Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Planning is almost always a contentious issue for politicians, particularly for those of us who live and do business in rural areas. We spent a great deal of time over the past 18 months discussing the financial and banking crisis and the state of our economy and the two issues are intrinsically linked because there is little doubt that planning was an inherent part of the boom that facilitated growth in the property sector. Much of the discussion about planning for the previous five years had been concentrated on preventing local people from building houses in rural areas, suggesting that the focus was on strengthening urban areas and encouraging people to migrate in that way. In our haste as legislator to protect rural areas and prevent people building one-off houses, we took our eye off the ball and there was too much zoning of lands around our towns and villages. We are seeing the impact of that in the banking crisis. I do not suggest that too much zoning of residential land was the cause of the banking crisis but it was a cog in the wheel and the focus from a planning perspective was on the wrong issue.

I was always confused, in trying to understand various local area plans, by why national guidelines on residential density had to apply to rural villages. If five or six acres were due to be rezoned in a village, the housing density had to be eight to ten dwellings per acre. There was clearly no requirement for that. This was followed by an initiative to increase the number of units such as apartments in villages and towns but this was not appropriate to the demands or the needs of the local people. I have always believed that if we had provided for the building of appropriately sized houses on appropriately sized and serviced sites, there would not have been the same demand for the building of one-off rural houses. However, we did not provide anything in the middle. We suggested to people that they should live in a large town or a village but the housing density would be the same. We did not try to resolve that problem and that led to the focus on one-off housing while the real planning crisis was the proliferation of residential zonings in small rural towns, which was a contributing to the banking crisis with which we are now attempting to deal.

Planning is contentious. From the perspective of the individual it is about trying to get the balance right. It is also about consistency. Many people feel there is a lack of consistency, perhaps among individual planners but certainly among different counties. The system must have equality of treatment and equality of outcome regardless of which county one lives in or which planning authority deals with one's case.

From a societal point of view, planning must respect heritage, and it must also take into account the protection of the environment through sustainable development. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that today's development will be the heritage of the future. There is little doubt that some planning authorities are overly restrictive in trying to ensure the development of today is an extension of that of the past. They do not recognise that each period of history has had its own architectural style. We need to see a greater understanding of contemporary design. There has been some inconsistency across larger counties in some areas, but particularly from county to county. It is important to ensure this is not the case in the future.

We are all having a fine discussion here about planning although, in effect, the horse has already bolted. We have gone so far through our property boom that the bubble has burst, and the level of demand for development over the next number of years will be minimal. Notwithstanding that, it is necessary to set a policy framework for the future, while recognising that it will probably be eight to ten years before there is any appreciable level of development.

In order to resolve the issue of consistency, we need to confer more powers of co-ordination to the regional authority. I do not mean to suggest that we take power away from elected members — far from it. We should empower the elected members to a greater extent, but do so in a framework that includes people from a wider area than just the county planning authority. By using regional authority structures we will ensure we get consistency. I would like to see the process develop in a way that ensures consistency with the co-operation of elected members in neighbouring jurisdictions.

We are all aware of the subjective nature of planning. There is an old adage, "Doctors differ and patients die". Planners also differ, and the repercussions of this create much concern, particularly in rural areas where for no apparent reason two people will end up with different outcomes. This causes much annoyance and we must try, where possible, to ensure it does not happen. National guidelines and legislation are important in this regard.

Planners are often maligned and abused in an unfair way. Those involved in the local authority with which I am most familiar, in County Clare, work extremely hard and provide a good service, although it is not always to the liking of those who receive a negative result. Notwithstanding this, all planners and their senior staff go about their jobs, from their perspective, in a fair and equitable way. Of course there are subjective differences between one case and another, but their motives are right. They are only implementing the law as defined by us as legislators and by local authority members through the creation of development plans. It is unfair that some representatives seek to blame the planners rather than taking on the difficult and contentious issues that are part of the planning process and attempting to explain to their constituents the reasons certain decisions are taken in the formulation of plans and national guidelines. Planners should not always be blamed for decisions that were ultimately not theirs. We must be careful in this regard.

We must be aware of issues such as flooding, particularly in view of what the country went through before Christmas. There is little doubt that this country has experienced the worst flooding in its history. This is particularly true in County Clare, our neighbouring county of Galway and a considerable portion of the mid-west and the western regions in general. The human tragedy endured by many of my constituents and others around the country is impossible to describe. Lives have been destroyed and the dreams of many people have been shattered as a result of the destruction of their homes. They are now living with that burden. The Minister of State, Deputy Michael Finneran, is more than familiar with the issues that have arisen in his own constituency. We have seen the dreams of many people evaporate with the receding floods — people whose houses can no longer be considered homes but are instead burdens. It is in that context that I am discussing this important Bill.

I support in principle the aims and content of the Bill. However, I have a number of observations to make in this regard. We must accept that our weather patterns are changing and that climate change is here to stay. In this context, we must be prudent and properly informed in how we plan and zone land for future development. In other words, we must ensure we plan in an evidence-based way while learning from our mistakes and developing our land in a more strategic and sustainable way for our benefit and that of our children and grandchildren.

