Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)

It is a pity the Minister must leave but I accept his word that he will read my contribution.

The Minister has good intentions with regard to planning and development. However, the Green Party is a small part of the Government and the problem is the culture that has existed over the years in terms of Fianna Fáil's policy on development. The Minister is possibly limited, therefore, in what he can do. There are many welcome proposals in the Bill and I hope that on Committee Stage the Minister will accept some of the Labour Party's suggestions to improve the Bill.

I believe the Minister should be far more radical than he has been with this Bill. Fianna Fáil, as the main Government party with the major influence, must look at what is happening now with planning, flooding and the many other issues we have to deal with in terms of our economic collapse and sustainability. Before our economy went into recession we had increasing carbon emissions that we were unable to address properly. I believe we are now on the brink of a state of emergency with regard to planning and flooding. My suggestion, and I am sure the Minister can find the power to do it, is to impose a moratorium on rezoning for residential building for a period of time to allow the Government, local authorities, the Office of Public Works and the different agencies involved to take stock. We have had a very bad experience this year and the situation has the potential to get worse as time passes.

A large amount of land is already zoned for housing. In Lucan in south County Dublin, there is probably enough zoned land to keep us going for decades. In other areas there is also too much zoned land, even if it might be concentrated in particular counties. The Minister said the flooding was caused by inappropriate and chronic rezoning, and he is correct. There is much talk about the different factors that cause flooding. People discuss climate change but there is no evidence to suggest that it caused the increased flooding of the past decade. That said, climate change will be a factor and must be taken into account.

The major factor in flooding is development. The problem is not just that we are building on flood plains, but that we have been building too much too fast. We need to take stock before going any further. In my county council, there was a recent attempt to rezone a few hundred acres. This would have been unsustainable and was against the manager's advice, but it would have been approved if not for some councillors stating that it made no sense. Many landowners, councillors and people in the commercial, banking and political worlds are in denial about the situation. They believe that we can revert to how we used to be and they will make a quick buck if more land is rezoned. They are being unrealistic.

While we state that the problem owes to building on flood plains, the issue is more complicated. If one builds virtually anywhere, there will be a flood risk. It is a question of what level of risk we can take and whether the necessary measures to deal with it can be put in place. Most of us live in towns or cities that were built around rivers or on the coast. There are many reasons to develop towns around rivers, but we have been building for a long time in areas at risk of flooding. There can be no developments without some flood risk. It is obvious that if one builds on green land, one will take up space where water would have gone.

The Minister's mantra has been not to build on flood plains, but dealing with flooding is more complicated. One must consider the level of risk prior to building. If one decides to rezone land and build, one must manage the associated flood risk. In some areas, a development's risk could be too high or implementing the necessary flood relief measures could be too costly. They should not be rezoned and the Minister should have strong powers to ensure they are not.

One might need to build a particular type of building, but certain buildings are not appropriate in some areas because of the attached flood risk. However, other buildings could be suitable. All of these factors must be considered. It may need to be decided that key infrastructure should not be built in areas where the risk of flooding is high. For example, we saw pictures of people travelling to hospital by boat. We must consider whether such infrastructure should be built in certain places.

Much of what I am discussing has been covered in the report of the flood policy review group, which was published in 2004. The group involved stakeholders and operated under the auspices of the Office of Public Works. The report was adopted as Government policy, but it has not trickled down into planning.

The cumulative effect of rezoning and commercial and residential development must be examined. There is no point in telling local authorities to consider the flood risk of building on certain lands. One must view the bigger picture. The cumulative effect is a major factor in the current flooding. It is not just that we built where we should not have built, but that there was so much building so quickly. In many areas, flood relief measures have not kept pace with the rate and quantity of development, creating more flood risks consequently.

When the report of the review group was being drafted, 300 sites were identified as being at risk of flooding by taking into account historical flood patterns. However, the resultant flood relief works programme takes no account of future flood risk, particularly in areas that have not been flooded previously. Some of them have since flooded. There are different reasons for not enough money being spent on the programme. The Government has received reports on why the delivery of flood relief works has been so slow and one issue has been lack of manpower, which will become a greater problem if we start reducing public sector numbers. Another factor is the need to streamline planning processes. I do not know how that situation stands, as the Bill does not address it, but the planning of flood relief works should not take too long from the point at which works have been identified as being necessary to the delivery stage.

The plans relate to the past and, while we must consider the future, we must get through the current programme of expenditure on flood relief works if we are to be able to identify new areas in need of flood relief works. We are falling behind in this regard, which is one of the reasons there should be a moratorium on rezoning. This would allow relief works to catch up with infrastructure and us to take stock of the current situation and what must be done. Everyone involved in the process must be educated on this matter, as people involved in local councils do not seem to understand, not even in terms of the Minister's Bill, that this is a question of the bigger picture. I agree with Deputy Hogan concerning centralised planning. While I am for local power and local councillors having a role, this is a national issue, possibly a national emergency. If we do nothing about it, it will worsen in the coming years.

