Alex White (Labour)

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 9, lines 40 to 48 and in page 10, lines 1 to 4, to delete paragraph (a).

I note the Minister made the not unreasonable point on Second Stage that section 6 proposes to deal with the question of the scope of the submissions and observations on a development plan. He sought for the scope to be more strategic in nature at this early stage of the preparation of the development plan. He remarked on Second Stage that the development plan process should be more transparent and should move away from being distracted by zoning, especially zoning of land parcels, to a more strategic land use planning approach. There is a good deal of merit in the Minister's proposal in this regard. That said, I wish to test the issue to establish whether he is going too far in respect of what is proposed to be included in section 11 of the principal Act.

I have no great difficulty with first part, that is, the time allowed for consultation and so on. However, as a general point, it has often occurred to me in respect of the preparation of a development plan that notices must be published in newspapers and that the various interested parties must be contacted by the local authority. I refer to the extent and level of information and notice imparted to the wider community in the run-up to the preparation of a development plan, although I have no wish to visit any particular criticism on anyone. I am a former member of a local authority, admittedly in a suburban area, which may have contrasting issues from those of colleagues who are more familiar with local authorities in other areas. However, there is a level at which material appears in the newspaper but not much attention is paid it by most of us. That is the reality of life. As practising politicians we know that planning issues only come to the attention of people when they see a proposal for a zoning or development further down the line. When somebody tells them there is an application, people object and get exercised about planning. The idea of a development plan in the original legislation we are now amending is that the wider community is involved at an earlier stage. It should be proactively involved in commenting on, debating, considering and planning how the area will look, what its physical state will be and what services will be provided. This may occur to people over a period of time but they never assimilate or deal with it when considering the development plan. My general point is that we must examine the extent to which we involve people in the early stage of planning. I am not sure I have the answer to this point but the question is worth exploring. We have been involved in situations where people suddenly wake up to a planning problem and one can point out that the proposal was included in the development plan or that the person could have made a submission on the matter at an earlier stage. With the best will in the world, people do not do this because they have busy lives and do not have the opportunity.

I agree with the general thrust of the intention of this measure. The earlier stage should be the strategic stage, with a wider vision of the area or the county. The motivation for this amendment, to delete the new section to be inserted by the Minister of State, is that it goes too far. I refer particularly to the second part of the amendment on page 10: "indicate that the submissions or observations referred to in paragraph (b) shall not relate to a request or proposal for the zoning of specific lands for any purpose". I understand the Minister of State wants to exclude proposals for rezoning at this stage but to go so far as to say that submissions or observations cannot refer to them is perhaps excessive at this early stage. If there is a zoning proposal on the agenda, the dogs on the street know about it. It is excessive to exclude reference to it. I can understand the thrust of this initiative but what motivates my amendment is the question of whether this goes too far.