Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, to the House and congratulate him on his recent appointment as Minister of State. I regret that I did not speak in the earlier part of this debate as I would have had the opportunity to also congratulate the Minister, Deputy Roche, on his appointment as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I agree with all that the Minister, Deputy Roche, stated in the House in the earlier part of this debate on planning and related issues. He referred to a number of initiatives on which he wishes to embark in his time as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which is welcome.

Most Members of the House have experience of local authorities and the vast majority of us were elected through the local authority system. Spending any time as a member of a local authority will inevitably give members a knowledge of the planning process at all possible stages, including the pre-application, application and post application stages. The knowledge we have acquired in our role as councillors will stand to us as we deliberate this issue.

I was a member of the largest local authority outside Dublin for four years. In that time, one of the most controversial topics was planning. A number of issues were associated with it which led to frustration on the part of many applicants, and these issues require balanced debate.

As regards county development plans, the prerogative to create such plans belongs to the members of local authorities and is one of their functions. When a planner makes a report on an application, particularly if a refusal is involved, reference will be made to the county development plans. We must be aware, as former members of local authorities, that the composition of such plans were our prerogative. We had the impetus, not the Minister or the Oireachtas.

The refusal rate in the Cork County Council area was approximately 12% and has perhaps increased to 14% or 15% at this stage. Many of the negative aspects of a planning application arise in the context of a lack of detail in the application itself. A number of reputable people lodge applications on behalf of applicants, and these may call themselves engineers, planning consultants or otherwise. However, one issue which frustrates local authority members is the manner in which applications are submitted.

An example may illustrate my point. If one applies to a local authority to tax a car, one will send off the usual details. If something critical, such as an insurance certificate, is omitted, the application is returned to the applicant. The same principle should be applied to planning applications. The better the standard of the application, the greater the likelihood of a positive negotiation of that application by the planning authorities. It is not good enough that an applicant pays €2,000, and that is the usual fee nowadays, to submit an application and at the first sign of trouble the application is deferred pending clarification or the provision of further information with the applicant told by the planning agent to approach his local councillor, Deputy or Senator. The number of people who can do this must be reviewed in terms of the standards they bring to bear on their customers. Addressing this issue would free up the time of councillors and Members of the Oireachtas who currently spend much time in planning departments negotiating applications which were originally badly handled.

There is a major issue regarding the application process in terms of two critical aspects, namely, the engineer's report and the planner's report. Not very long ago applications were not even available to the public. They were kept by the officials not to be seen by the public and there was a perennial debate on the subject of making the files available to the public for inspection. Now, however, there is a very strong case to be made for isolating the engineer's report from the panel. In my local authority, the first report lodged in the file is that of the engineer. If the report contains a negative undertone, perhaps to do with site distance, that is not the planner's business. The planner should examine the application in the context of proper planning and development, not in relation to site distance. That is the engineer's function. However, a practice has developed of planners adopting a negative approach to an application if there is a negative undertone in the engineer's report. That clouds the issue. There is no necessity for the planner to see the engineer's report or for the engineer to see the planner's report. They should report only on the area in which they are qualified to report.

Resources are also a significant problem for local authorities. Approximately two years ago there was a staff crisis in my local authority. It was unable to recruit planners in Ireland and had to go to employment and recruitment seminars abroad, in England and South Africa, to recruit people to work in the system. The authority required 60 planners to deal with the number of applications it had but it had only 47. There was a shortfall of 13 and that placed an unnecessary burden on the people who were there and had to try to deal with the existing workload. If the Government does not provide proper resources in terms of staffing to local authorities, it cannot expect them to deliver a good standard of service. That is particularly so in an area that is as drawn out as the planning system and which requires the absence of planners from their normal places of employment for inordinate lengths of time. In my local authority planners cover between 20 and 30 miles of territory. This means they must travel approximately 50 or 60 miles from county hall which is an inordinate journey. When examining the issue of resources for local authorities, it is necessary to ensure there is the proper complement of staff to deal not just with planning but with every area.

