Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

No, we are probably slightly more than that. Amendment No. 11 seeks to insert a new subsection after subsection (3). I have mentioned that in regard to Part XAB.

Amendment No. 12 relates to the "mays" and "shalls" that we often come to in this House, but which can be so significant. There is a reference to the fact that the Minister may make regulations providing for "all of the following matters". We must take a preventative approach, especially when we have not had the opportunity for consultative back-and-forth engagement. I seek assurance. Perhaps the Minister of State will be able to address the issue. Could he assure me that there is no question of regulations being created in respect of these new proposed exempted developments, which do not address some of these issues, so that we do not, for example, end up with regulations that leave out procedures for EIAs or one of the stages around publication? I ask that because it states "may", although I do not believe that is the intent. I want to be clear about that, but we must look to the language before us. All we have is the text, which we only received last night. As an avoidance of doubt, I want to be clear that if the Minister does not make regulations providing for any of the matters listed in Part 14(3)(a) to (h), that the existing standard provisions in the Act in respect of those matters would apply, so that we do not end up with any risk of a lacuna where there is a gap in the regulations, and that wherever there is a gap the standard procedures would apply. For example, if the Minister does not regulate for a new notice period, the standard notice period would be assumed to apply. Perhaps the Minister of State could reassure me that there is no such danger. I hope I am being overcautious in this particular amendment.

Amendment No. 13 is probably one of the most important amendments. It is one in which other Members have significant interest.Sadly, this is part of a pattern we have seen of the constant chipping away at the powers of local authority members. It should be borne in mind that when we do that, we chip away not just at the powers of some councillors but also at the powers of communities and those who elect local councillors. We have seen this again and again in small things, such as when local authority members could not attach conditions when handing over land for cost-rental or give some local information that might have improved or informed that. We saw it in an earlier part of the Act and a small provision that used to be there whereby if something were to contravene the local development plan, there would have to be a slightly higher quorum. All these little things are designed to ensure that our planning system and our local authority system are recognised as key elements of a democratic State and key to the public's confidence that they, as citizens or as people living in an area, have a say in their lives and in the places where they live. I stand over my comments on the changes relating to An Bord Pleanála proposed in the Bill as being a direct power grab. There is also a power grab here in that more power is taken off local authorities and handed over to the chief executive. It should be borne in mind that chief executives are not elected. They do not have a mandate in the same way our local authority members do. The chief executives - and maybe people need to be reminded of this - are there to serve local authorities. The governance, strategic direction and policies of local authorities and the development plans come through the local authority members with input from the public. Simply saying that the councillors could say something to the CEO, who may or may not take it on board, is an alternative to having an actual democratic process. It is outrageous and ridiculous, and we cannot gloss over it. I have huge sympathy for local authority members of all parties, including the Government parties, and for the Senators who did not get to have proper scrutiny of this and who are elected by local authority members. Let us be clear. This Government is so afraid of any input from anybody that, as well as wanting to get rid of the periods during which the public can have an input, and as well as looking to have to do as little as possible on environmental law, it is also removing basic powers from the council.

I refer to section 138, titled "Prior information to elected council", of the Local Government Act 2001. If the Bill, as drafted, is passed, the chief executive will no longer have to inform council members of a major new development in their area. Many local authority members are hungry for new developments. There is an underestimation in that regard. Most local authority members I know are keen to see new developments happen in their areas. As for the idea that the chief executive would not even have to inform them in advance of a new proposal, what are we so afraid of? They would not have the fundamental opportunity to vote on a resolution in respect of works if the local authority had a fundamental concern about the project, which I do not believe would be brought forward lightly. That is not a vote to say they have to vote in favour of it; it is a vote when they want to express concern about it proceeding. There is a wealth of knowledge and information at local level which comes through the public and local authority members and which does not necessarily always come through CEOs, who are often transferred back and forth across the country as they move their way up the ladder and may or may not have local commitment or knowledge.

