Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)

In Monaghan too, I apologise. Wireless technology has serious planning implications. We have all been brought over to Buswell's Hotel recently for briefings on this issue and learned how by inserting a card into one's laptop one can go on-line. The volume of information one can transfer by wireless technology is significant and will become even more incredible. There is a downside, however, because new antennae will appear. In Carlow recently a nursing home erected an antenna on its roof causing grave concern. I was amazed to learn that these new antennae or even the base stations do not require planning permission any more. The local authority now only has to be informed as a matter of courtesy by the company, be it Vodafone, Esat or Meteor, that it is putting up the antennae in a location. Much of it is bounced back towards the individual development plans of local authorities. However, I recently asked the Minister in a parliamentary question if he could classify the status of a nursing home as a hospital or a commercial business. Unfortunately, the Minister was unable to give me a reply. I recommend to the Minister that he look at this area because it will be a very important issue down the line. I know there are recommendations not to locate antennae or base stations in built up areas or near schools. However, from my investigations, I found out that there will shortly be an antenna put up in one of the hospitals in Galway, if it is not there already.

We need to have national guidelines in this area. They need to reflect the significant movement in that general area in the past few years. There is grave concern among people that these telecommunications companies, which pay people €50,000 for five years to put a small antenna on their building, can get away with this kind of stuff. We need to have clear guidelines on a national level so that people know exactly what they can and cannot do. Scenarios such as my own case can then be avoided, where we have a nursing home in Carlow and the relatives of those in the home are concerned. To be fair to the owners of the home, they have done nothing wrong. However, there is an issue of grave concern. As we move towards wireless technology, this issue will come up again and again. We have moved away from the huge monstrosities of masts and by means of modern technology, we now have very effective small antennae that do not require planning permission, but it is something that should be examined. I ask the Minister to look into the issue of nursing homes and their classification. Are they commercial businesses or are they hospitals? That has a significant impact in terms of the location of these services.

The reality is that we need antennae or base stations located in built up areas to provide a good signal. There is no point being hypocritical. We all have mobile telephones and we all get angry when we lose our signal while on our phones. We therefore have to be realistic on that issue; we need proper telecommunications services. It makes sense to locate these near built up areas from that point of view, but we must take on board the concerns of local people living there.

Another issue about which I am concerned is that of ComReg, which probably falls under the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. There are reports that it has already run out of funding for this year. ComReg will audit any site independently to assure the public about emission levels. It is very worrying that it has no funding left and cannot do anything until next January. The Minister might look into that issue as well.

The new planning Act was passed in 2000 and it promised great things. I have to say that it has been a great disappointment. I remember that we all got excited about the fact that a developer's previous history can be used against him or her, but that has not happened in reality. Unfortunately, a developer can change his or her name, for example, a developer could trade today as Fergal Browne Development Limited and could trade tomorrow as Fergal Browne Limited. These are two different companies and that is how to get around the law. We still have cases of very bad developers, such as the case in Carlow recently where a developer from outside the county thankfully had his bond removed by the council and the estate was finished off. That was the first ever case and I am glad it happened. However, the residents in that estate went through hell when a developer did not play ball and was a law unto himself.

I have one criticism of the bond system and that is that it is index linked. There is therefore no issue of the developer getting the bond out. It is earning more interest than it would if it was sitting in a bank. There is no incentive for the developer to finish the estate quickly and hand it over to the council because the money is sitting in the bank. Invariably, the bond is small as a percentage. Even in my own estate in Carlow, the bond in question was actually less than the value of the developer's own personal car. People were wondering why he was in no hurry to finish off the estate, but that is the reason. The Minister should look at the issue of having it index linked. There should be some imperative on the developers to go into an estate, finish it quickly and satisfactorily within timeframes and hand it over to the local authority as quickly as possible. We have one case in Carlow of an estate which was not handed over for 20 years. The people in the estate had no lighting and no one would deal with it as the council stated that it was not its problem, the developer did not care any more and the ESB could not go near it either. That is one practical example of a stupid, ludicrous scenario that can arise.

The eight-week rule for planning permission is stupid. This "one glove fits all" mentality should be looked at again. If I am building a single dwelling and it takes me eight weeks to go through the planning process, then that makes sense. However, if I am building 25 or 50 houses, then extra time should be given as it is a bigger scale development. A good idea from the past was that one could request further information and request an extension of time. I have a case where a couple were being refused planning permission over a simple issue. Unfortunately, the decision went out before we knew about it. Under the old system, one could have requested an extension of time which would have allowed breathing space for both the planners and the couple involved. That should be looked at again because when the wrong decisions are made, it forces people to re-apply for planning and clogs up the whole system. It puts unnecessary expense on people.

It is a good idea that people pay money to object. People should not be able to object for no reason, but in cases where people's objections are upheld, then the money should be returned to them. One other concern I have is the issue of people building at the back of houses, especially in estates. I know people are obliged to put up a sign in their house indicating that they are going to build an extension or carry out some development. The reality is that if someone is living in a housing estate backing on to another estate, that person would have no idea what his or her neighbour behind is doing. As far as I know, in England there is an onus on the person who is building to inform the neighbours behind what is actually happening. Situations can arise where people are living side by side and not aware of what is going on. There should be an onus on people to inform the neighbours directly behind them that they are going to proceed with planning. I know of one or two case where people were totally unaware of what was happening.

I had a case lately of a housing estate in Carlow where the dwellers had no telephone services for six or eight months after moving in. I rang my own council and, regrettably, it would do nothing for me on the issue. It claimed that telephone services had nothing to do with the council, which was probably correct. Nonetheless, telephone services should be regarded as basic infrastructure and if the planning Acts are to be updated, then there should be a huge onus on developers to put the proper telecommunications services into the estate. Eircom will refuse to go into an estate unless everything is perfect in it, as any of us who has dealt with Eircom will know. Trying to negotiate with developers to get their work up to speed is next to impossible. It is very dangerous that people find themselves with no proper telephone services in the case of an emergency.