Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I will deal with it a little later but if another planning authority is making the decision, it erodes the local government system further.

The planning regulator will be responsible for looking at the systems and procedures in local authorities. There is not a uniformity in local authorities and there are great variations, for example, in the number of staff available, depending on what part of the country one is in. Some staff are busier and my local authority is certainly seeing much more activity than there has been. If the planning regulator is considering this process, it cannot consider like for like. It is important there can be some degree of equalisation, meaning there can be some sort of uniformity of outcome, which cannot be done without the proper resources.

Compliance with planning permission has costs one way or the other. We have seen many failures, and the Minister has seen them in his Department as there has been poorer building practice and a lack of oversight. Some of the housing stock in some quarters is unsafe as a consequence. We will pay for it one way or the other. If the planning regulator considers the performance of local authorities, the ability to monitor the conditions of planning permissions properly and watch buildings as they progress will be an important component. There is a fairly big piece of work involved with that.

The taking in charge process is a major source of criticism. The planning regulator has a role in considering the performance of the planning authorities and their functions. The public purse will pick up quite a lot and has done already in trying to work out some of the unfinished housing estates. If estates are taken in charge in a timely way, in many ways risk is mitigated. The extension of planning permissions has allowed a scenario where it can be 17 years before people may petition to have an estate taken in charge from the time planning permission has elapsed. The issue must be addressed in a timely manner because there is a price to pay in the length of time it has taken, in some cases, to take estates in charge. When a developer disappears, essentially, and people petition to have the estate taken in charge, the difficulty is that very often there is much remediation to be done and the local authority must do it.

There is not much point in having planning laws if we are not willing to enforce them. The area involving unauthorised developments will bring serious trouble, certainly from my perspective. These are the issues that the public pays attention to and demonstrate failures in the planning system. It is one thing getting planning permission, which is a legal process, but if that legal process is undermined by an inability to ensure conditions are complied with properly and there are no unauthorised developments, there can be a significant delay in the process and in some cases that is never resolved.

The explanatory memorandum to the Bill refers to the importance of proper planning, sustainable development and community involvement in the planning process. I am concerned, however, that the proposed housing (miscellaneous provisions) Bill will undermine the planning system in this regard. I am not saying there should not be changes, streamlining, simplification and a speedier process, which that Bill proposes to deliver. However, it is a mistake to think people will not have concerns about the idea of fast-tracking applications. We have improved the planning process over the years by way of the national spatial strategy, underpinned by the regional planning guidelines. I saw very significant changes in the local authority of which I was a member, with people starting to take a strategic approach as opposed to the piecemeal approach that was there in the past. That piecemeal approach was one of the problems that led to the planning tribunal. Under the new process, we have the county or city development plan, underpinned by the local area plan where most zonings occur.

An Bord Pleanála is not obliged in its rulings to be consistent with a development plan. It has a responsibility to have regard to the plan, but that is not the same thing at all. I have seen many instances where submissions made have improved the planning decision, where it was a positive decision, and where members of the local community felt their concerns were taken on board. That type of process reinforces the faith people have in the planning system. There is now the prospect of that being undermined just as people have got used to there being a process they understood and could engage with if they needed to. The new regulations amount to a changing of the goalposts. Language is very important, whether the reference is to an obligation to have regard to something or a requirement to be consistent with it. Court cases have been taken on that issue and changes to the planning law have come about on foot of those challenges.

The legislation will require planning authorities to provide data and information for databases or national planning systems as may be specified by the Minister. I hope this will include provision for the establishment of a national planning compliance register. Each local authority is unique and what we have seen in the past is developers undertaking projects in one part of the country and leaving a trail of destruction after them before moving on to another local authority area and doing the same thing. The lack of a national planning compliance register, even in situations where enforcement proceedings have been successfully taken against developers, is a major omission in the system. It would be of assistance not just to the planning regulator but would also function as a good consumer protection element. The fact each local authority has its own unique register is not a benefit of the system.

The provision that elected members will be subject to reduced or no fees when making submissions could be problematic if we end up with a situation where councillors and Deputies are looked to as a vehicle for conveying community submissions. A recent judgment issued in the European court concerned the introduction of planning fees, which was, if I recall correctly, done via the Planning and Development Act 2000. As I understand, the fees do not bring in much money and seem to serve little purpose other than as a source of frustration and expense. A charge of €20 might not seem like a lot of money to most people but for a pensioner, someone on a small income or a person in receipt of a small social welfare payment, it is a sizeable sum. I wonder why the exemption is not being fully extended rather than limiting it to public representatives.

Fortunately, most of the unfinished estates in my constituency are being worked through. This is the second time I have seen that profile of unfinished housing developments. I was elected at town council level in 1988 and subsequently to the county council in 1991 and one of the main occupations for my colleagues and me right through the 1990s was trying to work through unfinished estates, calling bonds in and so on. We often saw the same developers reappearing under a different guise, which is something I am seeing again now. There is a sense, in fact, that we are repeating the mistakes of the past. That debate is probably one for another day but it is clear a change in culture is needed in the construction sector whereby good developers are incentivised and there are greater penalties for bad behaviour. That cannot be done without staff in local authorities having the ability to enforce regulations properly, to which end an enforcement register would be useful and might have a considerable impact.

The 2000 Act was consolidating legislation and we have had much planning legislation in the interim. There is evidence these myriad legislative items are causing some of the delays in the planning system, which is an issue that may need to be addressed if we are to achieve quicker outcomes. We all want quicker outcomes, of course, but not at the expense of excluding the people who have a vested interested in an area, who live there and want to shape how it develops. I hope the relevant legislation does not come before us in the form that has been outlined because it would be a mistake. In principle, however, I support the establishment of an independent regulator. My only concern is that such an office must really be independent.

See this speech in context