Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this meeting is to consider the general scheme of the planning and development (No. 2) Bill 2014 with officials from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. I welcome Mr. Terry Sheridan, principal officer responsible for planning, Mr. Niall Cussen, principal planning adviser, Mr. Patrick O'Sullivan, assistant principal officer responsible for planning, and Mr. Colm Downey, assistant principal officer responsible for planning. I propose that we hear the witnesses in the order in which I have introduced them. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Witnesses' opening statements and any other documents they have submitted to the committee may be published on the committee website after this meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call on the departmental witnesses to address the meeting, beginning with Mr. Sheridan.

Mr. Terry Sheridan:

I thank the Cathaoirleach for affording us the opportunity to make a presentation today on the general scheme of the planning and development (No. 2) Bill 2014.

The main context for the proposals contained in the general scheme is the final report of the Mahon tribunal on certain planning matters, published in March 2012. In May 2013, the Government agreed to the preparation of a general scheme of a planning Bill to provide for the planning-related recommendations of the final report of the tribunal. It was also agreed by the Government at the time that other required updates of planning legislation should be addressed in the context of preparing such a new planning Bill.

As outlined at our hearing before the committee in December, and further to the Government’s Construction 2020 strategy, published in May 2014, the general scheme for a planning (No. 2) Bill is being progressed in parallel with a general scheme for a planning (No. 1) Bill, aimed primarily at addressing the current housing supply shortage, which is particularly acute in the Dublin area. The main provisions in the planning (No. 1) Bill are the revision of the Part V requirements on social housing for developers, the retrospective application of reduced development contributions, the introduction of a vacant site levy, and use-it-or-lose-it provisions in respect of planning permissions.

As I outlined at our previous hearing in December, the Minister, Deputy Kelly, and the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, are anxious that the planning (No. 1) Bill be enacted as urgently as possible to help address the current housing supply shortage, and that the planning (No. 2) Bill, which we are discussing today, be enacted subsequently, before the end of 2015.

The primary planning-related recommendation of the Mahon tribunal was for the establishment of a new office of the planning regulator, whose main functions would be to evaluate and assess local authority development plans, local area plans and regional spatial and economic strategies during development and make recommendations on the content of such plans and strategies to the relevant local authorities and regional assemblies with a view to ensuring each plan or strategy sets out an overall framework for the proper planning and development of the area concerned.

To monitor the performance of planning authorities regarding their functions under the planning Acts, we are required to undertake reviews of the relevant organisation and the systems and procedures used by planning authorities in regard to the planning functions; to facilitate research into what constitutes proper planning and sustainable development; and to conduct programmes of education and training for elected members and public officials of planning authorities, as deemed necessary.

The core function of the new regulator will relate to the evaluation and assessment of local plans and regional strategies, including on land zonings, and making recommendations to the Minister on these matters. Where a Minister agrees with the recommendations of the regulator, he or she shall issue appropriate directions to the relevant local authority on the steps to be taken regarding the revision of the relevant plan or strategy. Where the Minister does not agree with the recommendations of the regulator, which we envisage will be rare, he or she will be required to explain the reasons for such disagreement, lay them before the Houses of the Oireachtas and make them available on the Department’s website, all in the interest of increased transparency.

The Mahon tribunal also recommended that the national spatial strategy be given statutory underpinning. Accordingly, head 29 of the general scheme establishes a legislatively defined approach to the development of a successor strategy to the national spatial strategy of 2002, to be known as the national planning framework. Provision is being made in this regard for the procedures to be followed in the development of the new framework, including public consultation and participation in the process. There is to be a periodic review of the framework every six years, in addition to the obtaining of Oireachtas approval of the national planning framework or any revised framework.

The other main provisions in the general scheme, as published, largely emanate from a combination of further Mahon tribunal recommendations and specific actions required to be implemented under the Construction 2020 strategy. Many of these relate to increasing transparency in the planning process and can be summarised briefly. They include the publication of all submissions received on local area and development plans on the website of the relevant planning authority. The chief executives' reports on such submissions are also to be published on the relevant website. Any proposed grants of planning permission in material contravention of a local area plan or development plan must be submitted to the relevant regional assembly for observations. Other recommendations are legislative underpinning for e-planning to facilitate the introduction of online planning applications and appeals; providing for the payment of reduced fees, or no fees, by elected members when making submissions on planning applications, and the noting of such representations on the relevant planning file; and requiring Irish Water to take account of the likely sequencing of housing and economic development as indicated in local area plans and development plans when preparing its water services strategic investment plan.

In addition to allowing for the provisions outlined in the general scheme, as published, it is proposed to introduce a number of further amendments to the planning legislation on Committee Stage. These concern improving and streamlining the existing provisions in section 180 of the planning Act relating to the taking in charge of housing estates by local authorities; improving the procedures relating to the designation of strategic development zones; the introduction of a new register indicating land purchase option agreements entered into in regard to the purchase of land for development purposes, to be entitled the Registry of Land Purchase Options; and a range of other miscellaneous revisions of the planning Act, which we are still examining and reviewing.

