Statements on Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines - 12th May 2005

Statements on Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines - 12th May 2005
Mr. Norris: I am sorry that the debate must be
brief, but I understand the Minister is under
pressure. Some aspects of these guidelines are
welcome, for example, the drawing of a distinction
between urban and rural housing. The
development needs of rural areas are based on
the desire to sustain rural communities, which I
understand completely. I also understand the
desire to have one’s family close by and to
develop on one’s own land.
I note that the guidelines set down certain
restrictions such as the following: vehicle access
should not endanger the public; waste water disposal systems
must be adequate; siting and design must be taken into account;
an integrated approach must be taken to the visual surroundings;
and so on. However, in the context of the
savage attacks on organisations like An Taisce,
these guidelines sound like pious aspiration. I do
not believe they will work or that they are
intended to work. They are intended as a populist
measure and will do damage to the country. This
can be demonstrated by examining the facts.
One in four of the 290,000 housing units built
since 1991 was an individual one-off house in a
rural area, namely a detached building with an
individual septic tank. The counties with the highest
percentages of such housing units are Galway,
63.1%, which is a very high figure; Monaghan,
54.1%; Roscommon, 52.5%; Cavan, 52.4%; and
Leitrim, 52.3%. Such housing developments
increase car use and car ownership. We already
have car ownership levels that are far higher than
in other countries.
The Irish Planning Institute has commented on
current rural housing development and listed 16
concerns, of which I will mention but a few. The
institute pointed to the potentially negative
impact on important landscapes and rural amenities,
although that is not likely to bother the
Department that has given us the Tara motorway.
Other concerns included the potential loss of distinctive
rural conditions, cultural traditions and
heritage in the built form and the detrimental
impact of the proliferation of septic tanks. This
latter point is a particularly important one to
which I will return later. The institute went on to
point out that one-off housing development leads
to an almost exclusive reliance on the car for all
journeys, ribbon development and dereliction in
rural towns and villages.
It is clear that the rural housing guidelines have
been produced without any assessment or consideration
of the capacity of the Irish countryside
to absorb this kind of housing development. One
third of all applications for housing are for oneoff
houses in rural areas. This has increased from
17,572 in 2003 to 23,744 in 2004. We do not know
what the figure will be for 2005, but we can presume
it will be higher than last year.
There has been no examination or audit to
determine what percentage of one-off houses
constructed over the past decade have efficient
waste water disposal systems, supplied and maintained
in accordance with EU directive standards.
Concern has been expressed that water treatment
systems are installed in one-off houses and are
not maintained. In some cases, the system
installed by the builder is not a specified proprietary
treatment system but an ordinary septic
tank. The company that manufactures the proprietary
treatment system becomes aware of a
problem only when the customer complains
about a fault. It sends an operative to carry out
repairs and discovers that the wrong facility has
been installed. We do not have an audit and we
do not know what is going on in terms of waste
water treatment. What we do know, however, is
that we have extraordinarily polluted water
tables.
The argument has been advanced that people
should be allowed to build one-off houses in rural
areas to sustain family links. While I can understand
this argument from a human perspective,
let us examine the facts. How many of these
houses are actually built for family members? I
draw the attention of the House to an article in
The Irish Times of Wednesday, 15 December
2004.
The individual quoted in the article is not
someone who can be dismissed as a crank, a dogooder
or a partisan member of An Taisce. Mr.
Jim Harley is a senior planning official with
Donegal County Council. He outlined 16
examples to councillors where planning permission
was sought by local people who said the
planned property was for their own use.
However, the properties in question had never
been owner-occupied and were put up for sale
before building was completed. This is one
instance of behaviour that is endemic throughout
rural Ireland.
Members of this House have referred to this
issue. They asked why farmers were not entitled
to sell their sites, build houses and so on, in order
to pay for their children to go to college. Let us
be honest about it and not pretend that these
houses are for families. They are built so that
people can make money.
In another case, a letter was received from a
local priest confirming that a planning application
for three new homes was for three brothers, but
all three houses are now for sale. The council
dealt with these matters as bona fide applications
and what else could it do? There was another
case where an application was supported by a letter
from a solicitor. One of the conditions of the
planning permission was that the house would be
for the owner’s use, but it was put on the market
immediately. Mr. Harley said that such scenarios
are making a mockery of the entire planning process.
Councillor Francis Collins gave an example
of somebody in Derry who made a successful
planning application by using his driving licence
as evidence of residence. The driving licence was
from Donegal.
The article in The Irish Times was published
before the guidelines from the Department of the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government
were released. Those guidelines are intended to
ease restrictions in the planning process even
further.
We must make progress but we should not fool
ourselves. We must ensure we know about waste
water disposal and have a complete audit. We
need to ascertain the capacity of the countryside
to absorb one-off housing developments. In those
circumstances where families want to build in
order to stay together, that is fine. However,
people should not be allowed to engage in profiteering.
We must keep a close eye on the situation
because it is not right to destroy the tourist
potential of the country in order to allow a few
fat farmers to make money.

