Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil supports the passage of the Bill to Committee Stage. As has been said, the main purpose is to give effect to one of the core planning-reform recommendations of the Mahon tribunal, that being the establishment of an independent office of planning regulator to oversee and assess decision making and the process in planning authorities.

In the short life of this Government and during the previous one, we have continually applied pressure to implement as many of the Mahon tribunal recommendations as possible. We are committed to drawing from the lessons of the Mahon tribunal in improving transparency, consistency and good decision making throughout the planning system. It is vital that we continue to put in place the legal and institutional framework to prevent the planning abuses that the Mahon tribunal uncovered.

We believe the Bill strikes an appropriate balance in giving the new OPR independence in its role, evaluating local and regional development plans while maintaining some democratic control over the body by the Minister and the Oireachtas. However, we have a number of concerns over some of the Bill's key provisions, which require further scrutiny and amendment. I welcome the Minister's commitment regarding the process on Committee and Remaining Stages.

There are some large omissions of key Mahon tribunal recommendations for improving transparency in planning, including the disclosure of political donations by planning applicants and the noting of all submissions by political representatives on planning applications. Some of the OPR's functions and powers prescribed by the Bill may not make it an effective overseer of the national planning strategy. For instance, it is given no role in overseeing executive transport planning agencies, including Transport Infrastructure Ireland.

One of the rationales given by Mahon tribunal for the establishment of the OPR is to achieve greater integration between land use planning such as local authority zoning decisions and strategic transport planning. It is disappointing, therefore, that it is not given any role in overseeing the development or implementation of plans by the National Transport Authority, NTA, or Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII. Third, we are concerned that the limitation of the OPR powers as prescribed by the Bill may render it somewhat toothless as an anti-corruption watchdog in the planning process. We have serious reservations about placing the successor to the national spatial strategy, namely, the Government's yet undrafted national planning framework, on a statutory footing given it does not yet exist.

The Minister set out the central purpose of the Bill, which we all acknowledge and note. The Minister also outlined the functions being given to the office of the planning regulator under this Bill. I wish to return to the issue of whether the body will be sufficiently independent. I note that bodies such as the Irish Planning Institute have criticised this legislation on the basis that the OPR will not be fully independent of the Minister as the office can only make recommendations on local development plans. It cannot of its own authority strike down plans or variations to plans. The new office will not have the power to force local authorities to change their rules to comply with national spatial policy on land use planning or zoning decisions such as the national spatial strategy or the regional planning guidelines. As I said earlier, we believe that the legislation strikes an appropriate balance between having an independent planning watchdog and the maintenance of democratic control and accountability over planning authorities.

The input of the Government and the elected representatives is also important and must be seen to be so. The new office will be independent of the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government in its day-to-day operations but it will be formally subject to the Minister of the day. It will examine and report on the content of development plans, including zoning practices of local authorities, and make recommendations to the Minister. In reality, the new OPR will take over the powers that currently rest with the Department to recommend that the Minister strike down particular proposals in draft local development plans. The key difference is that if the Minister disagrees with notice from the OPR, he or she must state his or her reasons, lay them before the Houses of the Oireachtas and make the stated reasons available on the Department's website.

Some commentators have criticised the OPR on the following grounds, including that it will merely advise the Minister that it thinks there is a problem with a particular plan or decision and that all decisions will rest with the Minister which, according to one commentator, is very much within the party political arena. Fianna Fáil believes that criticism is misplaced. There should be a balance between the independence of the watchdog and the right to have democratic accountability in the planning process.

In regard to the oversight of the OPR not extending to transport planning, it is appropriate that we expand further on that point during this Second Stage debate on the Bill. As I said, Fianna Fáil is concerned that the oversight function does not extend to transport planning. Some would say strangely absent from the prescribed functions of the OPR is the role of overseeing, assessing and evaluating the plans and strategies of the multiple executive agencies involved in transport services and infrastructural planning, including the National Transport Authority and Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII. The oversight functions of the OPR appear to be strictly confined to evaluating land use planning by local authorities. It does not have a direct role in overseeing high level strategies developed by the NTA or TII in transport. Both those bodies must, for example, have regard to the national spatial strategy and its successor, the national planning framework which, as I said, is not yet in place, as well as regional planning guidelines and other master planning documents such as the national development plan.

The Bill does not give the OPR any responsibility of direct oversight of the NTA or TII or any role in the assessment and evaluation of their transport and planning strategies. While it is true that both bodies are bound statutorily to have regard to higher level master plans such as the national spatial strategy or regional planning guidelines, very often there is a lack of coherence or even disagreement, whether perceived or real, between the local authority development plans and regional transport strategies developed by the NTA and TII. An example in this regard is the greater Dublin area transport strategy, in respect of which local authorities and representatives in Wicklow, Kildare and Meath voiced concerns that the NTA was setting the rules on spatial planning without due consideration to their regional and county development plans.

