Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)

I am sorry. I did not think the Minister did but I was tuning into what Senator Buttimer said. That is neither here nor there. My record as a member of two local authorities is clear. I always opposed such promptings when they came - never accompanied by brown envelopes, nor envelopes of any other colour. I always followed what I thought was correct in the interests of the proper planning and development of the town or particular area in the county.

I fully concur with what the Minister said about people. This matter is not strictly about planning but it is about people. The Minister is probably aware of the blockade in my part of the world on Killarney National Park. I would have thought that mediation was the only game in town. I accept the Minister's motives are good but I do not see the sense in the National Parks and Wildlife Service seeking more time in a court case, which it was granted, and then while that process was ongoing, imposing a lockout. That is neither here nor there. I will talk to the Minister about that on another occasion. I have tabled a request to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Everything in the explanatory memorandum is laudable, for example, supporting economic renewal and promoting sustainable development, targeted investment on infrastructure and modernising land zoning. It states: "The Bill is driven by the overarching ambition to strengthen local democracy and accountability". In due course in the debate I might be able to point to some contradictions. The explanatory memorandum states: "A key objective in accordance with the ongoing process of local government reform being pursued in the context of the White Paper on local government, by maintaining the central role of local government in the planning process". Again, I very much agree with "maintaining the central role of local government in the planning process". I am also in favour of the "closer alignment between the national spatial strategy, regional planning guidelines, development plans and local area plans". However, that may somewhat distract or skew the Minister's maintenance of the central role of local government in the planning process. It is desirable that, "The location, quantum, and phasing of proposed development must be shown as well as growth scenarios, details of transport plans, and retail development, and proposals for development in rural areas".

Senator Walsh referred to the reduction in the statutory quorum for decisions by An Bord Pleanála from three to two. I presume that will only be for routine cases. Senator Walsh's point was valid, and I am sure it is not the Minister's intention that decisions on detailed cases would be made by two members. Reference was made to the implementation of the Law Reform Commission's recommendation on multi-unit developments as they relate to planning. I inquired about that Bill on the Order of Business today. I am unclear as to how it is proceeding based on the response I received from the Leader of the House.

The intention to strengthen the legal effect of ministerial guidelines is outlined in the explanatory memorandum. This could be seen as a move towards centralisation and that would conflict with the earlier stated objective of maintaining the central role of local government in the planning process.

While much of the Bill is technical in nature and represents a tidying-up exercise, some people in local government have suggested that some changes are being provided for in it on the QT, so to speak. The matter concerning An Bord Pleanála is interesting. I note from an article in The Irish Times of 9 July 2000 that Mr. Justice MacMenamin was very harsh in what he had to say about the board displaying objective bias. Apparently he regarded its decision as unfathomable and that it did not have a proper reason for overturning the recommendation in its inspector's report. I regarded that comment as serious because this case appeared before two judges, Mr. Justice Kelly in the first instance and then Mr. Justice MacMenamin. The inspector twice made a recommendation to refuse permission, but that recommendation was overruled This is a specific case in Kildare but the Minister might comment on it in his response. According to the judgment the board had simply stated that it took a different view and it appears from this article that there was no proper reasoning for the board overruling the recommendation of its planning inspector. I did not understand that was something that was provided for legally and perhaps that was the basis of the judgment. Provision in this legislation in this context could be a move to bring power to the centre, to the Minister and his civil servants, and it may lack accountability to the public. If it is a move towards more regional planning, that could provide for less accountability and would be a retrograde step.

Returning to the Minister's central point about people, it appears that most planners in towns, counties and in an An Bord Pleanála are urban planners. There are no rural planners as such. Sadly, that is a neglect in our country, much of which is rural. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comment on this. I accept he might have commented on it already and I missed his response.

I agree with a number of Senator Walsh's points. I have not served on a local authority since 1999 but Members keep in touch with the local authorities as they are required to do and they receive representations all the time. The power in the local authority lies with the management rather than with the elected councillors. In every instance, the draft comes from the manager and his officials.

I concur with what Senator Walsh said about the need to avoid delays at An Bord Pleanála level. It appears that time taken for it to make decisions are consistently overrunning the limit that applies, but we will discuss the other matter in this respect anon.

An article by Frank McDonald in The Irish Times of 15 October 2009, entitled "Bord Pleanála warns on relaxing planning rules", states:

Mr. O'Connor [the chairman of An Bord Pleanála] said that the public-service reform agenda must include rationalisation of the number of local authorities with planning functions - currently 88 county, city and town councils.

"Many of these authorities have administrative areas that are much too small and fractured to constitute meaningful planning units," he said, adding that he would not favour "one big monolithic planning authority".

There is a conflict there and I look forward to hearing the Minister address some of Mr. O'Connor's points.

The requirement in the Bill that amendments to draft development plans and variations to development plans will require support of at least two thirds of the council will need to be revisited. Similarly, a resolution to make or amend a local area plan will require the support of two thirds of the council, and the support of two thirds of the council will be needed to grant planning permission to a development that would contravene materially the development plan. The legislation provides that the Minister plans to extend his power so he or she could issue a direction on a local area plan and he or she already has similar powers in respect of a development plan. With respect, that represents centralisation. I do not disagree with the evidence-based strategy requirement. However, the two thirds requirement could allow spoilers to oppose a worthwhile proposal. In other words, it is anti-democratic in its thrust in that it gives huge power to a minority, to a rump that could form in a council, and it could have a hugely detrimental effect. I would like the Minister to explain the rationale behind that move.