Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 2000

Vol. 3 No. 5

Planning and Development Bill, 1999 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed).

I welcome the Minister and his officials. We will meet from now until 1 p.m. and we will have a break for tea at 11 a.m.

There may be a vote on the Order of Business.

We will combine the two if that happens.

Are we meeting this afternoon?

Yes, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.

I understand that legislation is to be dealt with in the House after Question Time. If so, I propose we adjourn to enable us to participate in that debate.

The legislation required to amend the Government's hand on local charges is due from 4.15 p.m. to 7 p.m.

I understand we will be required in the House at 4.15 p.m. Maybe we can agree a time when we break.

Can we at least agree to meet from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. anyway? Is that agreed? Agreed.

SECTION 10.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 85:
In page 29, subsection (2), between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(a) the need to integrate the planning and development of the area with the social, community and cultural requirements of the population of the area and with the provision of services to that population;”.
-(Deputy Gilmore.)

Amendments Nos. 85, 93 and 197 were being discussed together by agreement.

We had two long expositions on the importance of integrating social, community and cultural requirements into the development plan. Deputies Gilmore and Dukes said nothing with which I disagree, subject to being practical about what we can and cannot do in a planning Bill.

The amendments would require development plans to contain objectives for the integration of planning and development with the social, cultural and community requirements of the population and with the provision of services for the population. That seems eminently sensible and should be the thrust of any good planning. The question arises whether that should be provided for in primary legislation and to go into definitions in it or whether one outlines that requirement and allows the local authority, within its policies and plans, to give effect to it.

I agree with the Deputies' points and there is no disagreement between us on the principle. Deputy Dukes pointed out yesterday that the Bill provides for this particular integration in various sections - section 10 and the First Schedule, for example. I take the Deputies' points and perhaps we could make it more explicit in the Bill. I will try to table a Report Stage amendment which will deal with the points raised by these amendments.

We are dealing with this against the background of the establishment of the city and county development boards and a major part of their remit for the first two years is that they will draw up city and county strategies, which are strategies for the social, economic and cultural development of their areas. In effect, those will be recognised in law by the local government Bill. They will be given statutory recognition as part of the development plan at that time, which will go a long way towards meeting the points made by Deputies. I will have to bear this in mind when introducing a Report Stage amendment and I ask Deputies to bear in mind that the development plan is just one instrument available to local authorities for the kind of integration we are discussing.

I accept the principle of the amendments and undertake to try to make a much more explicit provision for this on Report Stage. The county and city development board strategies will also have a statutory basis and by combining the three we should be able to meet the concerns expressed by Deputies.

I am glad to hear this from the Minister and I look forward to his proposals. I will withdraw the amendment pending Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 86 and 636 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 86:

In page 29, subsection (2)(a), line 36, after “recreational” to insert “, as open space”.

This amendment offers a statutory basis to the zoning of land as open space in development plans and the same amendment is made to paragraph 20 in the Fourth Schedule, which excludes compensation when a development is refused permission because it would materially contravene a zoning objective in the plan. Recreational zoning is also added to the paragraph to ensure that the language in the schedule relating to zoning reflects that in section 10.

Will open space become a separate purpose - separate from recreational?

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 87 and 632 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 87:

In page 29, subsection (2), lines 41 to 44, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:

"(b) the provision or facilitation of the provision of infrastructure including transport and in particular public transport;

(c) the provision or facilitation of the provision of infrastructure including energy and communications facilities, water supplies, waste, water services and ancillary facilities;”.

I broke up paragraph (b) here to give a specific paragraph to public transport. I notice that paragraph (j) refers to crèches and educational facilities and it is right and proper that they should be included in a development plan to achieve objectives - I am not sure if the Minister gave way on that in the Seanad - but there does not seem to be an explicit reference to public transport. Section 23(2)(d) specifically refers to public transport when it comes to regional planning guidelines. For consistency, if we are asking regional planning guidelines to include provisions on public transport, we should have the same requirement in development plans.

The Minister has a good list here for development plans. If crèches and educational facilities are included, we should be able to include public transport. The term "in particular public transport" may not be the most accurate in law, but we must emphasise this point in development plans, as we have not done so to date.

I agree with the principle of what the Deputy says. It is becoming increasingly obvious that excellent public transport systems are becoming essential if we are to achieve the kind of sustainable development we are talking about. It is essential that all transport issues - including public transport - are included in development plans. The Deputy's point is met by Part V of the First Schedule of the Bill which refers to transport and infrastructure issues for which objectives may be included in the development plan. That covers matters such as reserving land for transport networks, including roads, air and sea transport, for communications networks, for energy networks and generation, facilitating the provision of sustainable integrated transport, securing the greater convenience of users of all transport and so on. They are specifically included on a list in Part V, so the Deputy's point is well met, as it is an important objective to include in development plans.

Paragraph (j) relates to educational facilities and paragraph (k) relates to the Gaeltacht. Were they in the original draft of the Bill or were they amended in the Seanad?

Crèches were and the Gaeltacht was not, if my recollection is correct.

Why do crèches and educational facilities emerge clearly in section 10, yet public transport is in the Schedule?

They are covered under the general term "infrastructure".

I should say also that my amendment No. 632 gives explicit recognition to rail and light rail transport. The provision already refers to road, air and sea transport but does not mention rail. That is the reason for the amendment. It is for the avoidance of doubt.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 87a:

In page 29, subsection (2), between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following:

"(c) the provision by the planning authority of social housing to accommodate, as far as possible, all in need, including, in particular, those on low income and the elderly;".

This amendment seeks to highlight the central and most important function of local authorities. That is critically important and in the spirit of the text of section 10(2) which states: "The objectives to be included in a development plan shall at least include the following matters". That clearly shows that it is not a closed, proscriptive approach. We recognise that while there is a deserved emphasis on infrastructure, particularly in terms of transport, there has to be recognition of this fundamental area of responsibility of local authorities, that is, the provision of social housing. The recent meeting this committee had with the Minister of State in the Minister's Department demonstrated very well that, despite the Government's recent decision to introduce multi-annual allocations on a three or four year basis, the reality is that the delivery does not match Government and Department intent.

It is important that in the development plan we focus the executives of local authorities and the elected members on this critical area. That is equally as important as enshrining local government in the Constitution. We should ensure that the whole area in relation to the provision of social housing is reflected in this list of key objectives of any development plan. The text I have offered is "the provision by the planning authority of social housing to accommodate, as far as possible, all in need including, in particular, those on low income and the elderly". I would appreciate the Minister's recognition that, in the text provided, the only reference to housing is at (a) which refers to the zoning, whether residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, etc. There is no reference to the provision of social housing by local authorities, which is very important. I urge the Minister’s acceptance of the amendment and would appreciate his response.

I will wait to hear the Minister's response.

What Deputy Ó Caoláin is seeking here merited a complete Part to the Bill, Part V, which is a central part of the Bill and the one given the most attention. I have no difficulty with the thrust of his amendment in terms of both social and affordable housing, and I welcome his support for the thrust of Part V, which is to facilitate the provision of social and affordable housing. Part V puts in place a requirement for a housing strategy that will have to be prepared by the planning authority which has to address the needs of those referred to in section 9(2) of the Housing Act, 1988. That includes those on low income and the elderly. The list of people that the housing strategies have to take account of under Part V of the Bill, as outlined in the 1988 Act, are the homeless; persons to whom section 13 applies, that is, Travellers; persons who are living in accommodation that is unfit for human habitation or is materially unsuitable for their adequate housing; people who are living in overcrowded accommodation who are sharing accommodation with another person or persons and who, in the opinion of the housing authority, have a reasonable requirement for separate accommodation; young persons leaving institutional care or without family accommodation; persons in need of accommodation for medical or compassionate reasons; the elderly; and the disabled or the handicapped or people who, in the opinion of the housing authority, are not reasonably able to meet the cost of the accommodation which they are occupying or to obtain suitable alternative accommodation. That is a comprehensive list but rather than including just one small provision which the Deputy is suggesting, we have included a whole Part that is designed to underline the commitment of the Government, and all parties of the Houses of the Oireachtas, to the needs of those vulnerable people in society.

It is expressly stated in section 80(3) that the housing strategy must take into account the need to ensure that housing is available for all those on different levels of income. Different types of housing have to be developed also for different needs - people with disabilities, the elderly and so on. We are placing a firm obligation on local authorities to put in place a housing strategy which will form part of the development plan under section 80. Part V restates in much greater detail what the Deputy is trying to achieve with his amendment and it covers the greater complexity of our housing requirements. The intent, thrust and principle of the Deputy's amendment is accepted by everybody here, particularly by the Government, and it is included fully in Part V. On that basis I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment and lend his full support to Part V of the Bill.

I do not want to cut across Deputy Hayes but I will respond, if that is in order. I appreciate the focus in Part V and the other sections the Minister mentioned. That is a critical and important area of the Bill but the purpose of the amendment is not to replace or supplant but to strengthen and to reflect on the purpose and intent of other sections at a critical time in the preparation of a development plan. One is not in conflict with the other, as the Minister has already said, but having been a part, for the past 16 years, of the preparation of a number of development plans, both at municipal and county authority level, my practical experience is that the situation requires a critical focus that is clearly driven. I ask the Minister to reflect again on the purpose of including it here because all the other critical areas that we address are part of the accepted normal responsibility of local authorities but for the singular absence in this particular section of the focus on the provision of social and affordable housing. This would be complementary to what the Minister is trying to achieve. I hoped it would have been taken in that spirit. I respectfully ask the Minister to reconsider.

I support this amendment. The Minister said something very interesting - that when the new housing strategies are produced they will be integrated into the development plan. Is that right?

They will form an integral part of the development plan.

There could be quite a degree of confusion. We have a development plan, a housing strategy and a multi-annual housing programme. We have layer upon layer of different programmes. It might be easier to say, when it comes to the issue of the contents of the development plan, "a local authority shall provide through a housing strategy and this shall be included". There is no mention of that in section 10(2)(a) to (k). Let us be clear about this.

I understand the Minister has already asked the local authorities to start to prepare their housing strategies. Those strategies will be signed off and accepted by the members and the Department. There will then, presumably, be a material contravention to the existing development plan. If we are trying to create something for development plans in the future, there should be a section referring to this. I do not know in which section it would be included but there needs to be a reference to it.

We are talking about capital funding. We provide capital funding for roads, infrastructure, transport and so on but we also provide it for housing. It is one of the few Votes and streams of revenue which comes out of the capital budget and we must make an explicit reference to it when it comes to the contents of the development plan.

I support Deputy Ó Caoláin's amendment. It exposes something clearly which I have been saying for some time, that is, that Part V, dealing with housing, is separate legislation and has simply been slotted into this planning Bill for the sake of convenience. When the Bill was published, I argued that Part V, dealing with housing, should have been dealt with as separate legislation, introduced separately and debated separately. One Bill could have been introduced in the Dáil while the other could have been introduced in the Seanad and we could have progressed the entirety of this Bill much more rapidly. The Minister and the Taoiseach argued at the time that Part V on social housing was an integral Part of the planning Bill and could not be separated from it.

Deputy Ó Caoláin's amendment has shone a light on the fact that it is not an integral Part of the Bill and that the objectives, in so far as the development plan is concerned, which are contained in Part V, have not been conveyed into the pure planning Part of the legislation. What we have in section 10 is a repeat of what is in the 1963 Act, although with some amendments.

The Minister is right to an extent. That it is stated in Part V that the housing strategy has to be drawn up, that it has to become part of the development plan and so on squares the circle, so to speak. The problem, however, is in the content of Part V. I do not want to anticipate the debate on Part V but, in so far as it is relevant to this amendment, I would like to make the following point.

One of the features of Part V, which has not got the attention it deserves, is that it proposes to put a cap on the amount of land which can be zoned for social housing. I draw attention, in particular, to section 80(4)(c) which states:

A housing strategy shall provide that as a general policy a specified percentage, not being more than 20 per cent, of the land zoned for residential use, or for a mixture of residential and other uses, shall be reserved under this Part for the provision of housing for the purposes of either or both subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a).

I have tabled an amendment to that section - which we will debate when we deal with that section, I suppose, sometime next year - which proposes to lift that cap. The importance of Deputy Ó Caoláin's amendment is that it puts a requirement on the planning authority to plan for social housing and for all those in need, not only those subject to a maximum of 20% of zoned land which is what the Bill, as it stands, provides for. It should go into the objectives to be included in the development plan.

Section 10(2)(a) refers to the objectives to be included in a development plan. It states, it “shall at least include the following matters . . . the zoning of land for the use solely or primarily of particular areas for particular purposes (whether residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural”, etc. We are talking about what a development plan should or should not at least take into account. We are saying it should take into account or include zoning for residential uses. That is a statement of principle.

We elaborate further in section 80 with regard to housing strategies, the provision of housing and for whom housing should be provided in the development plan. Almost an entire Part of the Bill is devoted exclusively to housing. The homeless, people who cannot afford their own houses, those on low income, the elderly and a range of others are referred to. It is nonsensical to say that housing is not an integral part of this legislation or that the Bill, in its entirety, does not provide for people about whom Deputy Ó Caoláin spoke. Section 80 goes into great detail on the need for a housing strategy to be included in the development plan. Deputy Hayes is right in that when this Bill is enacted - I hope I did not hear Deputy Gilmore say what I thought he said, that he will try to delay this until next year——

I said to hurry up. I wanted the Minister to do this last September but he did not want to run it as a separate Bill.

One cannot do that. On the one hand, the Deputy is arguing that this should be integrated and, on the other, he is arguing that the two should be totally separate.

I am arguing that the Minister should be consistent.

I am being consistent. The Deputy is not.

I am being consistent. This should have been done in two separate Bills.

The Deputy is saying we should separate this but I am telling him that Part V——

The Bill would have been enacted by now if the Minister had taken my advice last September.

