Cyprian Brady (Fianna Fail)
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 well-deserved elevation. As the planning issue is such a wide-ranging and complicated one, it must be subdivided. Members have spoken on rural aspects of the issue but I wish to highlight its urban aspects. Planning in Dublin is automatically assumed to refer to high rise developments, office blocks and shopping centres. While Dublin city has had its share of major developments such as high rise apartments and office development, the city's planning issues encompass far more than these. From every house extension over a certain square footage to small infill developments, there has been an explosion of one-off and domestic developments. This is in addition to the other planning applications with which Dublin City Council must deal. From the heart of the inner city to the suburbs, because of the large demand for housing, every available site is being used. In such a climate, it is crucial that a firm but fair hold is kept on the whole planning process from local authority level to An Bord Pleanála.

A new phenomenon in Dublin city is the construction of a second house in the side garden of an existing dwelling. These developments have mushroomed in council and private housing estates. In most cases it works because when the original dwelling was built space and garden size was not an issue. However, in smaller inner city areas it is essential that proper planning regulations are in place, particularly considering services provision. More importantly, these regulations must be enforced, particularly in Dublin. In the past there have been problems with enforcement. However, I have found Dublin City Council officials to be approachable in arranging preplanning meetings. Due to the volume of applications, there were problems with delays in applications but this was due mainly to under-staffing in the local authority. In some cases, delays lasting for several months were exacerbated by appeals to An Bord Pleanála. Recently, due to increases in staff numbers, the delays have been much reduced. It still takes some time to go through an appeal to An Bord Pleanála but when one considers the volume of applications, it is hardly surprising.

The years 2000 and 2003 were the eighth and ninth consecutive years of increased output with completion of 57,695 units and 68,819 units, respectively. In 2003, in Dublin city, 14,394 units were completed. In the greater Dublin area, 22,852 units were completed, a phenomenal growth of 10.5% in one year. In the first six months of 2004, 35,957 units have already been completed. These figures are just for domestic dwellings. When one adds commercial and State developments, this massive increase puts enormous pressure on the system.

Although Ireland has one of the lowest population densities in Europe, population density is a crucial issue for Dublin city and planning ahead is essential. In the 1970s and 1980s no one could have foreseen how the economy would have affected housing and commercial development and, in turn, our lifestyles. With the advent of the Celtic tiger, we failed to plan thoroughly for the future, particularly in infrastructure. For example, the M50 is continually extended and widened and the road network in the suburbs is already at breaking point. According to the medium and short-term forecast, the volume of traffic will continue to rise. We need not just to be planning for the future but for what is already there. A supply of highly trained planners is required. I know of a number of initiatives in this area, particularly one in conjunction with Harvard University. However, more resources need to be put into educating more planners.

Vexatious objections are also a problem in Dublin city and have consequences for the planning process. I am aware of individuals and groups being encouraged to object to planning applications, solely for the purpose of receiving compensation for disruption. Safeguards against this happening must be introduced while protecting those genuinely affected by developments. When the Minister, Deputy Roche, was in the House he suggested that this area would be closely examined in order to try to tighten it up. Regulations on listed buildings also need to be tightened. There are a great number of derelict buildings around the city and neither planners, local authority members nor individuals living in proximity to them know whether they are listed.

Recent developments of high density housing, especially in the inner city, have had an impact on the existing communities in these areas. I refer, in particular, to the Irish Financial Services Centre, IFSC, and other developments along the quays of the River Liffey. Much development has taken place in areas where existing communities have resided for a long time. The only way to ensure these communities are not adversely affected by developments is to involve as many local people as possible at the planning stage. Once it goes past that stage, it is too late. There have been cases throughout the city where major developments impacted badly on local communities but if some initial consultation had taken place, problems might have been avoided. An example of where direct consultation with the existing community has worked well is in the North Wall area and this approach needs to be continued.

