Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)

In yesterday's debate, I went through some of the key features of the Bill. There will be major changes to the way in which the board handles infrastructural consents, including the possibility of pre-application discussions with the applicant and more flexibility in the decisions the board can make on these applications. This provision is inappropriate to the board as it gives an inside track to developers and creates a serious disadvantage for individuals and communities concerned about such major infrastructural developments.

The Bill also gives power to the board to amend decisions on major infrastructural projects, subject to requiring any major additional environmental impacts to be assessed. It also empowers the board to require infrastructure providers to provide direct benefits to local communities affected by major infrastructural projects. I will come back to that point later. It also requires the board to have regard to the national interest and any effect a decision may have on issues of strategic economic or social importance to the State as well as to the national spatial strategy, and any regional planing guidelines in force for the area.

Section 35 of the Planning Act is to be amended to make it easier for authorities to reach a decision to refuse a consent without recourse to the High Court. Instead, it will be a matter for the applicant who is refused permission, to seek confirmation of the High Court that the planning authority must reconsider its initial decision. I welcome that provision. While local authorities are allowed to take into account the history of developers concerning previous contacts, dealings and planning applications, they were required to go to the High Court to refuse a consent. This is a good provision in so far as it puts the onus on the applicant to go to the High Court to seek a ruling that the planning authority must reconsider its initial decision.

The Bill is flawed overall, however, and I have serious concerns and reservations about it. Far from expediting the planning process, the Bill is an attack on democracy and will undermine local authorities, while sidelining small people who need to have their planning concerns addressed. The Bill looks after big developers but sidelines individuals and communities who require the support of the planning process. The thrust of the Bill reduces the involvement of local authorities and members of the public who are concerned with planning matters. Effectively, the Bill gives big wheels access to power and privilege, while undermining community and individual rights in this respect. It is difficult for an individual or a small community to take on big private developers, local authorities or State agencies.

The Bill should be dealing with a series of areas in the planning process but fails to do so. They include the implementation of the Kenny report which was published in the early 1970s. I was a young clerical officer in South Tipperary County Council at the time and I know there was a big welcome for that report by local authorities, public representatives and the general public. The report recommended methods for dealing with rezoning and developers' windfall profits. Had it been implemented, the report would have avoided the debacle of the various tribunals that have arisen as a result of rezoning controversies, particularly in the Dublin area, thus rendering them unnecessary. At no stage was it suggested that the Kenny report was unconstitutional. Indeed, it was always, and still is, believed that the report's recommendations were constitutional. Even at this late stage, the report's key elements should be included in the Bill.

The Minister and the Government should take this opportunity to deal with estate management companies, which are now being included by every local authority in planning permissions. It is a rip-off for individuals who have purchased houses in private estates. Even this morning, the Taoiseach agreed this provision was not meant to apply to private housing estates. It may have been meant for apartment complexes which needed specific management owing to the number of apartments. The opportunity provided by the Bill should be used to deal with the question of management companies. There is no doubt that significant costs are being met by individuals who buy houses in private estates but who never understood they would be lumbered with these charges which can range from €500 to €2,000 per annum. The charges are included in the initial contract of purchase of houses and young couples purchasing houses in difficult circumstances and under financial pressure are not aware, in the majority of cases if not all, that these charges arise.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should immediately instruct county managers to desist from putting this condition regarding the management of estates into planning permissions. He should then take advantage of the opportunity provided by the Bill to change the law in this regard and stop management companies effectively ripping off young house buyers.

The enforcement procedures in place in local authorities are inadequate. I am dealing with a case where a complaint made in February 2005 has not yet been finalised and has not even reached the courts. There should be a streamlining of the enforcement procedures, possibly through a separate enforcement section in local authorities.

I would like to refer to many other issues but, owing to time constraints, will not have the opportunity to do so. I will hand over to Deputy Sargent.

See this speech in context