Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)

I am not going in circles. I will make my point clear now that the Minister of State has woken up. In simple terms, the Bill is supposed to do away with delays caused by objectors. The road, which is badly needed in County Meath, was not delayed by objectors for seven years. They probably delayed the project for the past year and will possibly do so during the next six months or eight months, which comprise two years of the seven to eight years. What happened during the other five years? The system is wrong in this respect and no other.

The Bill might help to speed up the last process, but that is only part of the matter. The Minister of State should not tell me I am going around in circles. I am clear in what I am saying. I represent an area that has suffered the most from pathetic planning, particularly in terms of housing, infrastructure or any key component in a good quality of life. I wish I could speak on this matter for hours. The Bill will not solve all our problems.

One section provides for face-to-face consultations between An Bord Pleanála and those proposing developments. It makes sense if one is to put money into development, one will speak with those who make the final decision. However, this would only be right if the opposite side also got its say with the same people. Currently, it is wrong that people cannot get access to decision makers even at county-level planning. While pre-planning measures are a step in the right direction, they do not do a good job.

The proposer of the development has a chance to appeal a planning decision, but objectors never receive the chance to meet the decision makers. It is important to have a balance, which is a change Fine Gael would support in the Bill. It makes sense for opponents of developments to meet decision makers. Consequently, one will have faith in the system, which is a key aspect.

As the Minister said, a streamlined process for the public is important. I welcome that local authorities will promote growth and that they will go straight to An Bord Pleanála. The prior situation made no sense to me. We should go a step further, as councils make decisions on their own projects, such as on one-off housing. This is a waste of time because the councils will not refuse themselves permission. It is good that they will go straight to An Bord Pleanála so that people can add to the issue and fast-track some of the projects.

There is a great deal of talk on the part of the Minister and others about badly put together applications. I agree with this, but the Bill does not necessarily address that matter. The Bill would address it if An Bord Pleanála sent back the application and did not want to deal with it any further, but not in general. We need a higher standard of development applications. We should put in law the requirement for stakeholders who are negatively or positively affected to be involved from day one. Clever private industries know this and do such from an early stage, but others do not and try to sneak applications through by placing notices that will never be seen in newspapers. The system does not work that way.

There should be a legal requirement that from day one, one's neighbours should be involved in any planning decision one is making. Neighbours should be told what is happening, what right of say they have and what can change. The response might not be negative, as they might have some good ideas. However, we do not have this provision. We have touched on it in terms of environmental impact statements. With scoping areas, one must consult stakeholders, but this does not really happen.

To get fast-track planning, one should sit down with the people affected, deal with them and try to address their concerns in one's early application. It is the clever way to approach the matter and might even delay many objections. I welcome the provision to attempt negotiations when there are problems. In the case of a road, what one is allowed to do when negotiating is amazing. If I read the Bill correctly, a little negotiation and change is allowed. It should be encouraged, particularly at council level. People should be allowed to engage in proper mediation to solve the problem. They have better things to do in their lives than to complain and object, but they feel they must.

The Bill frequently refers to how environmental impact statements must accompany applications. The statements are of poor standard and not many people in the local authorities and An Bord Pleanála are trained to assess them. As a rule, as soon as an EIS accompanying an application passes the door of a planning authority, it should be sent to be assessed and graded with an A, B, C or D. If it does not reach C, it should be thrown back for not being good enough, as we should not accept shoddy work.

An EIS is an important document. For €1,000, it could be independently assessed, we would know it was good enough and could then accept it. If it is not good enough, it would be sent back to be redone. We should not accept bad workmanship.

In respect of planning, who is in authority? It does not seem to be the councils. There was a chance to review the Planning and Development Act 2000 in this Bill. In that Act, councils were given the right to refuse applications based on a person's or developer's previous history, but only after they went to the High Court. That provision should be removed, as councils should not need to go to any court. If a local authority believes a developer's track record is so bad that his or her application should be reviewed, it should be able to refuse the application there and then instead of taking the risk and going to the expense of going to the High Court, which could cost €500,000. Councils cannot afford this cost because it would mean less money for footpaths, lights and so on.

If councils are to be in control, we should let them deny planning permission to a developer who has done a bad job or not finished an area until the problem has been addressed. The Minister of State lives in Dublin and I live in County Meath, but my local authority cannot go to the High Court every second week, as it might lose. This grey area should be addressed. I will accept correction if I am wrong.

See this speech in context