What I have outlined is essentially a short summary of what is proposed will be incorporated in the forthcoming planning (No. 2) Bill. Quite a few provisions have already been published in the general scheme. However, as indicated, it is intended that quite a number of further provisions will be introduced on Committee Stage, which is likely to be taken in the second half of the year. We are actively examining all options in this regard.

Once again, I thank the Chairman for affording us the opportunity to make this short presentation on the general scheme. My colleagues and I are available to answer any questions members may wish to raise.

Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for their presentation. The content is all very laudable and appreciated on our part, considering the representations we have had over many years. Many of us who served on local authorities were at the coalface of the planning departments for the areas we represent.

Mr. Sheridan mentioned that many of the recommendations in the Mahon tribunal are contained in the two Bills and what is not contained in them will be in the general scheme to be produced. Can he categorically state at this juncture that he believes the forthcoming Bills will, undoubtedly and without reservation, contain within them all the provisions made in relation to recommendations following those tribunals and what emanated from them? Much of the political debate around this area has centred on the inactivity on the part of those in government to be in a position to inform the public that they are addressing those recommendations and will have them as part of published Bills for enactment by legislators thereafter. I think adequate time has been allowed to the witnesses and those on whose behalf they act to make those provisions in forthcoming Bills. If nothing else, if the witnesses can give that commitment to the committee at this stage, it would be a job well done.

That being the case, there are many other issues in regard to taking in charge and so on that we do not have adequate time in this short discussion to elaborate on. That said, it is all very laudable, appreciative and cognisant of the various representations that have been made by members from all sides of the divide with a view to addressing those deficiencies from which, as I said to others who appeared before the committee in recent weeks to discuss these issues, it would appear many lessons have been learned from the collapse in the building sector and in activity surrounding that sector. We must be in a position, having learned from the mistakes, to put in place better procedures and mechanisms to police and safeguard the public's interest into the future.

I am especially conscious of the area of enforcement. I do not honestly believe that enough resources or personnel were in place within local authorities to ensure adequately that the enforcement of the relevant planning laws was one which we could stand over. I heard some of the contributors last week from Cork County Council speak about the success they have had in obtaining development charges. That goes without saying. We should not laud ourselves for having collected development charges. If they are applicable to the various permissions approved, it should go as a matter of course and should not be such that one should laud one another for the efforts after the event. I am of the opinion that the way in which the enforcement of guidelines on planning and development, building control and the placement of bonds and the manner in which they are redeemed has left much to be desired. I think it was because the eye was taken off that ball. When it was imperative thereafter, the mechanisms in place in local authorities were not sufficient. That was clear from the way in which many pillar banks were not adhering to the conditions of bonds that members of local authorities felt were adequately in place to meet the demands of a crash were it to arrive. It arrived and those assurances that they understood were in place were not enforceable, and appear still not to be enforceable, with banks and their engineers taking three and four years to produce a programme to enact the bond and to have estates finished appropriately. If Mr. Sheridan can give a commitment that we are in a position to produce Bills for the legislators to enact, that take cognisance of and are complete with all the recommendations of the tribunal within it, it will have been a good day's work.

Mr. Terry Sheridan:

I thank Deputy Cowen for his questions. His first question was on the implementation of the Mahon tribunal recommendations. All the planning related recommendations emanating from the tribunal will be implemented on foot of the enactment of these Bills. There are one or two from other Departments which are still outstanding. All the planning related recommendations will be dealt with in the forthcoming legislation. On the Deputy's second point about enforcement resources, I would agree that they have been insufficient or inadequate for the purposes of properly enforcing the planning laws. That partly emanates from cutbacks in numbers in the public service, but the intention would be that proper and adequate resources will be put in place going forward. During the boom years the numbers in place were quite significant in the planning service functions of local authorities, but they have been significantly reduced. There is an issue there that needs to be addressed. If we are to be in a position to ensure that the Act and the regulations are fully and properly enforced, the reality is that additional resources will be required. I will invite my colleague, Mr. Niall Cussen, to respond on the issue of bonds and taking in charge of estates.

Mr. Niall Cussen:

I certainly agree that the issue of bonds and securities in relation to ensuring the satisfactory completion of developments, particularly housing developments, has been problematic. I can supply to the committee in due course information about the progress that is being made in regard to the actual amounts that have been collected as part of bonds and securities in different parts of the country. Local authorities have been quite successful, although it has been a difficult and long drawn-out process in many developments. With that in mind, we pulled together local authority experts, NAMA, banking experts, legal advice and so on and published updated advice on how bonds and securities are to be constructed into the future. In the heady days when the construction and property boom was in full flight with so many planning permissions going through the process and so many bonds being lodged, maybe the eye for detail in terms of how they were drafted and, more properly, how they were implemented in cases where there were difficulties on site may not have got the level of attention it should have. I am confident that, learning from the process, it is not something we will see out into the future. We are looking now at a pace of development, albeit one we would like to increase in the context of the housing issues. Certainly we will be more in tune with keeping a close eye on those details into the future.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses who are appearing before the committee. It is welcome that all the planning recommendations in the Mahon tribunal will be implemented. It is sad that people who do planning have to be regulated and that we cannot be self-regulating.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I may interrupt the Senator for a moment, please, as Deputy Murphy has to go into the Chamber at 3.15 p.m., I might call her immediately after the Senator to give her an advantage and then go to the witnesses.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How much time do I have?

