Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 speak to the serious concerns we have around the erosion of local democracy and the centralisation of power in the Bill. Amendment No. 115 seeks to ensure that development plans are made every six years, with the review beginning every four years. We spoke on Committee Stage about the move from a six-year local development plan to a ten-year plan. This will mean that many elected councillors whose powers are already excessively constrained may never have the opportunity to contribute to a development plan in their area. This is a key reserve power. Many people put themselves forward for local election and one of the reasons they do so is that they want to contribute to the discussion and facilitate those they represent to have a say in the decisions that affect and shape our shared spaces and how we live together. One of the crucial reserve powers in that regard is the local development plan. This has been undercut in a number of ways by extending the timeframe. This means that many of those who are elected to represent and support the views of the public on crucial issues of local development will not have the opportunity to do so or to reflect their democratic mandate.

It is also crucial to note that the requirement to align development plans with the national planning policy statement goes against the principle of subsidiarity and the idea that decisions should be made as close to the citizen as possible. If decisions are being made in terms of the national planning framework, there is a channel whereby the public can have an input. There is a level of consultation and people can feed up into the national planning framework, which then may feed down into the decisions made in local development plans. The Minister's planning statement, however, which will be given the same, if not greater, weighting than the national planning framework, does not have the same requirements in terms of public consultation and accountability. Therefore, the Minister may issue a direct edict from above without there being an appropriate channel to influence those policies. The Minister has been very clear that it will be expected that local development plans align themselves with whatever the Minister of the day has decided to put into the planning statement or an amendment of the planning statement. That is why it would be more appropriate to align our development plans with the national planning framework and not with a national planning statement, which, again, contravenes the principle of subsidiarity.

There are many sections of the Bill in which the UNCRPD should be referenced, and we have mentioned those throughout. Amendment No. 118 addresses yet another one, again highlighting the fact that our ratification of the UNCRPD must be followed up with meaningful action, including the idea that when we are planning for our future and for our local areas, we have to ensure that we plan for all within those areas and that we have accessible and inclusive spaces - we have gone beyond accessibility into inclusion - where all can participate fully. It is unfortunate that this kind of language around inclusive, accessible communities and the UNCRPD is not mentioned in this section.

We have also raised the issue of Traveller accommodation. It is important in this section, particularly because there has been a failure at local authority level to deliver Traveller accommodation. Funding has been ring-fenced but not spent. It is interesting that we are hearing about the importance of national guidance on lots of different areas, but when it comes to the question of Traveller accommodation, we are not seeing, either in the planning framework or planning statement, proper provision being made to ensure delivery for an ethnic minority in the State, who have been poorly served right across the State. The living conditions and early death rate of Travellers in Ireland are an indictment of policy at all levels and should be addressed at all levels, including through the local development plans.

Amendment No. 120 seeks to ensure the development management statement will include objectives around the regulation and layout of areas among the items listed in section 51(2). It should not be optional to include objectives around the regulation of layout. That should be required.

Amendment No. 121 seeks to include objectives relating to the preservation and enhancement of public rights of way, which give access to seashores, mountains and other places of natural beauty, recreational and practical utility, and safety in terms of safe passage. Such public rights of way are often used by families, children and others. There seems to be a backwards step that weaken provisions. The requirement would be to have public rights of way included. The Bill now proposes that they "may include" reference to public rights of way.

This is an area in which the Government very nearly dropped the ball in the past. Three years ago, for example, I signalled that all unregistered rights of way in Ireland would expire within 15 months. We would have had a situation where every right of way that people have used up and down the country that was not registered, which most are not, would have expired, leading to absolute chaos in terms of how people go about their daily lives and the loss of long established - in some cases established for generations - public rights of way. The Government refused to engage on that issue for months. One day before the expiration, the Government finally listened and took action.

I worry that a short-sighted approach to these public rights of way will again create problems whereby if local development plans are not required to map the public rights of way, it will create difficulties and confusion around what the public rights of way are, where they are and how they are to be used. I note that there are other concerning amendments in respect of the question of compensation and fees related to the establishment of public rights of way. I have tabled amendments with regard to those matters as well. It is very important that we do not create a financial obstacle for local authorities or individuals in respect of the use of long established rights of way or the creation of necessary new public rights of way. In rural Ireland, these could provide a green network that allows pedestrians, cyclists and others to access our towns and villages in a safe manner, particularly given the road safety concerns of which we are all aware.

Amendment No. 126 seeks to clarify that where there is an "incompatibility between either the National Planning Framework or the National Marine Planning Framework and a National Planning Policies and Measures" priority should sit with the NPF and NMPF. What will happen where there is an inconsistency between a planning statement and the planning frameworks? There needs to be a prioritisation and detail in respect of that.

The Minister's amendment No. 131 seeks to limit the number of directions that could be issued by a planning authority to the chief executive.This is a limitation on recommendations arising from the open submission. We have talked up and down in this House, on all sides, about the imbalance of power between chief executives at local authority level and elected members. This again will weaken the power of local authority members to give directions to the chief executive and represents a further move towards undermining local democracy and limiting what can be done.

All these small nickel and dime cuts that we have had to the already-limited local authority powers and the powers of elected members do not just have an impact on the members, they have an impact on the public. For people who engage with democracy, the local authority and the election of their councillors is one of the first and most clear areas where we tell people their vote matters, they can make a difference and they can affect what happens in their local area. When we consistently undermine the powers of local councillors, whom people elect, we also undermine the faith of the public in democracy at a time democracy is under threat right across Europe and when the lack of faith in hard-won democratic processes is a crisis. This is a poor and short-sighted decision.

Amendment No. 143 removes the need for the Office of the Planning Regulator to make a recommendation if a development plan is found to be inconsistent with the national planning statement. I have been clear on my concerns on the national planning statement.

Amendment No. 145 seeks to ensure that where a development plan is consistent with the national planning framework and the national marine planning framework and to be brought into alignment with a national planning statement would lead to an inconsistency with the planning framework or the maritime planning framework, priority should be given to the planning frameworks and not simply to the edicts of the Minister. As a group, we have expressed concern about the powers of the Minister in terms of imposing their will on local government and local authorities but if they are to exist, they should at least be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. These decisions are important. They should not exclusively be heard behind closed doors in the Custom House or around the Cabinet table. That is why amendment No. 146 seeks to make the Minister’s power under section 63 subject to votes of the Dáil and Seanad.