Seanad debates

Thursday, 12 May 2005

Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines: Statements (Resumed).

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Ann OrmondeAnn Ormonde (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister to the House and commend him on the recently published rural housing guidelines. This is an issue on which I have been campaigning for some time.

As the Minister is aware, I have put forward a number of points on this matter that have been brought to my attention by councillors and members of the public. It was clear that there were concerns about the previous planning policy on rural housing. Action needed to be taken and I am glad to see the Minister and his Department have taken those views on board in the new guidelines.

Over 40% of people live in rural areas, a fact that has not been emphasised enough. For many years, these people have suffered discrimination as a result of planning policy. The policy clearly had a devastating effect on certain communities and in some cases planning bodies were not being reasonable on this issue. Everyone participating in this debate has heard of cases where the planners would not listen to reason.

These guidelines will protect rural communities, offering hope to those whose planning applications were blocked simply because the planning authorities did not like their applications or a catch-all policy was in operation that took little notice of individual cases. Despite the scaremongering, the guidelines will not lead to a repeat of ribbon development that had a damaging effect on parts of the countryside. Several years ago when travelling through the countryside, I saw some of these Southfork-type housing developments which were responsible for the emergence of this debate on these guidelines. They will ensure these types of blanket development will not recur. I never again want to see Southfork-type developments, no Member wants to see the environment destroyed by them and no county councillor, manager or planner wishes to become involved in them.

These guidelines will ensure that those people with ties to rural communities can continue to live in them. While the Government is committed to the policy of decentralisation, it does not simply apply to various gateways and hubtowns. Decentralisation needs to be examined from a more basic viewpoint. We want to see people continuing to live in the countryside, keeping our rich rural communities alive. We do not want to discourage them from doing so because they cannot get planning permission to build homes there. If that was the case, large tracts of the countryside might as well be designated as national parks to prevent anyone from living there. A thriving and friendly local community is as eye-catching and as important as any natural view. These are the communities upon which our country has been built and they are just as much a tourism attraction as various scenic sites. They must be cherished and, thankfully, these guidelines will help to achieve this.

I am pleased the provision regarding improvements to services for planning applications was introduced in the guidelines. To many people the planning process can seem a complete mystery, leaving them unsure of what is allowed and what is not. The number of planning applications that have been refused or dismissed due to simple errors would be reduced if there was more consultation between the planners and the public. I accept the Minister has encouraged local authorities to publish easy-to-read guidelines for planning.

Returning emigrants will be pleased with the guidelines. Many who spent their lives abroad have dreamed of returning to the areas in which they were raised. Blanket planning rules cannot be allowed to ruin that dream. There are also many planning cases involving health circumstances. I am glad this factor has been included in the final guidelines. How can any caring society force the disabled or ill to move away from relatives and friends who might care for them if they are prevented from building houses in their communities? Such prevention is not only wrong but verges on the idiotic. It can be argued that it discriminates against the disabled and those with serious illnesses.

As a former member of a local authority, I recall a case in the south Dublin area where a family with a disabled son wanted to sell a plot of land to a sibling so he could be close by. The parents were elderly and concerned how best they could cope with their son. Unsurprisingly, the sibling was refused planning permission. What was the sense of this decision? The area had no particular scenic attraction and was not in danger of being blighted by development. However, the planners did not listen. I hope these new guidelines will prevent such situations occurring again.

I welcome the Minister's proposal for regional seminars to publicise and explain the guidelines. I accept that some county development plans will have to be redrafted. We must recognise the time local authority councillors put into preparing these plans. I have had the experience of spending hours on plans trying to achieve the right balance in our areas only to see the planners prevail on every occasion.

An Bord Pleanála has another agenda. I do not understand the board's composition. Its regional planners often give positive opinions on planning applications only for the board to turn them down. I cannot understand how the process works. Will the Minister examine this issue?

Many fine geography graduates want to enrol for a masters degree in planning. However, they cannot get on the course because they are stopped by professionals in cahoots with the planners and local authorities. Will the Minister examine this? We need our planners to be empathetic to local needs but, as we have seen, they have their own ethos. In view of this I am concerned these guidelines will not be implemented.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.