. Perhaps I did not explain at the outset that we are extending this procedure. I have outlined some of the references that have been made to An Bord Pleanála under the 1963 Act. They are by no means small queries. They are outlined in appendices 11 and 12 of the annual report.
Deputy Gilmore compared this to pre-planning and the treatment of developers or anyone else under section 2(3). I accept the point he is making - and he is not criticising this - that it does help the process, generally speaking. However, the kinds of developers who generally go for pre-planning discussions - and the local authorities want them to come in - pay very sizeable fees to the planning authority for processing their planning applications under the regulations. It is reasonable to say that that pre-planning consultation, which will now be statutory, is part of the service they receive for the fee. It is not true to say that they are getting this all free, gratis and for nothing; it does cost them money.
Deputy Dukes raised a point about section 55. The reason for the difference is that under section 55 relating to the structures and architectural merit, the person we are talking about is one upon whom we are imposing a burden. In that case, it is not unreasonable to treat them differently from somebody who is just coming in under this particular section. We are imposing the burden and the obligation on them to do certain things, which is not quite the same as the matter we are discussing here.
The legislation imposes a burden on people under section 55, but it is not always the case. In any case, it is something that we have decided is the proper thing to do, as a matter of general policy. I am still not convinced by the Minister's very plausible treatment of the charges. I know as well as anybody else that whether it is allowable to put a velux window in a roof or a window in a gable end that overlooks somebody else, as the Minister mentioned earlier, most planning authorities will provide an answer as a reasonable guide. Moving on a bit though, quite often for understandable reasons the reply to such a query is: "Well, really I could not tell you that over the phone without having a look at what you are proposing to do." That gets a person into a different area. I am not criticising or impugning anybody, but from time to time it happens that one can make such a query and receive an answer that to the best of a person's knowledge the answer is A, but one finds further down the road that somebody else has a different view and may say: "No, the answer to that is B. You need permission for that." One cannot always rely 100% on advice given in that way.
No.
That is why we have the existing system. With our own particular genius in this country, everywhere we put in a formal system there is parallel to it an informal system that on the whole works reasonably well, but in limited cases can get one into trouble. That is why we have a procedure like this one. I still take the view that it is a bit unreasonable to require people to pay a fee to get public information. The current system has this informal situation involving the planning authority but where people want to do something on a more formal basis they pay a fee and go to An Bord Pleanála which is looked upon as a more weighty or consequential system than the planning authority itself.
Curiously, what is proposed in this Bill is that if one finds oneself in need of a declaration one can go to the planning authority instead of An Bord Pleanála. It is only if the planning authority has a difficulty in making up its mind that the matter goes to An Bord Pleanála.
One can appeal a declaration.
One can appeal a declaration but if the planning authority has a difficulty in deciding, it can refer it to An Bord Pleanála for a reference. In that case, An Bord Pleanála makes no charge to the planning authority. Perhaps I have not read the section carefully enough, but it is not clear to me. If the planning authority says it is not exempt development and one feels one has good reason to disagree, one can appeal it to An Bord Pleanála. In that case, as far as I can see in the Bill as it stands, there is no fee for doing so. Previously, however, a fee was payable for going to An Bord Pleanála as a court of first instance, so to speak. I cannot see the logic of it. I suspect there is some view that there is logic in it, but I would like to hear it because I do not see it.
If one wants to obtain a declaration from the local authority one must pay a fee. If the local authority has a difficulty with it, it can require a person to produce additional information, placing another burden on the person and on the local authority. If the local authority still cannot sort it out, it can go to An Bord Pleanála. If the local authority makes a determination that what one thought was exempt development, or might be considered as such, is not exempt development, and one disagrees, one can appeal to An Bord Pleanála. In that case one does not pay a fee. At least, there is no provision in the Bill that I can see for paying a fee.
I think the Deputy is right.
I do not see the logic of it.
One can ask the local authority to charge it to An Bord Pleanála.
Now one can, but under this section one cannot. It states: "The board may charge a specified fee, not exceeding the cost of making the copy, for the purchase of a copy of the record".
That is in section 129.
Is that section 129 of this Bill?
Yes.
If they do not get you one way, as they say in the best movies, they will get you another. I see that this is a general power of the board.
Yes. The Deputy has raised a valid point, that there may be a need in the section to be a little more transparent about the position as regards fees even though they have the general right. I will check that and communicate with the Deputy.