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chamber requirement is at 3.15 p.m.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As it is only 3 p.m. I will be well finished.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is pity we need to have a regulator over planning and that the people who are elected and selected and have jobs in planning and so on cannot be trusted to do the right thing. It is a fact in all spheres of life that we have to have regulators and we have all seen what happened with crashes. It is welcome that we will have a regulator. Sometimes the regional planning guidelines and guidelines on enforcement were looked at and disregarded.

I noted what Mr. Sheridan said on enforcement. During the boom there was plenty of money in the planning and enforcement sections. It is not all about throwing money at enforcement. What is important is that when things are written down, we must read and implement them. If we all do that we will have better planning all around.

I have a question on the relationship between the new office of office of the planning regulator, OPR, and An Bord Pleanála. We hear about quangos. Is this another body on planning, with its own office and staff? An Bord Pleanála deals with appeals, but in addition, strategic development proposals go straight to An Bord Pleanála. This new office of the planning regulator will lay out the regulation, but it must be synchronised with An Bord Pleanála. Could there be a reduction of staff in one area to complement the other area, so that there will be no duplication of staff? I cannot see, for the life of me, why it would be necessary to have a significant number of staff in An Bord Pleanála as well as staff in the office of the planning regulator. I would like to get some information on that, particularly in relation to strategic infrastructural development.

The actual recommendations to split all of the legislative revisions into two Bills is a good idea. We know that the enactment of the provisions of the planning and development Bill is necessary and must be fast-tracked to ensure houses come on stream quickly. The No. 2 Bill will deal with the national spatial strategy, and has been retitled the national planning framework. Why was it necessary to make this change?

What happened in the past is that there was rezoning but no provision was made for infrastructure such as water. I served on the council in South Dublin and we always said that if the then health board, the local authority, the ESB and every other body worked together we would save a great deal of money. I welcome the recommendations.

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

In the context of our discussion on this meeting, we considered whether we would do pre-legislative scrutiny of the planning and development (No. 2) Bill. We are obviously working on the No. 1 Bill at present. Part of the reason we were exploring this was to see what would be possible, because what is published and what will end up being in the Bill are very different, given what has been said. The witnesses are working on other elements that will come forward. I think we were interested in seeing how far we could push the boat out on that. I have been very critical of planning legislation, particularly the early legislation, which was more about development than about planning. Essentially, the constant criticism was that one sector had the ear of Government over decades to influence things from its point of view. What we needed was a rebalancing of rights so that those who bought houses could live in estates that were taken in charge in a timely way, and the bonds were done in such a way that they would not expire before they could be called in. There were deficiencies in the legislation from that point of view. The roll-over on planning permission extends to a possible 17 years before those in the estate can petition to have an estate taken in charge. This is an issue that becomes really problematic and I want to see if it is possible to make changes in this area. Clearly the witnesses are saying that it is possible to do so.

Another issue is the staff ratios in local authorities following the embargo on recruitment. It is not an equal situation, as there are wide variations around the country depending on the level of staffing in the local authority. For example, Meath County Council has half the staff that Kerry County Council has, yet Meath has a larger population. That would be a very good comparator. One cannot presume that one size fits all in terms of solutions. There must be a targeted approach, but that is a separate issue to planning.

My hope is that the following issues will be addressed. If somebody has been served with an enforcement notice and has been to the courts, it is not enough for that enforcement order to be unique to that particular local authority. Developers can move from one place to another and there must be some way of capturing enforcement orders on a national register. People should have the chance to pinpoint the developers whom we want to weed out. Even the construction sector wants to weed them out because do not do anyone any favours.

We can focus on cost of the office of the planning regulator, because in actual fact it will be a cost saving if it is done right. There is a relationship between the scattering of developments and the infrastructure that has been paid from the public purse. There have been developments in places that have been flooded in the past. Now flood assessments are required. By ensuring that developments are done correctly, we will prevent a great deal of grief. I think it is critically important from that point of view that there is a body with the specific function of making sure the spatial strategy and regional guidelines are enforced and that there is a means of enforcing them and they are taken seriously. I welcome the fact that there is some scope for members at this stage to have an input into the pre-legislative work. I suspect there are limits on what might be possible.

Mr. Terry Sheridan:

I thank Deputy Murphy and Senator Keane for their contributions. The establishment of the office of the planning regulator will be a new institutional arm of the planning system. It is intended that it will be completely independent, and it is therefore proposed that it be established as an independent body separate from any other institutions within the planning system, including An Bord Pleanála. We received that legal advice on the establishment of the office of the planning regulator and that is the reason it is proposed in the general scheme. What is also intended is that it will be a streamlined, cost-efficient, well-run organisation. It will have no involvement in the day-to-day decisions of the planning authorities in relation to individual planning applications but it will have an oversight role on the adoption of local area plans and local development plans. I agree with Deputy Murphy that once the office of the planning regulator is up and running it will prevent the occurrence of situations we had in the recent past that caused grief, as well as ensuring that once the national planning framework is established, the regional spatial and economic strategies that follow from it will be adhered to and not overlooked.

