Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call for silence please.

Government amendment No. 23:

In page 13, paragraph (c), to delete lines 18 to 32 and substitute the following:

"(c) by the insertion of the following paragraph after subsection (5)(a):

"(aa) Following consideration of the proposed variation and the report of the manager under paragraph (a) where a planning authority, after considering a submission of, or observation or recommendation from the Minister made to the authority under this section or from a regional authority made to the authority under section 27C, decides not to comply with any recommendation made in the proposed variation and report, it shall so inform the Minister or regional authority, as the case may be, as soon as practicable by notice in writing which notice shall contain reasons for the decision.",".

Michael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 23 simply provides for a technical Committee Stage amendment to correct the reference to "draft plan" to refer properly to "proposed variation".

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 28:

In page 15, line 10, to delete "last made a local area plan" and substitute "last made that local area plan".

Michael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 10 provides that the mandatory population threshold for preparing local area plans will be raised from 2,000 to 5,000 persons. The preparation of a local area plan is resource intensive and involves consultation with both elected members and the public. The discretionary threshold for the preparation of a local area plan will be when the population is between 2,000 and 5,000 and where the relevant area is to be subject to a large-scale development within the lifetime of the plan. To ensure that local area plans are comprehensively linked with the city and county development plans, which are reviewed every six years, the lifespan of a local area plan will be increased to ten years. However, when a local area plan no longer is consistent with the city and county development plan because the latter has been reviewed and varied, there is a requirement to vary the local area plan within one year.

Provision also has been made for the phasing of development within a local area plan as provided for within the development plan, particularly given that zoning objectives are provided in a local area plan on foot of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002. Amendment No. 28 proposes to provide clarification in the reference to a local area plan by substituting "that local area plan" to avoid the risk that it could be interpreted as any local area plan. Amendment No. 29 proposes to insert the word "and", which will provide a link to the next proposed Committee Stage amendment to be debated. It also inserts a new subsection (5), which proposes "there shall be no presumption in law that any land zoned in a particular local area plan shall remain so zoned in any subsequent local area plan". This arises from section 8 of the 2002 Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, which provided for zoning in a local area plan by the incorporation of zoning provisions in section 19(2)(a) of the principal Act, which heretofore was only possible in a development plan. Consequently, this led to a greater level of zoning in local area plans by local authorities. It now is considered appropriate that the development plan provisions for down-zoning or unzoning land, namely, section 10 of the Act, must equally be applied to local area plans, that is, the provisions must be replicated within the local area plan provisions of the Act.

Alex White (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a couple of questions for the Minister of State in this regard. I seek clarity in respect of amendment No. 28. While I understood what the Minister of State said, I am not sure it makes complete sense. It is proposed that the planning authorities will send a notice under the relevant section of a proposal to make, amend or revoke a local area plan and will publish that notice under the relevant section within a period not exceeding ten years from the date on which the authority "last made that local area plan", as distinct from the original provision to so do ten years from the date on which the authority "last made a local area plan". While I may be missing something, what if it is the first such local area plan? If it is the first such local area plan, the time limit of ten years from the date on which the authority last made that local area plan will not apply, because there never has been a previous local area plan. Although I acknowledge I may be missing something, I wish to understand this point.

The second issue pertains to amendment No. 29, with which I have no difficulty on the face of it. I presume the Minister of State has received advice to the effect that this proposed provision in the Act will be sound from a legal perspective. Perhaps the Minister of State will remind Members of the endurance of zoning in general and how long such decisions endure. Is a distinction now to be drawn between the duration of zonings within local area plans and more general zonings? I recognise the sense of what is being proposed. If there has been a proliferation of local area plans, one should have some view as to how long zonings made within a local area plan will endure. However, I wonder whether this opens a new area whereby some zonings last longer than others. I am curious in this regard.

Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This section provides that the mandatory population threshold for preparing local area plans will be raised from 2,000 to 5,000 persons, after which it will be discretionary. Fine Gael also has an issue with this provision because the language employed in this section is similar to that being used by planners and managers in local authorities to justify, as previously discussed, the new trend of moving away from statutory local area plans in favour of non-statutory master plans such as urban framework plans. This move away from statutory plans gives planners and managers more control and lessens the involvement of the public and the local elected representatives.

Although I am unsure whether I can speak on this subject later, I refer to the proposal to increase the lifespan of local area plans from six years to ten years. This should be reviewed because the lifespan of local area plans should run concurrently with development plans. A ten-year time frame for a local area plan may seem excessive and would not allow for a quick response to changes in population or development contexts. It may be inappropriate for a local area plan to be in force for longer than a development plan. It projects how a local area plan should develop over a much longer period than a development plan and may not be responsive enough to trends within that area. We are concerned about that issue.

