Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This is a very important debate. We are getting to the heart of how our society is run, what planning is, how we get around planning and how we account for democratic control or input. Deputy Ó Broin said that this debate is not getting enough publicity or coverage and that is one of the key problems with planning generally. Notwithstanding the fact that county development plans, for example, are publicised in local newspapers, it is very hard to get a debate going. When we invite people to come along to council meetings to discuss development plans, for example, only a very small number will turn up. One of the difficulties with planning is that it is only when things become controversial and difficult that the public gets involved and often, at that stage, it is too late.

Councils and councillors proactively do their job of saying what the plans are and what they are going to be - this is certainly true in County Louth - but it is very hard to motivate people to get involved until they find out that their own conditions in their own areas will be affected.

The status of the decisions made by An Bord Pleanála is an issue that has not yet been addressed in this debate. We went through a planning process in counties Louth and Meath when it was proposed to develop an incinerator in an area that was zoned for agriculture. We thought it was definite that the incinerator could not go ahead at the location because it was not zoned for industry. The company went ahead with the planning application anyway. When the matter went to An Bord Pleanála, approximately 30 consultants from Indaver wore nicer and brighter ties than one another. The planning inspector's recommendation that permission should be refused was overturned by An Bord Pleanála, against the wishes of local people, including councillors, and even though the planning adviser had stayed in the local area for two weeks. Government policy was cited by An Bord Pleanála as its reason for throwing local planning out the window. Deputy Eamon Ryan's point is well made in that context. It is wrong that in many cases, Government policy dictates above and beyond local public interest. It should not be the case that Government policy should be able to determine that something should go ahead regardless of the planning process. That is what happened in the case I have mentioned. We are continuing to face the consequences.

I would like to mention the national spatial strategy as an example of what people have been saying about the transparency of the decision-making process. When I was looking at what happened in County Louth when the spatial strategy came out, I submitted a freedom of information request and got some information from the system of the time. I learned that spatial strategy was decided at the whim of the Government of the day. I was not able to see the minute, but I got the agenda under the freedom of information regime of the time. This revealed that the Fianna Fáil Government of the time had a debate on the merits of Drogheda and Dundalk in the context of the spatial strategy. This supports the point that there is no transparency in this respect. Nobody knew this was happening until it was done. Needless to say, the Minister of the day who was living in Dundalk got his zoning and Drogheda did not get it. This had significant consequences for the development of both towns. Notwithstanding all of that, Drogheda is now the biggest town in Ireland. It is even bigger than Dundalk. Drogheda continues to have major infrastructure problems.

Reference has been made to planning corruption. Some years ago, a listed building in Drogheda was protected by all the laws of the land. We had gone to the High Court to ensure it could not be demolished without planning permission. One holiday weekend, some very kind developers knocked the damn thing down. They did not care less that it was a listed building. We had to fight them in the courts. Thankfully, we won. It was a long battle. We had to go before six or seven High Court judges before we won our case. If one goes to Drogheda today, one will see that Drogheda Grammar School has been rebuilt with hand-made brick on the actual footprint of the previous building. It is a question of what planning protection means. Listed buildings meant nothing at the time if builders wanted to run a coach and four through them. I believe the actions of the county council at the time were absolutely disgraceful. The local authority refused to act by standing by its own plan.

This issue has been hugely controversial in the past. The planning corruption that was exposed by the tribunals shocked and sickened everybody. While I accept that this legislation is much better than what was in place previously, more transparency and accountability are needed. The plans should dovetail into one another. The leeway that is available to the Minister should be transparently restricted. In other words, the Minister should not be able to interfere in an unaccountable way. I do not think it is the intention of the legislation that he or she should be able to do so. I suggest that this Bill would be better if any interest declared by the Minister were to be made public, transparent and subject to debate in the House. This planning and development legislation, for all its flaws, is good because it is about making our country a better place and ensuring planning decisions are made in a more accountable and transparent manner. I have no difficulty whatsoever in facilitating development and construction because such activity creates jobs, creates communities, adds value to society and allows us to plan for the future. There is nothing at all wrong with that. Development is not a dirty word and nor should it be.

See this speech in context