Such has been the difficulty in recent times that a number of people in the planning policy unit in Cork compiled their own guidelines for rural housing. Some people were applying "blind" and totally bypassing a stage of the system, namely, the pre-planning consultation, which should be freely available to everybody and should form part of the process. If people approach their public representative in advance of making an application it provides a perfect opportunity to get a map of the land holding and consult with the planning officials as to the possibility of building on the site. The purpose of such a meeting would not necessarily be to draw up a preliminary plan but to agree in principle whether the site is suitable for development. That saves time and, from the point of view of the planning agents, it saves money. If that option was freely available on a statutory basis, issues could be dealt with that might not otherwise arise until a week or two before a decision was due, leaving officials with no option but to defer or refuse the application.

There is a particular role for public representatives. It is incumbent upon public representatives to give good advice and not to play to an application because of the reward in terms of votes. If we seek only electoral gain for ourselves it will cloud the issue more. I know it is a matter or choice to offer advice to people but there is a certain onus on public representatives to give good advice even if it means telling an applicant something he or she does not want to hear.

I am also concerned about the issue of consistency. I remember a case I worked on unsuccessfully for a time. The county manger stated at the time that there would never be a house built on the site in question. Six months later I met the applicant. He had gone to a different public representative and the house had been built almost to roof level. That is not good enough. I do not see where discretion comes into this issue. There is total neglect of consistency, and consistency is critical.

A similar issue arose in Schull, which was particularly sensitive. Due to the location near the water and the tourism value of the area, there is a particularly microscopic examination of applications. Again a public representative was told that planning permission would never be granted for any project along a particular road, but it was granted eventually. It might be two or three years later, but again the question of consistency arises and it should form part of any overhaul of the system.

On housing applications, it is important that there is a clear housing need and, in particular circumstances, that the applicants can obtain a site from a family member, an uncle or aunt or a parent. If the applicants are a young couple, newly married or otherwise, and have a clear housing need there should be positive discrimination in favour of their application. For a number of reasons they should not be dealt with in the same way as an applicant for a development. The cost of building houses, of building materials and labour, has gone through the roof in recent years. Sectors of the construction industry are looking for alternative means of building houses and importing labour to beat the very high cost of labour here, particularly semi-skilled and skilled. If a young couple are able to acquire a site either for a very low fee or for nothing when it is given by parents, their application should be looked at with positive discrimination. It ties in with once-off rural housing.

Local authorities could be more proactive in addressing the issue of planning applications. Cork County Council compiled a very detailed document which is available free to members and is widely available to people who are considering lodging an application with the authority for planning permission. The document contains clear information as to the design of house that is acceptable in different areas. It also advises of the various checks of development plans. It forms a broad base of knowledge which applicants can consult and as a result look forward to a decent professional application being lodged and a good positive negotiation of that application because it is completed with reference to and cognisance of the guidelines and recommendations of the development plan.

Some of the conditions attached to planning permissions are unconstitutional. In particular the sterilisation of land is not good. I do not believe it would stand up to a constitutional challenge. There are other issues involved. If somebody wants to build a house, that is fair enough. However, if a landowner is in financial difficulty, for whatever reason, and needs to raise money, he should not be precluded from doing so. Inserting sterilisation clauses helps nobody. It is a reversion to landlordism. It is making people tenants on their own land. They have a valuable asset, something that might be very important in terms of getting them out of a very difficult financial situation.

That highlights how sterilisation clauses are bad for the landowner and the planning system. I also believe they are unconstitutional.

A number of bodies have outside roles for good reasons. I am not calling for extreme action against any group but I question the role of An Taisce. Recently I had the experience of negotiating with an applicant and planners concerning a site in a sensitive area. Eventually, planning permission was granted for planning and socio-economic reasons. While planners cannot deal with the latter issue, managers have the discretion to examine it. Before the 30-day deadline, An Taisce lodged an objection, pushing the development from April to November. There are a number of associated issues and An Taisce's inspector will not have a report until the middle of next month. I cannot see the site being dug out so close to Christmas. A further problem arises for the applicant as the house will be dearer to build in January 2005 than if the permission had been granted in April 2004. I request the Minister to examine the issue and look at the role An Taisce plays. Consideration must be given to An Taisce's original intentions when it was established. It is now hindering applications, particularly those for young people with housing needs.

I look forward to the efforts to develop e-planning promised by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. There is no reason people cannot lodge an application for planning permission on-line. As it is available for motor taxation, banking and other services, why can it not be extended to this area? It is a measure of how the Minister intends to deal with the issue.

Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I fully agree with the Senator.