We will return to the matter on Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 25, subsection (3)(a), line 28, to delete “notified under subsection (2)” and substitute “issued with a declaration under subsection (2)(a)”.
This amendment clarifies that only persons actually issued with a declaration may refer a question to the board where they disagree with the declaration of the local authority. It was not intended that persons who merely asked for information under subsection (2)(c) could make a referral. It refers to a person who is actually issued with a declaration.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 25, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) The Board shall issue a decision on the referral and the main reasons and considerations on which its decision is based within 4 weeks and shall forthwith communicate these to the person who made the request under subsection (1) and, where appropriate, to the owner and occupier of the land in question and to the local authority.”.
The purpose of this is to insert a new subsection (5) to make it clear that there is a deadline within which the board must give its decisions, and that the board should issue its decision and the reasons for its decision within four weeks. The amendment provides that such communication should be made to the person who made the original request under subsection (1) and to the owner or occupier of the land in question, if that person is different, because he or she is also affected, and to the local authority.
The amendment would require the board to make a decision on a referral within four weeks and to inform the person who made the referral and the planning authority of the decision. While I agree with the general thrust of this, I have some reservations. Unlike the initial declaration to the planning authority, where a referral is made to the board there are obviously two parties in dispute at that stage, that is, the person making the referral and the planning authority itself. A period of four weeks would not be sufficient for parties to make submissions, submit comments on the issues raised and for those submissions to be considered by the board. The Deputy would appreciate that site inspections might be necessary in some cases also.
However, there is merit in the thrust of the Deputy's proposal and I will consider introducing an amendment on Report Stage to give the board an objective similar to that applying to planning appeals to the board. The only caveat in this regard is that we must bear in mind, particularly in present circumstances, that it is essential that the board gives priority to dealing with planning appeals. We will look again at the matter on Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 25, subsection (6)(c), line 52, after “each” to insert “member of a”.
There is nothing particularly earth shattering about this amendment. When I was reading the Bill, I wondered if "planning authority" meant all the members of the planning authority. This has to do with the register and information on referrals. Is there consistency among planning authorities that the members, that is, the elected representatives, would receive this information automatically? That is the purpose of the amendment.
I see the Deputy's point in this regard. I would be reluctant to impose an obligation on the board to send these records to each and every member of a local authority - that would involve over 1,600 members. I would consider a Report Stage amendment which would make it clear that each member would be entitled to receive a copy of such a list on request from the local authority. We will try to draft something on those lines but the Deputy may wish to draft it himself for Report Stage.
Would it be appropriate to that particular subsection?
Yes.
Is section 6 the same as section 6 in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963?
Section 6(2) of that Act states:
In particular and without prejudice to the generality thereof, subsection 1 of this section shall be construed as conferring powers to make-
(a) examinations of tourist potential, interest and need,
(b) land use surveys,
(c) traffic, sociological and demographic surveys.
In 1981 we got rid of the ultra vires rule.
Why was that paragraph left out?
Local authorities have those powers on foot of the ultra vires rule being taken away and, therefore, it is not necessary to state them.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 26, subsection (2)(a), line 20, after “application)” to insert “shall be recorded under the appropriate place name referable to a six inch Ordnance Survey”.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that applications are recorded on the planning register under the appropriate place names referred to on ordnance survey maps. I want a standardised form for referencing the location of a planning application. Sometimes issues arise over the precise location and mapping of planning applications.
Do local authorities use that system at present?
There is a need for clarity with regard to addresses. This amendment would not add anything to the Bill because six inch maps are only useful in rural areas and many of them have not been updated since the 1930s. The only name that could be included usefully is a townland which forms part of a rural address. As Deputy Hayes knows, six inch map names would be totally meaningless in urban areas which is where most development takes place.
We discussed technological developments yesterday. New technology can link the planning register with global information systems which provide accurate co-ordinates for sites and addresses. Section 224 allows local authorities to take advantage of developments in information technology. We had a long discussion on this aspect in the Seanad. This amendment is unnecessary and unhelpful. Deputy Gilmore wants to ensure that addresses on the register are as accurate as possible but this is catered for in section 224.