Strategic and sustainable land use planning is a prerequisite for avoiding the human tragedy we have experienced in recent months. This means that before our legislation allows for any future zoning of land, any land at risk of flooding must be assessed by experts to determine the level of risk involved. If there is a high risk of flooding and no proper mitigation measures can be provided to protect it from flood waters, the land should not be zoned for development. The planning process needs to be informed by proper evidence and expertise.

In the past, mitigation measures have been provided as a reason for zoning certain lands. However, we must now consider this in the context of value for money. There is a desire to allow towns to develop in a particular strategic way, to some extent over-riding the natural lie of the land, which can include lower-lying areas. We must address the necessity of having more symmetrical development in our towns and accept from the outset that there are some areas that we clearly should not attempt to develop because of the flood risk. It is not a good use of money at the moment to construct flood mitigation measures for the sake of developing certain lands. While Ireland is a relatively small country, the density of our population in comparison to those of many of our neighbours is not overly burdensome. Although no more land is being made, and there is no suggestion that we will be recovering any from the sea, there is enough there to meet our needs for the foreseeable future. It is not necessary to drain shallow lakes for the purpose of allowing towns to develop in a so-called orderly way. We must take this into consideration as we proceed.

Our primary legislation must provide for flood risk assessment because water respects no boundaries, be they local authority or otherwise. We must also consider the management of such areas, again through the regional authorities. There is a need to streamline our transport and recreational planning, from a strategic point of view, through the co-operation of regional authorities. Where common boundaries fall outside the jurisdiction of a regional authority, it is also important that we develop links between local authorities to ensure there is a coherent approach for future planning.

From the perspective of business and investment, it is important that we support the Government's policy in the national spatial strategy by focusing on the consolidation of population in a number of centres. It is important that this policy be reflected at regional government level. We cannot walk away from smaller villages, however, suggesting that they do not get the chance to develop. I am concerned about how section 5 of the Bill talks about the promotion of sustainable settlements and transportation strategies in urban and rural areas, including the promotion of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the necessity of adaptation to climate change. I can understand the thrust of that but, without a balancing element in the Bill, we must be assured that we can maintain the viability of rural communities. There is a danger the section could be used to block development in rural areas on the grounds that development would add to climate change.

In all of this we must focus on our society. We cannot overlay the model that has developed over centuries in other countries, where farmers live in a hamlet and travel to their farms every day. That might happen in other countries but it is not part of our culture; we have a dispersed nature. There are historic reasons for that and it would be wrong to suggest we will change that overnight. There are other things we can do about climate change, sustainable development and transportation without trying to do them in half a generational cycle. I would not support that in any way.

Section 6 indicates the submissions or observations referred to in paragraph (b) shall not relate to a request or proposal for the zoning of specific land for any purpose and section 6(bb) states that they cannot refer to a submission or observation relating to a request or proposal for the zoning of specific lands for any purpose where such a submission or observation is made, notwithstanding the subsection. There is some concern about that. If a community group requests that a particular area be zoned as open space, it could prevent that from happening. It could prevent an environmental organisation from requesting that a particular area be zoned as a conservation area or an individual requesting that a particular area be zoned as a village centre. It is excessive so perhaps the Minister might address it at a later stage. I understand the intention but it might be overly restrictive.

Other speakers have mentioned An Bord Pleanála. Many of us give out about An Bord Pleanála when it delivers a result we are not happy with and laud it when it delivers the result we wanted, but I am concerned about the reduction in the quorum from three to two. There will often be stalemate between two people so there will either be no decision or the process will take much longer. A third person has the capacity to generate a majority. It might allow for more work to be reviewed but it is not the answer. Perhaps there is a need for more staff. I am not advocating that we lift the moratorium, but with the reduced level of activity and planning applications, delays in An Bord Pleanála should be automatically resolved without resorting to the creation of a democratic deficit.

The Minister has the capacity to intervene in local government draft plans. A consultation role is specifically identified between officials and council members. I would hope that includes the Minister meeting with elected members. They are the ones who must stand over the plan when it comes into play. They will have voted on it and it would be appropriate that the elected representative in this House would act with elected local members to ensure such dialogue and understanding exists.

The Bill discusses the wider distribution of development levies. It would be helpful if we were back in 2005 or 2006 but there will be lean pickings for the next ten years. I doubt the Minister for Finance will be in a position to give less money to the Department of Education and Science because local government will be able to provide sites for schools. It is the right way to go, however, and sets the foundation for future development. School sites, broadband provision and flood relief are all good and proper uses for development levies. Some of those levies were not used to the extent they should have been for the provision of playgrounds and other social amenities.

I give a guarded welcome to the Bill. Some clarification is needed and monitoring is necessary. It is difficult that we are doing this while we are on an out cycle in development of the country but it is a useful time to plan the next phase of our growth.

See this speech in context