Mark Dearey (Green Party)

This group of amendments, if removed from the overall set of amendments, would result in a gutting of the legislation. Forward planning is at the core of what we are talking about. We are talking about the development of evidenced based - the Senator is correct that the evidence must be accurate - core strategies that are consequent on the superior planning document and based on the national spatial strategy which, incidentally, was introduced at a time when environmental assessments were not required, from which cascade the regional plans which, if the regional representatives from the various country councils are doing their job properly, will reflect the character of the region and will allow for differing variations, colour and definition in the subsequent development and local area plans.

The assumption that this model is a type of social engineering that will lead to a type of blandness in terms of how Ireland will look in future is based on the premise that all regional plans are the same, which is not the case. I was heavily involved in the development of the Border regional plan. It is a difficult region to plan for as it stretches from Tory Island to the River Boyne on the east coast. The only thing the regions have in common is that they are on the Border. We tried our best to reflect the character of our region. I have no doubt our regional plan is different to that of the south-eastern region. As a result the consequent planning documents will similarly continue to diverge from each other and will reflect the character of the local area.

I understand the reason Senator Coffey is distressed about the fact that a local area plan is not now necessary for a town with a population of under 5,000 people. However, such plan can still be ordered. The Bill does not deliver that as a fait accompli. It is important to make the point that it remains possible for local area plans to be developed in small population centres. I commend this grouping of amendments. I see forward planning as being the absolute driver of this legislation and of the amended Act, which as the Minister of State said was characterised by not keeping a lid on or trying to control the expectations of land owners and developers. I agree in part with Senator Coffey that we cannot completely suppress the entrepreneurial spirit among people with aspirations to develop their properties and so on. However, we do need to control expectations. Owning land does not confer on a person the right to develop it in whatever way he or she would like, which is what the 2000 Act allowed people to do. We have paid the price for that; it was a heavy price. Controlling those aspirations does not amount to social engineering; rather it is responsible planning and the delivery of proper future planning for the entire population so we do not end up having future generations pay for our recklessness.