Seanad debates

Thursday, 12 May 2005

Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines: Statements (Resumed).

 

11:00 am

Photo of John Paul PhelanJohn Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister and the debate on the rural housing guidelines. While I share most of the sentiments expressed by Senators, I have serious reservations about Senator Norris's comments. I am somewhat disappointed by the guidelines. Following their announcement, I contacted my local authority, Kilkenny County Council, of which I am a former member, and was informed by several staff in the planning department that the guidelines will not result in any significant changes in County Kilkenny with regard to rural planning. All of the proposals in the guidelines are already in the county development plan and, therefore, people in Kilkenny who are having difficulty securing planning permission are being given false hopes by the Minister. There are two areas where improvements have been made — returning emigrants and serious medical conditions — but these guidelines are not the panacea the Government presents them as. There is a long way to go to ensure that people who have a genuine affiliation with rural areas and who want to live in them are looked after.

Inconsistency in planning is the major bugbear I encounter as a politician. Looking at some of the buildings that get planning permission when others do not, it is hard to understand what is going on. I urge the Minister to use whatever influence he can to ensure planners in rural areas are consistent. Serious discrepancies exist between planners even within counties. I understand that when a county development plan is written, people interpret it differently but it is difficult to explain to people who have been refused planning permission that one planner reads the development plan in one way when a year earlier, another planner would have granted permission, or they would get permission if they were building the house in a different part of the county. That inconsistency infuriates people.

Senator Kitt mentioned issues planners have about the types of housing being built in rural areas. I have a case of a young family who secured permission to build in my parish in County Kilkenny and part of the permission was for the building of a house with a particular type of brick. They sought to have the house built with this brick but were told they could not have it on the house. Every other house in the vicinity that was built in the past five years has this brick on it. It is simply because the planner has changed and the new planner does not like brick. How do we explain to that couple that while their neighbours can build the houses they want, they must build a house to satisfy the planner that is at variance with the other houses in the area? That is an example of the inconsistency in the current planning process.

Another area of interest is population decline. County Kilkenny is perceived as being on the east coast and having done well in recent years. However, there are significant areas of rural County Kilkenny that have seen population decline between the last two censuses. Tullogher, Windgap, Galmoy and north Kilkenny outside Castlecomer have seen significant decline. Contrary to the prediction of Senator Norris and others of an explosion of rural housing, the population has decreased in many areas. I would encourage as many people as possible to ensure the schools stay open, the post offices are kept open and rural clubs and societies have a future because there are people living in their catchment areas.

I was disappointed with Senator Norris's attitude. It reflects a certain outlook that exists mainly in Dublin where Dubliners feel they can go to rural areas on a Friday evening and look at the landscape, green fields and rolling hills and love it. They go back on a Sunday evening and that is it. There are people in rural area who must live there, make a living and support their families and they have legitimate issues with the planning authorities and process.

Senator Norris's last comment about fat farmers selling sites was shocking. It was unworthy of him and he might reflect on what he said because it is far from the truth. I am the son of a farmer and many farmers I know would prefer not to sell a site. I have two brothers who are farmers and they would not dream of selling a site. They would not even sell a site to me if I wanted one. Some farmers find themselves in the position where they must sell a site to continue in agriculture. In certain circumstances, if a sustainable house is built, it is acceptable.

The other issue that crops up is that to build in a rural area, a person must be able to trace back five generations. I find it refreshing when new people come into rural areas. When a new family moves in it is a great thing and this barrier that has been erected that a person cannot build in a rural area unless he can trace back his family ancestry is wrong. New families are a breath of fresh air.

Senator Moylan was correct when he mentioned water. The problems with ground water are not a result of houses that will be built in rural areas from now on. All of those houses will have top quality water and sewerage treatment systems. The main problems lie with agriculture, which is being addressed in the nitrates directive, towns and villages that have either inadequate or no treatment system in place and older houses in rural areas that have faulty treatment systems. The new houses will not create problems for ground water because they have high-tech and up-to-date systems. I welcome the publication of the guidelines and I hope they lead to more consistency in the planning process.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.