David Norris (Independent)

I thank Senator Quinn for allowing me to speak in his time. Planning matters are very important, particularly as they impact on housing. The Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, has been in the House on a number of occasions dealing in a progressive manner with housing developments. We have had very interesting and useful debates.

I am not as big a fan of An Bord Pleanála as some of my colleagues. It should be subject to criticism. It has made some very bizarre judgments in the past. I would be concerned were we to allow serious major decisions on planning with really significant implications to be taken by a meeting attended by only two people. Such decisions affect people's lives and livelihoods, welfare and social circumstances, and they affect the environment. Two people should not make such decisions. Three is already a pretty small number.

There are certain things in the Bill of which I strongly approve. I compliment the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Gormley. We hear much in this House about how marvellous local authorities are. I do not share that unalloyed enthusiasm. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, made a significant contribution to this area when he reversed decisions in counties Monaghan and Mayo. In Monaghan there had been gross overdesignation creating an enormous area around the town multiplying the population without any provision of services.

There has been mention of flood relief schemes. In human terms, one must sympathise with people who are in difficulty because their homes have been flooded. In certain areas, such as Clonmel, people have suffered from this sort of thing for many generations. However, we are still allowing people to build on flood plains. Why should the taxpayer be forced to rescue the victims of developers who build, with planning permission, on areas where they should not build? That is quite extraordinary. I hope the Department will follow the lead given by the Minister in addressing this issue.

I am glad some of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission are to be implemented. There is one in particular of which I heartily approve. Power is to be given to planning authorities to refuse planning permission where the applicant has previously carried out a substantial unauthorised development or has been convicted of an offence under the planning Acts.

One of my colleagues referred to unqualified architects. I think that situation was addressed in a Bill in the last year. During the debate on that Bill I instanced a situation which arose around the corner from my home where a man, who is a scoundrel, described himself as an architect. No one could stop him. He had a series of 18th century houses which he had completely desecrated. He was convicted of planning violations in the front of a house while on the very same day was given permission by the planning authority to do even worse things at the back. That is one of the reasons I do not respect An Bord Pleanála. I am glad this power is given and I ask the Minister and his officials to supervise it and ensure it is clearly enacted. This is the kind of thing which gives planning a very bad name.

Another person submitted an application for a development of town houses near me. They were very beneficial as they protected the back aspect of some of the houses. Someone from the area objected and delayed the entire development. The objector talked about the impact on, essentially, my house. The town houses were not within an ass's roar of my house. The whole development was stymied and the scheme was redrawn. I am living with the new development but it is not half as good as the first one. It is outrageous that planning authorities can intervene because of some nosey parker and that as a result of the planning process one gets a less good development. That is crazy.

I endorse what Senator Quinn said about fitness. The development for schools is very good news. Section 25 is to provide for the possibility of a supplementary development contribution scheme to help finance the provision of new schools that might benefit a particular community or area. I will not hold my breath in the present financial circumstances but at least the power is there. There is also reference to the creation, management and restoration of sites of scientific or ecological interest.

The Bill is a compendium which addresses a series of things. I looked through it to see if there was any reference to railways. I am in favour of anything that makes our planning efficient, clear and fair, respects the environment and the ecology and leads to sustainable development. When I was a member of the Joint Committee on Transport I discovered that we are miles behind countries like Spain. In that country it was possible to develop a metro system because the planning laws had been adjusted to secure rights to land underneath houses and it was not necessary to go through endless and fractious compensation tribunals. I see nothing about this in the Bill. Perhaps I missed it. If not, can we continue to promote the development of railways? One of the areas where planning has an impact is in the provision of public transport.

Last weekend, I spoke to a meeting of the House's favourite group, An Taisce. I told them the paint almost comes off the ceiling in the Seanad when An Taisce is mentioned because Members are all gung ho in favour of one-off housing development in the countryside. I told them I have been telling this House that An Taisce warned about this matter. Were its members not right? Planning permission has been given for houses with no provision for services or consideration of water pollution. Instead of a knee-jerk attack on groups like An Taisce that sound a warning, we should be trying to take into consideration their legitimate concerns regarding our planning legislation.