I accept the Minister's point on the purpose of co-ordinates and the global information system. However, my amendment relates more to the place name reference. Place names tend to change, sometimes informally rather than formally, and maps may not be updated. What happens to a development in an area where the traditional name on the Ordnance Survey map is no longer in use? If an area is known as Shrewsbury Downs but the original place name was in Irish and residents want to change it to Patrick Pearse Park which name would appear on a map? How often is the register updated? Are people kept up to date with place name changes?
Section 18(1) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994 reads:
A planning application shall-
(a) (i) state the name and address, and telephone number if any, of the applicant and of the person, if any, acting on behalf of the applicant,
(ii) indicate the address to which any correspondence relating to the application should be sent,
and paragraph (c) refers to giving “particulars (including the location or address, as may be appropriate) of the land or structure concerned”. A site map must also be provided.
If a place is called Gilmore Drive but local people refer to it as Shrewsbury Downs there is a good argument for suing that name, rather than a townland name that has disappeared into the dim and distant past. We know the lengths people will go to in order to avoid detection when they make a planning application or erect site notices.
The Minister made a good point. I live in Dublin 24 but many people living there do not like to use Dublin 24 as part of their address and they use other names. If a planning department received an application form with Firhouse, Dublin 24 instead of Tallaght as the address would it be in line with legislation even though the site is not in the Firhouse area? The owner of the house may have the perception they live in Firhouse but they do not.
Years ago people used Castleknock in the same way.
The Dublin 6W syndrome.
Planning authorities can insist that names are amended. Local interests are covered because a person must erect a notice at the site.
Addresses may be ambiguous. People with an interest in a site but who do not live in the area could be confused by an alternative name. The local authority can ask an applicant to amend a site notice or, as section 17(2)(c) of the regulations states:
Give such further notice in such manner and in such terms as they may specify and to submit to them such evidence as they may specify in relation to compliance with any such requirement.
If a local authority is not satisfied that a site notice is not clear and precise then it can insist the applicant changes it.
I wish to develop the point made by Deputy Gilmore. Many residents' associations have a planning committee and someone regularly checks the planning applications in their area. An application could be missed if a major mistake has been made in the address. Would planning permission be deemed defective on a point of law?
It could be.
Is there any statutory standing for townlands and street names that have been used for generations as distinct from new housing names? I have a list of townlands in County Louth in my constituency office. That list is clear recognition of them but I do not know if it has any statutory standing.
The late John Kelly introduced a Bill to give statutory recognition to place names and he stipulated that they must be in Irish.
That is the list that I referred to.
The legislation does not go any further than that.
Do place names have statutory recognition?
The legislation is ambiguous at present. I am advised that we will use the GIS co-ordinates. I presume Deputy Gilmore wants to keep the old Irish place names.
As this discussion has progressed my belief in a standard form has strengthened. A range of problems has been outlined. This is not simply an issue about co-ordinates but about identification. An individual planning authority can decide whether information is accurate and precise. We could clarify matters by insisting that a copy of an Ordnance Survey map be submitted with the planning application and that the site is marked on the map. Different maps are available but using an Ordnance Survey map would avoid doubt. If a place had a different name, so be it, but the location of the proposed development would be clear on the planning file.
There is a requirement that the register shall incorporate a map to enable a person to trace any entry in the register. I am not being pernickety, but the Deputy specifies a six inch Ordnance Survey map. The Ordnance Survey is a semi-State body and my original point on how up to date the maps are still stands. Many private companies are in operation and we could not specify an Ordnance Survey map as such. However, there is a requirement for a map——
A site location.
A site location in the register.
That obligation is on the local authority, not the applicant.
The applicant must supply it.
That indicates the site in relation to its immediate surroundings. The planning register must include a map which identifies the location of the site. I have some experience of this. Although the whole country is not yet covered by them, the most recent Ordnance Survey maps can be used for those conducting opinion polls. One can quickly identify the location of a house in a rural area by referring to the new Ordnance Survey maps. They are an enormous improvement on the previous ones.
However, the point made on maps is a good one. My postal address is given as a townland which is at least a mile from where I live. My actual location is on the border of two other townlands, in neither of which I am suppose to live. It is extremely confusing. If one was to go on townland names, even as they appear on current maps, one would not find my house. However, if one had a grid reference for the latest Ordnance Survey map for south Kildare, one would find it without the slightest difficulty.
Perhaps the Minister will reflect on this further before Report Stage.
