Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)

My constituency may not be affected by this legislation, given that the county has been bypassed in so many directions, with bypasses to the north, along the N7 in the centre and now in the south along the N9 and N10. That is almost every road that can go through the constituency.

Many towns have been bypassed but the effect on those towns was not considered. There have been huge increases in traffic but the NRA left the local authorities to develop the internal infrastructure. Leixlip, Celbridge, Naas, Newbridge, Athy, and Kilcullen are all totally frustrated due to the lack of proper infrastructure and the Government must look at this. The local authorities are not in a position to provide the funding necessary for the infrastructure to allow these towns to develop in response to the huge recent increases in population.

Kildare has the fastest growing population outside Dublin and nothing has been done to provide proper infrastructure. Local authorities must provide funding for this. Often we depend on developers to kick start growth as part of their planning and through the levies they must pay. The Government must look at this. Where major planning and development takes place, we must look at the effect it has on the towns and villages being bypassed. They have major problems as a result of bypasses. It may be better for the town or the village but it must be examined and the local authorities must be given funding to ensure proper infrastructure is provided.

In Athy a link road was provided as part of the development of the new M9 and M10. Despite numerous meetings with the NRA, where we said the road was in the wrong place and did not take account of the traffic problems in Athy, we could not convince the NRA to terminate the road south of the town, where it would have linked with the roads to Carlow, Kilkenny and Castledermot, relieving the town of its traffic problems. Amazingly, not only was the road not terminated where local representatives wanted, it was put through the one area zoned for industrial development. It was unbelievable. The local development plan was not consulted to determine where that land was. One of the engineers involved had the audacity to tell me that not alone was it a great decision to put the road through the zoned land but that in time it will be a dual carriageway, intimating that the land is of no industrial benefit. Nothing will happen because the land around the link road is protected to provide for a dual carriageway.

We can see what happens in instances like this. The overall picture is almost always of benefit to the towns being bypassed, but with more thought and investigation, it could be of far greater benefit. The NRA should consider that instead of drawing a line from A to B and saying the road must go there. That is what happened in the example I gave. No one with a logical mind would have finished that road where it was terminated given the problems of the town and the opportunity this presented to alleviate traffic volumes. There has been ongoing argument regarding whether there should be an inner relief road or an outer one. That was not the determination in this case, since there was total support from local businesspeople, the town council and everyone else that the road should terminate outside the town. That would also have had the effect of getting people to use the road.

The amazing thing regarding the site of the link road is that one has two choices approaching that roundabout. Either one goes straight to Dublin, joining the dual carriageway to Kilcullen, or one takes a circuitous route covering an added distance of some miles to reach the carriageway. The ridiculous nature of the situation compounds the lack of investigation into this matter by the NRA. It had an ideal opportunity to help the town and community, but it simply acted without any investigation. I maintain that it did not even examine the land zoned for development. If it had done so, it would certainly not have put a road right through it.

We have had a great deal of discussion on planning issues in general too, and a largescale debate is ongoing regarding rural housing. In local newspapers in recent days there has been controversy, and several councillors raised a motion at council that a review of rural housing policy should be undertaken, despite the fact that those same councillors had voted for it within the last few months. They did so with absolute sincerity, believing the new regulations would address the problems of rural housing. They had everyone's full support, some 24 councillors voting in favour and one against. Now, after a short period, they have had to reopen the debate owing to the lack of consistency in how rural housing policy as determined by the planning section of Kildare County Council is being addressed.

It is unbelievable that, in such a short period, the integrity that they felt would be achieved regarding the planning process has been undermined. In the same report, practically every councillor made the point that it was not what they had voted for. At the same time, the director of planning services in Kildare said the plan was working well. Regarding those divergent views, it is unthinkable that 24 councillors could vote for something and, within a short period, feel it necessary to change it, while the man dealing with the files could maintain there was consistency and that the plan was working well.

Someone is wrong, and I doubt if it is the councillors in this case. We must re-examine and reframe rural housing policy, since councillors have not received the goodwill that they thought they would when they made the original decision. There is no doubt about that, since there were counter-motions at the time, but the council decided on this framework. Moving forward with it, every planner thought that he had made the best decision for the people of south Kildare and those aiming to provide rural housing in the area for themselves. That did not happen, and now we see councillors trying to change the policy's format.

