Dáil debates

Wednesday, 20 January 2010

Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

6:00 pm

Photo of John DeasyJohn Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)

I warn the person who is due to speak after me that I will not use my 20 minutes. I will not speak on regional guidelines, spatial strategies or local development plans. I will focus on one issue, namely, one-off planning and the service that is provided to the public when it comes to local authorities and the planning process. I have read what the Minister said in his Second Stage speech. I accept that the Bill is an attempt to formalise and delineate the roles and relationships that exist between county and city managers, planners, councillors and, most importantly, the public.

The Bill refers to improving the quality of individual planning decisions and introducing greater coherence in the planning process. It mandates that a proposed or draft direction would be issued regarding local area plans in the first instance to seek local views before any final direction is issued. Interestingly enough, it also refers to the efficient use of taxpayers' money. Some might say the Bill micromanages planning matters throughout the country from the Minister's office. However, it is a genuine attempt to clear up certain ambiguities in the planning process and to clarify the roles and responsibilities of everyone involved, be it the councillor, official or member of the public. The reality is that to date the interpretation of planning Acts and how they were implemented on a daily basis has almost always been the realm of officials and management in local authorities.

As a former member of a local authority I always felt there was an unequal relationship between councillors and the arguments they made on planning matters and the policies that were and continue to be forced through by the manager and his or her officials. In other words, they would pretend to listen to the member but then they did what they wanted. An issue arose in Waterford recently that reminded me of just that, namely, what some see as the blatant insistence of officials in getting their own way in planning matters, to the detriment in some cases of the public, over and above the genuine concerns of elected officials in the local authority.

I would not speak on this matter were it not for the fact that a councillor, namely, Liam Brazil, has been systematically prevented from raising an issue of public importance relating to planning on several occasions in the council chamber to which he was elected. That has been going on since the end of 2009. The issue that has arisen relates to site visits and the pre-planning process in Waterford, and the attempt by Waterford County Council management to limit site visits. Some have described it as an insignificant issue, but I disagree with that. The measure would, first, adversely affect the public by limiting direct access to planners. Second, it would make the entire process potentially far more expensive for the public. Third, it would duplicate the administrative role of officials in the local authority. Fourth, it encapsulates an attitude prevalent with some officials in management that they know best no matter what.

My comments and criticisms are directed at the management of Waterford County Council. On occasion I have tangled with Waterford County Council and members of Fianna Fáil have used it as a stick to beat me with and suggested that I was making a direct attack on the employees of Waterford County Council. I am not; I am directing my criticism at senior management in Waterford County Council.

Aspects of the Bill make sense but the Minister should take a look at the basic day to day operations of local authorities and how management deals with the public in the area of planning. The general interaction with the public on planning is a huge source of complaint to my constituency office. I have been told that telephone calls are not returned, correspondence is not acknowledged on a fairly large scale and the level of one to one interaction over the years has become more withdrawn. It is more difficult to get definitive decisions. The service to the public, even at a time when there are far fewer planning applications, has regressed. The issue that has arisen in Waterford is a perfect example of that. The councillor in question was told last July that all site visits were being curtailed. The reasons given since then have been extremely unsatisfactory and unconvincing.

There are many Deputies in this legislative body who have had experience as councillors and would agree that the most efficient and satisfactory way of dealing with planning is to get on site and stand in the field or street, as the case may be, with the planner and the applicant to sort out the application right there and then. In the long run, it usually ends up saving the applicant money. Initial clear direction cuts down on unnecessary administration later - that is my experience and that of many others.

This is where the contradiction begins as far as Waterford County Council is concerned. I have a document which the council produced without debate for the last council meeting. Page 1 of the document states that pre-planning site visits are very valuable for applicants and councillors to help people in need of housing to get planning permission and, in so doing, reduce the cost involved, which can be substantial. That sounds good. The document goes on to state that such site visits enhance the level of co-operation between officials and councillors in dealing with the public on the complexities of the planning system, thereby improving the service and enhancing the concept of local democracy. Again, no one will disagree with that. Page 2, however, states that there is no entitlement in the legislation nor in the guidelines for the public to visit sites at pre-planning stage, and that the practice is hugely wasteful of scarce staff resources. The idea here is that the council would set up a three-tier administrative appeals process before a site visit would ever be contemplated. Waterford is not the only county inundated by planning applications. The percentage decrease in Waterford has been as bad as anywhere else. In other words, the council is saying it believes site visits are the way forward but it does not want to do them any longer, which is very strange.

I decided to inquire from other Deputies what the practice is throughout the country in their local authority areas and counties. By and large, it amounts to what could be described as a fairly loose but practical arrangement throughout the country, structured on the basis of what suits and what is more efficient for the public, not the officials. Interestingly, I got the strong impression from many Deputies that many local authorities conduct more site visits due to the smaller number of planning applications and the realisation that dealing with applications at source - in other words, on site - is the optimal approach. The attitude of management in Waterford is that the public are not entitled to site visits because these are not specified in the planning Acts and are a waste of their valuable time. Any issue, decision or policy change that substantially affects the service provided to the public by a local authority is not solely a matter for management. It is also clearly an integral matter for elected councillors, who represent people who have applied for planning permission. If the Minister accepts that premise, individual councillors should have the right to raise those issues in public in the chamber of the local authority to which they were elected.

It is appropriate that the Minister would consider outlining some pre-planning guidelines in the Bill. Matters such as this are clearly the remit of officials and elected representatives and are a matter for both parties, and are clearly not solely the remit of the executive and not solely a reserve function of the county or city manager. The Minister should address this with new guidelines in the Bill before us.

The management in question in Waterford needs to take a step back and ask itself what its function is. Is it to create additional administration or to provide a better service for the public? As to the reasons it gives for not allowing discussion and deliberation on this measure, its argument does not hold water. I agree with some of the measures being discussed in this Bill but I request that it be made clear that councillors have a clear and definite role in shaping how a local authority interacts with the public, in this case through the planning process, and that councillors are not obliged to conform with measures that ultimately disadvantage a service being provided to the public by a county or city council.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.