Section 140 reminds me of a previous planning Bill. It is almost traditional now that legislation in this area gets rushed through. It might seem like a great idea but it is not and it will damage public confidence further. When a previous Bill was being rushed through last summer we saw the erosion of local authority powers. Here is another example. The proposal on cost-rental was reasonable and stated that when land is being given over and there is a new project and it is said that something will be built, a local authority might have been able to add a condition or even say something like "We have a high level of pet ownership in our area and we would like a park attached to the development" or "We are aware of a particular need in this area in that there are many children, so if you are putting in a new development, can we be assured there will be a large playground?". The local authority may be aware of disability needs in the area and may want that to be reflected. The idea is simply that one would be able to add on good conditions. Section 140 is titled "Requirement that a particular thing be done". It should be borne in mind that under that section there is already a safety net. It is not something a couple of councillors can do. A resolution under section 140 already requires at least a third of the total number to vote in favour of the resolution, but that is undone by the Bill, as drafted. Fundamentally, this relates to three very reasonable powers of local authority members, which can and should be used in co-operation with the laudable goal, which I support very much, that we want to build more local authority housing. However, this whole section relates to local authority own housing development. It is exactly what we have wanted for years, namely public housing. We want public housing built in local areas, but local authorities and their members and representatives are taken out of this section. That just does not make sense to me. It will create deep disappointment and a sense of disempowerment rather than opportunity for constructive engagement.

I come to the two final amendments to this section. Amendment No. 14 is one of the three preventative amendments. The Minister of State may have addressed this issue, so I might not have to press this amendment. My concern was that one of the aspects of exempted development which had been allowed for was the construction of a new road or the winding or realignment of an existing road to serve houses referred to in paragraph (a). The Minister of State did touch on the following, and maybe he could elaborate when he replies to the debate. I wanted to make sure that there would not be any risk that, for example, because two or three new housing developments are proposed and being created, that then be used to treat a major road as an exempted development. We know that so many roads - I am thinking of Galway and the Western Distributor Road - are based on new developments in an area and built to serve those developments. I just wanted to be assured that there was no danger of major roads, primary roads, motorways or bypasses or anything like that inadvertently coming under the provisions in this section. I understand that the Minister of State has indicated that that is a separate process and that this would simply involve service roads or, as one would expect, roads appropriate to serve a specific development. As I said, I am happy to withdraw the amendment if that is not a danger.

I will probably press amendment No. 15, however. We should not be building anything that does not have cycle infrastructure. There is no excuse for that. That cycle infrastructure may be different depending on the circumstances. For a new apartment building it may be as simple as cycle parking. For a new housing estate it may be bike lanes. It may be about ensuring, for example, that where a housing estate meets a main road there are proper supports there to ensure safety. Some of the worst things I have seen are the estates built in the past that were islands. I am thinking of Oranmore and other places where I have seen that. People in those estates can only drive out of them. They cannot walk or cycle safely into a town that might be only 1 km away because there is no infrastructure to connect the estate with local services and communities. I will press amendment No. 15. I am not saying that there should be the same cycling infrastructure in every case, but there is no excuse for any new housing development in this State not having both pedestrian and cycling infrastructure built in, by design, at the outset.That concludes my comments on this very large group of amendments. I hope the Minister of State will address some of these concerns and that I do not have to press all of these amendments.

I am deeply disappointed at the way the process has been designed. A lot of concern has been expressed about the new proposals the Government might introduce in the new year and I hope they are nothing like what we have heard about. I do worry about some of the very poor decisions that have been made in this Bill. I have comparatively small concerns about this section but huge concerns about the appointment of An Bord Pleanála. Some ambiguities remain about the foreshore and I am really worried that they are not getting the scrutiny they need. Sadly, this Bill is not going to bring us forward. It was an opportunity to bring us forward but is not now because of the way it has been drafted. Also, due to the signal the Bill sends in respect of An Bord Pleanála I am concerned it will take us further backwards in terms of public confidence and ultimately in the effective delivery of housing we so badly need.