Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, particularly on the thrust of the Bill presented by Deputy Catherine Murphy where we get to examine and elucidate upon shortcomings and lessons we can learn from the history of our planning code. We could change and work on a number of areas and I have mentioned one of these to the Minister of State, which is developing and putting in place national guidelines on community gain with regard to energy projects, whereby a statutory policy would be put in place placing an obligation on wind farm, electricity transmission developers and any other energy project developers to make a financial or other contribution to the economic, environmental or social well-being of the community where the power lines or wind turbines will be located. This would be a payment or benefit in kind to local communities in addition to rent to individual landowners and development contributions and commercial rates which are payable to local authorities at present.

The problem is that there is a great deal of resentment within local communities that are being asked to take on the burden of the infrastructure, whether it is a wind turbine or whatever else, in the national interest. If we are seriously asking people to do that, we need to have a national debate about it. However, in the case of electrical transmission lines, a landowner who may not live near the line is compensated while somebody living in a house not far from the line is not. That is the current position and it is not fair. We must strike the correct balance. I am not commenting on the technology or where these lines are erected. The requirement for a wind farm developer to contribute to a community fund is ad hocand voluntary, and requests by local authorities are not enforceable. We need a national policy through our planning code to inform local authorities. While some developers make contributions, there is no uniformity nationally as to what communities in which wind farms are built might receive. One could be lucky, depending on the developer. This often comprises a private deal between the developer and members of the community and, therefore, it is not transparent.

There also needs to be transparency about how the funds are administered, who can access them within the community and under what criteria. In my county, Mayo County Council has published a draft document setting out rates of compensation it recommends for the benefit of local communities, but it is unenforceable as it does not have a statutory basis. This is causing problems with some energy projects. In one case, a wind farm developer is offering less than the amount envisaged by the county council, which can do nothing about this. We need to have a conversation about what communities gain in these circumstances and how investment is generated nationally to build infrastructure.

Will the Minister of State, in conjunction with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, examine the possibility of providing cheaper electricity to households in the vicinity of transmission lines and wind farms? Communities could potentially take a stake in a wind farm and receive an annual income from a particular wind turbine. The more electricity generated by the wind farm, therefore, the more income the community would receive for projects in the area. Such guidelines should be developed in consultation with all stakeholders, including wind farm and electricity grid developers. Many projects are being brought to planning stage and we must acknowledge the imposition of infrastructure to develop and expand a modern economy and pay attention to the people who are being asked to cope with this. Every aspect of this process must be examined. It is generally accepted that the greatest challenge to the development of energy projects is community acceptance, and this is the number one issue to be addressed. It must be recognised that some communities carry more of the burden in the context of this infrastructure, and this should be acknowledged in national planning guidelines in the context of community gain.

I refer to the time taken by An Bord Pleanála to deal with planning appeals. The statutory period is four months, but this can be extended. This is bizarre and difficult, particularly for commercial planning applicants for whom time is of the essence. This continues to happen, despite the reduction in the number of appeals being processed by An Bord Pleanála. If we are to be businesslike, this must be addressed.

In addition, I refer to the extent to which the board moves the goalposts on appeal from considering the application before it to redesigning the scheme. It has been suggested to me that this is on account of the number of architects the board has. For example, when planning permission is sought for a housing scheme, the board liaises directly with the developer to change the design and, therefore, this removes from consideration what was initially before the local planning authority.

See this speech in context