Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. I declare an interest in that my brother is a member of the planning profession, although he operates in a different county from that in which I live. Therefore, I hear the views of both sides, namely those of constituents and colleagues and those of planners.

I am glad the heat of this debate has lessened considerably, thanks to contributions from Senators McCarthy and Paddy Burke, among others. There is a fairly strong consensus in the House regarding the draft regulations. They are as much a clarification and codification as something radically new or different. Some county developments plans will reflect or anticipate fairly closely what is in the guidelines. In other counties modification may be required, which may not just be in the plan but in its implementation and the way it is supplied.

I take Senator Paddy Burke's point that one of the biggest complaints has concerned the lack of consistency in the application of planning guidelines. Some years ago, there may have been a view that planning was too lax, to the point of being non-existent. Now there is a view that it has gone to the opposite extreme in some instances and that there is too much rigidity. Applications for sensible developments in respect of which there would have been no problem a few years ago are now being stopped.

There was a certain amount of crossfire across the floor of the House regarding development levies. Some development levy is needed to reflect the social cost of housing, wherever it may be situated. It is a question of determining the appropriate level. The guidelines will also be very useful not just to councils but also to An Bord Pleanála in dealing with appeals.

Senator Paddy Burke referred to the well-known fact that rural depopulation has been particularly strong in the north west. I cannot get it out of my head that this island had a population of 8.2 million people 160 years ago. Many, if not all, of these people lived in the countryside. They lived along peninsulas and in what were called "congested districts" in the late union period. Such districts were in the west and north west. The notion that barren and empty landscapes represent a more aesthetic ideal than that of having life in an area is questionable. I have relatives in Scotland and I find depressing the amount of barren landscape in that country. Obviously, I am not talking about high mountain tops, but certain areas of the country are completed depopulated. This is not exactly replicated anywhere in Ireland. It is nice to see a few twinkling lights at night in the countryside for example when one looks across to islands such as Inishboffin. I do not accept the idea that even a coastal landscape is more interesting if it has no population whatsoever. However, there should not be too many holiday homes which are occupied for only a few weeks of the year, particularly in an area of high amenity. A policy is needed for that. The type of holiday home which is let for nine months of the year is a very different proposition. Planners should maybe find out what is the planned letting period.

There is a genuine debate behind all this, namely, to what degree there should be development into the country in the vicinity of towns and villages on the edge of some of which there is attractive housing. It would be very hard to forbid people to build or live in a place at the edge of the countryside although it is necessary to avoid too much ribbon development in large towns. There is also a great deal of snobbery about bungalows. A few thousand years ago most people lived in huts, which became cabins and later cottages, and now the modern cottages are bungalows. It is not true that a two or three storey house is necessarily or intrinsically more attractive. Some people in this debate have referred to South Fork and so on. Any new house will initially intrude on the landscape, no matter how it is situated. If one allows time for plants and trees to grow around it most settle very nicely into the landscape within five or ten years. Some environmentalists have an ideological and passionate hatred for the motorised society. That is understandable in one who lives amidst the congestion of the centre of Dublin but we are talking about the countryside here, not the cities. They feel that houses in the countryside generate traffic whereas if everyone is concentrated in close proximity preferably in the type of apartment blocks familiar in some continental European cities, of which we are seeing more here too, everyone would walk, cycle, or take a bus or train. That vision, however, cannot dictate our planning or our approach to developing the country.

We will face great development pressures in the next few years. By the end of this century, although none of us will live to see it, we will return to a population of 8 million, many of whom will be people whom today we call immigrants. We have become a prosperous country and there is no reason that we should not remain so, in a temperate climate which will remain even in conditions of global warming. I can see the population rising considerably. The result will be bigger cities and towns and more people living in the countryside. There is no harm in vitalising rural communities, within reason. My father who was born in 1910 on a country road two miles outside Tipperary said there were far more people living on that road in his youth than in his old age even though a few single houses were built there in his latter years.

There are many ruined houses, cottages or two storey houses which I would like to see being restored. Once as I walked in an overgrown area on Gorumna Island, with which the Leas-Chathaoirleach is probably familiar, I saw a German family restoring a ruined cottage and thought "good luck to them". There ought to be more encouragement for that sort of work. I do not refer to someone who buys a cottage alleging that he or she will restore it but who knocks it and builds something completely different. Maybe there should be some public assistance to encourage the use and restoration of derelict houses which are one-off houses, albeit not occupied, in the countryside already. The planning profession in some of the big counties is under a heavy pressure as development increases and people must work way beyond their normal hours, very often without any overtime payment. We should expand those offices.

These guidelines are a necessary clarification which should not be caricatured as they have been in some of our national newspapers which describe them as covering the country in concrete or a bungalow blitz. They are very well balanced and not a free for all anything goes and should not be misrepresented as such. It is one thing to lay down guidelines, and quite another to see them implemented. People will want to watch carefully to see if there is some modulation of policy which takes account of people who have a legitimate wish, as defined in the circumstances given in the guidelines. Is that going to be granted rather than refused? We must recall that we live in a democracy and this is relevant to other debates scheduled for today. This is not a bureaucracy or a technocracy of experts, planning or otherwise. One must have some regard to what people want and to direct that into constructive channels. Good quality design is very important as building increases in the countryside. Allowing the principle of a house does not mean to say that it is allowed anywhere and the Minister of State is not suggesting this.

The guidelines and the Minister's contribution should be accepted as a serious, responsible, forward-looking, enlightened and well-balanced statement of where we should be. Some people have tried to make an issue of the timing. Government cannot be suspended because elections are scheduled in a few months' time. If we were to end all government and politics in an election year the country could not make progress. These guidelines should be judged on their merits and not simply denigrated as some kind of——