Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister and thank him for his forbearance in listening to the debate. I listened to the wise contributions of Senators Ó Murchú, Cummins and Moylan with which I would find it difficult to disagree. I have no doubt the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, is well intentioned and, as Senator Ó Murchú stated, he intended to loosen regulations. An accurate general view is that planning has become overly restrictive in every county. What is required for the guidelines is strengthening enabling legislation or in the absence of that, them being put in a specific directive form. I agree with Senator Ó Murchú that there is a preconceived notion that these are only guidelines. That framework is built into many county development plans, which is the bedrock for planners. I urge the Minister to strengthen the guidelines further by putting them in specific directive form, otherwise it will be necessary to enact legislation.

All Members have been approached by people experiencing difficulties with the planning process. As councillors or legislators we have to deal with the issues at a certain remove. I was involved in making representations in two cases. In one case, a recently married couple living in an apartment wanted to build a home on a site donated by the groom's parents reasonably close to their home and sharing a common entrance. They experience nothing but difficulties. Having employed a planner who spoke to the planner in the county council and engaged in interminable talks, they were unable to overcome the difficulties and were refused planning permission. I advised them to appeal the decision to An Bord Pleanála and with the advice of an architect and planner, they won the case. The process took two and a half to three years, which has an impact on people. The other case concerns a professional man from Kerry who was engaged in practice in Cork all his working life, but when it came to retirement he wanted to build in his county of origin not too far from his birthplace. He had a site in one of these clusters of 20 or 30 houses and he was also refused permission. The case is ongoing and is still not resolved. One must feel for people in these circumstances. We all concur with the thrust of the guidelines and want people to be able to live in the area in which they have grown up or where sites may be provided by a relative. We are frustrated that planners are putting obstacles in people's way.

I skimmed through the earlier debate and I compliment Senator Paddy Burke on his interesting contribution in which he raised the question of sustainable development. I was delighted that in response to this the Minister said people were at the heart of sustainable development. As Members know, planners believe in clusters and villages and very often, as Senator Ó Murchú stated, the concept of the village can be wider than that as evidenced by Dromtariffe in the diocese of Kerry but in County Cork, which is an entirely rural area with no village as we would understand it. Is one to say that people may not continue to live there?

I accept the Minister's intention is to bring common sense to bear by issuing guidelines but I urge him to put them in specific directive form or they will not have the desired effect. I understand that up to 80 section 140 motions will be on the order paper for the next monthly meeting of Kerry County Council, which will totally dominate the proceedings. People accept this is not a professional way to proceed but councillors are frustrated and believe that until the system is loosened they will have to continue to proceed in this way. Councillors from all political persuasions tell me that individually they have planning file cases on their books. Planning is taking up the time of public representatives and unfortunately it will continue until a less rigid approach is taken.

Senator Ó Murchú referred to the occupancy clause. I am not sure of the constitutionality of the occupancy clause although I accept that some county councils have taken legal advice and have been told it may proceed in this way. However, there is variance between three and ten years. The country is too small for such variations and the Minister should bring uniformity to bear and for that reason I urge him to put the guidelines in specific directive form. We all subscribe to rejuvenating the countryside. In Glencar valley there was once 260 houses and now there is only 130, which explains the reason for so many section 140 motions in County Kerry. I sympathise with councillors in this matter. They would welcome the guidelines if they were in specific directive form. They feel nothing is being done for them in a practical sense as the points are already set out in county development plans. There are many outs in the guidelines. As drafted, they include phrases such as "subject to normal planning requirements and good planning". Some councillors argue that the guidelines could be used to make it easier to refuse permission. As Senator Ó Murchú said rightly, none of us believes that was the intention. The intention was to loosen up the system as it had become overly restrictive. Sadly, the new guidelines might not make much difference to current policies if they are allowed to stand. They must be strengthened.

Many useful points have been made during the debate. In large valleys like Glencar, although there is nothing particularly problematic there, and others in the south and west of the country, one can see large multicoloured structures. They can appear jarring given the green-grey landscape and mountain backdrop. We should have an official, general policy to provide for stone facing given the amount of useful local stone throughout the country. If it was operated by local authorities individually, each might implement such a policy differently. We need not have multicoloured house fronts which fail to fit in with the landscape and can mar the beauty of the countryside. We can overcome problems in this regard. I encourage the Government to introduce an official policy of stone facing for rural housing. We have all heard of people who have witnessed the result of disastrous planning between Galway city and Connemara. If local stone product had been used, we would not encounter half as much criticism.

While I am loath to criticise anybody, Senator Ó Murchú's comments about An Taisce made an impression on me. There are good and bad people in every organisation and An Taisce has brought much deserved criticism on itself. It is divided internally. Until An Taisce puts itself right and introduces agreed structures, there is a case to be made for not having a prescribed body. While I do not want to consider the matter in too much detail, there are serial objectors, as Senator Ó Murchú said, who are like serial knockers. Perhaps a restriction needs to be imposed on them by providing for a distance limitation. In Killarney objectors from more than 25 miles away brought cases to An Bord Pleanála regarding permissions the local authority was prepared to grant but which the board refused to allow.

A new framework is required in this area but it must be very specific. Guidelines will not fit the bill. I have no doubt that planners have been taking a rigid view. While I welcome the thrust of Senators' remarks, I urge the Minister of State to ensure that changes are made in specific directive form as he must if they are to have the desired effect. Otherwise, there will be too many loopholes in conditions and planning practices. Reference has been made to practices regarded as normal due to custom, but these could vary from place to place. I urge the introduction of strengthening legislation or a specific directive.