Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach chun an Bhille tábhachtach seo a phlé. I commend the Minister, Deputy Gormley, on his propensity for attending the Seanad and listening to debates when legislation from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is being considered here. He has displayed a strong inclination for taking on board the comments and suggestions of Members, which is the essence of what the Oireachtas is about. I acknowledge that he has shown an understanding of his ministerial obligations and responsibilities.

I welcome the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009, which deals with an issue that has come under the microscope in recent times. The Minister has had a keen interest in planning matters for a long time. His efforts to channel this legislation through the Oireachtas is a labour of love rather than a chore for him. It is important, in light of the serious economic and property downturns we are experiencing, that we consider the extent to which the planning process contributed to the glut of home ownership and, in particular, to inflation in the cost of residential properties. This is not an insignificant point for very many people as they struggle with negative equity and to meet the cost of increased borrowings.

I welcome many of the provisions of the Bill and I will comment in more detail on some aspects. Development plans and housing strategies must now show compliance with the national spatial strategy and with national and regional plans. That is desirable. There used to be an obligation on councils to "have regard" to national guidelines. The position is strengthened in the Bill by stipulating that separate reports addressing Ministers' comments be produced. Such a report should highlight how a plan is meeting the national guidelines.

I take on board some of the comments made by previous speakers on this matter. This is the second occasion on which we have been considering Second Stage of this important Bill. Where material changes will be required to a development plan, a majority decision by two thirds of the councillors will be required. This is to ensure there is a democratic decision-making process. This is a kernel of our democracy. Too many people, even in this Chamber and the Lower House, often try to denude the democratically elected people of their mandate and responsibility. I do not agree with this approach. There should be checks and balances in the system to ensure one's duties are exercised responsibly. I do not know if a majority of two thirds of councillors is the correct majority. I was a member of two local authorities for a long time and noted that elected members invested tremendous time and energy to ensure they made the correct planning decisions. I am conscious that a certain amount of lobbying took place but I do not see anything particularly wrong with that. However, it means those who are making a decision should obviously air their independent views with regard to the quality of the lobbying and the comments brought to their attention.

The Minister served on a local authority, as did many Senators. In the drafting of development plans, quite a bit of lobbying was directed towards officials, particularly county managers, who had primary responsibility for shaping development plans. When trying to strike a balance, the finger must not be pointed continually at councillors, as Senator Buttimer suggested. One must also take into account the overall process. This process starts at official level where the development plan is shaped.

Officials and managers are no less susceptible to lobbying than elected members and I would not make a distinction between them. This is an important balance in the equation that we must seek to protect. The Minister, having discussed this matter with me, is aware that I have long been a critic of the fact that our overall system of local government has invoked the executive powers to a far greater extent than the powers associated with the reserve functions. I strongly believe there is an imbalance and that it is wrong.

I spoke to one of the Minister's predecessors about local government reform. I was and still am of the view that there should be no executive decision-making powers. All decisions should be made democratically by the elected members, who should be held accountable for them. I advocated that powers be extended to the area of planning. The Minister asked me what I would do in respect of planning and I stated the planning power would be the first I would transfer. If checks and balances were put in place, the inspector of planning would come with his director of services to the corporate policy meeting, which would have to be held weekly. He would make a recommendation and if the members overruled it, their reasons would be recorded clearly in the minutes. That would place responsibility on the members. At present, there is no such system. There are private meetings, the minutes of which are often not recorded and at which one person can influence the outcome of a decision. This is the way the process works under the managerial system. It is not as good as the one I advocate although many people would shy away from the latter on the basis that it could be abused. Abuses would become very transparent very quickly because people would have the power to appeal. Where a local authority is found to be a perpetual delinquent in regard to exercising its decision-making powers, it would be very evident and sanctions would be brought to bear on it.

I make this point because there is a need to recognise the reality. It is too simplistic for commentators to state the democratic process has let us down. In the past over-zoning took place and I objected to it. Equally, I saw local authority areas that were under-zoned, thus leading to a spiralling of land prices. This was equally bad for the economic climate in terms of residential housing.

Modifications to a draft plan can only be minor in nature and must be subject to further consultation. Additional land cannot be zoned and buildings cannot be removed from the record of protected structures. I question the wisdom of that.

Let me raise the issue of the definition of a draft development plan, although it is not contained in the Bill. When I served on a local authority, the plan presented initially by the manager to the council was called the draft development plan. It was examined by the council, which could make amendments thereto before it went on public display. We need to ascertain whether the draft produced by the manger is the draft development plan, to which plan restrictions and inhibitions attach in terms of its being changed. In this regard, I am seriously concerned about the efficacy of the system proposed.

My next point is a moot point but requires very clear definition. If a plan becomes a draft development plan only when the councillors have had their input and it is endorsed before going on public display, that is a different matter and my reservations are taken account of. A plan is put on display for three months. During this period, extensive public consultation is engaged in. The local authority in my area and, I am sure, in other areas have public meetings at which the planning officers involved in the drafting of the plan, who are very familiar with the detail, present the plan to interested parties. Attendees have the opportunity to make submissions at the meeting and subsequently as part of the process.

I have lists of protected structures that were absolutely incomplete and in respect of which a minimalist approach was taken. That was corrected with a maximalist approach. I have great difficulty in that regard.

Refusal of planning permission for unauthorised developments is a good discretion to give to local authorities. I welcome the extension of the duration of planning permissions, which makes a lot of sense in the current economic downturn as sites that have planning permission will not be developed in the next two to three years. The Bill provides for a simple approach to extend the duration of permission.

I question whether levies which were set at the height of the property boom should continue at the present rate. They are an imposition that will affect people trying to acquire houses and will also have an impact on house inflation, as will Part V. I would welcome a review of Part V. Increased densities might lead to savings on CO2 and in terms of transport efficiency there will be a social cost. The issue should be examined. Rather than take units for social housing perhaps we should consider having more open areas and play areas for children because of the social consequences of some high density developments.

I disagree that An Bord Pleanála should still be given a statutory objective of 18 weeks. It should be a mandatory requirement that it would make a decision within 18 weeks. It is simply not good enough in the current climate when we need to create jobs that appeals on minor developments drag on for up to nine months. I urge the Minister to stipulate that An Bord Pleanála would make a decision within four months unless the development is a major one that requires complex, technical analysis. Time could be allowed for that and a procedure could be put in place to deal with it. A definition could also be provided for what is a major development.

I have reservations about reducing the quorum from three to two. I accept that two out of three votes will carry the decision but the cross-fertilisation of discussion will be missing from that process, which has its own impact on coming to the right decision. I wished to make one or two other points but as time is up I will conclude.