Yes.
Amendments Nos. 65, 106, 196, 256, 377, 394 and 531 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment 65:
In page 26, subsection (2)(b), line 21, after “statement” to insert “or linguistic impact statement”.
These amendments relate to proposed developments in Gaeltacht areas and are prompted by submissions made by Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge who made similar representations when the Architectural Heritage Bill was being discussed. I asked for special planning consideration to be given to developments in Gaeltacht areas and the Minister said this request would be more appropriately dealt with in the context of the Planning and Development Bill.
It is a national objective to preserve, protect and develop the national language. The Gaeltacht areas where Irish is spoken daily are shrinking. Anyone familiar with the constituency boundaries for Udarás na Gaeltachta elections knows the official Gaeltachts exist in areas where Irish is no longer the primary language. One must drive a considerable distance west of Galway city before one reaches the part of the Gaeltacht where Irish is the primary language. In addition to the shrinking of the boundaries of Gaeltacht areas, there is an additional problem that they are sitting targets for developments which will dilute their Gaeltacht nature. In anticipation of this discussion, I consulted some property sites on the Internet. There were a number of sites internationally advertised for sale in Cill Chiaráin, Casla and areas in the Donegal and Kerry Gaeltachts. These were attractive sites in seaside locations, inviting development and targeted at people who, to be blunt about it, will not be speaking Irish.
This has been a problem for some time and many Gaeltachts, particularly in counties Kerry and Galway, have experienced the development of holiday homes. People are relocating to the Gaeltacht because of retirement or the attractive environment. However, these people are not Irish speakers. It is clear that if large scale development is allowed in Gaeltacht areas and significant numbers of non-Irish speakers move there, they will be diluted. The result will be that there will be no Gaeltachts - they may be there officially but no one will be speaking Irish there. This is an issue of national policy. We must decide whether we are serious about protecting areas of the country where Irish is the primary spoken language. If this is our objective, we will have to provide for it in this legislation.
The first amendment requires a linguistic impact statement for development in Gaeltacht areas. This will include the involvement of Udarás na Gaeltachta in the drafting of the development plan and regional planning guidelines. It will also provide for enabling powers to be given to the Minister concerned to set down regulations regarding developments in Gaeltacht areas. This is an important batch of amendments regarding the protection of the Gaeltachtaí and whether we see their existence and continuation as part of the language revival and protection effort. If someone decided to build a large number of houses on Oileán Árainn or west Connemara what would our view be? We must take serious account of this. The Gaeltachts are small as it is and are at risk. We must decide whether we will keep them. We cannot argue officially that we are keeping them when in practice, through legislation, we expose them to development which will shrink them and dilute the speaking of Irish in them.
Historically, the reason the Gaeltachts survived in the past is that they were so remote, yet that is the reason now that they are dying. I would be concerned about including a linguistic impact statement. With regard to the development of holiday homes, I would prefer to see Irish speakers working in these areas to help their development. If we do not develop the areas native speakers will not want to stay there. We could become too rigid regarding these areas' development. The Gaeltachts are shrinking rapidly, but one of the reasons for this is that there was no development there from the 1950s through to the 1970s. People left in droves and if we are to stop the haemorrhage of young people from Gaeltacht areas, development is required.
There is a perception that the Gaeltacht areas of the west should be preserved for us to enjoy on our holidays, but many people want to raise their families there and we must be wary of becoming too stringent. This is the case in some western counties where only locals can purchase houses - this is welcome but it may also stymie development. It is fine to have a certain population in a peninsula, but it is also important that new people come into that area every now and then, for genetic and other reasons. I would be concerned by this.
I Deputy Gilmore's case. I appreciate what Deputy Kelleher has said, but some of it is based on a considerable misunderstanding of the position in Gaeltacht areas - particularly those in Connemara, Kerry and Donegal. Rath Cairn has a different relationship to the surrounding area. One of the principal concerns in Connemara, Kerry and Donegal is that it has now become possible for a great many more natives to conceive of living in the area and being employed there or not too far away. Young people are finding, however, that there is such a demand for holiday homes that they cannot afford to buy homes or sites in the area. Those native to the area who wish to remain there are being crowded out by the economic pressure of holiday home development in these areas. The amendments Deputy Gilmore and I have tabled suggest this is a legitimate concern for planning policy in these areas.
