SUBGROUP ON THE REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (RPA) AND RURAL PLANNING
Friday 8 December 2006
Members present:
The Chairman, Mr Francie Molloy
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Alex Maskey
Mr Philip McGuigan
Mr Edwin Poots
Mr Peter Weir
Mr Jim Wilson
Witnesses:
| Ms Laura Hague | Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister |
| Mr Jim McKeown | Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister |
| Mr Damian Prince | Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister |
| Mr Ian Maye | Department of the Environment |
| Mr Mike Thompson | Department for Regional Development |
| Mr Tom Matthews | Department for Regional Development |
The subgroup met at 2.00 pm.
(The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.)
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): You are all very welcome to the first meeting of the subgroup. Let us allow the members of the team to introduce themselves and open the presentation. We will ask questions afterwards.
Mr Damian Prince (Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister): Thank you, Chairman. My name is Damian Prince, and I am head of the Review of Public Administration (RPA) Central Unit of OFMDFM. On my left is Laura Hague, and to my right Jim McKeown, who are also with the unit. At the far end is Ian Maye, who deals with RPA in the Department of the Environment.
We have modelled our initial presentation to the subgroup around its own terms of reference. I will cover the first three items and then hand over to Jim for the fourth and to Ian for the fifth.
Members will know that in the current circumstance we can give some factual briefing of where we are with the RPA, but must steer clear of items that are subject to confidential briefing to Ministers. However, we hope that everything that we say will be helpful.
We do not propose to use this time to rehearse all the reforms that will arise from the RPA, but rather to tell the subgroup how we are implementing it and to provide an update on the progress on the various strands. We will also leave an information pack containing useful links, which members can peruse at their leisure.
If members are happy for me to do so, I will deal with terms of reference 1 and 2 together. Taken together, they start to embrace the full scope of the RPA. A programme structure has been put in place to help with the implementation. To make the programme manageable, we have divided the RPA programme into four sectors: the first is health and social services; the second, education and libraries; the third, local government; and the fourth, other public bodies. Each of the relevant lead Departments has its own implementation team. The range of changes that we have embarked upon is so complex that we may not be able to answer some of your questions today. In that case, we will have to refer them to colleagues in other Departments, but we will try to bring the information to you as soon as we can.
We think of the four sectors as the four vertical strands of the RPA. They represent the outcomes: the changes that the man and woman on the street will see. For example, the five education and library boards will become one education authority and one library authority.
However, it is also important to draw members’ attention to the 12 cross-cutting themes. They are very important because if we accept that the four vertical streams — health, education, local government and other public bodies — mean that we are doing the right thing, the 12 cross-cutting streams ensure that we are doing our job correctly and that equality, cost benefit and common boundaries are taken into account.
The scope of the 12 cross-cutting themes can be found on our website, which sets out exactly what each theme will endeavour to do. Four of the 12 themes relate to local government, and the fifth relates to legislation, which Ian and Jim will pick up on later. The remaining seven themes are all very important, but I want to draw your attention to two in particular: common boundaries and capacity building. I mention those themes because we recently published new research on each area, and that is available on our website.
As regards the governance arrangements, members will already know that David Hanson has ministerial responsibility for the RPA. A steering group has also been set up, which is headed by Nigel Hamilton. It meets monthly and reports to the Minister.
I also wanted to bring to the subgroup’s attention the important work of the Public Service Commission (PSC). The RPA will bring big changes for service users, but it will also have a big impact on service providers. Staff in organisations affected by the RPA will see a great deal of change in their work.
The PSC has produced six guiding principles, which are designed to steer the human resources strand of the RPA. There have been principles on communication, managing vacancies, staff transfers, filling posts in new organisations, voluntary severance schemes, and employer responsibilities. To date, the Government have accepted and endorsed four of those guiding principles; the remaining two are still under discussion.