The obligation on Irish Water to take account of the local authority development plans in the sequencing of its capital investment programme is to ensure co-ordination of the correct infrastructure in the right place when it is required.

With regard to the poor performance and non-compliance by developers with the conditions of their planning permission, there is already provision in the Act, whereby planning applications may be refused when there is a real and substantial risk that the terms of the permission will not be completed in accordance with the permission granted. That is possibly something that needs to be highlighted to the planning authorities. These powers are already in place, so it is not a case of having to insert new provisions but of highlighting the existing provisions and ensuring they are adequately implemented. I will ask my colleague, Mr. Niall Cussen, to address some points.

Mr. Niall Cussen:

Senator Keane queried the national planning framework. The national planning framework is intended to succeed the national spatial strategy, which in effect is the highest level plan we have at present but it harks back to a different time, 2002. The Government has approved the preparation of a new national planning framework and for it to provide a co-ordination function for the new regional spatial and economic strategies, which will replace the regional planning guidelines model we had in the past. It will try to bring about a more holistic approach, bringing economic development, planning, environmental protection and other such issues together. There will be one national planning framework and three regional spatial and economic strategies to align with each of the three new regional assembly areas, midland and eastern, southern and northern and western. That will provide the framework for co-ordination at local level. They are priorities for progression development later on this year and probably into the first part of 2016.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What are the timeline dates on the national planning framework?

Mr. Niall Cussen:

It is from 2015 into early 2016.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Sheridan and his team. Like Senator Keane, I, too, regret the necessity for this Bill. I represent an area that was subject to more planning abuse than any other area in the whole country, namely, the Clondalkin, Lucan and Palmerstown area. We were deprived of our town centre because of the inappropriate behaviour on the old Dublin County Council in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We have to live the rest of our lives with the problems to which that has given rise. In many ways, I do not like the idea of having a new institutional arm, the Office of the Planning Regulator, because in a sense it removes the democratic input to planning, but I understand why it has to be put in place.

How will the national planning framework make a difference between what will happen and the practice before now? We had a situation a few years ago when in my view there were far too many areas designated as areas of development, rather than keeping it to just three or four. Will the new framework have an impact on that number?

I have been asked to raise an issue which is not included in the Bill. Will it be possible to add an addendum in this regard to the Bill? There is a specific commitment in the programme for Government to promote and support universal design whereby all environments can be used to the greatest extent possible by all people regardless of age, ability or disability. Is there any way this provision could be tagged on as an addendum to the Bill? While progress has been made, particularly in term of access to public buildings for those in wheelchairs and so on, it has not trickled down to housing. It would be very advantageous for us if we could get to the stage that housing was built in such a way from the start so that it would be more accessible for everybody.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a very important discussion document. I agree with Deputy Dowds that the powers of the Office of the Planning Regulator would have to be carefully and finely tuned in order that the local democratic process would continue but also that the oversight, which seems to be one of the key issues, would be very thorough and very full in every respect.

On the question of the regulator forming an opinion on possible systemic failures and corruption risks, that is not a difficulty for me but I would have thought it would be a matter for the Garda Síochána. I would like the witnesses to expand on that.

Again I agree with Deputy Dowds that the systematic abuse of the planning process by a small but significant minority of councils led to the tribunals and the appalling corruption they exposed. I welcome the increased vigilance but we must ensure it is fine-tuned and the correct people are doing the right investigations. I note that the witnesses are nodding in agreement. I presume I will get a response on that issue.

I like the fact that the Office of the Planning Regulator provides for research, training and education in planning as well as that one of its core functions will be to evaluate and assess development plans. However, in the instance that the Office of the Planning Regulator forms an opinion with which the Minister of the day disagrees, the Minister will be required to explain the reasons for that, lay such reasons before the Houses of the Oireachtas and also make them available on the Department's website. I would like to tease this out. I presume a regulator would not form such an opinion unless it was a significant issue and the Minister would not disagree unless there were significant reasons for doing so, but the resolution of that difference of opinion should it arise, rests with the Minister. That is my understanding. Is the requirement to have an explanation given in the Houses of the Oireachtas adequate? I am thinking out loud. Should the Minister be obliged to ensure his or her reasoning is benchmarked?

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Minister's reason be challenged?

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. I presume the Minister's reason could be challenged in the court. I am just looking at possible conflicts.

The other important issue is a subject close to my heart and to the hearts of all of the people in the country who are marching, which is the powers of Irish Water and how it relates to the provisions of the Bill. One of the key difficulties which I thought about a great deal when I was Minister of State was the question of the relationship between the planning authorities and Irish Water. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

The question is who decides where strategic planning takes place. Will it be Irish Water when it sets out its national programme? I know Mr. Cussen is shaking his head but I will query that, if he does not mind. If there is a significant investment programme of €60 million or €100 million, Irish Water may have to decide where the needs arise. They may decide to invest in the greater Dublin area, but if the Dublin local authorities have not planned enough housing or services, then that investment will theoretically come to nothing. Alternatively, if elected councillors in Killarney or Drogheda decide to zone 200 acres of land there and insist on a huge new industrial development zone, that would not make sense either. The key issue is striking a balance between the critical strategic investment that Irish Water will have to make and the wisdom of local authorities that want to develop their own areas.

