Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)

I agree with the key objective of the Bill, which is to support economic renewal and promote sustainable development. It also aims to bring about a closer alignment between the national spatial strategy, regional planning guidelines, and development and local area plans, in addition to introducing a requirement for an evidence based core strategy in development plans. These aims are extremely laudable and would be accepted by most Members.

Like most Members, I served on a local authority for a number of years. One of the most frustrating aspects of my work in that regard related to planning and the inconsistencies relating thereto, even between different areas within one's own county. Whereas someone might be allowed to build a house on an elevated site in one part of the county, a person in another part of the county would not be allowed to do so. There are contradictions in this regard right across the country, be it in the west, the midlands or the east. Perhaps it might be possible to introduce national guidelines to promote consistency in respect of planning. It is frustrating for councillors to explain to people that what is acceptable in one part of the country might not be acceptable in another or that what is considered to be an elevated site in one area is not so considered in another. In many cases it comes down to individual planners, who have their own ideas regarding planning, making decisions.

It has been my experience that planners who graduated in the recent past and who have embarked upon masters courses at UCD or at Queen's University in Belfast have a completely different vision than that of their predecessors in respect of the type of landscape they want to see develop in Ireland than do their predecessors. There is both a contradiction and a tension in this regard. It may already be the case but I suggest that on several occasions during the year planners and senior planning officers should be brought together in order that we might promote a consistency of approach throughout the country.

The main difficulty in Kerry at present, particularly in the north of the county, relates to water discharge and the process of percolation. The soil in north Kerry is particularly heavy or dense and, as a result, percolation is poor. In the past, it was possible to build houses in certain areas. These houses were built to different standards and septic tanks relating to them seemed to work. However, as a result of the introduction of the EPA guidelines and the new percolation tests - the so-called P and T tests - it is not possible to build houses in such areas.

A contradiction arises in respect of this matter. If someone wanted to build a factory or a unit in north Kerry in order to carry out a commercial activity, he or she could obtain a surface water discharge licence and remove water - once it has been properly treated, etc. - from the site and run it into a local land drain or whatever. However, it is not possible to obtain such a licence in respect of one's home. That does not make sense. Perhaps the Minister might obtain clarification from his officials with regard to whether this position obtains throughout the country. Obviously, if that was allowed for a house it would get over the problem of percolation because people could take it to the nearest waterway and discharge it provided it was properly purified, and we know that is possible with modern technology. I would like clarification on this point.

An Bord Pleanála seems to be the overarching authority on planning. It is the ultimate decision maker. At times, it makes strange decisions but generally it is guided by county development plans, the national spatial strategy and area plans. I would not be totally critical of it because it has also made some very balanced decisions. However, there should be a more overarching authority that would specify more consistency in planning in the country, either besides An Bord Pleanála or through a change of role for that organisation. At present, An Bord Pleanála is the final arbiter and this can lead to problems in certain cases.

I will refer to some sections of the Bill, which I have examined. A large number of young couples in particular who received planning permission almost five years ago cannot go ahead and build their houses because of the economic climate. In some cases, the planning permission will be up quite shortly but they cannot obtain mortgages and may have lost their jobs in the meantime. They may have received planning permission under the previous regime in Kerry when the same emphasis was not on percolation. They may be in areas where they will not satisfy the percolation conditions. They have bought sites and are paying mortgages on those sites but have been unable to obtain a mortgage to build their houses. They may have young families and live in rented accommodation. Will the Minister clarify whether the Bill will enable them to get an extension to their planning permission?

At present, the duration of planning permission may be extended subject to certain conditions where substantial works have been carried out prior to the expiration of the original permission. The Bill provides for amending section 42 to allow, subject to certain conditions, for the possibility of an extension of permission for a period of up to five years, which I welcome, in circumstances where substantial works have not been carried out but where there are commercial, economic and technical considerations beyond the control of the applicant which substantially militated against either the commencement of development or the carrying out of substantial works. It is also intended that this new provision shall apply to applicants for extension of permission received after the commencement of the provision following the enactment of the Bill.

Will the Minister clarify whether the economic conditions cover people in the circumstances I described, namely, young couples who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs and cannot get a mortgage and will lose planning permission having spent a large amount of money on acquiring a site and planning permission? It is very important to clarify this because the impression given was that it would be for large developments only. It is hoped that the Bill will pass through the Dáil over the coming month or two, depending on how speedily Committee Stage will be taken. It should be made retrospective to the time the Bill was introduced, in fairness to those whose planning permission will expire.

Section 24 provides for a wider definition of public infrastructure and facilities and I welcome this measure to reflect newer infrastructure requirements including, in particular, the provision of school sites. The wider definition allows for development contributions to be levied and used to fund such infrastructure as school sites, broadband provision and flood relief works. I welcome this but it should be further extended.

To give a practical example, recently a school in the village of Athea in west Limerick was extended. Part of the planning permission condition was that a pedestrian crossing should be provided. It was not provided because the school could not afford it. Limerick County Council now states that it is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science. The Department states that it is the responsibility of either Limerick County Council or the Department of Transport and the Department of Transport states that Limerick County Council should provide for it through its discretionary funding. All of this is documented. Levies could be used for such work. The school is in the flood plain of the River Galey which has overflowed on a number of occasions. I could see the possibility of flood prevention work being carried out through this type of levy so I appreciate this provision. The definition of school sites could be amended to include pedestrian crossings relating to the school. A pedestrian crossing is critical for any school.

Section 35 refers to nature conservation sites. I have been asking the Minister about people seeking planning permission on a special area of conservation, SAC, and previous Ministers have also been pursued on this issue. This particularly relates to Inch Strand in County Kerry, which has 1,200 acres of sand dunes. They are being damaged but nobody seems to have any responsibility for them. People use quad bikes on the sand dunes. There is also wind erosion. The dunes are being threatened but the only responsibility the Government has taken is to designate them an SAC but it then left them lie there. They are being farmed with various types of grass being transported into the sand spit, including weeds that would be alien to the sand dune formation, but no one seems to care.

The owners, who live in New York, are anxious to put a golf course in part of the sand spit. They are willing to also put in place conservation measures for the remainder. I have looked at the plans and I am as conscious as anyone about conservation, but I think it would enhance and protect the sand spit if it were conditional on a proper programme being put in place for preservation, the prevention of erosion and any further damage to the dune formation. Also, at present, cars park on the beach during the summer. The beach is littered and local people clean it up. No one else has or takes responsibility for it. Moreover, I understand that this law has been changed in Scotland for the benefit of Donald Trump in respect of dune formations which had been designated as special areas of conservation. While I am unsure of this, I have heard his name being used.

See this speech in context