Staff interests are also represented by the Northern Ireland Committee, Irish Congress of Trade Unions (NICICTU) and the various medical unions, with which we meet monthly to resolve any issues and to keep the lines of communication open.
I will give an overview of progress to date on each of the main themes in the situation report. However, I will leave local government and legislation to Jim and Ian. Members probably already know that David Sissling has been appointed chief executive of the new health authority. The chief executives and the finance directors have been appointed for the new health and social services (HSS) trusts. The five new HSS trusts are scheduled to go live on 1 April 2007, as are the seven local commissioning groups.
It is hoped that the chief executive of the education and skills authority will be in post by January and that the chief executive of the libraries authority will be in post shortly afterwards. It is also hoped that the education advisory forum will be established, on an informal basis, in the spring of 2007.
The fourth sector that I mentioned is that of the other public bodies. Changes to that sector are primarily driven by the legislative programme, which is moving ahead as we speak. For example, one of the main developments so far is that the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) has become a division of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and is no longer an agency.
Under section 3 of its terms of reference, the subgroup is to consider the work of the Boundary Commissioner. As the Boundary Commissioner is an independent officer, I cannot comment on the detail of how he is going about his work and so forth. Nevertheless, it should be useful for members to know that OFMDFM has put a great deal of information and research on the RPA website. That research provides information about the current design model that OFMDFM is using to implement the RPA, including the 7C seven-council model that has been the subject of so much recent debate.
Some of the research is quite technical. However, the picture that the body of research paints is, in our view, fairly consistent. In the pack that OFMDFM will leave with members is a reading list detailing all of the available research, from attitudinal surveys to comparative studies with other areas of the UK and Ireland.
I also want to draw the subgroup’s attention to two particular pieces of research: Queen’s University’s research on population and geographical compactness, and the University of Ulster’s research on the evenness of the rating base. To put their findings into ordinary language, both say that the seven-council model provides the best means of avoiding major disparities between rich and poor councils, big and small councils and of deriving councils capable of delivering a new, enhanced portfolio of functions.
At this point, I will hand over to Jim McKeown to give members an update on the relevant legislation.
Mr Jim McKeown (Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister): Good afternoon, everyone. Since September 2005, part of my role has been to work alongside the RPA Central Unit, initially to design implementation arrangements at the centre, in OFMDFM, and subsequently to provide an overview of the progress on legislation and relationships with the Public Service Commission.
As Damian mentioned, the implementation process, which includes the preparation of relevant legislation, is carried out by lead Departments. In addition to subordinate legislation, seven pieces of primary legislation are required to implement the RPA decisions taken by Ministers. The main items are listed in the information pack that I will leave with members this afternoon. I will talk about the legislation with reference to each of the four strands that Damian mentioned.
In relation to health and social services, legislation enabling a reduction in the number of trusts is already in place in the form of the Health and Personal Social Services Order 1991. Five pieces of subordinate legislation have been made under the 1991 Order creating the five new trusts that will come into operation on 1 April 2007. One piece of primary legislation is required to create the new health and social services authority and the patient client council, with effect from 1 April 2008, and it is currently being drafted.
In the second strand, one piece of primary legislation is required to create the new education and skills authority. The Department of Education has recently put some related issues out to consultation, and drafting of that legislation has, therefore, not commenced. A single piece of primary legislation is also required to establish a new library authority. That legislation is well advanced, and it is expected that drafting will be completed in December.
Thirdly, there are three pieces of primary legislation on local government issues. The first of those, the Local Government (Boundaries) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, has been made. It enabled the appointment of a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner and established the procedures that he must follow in relation to the creation of seven new district areas. The other two provide for the operation and modernisation of councils and for the transfer of new functions to local government.
The fourth strand and final piece of primary legislation deal with those public bodies that do not fall into the three main sectors and provides for their winding-up or dissolution.