One of the rationales given by the Mahon tribunal for the establishment of the OPR is to try to ensure a better level of integration between land use planning such as local authority zoning decisions and strategic transport planning. It is disappointing, therefore, that the new OPR is not given any role in overseeing the development or implementation of plans by the NTA or TII. It would appear from the Bill that the role of the OPR will be to secure coherence or agreement on the part of county development plans and local area plans with regional transport plans developed by the NTA and TII.

On omissions, there are a number of omissions that were recommended by the Mahon tribunal which, in its opinion, would improve transparency and planning, notwithstanding what is included in the Bill. These include the issue of an independent appointments board to appoint members to the National Transport Authority. This recommendation is not to be implemented by the Government and it would appear it is not included. According to the previous Government the reason for this is that the NTA has a remit beyond planning. The board of the NTA comprises ministerial representatives who do not have a quasi-judicial role in the way that members of An Bord Pleanála do, for example, and it is important, therefore, that the chairperson and members of the board should both be fully qualified individuals, be in tune with the Government's transport policy and be willing to respect ministerial policy directions. This would be best achieved by allowing an independent appointments board to select the members, with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport continuing to make those appointments. It is incumbent on the current Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, to state whether he is in agreement with that reasoning.

The Mahon tribunal also recommended that members of regional authorities, now regional assemblies, should be directly elected. I know that when the assemblies were put in place, that was not the practice and so I do not expect that to be provided for in this Bill. The Mahon tribunal also recommended that where elected members intend to grant planning permission in material contravention of the development plan, they should be required to give advance notice of one month of this intention to the relevant regional authority and to the Minister and be required to invite and consider submissions from those parties on same. This is not considered to be legitimately included in the Bill despite, as I said, it being a key recommendation of the Mahon tribunal to increase transparency in planning.

I mentioned earlier that Fianna Fáil is concerned that the OPR may be somewhat toothless as an anti-corruption watchdog. Specifically, the Bill provides that the office shall not exercise any of its functions in any particular case with which a planning authority or board is either involved or could be involved. This provision could render the OPR toothless as an anti-corruption watchdog. In the case of suggested criminal wrongdoing, it is right and necessary that the OPR passes cases on to the Garda Síochána. However, there is no good reason that a body that is to be the pre-eminent expert on planning matters in the country should not have the power to investigate alleged or suspected planning law misdemeanours or infringements in specific instances.

I wish to comment briefly on resourcing and capacity concerns.

If the office of the planning regulator, OPR, is to be as effective as we want it to be, it will have to have the capacity to undertake its primary mandate to oversee planning authority decisions and investigate systematic complaints in a timely fashion. While it is welcome that under the Bill, individuals may make direct complaints to the new office, which will be submitted to a preliminary examination, this raises the spectre that the office will be bogged down with a large volume of individual complaints. This has clearly been the case with other bodies as we have seen, and from which I hope I have learned, including such bodies as the PRTB, which is now the RTB. Since its inception, it has been unable to fulfil its role in resolving individual disputes in a timely fashion. At present, tenants and landlords face lengthy delays for any dispute resolution from the RTB because of the lack of resources and staff as well as the absence of a clear dispute resolution mechanism. This makes it somewhat ineffective as a body and unable to carry out its primary mandate.

It must be recognised there is a risk that by giving the OPR the responsibility to receive direct complaints relating to individual planning applications, it could become ineffectual at performing its central purpose, which is the systematic oversight of the planning authorities, decision-making and the broad implementation of national planning policy and regional guidelines. The additional responsibility to investigate direct complaints must be matched with adequate resources, adequate staffing and adequate administration capacity at the new body.

Regarding its oversight of planning administration, one of the central functions of the new planning regulator will be to ensure a more consistent approach is taken in the handling of planning applications throughout local authorities. It is very important to help ensure a relatively consistent approach to planning proposals is taken throughout planning authorities. Consistency and the interpretation of development plan policies is essential if public confidence in the planning system is to be maintained, although decisions on individual applications will vary in light of the land use considerations that apply.

I wish to leave time for my colleague, Deputy O'Rourke, as he wishes to make some points to the Minister on many aspects of the Bill. We are committed to supporting the Bill on Second Stage and, as the Minister stated, teasing out some aspects of it, with the expressed wish of amending the legislation to provide greater transparency and accountability to ensure the basic recommendations and, if possible, other recommendations not included in the original Bill can be undertaken by the Minister as he brings the Bill through the House.

See this speech in context