John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

I thank the Acting Chairman, the many Deputies who made contributions on Second Stage of this Bill and Members in general for their attendance over the course of the debate. I note the matters raised, both today and during previous debates on the Bill and I shall reflect on contributions of Deputies in progressing the Bill on Committee Stage.

At the outset, I shall comment, briefly, on one contribution made by the Acting Chairman's colleague, Deputy Joan Burton. My Green Party colleagues soldiered with Deputy Burton in 1991 on Dublin County Council, at which time we had very similar views on planning. However, I am at a loss to know where she gets her information in respect of "Green Party planners", as she calls them. She spoke about 18-storey towerblocks and more. I do not know where she gets her information but it is not based on any form of reality. Perhaps at some stage she might give us evidence of these so-called Green Party planners coming up with such ideas. There is a difference between high rise and high density, a matter she herself highlighted. I await her reply on that issue and would like to debate further with her but her information is totally inaccurate.

It remains my intention to have this Bill enacted at the earliest opportunity and I hope we can work constructively through any issues that were raised. As I stated, the principal driving force behind the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill is, and will continue to be, the need to strengthen the statutory provisions for the forward planning process. Planning is about people and a sound development plan is the key to ensuring good planning at local level. The more strategic approach to zoning and the accompanying checks and balances set out in this Bill will allow development to take place at the right time and in the right place. It will allow the State to plan for the provision of infrastructure with much greater certainty.

This is key to the economic renewal agenda. We must learn from, and not repeat, the mistakes of the past. Under this Bill all land zonings must be the subject of public consultation at the plan-making stage or in draft variation of a development plan. This is crucial from the point of view of ensuring public confidence in the zoning process.

I shall now refer to some of the matters raised by Deputies. Their contributions dealt with a wide range of issues and I shall endeavour to deal with as many of these as time permits. I shall deal first with the national spatial strategy. Although I welcome the positive comments made by Deputies in respect of the Bill, I note that Deputy Hogan, for example, and a number of his colleagues have reservations about the Bill especially with regard to the national spatial strategy and its significance to the planning system. There appears to be a perception that the national spatial strategy is all about gateway cities and hubs and that this fundamentally works against the growth and development of rural areas. I can appreciate the Deputies' concern about this issue. However, I would like to knock that misconception on the head, once and for all. While I appreciate the Deputies' concern about this issue, I would like to knock on the head once and for all that misconception. The national spatial strategy was designed as a 20-year strategic document. It has been endorsed by the Government. It is not just about developing the gateways and hubs to the detriment of all other areas. It is about maximising the potential of all urban and rural areas to benefit their inhabitants and the country as a whole. It is also about sustaining and supporting rural communities. The national spatial strategy includes key policies and principles to enable rural areas to develop in a sustainable and balanced way. Rather than dismiss the strategy, we should ask how we can deliver better and more consistently on its objectives.

Deputy Clune mentioned a report recently produced by the National Competitiveness Council, which reinforced the internationally accepted analysis that strong cities make strong regions. It is critical to have a vibrant, progressive and growing urban core if we are to support the economy of the wider region. In the absence of a strong regional and urban focus, surrounding rural areas will suffer lower economic activity and there will be less opportunity to develop sustainable rural initiatives. We cannot afford to let that happen as we try to get the nation back on its feet economically.

I do not suggest that growth cannot and should not happen in rural areas. This Bill intends to manage the significant pressures that have arisen in recent years Unplanned and dispersed commuter-driven development does not provide a sustainable basis for rural towns and villages, or create vibrant communities. The new regional planning guidelines are being updated at present. Like my Department's updated outlook review of the national spatial strategy, the guidelines recognise the integral link between certain needs. We need to balance the need to develop large urban areas, which already have in place capacity and infrastructure, with the need to facilitate sustainable development in more rural areas.

The new regional planning guidelines will not say that growth should not happen outside gateways and hubs. They will assess and guide, on a regional and county-by-county basis, how we can best manage future growth within regions and across the country as a whole. I echo the sentiments of Deputies Bannon and Durkan and the Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, who said that past planning mistakes, where large suburban-style estates were built on the fringes of small settlements and where long-distance commuting was facilitated, should not be allowed to happen again. We can all agree on that. We want to see more sustainable patterns of growth that will enhance rural communities and create successful and cohesive rural areas.

