James Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 44, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:“Amendment of section 2 of Principal Act

7.Section 2 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following definition:

“ ‘planner’ and ‘planning consultant’ means a person who is:

(a) a corporate member or fellow of the Irish Planning Institute; or

(b) a person who has been permitted access to pursue the profession of planner pursuant to Article 5 of S.I. No. 139/2008 - Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Directive 2005/36/EC) Regulations, 2008.”.”.

On Second Stage I addressed this issue and the opportunity the Bill presents to address a glaring deficiency in our planning law, that is, the lack of regulation of planners, or those who call themselves planners. The points I made at the time still stand: anyone in this House, or outside it, can legally refer to himself or herself as a planner. This has had highly detrimental consequences for many individuals and I believe such people calling themselves planners have been responsible for some of the poorer planning errors we have had in the past. I am very exercised about this. Even though this Bill concerns a planning regulator and relates to matters that arose out of the Mahon tribunal, it is an opportunity to address this glaring deficit. People like to believe that the professional whose services they are availing of has the necessary qualifications and training. I think they would also be glad of a register and a council that ensured a proper code of ethics and that ensured that the standard in practice was maintained, planners having achieved the qualifications and training they should have, and glad of some element of continuing professional development, CPD, being involved, as there is in many other professions. If one of the issues in this regard is that there are people working in the planning sector who have great experience but do not have the standard qualification, I am sure that CPD and grandfathering could address that. I have not had the chance to talk to the Minister of State since last we discussed this issue on the floor of the House. This is a very serious matter and one that this Bill could address.

I have tabled a very simple, straightforward amendment as a first step in this journey towards a proper register and regulation of planners that would define what a planner is and who can call oneself a planner. It defines a planner as

(a) a corporate member or fellow of the Irish Planning Institute; or

(b) a person who has been permitted access to pursue the profession of planner pursuant to Article 5 of S.I. No. 139/2008 - Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Directive 2005/36/EC) Regulations, 2008.”.”.

I believe the amendment can at least start the first step of this journey. We would still have some way to go, and I understand the journey could be more complex, but I seek with this amendment to start that journey and send a message to people that those who would profess to be planners and who are not properly trained would need to get that training organised for themselves if they wished to remain in the planning profession. This is critically important now because at the end of this week we will see the launch of the national planning framework. Our capital plan will also being launched, with €113 billion to be spent. These are very welcome developments and show the very serious intent of Government to plot a way forward.

One big issue that arises out of these two documents is the need for brownfield sites to be used and for Dublin to go higher rather than spread wider. My view, as someone who lives in Fingal, is that Dublin needs to go higher and places such as Fingal need to develop as well. The Fingal development plan for the next five years has land zoned for 49,000 units. Many people living in Fingal who have young families wish and hope their families could live in the area with them. We have also mentioned Dublin Airport, which contributes €8.3 billion to the economy. One example of its potential is that it has four office blocks capable of housing 4,000 workers. These people will want to live near their workplace. I know I had Senator Grace O'Sullivan's support when I spoke about short commuting distances. Why not live in the nice green, sandy-beached area of Fingal rather than in Dublin city if one works in Dublin Airport?

At a time like this we will need the innovation and expertise of well-trained planners, and they also need their reputation protected by a standard and a code to which they can allude and a qualification they can stand over, rather than having fly-by-night operators who are not planners calling themselves planners and bringing the reputation of the planners into disrepute. As I said, with high density in Dublin, we will need very clever, innovative approaches to providing green space and amenity space, and I have absolute confidence in our planners to do so. I do not, however, have confidence in those who purport to be planners and who are not properly trained to do so. I cannot emphasise enough how critically important this is. I feel if it is not accepted, it will be a missed opportunity and we will be doing the public a disservice.