Dáil debates

Tuesday, 12 June 2012

 

Independent Inquiries into Planning Irregularities: Motion

8:00 pm

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)

It is rather opportune that we are having this discussion. Last week I raised a topical issue, with Deputy Kevin Humphreys, regarding the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. The Minister was not present for that, and it would have been great if she had been. What happened in that development offers strong lessons about what went wrong in this country. One can see the disease in respect of land, whether it was buying it, speculating on it, planning it or building on it. It amounted to a serious abuse of the planning regulations.

I referred in that debate to a parliamentary question which the late Tony Gregory put to the then Minister, former Deputy Dick Roche, on 4 November 2004, in which he asked about the conflict of interest which would inhibit the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, from making balanced planning decisions in the docklands. The Minister's answer was that the board members had a wide range of experience and that it was difficult, in a relatively small city, to select people with the talent and time and who were willing to give service to the public through these boards. We know the type of service those people gave. The recent report was damning about it. It outlined the various issues, including the shortcomings in financial management, planning functions and the management of board business, not to mention the Irish Glass Bottle site which was valued at €220 million but was sold for €431 million.

What emerged clearly in the reply to Tony Gregory's question was that the board was effectively the planning authority. There were people sitting on the board who were seeking planning permission but they were also the people who were making the decisions on the planning applications. Some of those people were also members of the Anglo Irish Bank, which was funding the development. We use the phrase "something rotten in the state of Denmark" but there was certainly something very rotten at that time. There are other examples of it. The then Minister said that there was a relatively small pool of people from which to select people, but what happened was appalling.

I wish to emphasise the positive aspects of the docklands as well. The current chairperson of the authority is doing great work. However, it was battle after battle for the communities in the docklands areas for their survival. The developers were arriving with brown envelopes and other incentives to get people to move out of communities in which their families had lived for generations. There were many David and Goliath battles. The development plans are drawn up and it is a question of economics and drawings on paper, with no account taken of the impact and effect on people's lives or of facilities, infrastructure, community life and green space. The Minister is winding down the DDDA but there are still two vacancies on it for community representatives. It is vital that they are appointed and that when the new authority goes to Dublin City Council, community is at the heart of any type of development there.

Another planning issue about which I feel strongly, and I have spoken about it previously, is the way in which planning has allowed some of our vital heritage and historical sites to be taken over by developers. The prime example is the Moore Street area, a place associated with one of the most historic moments in our city. It has been given to a developer for a shopping mall. That is just one example. Other heritage sites are also at risk from extremely bad planning. So much of this could have been avoided. I gave the example from 2004. In 1974 the Kenny report was produced. If that had been implemented, much that was wrong with planning in this country might never have occurred.

With regard to the motion, it is a case of what the previous Minister, former Deputy John Gormley, did or did not do and what exactly happened. Recently, I read an article he wrote. In it he spoke about what he had left in the area of planning before this Government took over. He says he left an extensive dossier prepared by planning officials following the internal review, that he had reports from managers in which each of the local authorities responded to that request from him, that there were terms of reference for a panel of planning consultants to carry out an independent review in the six local authorities, there was a completed tender process to select the panel and that the letters of appointment issued. All the preparatory work had been done and it was ready to go. I note the Minister refers in the amendment to an internal review. I have just returned from my constituency so I did not hear all the Minister of State's speech and what her plans are. However, the central issue is the independent planning regulator and I support the call from An Taisce in that regard.

I am from a docklands community. My family are from there and I live there. It is awful to see what went wrong. However, this is an opportunity for the Government and, being an optimist, I hope that we get it right eventually.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.