It would not have been enacted now. We would not have had a single housing strategy because there would not have been power in the Planning and Development Bill for housing strategies without Part V. We would have had to wait until this Bill was passed and housing strategies were incorporated into the development plans. What the Deputy is saying is nonsense and he knows it.

It is not. The Minister could have run the Bills separately in the Dáil and Seanad and they would have been out of the legislative process by now, so he should not blame us.

I am not blaming the Deputy. I am just pointing out the reality of the position.

Sitting suspended at 10.40 a.m. and resumed at 11.15 a.m.

Deputy Ó Caoláin, how stands amendment No. 87a?

I wish to comment on the last exchange and the Minister's response. I ask the Minister to reconsider. I had not anticipated that there would be an objection to what is, in my view, one of the primary roles of responsibility for local government. The thrust of section 10 relates to the development plan.

The Minister quoted exactly from what I said in my opening remarks. Section 10(2) states that "The objectives to be included in a development plan shall at least include the following matters . . . whether residential, commercial, industrial". The interpretation drawn from that is invariably in relation to rezoning, the provision of land specifically in the private sector and the provision of private sector housing. There is no reference or commitment in this section of the development plan and, given my practical experience of local government over one and a half decades, I am aware that we must be absolute and prescriptive with regard to the critical areas.

The two main columns of responsibility in local government have traditionally been the provision of social housing and the provision of adequate infrastructure in terms of the road network. This important area is omitted here. I do not wish to pre-empt the discussion on Part V. The Minister's references were not directed at the thrust of my amendment. When he said "nonsensical" he was referring to comments by other members in relation to a debate yet to take place. I do not wish to address that but this amendment should not suffer as a result. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that social housing is properly enshrined in the remit of local government when preparing development plans.

The amendment and the arguments I have made for it are not in conflict with the Minister, as he has acknowledged. I would ask him to reconsider the amendment which is the first I have tabled. I was not expecting there would be a conflict about it. To my mind, this was a glaring omission. The Minister should give due consideration to my submission and to my appeal. I hope he will reflect upon it from his own experience and knowledge of the preparation of development plans. It is important to place this matter at this critical point in section 10(2)(c). I am reiterating the appeal before making a decision whether to press the amendment. It is a glaring omission and it in no way detracts from the Minister’s purpose and intent in his address as regards Part V, section 18, from which he has already quoted. I do not wish to address that discussion at this stage because it is not appropriate. The amendment should be accepted and I rest my case. I would like to know what is the Minister’s final position.

I invite the Minister to respond to my question, whether we will see material contravention following the adoption of the health and strategy policy. He was going to give me that nugget of information before he engaged in a tête-à-tête with Deputy Gilmore before the break. May I invite him to do the same again? As regards what Deputy Ó Caoláin said, following the Lefoy judgment in relation to Traveller accommodation, it is clear that the courts now consider that housing is the primary function of a local authority. It is regarded as a function that supersedes all other functions because it involves finding accommodation for specific groups who cannot afford housing. Therefore, not to make that exacting reference in section 10, which refers to the contents of the development plans, seems to be outside the remit of what the courts themselves have determined as social housing functions.

In paragraph (h) the Minister refers to the provision of accommodation for Travellers and the use of particular areas for that purpose. That is another form of social housing and is part of the capital budget. If that reference is explicit, why can we not have this explicit reference to social housing in any of the paragraphs (a) to (k) currently before the committee?

I would not like anyone to leave this committee and try to convey the impression that I am objecting to social housing or to the commonly held belief, which is a statutory obligation, that one of the principal functions of local authorities is the housing of people. As Deputy Hayes said, this was underlined in recent court judgments. That does not mean, however, that just because somebody takes a notion, I have to insert in every section a provision that social housing will be provided. That would make a nonsense of the Bill. Any balanced and fair minded judgment of the Bill will see that it devotes not just one small section or subsection, but a whole Part to the provision of social and affordable housing. That clearly demonstrates the intent of the Government.

I have no difficulty with the principle of the Deputy's amendment; it is merely a matter of where one inserts such provisions into the Bill. Residential zoning is catered for in the development plan in section 10. Affordable social housing catering for the needs of those on housing waiting lists is dealt with in section 80. We can stay hereall day arguing whether such a provision should be inserted here or there. I have considered this matter and the Bill has been carefully considered. I have been prepared to accept amendments. Deputy Ó Caoláin rightly says this is his first amendment, but that does not make it more meritorious than any other. Those who have been dealing with this legislation in committee over the past 20 hours and in the House over a considerably longer period know that if I felt there was any merit in accepting this amendment I would do so. If it was going to strengthen our intent I would accept it, but it does not do that. There is a proper place for this, which is in section 5.

Deputy Hayes raised the issue of material contravention. Any local authorities that have an existing development plan will, within one year, according to the obligations imposed on them in this Bill, have to draw up a housing strategy and put it in place. By means of material contravention they will then have to introduce the housing strategy.

As a part of it?

Yes, as part of the development plan. On the enactment of the Bill, however, any local authority that is starting or completing the process of renewing its development will be obliged to include it in that development plan. Within a year of the commencement of the relevant sections of the Act, which will be as soon as possible after the Bill is enacted, every local authority will have a housing strategy incorporated into the Bill to meet precisely what we are discussing in this amendment. That strategy will not just be for those on low incomes and the elderly, but also for people living in unfit and overcrowded accommodation, those living with others who in the opinion of the local authority have a reasonable requirement for separate accommodation, and young people leaving institutions. All those categories will be included in the housing strategy, not just those mentioned, who we would all agree would be high priority cases. They will be included as an integral part of each local authority's development plan. That more than adequately meets the concerns Deputies have expressed.

I am pressing the amendment. I do not accept that the development plan areas should exclude reference to this absolute core responsibility of local authorities.

Please do not twist the situation, Deputy. It does not exclude it.

It does not make reference to it.

That is not the same thing as excluding it.

It is very important. The development plan is the specific responsibility of the elected members and this is not highlighted as one of the key areas they must address in the preparation of the development plan.

I hope the Deputy will be present when we are debating section 80(1)(a) which reads:

Each planning authority shall include in any development plan it makes in accordance with section 12 a strategy for the purpose of ensuring that the proper planning and sustainable development of the area of the development plan provides for housing of the existing and future population of the area in the manner set out in the strategy.

It then goes on to list all these people who need housing. Therefore, it is in the Bill; it is not excluded. The Deputy is being unfair, not just to me but also to everybody who sat through the passage of this legislation in the Seanad and on Second Stage in the House, to say we are excluding people.

I said at the outset that this was complementary to the points the Minister had already made. He would do well to remember that this was not meant to be in conflict with the thrust of the Bill. It was meant to be complementary to it. It would have enshrined it and given it particular importance commensurate with what is in section 10.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 88, 91 and 92 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 88:

In page 29, subsection (2)(c), line 45, to delete “and protection” and substitute “, protection and improvement”.

Amendments Nos. 88, 91 and 92 have been grouped together but I believe they should be considered separately. However, I am prepared to speak on the amendments as grouped.

Amendment No. 88 seeks to amend section 10(2)(c) so that it will read as follows, “the conservation, protection and improvement of the environment”. The conservation and protection of the environment are worthwhile activities and they should be objectives of a development plan. However, a provision for the improvement of the environment should also be included because, as EPA reports show, the quality of the environment could be improved in many ways, particularly in respect of water quality, waste water treatment, water treatment, waste management, litter, air quality, etc.

In my opinion the word "improvement" should be included in section 10(2)(c) and I notice that it is used in section 10(2)(i) which deals with the “preservation, improvement and extension of amenities”. Development plans should include objectives for the improvement of the environment.

The word "improvement" should also be included in section 10(2)(d) which deals with the preservation of the character of the landscape. Amendment No. 92 suggests that the term “with particular reference to the urban landscape” should also be used in this paragraph because 80% of the population live in urban areas while only 20% live in rural areas. Section 10(2)(d) already refers to “places and features of natural beauty or interest” but there is also a need to address the matter of the urban landscape in a positive manner because that is where 80% of people live and spend their daily lives.

There are many areas of natural beauty in Ireland but the majority of the population do not appreciate that fact while going about their daily lives. The landscape we inhabit is important because it is within this that our children live, that they go to school and that we go to work. The urban landscape is extremely important and its improvement should be an objective of development plans.

The Minister referred yesterday to compiling an "atlas of our landscape", which would be welcome because adequate consideration is not given in development plans to the appearance of the landscape and the environment in which we spend our lives. I refer here to controlling the types of signs, billboards and plastic neon lights used in the urban landscape. Development plans should also contain objectives in terms of planting trees and cultivating green spaces in urban areas in order to lessen the influence of concrete and brick within the urban landscape. I am interested to hear the Minister's comments on the points I have raised.

I understand the intent behind the Deputy's amendments. However, introducing the concept of including in development plans aims or objectives to improve the environment in addition to conserving and protecting it would cause major difficulties from the point of view of how such aims or objectives would be interpreted legally.

Amendment No. 91 calls for the protection and improvement of the character of the landscape in addition to the obligation to preserve it. The problem lies with introducing elements of subjectivity into primary legislation because matters such as the improvement of the environment can be subjective in nature. There are obvious suggestions one could make for the improvement of the environment but there are also many areas where one's view of improving it might differ to that of someone else. For example, a forester's perspective on improving the environment or the landscape could be vastly different to that of a conservationist.

My difficulty with amendments Nos. 88 and 91 revolves around the suggestion that we introduce what would be a subjective standard. I accept the Deputy's general point that there are a number of obvious actions we could take to improve the environment. The concept of sustainable development forms the basis of development plans and the planning and development process, but including an obligation for the improvement of the environment or the landscape would cause endless legal wrangles and would lead to the making of very subjective judgments in respect of a huge range of issues.

It is not quite as easy to define what is meant by the term "improvement of the environment" as it is to refer to the "improvement of amenities". For example, if an area has a dilapidated tennis court or lacks a tennis court or soccer pitch it is easy to refer to improving the amenities in that area. This also includes the concept of providing such amenities. However, it is not correct to use the provision which deals with the improvement of amenities to support arguments for the inclusion of a provision for the improvement of the environment because we are not comparing like with like. I have sympathy with what the Deputy is attempting to do but acceptance of her amendments would make the section so imprecise that, legally, it would not be workable.

Amendment No. 92 requires that the term "with particular reference to the urban landscape" be inserted in section 10(2)(d). Deputy Clune made the point that an equal argument could be made that the provision should also include a reference to the rural landscape. It is taken as read that we are dealing with urban and rural landscapes. The provision of signs, trees and greenery in cities and towns is a function of local authorities and relates more to planning in general.

Including a specific reference to the urban landscape is not necessary because section 10(2)(e) and (f) deals with aspects of urban landscapes, streetscapes and structures of architectural, historical, artistic, scientific, social or technical interest and the “preservation of the character of architectural conservation areas”. In a sense these two paragraphs refer to the urban landscape. I accept that the Deputy was more intent on discussing the greening of cities and towns.

I was referring to the vast urban areas we have created. The two paragraphs to which the Minister referred deal with quite specialised matters, namely, structures or parts of structures which are of "special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest". That is fine for cities such as Dublin or towns which contain buildings of historical interest. However, I was referring to the vast areas in which people spend their lives and through which the Minister must travel every day to get to the Dáil. Some children do not often leave these areas because they attend local schools and need only travel a short distance from home to do so. Unless these children are taken to west Kerry on a trip in the summer, all they ever see is the concrete urban landscape we have created.

I do not believe that a planner in south County Dublin will immediately assume that paragraph (d), as drafted, refers to the work he or she is carrying out - he or she will assume it refers to someone working in an area of natural beauty. It is important that the landscape in which most of us live daily is considered and should be an objective in the development plan.

Equally, one could argue that in the case of many of the areas mentioned by the Deputy - some of them quite nice - including a requirement in the development plan to preserve the urban landscape would prohibit what the Deputy is seeking. A planner might take a very strict view that we have an obligation to preserve things, which would mean leaving things as they are.

I wanted to include the word "improve". This goes back to a discussion last week about painting different houses different colours. I know one can go too far and I would not like to give an individual too much power, but improvement of the urban landscape should be considered in the development plan. Maybe we can do it within guidelines.

Guidelines in the integrated area plans would probably be a better means. When one gets into a Bill like this one focuses on certain things and not others - that is the nature of the scrutiny we give a Bill. The development plan should be seen in the context of the broad brush strokes in the development of a bigger area. When one gets into the smaller area plans, for which we are providing statutory recognition here, that is where one could discuss improving the amenities, environment and so on. Section 19 might deal with the Deputy's requirement. It states that a local area plan shall be consistent with the objectives of the development plan and shall consist of a written statement and a plan or plans indicating the objectives in such detail as may be determined by the planning authorities for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area to which it applies, including details on community facilities and amenities and standards for the design of structures and so on.

That might be a more appropriate place to talk about it.

How could one then ensure that all planning authorities would——

That is a matter for members of the local planning authorities, who are the people who decide on these issues at the end of the day. They have obligations to meet under this Bill and it is a matter for the local authority and the members to adopt this.

The Minister mentioned an atlas of national landscape yesterday. Can he expand on that?

There has been a call for some years for guidelines regarding landscape, as we provide guidelines for matters such as telecommunications masts and housing density. Work had been held up by those issues but it has now continued and we are now almost ready with the landscape guidelines, which are designed to heighten the awareness of local authority members, officials and planners regarding landscape in all aspects of planning, urban and rural. There will be consultation on the guidelines for a period before finalising them. By following the guidelines it is intended that planning authorities will be able to achieve a consistent approach to landscape assessment. As a result, a national atlas will be produced which will map the character and values of the landscape and will further enhance consistency across local authorities.

That is similar to the UK system. The Minister mentioned that improvement of the environment could lead to a legal wrangle. The Minister could also go down the conservation and protection route, which is very subjective. If one has an EPA report pointing out that the environment - water, air or litter - in a local authority's area is deteriorating, there could be factual information the authority could address in its development plan.

That is covered by the term "protection".

I accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 88a:

In page 29, subsection (2)(c), line 46, to delete “archaeological and natural heritage” and substitute “national heritage within the meaning of the Heritage Act, 1995”.

It has been suggested to me that a better way to express the concepts of architectural and natural heritage for the purpose of being protected by development plans would be to define them as national heritage within the meaning of the Heritage Act, 1995. From memory I think this amendment was recommended by Dúchas.

We had this amendment in a slightly different form in the Seanad debate - an amendment to include "within the meaning of the Heritage Act, 1995" after the term "natural heritage". The problem is that the Heritage Act does not define national heritage as such. It states that it is a function of the Heritage Council to propose policies for the protection of the national heritage, including monuments, archaeological objects, heritage objects, architectural heritage, flora, fauna, wildlife, habitats, landscapes, seascapes, wrecks, geology, heritage gardens, parks and inland waterways. Where these particular matters are relevant to planning they are included in the Bill. If one looks at paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of section 10 as well as the First Schedule, adding another definition which is specifically related to the functions of the Heritage Council is pointless and would be in danger of causing confusion. This is particularly the case when many of the matters referred to in the heritage Act are already mentioned explicitly in this section without the need to refer to separate legislation. The intent of the amendment is well met within the Bill as it stands.

I accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 89:

In page 29, subsection (2)(c), line 46, after “archaeological” to insert “, architectural”.

This amendment seeks to close off a possible loophole in the matters that should be considered by the development plan. The section states in paragraph (e) that protection of structures which are of special architectural interest are to be included in the development plan and the preservation and character of architectural conservation areas are to be encapsulated in the development plan. However, there is architectural heritage which may not be included in listed structures or in architectural conservation areas and it is desirable that the development plan should include a provision which would protect architectural heritage in a general sense; the architecture concerned might not be of special merit. It might not have reached the standard required to make it a protected structure or an architectural conservation area, but there may be an integrity and value in the architectural heritage and character of an area.

To some extent this is considered when individual planning applications are processed; one of the considerations taken into account is whether a particular development generally conforms to the architectural character of an area. If one takes the building of a house, it is generally required that it conform to the style and architectural integrity of the area in which it is located. It is not unreasonable for the development plan to be required to have the objective of protecting and conserving architectural character and heritage in a general sense, including areas and types of architecture which are not necessarily of sufficiently special standing to warrant becoming either protected structures or architectural conservation areas.

I agree with Deputy Gilmore and I advance the same reasons for the amendment. I ask the Minister to consider this amendment as lining up this subsection with the rest of the section to make this explicit. It may be accidental, but substantial sections of Dublin are becoming of architectural interest in their own way, though 20 or 30 years ago they would not have been regarded as such. I refer to what were called artisan dwellings which, over the years, have become yuppified. These are areas with an unusual and sometimes striking unity of architectural harmony and presentation. That might not have been appreciated 20 or 30 years ago, but now there is substantial value in the streetscapes we have as a result. It is not fanciful to say that other areas of the city will be regarded in a similar light in future. For example, there are substantial areas of Harold's Cross and the Larkfield Road area of Terenure that are now being seen in the same way and the same will apply to areas such as Crumlin and Cabra in future. They will come to be valued in their own way as streetscapes of a particular kind, that have particular associations and that are worth keeping. It would be a proper concern of a development plan to maintain them.

I would be the last person to say we should, in a heavy handed way, prevent people who have bought houses from improving them as they see fit, but it would be reasonable to attempt to maintain the unity of the streetscape that is there and which has matured over the years. This will help to achieve that. The same applies in substantial parts of Cork, Limerick and Galway. These matters are worth taking into consideration in development plans and the amendment would make that explicit.

I do not disagree with the Deputies' principles, but the amendment seeks to impose a requirement on planning authorities to include objectives for the conservation and protection of the architectural heritage in the development plan. As Deputy Gilmore rightly points out, those obligations are already set out in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section which give specific and comprehensive objectives for protecting structures and areas of special architectural interest and they go a long way to addressing the Deputies’ points.

In addition, I refer Deputies to the fact that we are giving powers to protect streetscapes in the Bill as well as special areas of conservation. There will also be an amendment dealing with intervention by local authorities in special control areas particularly, though not solely, in urban areas. All those measures combine to deal with the Deputies' concerns.

There is also amendment No. 393a , dealing with Part IV, which relates to architectural conservation areas and areas of special planning control. All in all, while I accept Deputy Gilmore’s point that we are dealing with the protection of structures or parts of structures which are of special architectural, historical, artistic, archaeological, cultural, technical or scientific interest, my fear in accepting the amendments is that we may enter a different area. The Deputies might consider that point and that there may not be sufficient protection with a view to putting down aReport Stage amendment. I am satisfied that when we debate the other sections the fears expressed by Deputies will be well addressed.

The more I listen to the Minister the more I feel like asking him why not do this? He has given all the reasons he feels this is being done somewhere else.

The short answer is that we keep including matters in different sections in the Bill and we try to make the law as simple as possible. Do we include provisions in one part of the Bill or do we include them in different parts of the Bill to cause total confusion?

That is fine and I detect a certain amount of irritation. The Minister might as well make the same point about the environment. Subsection (c) refers to the conservation and protection of the environment. The environment is everything around us, so the Minister might as well say that once one has spoken of conservation and protection of the environment one has spoken of everything and that there is no need to specify anything else. That is patent nonsense and would be absurd.

I take the Minister's points about amendment No. 393a but that deals with architectural conservation areas and areas of special planning control. I am talking about something much more mundane, which is the reason behind this amendment. I know the Minister is not a member of a planning authority any more than I am and that he cannot give a definitive opinion as to what they would do. However, does the Minister think that with the Bill as he proposes it, Dublin Corporation might be moved to identify Victoria Street and other streets in that area south of the South Circular Road as an architectural conservation area? I do not think so. Would Dublin Corporation feel moved to define all those streets off the Oxmantown Road on the north side as an architectural conservation area? I do not think it would, although I would be delighted if it did so. That would be rather heavy-handed treatment of those areas but there are streetscapes that have a particular interest and, in some ways, a particular charm.

I confess I am familiar with them because I use some of those streets to rat-run along the South Circular Road trying to get through the traffic in the morning. They are areas that have a particular character of their own and it would be unwise of us to pass this Bill without at least making the point to the planning authorities that streetscapes like that have a value and need to be taken into account in development plans. Including the word "architectural" would make that clear to them.

I would like to make another point from the perspective of the way this will play out in local authorities when development plans are made. As it stands, it looks as though architecture is something that is considered either in the context of architectural conservation areas or in the context of listing structures. I appreciate we have not reached the new amendments the Minister has tabled, but amendment No. 393a and the section it seeks to amend seem to fall into the general terrain of conservation areas and protection in that sense. There is such a thing as an architectural environment which does not necessarily come up to that standard. There is a good reason for including this in the Bill.

If one were to follow the examples Deputy Dukes has given and if there is no way of doing it in the development plan or if it is not encouraged to be done in the development plan, the tendency will be for local authorities to seek to make architectural conservation areas or to list structures which perhaps are not necessarily warranted. The inclusion of an architectural environment requirement in the development plan would be a much more common-sense way to deal with architectural environment in the wide sense without having to include it in the framework of architectural conservation areas.

Nobody would argue with the Oxmantown Road example given by Deputy Dukes but one could also argue in relation to some of the more recent developments. The 1970s and 1980s architecture would not qualify for architectural conservation areas but in the same way that 1930s architecture is now of interest and is seen of value, in the course of time the more recent architecture will also come to be seen to be of value. I read recently that Liberty Hall is considered to be a building of considerable architectural value, although that never occurred to me while I was working in it. The way in which buildings are perceived, their value and the architectural appreciation of them, changes over time and the local authorities should be given a certain space within their development plan to be able to deal with this in a common-sense way rather than having to slot it into an architectural conservation area or to list buildings which perhaps do not merit being listed but which merit some degree of protection.

We are going round in circles somewhat but I hope, when the Bill is passed, that Dublin Corporation would consider the examples Deputy Dukes gave as good examples of special control areas or special areas of conservation.

Good examples of density.

They are probably good examples of density. The Bill will allow them to do that under a power that they do not have currently and, therefore, could not use prior to this. The various areas the Deputy raised could conceivably qualify and could be included if the members of the corporation so decide. Part II of the Bill refers to the control of areas and structures where they can regulate, control, design and colour materials of structures and groups of structures including streets and townscapes and structures and groups of structures in rural areas.

The Bill, when enacted, even without inserting the word "architectural", as suggested by the Deputies, allows the local authorities wide latitude at their discretion to extend particular protections, restrictions or controls in particular areas. Obviously, when the architectural conservation areas are identified, stricter planning controls will apply and it will be necessary to define and identify those areas to which the controls relate. If the planning authorities identify areas of architectural interest, whether they are 1970s, 1980s or 1990s buildings, or even those from the 1920s, they will be able to include those in their architectural conservation areas. The Bill, including the amendment that has yet to be inserted - assuming that will be done - more than adequately meets the points made by the Deputies. Their concerns in relation to architectural heritage are also addressed in several sections of the Bill and I am not inclined to include it in any other areas.

We will see how this plays out in the later sections and test the Minister's assertions. We will come back to it on Report Stage but I will withdraw the amendment for the moment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

We come now to amendment No. 89a. Amendment No. 90 is related and they may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 89a:

In page 29, subsection (2)(c), line 47, after “sites” to insert “, Natural Heritage Areas”.

In fairness, we will be repeating the argument made in relation to amendment No. 88a, and, therefore, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 90 not moved.

I move amendment No. 90a:

In page 29, subsection (2), between lines 49 and 50, to insert the following:

"(d) the preparation of local biodiversity plans,”.

This is an important amendment because our understanding of the environment has come a long way since the 1963 Act was passed. By and large, what we are including in section 10 is an updated repeat of the 1963 Act in relation to the matters that should be included in development plans. The proposal I am making is that we should include in that list the preparation of local biodiversity plans which would give to the preparation of the development plan an ecological dimension that they do not have currently.

Local authority development plans focus on physical planning. I do not know if the word "ecological" is mentioned in the Bill, but I do not think it is. If it is not, it is an extraordinary omission. It would be highly remiss of the Oireachtas to pass a planning and development Bill in 2000 that does not specifically include ecology in the planning process and in development plans. One way to do that would be to require local authorities, as part of the development plan process, to prepare biodiversity plans for their areas. The omission of the ecological dimension from the Bill should be remedied.

This amendment would make it obligatory for the development plan to contain an objective for the preparation of local biodiversity plans. It is not sensible to include in a development plan a requirement to prepare other plans, especially plans not wholly related to land use in terms of planning. Ireland's biodiversity strategy is being prepared by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in consultation with other Departments and interested bodies. That strategy will inform the necessary public bodies as to how biodiversity can best be preserved and enhanced.

Where it is necessary to promote biodiversity through the planning system, which is the aim of Deputy Gilmore's amendment, the Bill provides for it in so far as it is relevant to the planning system. We must remember we are debating a planning Bill. Section 10 provides an objective for the conservation and protection of the environment. More particularly, paragraph 5 of Part IV of the First Schedule allows planning authorities to include objectives in their development plans for preserving and protecting flora, fauna and ecological diversity. The point that was well made by the Deputy is met in the Bill, as it facilitates policies to protect local biodiversity. For that reason I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.

While I acknowledge it is included in the First Schedule, the difference between the First Schedule and section 10 is that the First Schedule sets out what local authorities are free to include in their development plans but section 10 states what they must include in them. I would prefer if the issue of biodiversity and ecological considerations were elevated into the first division for consideration in development plans. The Minister might reflect on that before Report Stage. I do not propose to prolong the debate on the matter at this point, but it is one to which I intend to return on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 91 to 93, inclusive, not moved.

Amendment Nos. 98, 100, and 166 are related to amendment No. 94 and they may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 94:

In page 30, subsection (2)(i), line 14 after “amenities” to insert “including public rights of way”.

The purpose of the amendment is to specify that in drawing up development plans local authorities can have regard to preservation, improvement and extension of amenities, including public rights of way. There are references to the public rights of way elsewhere in the Bill. The specific inclusion of public rights of way in this section would clarify the position.

There are references in the Bill to what local planning authorities need to do if they want to establish a new right of way and that is perfectly legitimate. There will be a more difficult discussion on this matter when we come to deal with whatever section is relevant to whether we should have a register of rights of way. It is an issue that is worth dealing with. To set the scene for that, we should include a reference to public rights of way in the areas that have to be included as part of the objectives of the development plan.

This is an important issue. I tabled a number of amendments relating to this matter with a similar objective to that of Deputy Dukes's amendment, to require development plans to include the listing and the protection of rights of way. The issue of rights of way is becoming increasingly central and it will have to be dealt with. There is increasing evidence in urban and suburban areas and areas close to urban development that walks and areas where people were free to walk in the past are being closed off to public use. Sometimes that happens quite surreptitiously. A pathway may become overgrown and then a gate is erected. In other cases a pathway may be part of a planning application and gradually traditional rights of way are being eroded. Some people will argue that there is a procedure for the extinguishment of rights of way and so on, but in many cases rights of way are de facto being extinguished by default. Gateways and various other blockages are erected on rights of way to prevent people using them.

The question of where rights of way fit into development plans is ambiguous at present. Some local authorities do not include rights of way in their development plans or they regard their inclusion as an appendix. I know of cases where development plans are weighed and the listing of rights of way becomes an issue for another day and partial plans are made. This issue needs to be clarified and made more explicit. Rights of way should be listed in development plans and they should set out objectives for their protection and preservation.

Acceptance of amendment No. 94 would require a planning authority to include as a mandatory objective in its development plan the preservation, improvement and extension of rights of way as amenities. Amendments Nos. 98 and 101 would require the planning authorities, as a mandatory objective, to preserve and protect the rights of way in the development plan or to include a list of rights of way in the development plan.

