Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

The recent flooding in many parts of the country, leading in some cases to the virtual destruction of people's homes, has highlighted several deficiencies in local planning. It raised serious questions over where housing developments were allowed to be located and the procedures that resulted in permission being granted.

Before Christmas, I raised the issue of the building of houses in locations where there was an historical record of flooding. There may not have been flooding in some of those locations for many years, maybe even in living memory. However, where housing development was allowed to proceed in places close to rivers or on water basins that risk was always present. Some newer developments where flooding did take place were in areas where the actual placenames referred to water. That might have provided a clue. Planners and developers should have paused and considered why no one had built in these locations before, even though they were close to or within existing settlements. We now know the reasons but, unfortunately, that knowledge comes to late for those whose homes were destroyed. A more vigorous examination of planning applications in such locations clearly needs to be put in place.

This can be accommodated in section 5 with its stated intent to create an evidence-based and integrated process based on key aspects of the development of the areas in which the proposals are situated. Section 3 refers to risk assessment for flooding under criteria related to the use of land, the development of the land, the management of flood risk and changes in climate. Perhaps a specific clause related to the historical record of the location with a view to detecting possible periodic flooding might also be included.

Some property developers owe substantial amounts of money to local authorities which provided infrastructure and services for housing developments. Many of those developers are now claiming an inability to pay. I understand some local authorities have begun actions to recover these moneys. While I accept it might not be addressed through changes in planning procedures, it is a serious problem that has left local authorities at a significant loss. Could it be included under the provisions for taking action against and increasing the penalties imposed on those who violate guidelines?

The provisions regarding submissions from local authorities seem to be positive and will focus attention on how specific proposals fit in with overall development plans. I also welcome the provision in sections 7 and 8 to require that any changes to an existing development plan will need the support of two thirds of the members of the authority instead of a simple majority, ensuring that any changes would be accepted across a range of opinion and, therefore, less likely to be contentious or present a possible negative impact on the locality.

With regard to the changes to local area plans as proposed in section 10I, I will oppose the changes to the population size threshold and will submit amendments which seek to leave the threshold as is. This is the best way of ensuring local area plans are what they claim to be and that they properly reflect the character and needs of the place for which they were framed. The provisions to ensure that local area plans are consistent with overall county development plans make sense given that any conflicts obviously would lead to contradictory strategies which would be reflected in the planning process. Section 12 provides for greater linkage and coherence between regional planning guidelines and the national spatial strategy.

It is important that democratically elected local representatives have an input into how the broader strategies are implemented. There needs to be some flexibility to account for changing circumstances as it makes no sense to attempt to implement an existing strategy if economic, social or demographic factors have radically altered. This must be the case, in particular when the economic climate has changed significantly, as is now the case, since the original strategies were framed. For example, the national spatial strategy should be part of an overall strategy to stimulate economic recovery through a specific focus on indigenous strengths and requirements and planning policy should reflects this.

Section 17 contains references to the planning authorities' obligation to outline how they implemented the strategy laid down by the Minister. This could be interpreted as embodying a rigidly centralist approach in which local authorities are expected to simply follow departmental and ministerial directives even when there may be significant issues at conflict. That is not to suggest the Minister or strategy may be wrong but it is better to ensure that local authorities have a significant input into strategy and planning, reflecting local needs and are, therefore, on board with that strategy and its implementation rather than their having to follow guidelines with which they may have genuine difficulties.

See this speech in context