Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

The explanatory memorandum to the Bill states its introduction is "driven by the overarching ambition to strengthen local democracy and accountability, a key objective in accordance with the ongoing process of local government reform being pursued in the context of the White Paper on Local Government, by maintaining the central role of local government in the planning process". However, the provisions of the Bill are contrary to that aspiration. It appears to be driven by a Minister's desire to pander to a particular urban electorate at the expense of a large number of people who probably would not vote for his party in the first place.

The Bill makes no mention of An Taisce, which is charged with protecting the country's heritage and which does fine work with its green schools programme. That organisation has the right to be notified of and submit appeals to every planning application made to local authorities. It may make observations on files without being required to make a prior submission or pay the €20 required from every citizen. It should at least be required to pay €10 because it appears to make a standard observation on planning files throughout the country. It is unfair if everyone else has to pay to make an observation whereas An Taisce does not. Furthermore, the motivation behind some of the appeals made by the organisation is questionable.

At present a decision by An Bord Pleanála cannot be made by fewer than three members. For some reason, reducing this number to two in certain cases is seen as an improvement. Given that there is no obligation on the body to reach a decision on an appeal within a specified timeframe, I intend to submit an amendment which requires it to determine appeals within one year of their date of registration or within a short period thereafter and, failing that, allows the decision of the local authority will stand by default.

People working in the forestry sector have raised concerns regarding section 4 of the Bill. I am informed that new access roads and entrances to forest plantations will be subject to planning permission. The revenue to be earned from thinning is limited at present and the section is seen as a means of levying extra development contribution funds. This provision could call into the question the viability of thinning, which will impact on the quality of forestry and future value of standings. If thinning is not carried out, the mature timber in a forest will be of poorer quality. The inclusion of forestry roads and access points in the planning process leave them open to appeals which could scupper the viability of harvesting timber.

I welcome in part section 23, which relates to the extension of time as it allows for permission to be extended in the event of issues being outside the commercial or economic consideration beyond the control of the applicant and substantially mitigated against either commencement or the development of the carrying out of substantial works. The previous provision to allow for a second extension is denied. In certain cases wind farm applications have been granted but there has been difficulty in getting into the grid through no fault of the applicants rather due to a lack of network capacity and availability. It is questionable whether some of those projects in Gate 3 will be connected in ten years. Deputy Coveney will probably elaborate more on that. Currently, some projects look doubtful unless things change.

The lack of reference to management companies has been signalled. I am aware of a case where a management company has held a controlling interest in a development. In effect, the management company is the developer, who has kept ten apartments with 1,000 votes each and that will remain the case until all apartments are sold. It seems most unfair. Many problems arise about the finances of the company in question which is based in Greystones. The situation is replicated across the country. The Bill does not mention that nor is there any attempt to address the management company structure as it currently stands. That is something that should be included if the Bill is to be more than just a political document.

The national spatial strategy is the foundation for many of the new rules that are attached. It has been developed without anyone voting on it. The strategy was developed in secrecy and it must be adhered to. In the same way, the core strategy of new development plans must be consistent with regional planning guidelines. The greater Dublin area includes Wicklow, which is subject to two authorities; the greater Dublin region and the mid-east region. It has now been determined that a joint decision will clear the development plan in Wicklow on which submissions closed on 23 December and a manager's report is currently being prepared. It seems to me that local input is being diluted, which totally contradicts what is stated at the outset.

The attempt to drive lobbying behind closed doors and to direct it more at officials rather than elected members gives rise to many questions. It puts officials in an awkward position. One can sack elected members but one cannot sack those who are appointed. People can make up their minds on the behaviour of local elected representatives every five years. They do not have the opportunity with paid, full-time officials. I do not see how this change will make the planning system more transparent. The Minister seems to be intent on treating public representatives as if they were schoolchildren who cannot be trusted. They are allowed to make decisions but in the same way as the Chinese version of democracy, "as long as you do it our way". The effect will be to turn councils into talking shops——

See this speech in context