Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

"That Seanad Éireann approves the following regulations in draft:

Planning and Development Regulations 2005,

copies of which have been laid in draft form before Seanad Éireann on 16 June 2005."

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the House for taking this matter today. The adoption of the motion by both Houses of the Oireachtas will pave the way for the planning and development regulations to be amended in three different ways. It will be a requirement for shops that wish to change into an off-licence or to sell alcohol as the predominant business to obtain planning permission. It will facilitate consideration of the need for an environmental impact assessment of peat extraction projects that are currently exempted developments, by reference to criteria set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. It will reflect in the Irish planning regulations a technical change to annexe I and annexe II of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, which list project categories that require environmental impact assessments. The change is needed because the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive has been amended by the Aarhus Directive 2003/35/EC.

These are highly technical issues and it would have been better if they had been discussed in an Oireachtas committee. As a Minister I am unusual in my belief that non-contentious technical issues should be dealt with in committees as the exchanges are far better. When it was suggested at the Whip's meeting the Green Party took exception to the idea that we should work through an Oireachtas committee. I do not know why it did so, but it was supported by Deputy Stagg. Ironically, there was criticism yesterday that the discussion was not going through Oireachtas committees but there is a lesson to be learned. It is foolhardy to score political points on issues that are not politically contentious but which require a considerable amount of explanation.

The positive approval of this House is needed for any change to the exemptions under the planning code, whether the change adds an exemption or limits exemptions, as these changes do. Senators will know that these kinds of regulations are normally discussed in the Oireachtas committee.

The first amendment will require shop owners who wish to change the use of their shop to an off-licence to obtain planning permission. This makes practical, good sense. I have always been amazed by the fact that, under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, planning permission is required to change a shop into a chipper but one does not require planning permission to change the same shop into an off-licence, selling all forms of beer, wines and spirits. While chips can be inimical to the figure, alcohol can do a lot more damage.

The number of shops changing use to off-licence or expanding into the sale of alcohol has increased significantly in recent years. The increase in off-licences has arisen from changes to the restrictions on the transfer of intoxicating liquor licences and from changes in the way in which people socialise and drink. We accept this as part of the evolution of our society. These changes have had an impact on our streets and some communities. This is a land-use issue that must be tackled through the planning code.

The interim report on off-licensing by Commission on Liquor Licensing, published in May 2001, shared my long-held view on this. It recommended that permission should be needed for a change of use of a shop to an off-licence, while recommending that wine sales continue to be excluded. I have therefore decided to amend the definition of a shop in the 2001 regulations, in line with the recommendation in the interim report, so that a shop changing use to that of an off­licence, or expanding what it sells to include alcohol, would in future require planning permission. The change will not effect the sale of wine as a subsidiary to the main use of the premises as a shop. The sale of wine from a comer fridge, which is a minor element of the overall trade of the shop, will not be affected by this change.

I see the change as a very positive step. By bringing the matter into the planning code I am giving local communities a say in the development and establishment of off-licences in their areas. I am giving them the right to make an intervention for the very first time. I am also giving councils and councillors the right to have a say in this area.

This has been an area of genuine concern for communities in recent years as more and more outlets for the sale of beer, spirits and wine have sprung up. We all know the consequences of excessive use of alcohol in our societies. It is leading to a yob culture, it is degrading our communities and causing major problems. We must be very careful in how we handle this in planning. I do not want to interfere with people's enjoyment but to give local communities a say where previously they had none. The changes will bring off-licences into line with the current provision for the sale of hot food, also changed under the 2001 regulations. Under those regulations, if people want to change their shop into a chipper, they must get permission, but shops with a hot food counter as a small part of their business do not need permission. This arrangement has worked well in practice since it was introduced in 2002. I am happy that planning authorities will be able to apply the same rules to the sale of alcohol.

It is not my intention that this proposed regulation should prevent consumer choice or in any way inhibit competition. Rather, the intention is to give communities and councils the right to determine what can and cannot happen in their areas.

The second amendment is more complex. It arises in part from the difficulties we have had with the European Union and particular issues relating to judgments against us in the European Court. The amendment will facilitate consideration of the need for an environmental impact assessment, EIA, for peat extraction projects below ten hectares, that is 24.71 acres. These are exempted developments under the 2001 regulations.

