Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael)

I also welcome the Minister of State and acknowledge the work he personally is undertaking on the rental sector. New regulations are being introduced and far greater interest is being shown in that area, which is to be welcomed. However, the purpose of this debate is to focus on the Bill. I wish to raise a number of points, to which I would appreciate a response from the Minister of State.

The first point pertains to the change to the definition of what constitutes a majority in a council chamber for the passing of development plans and council legislation that will influence how planning decisions are made. The Bill proposes that the majority in this regard should be increased from a straight majority to one of two thirds. The Minister should reconsider this proposal because it opens up the possibility of a group of councillors who object strongly to the development plan or planning legislation having the ability to stop the enactment of such a plan or legislation. Such a group could be drawn from across all parties or from within a particular party and their opposition could be based on the principles upon which the entire plan is conducted or a limited part of the development plan.

Obviously, we live under and operate in a democratic system. If a simple majority of the electorate is good enough for the election of people to council chambers or most other chambers in Ireland, why is such a simple majority not good enough for the passing of a development plan for a local authority area? I raise my concerns in this regard specifically to emphasise that it opens up the opportunity for a development plan to be blocked or stalemate if a small number of council members are opposed to it. Consequently, the possibility might arise that development plans might not be passed by local authorities because they are unable to find the significant majorities the legislation will require. I fail to discern how this could be in the best interests of the operation or implementation of development plans or in the best interests of effective local government.

My second point relates to a point on which Senator Ó Domhnaill touched, the proposal in thie Bill to authorise the broadening of grounds upon which planning permission might be refused to an applicant. The helpful briefing on the Bill indicated that under section 35 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, local authorities already had the power to refuse planning permission to applicants if their previous planning history made it likely that a new planning permission received by them might not be enacted in the manner in which the local authority would wish. The Law Reform Commission report of 2008 which commented on this area indicated that up to that point, this legislative provision had never been used by any local authority. This appears to be a highly sensible provision to have in our laws. If a person has a serial history of breaching the planning permission he or she has received, this history should be considered in any future planning application for permission he or she seeks. However, before Members engage in strengthening or changing the criteria upon which planning permission may be refused, surely they should consider the law that has been in place for the past nine years to ascertain how it can be made to work more effectively. I refer, in particular, to the fact that it never appears to have been implemented.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government publishes many statistics in respect of implementation of the planning laws by local authorities. I am particularly familiar with its work on the quality of rental accommodation and the manner in which it is provided every year by local authorities. Perhaps this could be considered for this aspect of the planning laws. Before strengthening or changing what is in place — I do not necessarily oppose such changes — Members should ask a more fundamental question regarding the reason the existing law is not being implemented as it appears to be a useful legal provision that would do much to drive compliance with the terms of planning permissions already granted.

The third point which has been touched on by other Members pertains to the change this legislation makes in reducing the statutory quorum for An Bord Pleanála board decisions from three to two. I question the reason for this change, given that many decisions made by An Bord Pleanála are extremely important and have a significant effect on the communities upon which the decisions are made. Reducing the number of involved in such decisions from three to two appears to be more likely to lead to compromise decisions being reached as opposed to decisions that are in the best interests of planning law and the community who depend on such decisions being made. As Senator Ó Domhnaill noted, if three people are not capable of coming together and making the correct decision, surely the composition of the board should be revised and its operation examined rather than reducing the number involved in such decisions.

A fourth point to make in respect of this legislation is that it broadens the definition of the number of areas in which a local authority can take an area in charge. It appears to do this in two ways. First, it moves away from defining the area of land as multi-unit dwellings. Second, it appears to change the definition of those involved in this decision from people who are voters to those who are home owners. Both changes appear to be worthwhile but before Members engage in making such a decision, a more important question to be asked is whether the local authority will have the money to run and regulate properly the new areas they might be asked to take in charge. In all cases, I would be supportive of a decision by a community to move away from being regulated and run by a private body to an environment in which it was regulated and looked after by the local authority. That seems to be a good thing to do but we already know that local authorities are severely strapped for cash. Asking them to care for more land and dwellings, without having the money to do so, is a bad idea. In addition to the decision that land be taken in charge, we should put in place the funding mechanism required to ensure a city or county council will have the money to do the job well. The Bill does not appear to answer the question.

The Bill refers to broadening the use of development levies in order that local authorities can spend the money on school provision. This is a great idea. The Bill also refers to broadband provision but these are areas in which the local authorities have no competence. Responsibility for the planning and provision of schools lies with the Department of Education and Science. The Bill will broaden the definition of the use to which development levies can be put to give local authorities the ability to spend money in these areas. We should examine transferring responsibility for where and how schools are built from the Department of Education and Science to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and local authorities. The latter will have the best idea of future population trends and what is happening with development. If they have the option of spending more money on this, they should have responsibility to make the bigger decisions.

There is a gap in the legislation. A number of agencies have been set up and they operate at times outside the planning environment in which most people must deal. The prime example is the Dublin Docklands Development Authority which has the ability to initiate planning decisions and planning permissions in a way that is very different from how the vast majority of decisions are made. That seems to be the wrong thing to do and we are now paying the price. I want to see agencies being roped into planning law with which the vast majority must comply. Even if it takes longer for planning decisions to be made and more people must become involved, it seems the additional time spent on these decisions is a small price to pay to ensure they are properly made and cannot be challenged in the future. This is a matter the legislation should examine.