Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)

I am delighted to speak on the Bill, which in general is quite progressive legislation. I come from a part of the world where over the past 15 years or so there has been a history of bad planning, much of which relates to too much residential land being zoned without having regard to other requirements in an area, such as education and industry. The biggest problem we had in my constituency is not having a dearth of land zoned for industry, education or community purposes but rather that the land was not available for such purposes.

In fairness to Meath County Council, they have got much better at this, although it is probably 15 years too late. Its local area and development plans prohibit one type of development until necessary and complementary development is also put in place. I know that is part of any of the local area plans which it has completed in the couple of years since we had the famous Laytown schools crisis. In that case, thousands of houses were built and although a substantial amount of land was zoned for schools and education, it simply was not available to the parish or Department. Things have changed since then.

This Bill will not change such circumstances but it will serve to highlight the importance of proper planning and development and the need to get issues right. Local area plans have formed a key part of local authority planning and it seems that, until recently, local authorities probably did not realise the significance of local area plans or the requirements for such plans to coincide with development plans. The fact that they did not always match has caused many problems in one part of my constituency, where land zoned for a green area was, in effect, dezoned back to being residential. The local area plan was amended to dezone residential land for green space but the county development plan had not been amended in that fashion. I disagreed with the decision, but An Bord Pleanála saw fit to allow residential development where the wishes of the locally elected members and the public would have been for this to remain a green area. In fact, developers would have presumed that to be the case at the time. While we are improving in these areas, we are slightly too late.

I have no difficulty with the intervention of the Minister in local area plans. I know that many local authority members have been to the Dáil complaining about it, but I have no difficulty. He should intervene. This was first done by Deputy Dick Roche as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, when he overturned zoning in County Laois and it has been carried on by the current Minister. Up to now, it has only been possible in respect of a county development plan, but this Bill will allow the Minister to intervene in local area plans. That will keep the pressure on local authorities to make sure that they are carried out properly, with due regard to proper planning and development. There are new requirements in the Bill to have regard to the regional guidelines in the national spatial strategy. That was always there, but it was not complied with by local authorities.

The public consultation for development plans is very good in theory. The council must advertise the fact that a development plan is being made or changed. However, the public does not generally respond. In cases where I circulated information to housing estates, notifying people that there was a change in the local area plan and asking them if they wished to put forward submissions, most residents did not make submissions, even if a few make very good ones. It is only when a planning application goes in that the people living in the area become concerned about it. I would encourage local residents to take a full part in making local development plans. Members of the public should play an intrinsic part in making development plans, so it is very important that they take up that right. It is incumbent on public representatives to do that. I remember circulating information to all the houses in Stamullen when the Stamullen framework plan was launched, and the public are glad to know that. The council has a role because Deputies are not part of the planning process, even if we might make submissions as members of the public. However, it is our role to highlight what is going on in our local areas.

The Minister might look at the provision under law for Deputies to make submissions on planning applications and to An Bord Pleanála, because it is not that clear on what we can and cannot do. We are sometimes asked to make submissions and I find that if I write it in a certain way, An Bord Pleanála will send it back demanding a formal submission, while at the same time stating that Deputies do not have to make formal submissions. It all seems to depend on what is written in the submission. There is an opportunity in this Bill, or in secondary legislation, to outline exactly what Deputies can or cannot do in respect of submissions. Some local authorities will allow a submission to be made after a deadline if it is in support of an application for a one-off house. An Bord Pleanála allow this if it is written in a certain way. This needs clarity because we are asked regularly to make submissions and sometimes these are made at the last minute. I do not like objecting to developments. If there is a real proposal that can be delivered in the current economic climate, it is incumbent on us as Deputies to look at such a plan seriously and to take a lead in what might be good for the community.

There is a positive provision in the Bill where a local authority can now refuse planning permission where an applicant has carried out a substantial unauthorised development, or is being convicted of an offence under the Planning Acts. This is associated with large scale developers not finishing estates properly, so it is correct that this provision is introduced. Some of our rogue developers would not have got planning permission if such a provision were in place. However, there are other people outside that bracket who operate illegally and when the crunch comes, they look for planning permission. They might have been forced to do so due to financial circumstances, but it has to be said that many people who are operating premises properly and with planning permission begrudge the fact that such people can get planning permission. The councils accept rates from many of these unauthorised developments by unauthorised commercial operators, and this gives it a certain status. Even if it does not officially count for anything on a planning application, it must count for something that the rates have been accepted from the unauthorised commercial operator.

I was speaking to a constituent at the weekend. He applied for planning permission, paid the planning levies and was paying rates, yet somebody down the road did not get planning permission and did not pay levies but is paying rates. That is a smaller amount than the levies, and my constituent begrudges the fact that one side of the local authority is treating this unauthorised development officially. This needs to be examined, and perhaps a penalty should be placed on the rates for unauthorised commercial operations.

