Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 2 June 2004
8 Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the progress made to date in the review of the retail planning guidelines relating to floor space cap on retail warehouses; when he expects the process to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16511/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe retail planning guidelines prescribe a maximum floor area of 6,000 sq.m. gross retail floor-space for large-scale single retail warehouse development. This aspect of the guidelines has been under review, taking account of the need to ensure proper planning and sustainable development, while also supporting effective competition in this sector of retailing in the context of ongoing developments in retail formats. To assist in carrying out the review, I invited interested parties to make submissions to my Department. Some 71 submissions were received and have been assessed. The submissions received raised many complex issues and these will be fully taken into account in considering further whether any changes are needed in the guidelines. I expect the process to be completed shortly at which point I will announce the outcome of the review.
That reply is almost verbatim the reply I received to the same question I asked on 27 April and 4 March. The review of the retail planning guidelines was announced in August 2003 and the 71 submissions to which the Minister referred have been with him for some time. Is it not the case that the Minister intends to lift the 6,000 sq. m. cap on gross retail floor space to facilitate in particular IKEA, which has made no secret of its wish to develop in the State, and he is delaying the announcement of this decision until after the local and European elections for fear of the outrage it will cause in the retail sector generally?
The Deputy would be entirely wrong if he thought that was my view.
We will see. Time will tell.
This matter has nothing to do with the local elections. Having reviewed the submissions, as many organisations would like to see the cap lifted as would like to see it retained. There is no consensus. Two large bodies of opinion represent the views which are in conflict. Many issues feed into this matter, as the Deputy will be aware. It is not simply about expanding floor space. In addition, there are issues of location and traffic. The Deputy referred to one company whose operation I have seen abroad. The volume of car movements going into and out of some of its developments is incredible.
I have not read any of the submissions yet as I am waiting for the assessments to be completed so that, along with my officials, I can read them. The Deputy's assessment of my view on this matter is wrong and I cannot allow that perception to prevail. I have an open mind on many matters and I will be interested to see the assessments. I do not come to this debate with any fixed position, especially the one the Deputy suggests.
The matter is complex and will take some time to tease out in this House. We will wait and see. While it may be implicit in the way the Deputy posed the question, from being around the country more than most Deputies, it would appear to me that, by and large, these guidelines are working well. While I do not base that view on any scientific assessment, it is my sense that the very large stores, which would be substantially larger and probably would have made the arguments that they could not function under the constraints of the cap, seem to be functioning well within the guidelines and the scale seems to be appropriate. I will wait to see what arises over the summer. I am sure we will have a good debate in the autumn.
The Minister said the submissions have been received in favour of and against lifting the cap on retail floor space. In his role, as Minister, does he feel he has any remit or responsibility to adjudicate on the basis of sustainability in this matter? Will increasing car dependency, to which he referred regarding other countries, be a factor in his decision? Outside the lobbying and submissions, does the Minister have a view rather than just adjudicating as to which is the heavier basket, that for or that against?
Time will tell just how right or wrong my suppositions are. Will the Minister indicate to the House when a decision is likely to be made on this matter? Given that we have been receiving similar replies on this issue for a number of months, is there a particular reason references to the national spatial strategy which appeared in the March version of the reply no longer appear in the April and June versions?
There certainly is not. The submission has not come to me and I do not have unlimited officials. Staff have been dealing with a range of issues in this area and it has been difficult to complete this process. There is no mystery. I am as anxious as the Deputy given that I initiated the process and would like to reach a conclusion.
I agree absolutely with Deputy Sargent. It comes back to the spatial strategy point which I have made on a number of issues in this debate. There are many issues which feed into sustainability, one of which I have just enunciated while replying to Deputy Gilmore. Sustainability is clearly an issue when making decisions on traffic, for example. It is not a simple question of moving a cap from one figure to another. There could be very significant consequences of doing that. I have questioned publicly whether one should take initiatives in Dublin or try to encourage development in other parts of the country in a different way. There are many different avenues to explore under the spatial strategy and sustainability and I very much intend to take them into account in trying to come to a conclusion.