I note that when Mr. Cussen commented on the spatial strategy, he said there were three regional committees. Would they be the primary movers in the spatial strategy? Is it from the bottom up or from the region down?

Mr. Niall Cussen:

There is one national planning framework prepared and approved by the Government and the Oireachtas. There are three regional spatial and economic strategies prepared in light of the Government's or the Oireachtas planning framework and adopted by the regional assemblies. Obviously, Irish Water and the whole infrastructure piece is very important.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has to be tied into that.

Mr. Niall Cussen:

Absolutely.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The linking in of that to the legislation will be critical, as will the responsibilities and accountability of each and every one of those agencies. For instance, even outside those, there is the Industrial Development Authority Ireland, as well as where the HSE wants to put its regional services, and private airports. It is a huge job of work that has to be managed.

Mr. Niall Cussen:

Land comes first.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Cussen can answer both blocks of questions from Deputy O'Dowd and Deputy Dowds.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issue for me is who is the generator. In other words, does a county councillor present me with a plan or does the regional authority present a councillor or a citizen with a plan? Those issues are critically important, including the identification of weaknesses in the last spatial strategy. Mr. Cussen rightly said that was in a different era and, I might add, it was also a different government.

For example, the industrial development of County Louth was decided by a Cabinet meeting. At the time, under FOI, only the future spatial strategy for County Louth was released. It was Drogheda versus Dundalk, rather than Drogheda and Dundalk. In many respects, the criteria that will decide all of these hugely important strategic investment decisions cannot be imposed from above. These are critically important issues to get right. I presume they will be addressed when the legislation is going through.

There are just two other points that I want to make. One basic question comes back to the democratic process and the rights of communities to determine their own future. In order to get it right, one cannot have a massive bureaucracy stamped by the regional assembly, the independent regulator, the Department and the politicians. In order to get the mix right, local voices must be heeded. Mr. Cussen has a huge job of work to produce this legislation. If it is done right, it will be radical and good, but if it is wrong, it will be heavy-handed and overdosed with bureaucracy. That is the trap into which we could fall.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could I add to what Deputy O'Dowd has said?

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Briefly.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree absolutely with his last point. I have personal experience of it concerning a strategic development zone, or SDZ, in my own county. There needs to be a mechanism whereby people's reasonable concerns are properly addressed. It is not always done in the current system. Some of the so-called consultation can be a joke because it is just ticking a particular box. That issue needs to be addressed, while at the same time taking note of what is good planning.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will get answers to those points before going to our final two speakers.

Mr. Terry Sheridan:

I thank Deputy Dowds and Deputy O'Dowd. As regards Deputy Dowds' first remarks on the need for a regulator, it was unfortunate that such a body had to be established on foot of past occurrences, some of which were addressed in the Mahon tribunal with regard to particular incidences that occurred in his constituency. That is the legacy of what happened in the past. The purpose of the regulator is to try to ensure that past mistakes do not recur. We want an efficient, well functioning planning system to ensure the proper planning and sustainable development of the country as a whole.

We have had planning legislation in place for the past 50 years and it is constantly evolving. We are looking at further changes to ensure that the planning system is fit for purpose to deliver on the objectives of Government, local authorities and regional authorities with regard to development plans for local areas.

As regards the Clonburris SDZ, which the Deputy also mentioned on the last occasion, I made a point of going out there. I was pleasantly surprised that the area has huge potential.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course it does and it should have been developed yonks ago.

Mr. Terry Sheridan:

I was not familiar with it the last time I was here. Having seen it, however, it is an area that is well serviced by infrastructure.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yet it is the one area between Lucan and Clondalkin that has no housing.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are conscious of that, Deputy, thank you.

Mr. Terry Sheridan:

On foot of the infrastructure that is there, it is ideal for development, but the timing of the SDZ was not perfect either. It was developed at the wrong time, as the economy was going into decline. I understand, however, that South Dublin County Council is reactivating it. It is proposing that the SDZ be extended beyond what was originally proposed. Hopefully there will be developments on that front going forward.

Deputy O'Dowd referred to the issue of corruption risks in local authorities. The regulator will be mandated to undertake reviews of the organisation, and the systems and procedures employed by planning authorities in the performance of their planning functions. Where it identifies issues like corruption risks, it will effectively be the first finder, and will report any adverse findings to the appropriate authorities for ongoing investigation - that would be the Garda Síochána, the DPP, etc.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that point, how do they determine that? I am all in favour and do not have a problem with it, but what criteria would they have to objectively identify that?

Could they form an opinion? Could they have a hunch or would they have to have evidence? The burden of proof is a huge issue.

Mr. Terry Sheridan:

The regulator will have powers to inspect the records of local authorities, so it will gather the information and pass it on. It will then be up to the appropriate authorities to decide on it.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The question is whether the planning regulator forms an opinion. Does he or she have to form an opinion before sending it on?

Mr. Patrick O'Sullivan:

The Deputy himself has identified the important point - that the Minister's current powers and those of the regulator will not replace the appropriate powers of the Garda concerning corruption.

