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

I have very similar concerns and I echo what was said about the process that has been followed in the Seanad in terms of introducing some of the amendments at a very late stage. If one gets a process wrong, very often one gets a poor outcome. I do not know how many times we have talked about that here. Sometimes we have had to come back and amend things later on.

We have had experience in Kildare of directions being issued by the Department. Essentially, it was at the transition stage between the regional planning guidelines and the new national planning framework, which fundamentally shifted things, yet the directions were made based on the previous regional guidelines. A substantial amount of rezoning was sought in Kildare up to 2024. The expectation was that there would be an additional population of up to 80,000. That has been changed with the national planning framework where the focus of attention is far more on city centres and higher densities. I supported some of that, and I took such an approach as far back as the early 1990s when it was considered in the context of the Dublin transportation initiative which took in areas outside of Dublin as well.

In the case of Kildare, both Celbridge and Leixlip were affected by zoning and a direction was given about Celbridge. All of the councillors, bar one, were in agreement, and the community was at one with the councillors. It was a case of exactly what local representation should be. There were high levels of consultation. When the direction was issued it was subsequently judicially reviewed and the community's position was vindicated. The development sought by councillors on a piece of land belonging to a developer was confirmed. The courts upheld the original decision. When it happened it made one realise just how demoralising it was given the serious attempt at local level to deal with the development plan. There was a very sizeable amount of land zoned in the local area plan and two sites ended up being judicially reviewed. Local democracy was completely undermined. I know that it is important for developments to be in keeping with national plans, if those national plans make sense, but there is a balance to be struck in terms of local government and its validity, which is referenced in the Constitution as well. I have a real problem with how that has played out.

It is interesting that in the previous group of amendments we talked about the planning regulator being notified about strategic plans for roads, because in the case of Kildare one other piece of land which was proposed for zoning would have required a helicopter to get in or out of it. People were not against the development of the land in Leixlip but issues such as access must be taken into account. That continues to be the experience in relation to the Leixlip local area plan. Having had some practical experience of ministerial directions, I have serious concerns about the very heavy handed approach that could be taken. At the same time I accept that when we adopt national plans we should be able to rely on them, but some of them were in transition. The result is that while one gets all the houses, one gets very few of the services that should go with them when one is in transition between, for example, the regional planning guidelines as they were for the greater Dublin area and then the introduction of the national planning framework which was changing the focus again. It is the worst of all worlds. I have a problem with the same three amendments and I will be opposing them.

See this speech in context