Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 134:

In page 104, to delete lines 17 to 22 and substitute the following: “(1) Subject to paragraph (b) of subsection (5), a planning authority shall make a development plan for its functional area every 7 years.

(2) Not later than 3 years after the making of each development plan for the functional area of a planning authority, the planning authority shall commence a review of the development plan in accordance with section 53 and 54, with a view to making a new development plan in accordance with section 55.”.

Amendment No. 134, relates to the development plans. The latter are one of the most important aspects of planning about which we have spoken in great length during this process. This is where our city and county councillors are active on the ground. They want to have their say when it comes to their county or city development plans. I will talk about this in some detail.

Section 42 relates to the obligations to make and review a development plan. The rationale behind the amendment is simple. Ten years is too long for a planning authority to draw up a development plan for its functional area. We had elections recently in which city and county councillors were elected to serve for a five-year period. We are already a month or two into that term. In effect, this means that the councillors elected in June may be involved in a review or the beginning of a review after four years, but they will not be in a position see a new county development plan right the way through within the life cycle of their local authorities. For many, it may be their only chance to do so because they may never serve on a local authority again.

Three county development plans at different stages passed through my hands when I was a councillor. I know the significant and hard work involved, but it is important. This is about public representatives, sitting county councillors, representing the communities they are elected to represent. They are best placed to know of the demands and the infrastructure deficits relating to healthcare, education, roads, energy, technology and innovation. On the whole, they, along with planning departments, make a valuable contribution.

I draw attention to the AILG, which sent an email to every Senator setting out the case in respect of this amendment and a number of others. In the context of the proposed extension of the lifetime of a development plan from six years to ten, the email states that in light of the rapid changes in social and economic life and in the interests of local democracy, the current six-year lifetime should be retained. That is the request. I have spoken to a number of the members of the executive of the AILG who understand that this request was to be given favourable consideration by Senators. That is for them to speak about if they wish. It is their prerogative or their call.

It is important that we have a plan. The AILG also made submissions to the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage on this proposal. The association runs conferences. Many Senators and TDs are in regular contact with it. LAMA has made a similar request. I have the AILG request in front of me . I want to be exact in quoting this organisation's view. I am in a position to be because I have, as I said, the document in front of me.

I am not suggesting five or six years. I have gone for the median in suggesting a seven-year plan. The AILG suggested five or six years. There is some merit in extending the time. The officials made that quite clear, but it is important that we have a reasonable period. Ten years is suggested in the Bill, with the proviso that it can only go to 12 years in exceptional circumstances. That is a long time. We are electing people, and the making of a city or council development plan is a reserved function of the elected members. Let us not fool ourselves.

Senator Daly chairs a Seanad consultation committee on local government. One of the recurring themes from councillors of all parties and none is the need to protect the powers and reserved functions of elected members. They have repeated that in their deliberations before us. They have talked about the need to continue to have their financial powers. I spoke about this earlier with respect to the chief planner. Councillors are not planners, accountants, economists, architects or engineers. As a result, they need independent professional advice. This is one of the most important functions. The Planning Regulator will say it is his plan, and rightly so. He supports the local councillors in that process and runs education and training on advanced issues around new and evolving planning policy which is of great assistance to the members.

My proposal is that these plans should be drawn up every seven years and that we must have a robust review, particularly as the reviews of city and county development plans have been weak. I have been there. I know what I am talking about. It is just a box-ticking exercise. There is no real measure. There will be an increase of the possibilities for variation, but we know the difficulties councillors have experienced in recent years in varying their plans. Ultimately, this is a reserved function and we are taking it away. Let us be honest. Let us not cod ourselves or have bits of paper telling us it is something else. This Bill will change the status quofor councillors. Currently, they can draw up plans every five or six years within the cycle of a council. They are now being told that it will be pushed out to ten years and, possibly, 12 in special circumstances. The majority of councillors I have spoken to do not want that. The AILG has made a strong case. I have gone for a number between the one suggested by the AILG and the one the Government is suggesting in the Bill. It is a pragmatic, reasonable and fair approach and it is responsive to requests from our city and county councillors. I would like the Minister of State to consider it.

Amendment No. 144 relates to section 42 and is about the obligations to make and review a development plan. It proposes:

In page 105, to deletes line 1 to 5 and substitute the following:

“(6) Any assessment carried out in relation to a development plan for the purposes of complying with the requires of Article 6 (3) of Habitats Directive or the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive shall take account of the fact that the development plan may, by virtue [of] paragraph (b)of subsection (5), have effect for a period of 10 years.”.

The Government has something similar in there. I will not go on at great length. I am conscious that we need to push on with this legislation. This is a reasonable and fair request from a well-respected association that represents the members of local government. I gave a commitment that I would pursue it on the association's behalf. I do not give commitments lightly and when I do, I see it through. I have brought this to the table as that is what I was asked to do. I appeal to Members across the Chamber to give this proposal their full support.