The issue of the Brú na Boinne world heritage site is dear to the hearts of my constituents, and there are no better people than my constituents to protect and defend Brú na Boinne and the heritage site that we have in Meath. However, it must be said that the Department is taking too restrictive a view on planning applications, not only within the world heritage site and the buffer zone, but also in areas further out from that. The Department has gone too hard on people in recent months, with a much tougher approach. The Meath county development plan already has a very strict provision on the construction of one-off housing in the buffer zone and the core area of the world heritage site at Brú na Boinne, where planning permission is only allowed for full-time farmers in the area whose land is entirely in the buffer zone. That is very strict and many of the local people are annoyed with the provision because locals who are not farming cannot continue to live in their own parish. These are local people who are very proud of their heritage and the link with prehistory in County Meath. However, we will end up in a situation where there are no young people left in the area. It will be a museum and will be full of older people whose families have had to move away.

The full-time farmer issue is too strict, but that is a matter for the council in conjunction with the Department. However, I have encountered three cases of farmers in the area who qualified under the development plan criteria, yet the Department saw fit to object to their housing on other grounds. That is very difficult and frustrating for people. They do not feel that they have a level playing field on which to operate. Some planning permissions were granted over the last few years within the heritage site for people who were not from the area.

I am also concerned to see that Department officials are asking for expensive environmental impact assessments on Knowth, Newgrange and Dowth for any applications within two miles of the world heritage site, including townlands like Kellystown and Mellifont, which are closer to Cullen and Tullyallen in County Louth. It is not fair on young couples who want to live in their area to supply information to the Department on the impact their property might have on the world heritage site, when their property is far from the site and not affected by the restrictive provisions under the development plan. The Department is going too far and is changing the goalposts again. There is nothing in writing to suggest that this is what these people have to do. The Minister might respond and claim that the planning permission is a matter for the council, but surely there is always a threat of the Department going to An Bord Pleanála because it did not like the planning application.

It seems that there is a creeping involvement by the Department in planning in County Meath. I am sure it will spread countrywide. Local people, intrinsic to an area, are entitled to live in the area and the area is entitled to have them. People are not allowed to live in their areas and not allowed to build houses. It is simply not fair that the Department keeps changing the goalposts on the spurious grounds that a house far outside the Newgrange buffer zone has something to do with Newgrange, Knowth or Dowth and is in the parish of Tullyallen and Cullen. What is not included in the county development plan has been pursued by the Department. The county council must take a tougher line with the Department. What is in the development plan is too strict and we should not go beyond what is included in it. That has happened in the Newgrange area. I must say that on behalf of my constituents, who will be the protectors of the heritage in County Meath. They know Newgrange, Knowth or Dowth better than anyone. I know the area better than anyone because every Sunday morning I was brought out there for a walk with my brothers, sister, father and mother. When I went back to canvas, people in the area were kind enough to say they remembered that. I am proud of heritage but I do not want to turn our county into a museum. Our county must be living and breathing, protecting our heritage but moving on to allow people live in the area. I am not talking about large-scale development. I am passionate about this point and plead with the Minister to examine the submissions made by the Department. Are they too strict? Is there any reality to the threats the Department sees in planning permission within the world heritage site?

I am concerned about the Slane bypass. It is proposed to build this 500 m outside the buffer zone to protect a world heritage site. The website of the Save Newgrange campaign shows a picture of Newgrange against the Slane bypass. It is disappointing that members of Opposition parties are trying to have it both ways when a little heat comes on. This party, my colleagues and councillor Wayne Harding in Slane fully back the Slane bypass. I will not participate in public meetings against the Slane bypass. It would be hypocritical to do so. Having said that, I have met people who have concerns about the bypass and I am willing to meet anyone else who has concerns about it. Unlike some Opposition politicians, I will not attend public meetings against the Slane bypass. It is particularly hypocritical of Opposition politicians to do this. I am still trying to find out which Opposition politicians attended these meetings. I have a number of names. They have been criticising the Government for holding up the Slane bypass over the years. We want to see progress as quickly as possible. These politicians have been criticising the Government yet the first time there is a meeting expressing concerns about the bypass they attend to see what is going on and to act as Tadhg an dá thaoibh. These planning difficulties are intrinsic to my constituency. It is important that I raise them in this House.

I welcome the progress this Bill represents and I welcome the tightening of planning regulations. Some of the focus on one-off housing is incorrect. A local rural community needs young people for its schools, football teams, to create employment and to keep people in the community. That has been denied in the world heritage site and beyond it because of the Department's involvement in planning permission.

See this speech in context