In addition, although this is not the first time it has been said, it is a criticism of the planning authorities in these areas and elsewhere that much of the holiday home development in these areas, some of it fuelled by fashionable, if unwise, tax incentive schemes, is nothing short of hideous and has destroyed the character of the areas in many cases.
Deputy Gilmore said one must go a long way west of Galway city now to get the feeling of being in the Gaeltacht and he is right. I was involved in the last Údarás na Gaeltachta elections and there is a substantial suburb on the western side of Galway of approximately 1,000 houses where one would be hard put to find a Gaeilgeoir. It is a middle market suburb of Galway which was designated for a Gaeltacht area and one would go a long way west of Galway city before one gets an unobstructed view of the sea to one's left and even further before one gets a view of the mountains to one's right. There has been a huge proliferation of large houses, many of which are bed and breakfasts, which has been fuelled by the area's tourist potential. However, it is clear that very little thought was given by the planning authority to the particular characteristics of a Gaeltacht area. The same problem can be seen in Donegal and Kerry, although, as I have said, Rath Cairn is different as it is not a big tourist destination - that is no disrespect to the area. It is a self-contained area.
Another problem is that the potential for other developments in these Gaeltacht areas is being put at risk by the very density of housing development. One would find it very hard to get permission now for a factory in the Connemara or Kerry Gaeltachts. With our planning system's precious rights of third party appeal, there are so many houses around that it is likely there would be substantial objections to the building of factories or commercial premises in any practical location. Many parts of the Kerry, Connemara and Donegal Gaeltachtaí are mountainous and one would have to be very brave to build a commercial premises in 60 to 70% of the land area of these Gaeltachtaí. The areas are so built up now that the potential for any kind of commercial development, no matter how tastefully carried out, is very limited. In a sense, the kind of residential development Deputy Gilmore and I have referred to is crowding out much of the possibility of further development.
These matters seem to be very material considerations for the proper planning and development of Gaeltacht areas. They should be taken into account in development plans and in the part of the Bill which deals with architectural heritage, to which we propose the addition of considerations of linguistic heritage. The provisions of these amendments is entirely in keeping with the national policy on the Gaeltacht areas.
The Deputies have highlighted the difficulties that have arisen in Gaeltacht areas for some time. For that reason, for the first time special recognition was given to Gaeltacht areas in our planning laws. That was progress. The problems have been outlined and discussions and different viewpoints have been put forward regarding the development of those areas. The problems outlined by the Deputies opposite will not be resolved by linguistic impact statements.
Section 10(2)(k) gives due recognition to the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht, including the promotion of Irish as a community language where a Gaeltacht area is included in the development plan. These issues must be considered in the context of the development plan. The Bill makes it obligatory for planning authorities to include objectives in their development plans to protect the cultural and linguistic heritage of Gaeltacht areas. That gives Gaeltacht areas important recognition for the first time in terms of planning authorities. It also gives sufficient flexibility to the planning authorities to take whatever measures they deem appropriate. They are the people in the best position to do that. In regard to yesterday's discussion, section 10(2)(k) applies equally to development which the local authority plans to carry out in the Gaeltacht.
On the development plan, such protection in primary legislation is the best way forward. There have been many calls in both Houses and here to include a provision for linguistic impact statements but there is no easy way to determine how they would be drawn up, what they would contain, the circumstances required and so on. I am reluctant to do anything that would make the system more bureaucratic. It is a case of having the policy aim clearly stated in the primary legislation and the local authorities should deal with them in a practical and common sense manner.
As we have learned from Deputies here, the problems are not the same in all Gaeltacht areas. Therefore, a general imposed solution will not help. By way of information to the Deputies, last week the Government announced that Coimisiún na Gaeltachta was set up to examine the various impacts which encroach on the Gaeltacht, the language and so on. Arising from what already exists in the Bill on foot of amendments put down in the Seanad, including the protection of linguistic and cultural heritage, among the issues agreed by the Commission is a term of reference to examine how the protection, which is being put forward here can be best interpreted and put into place in the development plans of local authorities in Gaeltacht areas. A sensible approach has been adopted in that the principle has been outlined and the Commission will come back to us with suggestions as to how best that might be done in a practical sense. It may come back to us with a suggestion that we should have linguistic impact statements and, if that is the case, we would have to accept it. It is prudent to allow the Commission to examine the issues, to make recommendations and we accept them.