Deputies are aware that local authorities have the power to preserve public rights of way for the good of the general public. Section 14 sets out new and simplified procedures to allow the planning authorities to include specific rights of way in their development plans. That is an advance on the current position. In future, once a public right of way is included in a development plan it will not be necessary to continue to notify owners and to go through the procedures that already exist under the 1963 Act. We are giving explicit recognition to this matter and putting new and simplified procedures in place.

The problem with the amendments is that there is a danger they would require planning authorities to protect and maintain all rights of way, public or private, within their areas. Even if the provision were restricted to public rights of way, which is what the Deputies have in mind——

That is what is stated in amendment No. 94.

There are other amendments. Amendment No. 100 refers only to rights of way. Even if it were restricted to public rights of way, it would be too onerous on planning authorities both in preparing their development plans and in implementing them. It is often difficult to know if a public right of way actually exists. It must be legally proven in many cases. For that reason, section 14, uniquely among the sections referring to the development plan, includes a right to appeal to the Circuit Court when a person objects to a right of way being included in the plan. Where a dispute arises as to whether a right of way exists it can only be resolved by the courts, not by simply including it in a development plan.

It is not practical or legally sound to require all rights of way to be listed in the development plan. The Bill contains a more practical way to ensure that the rights of landowners can be protected when rights of way are included in the plan. For that reason, I ask the Deputies to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment No. 166 is an alternative amendment proposed by Deputy Dukes. It seeks to provide that once the Bill comes into force, the local authority must open a register of public rights of way and that any person can insert a public right of way on the register. A year before the development plan is ready, the local authority would be required to publicise the register and it will be up to the owner or occupier of the land to challenge the inclusion of the right of way on the register.

At first glance, the amendment appears attractive and to have merit. However, there are drawbacks. In the first place, there does not appear to be any standard of proof required of the nominator of a public right of way. Anybody would be able to claim that there is a right of way and that it should be included in the register. The Deputy could find himself with an alleged right of way going through his house and he would have to go to the difficulty and expense of going to court to prove it is not a right of way.

What is contained in the Bill might not be perfect but the system it proposes is probably the most appropriate. A planning authority, before deciding to include a public right of way in a development plan, will prudently establish the prima facie existence of the right of way before it includes it in the plan. Once it is in the plan, the right of way is protected.

Section 73 of the Roads Act, 1993, puts an obligation on local authorities to protect the right of the public to use a public right of way. It is also an offence under that Act to interfere with a public right of way. Section 14 of this Bill is as far as we can go in relation to public rights of way. I ask the Deputies to withdraw their amendments.

I am not disposed to withdraw amendment No. 94. I will use the Minister's logic in my reply. I was careful in the amendment to use the phrase "public rights of way". The Minister has given a rather bureaucratic objection to the effect that if it is included, local authorities might find themselves obliged to maintain all public rights of way.

This is the same Minister who has included a subsection in the Bill which makes the preservation, improvement and extension of amenities a mandatory objective of the development plan. There is no qualification attached to the word "amenities". What are amenities? Swings, roundabouts, roads, community centres, community halls, telephone kiosks, viewing platforms, carparks, picnic areas - one could go on forever. Having used the word "amenities" without qualification, the Minister is worried that I might include a reference to public rights of way that might place onerous new burdens on local authorities. Yet he cheerfully requires them to have regard to the preservation, improvement and extension of amenities, without qualification. I am not criticising that provision in the Bill.

I live in the real world. It is not a world where, if one includes a reference to public rights of way, people will spring up all over the country like dragon's teeth pretending to find new public rights of way. The Minister, who uses the word "amenities" without qualification, is worried about public rights of way and how many of them might be visited on uncomprehending, innocent local authorities. Is he serious?

The Bill has specific provisions about public rights of way and I applaud that. I am delighted with section 14. I am also delighted that we propose to put this obligation on local authorities. The Minister is providing a procedure under which, if it is claimed there is a public right of way, the local authority must check it out before including it in the development plan. Property owners are given the right to have their say as to whether there is a right of way across their property. That is fine. The procedure involves the Circuit Court because, as the Minister correctly says, it can be difficult to establish whether there is a right of way. As we might be impinging on people's property rights it is proper under the Constitution that people should have the right to appeal.

I am not one of those who claims there should be a public right of way to anywhere in the country without regard for the effect one has on the surrounding countryside or cityscape. However, the Minister has specifically provided for, and I support it, a means of establishing public rights of way in development plans. He is right to do so. From the beginning the development plan shall include public rights of way among the undefined amenities the Minister proposes to include in the Bill.

The Minister has chosen to criticise my amendment No. 166 on the basis, apparently, that I have provided that any person may communicate the location, extent and characteristics of one or more public rights of way to the planning authority. I remind the Minister that amendment is to section 14 which provides, at the Minister's initiative, for a way to check with the courts whether or not a public right of way exists. The "any person" to whom I refer in the amendment would be subject to exactly the same procedure.

The simple and common-sense reason I inserted the term "any person" is that currently local authorities, by and large, do not know where public rights of way are. They will have to rely on concerned persons, members of the public, to tell them where it is believed a public right of way exists. That is why I have used the term "any person". I do not want to restrict that right to local authority inspectors, property owners - who might not have any interest in reminding others that there is a right of way in a particular place - the Garda Síochána or any of the other usual suspects who are called upon to tell local authorities what is in their area.

I have used the term "any person" to make it clear that ordinary citizens have a right to say "It is my belief that there is a public right of way across that field, around the end of that wall, or up to that waterfall at a certain place; it has been there since I was a boy wearing short trousers". If we do not have an input from citizens the local authorities will not know which public rights of way they should be protecting in their development plans.

I do not claim to be a parliamentary draftsmen or anything like it. Neither do I claim that the exact wording of amendment No. 166 will pass muster with the Attorney General. When the current Attorney General was an Opposition Deputy, however, his first reaction when some-thing came up that he did not like for whatever reason, was to claim that it was unconstitutional. Thank God it turned out that he was not right on most of those matters or we would not have any Constitution or law left. I gather he has moderated his views since then.

I am not claiming that this amendment will have the exact effect I would like it to have, but I will not have it criticised on the basis that it provides that any person can notify a public right of way. Where else are we to find out this information? I propose that gradually, over a period of years, we would arrive at a point where local authorities would have a good idea where the public rights of way are in their areas. I think it is in keeping with what the Minister proposes. How else are we to know this? If we did not have to consider any of my amendments and had only the Bill as the Minister has proposed, it is perfectly legitimate to believe that we would gradually develop, over a period of years, a series of public rights of way specifically provided for in development plans that could not subsequently be argued about. They would have gone through this Circuit Court procedure if there was any argument. If there was no argument they would simply appear in the development plan and they would be established as public rights of way.

I want to make sure that where public rights of way are established - whether there is a contest about them or not - they will be entered in a register once the matter is settled. In that way no one will have to have an argument ten years later about whether there is a public right of way around the end of Deputy Gilmore's wall. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible thing to do. I am not calling for a register to be set up immediately because that would be excessively onerous, to use the Minister's wording. I commend the amendments to the Minister. I ask him on reflection to recognise their reasonableness, about which I am becoming impatient.

We will have to decide this issue because it is causing difficulty daily in many local authorities. We are beginning to see more and more stories appearing in the media about disputes over rights of way. In my amendments I did not draw a distinction between public and private rights of way. One of the reasons I did not do so was that sometimes the distinction is not entirely clear.

For example, there is a public park in my constituency which has a railway line running through it. As is often the case in such areas, there was access from a field across the railway line, via a gate. When the land became a public park the county council and CIE agreed to fence the railway line. In the process of doing so for good public safety reasons, they closed off the traditional walkway crossing the line. An issue arose as to whether they should construct a bridge over the line.

To make a long story short, the response of the county council and of CIE for quite a considerable period was that this was not a public right of way, even though it was in a public park. Their justification was that the land was originally private and that, while there was a right of way, it was a private right of way, conveyed as such to the public authority even though the land was now a public park. That makes a nonsense of the whole distinction. The happy ending to the story is that they eventually conceded the point and built a bridge over the railway line and so the right of way continues. That example, however, highlights the ambiguity in the distinction between what are public or private rights of way.

The other ambiguous matter is whether or not a right of way exists. Some rights of way are crystal clear and everybody knows about them. There are many rights of way, however, whose existence is handed down by word of mouth as part of folklore. I am increasingly coming across such cases in my own constituency. It is usually the older people who remember that there is a right of way in a particular area and they will spot that something is happening which is closing it off to the public.

Up to now there has been a presumption that a right of way exists until it is proved otherwise. The procedure, for example, in the Roads Act for the closure of rights of way more or less follows that presumption. Section 14 will, in my opinion, abolish rights of way. The section effectively starts off with a clean sheet. It says that if a planning authority wants to include a right of way in its development plan it must serve notice on the owner. Basically, it stands on its head the existing presumption of the existence of rights of way. We will have legislation under which the local authority, in making its development plan, will have to prove the existence of a right of way.

I do not know if this was the intention of section 14 or whether this is happening unwittingly. However, the section gives a much strengthened right to the owner of land - over which there is a claim to a right of way - to object to the inclusion of the right of way in the development plan. Effectively, this puts the onus back on the local authority to prove there was a right of way in existence.

Like Deputy Dukes, I do not subscribe to the idea that everyone has the right to do as they please. There is a need to provide mechanisms in our law which protect landowners, on whose land rights of way exist, from claims for compensation, etc.

Section 14 tilts the balance much more solidly in favour of landowners. I wish to provide an example of what will happen in the future when an issue arises in terms of a right of way. Let us imagine that I, as a public representative, am approached by an elderly gentleman from Shankill, County Dublin, who informs me that someone is determined to close a right of way. If I raise the issue with the local authority, once the Bill is enacted the test will be whether that right of way has been listed under section 14. If it has not been listed, I believe the view will form in time that no right of way exists. The listing of a right of way under section 14 will be quite difficult to achieve because a number of the tests to be applied under the section will make it difficult to list rights of way.

Those rights of way which exist purely on the basis of word of mouth evidence - the validity of which is tested only when someone decides to close them off thereby extinguishing the right of way - will fall because they cannot continue to exist if they are not listed under section 14. In my opinion the section will abolish, at a single stroke, many rights of way which have traditionally existed. Unless provision is made to list rights of way in a simpler manner and to oblige local authorities to protect them in their development plans, the Bill will abolish many existing rights of way.

This discussion reminds me of the saying that for every complicated problem there is a simple solution, which is usually wrong. If Deputy Gilmore reads section 14(7)(a) and (b) he will see that the basis of his thesis is totally incorrect. The Deputy is starting from a false premise because the Bill will not affect existing rights of way, but it will allow people to register them. If we had not bothered to include provisions dealing with rights of way in the Bill, there would be no amendments or requests for changes.

The Minister is wrong about that.

I do not believe so because during the consultation process on the Bill only one group suggested that we should take action in respect of rights of way. Despite what the Deputies opposite think, we are trying to improve——

Section 14 is very good and I applaud its inclusion in the Bill.

I thank the Deputy. Section 14 represents a major step forward and contains reasonable provisions. As Members will acknowledge, we are discussing property rights.

Deputy Gilmore's perspective on this matter is wrong. Existing rights of way, etc., are protected and nothing in the section removes that protection. We are trying to put in place a reasonable system which will allow, from now on, rights of way to be included in development plans and ensure they are recognised and permanent.

Deputy Dukes stated a number of times that he is reasonable and I will not argue with him. However, I must inform him that we do not often deal with reasonable people, on either side, in respect of issues of this nature. I have in my possession an article from a recent Saturday edition of The Irish Times which clearly demonstrates that not all people are reasonable. The article in question refers to a gentleman who decided that he would include a walkway through someone’s private property where no right of way existed. It is behaviour of that sort with which we are trying to deal.

Deputy Dukes is concerned that people will have the right to contact a local authority and make a case for the consolidation of a public right of way. I assure him that there is nothing in the Bill which prevents that. We are merely stating that a local authority must have a reasonable or prima facie belief that a right of way exists. Once the existence of a right of way has been established, the authority can list it and people, if they disagree, will then have the opportunity to initiate court proceedings, etc.

I am not arguing——

I accept that. However, the Deputy's amendment suggests the opposite, namely, that people should be able to approach a local authority and request that a right of way be included in a development plan. In such cases, rights of way will be listed in the register before the plan is completed and the person affected will then be obliged to go to the expense of proving in court that a path around the edge of his house which someone claims is a public right of way is not in fact a right of way. That is not fair. In my opinion the onus should be placed on local authorities to establish whether rights of way exist.

The section may not be perfect but it represents a reasonable way of trying to protect public rights of way. I ask the Deputies to accept the section, as drafted, and to withdraw their amendments.

With regard to amendment No. 166, from where will the impetus to list a right of way come to a planning authority? Will the Holy Spirit descend on the manager or is it much more likely to be the case that elected members of the authority will be approached by members of the public to have public rights of way listed in development plans? Is that not the way it will happen?

Absolutely.

Is that not the exact procedure I provided in amendment No. 166?

No. The Deputy is assuming that the Holy Spirit or someone else will inform the manager that a public right of way exists in a particular area, that it should be listed and that the person affected should then have to contest the matter in the Circuit Court.

That is going to happen in any event.

If that is the case, it will not happen on the whim of the manager or a local authority member.

Managers do not have whims; members of the public do.

As the section stands, members of the public can approach a local authority and state that they are aware of the existence of a public right of way. The authority will then investigate the matter and if it is satisfied that there is some substance to the claim, it will list the right of way. I do not believe our positions are 100 miles apart but——

But the horse we are flogging is dead. I believe it is time to put the question in respect of amendment No. 94.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I suspect we will have the same discussion about the next amendment.

I move amendment No. 95:

In page 30, subsection (2)(i), line 14, after “amenities” to insert “and recreational amenities”.

Even though recreational is understood in amenities, but if the Deputy feels this will add anything——

It is important in terms of playing pitches.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 96 has already been discussed with amendment No. 12.

