Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill. Like the Acting Chairman, Deputy O'Shea, I was a member of a local authority for some considerable time. I am not sure that the innovations that have taken place in the planning area have been necessarily an improvement. I will speak more about that issue later.

I am concerned about the conflict of interest and focus in terms of planning between the two Government parties. The Green Party believes a flood plain to be a potential disaster area which floods on a regular basis and about which nobody can do anything. It believes that despite the fact that everything comes to a halt during bad weather it is a natural disaster about which nothing can be done. Of course, that is not true. Even though we have been trying to address problems in this area for years they occur again and again. There does not exist an area that cannot be drained. It has been done all over the world for thousands of years. That argument is rubbish. Fianna Fáil, on the other hand, believe a flood plain to be an investment bank, a potential area for unlimited development. This has led in recent times to intense development in particular areas, an issue on which I would now like to concentrate.

Not so many years ago, it was believed that developments would be of the type in which people would want to live, that they would include adequate space and recreational areas and would in some way tie in or be in consort with the area in which they were located. However, that idea quickly went out the window during the boom times. While there have been some good developments, we have had some atrocious developments some of which look more like what one would expect to find in a Mediterranean resort or like an idea somebody copied from elsewhere and gave up on half way through, leaving the development unfinished. Some appalling architectural contributions have been planted in the middle of this country during the past ten years.

The Minister of State, Deputy Brady, who is my constituency colleague, knows what I am saying is true. In the previous era, the quality of development in the area which we represent, although much criticised, was of high quality. Despite all the allegations in regard to local corruption and so on, it was of high quality and has stood the test of time. Only one conclusion will be drawn from any comparison of the two when we look back in ten or 15 years' time.

I have watched with interest the debate during the past few weeks in regard to the demolition of developments in particular areas. I have never heard such stupidity. It is stated that this should be done on the basis that these developments should not have been given planning permission in the first instance. It is proposed that to address what was considered a wrong-doing we should demolish these developments. The theory is that this will address the problem, but it will not. It will result in further problems, expense and will become another issue on which people can speculate and chatter for some time to come.

Another issue of concern is that of people seeking planning permission to build in a rural area. People in rural Ireland wishing to build on high ground which would not be flooded have been, and continue to be, discouraged from doing so on the basis that they must conform with the aesthetics of an area. In other words, if the house was built on low-lying ground it would not be seen and would not, therefore, interfere in any way with the aesthetics of an area although it might be flooded. Somewhere in the middle of that lies a contradiction.

In the past, development plans were drawn up by local councillors. Despite what has been said about them, they were fairly good. I recently saw a television programme on which councillors gave a good account of themselves. I would not dismiss them altogether. During the past few years the "experts" arrived from everywhere and were appointed to every local authority in the country. Consultants were engaged and they recommended what should be done. They knew better because they were experts in the area. It now appears they knew nothing and have been allowed to walk away without blame. We all know they were but guns for hire. Neither they nor the Minister has taken responsibility for the situation in which we now find ourselves. I hope that on the next occasion I will have an opportunity to conclude my remarks.

See this speech in context