Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the Bill, which I welcome. I congratulate Deputy Catherine Murphy on bringing the Bill to the House, as it is involves many measures that will streamline the planning process and create a more transparent system. If there is only one complaint, it is that this comes many years too late. That is not the Deputy's fault and if these measures had been implemented many years ago, we may not have been put in the mess we are in currently. It is very welcome that the Government and the Minister are willing to work with this in order to see how the system can be improved and used more effectively.

I will only speak to certain elements which reflect the concerns I get across my table; they concern estates and developments, and the main issue is taking in charge. A number of estates have been built in the past few years and the developer has gone but there is still much confusion about who carries out the maintenance in these estates. This causes unbelievable anger in the residents who bought houses in estates, with many properties still vacant. If parts of an estate are vacant people may try to put up shutters around that portion, and there can be other issues, such as potholes and malfunctioning lighting. The council cannot take over such estates if it does not have the means to do so. The issue must be tackled and addressed quite quickly. Nobody would buy a house with the intention that for many years afterwards he or she would be fighting with a local authority about it.

Another element of the Bill relates to extension of time. There is the case of previous planning applications that were granted but where nothing was built. These would have been approved under a previous county development plan, which could be completely different from the current plan. There are cases where people have sought to build houses under a current development plan while considering how plans changed under an old plan. They may wonder why a previous application was granted but there is no expectation for it to change. That causes much anxiety and concern as it seems it is not the same rule for everybody. We are at a point where consistency must be the name of the game and applications must be coherent with other applications in the area from that time. There is a concern where an extension might have been given once or twice as the application may not be the same as more recent examples. If somebody is looking to build a house or a number of houses, it leads to a great amount of anger.

There is also an element relating to contributions to local authorities and I will approach this issue from two angles. There is a lack of consistency in the amount being sought from people when planning permission is granted. We know it is expensive to plan and build a house even before one is notified of the contribution to be given to the council for amenities, water etc. The greatest level of concern relates to the lack of transparency as to how the figure is calculated. Building a house is expensive and when one gets notice of a contribution to be made to an authority, one may not be 100% sure from where it is coming.

I represent a very rural constituency where houses are not very near to one another and there is no certainty as to how the contribution fee is calculated. It is very important that we come up with a clear, transparent system of calculation.

I know one person who set up a small business in recent months. He is an entrepreneur who received no State funding. He built up a business from scratch that is based in a shed. He needs help and encouragement to continue. He got a massive contribution fee bill from the council which will stymie his business for the first six months if not the first 12 months. If there is an economic management element in local authorities it is important that it would take into account that such a person might not make any income from the business for the first six to 12 months. It is not fair to slap a big bill on top of such businesses. I understand local authorities need to get revenue from industry and households but it must be done in a way that is clear, transparent and fair.

That leads me to my final point which is the consistency of planning. One sometimes sees planning permission granted for a house but a year later if a different planner is in situhe or she could take issue with a similar type of application. The point could be made that one’s neighbour got permission for a similar house. That leads to frustration and anger at the lack of consistency in reaching decisions on planning applications. That is especially true of one-off rural housing. One could have a planner with a very set idea of how houses should look but if another planner is not consistent with such a view that is not entirely fair.

The Bill is most welcome as its intention is to bring transparency to a system that for too long was not transparent. I have no doubt the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, will probably have to make certain changes in order to improve the Bill but it is something that was needed a long time ago. That is not a criticism of Deputy Catherine Murphy’s Bill but it will help to restore public confidence in the process. We all know of the devastating effects of the Celtic tiger era, especially in small rural towns around east Galway. Many towns have unfinished housing estates that will never be finished. It is very difficult for someone who is living in an unfinished estate in cases where a decision has been taken to knock down the estate. I refer, for example, to where four or five houses are occupied and ten or 12 houses are not. We must come up with a clear, transparent system of planning that has full public confidence now and in the future.

See this speech in context