Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I believe in integrated planning, including the timely delivery of critical infrastructure.

In his opening remarks the Minister placed the need for this Bill in the context of the national spatial strategy, regional guidelines and county development plans. Section 27 of the Planning and Development Act requires local authorities to have regard to regional planning guidelines in force for their areas when making and adopting a development plan. Unless this occurs, it is impossible to plan strategically.

I draw attention to two issues in this regard and refer to a court case relating to one of these. In the case of McEvoy & Smith v. Meath County Council a judgment was handed down on 5 November 2002 by Mr. Justice Quirke. I will quote two sections of the judgment.

The evidence adduced at the hearing of these proceedings strongly suggests that in a number of respects the Meath plan does not comply with the guidelines and indeed in some of its provisions it has substantially departed from the guidelines policy and objectives. Navan is the only "development centre" identified in the guidelines for which any growth other than for local needs is recommended. Nonetheless elected members at electoral area meetings have decided to zone large amounts of land for residential purposes in dozens of small towns in a manner which appears to be quite inconsistent with the recommendations of the guidelines. As I have already indicated none of these decisions appear to have been made in the context or against the background of any consideration of the guidelines. In many instances "local interests" appear to have overcome the concepts "local needs".

The judgment continues:

Whilst I am conscious of the fact that to a material extent, the guidelines were intended to be implemented by such zoning decisions, I take the view that the guidelines are themselves flawed to an extent in that they are and remain incomplete in failing to identify and define the type of consideration which they expect planning authorities to give them. Accordingly, although the nature and extent of the consideration given by the elected members of the Respondents to the Guidelines in the zoning of land for residential purposes gives rise to concern (and indeed unease), I am not satisfied that the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants has established that, when making and adopting the Meath plan, the respondent failed to (have regard to) the Guidelines within the meaning of section 27 of the Act of 2000.

The second case to which I want to draw attention relates to strategic planning for County Kildare. The regional plan aims to allow Leixlip, Celbridge and Maynooth to grow to have populations of 15,000 each. The 2002 census showed that Leixlip had a population of more than 15,000 even before the regional plan was adopted. Land had been zoned at that time to provide for yet more development in the town. The population of Celbridge was approximately 200 short of 15,000 at that time and is likely to have exceeded 20,000 by the time the next census is undertaken. Balanced regional development will not and cannot occur unless the strategic plans are credible and adhered to. It will be impossible to plan and fund strategic infrastructure projects if that does not happen. Section 27 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which was identified by Mr. Justice Quirke in his judgment, needs to be amended because it is at the core of strategic planning.

Delays in delivering infrastructure often relate to delays in approving projects. Approval was not given to proposals which had been supplied to the Department almost four years earlier until water from the regional waste water treatment plant at Sallins started spilling into the River Liffey upstream of Fingal's water treatment plant, which provides water to north and west Dublin, north Kildare and parts of Meath. The approval in question was only given on an incremental basis. Such delays are not caused by problems in the planning system.

Deputies referred earlier in this debate to the Transport 21 proposals such as the interconnector project, which will facilitate an additional 75 million passengers when it is finished in ten years' time. I hope it is finished on time. The proposed electrification of key railway lines is another example of a project that will not be pursued for many more years. We will not need to fast-track the planning system in such instances, because it will be possible to pursue them in parallel with other projects which are required.

I realise my time is limited so I want to highlight some other issues briefly before I conclude. I warmly welcome the changes in section 9 which will give extra powers to local authorities to weed out rogue developers. It is a very positive initiative. There is a provision there already, but this will reverse the responsibility, obviously, which is important.

We are aware of the consequences of project-splitting in the Rossport case. The community there was unable to make an adequate input into the proposal to develop a pipeline. Project-splitting did not lead to fast-tracking in that instance — if anything, it slowed the process. If we give the public time to interact with the planning process, we will make an investment in good decision making.

I do not agree that the planning appeals board should be turned into a planning authority. I agree with the EU's reasoned judgment that the fees charged at local authority level are wrong. The fees are substantially less than the fees which are charged by the planning appeals board. I would like the Minister, when he responds at the end of this debate, to clarify how this Bill will impact financially on people who make submissions, contributions or objections.

I note the Minister's coalition partners used their Private Members' time in the Seanad this week to debate the issue of management companies. We know about the problems which exist in that regard. I hoped, nine months after I identified the issue in the Dáil, that we would be starting to see some resolutions in this respect. I am unhappy that some measures in this area have not been included in the Bill. There are serious problems with green spaces in older housing estates. When developers left the estates decades ago, local authorities took roads and utilities in charge but not green spaces. The name of the original developer is still on the title for many green spaces. Some greedy developers have re-emerged to seek to build on green spaces on foot of the Government's introduction of increased densities. This Bill represents an opportunity to add suitable protections, for example by means of amendment. I intend to present some amendments to that end.

I will speak briefly about the issue of community gain, which has been used in County Kildare to get amenity land for sporting use and for school sites. People who own land are concerned about what they call its "hope value". It is often impossible to deliver amenity land for sporting facilities. This is the only way in which it can be delivered. I cannot say I am enthusiastic about this approach, but it is often the case that it has to be done in this way. This approach has delivered some valuable facilities in north Kildare.

The Minister's comment yesterday that "the Government is investing 5% of our gross national product in public infrastructure" highlights the extent to which we need to catch up. This Bill used to be called the critical infrastructure Bill. It is critically important that we match infrastructure to population. We will not have balanced regional development if we do not have some control in this regard. Section 27 of the 2000 Act is of absolute importance to that end. I hope the Minister will consider some amendments in this respect because the section in question is open to being disregarded by local authorities as it stands. It is impossible to plan the funding of critical infrastructure if we do not have a baseline on which that can be done.

See this speech in context