Before I finish talking about sustainable planning, I would like to speak about flood plains and related planning issues, which were raised during the debate by a number of speakers, including Deputies Tuffy and Ferris. I am determined to put an end to the type of needless suffering and hardship we witnessed last winter during the flooding crisis. This Bill will define what "flood risk management" means. I wish to ensure that detailed flood risk assessment is fully integrated into the planning process. The Bill amends the First Schedule to the Planning and Development Act 2000 to provide for the inclusion in development plans of an objective for flood risk assessments to be carried out as part of the control and regulation of development in areas that are at risk of flooding. This should ensure that flood risk assessment is fully integrated into the planning process, where appropriate. The proposed definitions of "flood risk management" and "flood risk assessment" will assist planning authorities in formulating their respective development plan objectives.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt queried whether development contributions could be spent on flood relief works. The Bill aims to reduce the impact of flooding nationwide, thereby giving planning authorities greater flexibility in distributing existing development contribution moneys. Planning authorities will be able to use some of the moneys, if necessary, on newer prioritised needs, such as flood relief works.

In tandem with the provisions of the Bill, and following a comprehensive public consultation process, the Department in association with the OPW published ministerial guidelines on the planning system and flood risk management on 30 November last. These guidelines will facilitate the provision of information to planning authorities and other stakeholders on the new mechanisms for incorporating flood risk assessment into the planning process. They explain in detail how to assess and manage flood risk at all stages of the process. They aim to ensure there is a more consistent, rigorous and systematic approach to the avoidance and minimisation of potential future flood risk. The new guidelines, which were prepared in response to the recommendations of the national flood policy review group, are aimed at ensuring that development which is vulnerable to flooding will be permitted by planning authorities in areas of high or moderate risk of flooding in exceptional circumstances only. Such a decision will have to be based on the clear and transparent criteria set out in the guidelines.

Furthermore, the guidelines contain a commitment to review the exempted development provisions in the current planning and development regulations, which allow for paving residential gardens, developing off-street parking and providing hard landscaping. The review will be conducted as part of the overall review of the regulations, which will follow the enactment of the Bill. It will examine ways of ensuring that future exemptions are applied only when such developments comply with sustainable drainage principles. Planning has a significant role to play with regard to flood risk management, particularly in ensuring that future development avoids or minimises future increases in flood risk. The planning process constitutes a parallel but interdependent process to that of flood risk management. We are delivering an holistic approach to the management of the water environment on a catchment basis through the preparation of river basin management plans.

As can be evidenced clearly by the widespread flooding suffered throughout the country last winter, the location, phasing and servicing of zoned lands have to be carefully considered in the context of our current economic and environmental circumstances. The Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, referred to the impact on local areas and businesses of development outside town centres. This Bill will require tighter management of land zoning and will ensure that the location and quantum of land that is zoned for development is in line with regional and local targets for growth over the period of the plan.

Deputies Hogan, Tuffy and Creighton spoke about the centralisation of the planning process. I hope I am not doing Deputy Terence Flanagan a disservice when I say he also proposed some form of centralisation. He said this is the way we are going, but I am afraid that is not how we see it. In fact, the exact opposite is our intention in this Bill, which provides ministerial guidance to be implemented to ensure development is sustainable, properly planned and tailored towards the needs of people. Under this legislation, when planning authorities are preparing and making draft development plans, they will have to demonstrate by means of statements how they will implemented. It will not suffice for the authorities to "have regard to" - that is a phrase that is often used - the policies and objectives of the Minister as set out in ministerial guidelines issued under section 28 of the Planning Acts.

The ministerial guidelines will have to be examined clearly and the authorities will have to take account of them. That is how it ought to be, if one wants to get consistency across the local authorities. Deputy Terence Flanagan's colleague, Deputy Deenihan, made that point in his contribution. Equally, planning authorities must detail the reasons such policies and objectives are not implemented, as the case may be. This should help to ground national policy in the local context. It will help to minimise the number of instances in which the Minister is forced to intervene in the development plan process by using his or her powers of direction under section 31.

As I said to Deputy Terence Flanagan, the bad planning we have witnessed over such a long period is not over yet, unfortunately. I had to intervene in Dún Laoghaire when some of the Deputy's colleagues behaved in a most misguided way. If he is interested in planning, I urge him to talk to his colleagues in Dún Laoghaire, not all of whom are behaving in a responsible manner.

