Dáil debates

Wednesday, 3 February 2010

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

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Bobby AylwardBobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)

As a rural Deputy and as somebody who served as a member of Kilkenny County Council for 15 years, I have seen the practical application of the planning laws and I have seen the strategic advantages of good orderly planning and development. I have also experienced the hideous consequences of bad planning and poor planning mechanisms and controls. Over the years, we have sought to redress the various deficiencies and the shortcomings of the planning legislation and while we may not have achieved an ideal system just yet we are nevertheless on our way to producing a sound, democratic and transparent system. We are making that system more relevant, practical and responsive to regional and national needs.

Planning and development, by definition, are constantly evolving and new demands and difficulties are emerging all the time. The implications of the proposed Bill, together with the draft regional planning guidelines, have been examined closely and with great interest and there is a sincerely held view that this element of the legislation may have long-term implications which are not positive or desirable.

As I stated earlier, the promotion of orderly, balanced and sustainable economic activity is at the forefront of our national political agenda; it is a central plank that we continue to stimulate and promote that activity. It is not entirely clear how the provisions of this Bill will lend themselves to these objectives or if it will assist us greatly in achieving the goals as set out in the national spatial strategy. It would be useful if the Minister would elaborate more fully on the precise thinking behind this aspect of the Bill so that everyone comprehends the theory and exactly how it will manifest itself in practice.

The obvious principle contained in the national spatial strategy is that we have to attain a proper, realistic balance in regional development. Rather than arriving at an over-concentration or a fragmentation of development, the primary aim is to strike a more even balance in terms of the availability of employment, an improved quality of life for all our citizens, suitable places to live which are attractive and which provide a better quality of life, and appropriate amenities which cater to the needs of the local population.

In January of last year, regional population targets for the next 12 years up to 2022 were published. These targets gave a low to high range for 2022, the lower figure of which would indicate a 14.7% increase with the higher figure suggesting a 20.4% population increase in that 12 year period. Given the marked trend in population increase to date in this country, the higher figure of 20.4% represents a more realistic figure. Last October, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government directed that the minimum population targets should be used only when preparing the regional planning guidelines.

The net effect of this directive is to contain or limit population increases in the regions. For example, the population of the south east will increase by 72,600 over the 12 year period in question. According to the national spatial strategy, populations should be diverted towards gateways, which will increase by a minimum of 50%, and hub towns, which will increase by 33%. I appreciate the logic behind the clear requirement to boost the gateways and hubs but, taken in conjunction with the new minimum population targets, it means that county areas will be severely limited in the total number of houses which may be built. This situation will be replicated in every county and the requirement to create the critical masses allied to the new minimum population targets will permit very little development beyond the cities. Planning authorities throughout the country will be obliged to implement that policy accordingly.

If we are to adopt this practice, there will be grave consequences for smaller towns and rural areas generally. While I am all in favour of balanced regional development and economic expansion which is compatible with the objectives of the national spatial strategy, this should not be advanced relentlessly without due regard for the needs of country people for housing within their own rural communities. There is nothing wrong in principle with placing the development emphasis on gateways and hubs but that policy objective should not work to the detriment of people from rural communities. It may be the case that people may gravitate towards the hubs and gateways but the legislation should not ignore the needs and desires of country people simply because excessive restrictions are placed on the number of residential units in smaller towns and rural areas. I understand the rationale behind a coherent approach to regional development but there should be more to planning than the provision of visually appealing physical structures and the promotion of and support for economic activity. We should show more consideration to those who want to remain outside the hubs and gateways. I am not convinced of the wisdom of concentrating population growth around specific centres while at the same time denuding the rest of the county of people and depriving rural areas a new influx.

I ask the Minister to reflect on the potential effects of this Bill on rural and small town communities and perhaps afford some latitude in respect of any residential development restrictions which may be imposed. On the whole, this is imaginative and positive legislation, not least in terms of taking decisive action against those who show no respect for either the letter or the spirit of our planning and development laws or who cynically exploit the natural environment for personal gain and enrichment. We have learned several chastening lessons from our mistakes and abject failures over the years. These lessons may be costly but this is our golden opportunity to make sure that they are never repeated. Some of the resulting damage cannot be undone but we can rectify and improve our framework and our planning apparatus for the future. We must have a fair and equitable system in which we can all have confidence.

Oireachtas Members from the south east recently met councillors and an official from Carlow County Council to hear their concerns about the impact on Carlow of the designation of gateway status for Waterford and hub status for Kilkenny and Wexford. Waterford hopes to increase its population by 50% by 2022, while Wexford and Kilkenny will experience 30% increases. These designations will have serious consequences for population growth in rural areas and small towns in Carlow. I come from a rural area and would like to see growth in my region. It is particularly important that one-off houses are protected, once they are built to an adequate environmental standard. I could also name several small villages around south County Kilkenny and County Carlow which are projected to expand by 200 or 300 houses. Perhaps this expansion should be curtailed somewhat but they also deserve a slice of the growth planned for the coming 12 years. I hope the Minister takes account of my concerns so that rural Ireland is not forgotten.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.