Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Ba bhreá liom tosnú le fáilte a chur roimh an Aire. Bille tábhachtach atá sa Bhille seo. Cuirim fáilte roimhe agus roimh an cuid is mó de a bhfuil ann. Measaim go ndéanfaidh sé maitheas. Bhí an ceart ag mo chomhleacaithe a dúirt go bhfuil sé ró-dhéanach ar bhealach, mar go bhfuil an-chuid dochar déanta cheana féin maidir le cúrsaí pleanála. Bhí mé an-tógtha le línte ar leith ó óráid an Aire a léirigh cé chomh dona agus ar chaitheadh le cúrsaí pleanála sa tír seo le blianta anuas. Mar shampla: "Fields that should have been left to the cattle were rezoned and then sold on for gargantuan profits to developers who borrowed heavily to buy them." A later example from the Minister's speech is when he stated: "The planning system could be described as being at best passively negligent or, at worst, actively complicit in the economic travails in which we find ourselves today."

It is sad that a ministerial speech must contain such lines. While the truth of such lines cannot be denied, how sad it is that in the midst of our prosperity, we lost sight of the essentials of good management. I listened with interest to the comments of my colleagues thus far, including those just made by Senator Glynn, but no one could state there was wise stewardship at either national or local level in recent years in respect of planning matters. No one could state that the common good was foremost in the minds at all times of politicians and policymakers. While I do not deny that good and ethical people were doing their best within the system, no one can state that the events of the past 15 years or so represented a triumph of the common good over petty individual interests. All Members know what went on.

For example, in 2004 I was canvassing for a friend who was running in the local elections. I will not reveal for which or any party the person in question was running. I recall being highly struck by and feeling angry about my experiences, having spent a day knocking on doors not far from here in a new suburban part of Dublin. When a door was opened, I found myself looking into a person's living room because in some cases the new houses that had been built did not even afford people the dignity of a hallway. Consequently, one found oneself looking into the living room of a house. In another case, I remember that to drop in a leaflet, I was obliged to climb a rather steep flight of concrete steps to access the front door of a house. I found myself wondering whether the people who planned this arrangement gave the slightest consideration to persons with disabilities or to young mothers with buggies. It was quite clear, even on the basis of that brief and superficial experience, that the common good of ordinary people was not at the top of the list of priorities. I remember wondering whether this was a failure of legislation, whether there was an absence of effective building regulations or whether such building regulations were flouted. It was difficult to assess how things had come to that pass.

One has the Bacon report of 2000 to thank for a particular vision. While there was an economic argument for higher density housing, I question whether the same attention was paid to people's need for quality of life and amenities. I acknowledge that some steps have been taken in recent years towards correcting this but Ireland certainly is far behind other countries. I think of the Netherlands as one possible example in which high density housing was achieved without losing sight of individual needs. My experience, then and subsequently, of poor quality planning and of unacceptable forms and styles of development made it clear to me that what was needed was careful legislation, as well as enforcement of whatever standards were identified. This also applies to architects because development at any level requires careful regulation of practitioners and, in this regard, the continued existence of unqualified cowboy architects, for example, is a source of concern. This matter may continue to require attention.

This Bill, with its emphasis on sustainable development and evidence-based planning, is to be welcomed by the House. In particular, the provisions that provide for increased transparency and for information in development and local area plans constitute a welcome step, as does the increased majority that now is required on the planning authority to make material amendments or variations to plans. This Bill addresses the thorny issue of the balance between planning on the one hand and the market on the other. This need for balance is manifest in the debate on the amount of land to be zoned for development. As Members are aware, excessive zoning leads to unsustainable development and weakens the capacity of the local authority to provide infrastructure. Equally, however, a shortage of zoned land pushes up the cost of housing and drives less well-off house buyers into less than optimal locations. When I refer to less than optimal locations, I mean places that are far from population centres.

I am proud to state that I come from east Galway, a rural part of Ireland, from which the Minister of State who is present, Deputy Áine Brady, also comes. I am sure we both are very fond of it and the protection of a sustainable rural way of life is a matter about which I feel strongly, as does the Minister of State. However, this way of life can only continue to exist if one maintains population centres that support the essentials of living, that is, shops, churches, post offices and even pubs. Section 24 allows the wider application of development levies to support broadband roll-out or flood relief and both sections 24 and 25 assist school building. Consequently, I welcome this provision regarding developers' levies, which provides for an extension of the potential application of the funds to come from such levies in favour of much-needed amenities.

On the question of school building, I refer to the McCarthy or an bord snip nua report. The only aspect nua about it is that it is the second such report. However, the idea of cutting is not new. I gather that an bord snip nua proposes saving approximately €25 million through the amalgamation of rural schools. While recognising the parlous state in which one finds the public finances, as someone who came from what was at first a two-teacher and later became a three-teacher school, I view such recommendations with concern. I believe rural schooling must be supported and that one must ensure the creation of that sustainability of population that will support student numbers and thus, by definition, support teacher numbers and school viability. This Bill and the wider sustainable planning ethos it supports is a welcome step forward in this regard.