The Secretary of State initially asked that Departments aim to have the remaining six pieces of primary legislation laid at Westminster by July 2007. Elections, and the restoration of the Assembly in March 2007, are likely to have an impact on that timetable, since there is normally a period in advance of elections when no new consultation processes are commenced. All matters dealt with in the legislation fall within the Assembly’s competence, and proposals would therefore be introduced as Assembly Bills.
Finally, as part of this summary, it is worth drawing specific attention to the fact that there are likely to be common provisions in primary legislation for the transfer of staff to new organisations. The Public Service Commission has just published a third guiding principle to deal with that matter. The Government have accepted its recommendations and are translating them into legislative provisions in the Draft Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, which will act as the model to be followed.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Thank you very much.
Mr Maye (Department of the Environment): I shall speak only briefly. We will leave a paper with you on the origins and evolution of the local government task force. However, I want to talk to you about the work of the task force since its inception in March 2006. Some members present are on the task force and will know that, since its inception, 10 meetings of its political panel have taken place, and there have been several meetings of the task force working group and the nine subgroups.
The initial task force structure was designed with the modernisation and reform of local government in mind. The implementation of the review of public administration was part of that, but the task force was not initially designed to deal with the transfer of functions. It subsequently took that work on after Easter, when Ministers decided that the Department of the Environment should take the lead in working with local government and with Government departments on the transfer of functions. That is an important point to bear in mind: it was not designed with the transfer of functions in mind at the outset. However, it took that work on board.
The initial focus was on developing policy on the preparation of two pieces of legislation. First, the Local Government (Structures) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 will modernise and reform local government and put new finance and governance arrangements in place. It will deal with several modernisation and reform issues and give effect to ministerial decisions on the RPA.
The second major piece of legislation, which the initial work of the subgroups helped to inform, is the Local Government (Transfer of Functions) Order, which will give effect to the decisions made by Ministers about the functions that will transfer to local government on the creation of the new councils in 2009.
The initial focus of the task force, from political panel level — the top-level leadership group — to the working group, which was essentially an officer group, and the nine thematic subgroups, was to develop the policy that would underpin those pieces of legislation. However, the nine subgroups and the political panel began to map the way forward on how we would manage the process of modernising and reforming local government over the next two and a half to three years and beyond. The political panel, in particular, recognised that modernisation and reform was a long-term process and that it was not just a matter of implementing the decisions of the RPA.
The subgroups reported at the end of June. The political panel and the working group considered those reports in July and broadly endorsed them, although some required further substantial work, particularly the report by the governance subgroup. That work has been in hand since then. We have been using those subgroup reports as the basis for preparing the legislation and for thinking again about the shape and structure of the task force.
In July, the political panel agreed that it was time to review the task force structures and that we had moved beyond the initial policy development phase. There was still further policy development work to do, but we needed to look at the task force again to ensure that there was shared political ownership of the implementation process between central and local government. We also had to make sure that the structures that we had in place were designed to take us through the implementation phase of the modernisation and reform programme.
We jointly commissioned the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) of the English Local Government Association. Throughout September, they met a range of key stakeholders, including the members of the political panel and the working group, in which they brought forward proposals that the political panel and working group considered in the two months that followed. We considered that report, in particular, at the political panel over the course of the last two meetings. In those meetings we agreed on how to take forward the top two elements of the structure that the IDeA proposed.
The top element of the structure will be the driving force for implementation, and will be known as the strategic leadership board. It is designed to clearly demonstrate central Government’s commitment to working in partnership with local government and the five main political parties in modernising and reforming local government. The Minister will chair it, and the president of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) will be the vice-chair. It will have 10 representatives from the five main political parties, and NILGA will act as the voice of local government. It will be supported by a number of chief executives from local government, and by a number of senior officers who will be transferring functions. The Department of the Environment and NILGA will provide a joint secretariat to that board. The aim, having agreed the composition of the board, is to hold the first meeting on 15 January. NILGA and the political parties agreed nominations to the board yesterday.