The EU Commission has raised concerns that these smaller, but still significant, peat extractions could have significant effects on the environment, having regard to the criteria set out in the environmental impact assessment directive. These criteria include the characteristics of the proposed development, its size, use of natural resources and so on. The environmental sensitivity of the areas affected and the risk of significant environmental effects are also considerations.

I therefore propose to amend the present exemption in the 2001 planning regulations, which is for peat extraction in a new or extended area of less than ten hectares, or peat extraction in a new or extended area of ten hectares or more, where the drainage of the bogland commenced prior to the coming into effect of the existing regulations. These changes are being made to provide that the exemption would not apply where peat extraction is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

This would allow the planning authority to assess whether a peat extraction would have significant impact. Where it would, the authority can step in and require a planning application and environmental impact statement to be prepared, provided there are cogent reasons for doing so. We have been advised that this change will answer the Commission's concerns about the transposition of the EIA directive with regard to peat extraction.

This change only relates to bogs outside of designated areas, namely, SACs and NHAs, which are under a separate consent system. Therefore, we are talking about medium-sized peat extractions in non-designated bogs, where consideration must be given to the possible environmental impacts. This meets a requirement under EU law and does not mean, as some Members in the Dáil suggested, the end to family turf cutting. That would not be the result.

I would like to point out that if we had wanted to use Oireachtas time well, we should have discussed these regulations in committee. That we are debating them by way of statements is not my fault.

The final amendment deals with the Aarhus directive. This is a technical amendment to Schedule 5 of the 2001 regulations, reflecting a relatively minor change to annexes I and II of the environmental impact assessment directive. Part I of the Schedule lists the project categories for which environmental impact assessments are mandatory and Part II lists the project categories for which mandatory thresholds have been set.

The amendment is designed to ensure that any changes to, or extension of, a project in Part I will in themselves require environmental impact assessments where such a change or extension meets any relevant threshold in Part I. As currently drafted, such an assessment is mandatory only where a development increases by 25%, or an amount equal to 50% of the appropriate threshold, whichever is the greater. Members can be forgiven if I have lost them here, because the issue is quite complex. I will explain by way of example. In the case of an airport runway, a length of 2,010 m. is set as a threshold figure. A situation could arise where, in order to avoid some of the onerous responsibilities involved, some smart person says the runway will only be 2,000 m. long and, therefore, there is no need to go through the process of an EIA. Then, three-quarters of the way through the planning an extra 5 m. or 6 m. will be added. This is done so that a change can be made and a threshold breached without the inconvenience of the EIA.

The change to the lists of project categories transposes a small part of directive 2003/35/EC, commonly known as the Aarhus directive. This directive provides for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and giving development consent to projects.

Transposition of the Aarhus directive will for the most part be achieved through regulations under the European Communities Act 1972 and further amendments to the planning and development regulations. Work is in progress on these regulations. I intend that the remaining implementation measures will be adopted this summer. I commend the amendments to the House.

As they are technical amendments I believe they should have been debated in an Oireachtas committee where we could have had more toing and froing on them. However, despite the Government desire to deal with it that way, people took a different, perhaps suspicious, view. Therefore, as we did not have unanimity, it is appropriate for them to come before both Houses.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister back to the House. The amendments are technical and I have difficulty understanding the third one. It would be better to have more time to discuss them in detail and to be in a position to ask in-depth questions.

On the first amendment, I agree with any measures that can be taken to tighten regulations on the drinks industry. While I agree that people who wish to change their premises from a shop to an off-licence should require planning permission, I have some general comments to make on the issue of the drink culture. I cannot say that this amendment will make the matter worse.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It should make it better.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. The other night I attended a residents' meeting. One of their main complaints concerned anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of a garage that sold wine. The garage sells three bottles of wine for €20 thereby making it accessible to young people. Anybody can sell wine. Therefore, I wonder whether the Minister should have extended the regulations to cover wine licences. We still have a situation where wine can be sold anywhere. However, I commend and support the requirement on people to seek planning permission for the sale of beer and spirits.

The Minister said that he wanted to give a voice to councillors and local communities and the planning process certainly does that. However, I see from my area that no matter how many objections there are to an off-licence, a chipper or a take-away, more and more of them seem to get planning permission quite easily. I hope this regulation will not lead to more. The main question I would like the Minister to answer is whether we should include wine under the provisions of these regulations.

The only concern I have about peat extraction projects relates to small family operations, which involve the digging of turf on half an acre or an acre of land. I will accept the Minister's statement that these regulations will not affect such activity. It is obvious that many families in this country enjoy going to cut turf on an annual basis. I would not like anything to interfere with that tradition, which has been built up over many years.