I move amendment No. 96:

In page 30, subsection (2), between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"(j) the control, having regard to the provisions of the Major Accidents Directive and any regulations, under any enactment, giving effect to that Directive, of -

(i) siting of new establishments,

(ii) modification of existing establishments, and

(iii) development in the vicinity of such establishments,

for the purposes of reducing the risk, or limiting the consequences, of a major accident;".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 97:

In page 30, subsection (2)(j), line 17, after “facilities” to insert “and residential facilities for the elderly”.

Facilities for the elderly are very important. This section has addressed the issue of crèches and it is becoming very important to address this as a planning matter. However, I have noticed the difficulty people have in my area in accessing residential facilities, particularly the elderly, and those facilities should be nearer people. Those who can walk can to the church or shop do so, yet there are many objections to this because of increased traffic. As a result, I have found that many of these facilities end up in the middle of nowhere, miles from a bus route or other facilities, and that is wrong. The provision of facilities for the elderly will become more and more of an issue and it is important to include it as an objective in the development plan.

My only reservation about this is putting it into all development plans and the onus the amendment puts on smaller urban district councils. The amendment has the merit of being explicit and anything we can do to assist the elderly with facilities or housing them near facilities would be desirable. If the Deputy withdraws this amendment I will move an amendment on Report Stage to the First Schedule of objectives which will explicitly recognise the needs of the elderly. We will try to come up with some wording along the lines of this amendment to address the Deputy's concerns.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 98 has already been discussed with amendment No. 94.

I move amendment No. 98:

In page 30, subsection (2), between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

"(l) a list of public rights of way.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 99, 200, 240, 406 and 428 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 99:

In page 30, subsection (2), between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

"(l) in the case of development plans which relate to the Gaeltacht the objectives to be included shall include the conservation and promotion of the Gaeltacht as an area where Irish is the primary community language.”.

We had a lengthy debate on the Irish language earlier and I do not want to repeat that. The same principles apply here, the only difference is that we are seeking to have included in the objectives of the development plan the conservation and promotion of the Gaeltacht as an area where Irish is the primary community language. The arguments for this have been made previously and I will not detain the committee with a repeat of the debate we had on the Irish language.

I do not want to detain the committee either. We have had this discussion.

As Deputies have said, we had a long discussion on the protection of Irish language and culture in the gaeltachtaí. We had an equally long debate in the Seanad and the amendments included then strengthened the protection of the Gaeltacht in the development plan. The objective in section 10 deals with the points raised in the amendments to section 34 as well because the planning authority must make its decision on any planning application with regard to the provisions of the development plan. The provisions of the development plan meet the principle outlined by Deputy Gilmore. Deputy Dukes's amendment to make the promotion of the Irish language an objective of the regional planning guidelines is met by the existing provision in subsection (4)(b) which relates to the need to protect the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht. That achieves the objective outlined by the Deputy. There are also amendments to Part V, though they are not necessarily housing strategies to be incorporated into the development plan. They will be subject to the objectives also.

I feel these measures meet the principles behind the Deputies' amendments.

The amended version of the Bill, which includes paragraph (k), goes a long way to meeting what we seek. There is a slight difference of emphasis in my amendment. It seeks to protect the Gaeltacht areas as areas whereas the amendment’s objective is to protect the linguistic and cultural heritage. In the context of planning it is probably an important distinction to make and it is probably a more tangible objective for a planning authority to protect the geographical definition of the Gaeltacht. I do not propose to press this now, but we might return to it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Amendment No. 100 has been discussed already with amendment No. 94. How stands the amendment?

Amendment No. 94 was defeated.

Amendment No. 100 not moved.

Amendment No. 101 is in the name of Deputy Dukes. Amendments Nos. 103, 104 and 627 are related. The amendments will be taken together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 101:

In page 30, subsection (2), between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

"(l) the provisions set out in the First Schedule.”.

I am tempted to set off on a single transferable rant on this amendment but I know what the Minister is going to say. I could write the script for him, so I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 102:

In page 30, subsection (2), between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

"(l) the provision or facilitation of the provision of collection centres for recyclable materials for every 500 head of population.”.

What we are seeking to do here is to induce the planning authorities to make provision for collection centres in housing development areas. Some time ago, Deputy Clune and I had a lengthy discussion with Rehab about its programme. We were told, and it is a matter of observation, that the most effective recycling scheme in operation so far is the one being operated by Rehab which has located these bring centres at various strategic points. In its presentation to us Rehab stated that it can provide a good quality service at a bearable cost, given the difficult economics of recycling, if it could provide one of these bring centres for every 500 of the population. That ratio gives Rehab the kind of coverage that is needed to increase the recycling rate for the materials it is currently taking.

I emphasise, as we all know, that it can take only a limited range of materials - glass, beverage cans and clothing; I may be leaving something out in that list. Rehab pointed out, curiously enough, that one of the difficulties in relation to the recycling of glass is that increasing affluence and an increasing tendency to drink wine here has pushed up the proportion of green glass, and green glass is very difficult to recycle because it can be used only for making more green glass. Apparently moves are afoot with wine producers in the European Union to try to get them to put red wine in white or brown glass which is more easily recyclable. Such are the wonderful things that one learns when one delves into this whole area.

We would envisage, for example, that every planning permission for a large estate or for a group of large estates would be required to have a certain number of properly landscaped and protected bring sites. I would not foresee any great difficulty in doing that in a new housing development but there is a problem if there are several applications for 50 houses rather than one application for 200 houses. However, that is something planning authorities could easily overcome. It would also require them to examine the installation of such sites in existing housing estates.

There is good co-operation from some of the supermarket chains on this. The main requirement in the operation of bring sites is that the receptacles are sufficiently large and that they are emptied regularly to prevent the sites becoming a nuisance. The amendment seeks to induce local authorities to make specific provision for the location of such sites when they grant planning permissions and that such planning permissions should include the necessary conditions.

While I do not disagree with Deputies Dukes and Clune on this matter, I have a difficulty making the provision of such facilities a mandatory objective in this legislation. I support the principle behind the amendment, that we should try to provide adequate recycling facilities. While that is a laudable objective, we have what we thought up to a few days ago was a very comprehensive Waste Management Act, which provides comprehensive provisions on the collection and recycling of waste and requires local authorities to draw up waste management plans to fulfil the requirements of that Act.

If I accepted this amendment, there would be the danger of covering all areas in the Bill, including areas covered by existing codes of legislation, one of which deals with the point at issue. We had a similar debate on including a provision to protect national monuments in the Bill. Most members will be aware that comprehensive regional waste management plans are being drawn up at present under the general policy guidance given in "Changing our Ways" last October. With regard to waste management policies, the point the Deputy made is well served by each of the plans. Most of the plans I read and of those of which I am aware typically provide for an integrated waste management package and waste management infrastructure, including the segregation at source and separate collection of recyclable and organic materials.

I am talking about what would be described in Dublin as a kerbside collection in areas with a population of more than 5,000. In addition, there are extended networks of "bring facilities" for recyclable materials in rural areas. The target in Deputy Clune's amendment is that a bring centre should be provided for a population of 500 while another target is that such a centre should be provided for a population of 1,000. Civic amenity sites, waste transfer stations, biological treatment of green and organic household waste, materials recovery facilities, recycling capacity for C & D waste, thermal treatment facilities and landfill requirements are contained in the waste management plans under the Waste Management Act. To avoid the same areas being covered in legislation, it would be best if these facilities were dealt with in the waste management legislation rather than in this Bill.

I may have referred to Repak when I spoke on my amendment; I intended to refer to Rehab.

The Deputy referred to Rehab.

I am glad I have not caused confusion. I accept what the Minister said. As I did not press amendment No. 101, will the Minister consider including a general objective of the type proposed in the First Schedule? It should be pointed out to local authorities that they should specifically consider these facilities in their development plans. Perhaps such a objective could be included in the First Schedule on Report Stage.

I will examine the Waste Management Act and the First Schedule of this Bill to ascertain if we can accommodate that. It would be no harm to include a general policy objective on this matter as opposed to the specifics of it in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 102a, 103 and 104 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 199 and 512 are related to amendment No. 105 and they may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 105:

In page 30, lines 27 to 32, to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:

"(5) A full Strategic Environmental Assessment shall accompany the preparation of the development plan, and the plan shall contain the results of such an assessment.".

If accepted, this amendment would require local authorities to carry out a full strategic environmental assessment to accompany the preparation of a development plan and the plan should contain the results of such an assessment. When local authorities prepare development plans at present papers are prepared in advance dealing with a range of issues that affect the area that will be covered by the development plan, and provision is made for that in this legislation. Those issues would include demographic trends, the economic situation, requirements for housing, industrial development and so on. A strategic environmental assessment would form part of that process and the results would become part of the plan. My amendment proposes an extension of a practice that is in place in relation to the preparation of development plans. It includes a specific environmental dimension in respect of that practice and, if accepted, would require local authorities to comply with it.

I do not disagree with what the Deputy said but the directive on SEAs has not been finalised. We have anticipated to an extent in the legislation the requirement to carry out an SEA. The subsection with which we are dealing is sufficiently flexible that when SEAs are required by law, they will apply under this legislation. As in the case of the NHAs, given that SEAs are not specifically provided for yet in law, they cannot be specifically mentioned in this legislation. I assure the Deputy that the requirement that will apply in respect of an SEA will be met under section 10(5). Once the directive on SEAs is implemented the requirement to carry out an SEA will apply in law. Section 10(5) will provide for that. On that basis, we cannot include a specific provision requiring an SEA until the directive on SEAs is implemented, but this section will provide for that requirement when the directive is in place.

Such a provision could be included in legislation with a proviso that it would not come into force until the directive is passed. It would be better to include such a provision than leave the matter open to interpretation. Given that strategic environmental assessments will be part of the planning terrain, it would be simpler to include such a provision with a proviso that it would not commence it until the directive is in place.

Section 10(5) states:

(a) A development plan shall contain information on the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan.

(b) The Minister may by regulations make further provisions in relation to the manner in which paragraph (a) may be complied with.

This is what the Deputy is seeking without using SEAs. They are not in force at present and there has not been a directive. If we call this an SEA, it would be meaningless in law because it does not exist at present. As soon as the SEA directive exists it will be covered by section 10(5)(a).

Will the Minister introduce regulations under that provision?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 not moved.

I move amendment No. 108:

In page 30, subsection (8), line 41, after "any" to insert "variation thereof or in any".

This seeks to tighten subsection (8), a provision I welcome, which states: "There shall be no presumption in law that any land zoned in a particular development plan shall remain so zoned in any subsequent development plan". I seek to tighten the provision against a loophole emerging. In between devising development plans there might be variations in the plan. The amendment provides that the lack of presumption would apply not only to the subsequent development plans but also to any variation that might be made in a development plan.

Needs might arise whereby the zoning of land in the development plan might have to be changed in a variation. That would not be covered by the presumption that the land would remain zoned in that way. It would tie it solely to the zoning which would occur in the making of the subsequent development plan. If a variation is made to a development plan in the lifetime of that plan and the zoning changes, what is the presumption that applies to the variation? Is it the presumption that the zoning that applied in the original development plan has to apply until the expiry of that plan and a subsequent plan is made or is the variation considered to be a new development plan for the purposes of this subsection? The amendment is proposed to avoid doubt arising in that area and to prevent a loophole emerging.

This is highly complicated - I am not sure I understand it myself. Section 10(8) makes it clear that there will not be a presumption in law that any land zoned will remain so zoned in subsequent development plans. It means, in effect, that zonings have a six year life span when this Bill is passed.

I am aware of what the Deputy is trying to achieve but he could defeat his purpose. The amendment seeks to extend the presumption to any variation or material contravention of the development plan. That seems sensible at first glance but I am not sure it is well founded. If land is rezoned midway through the life span of a development plan, it could have compensation consequences because landowners would have an expectation that their land would be zoned for a six year period.

In the past, the zoning of land has continued from one development plan to another. It would have, in the phrase used by Deputy Dukes, a life in perpetuity. Little down-zoning has taken place, for example, from industrial to agricultural and so forth. Section 10(8) provides that there be no presumption that land zoned in a development plan will be so zoned in the following plan. The idea behind this provision, which the Deputy supported on Second Stage, is to discourage the hoarding and non-development of zoned land. We are trying to balance this with the general principle that people should be entitled to expect that a particular zoning will last for the period of the plan. That would give the necessary certainty to plan the development of the land.

The effect of the amendment would be to introduce uncertainty into the planning process. A person could secure a material contravention when, for example, the development plan has two years to run and find that when the plan is reviewed or revised, the land is zoned differently or the zoning is removed. In the meantime, the person might have put in a planning application under the material contravention and gone to much expense in developing a site and putting plans together for it. That is where compensation would arise.

A question arises in this regard. If there is a material contravention in the fourth year of a development plan - this is unlikely as the person would probably wait until the development plan is changed - does it terminate six years from that date or can a provision be put into the new development plan to allow it to continue to the end of that plan? I do not have the answer to that question.

I do not have material contraventions in mind. Material contraventions, in a way, look after themselves. A material contravention is initiated on a planning application, is driven by the applicant and either succeeds or does not succeed.

I am thinking about circumstances which I do not envisage arising often, particularly if development plans are produced at frequent intervals. It can happen, however, within the six years of a development plan that a council might need to vary the plan. Let us say a particular stretch of land is zoned residential and an opportunity arises for the inclusion of a different mix of development. It might be residential and industrial or commercial development but be different from the zoning in the plan and the local authority might believe it requires a variation of the development plan.

Let us say there is a presumption that the land is zoned residential. Do we then have a situation where that variation cannot proceed because the presumption of no change only applies to the turn of the development plan itself? In other words, are we opening up a window for compensation claims between a variation being done, let us say in year three, and the plan itself being renewed in year six, as is normally the case? That is what I am trying to find out. It does not concern the material contraventions. If an applicant seeking material contravention obtains that, they are getting what they are looking for, so no compensation arises. I do not see this matter arising very often because of the frequency of development plans. In my own local authority, for example, I know of such a case. Dublin County Council produced a development plan and the new Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council subsequently varied a number of things in that plan because it wanted a different mix of development than that which had been zoned by the previous Dublin County Council. That example may be untypical but it does arise from time to time.

