Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)

That is helpful and I hope the Minister will go to the trouble of notifying county managers and planning officials of this interpretation of sustainable development. Interpretation is what gave rise to problems in the first instance. Planners were of the opinion that sustainable development implied cluster developments, that is, the building of villages and small towns. There was little scope for those who wished to get planning permission for a development outside this parameter. This is a crucial aspect of the strategy and guidelines that are being introduced.

From my perspective as a member of a local authority for nearly 25 years, in the past, the interpretation of the term "sustainable development" resulted in many applicants for housing in rural Ireland being refused planning permission. No matter what case local authority members made, even with the agreement of the council, they could not get around the planner's interpretation of sustainable development.

I am pleased the Minister shed some light on this matter, but it will not be sufficient unless his view is notified to planners. Planning permission is not rocket science. It ultimately depends on the subjective view of one person. While certain matters such as sewerage and water services, road access and so on come into play, ultimately the type of house to be built depends on somebody's view. People hold different views. Clear written guidelines would, in part, help to clarify the matter as the 2000 Act is open to wide interpretation. In the context of this discussion, the Minister stated that developments must be sustainable. If planners take the wrong interpretation of this, then the old system will prevail and there will not be any change. This is a cause of great frustration to many people.

Local authorities and their members go to great lengths to compile county development plans that best suit their areas. However, a planner's interpretation of this can be completely at odds with the original intention. When we drew up the county development plan in Mayo County Council I requested that a register of interpretations be kept. I wanted a record of councillors' interpretations of their proposals but the county manager ruled this out. He alleged that it would give rise to two plans, the actual plan and a separate version of how it should be interpreted. However, there was considerable merit in my proposal. The 2000 Act has specified that there must be a new plan every five years. Some of the previous plans covered periods of seven and eight years. A plan put in place today could be interpreted differently in seven years. A new planner or county manager would have a different interpretation of it than the councillor who proposed it on day one. I hope the Minister of State will take this on board.

Every councillor or public representative is in favour of rural housing. Over the past 25 years I have not met anyone who is against it and I know of no Senator who is against it. I agree that monstrosities should not be built although there are many of them in existence. Everybody can associate with what is bad planning but, for some reason, there are huge inconsistencies in the planning process. The views of one planner seem to be completely different from those of another. Regulation is required in this respect.

What is good planning? To some, it involves getting a house wherever they want it, but this is not necessarily desirable. The majority are in favour of sustainable rural development. If the Minister's interpretation of sustainable development is such that the local GAA club, soccer club and community can be regenerated, I believe it. However, under the previous Act, sustainable development was interpreted in a different way by planners and county managers than the way outlined by the Minister of State this evening.

Senator Ormonde made an interesting point about rural decline. Mayo County Council analysed the number of applications for planning permission for houses over a five year period. It is interesting that, towards the end of the 1990s, 17,500 people applied for planning permission. About 1,500 applications were refused and roughly 16,000 were granted. This is a very high grant rate. However, interestingly, 10,000 new houses were built although the population outside the urban areas of Castlebar, Westport and Ballina declined by 2,500 between the publication of the 1996 statistics and those pertaining to 2002. In light of these figures, we must ask what is really happening. Are we building the wrong types of houses? Are they holiday homes? Many genuine applicants were refused, including those trying to build on the home farm or on a site obtained from a relation, father or mother. Therefore, good planning should be coupled with common sense. Several Senators and I know that common sense seems to go out the door in many cases. While it would have no standing regarding a planning Act or planning guidelines, we should do whatever is necessary to have it adhered to.