Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

It was impressive what Deputy Ó Murchú was able to fit in to the debate on this Bill. I thank the Deputies for bringing forward the Bill, which the Social Democrats will not support. We agree there is absolutely a problem with regard to planning infrastructure and the affordability of housing in Ireland, in both rural and urban areas, but we do not agree the Bill will fix it. An Taisce is not the problem and, as has been pointed out, nothing in the Bill would prevent An Taisce from putting in submissions or observations on planning or, indeed, taking any legal cases. It would simply abolish its status as a prescribed body, which is all it seeks to do. I do not believe scapegoating An Taisce provides a useful way forward for this and, in fact, it provides a degree of cover for the Government in respect of its lack of action on housing, infrastructure and affordability.

I commend the invaluable work done over the years by An Taisce, including its volunteers, in protecting our heritage. For example, when I was working on amendments to the monuments Bill a few years ago, I got some invaluable input from An Taisce, which it also gave us in our pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill.

I join the calls from other Deputies for the rural housing guidelines to be published. They have been promised for years and need to be published as quickly as possible. On a related note, we were promised that the guidelines for Gaeltacht planning authorities with regard to their statutory obligations to protect the Irish language and the Gaeltacht would be issued almost three years ago and we are still waiting on them. There is no excuse for the Government to promise to publish guidelines in these important areas and not do it. As I have said previously, in our rural and Gaeltacht communities, there is an issue with access to affordable housing, which needs to be addressed. There have been promises from the Government on that but we have yet to see even those guidelines published or any action in that regard.

An Taisce, like all prescribed bodies, has a role in the planning system to provide advice and analysis and this is to support the decision-making process in local authorities and An Bord Pleanála. It is not, of course, a decision-maker, so seeking to remove it as a prescribed body or to lay some blame at its door is not helpful. Its work is about ensuring that planning applications are made in line with national and European law and that policy is informed by the most up-to-date environmental science. This is not something we should be afraid of. Scrutiny from external bodies, including An Taisce and people in the local community, enriches our planning process. We need input from a diverse range of people with expertise to make sure the best planning decisions are made in the interests of local communities.

In respect of affordable housing and sustainability, this is something I have raised, for example, during debates on the planning Bill, where I have put forward amendments to say that in our national planning framework and our national planning policy, affordability should be at the heart of it and should be one of the objectives. For reasons I cannot understand, the Government voted down these amendments. While there is a broad range of criteria in our national planning policy with which I agree, the fact affordability is not one of the criteria makes no sense to me. If we go back to the first principles of our planning system, it was never intended that an outcome of our planning system could be to make housing less accessible or affordable to people, and if affordability is not one of the objectives in a planning system, that is what happens. We are protecting other objectives that are worthwhile, but affordability should be part of that.

Indeed, if we think about sustainable communities, especially in rural areas, of course there is the environmental aspect to that, which is important, but affordability is very important as well. How can there be sustainable communities, in urban or rural areas, if people cannot afford housing in them? That should be absolutely fundamental to our planning system. I appeal to the Government and other Members of the House that, when there are amendments to put affordability at the heart of our planning system, they should not be shot down. That makes eminent sense and is part of the solution on this.

We probably would not be having this debate if people in rural areas were able to access affordable housing. This narrative pitching rural versus urban, or environmental and sustainable communities versus people's access to housing, is not where should be, because we can do both. We can have affordable housing that people in rural communities can access, and we can have good environmental standards and design. We have talked previously about how that can be done. Obviously, there are issues with ribbon developments and so forth, but there can be clusters and things can be designed in more sustainable ways. In fact, pre-car development, people did live in clusters in rural communities and there was not that kind of rural isolation. There are environmental issues with that, but there are also social-sustainability issues whereby when people get older and may not have neighbours near them, they may not have those kinds of supports. There are ways to have good, sustainable development in rural areas and good communities.

On the planning process and what needs to be done to improve it, we need much more active land management, not just in urban areas, in order that land will be available for sustainable, affordable housing in rural communities. As others have said, the Land Development Agency's remit has been concentrated in more urban areas but we need active land management throughout the country to ensure a continuous supply of land that is available at affordable prices. Implementing something along the lines of the Kenny report, which is more than 50 years old, would, of course, be a way to do that. We also need to ensure there is accountability in the planning system, which has been lacking. The measures for accountability currently under planning legislation, where developers are in flagrant breach of planning permission, have not been exercised or utilised over the years.

Attempts I made to strengthen those provisions in the planning Bill were shot down by the Government. We could have a much better planning system that provides good, well-designed, sustainable and more affordable housing for communities in rural areas. I would and do support measures to achieve that. I put forward amendments to that end to the planning Bill. However, I do not support this Bill.

See this speech in context