Michael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In response to Senator Alex White on amendment No. 28 , this is included on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel who says it is important to identify that plan so that it cannot be interpreted as any local area plan and that we must insert that into the legislation.

In response to Senator Coffey, this raises the mandatory area for which there must be a plan but it in no way excludes the local authority from having an area plan for a smaller population. Under section 18 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 a planning authority may at any time and for any area within its fundamental area prepare a local area plan in respect of that area and there is no change in that provision. It was at 2,000 but we think it is important to raise the level for the mandatory regulation to 5,000.

Alex White (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not intend any disrespect to the Minister of State or anyone else but the answer that something is there because one has been advised to put it in is not an answer. I presume it is there on advice. I do not doubt that the Parliamentary Counsel advised it. My question is why is it there? We should get a clearer response, with all due respect.

The basic proposition is that it is a requirement that a notice be sent in certain circumstances. If there has been no previous local area plan and if we accept the Minister of State's amendment, there is no requirement to send a notice because it will not apply. I may be missing something here. Perhaps this is very simple. It refers to a notice being issued within a period not exceeding ten years from the date on which the authority last made that plan. Perhaps I am stupid but I want to clarify whether the notice requirements will apply at all if there has never been a local area plan.

The Minister of State did not address the issue I raised under amendment No. 29.

Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledge the Minister of State's remarks that this measure and this section do not exclude the development of local area plans but they remove the statutory requirement on local authorities to develop local area plans for towns with a population of 2,000 and more. In essence it is left to the discretion of senior planners and managers within a local authority area whether a local authority plan is developed because there is no longer a statutory requirement.

The Minister of State might say that a councillor or councillors for a particular area might insist that a local area plan be done, but unless they have the full support of the majority of the council, that may not happen. There is an element of discretion here that did not exist heretofore. The potential effect of this is that the development of towns of the size or order of 2,000 or more may be left behind in the hierarchy of development within a county or local authority jurisdiction. It may depend on how the officials or executive of that council view that town or village or what priority they give that place in the hierarchy of development needs within that county.

That is not good enough. It moves away from the fundamental principle of making local area and development plans which is the accountability of the locally elected member with the assistance of the executive. This section and the entire Bill give primacy to the planner and while it gives the elected members and the public opportunities only to make submissions and observations, there is no statutory requirement to make the plan. That is a move away from strengthening local democracy and how towns, villages and communities develop. It is an attempt to manage from the top down.

Michael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have visited most local authority areas and know from my contact with local authority members that area plans are being developed for villages with populations from 300 to 1,000. That will not change. We are raising the bar to 5,000 as the mandatory population base for which a plan must be made. I have not heard of any conflict between local authority members and their executive as regards area plans. This has been a working practice in recent years. I have said that local area plans, even for a small village, are helpful, even if there will be no development, as guidelines to communities for tidy towns and so on who see it as a blueprint for their work. I do not see that changing.

In response to Senator Alex White, we are changing one word, from "a local area plan" to "that local area plan". The subsection states:

Notwithstanding section 18(5), a planning authority shall send a notice under section 20(3)(i) of a proposal to make, amend or revoke a local area plan and publish a notice of the proposal under section 20(3)(ii) within a period not exceeding 10 years from the date on which the authority 10 last made a local area plan.

If there is no plan one will not send out a notice. That is my interpretation of this amendment. The Parliamentary Counsel has advised me that it is appropriate to make that minor change so that it is not possible to interpret the section as referring to any plan.

Alex White (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not wish to prolong this because we are not on the same wavelength on this issue. If we accept the Minister of State's amendment, the Bill will require a notice requirement only where there was a previous plan. If there was no previous plan then subsection (c) does not apply. That is the effect of the amendment. I am trying to find out what are the notice requirements in circumstances where there is no previous plan. Maybe they are the ones that are set out in section 20 of the principal Act. I do not wish to prolong this discussion but I did not receive a clear answer or at least not one that I understand clearly. Maybe I am the problem. It is no answer to say that it is only one word. There are many words that on their own can make a significant difference to a Bill.

I am still wondering what the Minister of State has to say about amendment No. 29 in respect of zonings. I am open to correction but my understanding is that a mainstream zoning decision under a development plan will endure indefinitely. They are in place year to year, development plan to development plan.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.