I looked through parts of the Bill. Hopefully, I will be able to discuss them further with the Minister on Committee Stage. He stated that one's objective during the drafting of a development plan should be to conduct a flood risk assessment. I am unsure as to whether the word "objective" is strong enough. I was a county councillor and objectives were vague things that were not often adhered to. How strong would the flood risk assessment objective be? Moreover, will these assessments relate to local areas only and not what is the situation down the road? I live in Lucan and what is done in Leixlip can affect it and vice versa. We must look across boundaries to manage flood risk. The idea is to manage it in terms of river basins, as stated in the report of the flood review group, but the Bill has no provisions on river basin management. Nothing in planning procedures ensures that local authorities co-operate when assessing flood risks.

Development plans are drawn up in many local authorities. I live in south County Dublin and was a member of South Dublin County Council, which is in the process of drafting a development plan. For all I know, a councillor could propose to rezone a plonk of land. I hope that such does not occur, but it has been the case previously. The Minister will not be able to do anything about it. He should consider implementing a moratorium on rezonings for a set period to allow the Government to take stock, develop a strategic approach to the delivery of flood relief works, ensure legislation is sufficiently robust to stop bad rezoning decisions and ensure that local authorities look at the bigger picture and co-operate. The Government should provide leadership in this issue. This is my main point on the Bill, but it is a topical one.

Reference is often made to people who live in communities that have a lack of infrastructure. That is a big part of the history of Lucan, where I live. Flooding was the worst thing to happen to people who bought houses and commercial premises in new areas of Lucan. Flooding has a terrible impact on people's quality of life. It is clear from recent events that it causes significant stress to people. Older people do not want to leave their homes, even when water gathers around their houses at ground level. A great deal of stress and difficulty is caused by flooding. The prevention and management of flood risk should be a major part of our planning process from here on in. The legislation proposed by the Minister is not strong enough. He needs to review it. We need a moratorium on rezoning for a set period so that we can all sing from the same hymn sheet and face up to the reality of what faces us in the future.

The objectives of this legislation, like the planning guidelines, are quite weak. The Bill states that councillors should "have regard to" the guidelines in place to help them when they make assessments and compile reports. The significant rezoning powers of councillors are often used in a positive way. People need houses in which to live. I am in favour of sustainable development. The measures being put in place by the Minister are not legally strong enough. He needs a stronger legislative measure that will ensure councillors, planners and council officials are required to do certain things in their development plans. I have spoken about the term "have regard to". I understand the Minister is considering use of the term "in compliance with". One can tell councillors and planning officials that their development plans must be "in compliance with" certain things, but it is a matter of interpretation. Will the Minister overturn the decisions of councillors if they go ahead and rezone anyway? While the Minister has done more overturning than his predecessors - he has asked councils to overturn decisions - he has not done it very often even though a great deal of bad planning has taken place. I suggest that he should be given stronger powers to tie councillors to legislative provisions. They should have to be "in compliance with" or "have regard to" such provisions.

Sustainable planning, which is mentioned in the Bill, is very important. When we use the term "sustainability", we are talking about the protection of the economy as well as the protection of the environment. We messed up the economy by allowing unsustainable development to take place. Sustainability is not just some environmental phrase that is used by An Taisce. It is also of great economic importance. I recommend that the Minister should consider the example of the strategic development zone model, as spelled out in our Planning and Development Acts. When the strategic development zone plan for Adamstown, near Lucan, was being compiled, we found that the legislation was robust. My fellow councillors and I did the things we were required to do. Our actions were legally upheld when they were examined by An Bord Pleanála. I suggest that in the future, we should adopt this model of tying things down in legislation.

We need to do more about quality of design. Many very badly designed buildings were built over recent years. They look terrible on the landscape and they are not nice to live in. Many rural villages have been ruined by the construction of apartment blocks that are totally out of keeping with the local area. We should not allow huge supermarkets or shopping centres to be developed. We should follow the example of countries like Germany and France by promoting small businesses, such as local bakeries and butchers. The relevant stakeholders should be involved in these designs.

Spatial strategy and regional guidelines should refer to river basin management. The spatial strategy, which has been ignored, is totally out of date at this stage. Will a load of development plans be adopted before the next spatial strategy and the next regional guidelines are drawn up?

While I welcome the section 18 provisions, the Minister should make sure that social housing is developed in an integrated way, rather than having 500 such units in one place. If we want more people to progress to third level education, for example, people from disadvantaged backgrounds should live in integrated areas. If they go to school with their peers in the rest of the community, they will be interested in accompanying them to college. That is a major aspect of this issue.

I would like the Minister to explain the reference to "section 180 of the Principal Act". Does it mean that people who live in developments that are managed by management companies can ask local authorities to take such developments in charge? I would like exact clarification in this regard, as I do not think such a provision has ever before been used in the case of management companies. Is this provision workable?

See this speech in context