Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006

Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Second Stage - 7th March 2006
Mr. Norris: I welcome the Minister to the House. I saw Senator Bradford’s contribution on the monitor and heard him refer to the need for a balanced approach. He had a slightly mixed view and had some reservations. I fully support the Minister’s intention to speed up the planning process because I recognise there have been unacceptable delays, especially regarding major infrastructural projects. There are various ways in which this can be addressed, not all of which are considered in this Bill.
I have some reservations about the Bill but also very much welcome certain of its provisions. My reservations concern the very difficult matter of public participation, which is extremely important. I am not sure the Bill really respects our obligations under the Aarhus Convention. The Minister is looking rather surprised and perhaps he will demonstrate in his closing remarks how fully the Bill is in accord with the convention. I am anxious that our obligations under the convention to allow for maximum public participation in matters concerning environmental decision-making be completely respected.
I know the Minister is not a friend of An Taisce because he has launched numerous attacks on the organisation, some of which were quite unfair. We have had a few battles about this.
Mr. Roche: The Senator misjudges me.
Mr. Norris: I would hate to do that because I know the Minister is so sensitive about these issues. I noted that An Taisce has spoken about the possibility of the Bill diluting public participation in the planning process. This would be regrettable. Deputy Gilmore indicated that most delays stem from objections by the public, often involving the statutory bodies. This misses the focus slightly because there are so many other causes of delay, including dithering by the Government and the Railway Procurement Agency as a result of their continually chopping and changing. It is very sinister to see the same old forces, names and faces from inside the transport establishment coming out at the last minute with their reservations concerning the metro. I hope this thinking will be strenuously resisted. The same idiotic, half-baked, stupid, exploded arguments are now emerging again and I hope they will be given very short shrift. These arguments do not stem from An Taisce but from those within the transport establishment, as I call it.
There is also the question of delays caused by the High Court process. The initial local authority process is to cease and greater difficulty will be experienced by private individuals. This is a problem. There is also a difficulty in terms of the perception of the Bill. It is noticeable and has been noticed by the public that there is one significant exemption from the process, that is, the incinerator at Poolbeg. The Minister indicated this has nothing to do with lobbying but it looks that way to the average member of the public. The fact that an important infrastructural development in a sensitive constituency should be exempted has a negative appearance and leads to suspicions. I regret that this development has arisen because it looks like it involves picking and choosing and favouring powerful political interests.
The Minister stated engagingly that the new legislation will use the experience and competence of An Bord Pleanála. The public has had much experience of An Bord Pleanála but by no means all of it has been good. The board has not always shown itself to be competent. In this regard, let me return to the case of Standish Sawmills. An Bord Pleanála is granting a retention to this known abuser although it was fined a couple of thousand euro for poisoning fish with pollutants, as I was informed at the end of last week. I keep receiving correspondence from all over County Offaly on this matter. The sawmill’s management is being rewarded by An Bord Pleanála. If the Minister is serious about such matters, why does he not appoint an inspector? The provision exists for this to be done. I have reservations about An Bord Pleanála precisely because of its track record.
The Minister stated he is interested in sustainable economic development of the country. I agree that we need this, in addition to ways to transport millions of people to school and work without their having to spend hours in their cars. I applaud the Minister’s objective.
Has the Minister considered the experience of the Spanish regarding the metro? Legislation is required in this area. The Joint Committee on Transport was addressed by Professor Melis Maynar from Madrid, who indicated that, in Spain, there is no assumption of ownership if one digs below a certain depth. This could be considered.
Mr. Roche: It is in the Bill.
Mr. Norris: I am pleased to hear that and apologise for not having seen it. What blindness on my part. The Minister will have to excuse me because I have a cold. I congratulate him and warmly welcome the very important change in the Bill. Not making such provision ends in absurdity. I heartily approve of it because it will speed up projects such as the metro.
The Minister also intends to include gas pipelines. I hope the experience regarding the Corrib gas pipeline will be taken into account. It is in such areas that maximum public participation is important.
My colleague Senator MacSharry referred to a lack of clarity regarding whether people are interested in environmental conservation or anti-globalisation. I do not see any problem with being interested in both. There are many sinister aspects to globalisation and we are right to question it, specifically where it has an environmental impact and when one is dealing with very unsavoury groups such as Shell. These are dangerous, ruthless people and we should be very careful about the way in which we engage with them.
I am glad the provisions do not cover developments such as office blocks and these kinds of speculative areas — it is good they are exempted. However, I do not join in the paean of praise for the local councillors. I have always treated my electorate with a certain degree of detachment and have said whatever the hell I felt like saying. If my electors were councillors, I would say the same thing. Let us bear in mind the history of the past few years, in which we have witnessed the most appalling behaviour and corruption on the part of councillors in Dublin. They were selling out their country and selling planning permission. It has been a stinking shame and we should be careful about accepting their advice on planning matters, in which they have shown themselves to be corrupt. Like the Minister, I travel around the country and while doing so people often tell me abuses of the system have not only occurred in Dublin. I am told the sums involved may not be as big as in Dublin but that corruption has occurred. We should therefore by very chary.
I do not agree with Senator MacSharry regarding his worry about county managers collecting councillors’ views and delivering them to the board. I would not like to have private access for councillors who have, generally speaking, shown themselves to be unworthy. Let them prove their track record again.
Mr. Roche: Can I be helpful to the Senator?
Mr. Norris: Yes.
Mr. Roche: Their reports will be debated in open council meetings, of course, so it will not be private.
Mr. Norris: That is good. I am very glad of that, but I am still suspicious. The public will not welcome the fact that councillors are being given these increased powers.
Mr. Coghlan: I think we should admire——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris, without interruption.
Mr. Norris: I did not hear the interruption. Perhaps the Senator could put it in writing.
Mr. Coghlan: I was only being helpful.
Mr. Norris: One of my principal objections to the Bill relates to the role of councillors. I do not like the idea. I can say something positive about section 9, which will allow planning authorities to refuse planning permission to rogue developers on the basis of their past history of non-compliance. I congratulate the Minister on his inclusion of this terribly important provision.
Mr. Coghlan: Hear, hear.
Mr. Norris: I have referred previously to the case of a fellow who posed as an architect to savage a couple of houses at the top of Gardiner Street so that some unfortunate immigrants and refugees could be squeezed into ghastly and unsafe dormitories. Our lovely planning authorities were taking the man in question to court, while simultaneously giving him planning permission to undertake some more developments in the same area. I take it that the provisions of section 9 will affect cases like the Standish Sawmills case.
I accept that the Minister’s intentions are good. I am pleased that difficulties such as those which were encountered with infrastructural projects like the metro will be addressed. I have grave reservations about the involvement of councillors in these matters. I do not give the Bill an unqualified welcome, although certain aspects of it are good. I hope this legislation will have the effect the Minister desires, but I have some reservations in that regard. We need to maximise public participation in planning matters. The Minister regards councillors as lily-white and pure and sees them as the best way of marking his cards in respect of planning, but I do not think that will work — not in my book, anyway.