While I support the regulations, I agree with the Commission on Liquor Licensing that this country's drinking culture is of serious concern to us all. The problems which exist in this regard need to be addressed. The Government has dropped its proposal to promote café bars. I would not like a plethora of off-licences to mushroom throughout the country. I am concerned by the Government's decision to allow wine to be sold anywhere without any type of permission from any source. I support the regulations before the House, by and large.

Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to share time with Senator Brady, with the permission of the House.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Roche. Like Senator Terry, I thank him for staying in the House for this debate. I agree with the Senator that the proposal in these regulations that one should have to seek planning permission if one wishes to change the use of a commercial property from a shop to an off-licence is to be welcomed. Senators have raised this matter with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the context of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2000. The Minister, Deputy McDowell, is anxious for Members to discuss the matter further. Like his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, he is interested in the views of community representatives and members of local authorities about off-licences.

When I read some briefing material about these regulations yesterday, I formed the opinion that establishments selling wine should be required to seek planning permission. Off-licences often sell many bottles of wine for a knock-down price. The Minister, Deputy Roche, quite rightly pointed out that the development of the off-licence sector is a matter of serious concern. It would not bother me if shops selling wine were to be included under these regulations.

I am concerned about the issue of supervision in off-licences. Adults can take crates of alcoholic drinks from off-licences, but that is not possible in pubs. Under-age drinking is facilitated when drinks taken from off-licences in such circumstances end up in the hands of young people. I question the level of supervision in off-licences. I am also worried about the late opening of off-licences, a matter that is not addressed in the regulations. Senators have spoken to the Minister, Deputy McDowell, about that matter.

As someone who comes from a village called Lehenagh, which translates as "half a bog", I am an expert on the development of bogs and the cutting of turf. I assure the House that I live in the half of Lehenagh that is not a bog, thankfully. If one lived in a bog nowadays, one would be on very unsure ground. When I was involved with the bishops' conference on the development of the west 20 years ago, I was asked by an astute farmer if I agreed that the day would come when one would have to get planning permission to cut turf. That was an emotive topic for Deputy Gilmore, who comes from the same parish as me, during the debate on the regulations in the Dáil yesterday.

If one cuts 24.71 acres of bog each year, one will have a great deal of turf. I do not know what one will do with it all. I accept the Minister's promise that family turf-cutting is safe. The farmer to whom I spoke 20 years ago was probably right to suggest that planning permission will be needed for a certain level of turf-cutting. I presume that we are talking about industrial levels of peat extraction, to be used to produce energy in power stations, for example. I am sure that, like me, the Acting Chairman is acquainted with farmers who are involved in family turf-cutting operations, although there is not much bog in Wexford. Such operations usually involve smaller portions of bog.

I thank the Minister, Deputy Roche, for helping farmers who had to stop cutting turf because their lands had been declared as special areas of conservation. I have been pursuing the issue of the heritage area buy-out scheme for some time. As I said to the Minister previously, people who stopped cutting turf in 2004 received up to €3,500 an acre and €3,000 for subsequent acres. It was very unfair that such people were given a much better deal than people who stopped cutting turf in 1999. The latter group of people, who co-operated quickly with the Department, received a lesser deal at first. The Minister eliminated that inequality by applying the consumer price index level to those who stopped cutting when their lands were declared as SACs or heritage areas.

I first heard about the Aarhus directive some years ago when controversy arose in County Galway about incinerators and private and public landfill sites. Everybody was quoting the directive, which relates to environmental impact assessments, at that time. The controversy has come to an end, thankfully, because we know where the private and public landfill sites will be located. Incineration continues to be an issue, however. We learned something about the Aarhus directive when people quoted it quite freely at meetings. We will probably hear more about the directive in the context of the campaign to develop an airstrip at Clifden in the heart of west Galway. I hope the directive will not prevent the acceptance of the proposal to build an extended runway. The development of an airstrip would assist the development of the Clifden area, especially as the railway service in the area was closed some years ago. The roads in west Galway are getting better, but a small airstrip in the area would be of great benefit to the local people.

I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I hope he will give the House some more information about the issues I have raised.

