Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I suspect if the planning officials in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage had their way, the rural planning guidelines would have been published two years ago when they were first drafted. They have remained sitting on the desks of successive Ministers and Ministers of State. The real problem is that nobody wants to touch the hot potato. I fully support everybody who has said they need to be published because we need to have the debate and we need to get them signed. The same applies to the urban densities.

Regarding urban density, we should not confuse density with height. I absolutely agree with both the Senator and the councillors. It is possible to have very significant densities and everybody can have their own door onto the street. It is eminently possible and it is really important when the urban density guidelines are published that we separate out those things. It would be really helpful if our development plans set out the densities, almost like we set out zoning, but the topologies, what is then built to meet that density, are nice and flexible. If, for example, in the suburbs of Waterford, people do not want apartments and for viability reasons apartments are not the right option, a similar density can be achieved by having own-door developments. We have done it for decades here and internationally.

It is almost as if height is not the issue; the issue is density and topology and what is the most appropriate mechanism. Sometimes in an urban village, for example, it is possible to have really high density while respecting the traditional fabric of that village by building the right kinds of things. I hope when we get those density guidelines that is the debate we have. If we do, we will come up with solutions that we are all open to.

I wish to assure Councillor Sheahan of one thing. Neither this Oireachtas nor the previous one approved the national planning framework. It was one of the great scandals of the previous Oireachtas. Senator Boyhan and I fought a valiant losing battle. Despite the fact that the enabling legislation specified that the national planning framework should have the democratic imprimatur of the Oireachtas, we were denied that. There was no vote. Irrespective of one's view of the national planning framework - there are some bits I really like and some bits I do not like - for something that has such a profound impact on our planning system, citizens, elected representatives and executives, somebody somewhere should have voted for it. I emphasise that it was never voted on; it was a big battle in the last Oireachtas.

That leads me to my question. Between now and when we deal with this Bill on Committee Stage we should tease out with the witnesses what amendments we could table to increase opportunities for councillors to have some formal role. For example, if we consider the ministerial policy statements, not only is there no role for councillors but there is no role for the Oireachtas or this committee. That is an oversight. I and other members of the committee would be happy to work with councillors to see how we could insert a formal role for elected members and executives in that process. It would be helpful to hear any areas where elected members and councils should be involved in the decision-making process as outlined in the Bill.

I have a brief question for the CCMA. In December when, at the last minute, the Minister introduced the derogation for Part 8 - something nobody wanted or asked for but we got nonetheless - we were given the impression on the floor of the Dáil that it was voluntary. It was primarily for land aggregation scheme land involving debt write-downs by the Department and it would then be up to the managers to decide if they wanted to use it for other purposes. We are now hearing something very different and that there may now be a mandatory use of the Part 8 derogation throughout this year. Has the CCMA been involved in any conversations with the Department on that? I received a less-than-clear reply to a parliamentary question from the Minister last week. It seems that there will be an element of compulsion which was not what the Oireachtas was told when that amendment was introduced.