The Minister, Deputy Roche, referred to the raft of planning legislation and regulations that exists. I welcome his proposals to improve matters. Simple changes such as the introduction of e-planning and the use of technology are essential. I have no doubt the new Minister, in conjunction with his Ministers of State, will continue to ensure the planning process is improved.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, and take this opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment. I also congratulate the new Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, who spoke well on this subject on the previous occasion he was in the House, for which, unfortunately, I was not present. I do not know if it is the case that he is a breath of fresh air or that he is such a good communicator and has received good publicity for his views but, in common with many people, including Senator McCarthy, I find myself very largely in agreement with the new Minister's views on planning. I welcome what he is doing in removing the unnecessary bureaucratic and administrative obstacles to a more uniform planning application procedure. I especially welcome the new standardised application form.

The Minister stated he wants an efficient service and for planning authorities to provide good customer service. That is very important and, sadly, in the past has sometimes been lacking. I very much look forward to the new measures that will be introduced and the ongoing review by the worthwhile people who back up the Minister in the Department. They mean well and are doing valuable work. I look forward to seeing the fruits of their work, which I have no doubt will be brought forward by the Minister.

Pre-planning consultation is an important part of the planning process. This is a view with which public representatives agree. As the Minister and other speakers stated, the entire administrative system is supposed to be open and democratic but, sadly, that has not always been the case. Pre-planning consultation is vital. Very often nobody is available in Kerry County Council for pre-planning consultations, and I am sure this also happens in other parts of the country. I accept that local authorities are swamped with applications and that many of them have had enormous numbers of section 140s, all of which require detailed reports. We can imagine the amount of staff time required to do that work. I accept there is a difficulty with staffing levels. I do not know how the Department will address this matter. I very much welcome the measures being taken in regard to uniformity. However, more consultation is required between the Department and planners to ensure uniformity and speed up the process which we all want.

I assure Senator Brady that it is not only in the city that planning objections arise, we also have difficulties down the country. I do not have any time for the spurious invalidation of applications by local authorities on technical grounds. They are raising matters such as site notices not being fully in compliance with council requirements and they also request further information at the last minute. That is going on all over the place and it must be brought to a halt. The RIAI has stressed both of those points so I will not labour them. We must ensure, as the Minister and everybody else wants, that courtesy and consideration of applicants will be more apparent in the system. I accept the volume of applications is currently high which puts pressure on the system but, as he stated, the process should be open and democratic; it must be customer oriented and deliver for people. I agree with the Minister's remarks in that respect.

The guidelines are good, but the process followed in County Cork and perhaps other places is as advanced, if not better, than the guidelines. Unfortunately, as we all know, guidelines are only guidelines. I urge the Minister to put the current draft guidelines regarding one-off housing in directive form. I accept he will exhort and encourage everybody to take them on board but they can be ignored. Reasonable proposals must be accommodated because the authorities will always find a way to reject applications if only guidelines are in place. The Minister's heart is very much in the right place but that aspect of planning needs to be strengthened.

We have heard it said too often that the planning system is a bottleneck. I am not lobbying for anybody but there is a presumption that if one is within the zoning one will get planning permission and not have all these roadblocks erected. We all know the damage this is doing to local economies.

Regarding local authority housing requirements, the Minister should ask local authorities to carry out an inventory of their assets as a matter of urgency, as the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, has done in regard to State assets. I do not have specific evidence but sometimes there is a suggestion that something is held up or that it is not being given attention for whatever reason.

Reference has been made to An Taisce and I am aware the Minister has strong views on that body. I do not have anything specific against it but question if such a prescribed body is the right way to go in a democracy. The system is open and anyone can have a say on any matter. I do not know the answer and the Minister has his own views. In some areas, particularly in areas of outstanding natural beauty, An Taisce has made some relevant points but very often there are too many objections in regard to one-off housing. An Taisce's objections are not without foundation or substance but listening to Senator Brady, we are all aware of too many spurious objections arising from bad neighbourliness or whatever. We would all welcome any way of short-circuiting those objections.

