Kevin Humphreys (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the debate on the amendments. It is very important. There is certainly no doubt that the zero rating is important. I do not believe it should be done by regulation; it should be done by primary legislation because Ministers, and viewpoints, can change.

As a councillor I was involved in many development plans. Councillors need to show leadership in this regard and not follow. I drove the issues of height and density in the Dublin city development plan, from Clarehall to Ballyfermot to Ballymun. As a councillor, I felt ownership of the development plan. This is where I disagree with amendment No. 43. Its context is of a local electoral area but councillors see themselves as councillors for their county and city. This is how they view it and they want to act in a sense of leadership. When they sit down to work out the strategic development plan for a city councillors want to uphold the plan itself. It is not just about how it will affect me in Ringsend or Sandymount, but also about how the plan affects the development of Ballymun, Cabra or Ballyfermot.

When there were controversial planning permissions, there was many a Sunday I came across councillors out walking the relevant ground. They were not representatives in the area but they went out and walked the ground because a vote was coming up in the council chamber on the development plan and they wanted to clearly understand the proposal. I have seen many councillors defending the decisions they made in their strategic responsibilities in the context of the development plan by making submissions to Dublin City Council to protect the very development plan they worked on, as a reserve function, hand in glove with the officials. It is important that councillors should have the power without an additional cost to defend the decisions they have made in relation to the development plan. This is a key necessity in a democracy.

If I make a decision as a councillor, I have the right to defend the decision in an observation or a submission at the planning application level and at An Bord Pleanála level; if I am not to be counted for at the planning application stage, then I cannot take it to An Bord Pleanála. An oral hearing was held at An Bord Pleanála two weeks ago on the strategic development zone, SDZ, in Poolbeg west. I saw many local councillors, and not so local councillors, queuing up to pay the €50 fee so they could make an oral submission. They felt very aggrieved that on 18 May last year they sat and developed the strategic development zone, which then appears to become undermined at An Bord Pleanála level. These councillors want to be proactive and attend the hearing, but they had to pay €50 to make the submission to defend the decision they had made in the council chamber. This happened because the receiver was appealing the SDZ and was going for higher density and a reduction in social and affordable housing. The councillors felt very aggrieved. They spent the money on the fees and I believe An Bord Pleanála picked up some €250 over two days from councillors and Deputies in this regard.

I feel very strongly about this matter. I disagree with my two colleagues because I do not believe it is just a local issue. A development plan is in the ownership of the council that passes it, which is every single councillor who is involved. Senator Boyhan is correct that although councillors can be against a development, there are many times when a councillor makes an observation or a submission in support of a development because they see it as a key element for developing the city or the county. They must be free to do this without an additional cost. This applies especially to the circular letter from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government that said live planning permissions cannot be discussed at council or area committee level. This nearly drives councillors to be behind the door in trying to protect the development plans, in which the councillors have a reserve function in passing at council level. That circular is a retrograde step in forcing that discussion out of the council chamber. It had been open and transparent. Councillors discussed these plans in an open forum with most of these debates broadcast live with webcams onto the Internet. The debate was on the record and this is now gone from the record. Councillors do not have that avenue.

I believe the Minister of State will say that he will deal with this matter by regulation, but at this stage I will put the amendment that is in my name to a vote because it strengthens local democracy.