Another important point is that the role of the regulator in assessing the performance and procedures of planning authorities is ultimately to deliver a better planning system at local level. The focus is not necessarily on corruption. It only arises if there is a possibility that evidence may be found. At that stage the regulator would decide whether there should be a deeper examination to determine whether there is any specific evidence. Where evidence is found it would be passed over to the appropriate authorities.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am trying to tease out what would happen where departmental inquiries are, or were, going on. It links into certain counties that are, or were, being looked at.

Mr. Patrick O'Sullivan:

It is very similar. As the Deputy is aware, there is a current review of performance, systems and procedures, which is being informed by about six planning authorities. That is currently being advanced. The Minister anticipates receiving a final draft report in the near future.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would go to the board.

Mr. Patrick O'Sullivan:

In essence, that role would transfer to the regulator.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I had evidence and felt there was corruption - not necessarily among officials, for want of a better term, but in the political system or outside it - what would I do with that evidence, as a citizen? Would the Garda direct me to the planning regulator? Will that fine detail be in the Bill?

Mr. Patrick O'Sullivan:

The Minister will continue to have overall responsibility for legislative planning frameworks and policy. Complaints procedures are currently published by the Department and they come centrally to the Minister. The Minister can also decide, should he wish, to refer matters to the regulator.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two more speakers.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I get a response on the issue of disability?

Mr. Niall Cussen:

The issue of universal design and general accessibility for all is a key part of most, if not all, local authority development plans. It is broader than the planning policy arena, however. It cuts across into building control. The Deputy is obviously aware of the provisions of the building regulations, which have been transformative regarding accessibility to new buildings generally - not just public buildings but also residential homes. Wheelchair access and general accessibility have been transformed by new building regulations over the last few years. We will certainly examine whether there are any further enhancements we can make concerning the objectives that a local authority development plan must set out. We are reasonably confident that the scope is there in the local authority objectives, which comprise a long list that local authorities can include in their development plans. I have been reviewing development plans for the Department for many years and every such plan certainly has ample statements on ensuring that there is accessibility for all and ensuring universal design approaches to the built environment in their areas. If the Deputy has more technical or detailed suggestions, we would always have an open view on them.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of any new housing, is Mr. Cussen saying there will definitely have to be good accessibility?

Mr. Niall Cussen:

That is addressed in the building controls system, as well as in the design standards for new housing, particularly as regards how one approaches the building and circulates within it, and the provision of certain ground-floor facilities. If the Deputy feels that particular aspects are defective, we will certainly raise them with our colleagues on the building control side. We would be reasonably satisfied, however, that from a strategic policy perspective, the planning process is very pro universal design.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the speakers for their presentations and for the documents that have been circulated. I wish to raise a few items. Earlier, Deputy Cowen spoke about bonds and housing estates that were not taken in charge. Does Mr. Cussen have information on private estates that local authorities cannot take in charge because there is no bond or they do not have the money? In addition, they may be in NAMA or in a complicated banking situation. If Mr. Cussen has that information, I would appreciate it. I have heard figures, although I am not sure whether they are right or wrong, but it is important for us to deal with facts.

I welcome the proposed Bill but I have a few queries that Mr. Cussen might help me with. Part 2 of his document points out the investigative powers to examine, inter alia, possible systemic failings in the planning system and any corruption risks therein. Where will the situation go after an investigation? Is Mr. Cussen in a position, or will he be in a position, to carry out legal enforcement?

I welcome the provisions for research and training. Will elected members be included in the provision of training and research, which are often difficult for elected local councillors to avail of?

Deputy O'Dowd asked where the Minister stands on all of this. As I understand it from Mr. Cussen's explanation, where a Minister agrees with the recommendations of the regulator, he or she shall act accordingly and issue appropriate directions or instructions to the relevant executive on the steps to be taken in relation to the revision of a local plan. Is Mr. Cussen saying, in effect, that at the draft stage of a development plan - whether it is a full county development plan or a local area one - the Minister can instruct or direct changes? If not, when will the changes take effect?

We currently have a hierarchy of national, regional and local areas. This comes back to what Deputy O'Dowd talked about. If we have a specific input at local level for the betterment of a community or for a specific issue where it does not slot smoothly into the hierarchy, will the regulator be able to intervene in order to improve the situation, in the interests of best practice or for the best use of an opportunity to put a development plan in place?

Another issue that caught the headlines when this Bill was being proposed is that elected members may pay a fee for making a submission on a planning application. Mr. Cussen now says it will be a reduced fee or no fee. Will it be no fee or a reduced one? Perhaps Mr. Cussen can clarify that matter.

As regards improving and streamlining the existing provisions in section 180 of the Planning Act on taking housing estates in charge, can Mr. Cussen explain exactly what he means to do in that respect?

Deputy Dowds raised the issue of disability. He and I were contacted by representatives of the disability sector about this issue. Section 25(3) of the Disability Act 2005 states that we must ensure all public buildings are accessible by 2015. I agree with Mr. Cussen about the work that has been done in new legislation concerning public buildings and local authority housing. However, there are a plethora of local libraries, sports complexes, swimming pools and council offices that are not accessible for those with disabilities.