There are tensions about protecting the Gaeltacht and the effects of allowing people from such areas to build houses. No matter what policy is agreed, when a house is built in a Gaeltacht area one cannot ensure it will remain in the ownership or control of a person from that area. The house can be sold to the highest bidder and, unfortunately, what seems to be happening is that many people from outside the Gaeltacht, non-native Irish speakers, are buying houses that were originally granted by local authorities for people from the Gaeltacht. I refer in this regard to Galway as I am not familiar with the Kerry experience. This has a diluting effect on the Gaeltacht but little can be done about it.
This discussion is important in the context of the amendments, but the approach being adopted on placing the policy in primary legislation, using not only the development plan but Coimisiún na Gaeltachta to study how best that aspiration can be put in place, is the best way forward.
To avoid irritation, if I point out what I consider to be deficiencies in what the Minister has said, I am not criticising him but encouraging him to deal with them. Section 10(2)(k) is a very worthwhile addition to the legislation. The amendments tabled by Deputy Gilmore and myself are intended to carry that through to other parts of the Bill. The Minister has stated that a general imposed solution will not help. There is a good deal of truth in that but I regard section 10(2)(k) as a general imposed solution, excluding our amendments, which will carry the provisions and the concerns of section 10(2)(k) specifically and explicitly to the other parts of the Bill which affect the development and promotion of Gaeltacht areas.
Deputy Gilmore agrees with me, and I think the Minister will too, that part of the difficulty regarding the promotion of the Irish language and Gaeltacht regions in the past has been that we have tended to content ourselves with general provisions without carrying them through explicitly to more operational areas. The purpose of these amendments is to carry through the provisions and make them explicit in other areas. Once this provision is included in section 10(2)(k), there will be concern in the other places where it is relevant. We want to make explicit provisions because the experience of Irish language policies for over a century has been that most of the time they are not carried out because they are not explicit. I do not agree with the Minister that linguistic impact statements would add a layer of complication. Section 10(2)(k) sets the framework on what would be required to draw up linguistic impact statements. I cannot imagine that provisions for such statements would, of their nature or conceptually, be any more difficult to put together than environmental impact statements. In some ways they could be more straightforward than environmental impact statements.
When environmental impact statements were first proposed, people threw up their hands in horror and said they were so complicated they would never be able to reach agreement. We have evolved a good understanding, however, of how they are put together, even if many of them are botched. The same will apply to linguistic impact statements.
The Minister referred to the coimisiún recently set up but he cannot predict if it will propose a linguistic impact statement. If, however, by the time the coimisiún reports, legislation already provides for linguistic impact statements, it will not propose they are done away with. The provision does not take a risk. I encourage the Minister to be more adventurous and to recognise the important step taken in section 10(2)(k). In appreciation of that step, it would be a pity not to carry its effects through explicitly into other sections of the Bill.
With Deputy Dukes, I welcome section 10(2)(k). It acknowledges the existence of the Gaeltacht and that Gaeltacht issues are of consideration in the framing of development plans. It is not sufficient, however, to address the problem we have described.
Development plans can contain many aspirational statements which have no real significance when it comes to making a decision on an individual planning application. On the first day of our consideration of the Bill, the distinction was drawn between sustainable development, the concept that applies to the framing of development plans, and development, the reality that applies to the determination of individual planning applications. All a planning authority must do is have regard to the development plan; it does not have to comply with the expressed conditions. Even under this Bill, An Bord Pleanála is free to make a decision on a planning application which stands a development plan on its head. A requirement that a development plan, where the authority concerned contains a Gaeltacht or part of a Gaeltacht, will have to contain an aspirational paragraph about the Gaeltacht does not mean a great deal when a planning application has to be decided by a planning authority or, ultimately, when that planning application has to be decided by An Bord Pleanála.
Prior to the coming into effect of environmental impact statements, there were many environmental aspirations contained in county development plans which did not carry on into the planning decisions. The Minister's response to the question of what constitutes a linguistic impact statement reminds me of my friend Chris Hudson appearing in an advertisement in a chef's hat asking what a crouton is. There were many questions about what constituted an environmental impact assessment when the concept was first floated. It would be much easier to write a linguistic impact assessment in relation to a development in a Gaeltacht than it would be to put together an environmental impact assessment.