I would like to hear the Minister of State's views on the strategic national infrastructure Bill which is promised to fast-track major infrastructural projects and remove the approval roles of local authorities and An Bord Pleanála. It is not that we do not welcome it but we want to know what safeguards are in place and who will decide what meets the criteria, which we also need to see. That is an important issue for us.

I would also like to hear his comments on the Law Reform Commission report which is to be published today or tomorrow. The commission proposes a planning amnesty for all unauthorised development aged ten years or more to modernise conveyancing law. It states that the case is compelling because there are increasing difficulties in non-conforming developments and local authorities cannot enforce proceedings after seven years. These matters need to be tidied up and improved.

We are all irritated by the number of estate agents who, on receiving an application which may have been rushed, refer the client to the local politician. We are brought into the process needlessly and do not want to be involved. The Minister of State might bear that point in mind when talking to local authorities, managers and planners.

Kate Walsh (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate Deputy Brendan Smith on his recent appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food and wish him well. I thank him for coming here this morning. I also thank the Minister, Deputy Roche, for his statement that he and his Department officials are working very hard to support local authorities and An Bord Pleanála to deliver a quality planning system that responds to consumer needs.

We have come a long way from some of the disastrous planning decisions of the past. We now recognise that when large-scale housing estates are built the appropriate services must be put in place at the same time, not in a piecemeal fashion five or ten years later. While this is a positive development in areas of north Kildare there are several older estates that developers have not completed. Local authorities have not taken these in charge, hence the residents are left in a state of limbo. In one estate there is a pothole so large that one could fit a lorry into it. Kildare County Council has not taken it in charge and the residents are frustrated and in despair because nobody is taking responsibility. The situation is repeated in various towns across north Kildare and my colleagues around the country report similar problems.

For years, local authorities had few restricted powers in planning and forcing developers to play ball. The Planning and Development Act 2000 significantly increased those powers. Under the consolidated 2001 regulations the onus is on individual local authorities to use the wide-ranging powers available to them. They must enforce them in such a way as to ensure that the developer sees that estates are completed and use the sanctions available to ensure developers do not abandon their responsibility. It is not acceptable that developers build estates and fail to supply infrastructure such as lighting, footpaths, etc., and residents are forced to take on this major work themselves. If developers must complete a snag list for individual homes they should also be forced to complete one for individual estates. Local authorities must use the power available to them and be more proactive than they have been. For a long time, developers were far too relaxed about fulfilling their responsibilities and completing estates to the highest standards and local authorities did not pursue them actively enough.

The development levy introduced last year must also be increased. It is the responsibility of local authorities to provide essential services in estates as soon as they are built. If developers pay a levy of an average of €10,000 per house it is essential that the local authority does not delay in providing the essential services. Local authorities must also be vigilant in ensuring that developers who neglect their duties on one estate are not allowed to do the same in other developments. In the past, developers built estates, failed to complete them and dissolved or liquidated that company only to set themselves up in a new company, and history was repeated. Local authorities now have the power to rule against such developers, regardless of the new name under which they trade, to ensure they are not given permission for new developments.

These are relatively small issues in the overall planning scheme but they are very important for a resident who pays a large sum for a dream home only to be faced with the nightmare of roads that have not been properly laid or surfaced, footpaths that are unsafe or incomplete, no public lighting, no green space and a developer who cannot be contacted. Some of these residents have had to wait years for their estates to be finished, others got the job done only by organising themselves in residents' associations.

It is recognised that walkways into other estates do not work. They become a venue for anti-social behaviour. They are a nuisance and disturbance for elderly people and local residents and must be closed off at an extra cost to the council. I look forward to a time when estates will be built without these walkways.