Deputy Breen raised concerns about the timescale in which the public can make submissions on the draft ministerial directions to amend a development plan or local area plan. It must be borne in mind that such directions are quite specific about the aspects of the plan they propose to amend. There is no question of members of the public having to familiarise themselves with the detail of the total plan. They may choose to concentrate on the specific issue or issues set out in the draft direction.

Deputies Breen, Ferris and Fitzpatrick expressed concerns about the increased population threshold for mandatory preparation of local area plans. Under this Bill, the population threshold for the mandatory preparation of local area plans will increase from 2,000 to 5,000 people. The clear intention in the 2000 Act was that local area plans should be prepared for those areas requiring regeneration or likely to be subject to large-scale development. Some planning authorities are coming under significant resource pressure to prepare local area plans for relatively small areas which meet neither of these criteria but for which a local area plan is required due to the scale of its population. I intend to review on Committee Stage the proposal regarding the mandatory population threshold in respect of the preparation of a local area plan. While I note the concerns of several Deputies regarding urbanisation, I stress that it will continue to be the case that a local area plan may be prepared in respect of any area which a planning authority considers suitable, in particular those areas that require economic, physical and social renewal outside of areas where a local area plan is mandatorily required.

Deputies Mary Upton and Peter Kelly, among others, questioned the impact that reducing the quorum at meetings of the board of An Bord Pleanála would have on the planning process. The Bill proposes to allow the board to reduce the quorum from three to two members, on the recommendation of the chairperson that such a reduction is necessary to ensure the efficient discharge of the business of the board. This amendment, which has several built-in safeguards, aims to improve the throughput of An Bord Pleanála and to secure higher compliance rates with the statutory objection period of 18 weeks for appeals.

The taking in charge of estates was raised by several Deputies. To clarify, the provisions of the Bill do not distinguish between types of developments and therefore owners of properties and developments managed by management companies could avail of the provisions included in the legislation. Deputy Damien English raised the role of development contributions in planning and Deputy Olivia Mitchell expressed her dissatisfaction at allowing local authorities to impose levies so that schools are provided. As I stated earlier, the Bill contains measures to provide local authorities with greater flexibility to effect a wider distribution of development contribution numbers.

Deputy Mitchell referred to trees in residential areas. Statutory provisions governing roadside trees and vegetation are contained in section 70 of the Roads Act 1993. These provisions oblige landowners and occupiers of land to take all necessary care to ensure trees, shrubs, hedges and other vegetation on their land are not and cannot become a danger to road users. Deputy Upton voiced concerns in regard to the penalties for offences under the planning Acts. To clarify, the amendments in the Bill provide for increased fines in accordance with the limits set out by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins spoke about the Aarhus Convention. I assure the Deputy that ratification of the convention in 2010 is a key priority for me and for my Department. I recently met with the Attorney General on the matter and we have agreed to ensure that the work needed to be carried out to enable the ratification to proceed is prioritised in my office.

The retention issue is very important for several reasons, not least that we must deal with infringement proceedings from the European Union. Deputy Costello also addressed this issue in his contribution. I propose, through this Bill, to remove the possibility of retention permission for unauthorised development that would otherwise be subject to environmental impact assessment other than in exceptional circumstances. There are no proposals to remove the retention provision in its entirety from the planning process as retention permission provides a mechanism for regularising development that is not contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of an area. An application for a retention permission is required to be assessed by a planning authority in the same way as any other application, that is, the authority is required to consider the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. This includes having regard to the provisions of the plan, any submissions or observations received and relevant ministerial or Government policies including any guidelines issued by my Department. Planning authorities are not precluded from taking a prosecution in respect of an unauthorised development where an application to retain unauthorised developments is made. It is my intention to take the opportunity to use the necessary regulations that will follow on from the enactment of this Bill to increase substantially the fees associated with ordinary applications for retention permission. That acts as a barrier to those who wish to take shortcuts through the planning system.

I am greatly encouraged by the generally supportive and constructive contributions of Members opposite. I very much look forward to dealing with the detail of the Bill on Committee Stage where there are several substantial amendments to be included. We can tease those out in detail on Committee and Report Stages. This is groundbreaking legislation that will ensure that bad planning will not raise its ugly head again.

See this speech in context