Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. The recent flooding and the consequences of the freezing temperatures have brought into sharp focus the need for appropriate planning regulations. There has been something of a philosophy of "getting away with it" in regard to the need for meeting standards and observing the regulations in regard to planning and development.

Unfortunately reforming the Planning and Developments Acts now is akin to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Housing estates throughout the country have been under feet of water. Such flooding affected Sallins in Kildare, Ballinasloe, Cork and the area from Roscommon down through the country. While climate change has a very significant role to play in this, bad planning has been clearly identified by many people who have spoken on this issue, it having caused huge damage to householders, farmers and other businesses. The senseless rezoning of land on flood plains is an extreme example of bad planning and we live with the effects of bad planning whether in rural or urban areas. In Terenure in my local area, a developer who illegally demolished a habitable dwelling was fined a paltry €1,000 on a site which was valued at the time in the order of €15 million, which is an issue to which I will return.

Many apartment blocks in this city are built to poor standards, which developers recognise at this stage. Now we have the eyesores of many of these appalling apartment blocks lying idle. We also have the problem of planning permission having been granted for various sites where, clearly, no development will take place. There are other sites where planning applications have been submitted. I am concerned that we will have a host of derelict sites around the city. We need to take action to ensure that these do not become a magnet for anti-social behaviour. This is an important point in regard to failure of planning to a certain extent up to now.

Developers have left estates and apartment developments unfinished. We are well aware of numerous examples of that. An unfinished development is often a euphemism for a wasteland with no pathways, no infrastructure or local school and unfortunate residents are left with no public transport in the area. They might have to plough their way through potholes to get to the front door of their house. We are very much aware of such developments. Landscaping is simply a far off promised land with no hope of it being done.

Planning permission was granted willy nilly for almost any development in this city. The refusal of an application for any substantial development by the local authority was more the exception than the rule. We are now reaping the benefits of another example of light regulation in the building industry. For example, one of the reasons put forward for burst pipes in relatively new developments was that the developer failed to place the pipes sufficiently deep in the ground to prevent freezing and subsequent cracking of the pipes, hence some of the flooding and the water shortages now being experienced.

I have acknowledged that climate change has had an important impact but our changing climate has brought home to us the cost of poor planning standards, the absence of any adequate regulation and the failure to enforce minimum standards. It is our job in this House to act as public legislators. I have serious issues with the Bill, as it stands, but at least it is an attempt to move matters forward and I acknowledge and welcome that. My experiences of the planning system in Dublin South-Central are, I am sure, similar to that in many other constituencies. The role of the local authorities is paramount to ensuring good planning. A significant portion of this Bill is dedicated to ensuring that local development plans are in keeping with national strategies, which is to be welcomed.

I refer specifically to a planning issue that was of recent concern to me. A planning application was submitted by a developer for a private hospital on the grounds of St. James's Hospital. While I disagree with the philosophy of building private hospitals on public grounds, that is a separate matter, and the developer was entirely within his rights to submit such an application. Of much greater concern to me was the response of Dublin City Council to a request to place a chapel located on the grounds of the hospital on the list of protected structures, which it failed to do. Coincidentally, as part of the development, there was an application by the developer to demolish the chapel. Prior to the submission of the planning application, a request to put the chapel on the list of protected structures was made to the area committee, which recommended that it be placed on the list. The normal procedure in such cases is that the proposal then goes before the next full meeting of the council. In fact, this is a reserved function of the councillors. The area committee agreed to this in May 2008. Now, after 18 months, the proposal still has not gone before the full council. Whether the chapel is ultimately placed on the list, it is a matter for the council to accept or not to accept the recommendation of the area committee. In effect, the council officials are thumbing their noses at the elected councillors.

A planning decision is due shortly on the application for the private hospital, which includes an application for demolition of the chapel. If planning permission is granted by the city council and it is permitted to demolish the chapel, this will raise serious questions about the transparency of the planning process and the meaning of democracy.

Last year I introduced a Private Members' Bill in the House on the issue of prior breaches of planning legislation. Section 20 of the current Bill is concerned with the sanctions placed on a developer if he or she is found guilty of breaching planning permission. I welcome the fact that this is included in the Bill, but the proposed sanctions are paltry, and I will table amendments to this on Committee Stage. The sanction, as the Bill stands, would only preclude the developer from seeking planning permission, which would have little or no effect as he or she will be able to appeal this decision. In the Private Members' Bill I proposed much stronger sanctions. The Bill stated:

Where a person is convicted of an offence to which section 4 applies and the court is satisfied that the relevant provision of the Principal Act was contravened deliberately and with a view to increasing the value of the land concerned, then, during the period of five years from the date of conviction or such other period as the court, on the application of the prosecutor and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may order---

(a) a planning authority shall not grant the person permission in respect of any application for development that is made in the course of, or is connected with, the business of dealing in or developing land,

(b) that person shall not be appointed or act as a director or other officer of, or be in any way, whether directly or indirectly, concerned or take part in the promotion, formation or management of, any company the business of which involves dealing in or developing land.

This would, in effect, keep a developer out of the business for five years, which would be a significant sanction and more effective than anything proposed here. I urge the Minister to take account of this. I refer to the event in Terenure in which a convent was knocked down by a developer, who was given a paltry fine of €1,000 - a tiny amount compared to the vast value of the land at that time.

The purpose of section 28 is to reduce the number required to achieve a quorum for a board decision of An Bord Pleanála from three to two. This is a retrograde step. Three has traditionally been the number for a quorum. This will do little to improve planning law and I question the need for it in the current climate in which the number of applications to An Bord Pleanála has reduced substantially. An Bord Pleanála has been effective and proactive in addressing problematic decisions made by local authorities and I welcome the fact that it has this role. Thus, I question the necessity of reducing the number required for a quorum from three to two.

Section 29 seeks to increase the fines levied under the principal Act, mostly by a factor of three. While this is welcome, the fine does not fit the crime. We need to make the penalty such a disincentive as to prevent any breaches of planning law.

On the issue of information for local residents, any public representative who must deal with planning applications for substantial developments in his or her area will be aware of the impact they will have on local residents and the environment. I propose that a developer be obliged to provide information to every household within a specific radius of the location of the proposed development. As the law currently stands, developers must put up a site notice that may or may not be seen by local residents. Where a substantial development is proposed - for example, more than 250 residential units, although that is open to discussion - the developer should be required to advertise and hold a public meeting to seek to address the concerns raised by the local community. This would benefit the local community and the developer, because a consensus can be arrived at through discussion rather than confrontation later on. If a consensus can be arrived at, this could prevent later planning objections and appeals to An Bord Pleanála.

Around the country there are numerous examples of poor developments, with large blocks of houses and few or no services. I emphasise the need to ensure that the required infrastructure is there, particularly schools, as has been mentioned by several Deputies. Such a recommendation is contained in the Bill, but there is no requirement that a school be provided as part of a development. I ask the Minister to consider making this provision more substantial.

This Bill is necessary to amend the serious flaws in our local and national planning system. There are several positive aspects to the Bill, but there are also a number of areas in which there is much room for improvement.

See this speech in context