Statements on the Constitution of Europe - 18th May 2005

Statements on the Constitution for Europe
18th May 2005
Mr. Norris: I thank the Cathaoirleach for reminding me that I am speaking about the European constitution. This afternoon represents an exercise very largely in historical blather. We have all this stuff about the war and so on. Does anybody suggest that if the treaty fails, which I believe is very likely, we would all be back to war again? I do not think so.
Ms O'Rourke: The chief blatherer.
Mr. Norris: It seems as if that is going down a very dangerous and speculative road. We have also heard, probably correctly, that Europe will not interfere through its courts and through policy direction in what are regarded coyly in this country as moral matters and that Europe will not give central direction on issues like abortion, divorce, etc. While that is true, I point out that in the early days in a very undemocratic way a small unrepresentative group in this country got a protocol about abortion in an EU treaty without reference to either House of the Oireachtas or the people. That was not a particularly democratic move. I believe there is a democratic deficit, which I believe will continue under this new treaty. It has been acknowledged that a certain level of decision making is being removed from the people and transferred to the Oireachtas under these provisions.
An esteemed former colleague, Mr. Crowley, MEP, is present. I was rather taken aback when I noticed that he and his party colleagues supported Mr. Buttiglioni. This refers to the European Union and I will say it.
An Cathaoirleach: I would not agree. The Senator should speak on the European constitution.
Mr. Norris: That is what I am doing. I am talking about the democratic deficit and I will continue to do so. Mr. Buttiglioni campaigned and voted on equality issues. I suggest to Mr. Crowley, MEP, that if he had campaigned and voted on the rights of people in wheelchairs in the same way he would have been very quick to get him off any committee that dealt with that area. However, I believe it is quite possible we will be let off the hook. Despite the superb work done in negotiating the treaty, for which I pay full tribute to the Taoiseach and the diplomatic staff involved, it looks very likely that France may vote down the treaty. According to the polls, the Netherlands, Poland, Denmark and Britain may do the same, in which case we would not face into a referendum here.
I understand people have suggested that this treaty is only an exercise in consolidation. While that is very largely true - perhaps 95% true - I wish we had heard more from the Minister, Deputy Roche, and others about the 5% that is new. I have always been concerned about the incremental nature of these treaties and our involvement in processes that will disturb our neutrality, which I still cherish, such as our involvement with the Western European Union armament group.
Other matters also concern me regarding negotiations from the Vatican. I have material from Catholics for a Free Choice. This does not represent a sectarian position. These are Catholics of conscience warning about the negotiations-----
Mr. Lydon: They are not Catholics. They are not members of the church.
An Cathaoirleach: I ask Senator Lydon to allow Senator Norris to speak.
Mr. Norris: ----- under which special provisions are being made for the church, including the kinds of shameful provisions that were made in this country to exempt religious institutions from the operation of the equality legislation. What kind of Christianity is it if we have the major Christian churches exempting themselves from equality-----
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should confine himself to debate on the European constitution.
Mr. Norris: That is exactly what I am doing.
An Cathaoirleach: I would not think so.
Mr. Norris: I am astonished that the Cathaoirleach could find that I am not. I am talking about the impact of lobbying on the constitution. I could not be more centrally directed or more focused. For the information of the Cathaoirleach, I am talking about paragraph 1 of section 52 of the treaty. Does that satisfy his requirements?
An Cathaoirleach: Probably.
Mr. Norris: The church has acquired consultative status, which provides for the Catholic Church to be consulted in the pre-drafting stage of legislation when it is believed it would have an interest. People are right to feel concerned about the issue. I very much hope that this aspect at least will not be confirmed in the treaty.
I am divided on the treaty. I was against earlier treaties because of their military aspect. However, the neo-conservative lobby is against this treaty because it fears a balance that a stronger Europe would give. The evil empire, which has sprung up under President Bush, violates every possible aspect of human rights and undermines democracy anywhere it springs up in its own backyard. While the Americans are quite happy to foster it in Russia's backyard, they do not like it anywhere near themselves. This worries me and it represents the best possible reason for having a strong European entity.