Another element of the Bill which is to be welcomed is the new focus on the reduction of greenhouse gases. When local authorities create development plans, they must include a section on how climate change can be addressed with particular reference to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. This of course will have implications, which sometimes might be controversial, for issues such as one-off housing and so on, as well as the relationship between housing and transport. In general however, this initiative is to be greatly welcomed. Climate change-based reform is often misunderstood and it is easy for naysayers to promote the idea that reform is an urban agenda forced on rural communities. Elements of this Bill rebut that argument by giving local authorities a clear role in addressing climate change at a local level.

I refer to my earlier point about sustainable communities. The link between development and transport links is important. Greater availability of public and shared transport is good for both rural communities and the fight against climate change. This is related to the welcome, if belated, recognition of the importance of the national spatial strategy and the necessity to pay attention to its recommendations rather than the lip service we have seen thus far. This can be ensured by replacing the phrase "shall have regard to" with the much stronger "shall be consistent with". The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government courted controversy earlier in his term by overturning the county development plans of Mayo and Monaghan. The new consultation procedure contained in this Bill will ensure that issues such as this can be resolved in an affable manner and at an earlier stage of the process, without ignoring the fact that planning has national as well as local repercussions.

Notwithstanding the many positive elements of the Bill, I had some reservations about the provisions of section 28. This reduces the quorum for some meetings of An Bord Pleanála. I noted Senator Glynn's comments on this matter. An Bord Pleanála has a hard-earned reputation for being a champion of planning excellence. I was initially concerned on hearing the quorum was to be reduced, especially given that the rationale for the reduction was efficiency. I am glad to see that the Minister has struck a balance. It will be of some consolation to Senator Glynn, who worried about what might happen in the event of a tied vote, that the reduced quorum of two will only apply on occasion and is subject to some control. Decisions that are contentious and result in tied decisions can be resolved by the board in a meeting with the traditional triumvirate present.

I refer to planning permission and the possibility of the five-year deadline being extended. No doubt there are sound economic and financial reasons for this. We can contextualise it by reference to the important work proposed to be done by NAMA and the need to keep the market value of properties sufficiently high. This is a controversial area in which a balance must be struck and there are good grounds for saying that in some cases it would be desirable to extend the period of planning permission by a further five years.

I welcome this Bill as a step forward for sustainable planning in our State. In many areas, we face the threat of rural depopulation, a shortage of employment due to the lack of regard to spatial concerns and the continuation of behaviour that damages our fragile environment. This Bill is a step towards addressing these concerns and is to be welcomed.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an-chuid atá sa Bhille. Maidir le tábhacht na tuaithe, is minic go mbíonn díospóireacht ann ar chaomhnú shaol na tuaithe ar an taobh amháin agus polasaithe pleanála ar an taobh eile. Tá gnéithe sa Bhille seo a thugann réiteach agus a thuigeann an tábhacht a bhaineann leis an dá rud le chéile, go háirithe athrú aeráide agus an dualgas ar údaráis áitiúla go mbeidh plean acu i dtaobh astaíochtaí carbóin mar pháirt den phlean forbartha. Tá sé furasta bheith a rá nuair a bhíonn daoine ag plé caomhnú na timpeallachta go bhfuil agenda na cathrach á bhrú ar lucht na tuaithe. Is léir go bhfuil dualgais agus ról anois ar údaráis aitiúla dul i ngleic leis an bhfadhb maidir le hathruithe san aeráid. Tá nasc tábhachtach idir forbairt agus acmhainní iompair agus nasc eile idir caomhnú na timpeallachta agus caomhnú shaol na tuaithe.

Tá mé sásta go bhfuil an tAire ag cur leis an leas is feidir a bhaint as an cháin a leagtar ar lucht forbartha maidir le rudaí eile ar nós broadband a chothú in alt 24 agus 25 den Bhille.

Thar aon rud eile, tá mé sásta gur luadh na scoileanna anseo. Bhí mé buartha nuair a léigh mé an méid a bhí scríofa ag an mBord Snip maidir le ciorruithe ar scoileanna beaga le €25 milliún a shabháilt. Mar dhuine a d'fhreastal ar scoil náisiúnta a bhí beag, tuigim go bhfuil tábhacht ag baint le scoileanna tuaithe. Is breá an rud go bhfuil an leathnú amach anseo in alt 24 agus 25 den Bhille, a thugann deis úsáid éagsúil a bhaint as an cháin a ghearrtar ar lucht forbartha.

Tréaslaím leis an Aire agus leis an mBille agus tá mé ag súil leis an chéad chéim eile.