The second layer in the new task force will comprise five policy-development panels. Those panels will weave together the work and issues identified by the nine subgroups, and the transferring functions. By agreement, the work has been divided among those five policy-development panels. One important item of note, which is a significant change from how the work was carried out at earlier stages, is that each panel will be politically chaired, and there is agreement on how those chairs will be distributed among the five main political parties. There will be strong political representation — each policy-development panel will have 10 members, representing political parties and local government. They will be supported in their work by a range of officers and officials from central Government, and potentially others. A joint DOE and NILGA secretariat will support them.
The policy-development panels will be responsible for devising regional policy that will inform the development of detailed work at a lower level. They will be able to commission, task and finish work. They will be able to call on local government, central government, and other bodies such as the Housing Executive to look at particular issues and bring forward proposals on how they should be dealt with in the next two and a half years and beyond.
Below that level, the IDeA recommended the establishment of seven local implementation pilot schemes, in the seven prospective council areas. There has not yet been agreement on whether those pilots will be put in place, and if so how. There is further discussion to be undertaken, in particular in the strategic leadership board, on how to take that recommendation forward. There is recognition that work must be done at a local level to examine local implementation issues, but because of continuing debate about the number of councils, there is not yet agreement on how the pilots should be formed. That work is still ahead of us, but it must be addressed in due course.
Our aim is to have the first meeting of the strategic leadership board in January, and we want to agree with them how the five policy-development panels should be put together; their terms of reference; their initial tasks; and the officer and official support staff who will work with the 10 elected members on each panel. We wish to establish those panels and have them up and running as quickly as possible — certainly before the end of March.
2.15 pm
Mr Maskey: I would like to clarify one point. There was a discussion at the last panel meeting about their composition of the policy-development panels. You have mentioned the two members from each of the five major parties, but there was also an issue about the need to bring in other stakeholders who are not politicians. I was not sure how you would do that.
Mr Maye: At the first meeting of the strategic leadership board we plan to propose what the composition of those panels should be. We will do that as part of the joint secretariat relationship that we have with NILGA. It must be decided whether officers and officials will be involved in the panels. We must also decide on the involvement of the social partners and other bodies, such as the Local Government Staff Commission, which is likely to have a role in developing work on human resources over the next couple of years.
In some cases, our proposals will mean that wider discussion in the strategic leadership board will be necessary. The Minister and the Department have not yet taken a view on precisely how those panels will be comprised; that issue is still open for discussion at the board.
Mr Maskey: I do not know the official NILGA position, but its representatives argued that no one, other than politicians, should be on the policy panels. That argument was not agreed to. Therefore I am concerned as to whether the delivery will proceed with just NILGA representatives. However, those representatives had a clear view on the matter.
Mr Weir: There was no consensus on the matter. Some of us took the view that the policy development panels should comprise elected representatives and officials; others had a different view. The final decision on whether additional people will join the elected politicians, how many there will be and in what circumstances they will join has been left to the strategic leadership board. There are other issues of whether their joining is accepted in principle, whether the level of involvement means that social partners should be on the panels almost permanently, or whether the membership should rotate when different subjects are being discussed.
There are five boards, and even if it were agreed that a certain number of representatives sit on those boards, that number may not apply necessarily to all the boards. It could be argued that certain subject matters have a greater need. For example, the trades unions would have a strong input on human resource matters.
I would like to clarify one point of Ian’s. No nominations were made to the strategic leadership board yesterday, and none was intended. It is a matter for each of the parties to decide who its two representatives should be. However, the five parties selected which of the five panels they would chair, and it was also suggested — although this may not be adopted — that a vice-chairperson should be chosen and that each party would have one. That point needs to be put on the record.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do you have any further questions to ask on that?
Mr Weir: I am perhaps more familiar with the Government aspects of the issue, but this matter is perhaps more concerned with what happens on the other side. Therefore I wish to comment on three areas. First, although some discontent was expressed, through local government, there is clearly direct political involvement. What consultation or opportunities for discussion with politicians has there been on the health and education aspects of the implementations?
