Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House and thank the Cathaoirleach and Leader for providing us with the opportunity of discussing these new guidelines. In March 2004, the Minister's predecessor introduced the draft guidelines with all the usual fanfare that they were to be the answer to all the difficulties encountered by local authority members. However, I will echo what has been said by many other Senators in the House. For these guidelines to be successful and the proposed pre-planning meetings to take place within a reasonable timescale, the Minister must lift the embargo on the recruitment of planning staff. Throughout the country — Galway is no different, as I have seen this week — large numbers of applications have been rushed in as a result of the announcement that the guidelines were to solve all the previous problems. With the staff available to Galway County Council's planning section, it is impossible to deal with matters properly and carefully and give people time as suggested by the guidelines. In conjunction with many other Senators who have not spoken here today, I urge the Minister to lift the employment embargo. Otherwise it is an impossible task. When we talk about the sensitivities of the planners relative to customers we must realise the pressure that they are under, the demands on their time and the required throughput.

The County Galway plan introduced in 2002-03 was the first under the new legislation, and there were many difficulties in implementing it, since the draft of the officials at the time would have made it impossible for local authority members and the public applying in Galway to have a house built anywhere in the county. As councillors, we saw the frustration and hired our own consultant to go through it line by line at our expense, after which we produced a submission arguing for it to be changed. That was the final document. The guidelines that have been implemented are very close to what has been in vogue in County Galway for the last few years. Very serious difficulties have been highlighted many times.

Apart from the plan, the guidelines and their application by planners, one must add An Bord Pleanála, Dúchas, An Taisce, the NRA, and so on. They have a statutory right to involvement. I have nothing but support for An Taisce in many of its statements. People have branded it outrageous and anti-rural. I do not agree with them on that. Individuals in the organisation may have gone overboard on occasion, but when one has a county such as Galway with such variation in landscape and so rich in heritage, as well as the necessity for infrastructure, it is practically impossible for planners to make a judgment on individual cases without hassle for the applicant.

I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to fair play for the planners so that they can implement the guidelines as they were intended if it means improvement. They need time to assess applications. As Senator Bradford said, it is no use talking about it a day before. That is why we have a facility in Galway to give notice. A member of the council can attach a note to a planning permission so that the applicant will at least be told a day or perhaps hours before the refusal is issued that something must be changed. One of the greatest difficulties faced by local authority officials, especially planners, is that some of the people who present planning applications to them on behalf of applicants are not qualified to do so. Many architects have decided not to deal with planning applications any more because they take too much time. An architect of any worth will not get involved in the planning of an individual rural house because of the amount of time it takes.

If a basic matter like a sight distance is not included in a person's planning application, the entire application will be thrown out. Approximately 48% of the planning applications made to Galway County Council last year were returned to the applicants because they had been presented in a shabby manner. We cannot blame planners, most of whom are courteous, helpful and supportive in their dealings with applicants who make representations to them, because they have no choice but to make the decisions they make. It is right that planning officials are compelled by regulations imposed on them by the National Roads Authority to refuse a planning application if, for example, the application does not indicate an accurate sight distance in respect of a proposed location on a national primary route.

If one applies for planning permission in an area of archaeological importance, one is forced to secure an archaeological report, at a cost of approximately €2,000. Depending on the number of difficulties which arise, the cost of acquiring planning permission can be between €5,000 and €10,000 in some instances. If one's application has to be resubmitted, for example, one will have to pay certain charges more than once. It has been said on many occasions that an adequate level of staffing is needed so that planning applications can be dealt with on a one-off basis. I agree with the suggestion that a process of pre-planning be put in place.

How does the Minister propose that planning authorities police and implement the provision that allows them to grant permission in cases of exceptional health circumstances? Who should decide whether planning permission is justified on such grounds? I welcome this aspect of the new guidelines, but I am not sure whether it is practical or workable. Planning officials do not know how to deal with it, although they may demand the provision of medical certificates, which can be acquired easily and readily. Perhaps some such certificates will not be accepted.

While it may be acceptable to require people to adhere to ten-year inurement clauses, as they are known in County Galway, when they are granted planning permission in pressure areas, it is wrong to use such clauses as a means of preventing people from acquiring planning permission in an entire county. Such clauses will be successfully challenged in the courts, sooner or later, and will then have to be removed from the planning equation. If we have powerful and properly implemented planning rules, there will be no need for clauses of the type I have mentioned to be used in the planning system.

It is regrettable that enforcement clauses are being brought into effect to provide that if one wishes to build a new house in a Gaeltacht area, one must meet a qualifying standard of competence in the Irish language. I do not know how Senator Ó Murchú will interpret my remarks on this matter. It is a retrograde step to rely on the planning system as a means of encouraging the use of Irish and the maintenance of certain standards in Gaeltacht areas. This will be challenged in the courts sooner or later. Interested parties in County Galway have spent days and weeks considering this issue with people from certain organisations. The type of clause to which I refer has been introduced in the Gaeltacht area of the county. A recent test case, involving a developer in Barna, was decided in the courts. The relevant ratio in Barna is 60:40, but it varies throughout the county. The relevant ratio in parts of County Kerry is 75:25. Such irregularities have no place in the planning process.

I hope the important new planning guidelines can be implemented. We all hope they will be successful, but they will not be unless they are properly serviced and resourced. Additional manpower and financial resources are needed.