Michael Finucane (Fine Gael)

I read this document. I have been in a council for 18 years and of all the issues raised the most vexatious for any public representative is that of planning. If anybody analyses the various requests they get during a week they will find the largest number of requests relate to planning. In many cases we give advice and try to expedite and facilitate the planning process but I would like to compliment the planning department in my own county, and Senator Brennan would be aware of this, which is over-stretched but whose staff are very tolerant and understanding.

We take up issues but we may disagree on occasions with the advice from the professional planners. In many cases in the past people who became planners were civil engineers who probably took a more realistic approach and understood the councillors better with regard to planning and design. When people become planners directly after leaving university, obviously they have a good deal of theory which they then try to translate into rural thinking. That often initiates a clash with the person applying for planning permission and leads us to get advice from people at a senior level within the office with a view to teasing out the various roadblocks.

If we want to analyse the reason for planning application refusals in many cases we must recognise that they revolve around one aspect. If the health board advises that the percolation quality and the site is not suitable, no change in sustainable rural housing will amend that situation. We cannot be threatened by the European Union with regard to the contamination of ground water and in a situation where professional advice goes against this, the Minister would be putting his head on the block if he felt we should give contrary advice to put in a biocycle or septic tank system which could lead to contamination of water.

There are other areas where refusals occur. In large urban areas like Limerick county there is a pressure area, of which Senator Brennan would be aware, and in that case severe restrictions are imposed by the council officials. In many cases those restrictions have to be imposed because that pressure zone would be regarded as suburbia in Limerick city, where in every small cul-de-sac there is an extension of houses. There is reference in the guidelines to the fact that the Minister is not encouraging ribbon development. What, therefore, are the planners doing wrong in refusing people in those situations? Not a lot if they are conforming to the new regulations.

I spoke to the planners in Limerick County Council and I will give the House a classic example of where I argued on behalf of a person whose site is regarded in planning terms as being 300 metres from a junction. There is a bend on the junction. The farmer owns all the hedgerow on one side and is prepared to take away as much of that as possible but it was pointed out to me that if the planners are to interpret the new guidelines correctly, and the officials might take notice of this, many issues will arise in regard to hedgerow landscaping and retaining the rural profile. Where a degree of flexibility existed in the past, that flexibility could be constrained if the planners implement these guidelines. Often the practice was to ask the next-door neighbour to help by removing part of their hedgerow in order to make it possible for the person to get planning permission for the site. I now understand from the officials that such flexibility will no longer exist. One could say a constraint is being put on that person.

Another constraint is that in the pressure zone area it is stipulated that one has to live in the house for five years but the Minister's guidelines refer to seven years. Where would the flexibility be in such cases? In his contribution the Minister made an issue of the fact that schools and shops were closing down. That is happening in small rural communities and in villages because during the Celtic tiger period, about which I have spoken a number of times, a functional sewerage scheme was not put into operation in particular locations. The planners will say that the only way to revive and sustain those villages is by putting in place proper sewerage schemes. It does not matter if there is ribbon development alongside it because if the soakage does not suit, the houses will not be built, regardless of the willingness or flexibility of the planners.

I am sure Limerick County Council mirrors every local authority at this stage where the biggest months of the year for planning applications are January and February because on 5 April next, the increased planning and development fee comes into operation. People are aware of that. In our county they pay a development fee of €1,200 to €1,800. From 1 April it will be €2,700 and from 1 September it will be €3,500. They are already paying the charge, but they want to avoid paying the excess amount involved and want to have applications approved before April. Meanwhile, planners are stretched to the limit. They are currently deliberating and pondering over the new guidelines to see whether they will change the whole process.

I listened to the debate from which we should remove raw emotion. We can all get emotional on this issue. I would be conscious of the arguments and would want people to build, as much as possible, in rural Ireland. Will house building expand dramatically? This might solve a situation for Senator Dooley in Clare or on the coastline where applications have been rejected because the view of the Shannon would have been impeded. People may now get permission in areas where planners were not amenable in the past. That will happen as changes are modified from county to county in line with the interpretation of planners.

I cannot see a dramatic change, however, as regards the counties I am involved in. I would agree entirely with Senator Dooley's assertion that a farmer should not be confined in his or her application to obtaining permission for a son or a daughter to build on his land. I encountered a farmer recently who wanted to sell a site because two members of his family were at third level. He found it impossible to educate them. He wanted to obtain permission for just one site to sustain his children in third level. That would have taken much of the financial burden off him and was a reasonable point. He was not successful, but he may be considered for another site on that land, which could rectify the situation for him.

I could go on for much longer but I hope this initiative improves the situation although I am somewhat sceptical as to whether it will.