Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I commend the previous speaker on his concluding remarks about the redevelopment of rural Ireland. Senator Ó Murchú presented a picture of how issues could be improved in rural Ireland by virtue of proper planning policy development and rural sustainability. Most of the debates on planning matters in this House in recent years have focused on the difficulties faced by many people in rural Ireland in obtaining planning permission. I appreciate there must be guidelines and rules and regulations in place but as far as ministerial directives will apply I hope the Minister will use those to ensure rural Ireland will remain alive, that the practice of refusing planning applications in rural areas, which has become prevalent throughout the country, is investigated and addressed and that we will aspire to ensure the majority of people who wish to build their homes on family land holdings or neighbours' land holdings will be facilitated. As Senator Ó Murchú said, it is a win-win situation from a planning, development and social perspective and that is something we must ensure is at the heart of this legislation.

Notwithstanding that concern and doubt, I welcome the Bill brought forward by the Minister because it allows us an opportunity to speak on the significant issue of planning and development. The debate on planning and development can sometimes be philosophical but the end result is bricks and mortar. It is something we must get right and change to address the new problems facing the country.

I welcome the fact that we are debating the legislation in the Seanad. As with the previous legislation which got major attention in the Seanad, namely, the nursing homes Bill, I hope Members will get the opportunity to have a serious input into this legislation and make the changes we believe are necessary.

The Minister said that if there is one clear point to be made about planning it is that planning is about people, not buildings. I agree with that. It is about people, not development plans or planners. We must try to approach the issue from that perspective. There is an equation we must balance. We need rules, regulations and guidelines but we also need flexibility and common sense.

We are told that as a result of this development, and it sounds right, there will be closer alignment of development and local area plans with the national spatial strategy. That is a good starting perspective but in regard to another aspect of the work of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, namely, waste management, we have national plans in place. We have a national waste management strategy but virtually every local authority throughout the country has its own plan. In some counties landfills are being provided, others are involved in waste reduction while some are considering incineration etc. Within the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's remit of waste management we have a national strategy but across the Twenty-six Counties of the Republic the Minister appears to have 26 different strategies. If we are to have a national strategy on planning and closer alignment between national and local plans, there must be an enhanced level of co-operation and one side of the equation must know what the other is doing because what is good planning in one county is generally good planning in another county.

One of the difficulties we as local politicians in particular and county councillors in general have faced is that planning developments granted permission in one county appear to be the sort of development which is turned down in another county and in some cases it is difficult to explain to neighbours in adjoining parishes the reason what is acceptable in townland A is not acceptable in townland B. If the Minister is to have this closer alignment it must work in practice as well as theory.

The ministerial directions are necessary but on the other hand the proposal is being introduced by a Minister from the Green Party, a party which talks about having powers devolved at local level wherever possible and having the decision making process done locally rather than nationally. In that sense, we must try to ensure we are cautious and careful in regard to ministerial directions. The planners, the local politicians and the national politicians representing County Cork are probably the best people to try to put together a worthwhile planning policy for County Cork. While occasionally there may be a need for ministerial directives we should in so far as possible try to have the decision making process applied more frequently and effectively at local rather than national level.

If there is an area where ministerial directives could be helpful it might be in regard to design guidelines. Those of us who were involved politically at local authority level are aware that even within a county a house design which is deemed acceptable to one planner may be deemed inappropriate by another planner. Arising from those difficulties in County Cork a number of people, myself included, had some success in getting the county planning people to put together a design booklet which has worked very well and is a good general guide to the type of house that is and is not acceptable. If the Minister wants to be hands on in regard to directions, he could do some work on the question of design guidelines to ensure there is something reasonably standard across the country, obviously taking into account the various geographical considerations etc. It can be difficult for us to explain the reason a type of house in one county is desirable while in another that same type of house might not be even considered. If we could remove those anomalies that would be welcome.

I note the Bill deals with the inefficiency or otherwise of An Bord Pleanála. There is a clear role for An Bord Pleanála but I would be concerned by the idea of slimming down the number of personnel at An Bord Pleanála level required for decision making, as some of my colleagues have said. The more people involved in taking the decision at An Bord Pleanála level, the better. All of us will be aware of a minimum number of cases whereby the board will overturn the decision of its own inspectorate. That causes major difficulties and confusion and in so far as access to information is available, planning applicants are able to obtain the full file of their own planning decision and read the comments, views and thoughts of the planners, engineers and council manager. We do not have the same access to An Bord Pleanála comments and reports and considerations. It would be helpful if the file on each An Bord Pleanála decision was made fully available to the applicants in order that we could discover exactly why each decision was made.

Although we will be referring to the issues raised by the Bill in much more detail on Committee Stage, let me refer to the wider distribution of development levy moneys. This may not be as important a question in coming years as it has been in the past few. We hear evidence from council colleagues across the country indicating a substantial drop in the number of planning applications. I, therefore, presume the amount of development money available to local authorities will be slimmed down for quite some time.

Upon the introduction of the levy, there was general satisfaction at the concept of moneys being spent in the local community from which the levy would be extracted. I refer to individuals who had to pay €5,000, €10,000 or €15,000 in planning charges or levies for their houses. At least, they were consoled somewhat by the fact that the money would be spent in their own local council areas. I hope the moneys collected through the levy will be spent locally on the improvement of local services and that they will not be used to replace other council budget allocations. We will try to tease this out further on Committee Stage.

Let me address the refusal of planning permission in cases where a developer has a history of unauthorised development. I have heard the comments of some of my colleagues in this regard. Where a developer has a track record that is less than admirable, it is appropriate, necessary and welcome that county managers and planners have the authority to take this into account when making a decision. A problem will arise where the developer is not a sole trader and where the development is being sponsored by a company. Company ownership can be changed and it is not always possible to apply the law as it is meant to be applied. Company personnel make-up will change and new companies will be formed. Where a group of people has a track record of poor development or failing to comply with regulations or planning conditions, this should be taken into account by the local authority when considering planning applications.

I welcome the provision on the taking in charge of estates. This matter was of great concern during the local authority election campaign some months ago. Every second or third estate across newer towns had not been taken over and issues had to be addressed, generally by the developer. The Bill will put in place new regulations on the taking in charge of estates. However, the other side of the equation involves trying to ensure sufficient pressure will be exerted on the developer to allow the development to be taken over in co-operation with the local authority.

We will return to all these issues. The Bill is substantial and I welcome the fact that the Minister is introducing it. There are many issues on which we want to reflect but planning and development are important. We have made many mistakes in recent years and the Celtic tiger brought out the worst of greed in many of us. Our planning laws need to reflect not only the new reality but they must also set better and higher standards for planning and development. The Bill will play a big part in that regard but it will require change. Members on both sides will be asking the Minister to amend some of the sections and listen to their proposals.