We have made great strides in recent years in tightening up anomalies in, and issuing guidelines on, planning law. It is important that local authorities use the increased powers available to them and are proactive and forceful when it comes to ensuring that developers fulfil their obligations and requirements.

Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House on what I believe is his first visit since his appointment. Everyone was pleased to see him appointed because of his well-deserved popularity across the political spectrum. I wish him well in his new job. He and Senator Wilson will be a formidable team in Cavan. I hope Deputy Crawford will mark them well.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In Monaghan too.

Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In Monaghan too, I apologise. Wireless technology has serious planning implications. We have all been brought over to Buswell's Hotel recently for briefings on this issue and learned how by inserting a card into one's laptop one can go on-line. The volume of information one can transfer by wireless technology is significant and will become even more incredible. There is a downside, however, because new antennae will appear. In Carlow recently a nursing home erected an antenna on its roof causing grave concern. I was amazed to learn that these new antennae or even the base stations do not require planning permission any more. The local authority now only has to be informed as a matter of courtesy by the company, be it Vodafone, Esat or Meteor, that it is putting up the antennae in a location. Much of it is bounced back towards the individual development plans of local authorities. However, I recently asked the Minister in a parliamentary question if he could classify the status of a nursing home as a hospital or a commercial business. Unfortunately, the Minister was unable to give me a reply. I recommend to the Minister that he look at this area because it will be a very important issue down the line. I know there are recommendations not to locate antennae or base stations in built up areas or near schools. However, from my investigations, I found out that there will shortly be an antenna put up in one of the hospitals in Galway, if it is not there already.

We need to have national guidelines in this area. They need to reflect the significant movement in that general area in the past few years. There is grave concern among people that these telecommunications companies, which pay people €50,000 for five years to put a small antenna on their building, can get away with this kind of stuff. We need to have clear guidelines on a national level so that people know exactly what they can and cannot do. Scenarios such as my own case can then be avoided, where we have a nursing home in Carlow and the relatives of those in the home are concerned. To be fair to the owners of the home, they have done nothing wrong. However, there is an issue of grave concern. As we move towards wireless technology, this issue will come up again and again. We have moved away from the huge monstrosities of masts and by means of modern technology, we now have very effective small antennae that do not require planning permission, but it is something that should be examined. I ask the Minister to look into the issue of nursing homes and their classification. Are they commercial businesses or are they hospitals? That has a significant impact in terms of the location of these services.

The reality is that we need antennae or base stations located in built up areas to provide a good signal. There is no point being hypocritical. We all have mobile telephones and we all get angry when we lose our signal while on our phones. We therefore have to be realistic on that issue; we need proper telecommunications services. It makes sense to locate these near built up areas from that point of view, but we must take on board the concerns of local people living there.

Another issue about which I am concerned is that of ComReg, which probably falls under the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. There are reports that it has already run out of funding for this year. ComReg will audit any site independently to assure the public about emission levels. It is very worrying that it has no funding left and cannot do anything until next January. The Minister might look into that issue as well.

The new planning Act was passed in 2000 and it promised great things. I have to say that it has been a great disappointment. I remember that we all got excited about the fact that a developer's previous history can be used against him or her, but that has not happened in reality. Unfortunately, a developer can change his or her name, for example, a developer could trade today as Fergal Browne Development Limited and could trade tomorrow as Fergal Browne Limited. These are two different companies and that is how to get around the law. We still have cases of very bad developers, such as the case in Carlow recently where a developer from outside the county thankfully had his bond removed by the council and the estate was finished off. That was the first ever case and I am glad it happened. However, the residents in that estate went through hell when a developer did not play ball and was a law unto himself.