The Deputy asked whether by doing this we are opening the door to possible compensation claims. The short answer is yes. There is no way around that if one starts interfering with property rights. I am being referred to page 213, the Fourth Schedule, which concerns reasons for the refusal of permission which exclude compensation. Paragraph 21(a) states that:

Subject to paragraph 22, paragraphs 19 and 20 shall not apply in a case where a development objective for the use specified in paragraph 20 applied to the land at any time during the period of a development plan and the development objective of which was changed as a result of a variation of the plan during such period prior to the date on which the relevant application for permission was made to develop the land, and the development would not have contravened materially that development objective.

Compensation can and probably does arise. In practice, this kind of case will probably prove to be more the exception than the rule for local authorities. They will not be doing these kinds of variations too often, unless there is some very good reason.

Another point may arise from what Deputy Gilmore has identified. If we take the case of land that is zoned for a particular purpose in a development plan and an applicant applies for planning permission before the end of the development plan but has not carried out the development by the time the plan has concluded, that applicant needs to be sure that the life of the planning permission continues unaltered, notwithstanding the fact that in the new development the zoning of the land might have been changed. In other words, if somebody gets permission for a commercial or industrial development on a piece of land that is zoned for such use, yet in the next development plan - before that development is carried out - the council has a change of mind and zones the area as residential, it seems to me that under the provisions of the law up to now, and given the way the Bill is written, that planning application would continue to be valid for the normal period of validity of an application. The person would be entitled to go ahead with that development even after the development plan has changed and even if the zoning of the land has been changed by the new development plan, unless the Minister provides for compensation.

In normal circumstances that would apply in the case the Deputy has mentioned. Once planning permission has been granted, it is safeguarded under the terms of the Bill.

We all appear to be a bit unsure of this area, to be honest. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment but I will re-enter it on Report Stage. There is some uncertainty as to what exactly applies, so we need to bring some certainty into this area. I agree with subsection (8) and it is time it was done. I compliment the Minister on inserting that in the legislation, but it would be a pity if we unwittingly opened a loophole.

We could avoid more occasions like this afternoon.

The Deputy's comments have clarified further what he has in mind. It is reasonable for him to re-enter this amendment which we will examine in the meantime.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11.

Amendments Nos. 109, 126, 148 and 153 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 109:

In page 30, subsection (2), line 49, after "commissioners" to insert "and as far as possible all local and community groups".

Section 11(2) deals with notices to be given about the preparation of a draft development plan. Deputy Hayes's amendment seeks to include local and community groups among those to be notified. There is a deal of concern about this matter which we will come to later when we deal with the provisions changing the rights people have to make observations on planning applications and changing the conditions under which they may make their observations, specifically by applying a fee. Providing the widest possible range of opportunities for public consultation is along the lines of what is now being done under existing legislation in local authorities and I understand it is what the Minister proposes to do in the local government Bill. The amendment seeks to include, as far as possible, local and community groups in the range of people to be notified of the intention to prepare a development plan.

The amendments we are discussing would require the planning authority to give notice of preparation of the development plan as far as possible to all local and community groups. That is putting a huge onus on a local authority. That is why we have stipulated in various places that they will give public notice through newspapers and radio. In addition, the various groups we are talking about - some of whom may have no interest in planning and development issues or in development plans - are, by their nature, very fluid and change fairly often. Trying to put a stipulation in the section will place an obligation on local authorities to maintain some kind of register.

However, we might perhaps be able to meet what the Deputy intends. At the moment the county and city development boards are being put in place. They are representative of State and semi-State organisations, the social partners, and the community and voluntary sector. Community fora have been established to elect people to the county development boards and these are broadly representative of the general public. I suggest that after "town commissioners" the term "county or city development boards" should be inserted. That might meet the Deputy's needs and, if so, I will table a suitable amendment.

The Minister has given a very reasonable response. Will he also consider whether it might not be appropriate to include the organisations which participate in the work of SPCs? It appears that this is a ready made channel.

Yes, we can do that directly in the form of issuing guidelines rather than including provisions in primary legislation. What we are discussing here is including the term "city and county development boards" in the subsection. The local authorities will probably do as the Deputy requests but we will definitely issue guidelines.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

If the Deputy is agreeable, I propose the following oral amendment:

In page 30, subsection (2), line 49, after "commissioners" to include "county and city development boards".

While many groups might claim to represent communities, that is not necessarily the case because they might be representing a vested interest within a community. In preparing draft development plans, would it not be possible, as happens during election campaigns when information is sent to every individual throughout the country, to oblige county councils to notify everyone of what is happening? Not every individual reads their local newspaper. Would it not be possible to oblige county councils to provide notification to every individual on the register of electors? This would generate debate and educate individuals rather than our waiting for groups, which may not represent communities but which may be self-appointed, to do so.

I will consider the Deputy's proposal. However, there will be a need to balance it with the amount of work which might be placed on local authorities. We have become so conscious of litigation that someone might take court proceedings because they did not receive a specific notification. That is one of the dangers involved. However, I will consider the matter.

Increasing numbers of people seem to think that they should be spoon-fed information. There is an onus on people to keep up to date with what is happening in their locality. However, the Deputy's proposal would make the system more open and accountable and give people fewer excuses in terms of not being notified. I will consider it and see whether it would be a reasonable imposition on local authorities.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 109a not moved.

I move amendment No. 110:

In page 30, subsection (2), line 50, after "published" to insert "on the Internet and".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 111 is in the name of Deputy Hayes. Amendments Nos. 127, 146 and 154 are cognate and amendments Nos. 164, 207 and 212 are related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 111, 127, 146, 154, 164, 207 and 212 may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 111:

In page 31, subsection (2), line 1, to delete "one or more" and substitute "all".

This amendment again deals with the level of information available to the public. Section 11(2) states that the notice of the intention to draw up a development plan "shall be published in one or more newspapers". Why not publish it in all of them? I could qualify that by saying that the notice should be published on a daily or weekly basis but, because I can anticipate the Minister's reply, I will ask why it could not be done on a weekly basis.

The Minister does not want Kildare County Council, for example, to be obliged to publish a notice in the Irish Examiner, the Irish Independent and The Irish Times in addition to the Leinster Leader and The Kildare Nationalist. To take that example, there are two newspapers which circulate weekly in the functional area of Kildare County Council and I cannot see why the council should not, as a matter of course, publish notices in both. As the provision stands, it will have the option of publishing in one and not the other. Being wise, Kildare County Council never seeks trouble with the press so it always publishes notices in the two newspapers. There is another newspaper from an adjoining county which circulates in part of County Kildare but the council never feels obliged to advertise in that.

As far as I am aware, this has never been a cause of controversy. There are a number of free sheets available in County Kildare but I do not know whether the council advertises in them because I do not bother reading them. I have enough on my plate trying to keep up with the daily papers and the two local papers. Why should councils not be obliged to publish notices in all of them?

With deference to Deputy Clune, what will happen when Cork County Council decides to give notice of its intention to prepare a plan? The main paper in that county has decided that it has a national or, indeed, international vocation rather than its simply being, as used to be the case, The Cork Examiner. There are a number of local newspapers in circulation in County Cork and the county council would be deficient if it decided to only advertise in one, two or three of these or if it decided to advertise exclusively in Cork’s national newspaper, if that is not a contradiction in terms.

It is the national newspaper from Cork.

Yes. Why not oblige councils to advertise in all newspapers?

I accept the Deputy's point about local and weekly newspapers. Generally speaking, it is fair to say that official notices are published in one or other of the local newspapers or, in some cases, in other newspapers. However, if we put in place a requirement that these notices must be published in all newspapers circulating in an area councils will be obliged to advertise in every daily and weekly newspaper which circulates there. This could lead to someone taking legal proceedings to oppose a decision made by a local authority on the basis that it was not published in the Hong Kong Times which has a circulation of two in Naas, Newbridge, Navan or wherever else. For that reason, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 111, 127, 146 and 154. It is a good idea that local authorities, in light of their local knowledge and so on, should try to ensure that notices are placed in newspapers with the widest possible circulation in the area.

Amendment No. 207 would require the regional authority to publish notice of the making of the preparation of guidelines in at least three papers circulating in each of the planning authorities within the functional area of the regional authority. Again, it is a little onerous to impose a statutory condition and put needless expense, which is the other aspect of this, on the regional authority. I take it that amendment No. 212 is a type of alternative to that where Deputy Dukes is suggesting that after "in" we should insert "the functional area of each planning authority in". That is reasonable. It would require notice of the making of regional planning guidelines to be published in a newspaper circulating in each of the planning authorities to which the guidelines relate. I accept amendment No. 212 but, for the reasons stated, I cannot accept the other amendments.

I thank the Minister. He has seized the intention of amendment No. 212. I feel that at least one amendment was drafted with clarity. I must be getting better at it. I want to make a few points about amendment No. 111, and I will not insist on it. There is a difficulty in the Dublin area, and the Minister put his finger on it when he listed all the newspapers. There are large numbers of people in the Dublin area who have an interest in planning issues and can get quite exercised about them, but who do not read any of the Irish papers. I remember being attacked - I am sure the Minister has had the experience - at a political function one night a good many years ago for not having spoken about a particular issue. The Minister knows how these things happen. I was very vexed because I had been interviewed on the 9 o'clock news on RTE the previous night, I had done another interview for "Morning Ireland" and one for the lunchtime news, and I was also quoted in the newspapers. The person who attacked me responded that he did not have time to be reading the newspapers or watching RTE. Public authorities, members of local authorities and Members of the Oireachtas in the Dublin area have a huge difficulty in communicating with a large part of the population who do not relate to the national media or to the national papers.

In a real sense, there are no local papers in Dublin. There are some free sheets and there is the odd one like the Drogheda Independent that serves part of north County Dublin, but there are huge numbers of people in the Dublin area who are not reached by notices published in the newspapers in that way, and that is a difficulty. The Minister is being fair when he says that amendment No. 212 is an alternative to No. 207. On the basis that the Minister has accepted No. 212, I take the liberty of withdrawing amendment No. 207. As for the cognate amendments, we will deal with them accordingly.

Deputy Dukes can withdraw amendment No. 207 later. Is he withdrawing amendment No. 111 at this stage?

In withdrawing the amendment, and knowing that I do not have a solution to offer the Minister, can I ask him to encourage the Dublin local authorities to consider ways in which they can communicate with people? If you will allow me latitude for a moment, Sir, when the local authorities hold public consultations on the various issues covered by the Bill, it would be worthwhile if all members of local authorities, and of these Houses, encouraged them to use some of the modern communications technology. They are trying to communicate information that is very complex and multi-layered and much of that communication can be readily simplified by using that kind of technology. People might even find it more attractive to go to consultations like that if they were more properly organised than they are now.

I accept the two points the Deputy made but the Dublin area - the Chairman will be familiar with this - is not the same as Meath, Kildare or other such places. Kildare is becoming more urbanised, as are parts of County Meath. The people have no "local" newspaper, although I presume the Evening Herald would like to regard itself as a local newspaper for Dublin. I take the point the Deputy is making, which is a valid one, and I will raise it with managers to see if there are ways, through community notices or organisations, at least to get the information out.

On the point the Deputy made about other means of communication, we have included in section 225 a stipulation that where any provisions of the Act require notice to be given in one or more newspapers circulating in the area of a planning authority, the planning authority may, in addition to the requirements of the particular provision and to the extent that it considers necessary, use other forms of media and so on to get their message across. I was struck recently by something a county manager said to me about a planning issue that had arisen in a local area. He said they had two telephone calls and 11 e-mails into the office about the particular problem, which highlights what Deputy Dukes said.

In terms of circulating in an area and trying to reach everybody, I am told that at one time the Department received a complaint from a gentleman in Foxrock about a planning advertisement which was placed in the Irish Independent. He complained that it was not placed in The Irish Times and that nobody read the Irish Independent. How do we cover that?

That is my constituency.

I apologise to the Minister for not being here to move the amendment. I know Deputy Dukes did so. When I worked in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, as my party's delegation secretary, with a group of civil servants, we agreed to invite submissions from the public. It was agreed to do that by way of notices in the national newspapers but, good civil servants as they were, they forgot to publish the notice in The Star and The Mirror. The reality is that there is an attitude among a certain managerial class in this country that the only national newspapers of relevance are the Irish Independent,The Irish Times and The Irish Examiner, but the vast majority of people in my constituency do not read those newspapers. I tabled amendment No. 111 in an attempt to clarify this matter. There are more than just one or two national newspapers. I am not in any of their pockets but the point has to be made nonetheless.

There is a general point here and it needs to be considered not just in relation to planning but perhaps in relation to other matters as well. The idea of public notices being put in newspapers comes from an era which predated the photocopier and a whole range of technologies which are now available for the notification of material. One can imagine way back, when the idea of posting notices in newspapers first arose, the difficulty that policy makers and administrators would have had in bringing matters to public attention. This is a different era. The nature of newspapers has changed. Newspapers are no longer about the communication of information. They are in the entertainment business. People read different newspapers to gain information on the entertainment they want. Newspapers have followed that logic in the coverage of policy making.

It would probably be cheaper for public authorities to issue a mailshot to people on the electoral register rather than to insert public notices in newspapers. Deputy Kelleher made that point and it is one we should seriously consider. It is a waste of time to insert public notices in newspapers because they are often not read. Those who read newspapers rarely look at the obscure page on which public notices appear. The insertion of public notices in newspapers is not achieving the purpose intended. A more effective way to achieve that objective is to cut out the middle man. If a notice has to be posted that the water supply in Foxrock will be turned off, that notice should not be inserted in the Irish Independent, The Irish Times or The Irish Examiner, but issued to the people concerned. That would be a more effective and cheaper way to notify them. The technology exists to do that quite easily.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 112 not moved.