I hate to say it here but if a disabled person wanted to come to the council chamber in the town hall in my home town of Carrick-on-Suir, he or she had to be carried up two flights of stairs in their wheelchair. There was no other way to get into the chamber. We often had to move civic events from the council chamber to the local hotel. That was unacceptable. According to the legislation I have referred to, this is supposed to be dealt with by the end of 2015 which is ten months away so can the Department put a specific element into this Bill under miscellaneous revisions of planning Acts to deal with this issue once and for all?

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. It is a pity that we have to appoint a regulator in the first instance but we are obviously paying for our sins of the past. Can the regulator overrule a decision of a county council? I know the Minister has the final decision but can the regulator recommend or change a decision? While I served on local authorities, I discovered issues in new estates such as speeding, which is a big problem in any estate I know, and parking in estates. I visited an estate recently with six OPDs and 28 houses. A total of 54 vehicles were parked there, many of which were parked illegally. I often wondered how an ambulance or fire brigade would get into these estates. These were local authority estates where one might not expect to see two or three cars parked where there are teenagers or those in their early 20s. Should we look at it and should we have less density and provide more car parking spaces? In respect of speeding, I have come across estates where people have been living for the best part of 20 years and discovered that a lot of speeding was taking place. Speed bumps have been installed by local authorities. Should we legislate so that at the building stage, the developer provides speed bumps in private estates and the local authority provides them in local authority estates?

I have a point to make with regard to a roadway where two cars cannot pass but where one must pull into a ditch or gateway to allow the other to pass, where there is no speed limit sign and where the speed limit is understood to be 80 km/h. I know we cannot expect them to be patrolled. Stirling Moss or some of the other famous drivers would not be able to do 80 km/h on such a road. I am talking about roads in the heart of the Cooley peninsula, where I come from, which takes in the mountain regions of Omeath and Glenmore. I see it from a planning perspective. If the speed limit is 80 km/h on the road, the stopping distances and line-of-sight distances are not attainable in the vast majority of cases. Indeed people have had to look for a slice of the adjacent field or property and may not have obtained it because there may be a difference of opinion between neighbours. I am not sure whether we have legislated for an 80 km/h per hour speed limit on roads that do not have speed limit signs. Should we legislate for a 50 km/h speed limit based on the width of the road? I am talking about roads that may have grass growing down the middle. Perhaps this is not something we can legalise but should or can we legislate for some of these changes?

Mr. Terry Sheridan:

I thank Senators Landy and Brennan. In respect of the taking in charge issue and bonds, unfortunately, there are thousands of estates throughout the country which remain to be taken in charge.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We hear all these things. Perhaps Mr. Sheridan might be able to break them down on a county-by-county basis.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Sheridan without interruption.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not interrupting. I just want to clarify that point.

Mr. Terry Sheridan:

There are thousands and it is an issue. It was an issue that was raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy last year in her Private Members' Bill. We have committed to undertaking a detailed review of the existing taking in charge provisions, including the provision of adequate bonds and securities, in the development of the Bill. As I have outlined, we will be coming forward with proposed changes to streamline, expedite, update and make the existing provisions more effective.

In respect of the investigative powers of the regulator when they form an opinion with regard to certain issues in the performance of a planning authority, the regulator will essentially be looking at the returns of local authorities, the statistics that are coming in and the percentage over-turn rate with regard to decisions of An Bord Pleanála which reverse decisions of planning authorities to assess whether there is consistency throughout the country. It will select local authorities at random and undertake reviews of their performance. If any issues are identified, it will pass them on to the appropriate authorities, initially the Garda, for further investigation. We are talking about trying to ensure a better and more equal outcome for citizens in the activities and operations of the planning system.

In respect of research and education and whether elected members will be included, providing education and research and support for elected members and public officials operating in the planning system will be one of the key functions of the regulator. Mr. Niall Cussen and I have already been active in this regard of late. We have engaged with the Association of Irish Local Government in undertaking a series of roadshows on the planning system targeted at the recent intake of councillors who were elected last year.

In respect of the role of the Minister and when his involvement will kick in with regard to development plans and any issues arising with regard to them, the final decision will rest with the Minister but the regulator will be fairly active during the development plan process as it is being drafted and published.

As already outlined, any final decisions in respect of directions to local authorities will rest with the Minister and will be based on the advice of the regulator. On the issue of fees in respect of submissions from elected members on planning permission applications, we will be advocating that such fees should not be imposed.

The Senator referred to disabled access. Perhaps we might consider the insertion of a relevant provision. Mr. Cussen has already addressed this issue, which is much broader than planning and which is primarily a building control matter. Massive progress has been made in the area of disabled access to buildings, particularly public buildings, in recent years.

Senator Brennan referred to speeding in housing estates. We issued a circular to local authorities on this matter quite recently. I can forward a copy of the circular to the Senator for his information. It indicates that speed calming and other similar measures should be addressed in the assessment of planning applications for proposed new residential estates.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Sheridan is referring to new estates.

