Michael Finucane (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am not in good form because I have just had a blazing row with a senior planner in Limerick County Council over a planning application. That is symptomatic of the frustration felt by many public representatives with the whole planning process.

The importance of this critical infrastructure Bill for large-scale projects has been expressed but I will digress and discuss planning in general and the frustrations being experienced at present. Some time ago the Taoiseach announced in Sligo that there would be a new charter for rural areas under which the planning process would be simplified. He empathised with the difficulties being experienced by people in rural areas with regard to planning. This was followed up by statements by the then Minister, Deputy Cullen, and recently by the Minister, Deputy Roche, about planning guidelines.

Those guidelines have been posted to the local authorities throughout the country. Due to the number of applications, the process has become more frustrating and it is more difficult to get planning permission. I wish to nail the lie that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Taoiseach have helped the planning process. If anything, it has become more difficult.

There are difficulties in local authorities and a lack of uniformity between councils regarding design guidelines for houses. The guidelines are constantly changing. The architects who prepare plans suddenly discover that certain features are no longer fashionable, for example, bow windows. They might be told to opt for a stone finish and not to include Dutch gables but if they point out to the authorities that planning approval was given recently for a house which incorporates Dutch gables, external chimneys and, possibly, bow windows, one will be told that the guidelines have been changed.

The guidelines are not statutory. It is down to the independent thinking of the planners in the council. Professional architects are getting frustrated because they are being told by the planners that their architectural designs for properties are unsatisfactory. I would have thought that the planners' concerns should relate to the specific site, the structure and whether the site is suitable. There is a lack of uniformity. The guidelines given to the local authorities are not statutory guidelines so they are not enforceable.

Many local authorities have appointed independent assessors. These assessors will carry out percolation tests on the site. In many cases, people are paying from €800 to €1,000 to have these tests conducted. If one is paying that amount of money, there is an expectation that the test might be successful but, obviously, in many cases the assessors deem the site unsuitable. However, they must be paid €1,000. There should be pre-assessment whereby the person concerned can be told, for example, that there are rushes on the site making it unsatisfactory for building a house. This initial inspection fee could be €100 rather than having the client pay a fee of €1,000 later only for the site to be rejected.

Percolation has become a big issue. The providers of biocycle systems compete with each other. Clients will be guaranteed that they can drink the water produced by their system yet that system can be deemed unsatisfactory by the local authorities. With percolation tests and biocycle systems, not only is there an independent assessor to assess the site but the environmental section of the local authority is also involved. The health board looks at these issues as well, perhaps second guessing the original estimate made by the assessor. There is a plethora of people involved.

Recently, the Minister made an announcement about local authority funding for the future. A report was produced by Indecon Consultants at a cost of €292,000. The report covered 2004 to 2006. What were its findings? One could write down on a sheet of notepaper what the findings will be if one contracts consultants to compile a report for that amount of money. They advocated the reintroduction of water rates and the introduction of local charges. It was not necessary to pay €292,000 to discover that. The report was dead in the water from the time it was printed given that no Government or Opposition party will advocate such changes in advance of an election.

What was the Minister's reaction? He said more efficiencies would be sought in the local authorities. The extra funding that will be required in the future will be found in extra efficiencies. Furthermore, he said the planning charges would be increased. I will remind the Minister of what is happening in rural areas. He should read what Jim Connolly of the rural resettlement organisation is saying. The cost for young people of building in rural areas is extremely prohibitive and the system is making it even more uneconomical for them. That is the reality.

The Government should not say one thing in Sligo and something else through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It should not carry on this hypocrisy of pretending something is happening to simplify the system when it is getting more complex, more expensive and more frustrating for the applicant. The Fianna Fáil Party should forget its constant double speak because people are no longer conned by it.

A proper planning policy must be adopted on a national basis. There must be uniformity of design so the person who is preparing a planning application knows what is acceptable and a person in Limerick can produce what Cork County Council says is an acceptable design. Any public representative will say that the most frustrating aspect of the job nowadays is when a young couple comes to him or her about a planning application. I empathise with these couples and am aware of the difficulties they are experiencing and their frustration with the system.

No planning application goes through within the statutory period of eight weeks, certainly not in my county although perhaps it happens in other counties. If one watches the process closely and is making representations on somebody's behalf, one will notice that if the planning application is due to be decided tomorrow and one rings today to find out what is happening with it, one will be told that further information is being sought. That extends the process even further because the planning process only starts with the receipt of satisfactory information.

It is time to define the parameters. It is time that acceptable design is defined so architects and the people who design the plans are aware of it. It is also time to talk to the people who produce biocyle systems. I am sure they are reputable organisations. They are telling their clients that if they use their systems, they will be able to drink the water produced. However, the local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government do not appear to be convinced. The Department must give recognition to producers of biocycle systems and say whether their systems are acceptable. That will at least lift the fog of uncertainty on this issue and ease the difficulties people are experiencing.

Another development in recent years which was hailed as a new dawn was the introduction of planning and development contributions. Those contributions have provided much extra financial largesse for the councils. The argument used to convince councillors to introduce such contributions was that proper sewerage schemes would be provided because the resource would be channelled in that direction. However, the reality is quite different. The planning and development contributions escalate every year but communities have not yet seen the sewerage schemes.

I regularly raise sewerage and water schemes in County Limerick on the Adjournment. I am usually told that the particular scheme is part of the 2005 to 2007 programme on which €150 million will be spent. This has been going on for years. An attempt was made by the Minister to improve matters by providing that if the project was less than €5 million it would not be necessary to go through the routine procedures which actually prolong the application. The Minister said he would simplify the process. However, the process has not been simplified because the local authorities bundled different sewerage schemes together for economic reasons and this pushed most of them over the €5 million threshold, therefore prolonging the saga. When I raise these matters on the Adjournment the Minister reads a thesis on what the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is doing for water and sewerage schemes. The reality is quite different.

It is time the Minister tackled the planning situation. People in rural areas are waiting for a coherent planning structure which the Department, the local authorities and they can understand. It is time the Minister got his act together. The critical infrastructure Bill relates to projects which I am unlikely to encounter often in my lifetime but the Government must get its act together on the bread and butter issues in planning. On the ground it is the pure butter of planning and the Government would want to get its act together.