Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I am inclined to agree with my colleague, Deputy Stanton, who said that this Bill is probably too little, too late. The previous legislation provided for a "one size fits all" approach to planning. I wish to explain what I mean with reference to small towns like Wexford and Athlone and larger towns like Limerick. The people of those areas might not like to hear them referred to as towns, but they are not large urban areas. Two of them have populations of fewer than 50,000. Limerick has a little more than 50,000 inhabitants. Planning permission was granted for 13-storey buildings in each of those towns.

In the case of the only urban area on the island of Ireland, that is, Dublin city, An Bord Pleanála has stipulated in certain cases that buildings cannot have more than 13 storeys because that does not represent good, sustainable planning. Yet there are small towns with populations of less than 50,000 where such applications have been granted. It was this type of planning madness that led to the boom and subsequent bust in which we now find ourselves.

Another outlandish aspect of the planning process is high-density developments in small towns. I am referring here to towns with populations of less than 10,000 - in many cases, between 5,000 and 10,000 inhabitants. In recent years the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was moving towards high-density zoning, namely, three-storey housing and some apartment blocks in towns where there was ample land to allow for the development of properties with front and back gardens. There are estates in my own town of Gorey with 22 and 24 houses per acre and cattle grazing in the field next door. This was the type of madness that went on.

This Bill has significant relevance for local area plans. In Courtown, County Wexford, along with the local area plan there was a tax designation, and the appetite to build in the area was astonishing. There were fields that were zoned and fields that were designated by previous Governments. It did not make any difference whether there was a tax designation; developers were willing to forgo tax benefits and get to building. There are towns throughout the State with thousands of houses which were small villages only a few years ago. Courtown is one such, but it has no secondary school and there is no plan to provide one. We must bring something to those areas in which development was tax designated for specific purposes, whether some type of stimulus in regard to jobs or incentives for community amenities. In some cases, most of the population of these once small villages are originally from elsewhere and are commuting elsewhere to work. Some were effectively only sleeping in their new homes. Even worse, many such persons are now unemployed and cannot find work in the area in which they live.

I am concerned about the proposal in the Bill for a ten-year local area plan. In Gorey there has been significant focus on the 2002 local area plan. That plan was considered at some stage before the end of 2000 and into 2001 and published as the 2002 plan. Thus, it has in effect been a ten-year plan. The view at the time of its inception was to ensure there would be sufficient zoned land for the prosperous development that was coming down the line. The expectation was that nearly every county in the State would have a new town like Leixlip with a massive number of jobs and an associated requirement for housing. In the case of Gorey, however, it became clear within a short period that this was a mistaken view. By 2006, four years into what was supposed to be a five-year plan, we could see that the oversupply of zoned land had contributed to an overheated market. The area was fortunate that houses could not be built because sewerage services were not available. We should not have to rely on that type of luck. The new local area plan for Gorey is now at pre-draft stage. As I said, the attitude when we were moving upwards was to move to zone as much land as possible. Now that we are in the belly of the recession, we must be careful that we do not retract too much. There is no question that the problem of oversupply must be rectified, but we must be careful not to go too far in the other direction.

An issue of great relevance to this debate is the madness that is NAMA. Having pursued the matter vigorously with the Minister for Finance, he confirmed to me that nothing will be made available to local authorities or communities from NAMA unless the full market value is paid. That is the Minister's view and his instruction, but it is not the correct policy. If there is a community benefit to be had we should ensure it is secured. As unusual aspect in all of this is that we have on the one hand, the Minister for Finance, who has established and instructed NAMA, and, on the other hand, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government instructing local authorities' planning sections via departmental circulars that zoning must be scaled back. I agree with some of the measures introduced in this regard by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. However, NAMA is obliged to get the maximum value for the lands it holds on behalf of the State. Local authorities are caught in the middle of these conflicting departmental priorities.

See this speech in context