The coimisiún which is to be established to look at the Gaeltacht in its totality will take some time to address the many issues related to the existence, survival and revival of Gaeltacht areas. It will take time to report and the Government will then take time to consider its report and to frame any legislation arising as a result. In the meantime, development in this State is moving at a fast pace. Each week that passes without pinning this down exposes the Gaeltacht to development which will undermine its existence. There is, therefore, a need to legislate for linguistic impact assessments and a requirement for the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands to make regulations governing physical development in the Gaeltacht.
Gaeltacht areas are physical entities. The physical development which takes place in them is highly relevant to their continued existence. If we have a view of Gaeltachtaí as something other than areas of the country where the language is spoken, there could be a different approach. If our understanding of Gaeltachtaí is that they are physical areas of the country in which the Irish language is spoken and it is our objective to retain those areas, the only way to do so is by protecting physical development within them.
I agree with Deputy Dukes about the appropriateness of some of the developments which have taken place in the Gaeltacht areas. I also agree that a positive approach must be taken to the development of employment opportunities in the interests of the people who live there. Unfortunately, some of the development which has taken place in Gaeltacht areas is completely inappropriate. Under the previous Government, I had responsibility for fish farming, a controversial issue in Gaeltacht areas. I remember going along a coastal road in Connemara in February to see the site of a proposed fish farm. I was shown a road with 36 houses, ten of which were occupied while the remainder were holiday homes. Of that ten households, five were working in the company which was proposing the development of the fish farm. Sometimes there can be conflict over development in Gaeltacht areas where one development is inappropriate and another is appropriate. The development of the area's own natural resources is appropriate.
These amendments are essential if we are serious about protecting the Gaeltacht. The matter cannot be postponed for a commission to examine - it should be addressed now. As Deputy Kelleher said, Gaeltacht areas survived until now because they were remote, but they are at risk now for the same reason. They have become attractive places for holidays for people who do not come from such areas. As a society, if we value the Irish language we have an obligation to put into our laws whatever is necessary to protect the areas in which that language is spoken.
For far too long there were no opportunities within Gaeltacht areas. We could be very insular and say we will limit development and allow those who live there to continue speaking Irish. However, the population in those areas is gradually dying. People left in their droves and we have a very elderly population. We have anecdotal evidence of the Galway west football league being amalgamated because it could not field the traditional parish teams. Whether people are speaking English or Irish, if they are living there they will bring vibrancy to the community. Otherwise there will be an elderly population and it will be unattractive for native Irish speakers to remain living there. It would be detrimental to try to protect these reservations with their idyllic beauty where the language is spoken but by fewer people. The best way to deal with it is through a county development plan where there can be flexibility. Trying to ensure that development will take the Irish language into account is all very fine but putting that in legislation could prevent development, for example, people in the Gaeltacht areas might not have the expertise to run a fish farm. If people who do not speak Irish are brought in, where will they live? How will someone apply for planning permission to run the business? There could be huge repercussions. Perhaps I misunderstand but if we do not encourage people to live in the Gaeltacht areas these areas will die.
The discussion summarises the debate and we are trying to get a balance between what Deputy Kelleher says, on the one hand, and what Deputies Dukes and Gilmore are saying on the other. If we prohibit or inhibit development too much in Gaeltacht areas we will kill them. If we allow people to build houses and holiday homes willy nilly we will kill the areas as well. They will be diluted and have no meaning. It is not an easy decision to make. Deputy Dukes quoted me correctly, to try to have a general imposed solution will not work. We will not do that by talking about linguistic impact statements and so on. I do not accept that section 10(2)(k) is a general imposed solution. I regard it as a very clear statement of Government policy that these are special places and within our planning laws must be specially treated. We must look after and ensure whatever development takes place, and no one wants to inhibit development, is in a certain context. That is outlined in the general statement of policy in section 10(2)(k). I accept what Deputy Dukes says that, in many cases, general provisions that are not carried through have little or no effect but I am satisfied that such has been the debate on this before and during the Bill and because the commission has been set up and has a specific remit in this area with a short time in which to report, six to nine months, we are going as far as we can in the Bill.
