Eamon Scanlon (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil supports the passage of this Bill to Committee Stage. The main purpose of the Bill is to give a basis to one of the core planning reform recommendations of the Mahon tribunal. The recommendation in question calls for the establishment of an independent planning regulator to oversee and assess decision-making and other processes in planning authorities. We are committed to drawing from the lessons of the Mahon tribunal and improving transparency, consistency and good decision-making. Following strong action throughout the planning system when Fianna Fáil was in government, it is vital that we continue to put in place the legal institutional framework to prevent the corruption and planning abuses that the Mahon tribunal uncovered.

The big problems are in the major urban centres such as Dublin and elsewhere. I served as a member of Sligo County Council for many years. There was never any question of corruption or anything like that. People did their business honestly. In Dublin, however, it is different because the value of an acre of land could increase from €20,000 to €2 million. One could understand that there is the possibility that corruption could take place, and it did.

We believe this Bill strikes an appropriate balance in giving the new planning regulator independence in its role in 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 regarding some of the key provisions. We believe these require further scrutiny and amendment. There are several major omissions from the Bill relating to key Mahon tribunal recommendations in respect of improving transparency and planning, the disclosure of political donations by planning applicants and the noting of all submissions by political representatives in planning applications. It is important that these facts are recorded and that people can see exactly who is supporting what at all times.

Some of the planning regulator functions and powers prescribed by the Bill may not make it an effective overseer of the national planning strategy. For example, the regulator is given no role in overseeing executive transport planning agencies, including the National Transport Authority, NTA, and Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII. The rationale given by Mahon for establishing the planning regulator was to achieve greater integration between land-use planning, including local authority zoning decisions and strategic transport planning. It is disappointing, therefore, that the new regulator is not given any role in overseeing the development or implementation of plans by the NTA or the TII.

We are concerned that the limitation of the planning regulator's powers, as prescribed in the Bill, may make it toothless as an anti-corruption watchdog of the planning process. We also have serious reservations about placing the successor to the national special strategy - the Government's as yet undrafted national planning framework - on a statutory footing in view of the fact that it does not exist.

I wish to make a point about An Bord Pleanála. Any politician in the House can appreciate the way objections to planning applications are made to An Bord Pleanála. Some are vexatious and some are genuine. An Bord Pleanála sends inspectors to inspect sites and examine applications. Sometimes the inspector might recommend granting or refusal of an application only for the board to overturn the recommendation. That is unfair and people do not understand it. Sometimes the decision is made by a roomful of people in Dublin. The inspector has looked at the application and has made a decision. In fairness, that procedure should make a strong case for whatever the inspector says. However, this does not happen and it annoys people. This is something at which we should look and perhaps this Bill provides the opportunity to do so.

Another issue I am keen to raise relates to An Taisce, a prescribed body. We have a situation in Sligo at present involving a man who employs 12 people in a rural area. He runs a vegetable business and he has applied for planning permission. He could create a further 12 jobs. Given the area in which he is based, that would be the equivalent of 50 jobs in a small town. He applied and got planning permission from Sligo County Council. However, the application was objected to by An Taisce. The individual spent a great deal of money. He reapplied and addressed every issue raised by An Taisce. He went above and beyond in respect of the concerns expressed. We are not talking about a national heritage site or a national heritage building. The second objection related to a road. In fairness, Sligo County Council has plenty of engineers who can decide whether a road is safe. Unfortunately, this objection has cost the man a substantial amount of money. He is prepared to employ people and a further 12 jobs are available if he obtains planning permission. The case is before An Bord Pleanála. I hope the decision handed down will be fair and that he will be given the opportunity to progress his work. In fairness, An Taisce has a job to do and I would never question that to any great degree. However, to object to a planning application because of a road amounts to going way beyond the function of An Taisce in respect of planning. It is very unfair. We should look at these issues when we are considering planning legislation.

See this speech in context