Mr. Nick Killian:

There is more of a mid-term view certainly within the AILG. We have already been discussing this and have had quite a lot of discussions over the last couple of weeks. Like every organisation, there are those who will put their hands up and say they want ten years and others will put their hands up and say they want six. There is an in-between. It depends on the understanding of what the five-year review is going to be. Will it be a statutory review? How will it operate from both ours and the CCMA's point of view at each local authority? The key as to whether there is agreement on the ten-year plan is to ask where we are. That is not defined in the Bill at this point.

Our other concern is that there has for a long time been a certain ambiguity about the status of planning guidelines issued by the Minister. Section 23 of the draft Bill would seem to bring certainty to the mandatory status of such guidelines but at the price of reinforcing ministerial control over the actions of local authorities. Worse still, the section empowers the Minister to consult with other parties in advance of issuing the guidelines. However, there is no mention at all in the current Bill as it is outlined of consultation with planning authorities or councillors with regard to such consultation. It is unacceptable to us that mandatory statements can be issued by a Minister without the people who have to implement the statements on the ground, namely, the local authorities and elected members, having an input into that. That will again feed into the answer on the actual lifetime of the development plan.