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

Some areas will be more affected than other areas by this section of the Bill. I anticipate that my area will be one of those areas because the profile of large housing estates is typical of Kildare. Our population has quadrupled in the last four decades and it has been consistent growth, an experience we can draw upon with regard to what does and does not work. Between 2002 and 2006, and peaking in 2006 when some 88,000 housing units were built, we had the same planning system. The planning system did not cause or drive the construction of houses but neither did the planning system put a brake on it. If this tells us anything it is that the planning system functions even with a very large throughput of planning applications.

When I first read the Bill this section made me angrier and angrier. It is as if we have not learned from the past. The removal of the tier that involves the public in a much greater way in making submissions or objections to planning applications is of concern. When there are requests for further information, generated by the various sections of the local authorities or by notified parties, I have seen this process improve an application on many occasions. I have also witnessed where that part of the process identifies an element of the application that poses a really big problem in the future. We have had some planning permissions in north Kildare that were described as "Tully permissions" that were a ministerial sign-off. Essentially, if one looked at the applications when there was a problem one could be told it was a Tully permission. It showed that there was a lack of oversight. When a project was rushed and the application was not analysed to the extent it should have been then problems arose with difficulties such as footpaths not being provided or a lack of integration with local services. The people who have the local information are those within the local authority areas. I would be a critic of some elements of how local authorities function but the planning system has brought with it a degree of trust from the public. This trust would be lost by virtue of cutting people out of the process. I attended a public meeting recently, hastily called, because a local area plan was being put on display with a sizable amount of rezoning. Councillors from the Minister's own party are not best pleased with these proposals because they understand they are being cut out of this planning process, and it will be the same for all groupings. They know that work done by councillors on development plans will be undermined because the plans could be circumvented and if land is not zoned the plans could be overridden. There is a difficulty for example, that where one can currently have conditions around zoning or require a further master plan or process, this may not be needed by An Bord Pleanála. This could pose very significant problems.

I certainly do not want to see delays in the process but I am aware of situations where a developer will take until the last week of the six month period to come back with the requested additional information. This area could benefit from a clarification or a curtailment at that level. The pre-planning period can also be very hit-and-miss and it could be more formalised.

Centralising the system in the way the Bill proposes is a major step as it takes out any kind of an appeal mechanism, other than a judicial review, which does not really look at the substance of the issue. Rather, the review looks at the process and if it was deficient. That is not an appeals process. The Aarhus Convention includes planning as one of the areas where people should have a right to be consulted on environmental issues that affect their lives. People - not just people who own land - in communities have a vested interest in the town or city in which they live. They are the people who would be most disadvantaged around their right to contribute to the planning process. This is a major difficulty with this Bill.

I wonder if the Minister has looked at the risks associated with these proposals.

Every Member in this House would want to see an acceleration in the number of houses being built because there is no doubt there is a need for additional housing. The issue is where we see the impediment in that regard because every time a difficulty arises, the members of the public appear to be the ones causing the impediment. That is unfair because I do not believe the evidence supports that.

The biggest problem with this section is the centralisation of power, the removal of the local layer, the sidelining of local councillors and reducing their impact on making development plans. That is the reason this section is offensive and we could not support it in that context. Also, other groups such as the Irish Planning Institute have drawn attention to it. When I spoke to senior people in my local authority about this proposal they said they were seeing an increased demand for discussions with people who want to submit planning applications but who were worried about this new process because they felt it was indeterminate. They also felt it was useful for them to be able to work with local authorities on the very issues with which they want to comply. Those are the kind of developers we want, not the ones who have to be dragged kicking and screaming to comply. We want those who will want to comply with the terms of the planning permission.

Another issue is that when a planning permission is appealed to the board, the board then takes on the conditions that have been written by the local authority where there had been local knowledge. The decisions are written with that in mind. However, the local authorities often find it very difficult to decipher the conditions that are written by An Bord Pleanála that have not had local authority input. The difficulty is that when one subsequently tries to make sure that what is happening on the ground complies with the permission, one runs into fairly serious problems if it is not understood by the local authority, which has to make sure that the property was built as permitted.

This measure will cause practical problems on the ground, which will be costly in terms of the oversight and monitoring of developments because the local authorities are not being included in the way they were previously where they had the power as opposed to the influence. That is the difference with this. There will be some influence with the board, and the Minister should remember that the board often overrules its own planning inspector, for example, so the process that is being talked about is very hit and miss. An Bord Pleanála is a planning appeals board. It is not the planning system, and it is very dangerous for the Minister to be doing what he is doing. This is the most offensive section in the Bill and for that reason we cannot support it or this section. If this section were to be excluded, there are other sections in the Bill that do have merit.

See this speech in context