Amendment No. 183 is related to amendment No. 113 and the two may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 113:

In page 31, subsection (3)(a), line 20 after “bodies” to insert “including anti-poverty bodies,”.

This amendment seeks to include specifically bodies concerned with poverty policy and to make specific provision for their consultation in keeping with that awful phrase that is now used, "poverty-proofing of public policy".

The amendment I tabled will cover anti-poverty bodies as they are part and parcel of city and county development boards.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 are alternatives to amendment No. 113a and they may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 113a:

In page 31, subsection (3), lines 21 to 27, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:

"(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), a planning authority shall hold public meetings, seek written submissions from interested bodies regarding all or any aspect of the proposed development plan and invite interested persons or bodies to make oral submissions to the planning authority regarding the plan.”.

The amendment proposes to remove the ambiguity and choice in terms of consultation and to make it a requirement. It proposes that the words "shall consider" be replaced by the words "shall hold", that the word "seeking" be replaced by the word "seek" and the word "inviting" by replaced by the word "invite". The general thrust of the amendment has been recognised by other members in that it is linked to amendments Nos. 114 and 115 and it represents a development of the thinking behind the other two amendments. It is critical to ensure a development plan is prepared with the widest possible consultation and that the need for such consultation is understood by the authors of the draft. There is a responsibility not only on the part of elected members to secure the widest sense of local opinion on a development plan but a planning authority has a responsibility to engage formally in public meeting consultation by seeking written submissions from interested bodies, which are well known in the area of each municipal and county authority or regional authority, and inviting interested persons or bodies to make oral submissions. This is best practice and should become the norm. We should encourage and insist that best practice is employed in the preparation of development plans in the future.

I will reserve further comment on this matter. Other members will have their own commentary to make. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 114 is in my name. On reflection, it is probably too prescriptive in its requirement that a planning authority should hold at least one public meeting in each of the local electoral areas which are applicable to its functional area. Draft development plans are very important. We are in a new era in local government in terms of the connections local authorities are trying to make with community groups and voluntary organisations in their areas under the new SPC system. It is a logical extension that there should be a prescription in law whereby a local authority would consult people in an area and give a clear commitment that will happen. While many local authorities do this, some do not. Where local authorities have been forced by their members or other interests to hold public meetings, that has helped the planning process. It is much easier to get public approval for a development on which there have been consultations than if there had not been any on it. This requirement should be included in the legislation. I look forward to hearing the Minister's view on this.

The provision on consultation in the Bill is meaningless. The only requirement provided is that the planning authority shall consider holding public meetings. That could mean a passing reference could be made to the holding of public meetings at a meeting and the planning authority may decide not to hold them. In practice, most planning authorities hold public meetings or some kind of public exhibition. A public meeting need not take the form of a traditional meeting in a parish hall where the populace gather to throw rotten eggs at the county manager and the chief planner. It can be in the form of an exhibition or a display where planning officials are available to engage in dialogue with the public. Such exchanges are useful. Most local authorities do that. It should be made clear that such consultation should be part of the process in the same way as written presentations are part of it. The local authority should engage in face to face dialogue with the public and give them an opportunity to participate in the planning process, which should actively involve public participation.

There are a few difficulties with the specific wording of Deputy Ó Caoláin's amendment, but I have no difficulty in accepting the principle behind it. What we are attempting to describe is what is happening in most local authorities at this stage. There is merit in the Deputy's proposal. The three amendments are reasonable attempts to secure greater ownership by the public of the planning process, which is one of the aims we set out to achieve. I propose using Deputy Ó Caoláin's amendment as the basis for clarifying the position.

I wish to move the following amendment to amendment No. 113a:

In page 31, subsection (3), lines 21 to 27, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:

"(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), a planning authority shall hold public meetings and seek written submissions regarding all or any aspect of the proposed development plan and may invite oral submissions to the planning authority regarding the plan.”.

This amendment obliges local authorities to hold public meetings on development plans. We have provided for seeking submissions, but we are talking about seeking written submissions on all or any aspects of the plan. The reason the provision states that they may invite the public is that it would be unreasonable to use the word "shall". Many submissions are well thought out and detailed but some of them, to be honest, can be less than good. There should not be an obligation on a local authority to invite people to make oral submissions when it knows they will not be productive and will be a waste of the local authority's time, particularly when the authority will be working under time constraints.

The amended amendment I am suggesting meets the principles the Deputies have outlined and I ask them to withdraw their amendments.

I thank the Minister for his response. There is a requirement to hold public meetings and, as Deputy Gilmore said, there is wider understanding of what that might entail. There is also a requirement to seek written submissions, which is to invite them. The opportunity to make submissions is open to those who wish to make them. Both of these are essential and I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the proposals. I understand and accept the logic of his amendment to the proposal in No. 113a in relation to the oral interaction. That may or may not be an opportunity that is afforded.

I am in favour of the Minister's amended amendment and thank him for it.

Amendment to amendment No. 113a agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 114 to 117, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 118:

In page 31, subsection (3)(c), line 32, after “policing” to insert “, fire,”.

This amendment seeks to insert a reference to fire services in subsection (3)(c). The services mentioned in the subsection are education, health, policing and other services. If education, health and policing are of sufficient importance to merit being mentioned here, the fire services should be treated in the same way.

This section deals with non-local authority functions. Fire services are the responsibility of local authorities. They provide the service.

Not in Dublin.

No, the fire service is run by Dublin Corporation.

Each of the local authorities pays Dublin Corporation to provide fire services.

It is the agency for the Dublin area. The amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 120, 135, 136, 142 and 157 are related to amendment No. 119 and all may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 119:

In page 31, subsection (4)(b), between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:

"(i) include the text of all submissions received,".

There are two groups of amendments coming before the committee. This is the first batch. The second batch comprises amendments Nos. 121 to 125. The issues they deal with are different but the principles are the same. The outcome of our discussion of both groups of amendments will be of considerable interest to members of local authorities who are gathering for their annual meeting in Kilkenny next week. The focus of these amendments is the question of whether members of local authorities are being treated seriously and with respect in this process.

A significant change is being made in the procedure for the adoption of development plans. Until now all submissions made by the public on development plan issues were circulated to the members of local authorities. That was normal practice. This legislation proposes that the practice be discontinued. Instead of the elected members of local authorities being supplied with copies of the submissions, they will be supplied with a summary of the submissions, which will be composed by the manager, along with the manager's opinion on the summary and his recommendations.

Elected members of local authorities have the statutory function of drawing up the development plan. They should have first hand access to submissions on the plan from the public. I was a member of one of the largest local authorities, the old Dublin County Council, which probably had the biggest volume of submissions. At one stage there were 27 or 28 books of submissions on the development plan. There is a great deal of physical and administrative work involved in copying the various submissions and circulating them to local authority members. However, the amount of drudgery should be considerably reduced in this era. It should be possible to supply the members with the information in disc form, which would reduce the physical size of the material being circulated.

If a member of the public writes to a local authority to express a point of view about the development plan, whether it is a glossy document submitted by a firm of architects on behalf of a major developer or a single page letter handwritten by a citizen, that material should be given unedited, unsanitised and unsummarised to the members of the county council who were elected by the people and who have the job of preparing the development plan. The proposal in the Bill that the submissions be summarised and that the manager give a report and his recommendations to the members is taking from those local authority members the heart of the function which is properly theirs and effectively handing it to the manager. I will not go so far as to say the members are being made a rubber stamp in this process but they are being placed, in so far as the new procedure for the development plan is concerned, far more in the hands of the county manager and his officials than was the case heretofore.

The material that is submitted should continue to be provided directly to the members of local authorities. I have no problem with devising new ways of doing this in a tidier or less cumbersome manner than has been the case up to now, particularly in the larger authorities, but I do not want communications from the public being put through a type of managerial sieve before being distributed to the members.

Deputy Gilmore's point is valid. The 1963 Act, which is the basis of current planning law, requires that a member who is acting in a quasi judicial function in the zoning of land or in making a development plan shall have regard to all representations received. How can it be lawful to have a sanitised list, even with the opinion of the manager attached to it? How can it be right that the member does not have a full list, including a photocopy of the representations received, within the documents provided? This issue has arisen before. There is no grey area; the 1963 Act clearly states that we shall have regard to all representations received. The Minister may have legal difficulties if he is proposing to produce this by way of a list.

I am not changing anything in the 1963 Act concerning submissions to local authorities. I am adding to the obligations that are being imposed in that we are saying that the manager must provide a report for the convenience of members. While in one sense the Deputy's point is valid, every member is entitled to receive, if he or she so wishes, the full batch - all 2,000 of them if necessary, as happens in the case of the Dublin local authorities. There is no way that right can be restricted or removed. We are not doing anything to remove it but if members decide they do not want to receive the full list, they are entitled to make that decision themselves.

The Deputy raised the issue of objections but that is a legal issue. If members do not have due regard to it then I presume that people can challenge it one way or the other. I want to repeat, however, that we are not taking that right away from members. By the same token, there is nothing in the 1963 Act about members having to get anything. We are directly transposing what was in the 1963 Act into this Bill. We are imposing the extra obligation on the manager who will have to prepare a report for the convenience of members. It is up to the members themselves to deal with this matter and they are entitled to do so. We are talking about local democracy and Deputy Gilmore mentioned the importance of councillors making up their own minds. They should be able to make up their own minds as to whether or not they wish to receive 2,000 submissions.

Maybe it should be automatic. If a person has a difficulty with a decision made by members and if that group of members had not seen one of the representations that was made, surely a case could be mounted to challenge that decision.

As long as the members have considered the report from the manager, that situation is legally covered, but that would not necessarily stop somebody taking legal action. We are not taking any rights away from the members, however. They are entitled to see the representations and the manager cannot prevent them doing so. All we are doing is adding the obligation whereby the manager has to prepare a report for members. The members can decide to ignore the manager's report and that is their right and prerogative. However, I agree with Deputy Hayes that they should not do so lightly. They should take into account the representations that have been made and the manager's report before making up their minds. In some cases there can be up to 2,000 submissions which can place an onerous responsibility on local authority members. They are entitled to get those submissions and are also entitled to make up their minds as to whether or not they want to receive them.

With respect, I wish to make two points concerning what the Minister has said. Of course members are entitled to receive copies of the representations. Anybody is entitled to get them under the Freedom of Information Act, but that is not the issue. The Minister said also that members should be entitled to decline to receive such data, but I am not so sure about that. The development plan is made by the elected members. If a member of the public sends a submission to the planning authority about the development plan, the very least that member of the public should be entitled to is an assurance that that submission will be made available to those who will make the decision. Nobody can legislate for whether the elected members read it or throw it in the bin, but we cannot have a situation whereby elected members at a county council meeting can say, "There are 2,000 letters about the development plan, but we don't want to see them." A local authority should not act in such a manner because it would amount to the authority thumbing its nose at the public. That should not happen.

Second, the Minister is proposing a procedure for handling submissions and observations made by the public. It does not say, however, that they have to be communicated in their original form to the elected members. The fact that this happens in local authorities is one thing, but it is not in the legislation. If this Bill is passed in its current form, I can foresee that county managers - and very possibly the courts - will interpret the legislation as it is written. In other words, the procedure to be followed will entail members of the public sending a submission to the county manager who will summarise it and report on it to the members. If members want to see the original it will be available for them but if they do not, they will not have to. That should not happen. It should be explicitly stated in the legislation that a submission submitted by the public is made available to the elected members. The public is entitled to that. These decisions are made directly by the members and the public is entitled to have its point of view brought to the attention of those who are making the decision. It is a fundamental right and should be included in the legislation.

That is what is being done.

It is not.

Under section 12(5)(b) the manager’s report has to list everybody who made submissions or observations. It has to summarise the issues raised and we are putting the obligation on the manager to comment on them, having regard to the views of the elected members and the statutory obligations. If a manager produces a document that does not list, or that falsely or otherwise summarises the issues raised, or distorts the issues, then somebody would have a case. The members can decide - then or before the manager acts - to have access to all the submissions. We are not removing the availability of the submissions to members. They can check them off against the manager’s list and can do whatever they wish in relation to that matter. However, if the manager attempts to mislead or does mislead, and the council does not supply the full information, I am sure people will have a legal case.

We are not talking about changing anything, other than providing a summary of the submissions for the convenience of the elected members. They can read each and every one of them and there is no problem with that. I am sure that if they request a copy of them from the local authority, or if they make a general decision at a local authority meeting that every member has to receive every submission that is put in, there will be no problem with that either. There is no way they can be prevented from getting the submissions that are made, and that means that the process is open and above board. If the manager attempted to mislead the members then people would have legal cases against the local authority or the county manager. We are not changing anything, we are improving the current position. In terms of local decision making, etc., it would be overly prescriptive on the part of the Oireachtas to oblige local authority members to read each individual submission received in respect of county development plans.

The Minister is suggesting that by inserting this provision an obligation will be placed on local authority members to read all submissions received. In my opinion we should make such a demand because if the people who make these representations want to ensure their views are expressed they must communicate them to those who make the decisions, namely, county councillors. It is not correct that they should receive these observations only on request, it should be a fundamental right that they are entitled to receive them.

Development plans are drawn up once every six years, not once a month or once every 12 months. We must deal with this matter with a degree of seriousness given that local authority members draw up development plans which will be in place for a period of six years. Regardless of whether it takes two or ten months for them to agree on a development plan, we must deal with this matter in a proper fashion. It would be good practice if they automatically received these submissions as a matter of right. What they do with them is their business.

There is a major difference between what is provided in the legislation and what I am seeking. The Minister is providing for a regime whereby if, for example, 500 submissions are made to a local authority about its county development plan, the county manager will be required to list the names of the 500 people who made those submissions, to summarise the issues raised, not the content of each submission, and to give his or her response.