Mr. Terry Sheridan:

Yes. Account must also be taken of the design manual relating to urban roads that was jointly published by our Department and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in the past year or so. The aim of that manual is to improve the design of housing estates. One can achieve a great deal in terms of reducing speed by slightly tweaking the design of estates. I will forward a copy of the circular to the Senator. It is a matter for local authorities, under their by-laws, to set speed limits on existing estates.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regardless of whether they are local authority or private housing estates, the speed limits should be imposed as a matter of course.

Mr. Terry Sheridan:

The intention is that they will be incorporated at the design phase in respect of new developments. That is what we advocate. We also advocate that this issue should be raised during the pre-consultation stage in which local authorities and planning authorities engage with developers in order that speed limits might be incorporated in the design of estates.

Mr. Niall Cussen:

To respond to Senator Landy, the taking-in-charge process has certainly not been characterised by speed. There is a significant backlog of housing developments throughout the country which remain to be taken in charge. This is a result of the boom years. Local property tax and other considerations have been game-changers in the context of local communities' expectations regarding the quality of the service they receive in terms of ensuring that developments are ultimately taken in charge and maintained by local authorities. Under circulars we issued in the past, local authorities are required to maintain registers of their developments and to report on progress regarding the taking-in-charge process. The Office for Local Authority Management publishes local authority service indicators every year and these highlight the progress being made in respect of the taking-in-charge process. Considering the level of activity in this area and in view of the work being done by unfinished housing development co-ordinators in local authorities, we expect to see a significant increase in the number of estates being taken in charge by the authorities. One local authority recently highlighted the likelihood, quite literally, of hundreds of developments being taken in charge under an accelerated process into the future.

While the Department does not maintain a register of the thousands of estates involved and their locations - that would be a very complex administrative task in its own right - individual local authorities, through their taking-in-charge teams and unfinished housing development co-ordinators, maintain good information in this regard. Details of that can be found on the housing agencies' websites. The Senator also inquired about bonds, etc. A huge amount of information is also publicly available in that regard. I wish to bring to the attention of Oireachtas Members or members of the public who have queries in respect of this matter the fact that every local authority in the land has an unfinished housing development co-ordinator. Details relating to this are available on the websites of the Department, the housing agencies' websites and local authorities. People should make contact and obtain the information they require, which, as already stated, is available. We maintain an overview in respect of the general progress made on a year-to-year basis and we publish it as part of the report on unfinished housing developments, the most recent version of which was published just before Christmas. Again, that report is available on the Department's website.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is it called?

Mr. Niall Cussen:

It is the report of the unfinished housing developments team in the Department and local authorities. I will forward a copy to the committee.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am concerned about private developments which are not to be taken in charge and which are currently covered under the Multi-Unit Developments Act and also circumstances where developers' interests have been taken over by NAMA and where there is no bond and where there is nothing left. Some residents took out insurance with development management companies and a week prior to this being up they receive notification to apply for renewal. If there is not a proper development management company in place, some people do not receive such notification and their insurance lapses. Will what is proposed in respect of taking estates in charge assist individuals in such circumstances? Proper management companies should be in place in respect of all developments. This matter has been allowed to fall between two stools as a result of developers going bust. Management companies, under the Multi-Unit Developments Act, are trying to clean up the mess but they are unable to do so as a result of a lack of bonds or whatever. How is this matter going to be dealt with?

Mr. Niall Cussen:

The changes we are proposing to make relate to the taking in charge of conventional housing developments where there is shared public realm or what will become public realm. I am referring here to roads, streets, amenities and so on which form part of the normal streetscape with which we are all very familiar. We need to be extremely careful in the context of lumping in the multi-unit developments in which there are, in effect, private areas and treating them in the same way. There are issues in this regard which have been addressed in the Multi-Unit Developments Act. We are aware, through our work in respect of unfinished developments, etc., of particular problems that have arisen in respect of certain developments. It is necessary to follow a process of working through this with receivers, financial institutions and owners and the various arrangements under the Multi-Unit Developments Act, rather than to some extent importing the liabilities and legacy costs into local authorities. The latter already face a significant challenge in the context of managing unfinished housing developments.

The interface between the Multi-Unit Developments Act and the planning legislation is going to come into play as we go through the detail involved. However, these are two different issues in that we are discussing the regulation of private space as opposed to the management or maintenance of public space.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under section 183 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, an estate can be taken in charge in circumstances where 80% of residents indicate their assent. This mechanism was only used once in South Dublin County Council and I tabled the motion in respect of it.

Is that a constitutional right of a person in an apartment? Section 183 refers to 80% of the signatories being taken-in-charge. What right do they have to say they want to get rid of the management company? Does that apply to them? Are they disenfranchised under that Act?

Mr. Niall Cussen:

There are genuine issues around compelling a local authority which has particular jurisdictions and functions in taking over private space, such as lift shafts and corridors, which are not part of the public realm. They are areas to which people have normal access, but are more properly the job of the owners of those properties who need to come together, with the relevant interests, and figure out a strategy to deal with it and so on. We would perhaps solve one problem but create many more. We have to carefully examine the interface between the multi-unit developments legislation and planning legislation and make sure there is a clean, but understandable, transition from one to the other.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That concludes our consideration of the topic for this session. I thank all of the witnesses, who are free to go.