We also see the frustrations that have developed as a result. In south Kildare there is a haemorrhaging of industrial employment. We have seen that recently and will do so again in the next few days. One of the stalwarts of the agriculture industry, Minch Norton, is now proposing to make workers redundant. We have also seen it with the sugar companies. The entire south Kildare area is suffering a loss of industrial employment, a process that has continued for some time. I could go on at length regarding industries lost to south Kildare over the period without anything being replaced. A factory that the IDA brought in to replace one whose employees were made redundant has itself closed.

Despite all that and the fact the IDA has not brought a group to south Kildare in three years, those who seek a rural house are penalised owing to their having to work in Dublin. When people write that on their application, it rings a death-knell. The planning section in Kildare County Council believes that such people should buy houses in Dublin and abandon their commitment to the local community.

In that regard, we see the justifiable frustration that has developed, and I fully support the changes being sought. It is a catch-22, since industrial employment has fallen in south Kildare, although there may be more service jobs, hence the need to seek employment in the city. That has been IDA policy for a long time. It adopted it from America, where it is irrelevant if one has to travel an hour and a half to one's employment. That theory is blown out of the water when decent, honourable people owing to circumstances must travel to Dublin to seek employment. The moment they write on their applications that they are employed in Dublin, the opinion is advanced that they should be able to buy there too.

One can see how ridiculous that is. Many of the villages in south Kildare are now being developed, and people from Dublin are coming to live in them. They are more than welcome to do so, since they have helped develop communities. I have been involved in and seen that happen everywhere. Having purchased houses, they commute to Dublin without any problems, but people in rural parts of the county are punished as a result.

The fee is not the most important thing, rather it is the thought that public representatives must pay to represent those who have elected them. It is crazy to think we have taken that route. This is a further mechanism, and the efforts of local authorities will be reduced overall. That is the source of the frustration. I doubt if anyone in the House would say to those attending that they must pay €20. It is degrading to the person involved that when he or she visits the council offices, there is a €20 fee. They represent those who elected them, but they must pay to do so. It really gets up my nose that such a system is in place, although the level of the fee itself is irrelevant.

I will examine section 37E, which states that members of local authorities may make a submission on any proposal that comes before the board. Subsection (6) reads as follows:

The members of the planning authority may, by resolution, decide to attach recommendations specified in the resolution to the report of the authority; where the members so decide those recommendations shall be attached to the report submitted to the Board under subsection (4).

The next part is what worries me, although I may have misinterpreted it:

In addition to the report referred to in subsection (4), the Board may, where it considers it necessary to do so, require the planning authority or authorities referred to in that subsection or any planning authority or authorities on whose area or areas it would have a significant effect to furnish to the Board such information in relation to the effects of the proposed development on the proper planning and sustainable development of the area concerned and on the environment as the Board may specify.

Does this refer to the executive of the planning authority or its members? It is important to clarify this because we are talking about two different aspects of submissions.

If one reflects upon what I have said about the present development plan and where there is a diversity of opinion among the members — 24 members as opposed to the director of services — it is likely that the same could happen in respect of submissions made by members of the planning authority as opposed to those of the executive members of the planning authority. This would have a significant bearing on what the representatives could say to members of their own party, chambers of commerce and the public, who would have an interest in this. If this were to happen, it would undermine the report they put together and voted on. Perhaps when the Minister of State sums up, he will clarify whether section 7 deals with the executive of the planning authority or additions made by its members to their submissions to the original proposal.

Development in respect of toll roads will result in major problems in respect of existing roads which will now be changed. The introduction of a toll road will bring about a rat run on the road from Kilcullen to Athy in south Kildare. This road will change from a national primary road to a county road when the new road comes into operation. The cost of maintaining it will remain the same because it will take years before the toll road comes into operation and, if a toll appears on the other road, people from south Kilkenny, north Laois and south Kildare will continue to use existing means of accessing the dual carriageway rather than the link road that has been provided owing to the original mistake. This was an infrastructural mistake because the determination of the road was not positioned south of Athy.

One wonders about the design of such a road. The original plan involved three options but one wonders whether they really existed. It appears that the other two designs had no bearing on what happened, that the National Roads Authority had one opinion from the outset and the other opinions did not reflect any political input and ideas that other towns in south Kildare would benefit from the proximity of the road. The link road was built as an alternative. I have spoken about the problems caused by this road. It will not equate with the value the NRA has put on it because it will ensure in future that people must travel further to get on to the dual carriageway. I am concerned by the input that submissions by local authority members will have. Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify this when he sums up.

See this speech in context