Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Irish Planning Institute presentation commenced by saying there has been some confusion in regard to planning and that although people tend to talk about the area as a combined entity, there are separate roles and many different players. I understand that as I have spent many days trying to explain to people how things are done. It is obvious significant work needs to be done on various levels.

I believe we need forward planning. The national spatial strategy is a critical part of the hierarchy. When the regional planning guidelines knitted into the national spatial strategy, this produced a change in culture within the local authorities. I noticed a major change in culture within Kildare County Council when people fitted into that more strategic approach. However, does the institute accept that we cannot have a purely spatial strategy and that there must be some sort of dovetailing with the national development plan? Large initiatives, such as transportation planning, must dovetail if we are to have rational planning. Should these planning strategies happen in conjunction with each other?

The sequence of events is important. I find it frustrating that some of the other legislation required, such as the building control Bill, the planning (No. 2) Bill and Bills such as the one I produced seeking greater transparency, have not been passed. People would be astounded if they looked back at what happened in 2008 and realised that we have not spent the intervening years getting what went wrong right before the construction industry kicked off again. I do not believe we are anywhere near getting it right. We are now back at the point of looking at introducing incentives for developers. I find this incredibly frustrating. We tend to make our decisions at a crisis point which is part of the reason for criticism of decisions, such as on the size of apartments now that we have a housing shortage. The industry will obviously argue its own corner and explain how it can do more for less and how more money can be made from development. However, we are constantly making decisions at a time of crisis, rather than planning ahead to prevent a crisis.

I want to address a number of specific issues. In the new (No. 1) Bill, it is proposed there will be a register of planning permissions and if they are not taken up within three years, they will expire. This is to reduce the length of time and before development commences and to ensure people do not sit on land. This is fine, provided all the elements required to develop the land stack up, including water and wastewater treatment systems and so on. The issue is not as simple as dealing with people sitting on planning permissions granted.

We also need to have a compliance register in regard to enforcement notices. This must happen at national level because of the movement of people who are non-compliant from one area to another. I am aware of the time, effort and energy that goes into compliance in planning departments, such as taking issues relating to warning or enforcement notices as far as the courts. It is unbelievable that we do not use this information at national level. I am curious to hear the institute's views on that. I believe we should reward good behaviour. Good developers who do not engage in bad practice are not rewarded, because there is no overall overview of the situation and non-compliant bad developers can move from one area to another. Therefore, sequence is important.

The institute mentioned Part V and the conditions in this are to be changed in the (No. 1) Bill. I have some concerns about this. How would the institute like to see the provisions for this stated in legislation? Will the witnesses flesh out its views on timelines and so on? I believe a real mess has been made of the issue of development contributions. For example, a circular issued in December 2013 more or less told local authorities they could not apply water or wastewater development contributions, because these were now the function of Irish Water. Now, Irish Water does not have that function and this critical income source is compromised, at least for 12 months. What role does the institute see for development contributions? These contributions vary throughout the country. Do the contributions need to be rationalised? The cost of building a water or wastewater facility or a road will not vary significantly from one part of the country to another.

I am curious about that. We are now at a point where we are discussing reducing development contributions to stimulate development. What do the witnesses think their functions should be? The 2006 Act on strategic development dealt with major infrastructural projects. An Bord Pleanála deals with that. I have no problem with that if it is the Luas. However, there are matters such as wind farms, for example, where technology and information have moved on since 2006. We are facing a situation where guidelines will be produced but the applications will be made before that, so people are shooting in the dark when making the application. Do the witnesses think matters such as that should be positioned more at local government level, where there is an appeals mechanism? Does that Act go too far and does it weaken the position for the public in terms of not having an appeals mechanism on something like that and where the technology is changing? That has become a real bone of contention.