Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. Planting and afforestation are some of the measures we need to take for carbon sequestration as the Minister of State has set out and it is desirable. It is also desirable that we have species diversity in the forests and that the forests are in the right places. Based on the issue Deputy Martin Kenny and the Minister of State discussed with regard to counties that have a lot of forestry, the issue of people accepting forestry is a serious issue. Does the Minister of State consider the existing system, whereby somebody who wants to plant land applies to the Department for a licence, is robust enough? Does it take everything into account that should be taken into account?

The forestry standards book gives advice to people applying for licences on how they should proceed and we have the forestry and landscape guidelines that set out how forestry should proceed ideally. In fact, from my experience I do not know whether it is working in the best way it could and achieving the results it should. It seems to be apart from our planning system, which is operated by the local authorities.

The irony is if people planting a forest want to build a road the chances are they will have to go to the local authority but if they want to blanket an entire area with a forest they do not have to do so. I am not saying it has to be the same system but to what extent are the Minister of State and his officials looking at county development plans? For example, what happens when somebody seeks to plant in an area that has been identified as having scenic value? There are cases where a 60 m setback is not sufficient and it needs to be more. How often is discretion that the Minister of State's officials have to extend the setback exercised?

I am aware of a current case in point. There is a 60 m setback but the forest will be built on a hill. If it was put further back it would be in a hollow. It will be overbearing. It is an agricultural community but there is ribbon development with houses all around it that will be overshadowed by a forest. Even after many years when it is felled people will have to replant.

If someone were going to build a big shed that would have had the same impact on the landscape, such as breaking the horizon, views and distances, the local authority would ask that it be put in the hollow but this does not seem to happen with forestry. I know trees are natural and concrete is not but for us to make forestry more palatable we have to have a more nuanced approach and it definitely has to blend with county development plans. County development plans allow a democratic quotient to come into the equation, whereby any time development plans are passed by the local authority there has been a lot of consultation. There needs to be more dialogue with the public if the Minister of State is to achieve his aspiration of planting more trees in appropriate places.

I note that while there is a recommendation in the guidelines that forestry developers liaise with landowners of neighbouring properties this does not happen but there does not seem to be any penalty. Somebody living far away who owns land and who will not be affected by the forest does not have to consult with anybody and can very well get a licence. I would like to know in what circumstances and how often the Minister of State has increased the setback to more than 60 m. I definitely think 60 m in ribbon development villages is not sufficient.

Having two systems of land use control and development for forestry and buildings, with each not recognising the other and with no blending or harmonious approach as to how forests are developed, will lead to problems. It seems the entire process for getting a licence to plant a forest is done in somewhat splendid isolation to the greater objectives, whether tourism or land amenity, that a local authority may have written into the development plan. I do not see an interface between the two.

I have pointed to many concerns and perhaps the Minister of State can shed some light on the issues and comment on the idea that there needs to be a more integrated approach. I do not know whether it is in all local authorities but my local authority has a special agricultural policy committee that examines this type of issue with regard to agriculture but it is obviously not a planning and development committee. I can see the local authorities are becoming more in tune to these issues and there could be a more integrated approach that might lead to fewer objections because not every case is taken ad hoc.

Naturally not everybody will be happy with developments, and it is the same with regard to planning permission for a house or any other development, but I do not think people in communities are getting their fair say about where forestry goes and where it is desirable to go. There has to be a conversation. We have identified it in other areas of climate action. There has to be a conversation and engagement and people have to agree a general consensus on what the common good requires and then get down to the specifics on the ground with regard to the particular parts of counties. There are parts of my county that were planted with no objection whatsoever. The issue arises near housing. Let not beat about the bush - pardon the pun - or the forest. It has a serious impact on the look of a landscape, particularly where there is no forestry whatsoever. I know we are moving away from monoculture but in any event I do not think people feel that all of the factors in the round are examined sufficiently. The Minister of State might particularly answer the question about issues identified in development plans, such as why we would possibly want to have forestry on land identified as having scenic views or for tourism and why it cannot be precluded. What consideration he is giving to county development plans?