Let us take the case of a road reservation which it is proposed to include in a development plan. Some 50 of the submissions made to the local authority might refer to the road reservation, many of which may place different emphasis on how the reservation will affect an area. A person might disagree with the proposed road reservation because it would traverse his or her land, another person might disagree with it because the road would run too near his or her house and cause noise pollution and another might oppose it because its construction would lead to the destruction of a number of trees.

Under the Bill a county manager would be free to submit a report stating that 500 submissions were received in respect of the county development plan, list the names and addresses of the people who made the submissions and summarise the issues raised. He might state that 50 of the submissions relate to a proposed road reservation shown on a particular map, summarise the issues raised in these submissions and respond by saying it is recommended that the road reservation be made or whatever. He might not distort the content of the submissions - I am not stating a county manager would do so - but the language used in his report might not reflect the content of or strength of feeling expressed in those submissions.

There is no substitute for making submissions available to local authority members. Deputy Hayes stated that the making of the development plan, the making of material contraventions, etc., are regarded by the courts as a quasi-judicial function. The courts have always insisted that local authority members should have access to all relevant material. When one considers how other judicial or quasi-judicial functions are performed, one cannot imagine juries being obliged to reach decisions on the basis of summaries of evidence.

Those making the decisions must be provided with the basic material and the legislation should make provision in that regard. The Bill does not state that a submission made by a member of the public should be brought to the attention of local authority members. There will be a diminution of the rights of members in that they will now be the recipients of summaries of submissions rather than the original submissions. There will also be a diminution of the rights of the public, particularly of those who make submissions.

I intend to press the amendment. I will also pursue the matter on Report Stage if the amendment is defeated. This is a fundamental point in the drawing up of development plans.

Do Deputies want me to withdraw the part of the Bill which provides assistance to members of local authorities by obliging fully paid officials of the authorities to summarise amendments to and observations on development plans, to provide a brief report on each and to make recommendations thereon? Are they suggesting that this will adversely affect the position of local authority members?

What we are seeking is contained in the amendment. We are fortunate that the Minister is not a county manager summarising submissions on a development plan, given the distorted summary he has provided of the case being made. The amendment seeks to ensure local authority members will be provided with original submissions.

For public perception purposes, the Deputy wants local authorities to photocopy and issue perhaps 2,000 submissions to 40 members merely for members to decide those submissions contain too much information and they cannot deal with them. He is stating that he wants local authority members to be supplied with every submission so that they can consider them and make decisions in respect of them.

That is the process.

Is the Deputy stating that is an efficient process and that every local authority member should read every submission he or she receives?

That has been the case in respect of every development plan to which I have been a party and I was a member of the largest local authority in the country.

As I understand the position, it is the committee's task to set the optimum and best practice possible.

We are not changing the practice. The 1963 Act states that objections or representations with respect to a draft made to the planning authority within the said period will be taken into consideration before the making of the plan or variations and any such objections or representations shall be taken into consideration accordingly. Section 12(3)(b) of the Bills states that "submissions or observations with respect to the draft made to the planning authority within the stated period will be taken into consideration before the making of the plan." Therefore, the 1963 Act and the Bill contain the same provision.

The amendment proposes that local authority members should receive all submissions.

I suggest that between now and Report Stage the Deputies should consult with members of local authorities to see if they want to receive copies of 2,000 individual submissions or if they would prefer to be given a summarised list which would allow them to focus on serious issues that have been highlighted and study them in detail. I am sure at least one or two of the 20 or 30 members of each local authority will have a particular interest in the range of amendments to a development plan. We are trying to be too prescriptive. Members have the right to receive all the submissions. It is more likely that people will read more of the submissions if they have an idea beforehand what the submissions are about. That is all we are providing for. Members have access to the submissions and they are entitled to them. All they have to do is say to the managers that they want the 2,000 submissions.

If they do not do that, what will we say to the member of the public who makes the submission?

We do not have to say anything to him or her

We most certainly do. This is a public process. We either take public participation seriously or we just make a passing nod to it. If a member of the public makes a submission to a local authority about an issue in a development plan and then sees the outcome, he or she will want to know what happened to the submission. Members of the local authority might say they did not see the submission and we are then back to whatever summary was made by the county manager.

At least they are aware of the issues that have been raised by the member of the public.

No, all they are aware of is the summary the manager has submitted. This is reflected in doing our own business. If a person makes a submission to a local authority, the manager may read it and decide it relates to road reservation but the member of the public may claim it relates to noise from roads, not road reservation. That member of the public wants the county council to include a provision on noise pollution from roads in its development plan. He or she may have mentioned the road reservation in the submission but the thrust of it was about noise. That member of the public will complain that the county council did not consider the submission on the general issue of noise but the members of the county council will say all they got was a report from the manager stating there were 50 submissions made about the road reservation and that there was a passing reference to noise. They will say they did not realise a member of the public had made specific proposals on noise abatement, and an enormous difficulty will be created. It is better to bring the information to the public and the technology exists to do that. There is a principle here. Members of the public who make submissions on a development plan have a right to have those submissions considered in the form in which they were made by the members of the local authority who make the decisions on the development plan.

Let us get into the real world on this matter.

I have been there.

The only way we can guarantee that every councillor reads every submission——

That is not what I am asking the Minister.

That is what the Deputy is asking me. He is saying the only way we can guarantee a member of the public has his or her submission considered is for every councillor to receive a copy of the submission.

I am saying to the Deputy that they can get those submissions. They can hide behind the fact that they received a submission; they can say they read it. The only way we can guarantee that every councillor reads every submission is to send a policeman——

——to stand over the councillor while he or she does so.

The Minister is becoming a master of distortion. I made the point earlier that we cannot legislate for whether members of a local authority read such submissions but we can legislate to ensure copies of the original submissions are made available to members of the local authority.

They are.

After that, it is a matter between the member of the public and the members of the local authority. If the member of the public does not think the member of the local authority has given sufficient attention to his or her submission, he or she has certain remedies.

I am telling the Deputy that every member of the public has a specific right to get copies of every submission submitted.

On request.

We are wasting a lot of time on what is really an irrelevancy.

The Minister is a hard, uncompromising man.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 120 not moved.

Amendment No. 121 is in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Amendments Nos. 122 to 125, inclusive, are related. Therefore, we will discuss amendments Nos. 121 to 125, inclusive, together, by agreement. Agreed.

I move amendment No. 121:

In page 31, subsection (4)(b)(iii), line 48, to delete “response” and substitute “opinion”.

This amendment is related to the previous issue, although it has a slightly different dimension because it concerns not so much the relationship between the public and the elected member of the county council but the relationship between the county manager and the elected member of the county council. In page 31 I seek to delete the word "response" where it is proposed that the report would give the response of the manager to the issues raised. That should rightly be the opinion of the manager. It is not for the manager to give the response. It is for the council to decide that in the course of time. That will be the response. The manager is giving an opinion which presumably will be considered by the council.

In page 32, line 3, again we are talking about submissions made by the public, although admittedly this is at the earlier stage of the preparation of the draft development plan. The Bill states that the policies the manager intends to pursue in preparing the draft development plan should be stated. It is not for the manager to determine the policy of the county council; that is a matter for the elected members. The word "pursue" should be replaced with "recommend to the council" where it refers to the policies the manager intends to recommend to the council in preparing the draft development plan.

The provision in page 32, line 11, again turns around the role of the manager and the elected members. In considering the draft development plan the members, under the Bill, may issue recommendations to the manager. This is not the manager's plan; it is the members' plan. It is the manager's job to make recommendations to the members and the members' job to make decisions, not the other way around. The word "recommendations" in this case should be replaced by the word "directions". In other words, the council should give directions to the manager as to what he proposes to insert in the draft development plan. The same is repeated in line 13 and again in line 18. I am seeking what is supposed to be the case, namely, that the elected members of the council should be in charge of this process and give the directions to the manager. The manager should make recommendations to the council and the members of the council should make the decisions, not the other way around, as the Minister proposes in the Bill. The role of the manager is to state the policy and to give a response and the role of the member is to make recommendations to the manager.

I support what Deputy Gilmore proposes. It is in line with a proper view of the role of elected members of authorities. The amendments he proposes properly translate and embody in legislation the fact that the making of a development plan is a reserved function of the elected members of local authorities. I support the amendments.

I have no problem accepting amendment No. 121. There is a debate about whether the draft development plan is the manager's draft or the members' draft. That ambiguity arises in this section. The development plan as passed by the members is the members' draft. The policies in it are the policies of the members which have to be executed by the manager. Amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 125 could be considered directions rather than recommendations.

A difficulty arises with amendment No. 122, as we are dealing with a draft development plan. A manager puts the draft development plan before the council and recommends the policies, which are in a draft form, to council. We are dealing with the policies the manager intends to pursue in preparing the draft development plan. We are talking about the manager informing the council and the information he or she gives to members of the council at the draft development plan stage.

Would it be preferable if the word "policies" in section 4(b)(iv) was replaced by the word “procedures”? I read it as meaning the substantive material the manager will insert in the plan rather than the arrangements he or she will make.

They are not procedures. In fulfilling the role as manager of an authority, the manager informs the council of the policies it should pursue as a council. He or she presents those policies to council for its direction and agreement. Once the council adopts the plan, those policies are no longer the manager's policies but the policies of the elected members of the council. In putting forward policies, the manager feeds into the policy process in finalising the plan, but the members of the council could put forward 25 other policies that were not outlined by the manager.

Is it not the sole function of the members to make policies?

The draft development plan is initiated by the members of the planning authority.

We are talking about the document and maps that go on public display. I understand that to be the members' draft plan and they can take a certain amount of cover when it goes on public display by saying the proposal was originally put forward by the manager. Members approve the draft document put on public display and, on occasion, they instruct the manager to remove parts of it. I do not agree that the draft plan that goes on public display is a manager's draft. That draft plan is important in that it can condition the way public debate takes place and the way submissions are made. At times members - as I am sure we all have from time to time - can distance themselves from certain provisions in a draft plan that goes on public display.

We are dealing with a new procedure here.

At last the Minister has admitted that we are dealing with a new procedure.

We are talking about what would be termed the pre-draft stage under the old system.

The manager presents a draft of the draft development plan to a council meeting. It is then considered, but it does not become the formal draft until the members approve it and it goes on public display. Subsection 4(c) states that the manager’s report shall be submitted to the members of the planning authority or to a committee of the planning authority and the members may issue recommendations to the manager regarding the preparation of the draft development plan. That is different from the members deciding on the draft development plan.

The manager may present a draft development plan and state he or she wants to zone land for a particular use. In the 1993 Dublin County Council development plan the manager proposed a plan for what became known as Carrickmines Valley in south County Dublin involving industrial, commercial and residential developments. The members of the council decided not to permit that draft to go on public display as they were grossly unhappy with what it contained. Under this procedure, a manager could present a draft development plan and while members of the council could make recommendations, the manager could produce a draft and that draft, in respect of which the members might not have the final say, would have to go on public display.

Members will have the final say on this. We are taking about a local authority giving notice that it will review a development plan. This is a new part; it is a pre-draft plan. The procedure is gone through and the manager produces the draft to bring it to the members with the different reports and so forth. It states for the information of the members the policies the manager intends to pursue on foot of the submissions and what he or she is doing. At that stage the members may say, "we want other policies included" or "we do not like these policies and we want them removed". A draft will then be produced to go through the public consultation procedures. That is the stage where it currently goes on public display for a six month period.

What we are talking about here is, in a sense, the pre-draft plan stage. The manager puts forward his or her ideas having had the consultations, submissions and so forth. The draft is then decided by the members; it becomes their draft plan.

I understand that. It is a new and welcome stage in the preparation of the draft plan. It is an opportunity for the public to make an input before the draft is prepared. That is a welcome development.

The problem, however, is that the Bill does not state that the elected members make the draft. It only states that the members make recommendations on the making of the draft plan based on the manager's report, response and so forth.

Yes, but section 12 states:

Where a planning authority has prepared the draft of the development plan in accordance with section 11, the procedures as set out in this section shall be commenced by resolution of the members of the authority.

Rather than get ourselves bogged down in this, I will consider proposing an amendment to subsection (4) on Report Stage to the effect that the manager should give his or her recommendations on the draft development plan. Instead of reading "state the policies the manager intends to pursue in preparing the draft development plan", we will incorporate the Deputy's suggestion by stating "gives his or her recommendations in relation to the draft development plan". The members would then make their decisions.

I will see how the Minister formulates the amendment on Report Stage, but I still believe there will be a need to state it explicitly. A doubt has arisen as to whose draft it is. It will have to be explicitly stated that the draft is made by the members before it is released to the public.

That is in the next section.

It is implied but not stated.

No, not if one looks at the next section, although we can probably argue it again. Section 12 states, "Where a planning authority has prepared the draft of the development plan in accordance with section 11. . . ".

Section 11 does not state that the members make it.

No, but it states that it can be commenced only by resolution of the members. In other words, the members must be satisfied. The Deputy is looking for something more explicit.

We might be heading down a different road now.

Would it not be easier to amend section 11(1)? It states: . . . "a planning authority shall give notice of its intention to review its existing development plan and to prepare a new development plan for its area." Would it not be easier to provide that the members would initiate this process by resolution of the members?

That section deals only with initiating it. There is a statutory obligation on them to do that anyway. Deputy Gilmore's point is that we incorporate something in the section that——

We should incorporate a provision that differentiates between the manager's views and the members' views.

Yes, and to make it explicit that it is the members that are——

It could be a simple statement that the making of the draft is a reserved function. It does not matter who makes the recommendations as long as who makes the decision is clear.

Perhaps we could provide that the adoption of the draft would be a reserved function. We could insert it in section 11. There will be other provisions because the manager and various officials will have to come forward with material. We will have a look at it for Report Stage.

When are we likely to have sight of the Minister's amendment dealing with the foreshore issues?

Very shortly. I received it yesterday and it is on my desk. I have not had an opportunity to read it yet. We have to finalise it.

The Select Committee adjourned at 4.10 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 20 April 2000.
Barr
Roinn