Cyprian Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator Kitt for agreeing to share time with me. I would like to make a couple of points about off-licences. There has been an explosion in the proliferation of off-licences in the centre of Dublin city and its suburbs in recent years. Furniture shops and small tea shops have been turned into off-licences overnight. I know of a substantial property in the Phibsboro area that was being used to sell property in Spain, but was converted into a full off-licence overnight.

Shopping centre developments seem to have large off-licence outlets attached to them as a matter of course. I do not think that the regulation of such outlets, which are very open, is as strict as the regulation of ordinary off-licences, such as an off-licence that is attached to a pub. There are issues in that regard. I have spoken to the Minister about the sale of alcohol from retail outlets at garage forecourts. We are spending serious money on trying to convince people not to drink and drive, but we are not doing much to discourage the sale of alcohol from off-licences located at garage forecourts. I do not suggest that we are encouraging people to drink and drive.

I welcome the timely changes being made in the regulations. The Minister has spoken about the consequences and effects of the abuse and misuse of alcohol, particularly among young people. Adults are to blame in many cases because they purchase alcohol for young people in off-licences. It is a matter of regulation. The key aspect is to continue to control the proliferation of off-licences. I bow to Senator Kitt's knowledge and expertise in the area of turf. As a city boy, I always thought it automatically came in briquette form. I thank the Minister for his views, particularly on off-licences.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Members for their contributions. On the issue of alcohol sales, I have introduced these controls to deal with the change in the use of a shop where a substantial part of the trade is in the off-licence sector. It will have the impact Senator Terry and Senator Brady desire. No one wants to be a killjoy or interfere with consumer choice, but there must be control in this area. My long held view is that this was a blatant anomaly, therefore, I indicated early on that I would introduce this regulation. I am pleased I have the support of Members of this House.

On the issue of wine sales, this is currently dealt with under the wine licences regulations. These, in turn, are dealt with by the Revenue Commissioners. Under the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, all licences will be brought together and dealt with by the courts. This is one of the positive and progressive aspects with which the Minister, Deputy McDowell, will be dealing in the legislation. I agree with Senator Terry that alcohol is alcohol. While there is an irresponsible attitude to its massive over-consumption, unfortunately, we will have to proceed by way of regulation. I cannot deal with this issue because it is an ancillary to the main business of petrol stations. Regardless of my personal views, I cannot go into that area.

Senator Kitt referred to young people getting their hands on crates of alcohol. This will continue to happen. It happened last summer and the summer before that. There have been difficulties throughout the country in this regard. I examined how this aspect is controlled in other countries. For example, if one is buying large supplies of alcohol, such as a crate or two crates of beer, from an off-licence or any other establishment in the United States, it is bar coded. There is a bar code on the bottom of every crate and every can, and one must produce identification. The bar code is read, the purchaser's name and details are recorded, and if it ends up in the hands of a minor, one will find oneself in difficulties. Senator Brady made the point, and rightly so, that there is need for responsibility among more adult members of the population who currently supply young people with alcohol. Even though I would like to have control over these matters, they fall outside the remit of my office. There is a consciousness in Government of the points made.

I also bow to Senator Kitt's superior knowledge of cutting turf. While I was aware that turf did not always come in briquette form — I am a few years older than Senator Brady and I married a woman from Mayo where turf-cutting is very important — the Senator made the point that it would be a very unusual small holder who would cut 24.7 acres of turf. I am trying to strike a balance here. Remember where we are in terms of our difficulties with Europe. While we have enacted a lot of European legislation, we have not transposed it satisfactorily into Irish law. An issue has arisen here, therefore, we will find ourselves before the court and paying substantial daily fines if we cannot assure the Commission, which is the body that polices the operations of the laws we have all enacted in Europe. That is why this change is being introduced.

I was amused yesterday to hear Deputy Gilmore's contribution because I was not aware of turf-cutting to any extent in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. Of course, he was harking back to the home place. Now that I have clarified the position, no doubt he will be truthful in any debate when dealing with the issue. However, that is for another day. I assure the Senator that it is not the intention to have a negative impact on small individuals. A threshold of ten hectares, or 24.7 acres, is a substantial amount of turf-cutting.

The regulations make common sense. The third one arises from technical changes in the other House. There is a lesson for us all in this. If we are to deal with technical issues such as this, it would be better if we dealt with them by sitting down in the most civilised manner possible in a committee — not that this House has been anything other than civilised. I commend the regulations to the House. The changes, particularly the change on off-licences, will be widely welcomed by communities experiencing the type of problems the Senators outlined.