Mr McKeown: I do not have an answer to that. We would need to ask the individual Departments.
Mr Weir: Perhaps you would come back to the subgroup on that.
Secondly, with regard to transparency and ensuring that people are informed, you mentioned that four of the cross-cutting issues involve local government. Presumably meetings are going on in Government in those four areas.
Mention was also made of the higher-level steering group. I appreciate that a lot of its work will involve technical issues, but has any thought been given to making available the information that arises from those meetings in minute form to the strategic leadership board when it is established in January? We cannot have a situation at one level — particularly where those issues that affect local government are concerned — in which decisions will be taken by a strategic leadership board while, behind the scenes, the Civil Service will make completely different decisions.
We need to take decisions on the basis of knowledge. Has anything been done to ensure that the minutes of that steering group, which is chaired by Nigel Hamilton, are published?
Ms Hague (Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister): They are published on the RPA website.
Mr Weir: A lot of claims were made regarding funding, cost implications and efficiency. As regards health and education, what is the current estimate of the overall costs and savings of implementing RPA?
Mr Prince: We are still working on the Deloitte report, which provided the strategic outline case for RPA. At the high level, the report stated that RPA would cost a maximum of £400 million and that there would be the potential for £200 million per year in efficiencies and savings. The report was based on a series of assumptions about the use of shared service centres. However, it did not actually cover the full ambit of RPA as it currently stands, principally regarding the transfer of central Government services to local government. Work is ongoing to consolidate the figures and set a budget for RPA.
Mr Weir: I cannot speak for the health and education sectors, but there was a feeling of scepticism, and that is putting it mildly, on the parts of finance officers and elected politicians in local government towards some of the assumptions made in the Deloitte report and, consequently, on some of the potential savings and costs stated in the report.
It would be useful if a better idea could be given as regards savings. You specifically mentioned the cost of transferring functions, but a main area of concern for the public purse is that there are heavy cost implications in transferring Civil Service staff into local government pension schemes, say under the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee Pension Scheme (NILGOS) system. Has that cost been estimated? You may not be in a position to give me a figure today.
Mr Maye: We do not have a better estimate than that which appeared in the Deloitte report.
Mr Weir: What was that estimate? Obviously we do not have the Deloitte report in front of us. Was there a particular figure put on the pension side?
Mr Maye: There was a range identified, from £37 million to well over £100 million.
Mr Weir: Was that on the local government side?
Mr Maye: Yes. There were quite substantial costs involved. We are trying to refine those cost, and we will be working over the next few months to develop a much more detailed business case, which will look at costs and savings — not only the cash savings that might flow from this process but non-cash benefits such as improved service delivery to the citizen. We want to spend quite a bit of time on that over the next few months.
Ms Hague: There is an executive summary of the Deloitte report on the RPA website with a break down of all figures.
Mr Weir: One really has to question a potential cost gap of between £37 million and £100 million. I appreciate that there is a range of different assumptions involved. However, it is useless trying to draw satisfactory information from that, given such a wide range. Questions were raised by a lot of people about the assumptions that were made in the Deloitte report. For example, assumptions made about savings were based on the number of chief executives involved and their salaries, which were fairly wide off the mark.
Ms Hague: The main reason for the range of people costs in the Deloitte report is whether to give enhanced pensions.
2.30 pm
Mr Maskey: In the few short weeks that we have to deal with this matter, we cannot pour over it or deliberate on all the detail of the huge amount of work that has been done. However, I want to endorse what Peter said about the health and education sectors. I said many times at the political panel that it would have been very helpful for us, when dealing with the local government aspect, to have more awareness of how the RPA will affect the health and education sectors. Health and education are a big part of the review, yet we on the political panel did not even get an update on them.
I hope that we get some more information over the next couple of weeks in our work programme, although we cannot second-guess the work that has been done to date. However, not having a good sense of what is happening in the health and education sectors — which are a big part of the review — makes our job more difficult.