I have one criticism of the bond system and that is that it is index linked. There is therefore no issue of the developer getting the bond out. It is earning more interest than it would if it was sitting in a bank. There is no incentive for the developer to finish the estate quickly and hand it over to the council because the money is sitting in the bank. Invariably, the bond is small as a percentage. Even in my own estate in Carlow, the bond in question was actually less than the value of the developer's own personal car. People were wondering why he was in no hurry to finish off the estate, but that is the reason. The Minister should look at the issue of having it index linked. There should be some imperative on the developers to go into an estate, finish it quickly and satisfactorily within timeframes and hand it over to the local authority as quickly as possible. We have one case in Carlow of an estate which was not handed over for 20 years. The people in the estate had no lighting and no one would deal with it as the council stated that it was not its problem, the developer did not care any more and the ESB could not go near it either. That is one practical example of a stupid, ludicrous scenario that can arise.

The eight-week rule for planning permission is stupid. This "one glove fits all" mentality should be looked at again. If I am building a single dwelling and it takes me eight weeks to go through the planning process, then that makes sense. However, if I am building 25 or 50 houses, then extra time should be given as it is a bigger scale development. A good idea from the past was that one could request further information and request an extension of time. I have a case where a couple were being refused planning permission over a simple issue. Unfortunately, the decision went out before we knew about it. Under the old system, one could have requested an extension of time which would have allowed breathing space for both the planners and the couple involved. That should be looked at again because when the wrong decisions are made, it forces people to re-apply for planning and clogs up the whole system. It puts unnecessary expense on people.

It is a good idea that people pay money to object. People should not be able to object for no reason, but in cases where people's objections are upheld, then the money should be returned to them. One other concern I have is the issue of people building at the back of houses, especially in estates. I know people are obliged to put up a sign in their house indicating that they are going to build an extension or carry out some development. The reality is that if someone is living in a housing estate backing on to another estate, that person would have no idea what his or her neighbour behind is doing. As far as I know, in England there is an onus on the person who is building to inform the neighbours behind what is actually happening. Situations can arise where people are living side by side and not aware of what is going on. There should be an onus on people to inform the neighbours directly behind them that they are going to proceed with planning. I know of one or two case where people were totally unaware of what was happening.

I had a case lately of a housing estate in Carlow where the dwellers had no telephone services for six or eight months after moving in. I rang my own council and, regrettably, it would do nothing for me on the issue. It claimed that telephone services had nothing to do with the council, which was probably correct. Nonetheless, telephone services should be regarded as basic infrastructure and if the planning Acts are to be updated, then there should be a huge onus on developers to put the proper telecommunications services into the estate. Eircom will refuse to go into an estate unless everything is perfect in it, as any of us who has dealt with Eircom will know. Trying to negotiate with developers to get their work up to speed is next to impossible. It is very dangerous that people find themselves with no proper telephone services in the case of an emergency.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State. He earned the honour himself with his dedication to the people of Cavan over the years. They deserve to have a Minister who can voice their opinions to Government. I wish him every happiness and continued success.

I want to speak briefly on three points. The first is the planning application process. The second point is about breaches of planning regulations and the final point is about the issue of rural dwellers.

The new Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, said on his appointment that he would examine the realigning of the entire planning applications process. He said he would like to simplify the process, for example, by providing for a standard planning application form for all the various planning authorities. After the standard form has been put in place, the next stage of the realignment of the process would involve providing for on-line applications. The on-line form would allow people to track the progress of their applications. I compliment the Minister in advance on the introduction of the on-line planning application form.

I draw the attention of the House to a serious breach of building control regulations. The former Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, decided in 2002 that the front door and living room door of every new domestic house should be wide enough to facilitate wheelchair access and that every new house should have a wheelchair accessible downstairs toilet. Mr. Michael D. Ringrose of People with Disabilities in Ireland has indicated that the building regulations are not being implemented on the ground. When Mr. Tom Power of the Waterford branch of People with Disabilities in Ireland studied housing planning applications in Waterford, he found that none of them complied with the conditions I mentioned. I appreciate that building regulations do not have to be part of a planning application, but it is somewhat ridiculous if those designing houses do not provide for wheelchair access. The front door, living room door and downstairs toilet should all be accessible to wheelchair users. I have said on many occasions that the human rights of people with disabilities are not being implemented in many spheres of life, even though certain rules are in place.

