Pat Casey (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will start where Deputy Ó Broin finished off. I am not going to get into the legal decision. I fully understand that the final plan is a decision by the Government and I accept that. However, it is clear from the interactions in the Dáil Chamber that it is rather different. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister indicated a view on three different occasions. The Taoiseach said that this was brought to the House. There was a vote on the draft. The vote took place in November of last year. Clearly, that did not happen. The Taoiseach then went on to say that if there was no vote it was because no one opposed something. That is incorrect. The Tánaiste came in the day after and made a statement about public consultation. We all agree with that. That did happen. He said that the debate on the national planning framework ran out of speakers. In fact, we did not run out of speakers. It is still on the Order of Business to return to statements on the national planning framework. The Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Murphy, then came in and clearly said there was a vote on the matter.

In fairness to the committee, which has worked on this matter, we need to set the record straight. I have no problem in saying that the final plan is a Government decision and we do not have a say in that. However, it is incorrect for the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Murphy, to say he acted in the spirit of the legislation. What the Taoiseach said is incorrect and what the Tánaiste said is incorrect. I think we need clarification from them on the matter.

I will move forward. I wish to make some quick observations in respect of the process. I come from a councillor background and I have gone through three county development plans. Under the process we looked at the draft plan, then made variations to the draft plan and put it back on public display. This is where the national planning framework falls down. I acknowledge the vast amount of work that Department officials had to do in a short period. However, in not putting the amendments of the national planning framework back out for consultation we could have unintended consequences. This is because we have not dug down to analyse exactly the intention of some of the policies, some of which have now been adopted and in legislation.

Another weakness is that we cannot vary the national planning framework. We have a review in six years time but we cannot vary it in the meantime. If something is clearly not working, there is no legal mechanism in the process to vary that aspect or policy. Perhaps it is something we could address in future.

Let us get more into the technical part of it. The major question relating to my area is population. I acknowledge that there has been movement from the draft plan to the adopted plan and the Department has taken out the caps on towns and villages with regard to how much they can grow. Have we not simply, in one sense, kicked the can down the road? Who will dictate population growth? Where will it be? Will the regional plan dictate where population growth is going?

In the county development plan for Wicklow which was adopted last year potential population growth is much higher than what we can achieve under the national planning framework. We have to return to the core strategy and ask if the current plan can be continued with for six years if a fundamental aspect - potential population growth - is incorrect. What will happen in that process?

I will speak briefly about the issue of rural housing. I acknowledge and welcome the inclusion of the social clause, about which I spoke to Mr. Cussen. However, the only time in the planning process when a decision that affects an individual is dealt with via a local authority is when one is dealing with a one-off rural house. Normally the local authority deals with large-scale developments or applications involving multiple houses. This is the only time when there is personal interaction with the local authority. How am I supposed to explain the housing need and demand assessment to people who are applying for permission to build a rural house? If one qualifies via social or economic need, that should be enough. There is no need to distinguish between urban and non-urban shadow. If one qualifies to build a rural house by having a social and economic need, that should be enough. When we talk about rural areas, we are looking at areas with a population of under 1,500. There might be unintended consequences where we might actually have opened up the potential to have one-off rural houses on a wider scale than what would have applied under our county development plan.

As a commuter county that is coming under huge pressure, the national development plan is a total disaster from a transport point of view. After this meeting I will discuss with Mr. Cussen a recent communication with Transport Infrastructure Ireland and Wicklow County Council. Who is driving the bus? Anyone reading this will be shocked. It will have huge consequences in terms of potential population growth. I thought that we had addressed the TII issue and that it had to acknowledge the spatial strategy, regional and county plans, but it is clear that it is driving the bus in this endeavour and that County Wicklow can go hump it. It got nothing in the national development plan, apart from the promise of a Luas connection in 2027. We have a DART connection. The only thing the national development plan promised for County Wicklow was maintaining existing services. There is no vision of including Arklow and Wicklow in the rail network. It is only at a figure of 30% capacity between Arklow and Greystones. There is capacity to add more services, but the plan does not provide for this.