Mr Gallagher: I must apologise for my late arrival. I want to ask about the governance subgroup and the report. You described the report as needing further work, and you said that although there was broad endorsement, more work needs to be done. Am I right in saying that there is not agreement on the governance subgroup’s report?
Mr Maye: It was clear from the report and from the discussions in the task force and from the discussions between the Minister and the political parties that there are broad areas of support for the governance arrangements. However, some issues remain to be teased out, and there are one or two differences. They are not major differences, but areas on which the parties suggest slightly different approaches; we still have to work through them.
Our aim, through the task force and through the strategic leadership board in particular, is to introduce much more detail into the governance arrangements over the next few months, particularly into the legislative proposals. We would like to do that before legislation is published that can be used for public consultation. There is work in hand that we want to bring back to the leadership board and to others on the task force to test our work before we go to public consultation on the legislation. Beyond the legislation, there will be more work to do, as much of the detail of what is likely to happen will not be contained in the primary legislation. The standing orders, the subordinate legislation and the statutory guidance will have to be worked out. That will be a strong element of the task force’s work over the next couple of years.
Mr Gallagher: One of your colleagues spoke about the workforce and voluntary redundancies. Is it fair to assume that, as a result of the reform, job losses will go beyond those who leave under voluntary redundancy schemes?
Mr Prince: It is recognised that there will be fewer jobs at the end of the RPA process. Employers are required to ensure that they avoid redundancy as best they can and take all measures to avoid compulsory redundancies. However, it is unlikely that compulsory redundancies can be avoided altogether.
Mr J Wilson: I am not my party’s spokesman on health or education, so I am not as well tuned in on those matters as I might be. However, I share the concerns that have been expressed on those issues. Most of us accept that every opportunity has been afforded to us to have a political input into the proposals as far as local government is concerned.
However, I am not aware of any opportunity being presented to us to have a political feed into health and education. I look forward to your response to our concerns about that.
With regard to local government, there is a view, which is gathering some support, that the programme leading up to the shadow elections in 2008, with councils in place by 2009, is simply not doable. The review of council boundaries is ongoing, and the commissioner has expressed concern that his programme for reporting is extremely tight — he did so at the launch in Belfast. That review will then be followed by the appointment of a district electoral area commissioner, with a further review of district electoral areas. Furthermore, the uncertainty of this Assembly and the result of the vote on the debate on the RPA this week should also be considered. Taking all those factors into consideration, and given that, as you said, there is an extensive legislative programme, which you outlined clearly to us, between now and 2008-09, surely you must all be concerned that that entire programme is not doable by those dates.
Mr Prince: You raise some interesting points. We shall note what you have said. At the moment, we are planning on the basis that the programme is still doable, but there are so many variables that could intervene. We cannot see into the future.
Mr Poots: Chairman, it would be useful if we could have some questions answered today, as opposed to evaded, otherwise this session will be a pointless exercise. My question is about coterminosity. Who decided not to go ahead with that? When was that decided?
Mr Prince: Coterminosity is still very much on the agenda and is part of the benefit of the RPA. Is that the question you asked?
Mr Poots: Yes, absolutely.
Mr Prince: Coterminosity is still on the agenda. One of the benefits of the RPA will be common boundaries. That will allow services to be delivered to citizens within a boundary in which they can get the full range and ambit of services available to them. It is more important that that delivery of service is coterminous in relation to commissioning, that people have the services available to them. The location from where services are delivered is a different matter — there are five health trusts, and the hospitals are where they are. Our research found that people feel that it is more important that they can get the services that they need when they need them, that those services are of good quality, that they are responsive and that people can influence those services. That is done from the commissioning side rather than from the supply side. In that sense, common boundaries — coterminosity — are still being pursued.
Mr Poots: I thought that that had been forgotten. There will be five health trusts and seven councils, but it appears that the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) gets to do what it likes. That Department went off at a complete tangent and did nothing to deliver coterminosity in any respect. Within the new councils, certainly in my area, three very important functions will be stretched across new boundaries. I thought that that was to be done away with.