I would like to speak on behalf of rural dwellers, who are this country's real conservationists because they care for the countryside on our behalf on a daily basis. Dr. Seamus Caulfield, who is an archaeologist in UCD, wrote about this issue in Positive Planning for Rural Houses in which he stated:

Like all development in rural Ireland, rural housing should be strictly controlled. There are certain areas where housing should not be allowed such as in extended ribbon development along main roads out of towns and villages. Along the western seaboard where dispersed villages are often separated by miles from the nearest neighbouring village, housing should not be allowed in the open (usually) bogland between, where there is no record of settlement in modern times.

Dr. Caulfield and the members of the Irish Rural Dwellers Association have been accused of being anti-conservationists and wanting a free-for-all. The quotation I cited from Dr. Caulfield demonstrates that this is not the case. The rural environment in England, Scotland and Wales is different from that in Ireland. Dr. Caulfield states, "The tradition of settled dispersed community goes back at least five and a half thousand years in Ireland; four times longer than the tradition of nucleated settlement in towns or street villages." An Taisce and many planners in this country want us to pursue the nucleated form of village settlement which has pervaded in England from Roman times and in mainland Europe for over 7,000 years. As I said, the dispersed village has been part of the social fabric of Ireland for thousands of years.

The Environmental Protection Agency gives figures to refute the argument made by An Taisce that our finite land area will be eaten into if we allow settlement in dispersed villages, or if we spread houses all over the place as An Taisce would see it, rather than concentrating development in a central area. The EPA figures put an end to that argument. We are all aware that the terrestrial land of Ireland is continually subject to change and that there was substantial development — a great deal of infrastructure was put in place and many houses were built — during the Celtic tiger phase of the economy.

The 1990 database of Irish land cover was updated in 2000. The proportion of total land area covered in artificial surfaces increased from 1.5% to 1.9% during that period, as a result of urban sprawl and improvements in infrastructure, such as port facilities. Given that just 1.9% of land in this country is covered by human development, there is no fear that we will run out of land supply. We should support dispersed village communities by allowing people to build their houses in such areas. It is natural that houses in dispersed villages will die over time, so we should allow people to replace them by building new houses. Human settlements have been built on just 1.9% of Irish land. There is no basis for An Taisce's argument that we should all move to bigger villages. There are many other arguments in this regard, but that is the key one because it stands out in my mind.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I echo the sentiments expressed by Senator White about rural housing. I agree wholeheartedly with her and with Dr. Caulfield's comments about the significance of the dispersed village in rural areas. I wish Dr. Caulfield's proposals were put into practice by more local authorities throughout the country, certainly in the south east. There is an element of crisis in the planning sector among certain local authorities. There has been an explosion in the size of local authorities' planning sections in recent years, due to the significant increases in the number of planning applications made to local authorities throughout the country. In many cases, local authorities are unable to cope with the number and scale of applications they receive.

Previous speakers mentioned the role of An Bord Pleanála in this country's planning affairs. I am glad that a number of Government Senators agreed during this debate with Fine Gael's policy that An Bord Pleanála should be broken into a number of regional boards. There is a strong case for establishing boards to cover the various regions. Senator White mentioned earlier that certain development patterns are peculiar to certain parts of the country. It is not suitable to give overall responsibility for overall planning issues in Dublin city and rural parts of the country to a single body. We should examine the possibility of replacing the current structure with regional planning boards.

All Senators can give examples of inconsistent planning, which drives people mad. We wonder why certain applications were approved when other proposals were rejected for reasons which are difficult to understand. Such inconsistencies drive people crazy. It often strikes me that the intentions of local authority members when they were drawing up development plans are ignored when the plans are being implemented by the various planners.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday next.