We requested examples of linguistic impact assessments in other jurisdictions from Comhdháil Náisiúnta na hÉireann to see if we could learn from them but we have not received anything. I am not inclined to buy a pig in a poke in that regard. I would like to see if it is possible to go the route suggested by the Deputies but I do not have sufficient evidence to suggest we could do so. As regards the development plan and the fear that local authorities might not implement it or Bord Pleanála may not pay too much attention to it - it might have regard to it and then ignore it - it is possible to introduce regulations under Part III at a later stage. If we get the information on linguistic impact assessments it does not have to be specifically outlined in the legislation but can be brought in under regulations.
In recent years Bord Pleanála turned down two high profile developments in Gaeltacht areas due to potential adverse effects on the areas. I do not say that was the sole reason for refusal but it was one of them. This is not the only section that deals with Gaeltacht areas. Under the Schedules any such decisions are non-compensatory under reasons for refusal under the planning Acts. It is not just a matter of making a statement and being finished with it. Apart from whatever regulations are brought it, guidelines can be given to the planning authorities on how to give effect to this mandatory objective in section 10. There are routes other than putting this into primary legislation. The commission can give practical advice on that. We are at one in our view that, as far as we can, we should, in our planning code, protect the Gaeltacht as much as possible and ensure the language is not just protected but allowed to grow. I have gone as far as I can on that under planning legislation although there is probably much more we could do under other legislation.
If, for example, Galway County Council has a paragraph in its county development plan on the section dealing with the preservation of the Gaeltacht and so on along the lines of paragraph (k) and there is a housing development in Carraroe that complies with the county development plan in every other respect and with good planning and development in terms of its design, roads, water, sewerage and so on, I do not believe it could be refused solely on the strength of paragraph (k).
An issue which would arise is whether a refusal solely on the language basis would be regarded as a planning reason. I would suggest another way of addressing it. Would the Minister be prepared to include in the section on development control the right of planning authorities to refuse planning permission expressly where it is considered that the granting of permission would have an adverse effect on the Gaeltacht or on the language? That might be an effective way of dealing with this because I accept that, at the end of the day, this will be a question of judgment, a case of whether it does so. One way of dealing with it would be to give planning authorities an expressed power that they can refuse permission in a Gaeltacht area where there is an adverse effect on the Gaeltacht. Paragraph (k) is not strong enough. Paragraph (k) could fall at An Bord Pleanála stage or, indeed, on a judicial review on the question of whether it is a planning reason and whether on its own an aspirational statement in a development plan would be sufficient grounds for refusal of permission if the development could get permission on all other grounds.
I can assure the Deputy of that. If, all other things being equal, the only reason left for refusal is the adverse effect it would have on the language or the culture of the Gaeltacht, according to the Bill that will be sufficient reason for refusal and it will not be eligible for compensation. The Fourth Schedule sets out reasons for the refusal of permission which exclude compensation. On page 213, it states:
14. The proposed development would adversely affect the linguistic or cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht.
That gives the local authority the right to refuse on that basis and that it is ineligible for compensation
All that does is make a refusal ineligible for compensation but it does not protect against the refusal itself being challenged successfully.
Any aspect of the Bill could be challenged, but the legal advice available to me is that all of this is constitutional, fair, etc. We cannot anticipate that the courts might or might not do something. Even though it is in the Schedule which relates to reasons for the refusal of permission which exclude compensation, it means that this is a sufficient reason to refuse planning permission.
No.
That is not what it means. It means that if a person appeals a refusal to An Bord Pleanála, An Bord Pleanála cannot say that, because the refusal is motivated only by the linguistic effect, it cannot stand. However, An Bord Pleanála could have other reasons for doing it. It is not the only reason. It just states that one will not get compensation.
Yes. All it states is that if there is a refusal, one does not get compensation. However, it does not protect where a local authority refuses permission on the language grounds. It does not protect against a situation that an appeal can be made to An Bord Pleanála which, not considering the compensation issue because it does not arise, could decide that the refusal solely on language grounds is not sufficient grounds for refusing permission.
That applies to any of the rest of these reasons for the refusal of permission which exclude compensation. That applies anywhere. I have seen appeals to An Bord Pleanála against decisions made by local authorities, for instance, on road traffic hazards.
I thank the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and his officials for their input at today's meeting. I also thank the members of the committee for their contributions. As agreed, we will resume our consideration of the Planning and Development Bill, 1999, next Tuesday, 18 April, at 2 p.m.