Chairman, I should declare that I am a member of Lisburn City Council.
Mr Prince: Coterminosity works, and the greatest benefits come from common boundaries. With the people who commission services making sure that those services are available to citizens. The actual supply of the services is of less importance; the real benefits come from ensuring that all services are available to a common area.
Mr Poots. I have one further question. What does that mean for local economic development? Councils are currently responsible for local economic development. Will that stay the same? Will it be enhanced? How much of Invest Northern Ireland’s (INI) current work will come to local government? Will INI pick up the type of work that the Local Economic Development Unit (LEDU) used to do? Can we have some more teeth on that one?
Mr Maye: Unfortunately, we do not yet have answers to those questions. I am not being evasive. The task force structure has been deliberately designed to tease out those answers, because there are questions over exactly what Ministers meant when they announced that local government would take a greater role in local economic development and local tourism development.
Ministers clearly meant for our local Government to have a more extensive role than at present. We do not yet know just how extensive that role should be, but we want to use the new task force structures to facilitate the debate on that role and, ideally, reach agreement on what it will mean in practice.
Mr Maskey: I have two points to make. The task force will recommence next month. In the last number of months, members from all parties have been concerned about the transfer of functions, the functions to be transferred, whether the correct budget will transfer with the functions and so forth.
We have received a number of presentations from the various Departments involved in the transfer of functions. I stand to be corrected, but it is probably fairly accurate to say that most members of the political panel thought that the presentation from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, for example, was a bit minimalist, to say the least. I am probably being generous with that comment.
Among the issues that the political panel raised were the supporting people programme and the provision of Travellers’ accommodation. All that work is ongoing. In fact, as the departmental officials have explained, we have already agreed that a policy panel will be set up specifically to deal with the transfer of functions. All the issues will be teased out through that policy panel in the time ahead.
Chairman, I want to put something on the record because of misleading statements in relation to the governance arrangements that were made during the Assembly debate on Tuesday. To be clear, the final detail of the governance agreements has not been agreed. In fact, several months ago, I rejected an earlier set of proposals on those governance arrangements from the political panel. That work is in hand.
There is no question that most parties agreed on the issue of proportionality and that some other checks and balances should be built in. For the record, there is not yet full and final agreement on the extent of the checks and balances that are required — certainly not from Sinn Féin’s point of view. I put that on the record solely because of the misleading things that some Members said during the debate.
Mr J Wilson: I want to pick up on two points that I raised earlier. How much time has been set aside for the appointment of the district electoral area commissioner and the completion of the commissioner’s work? Has that been factored in?
Mr Maye: We have factored that in to the overall timetable insofar as possible, given our current knowledge. However, the timetable could well change. If the current Boundary Commissioner takes longer than initially expected to produce a report, for example, that will impact on the district area electoral commissioner, the work that must be done and the timescales to which the commissioner will have to work.
Mr J Wilson: Are you factoring in the result of the Assembly debate on the review of public administration this week? If so, how will that decision be dovetailed into the presentation that you made earlier?
Mr Maye: The decision in relation to —
Mr J Wilson: The decision in relation to the number of councils.
Mr Maye: At almost every political panel meeting within the task force, all but one of the political parties made clear their opposition to the option 7C model. Equally, however, those parties have continued to engage in the process because the process does not concern the option 7C model; rather, the process concerns modernisation and reform.
The option 7C model is part of the modernisation, but it does not represent the totality of what the local government task force is seeking to achieve. That issue has always been on the table, but it has been parked because local government, central Government and the political parties recognised that there was a broader job of work to do. At the last meeting of the political panel, we agree with the parties to push ahead with that broader job of work.
We want to take account of what emerges from all debates and discussions. We will also want to take account of this subgroup’s report. Of course, we will have to take into account the effect that a restored Assembly and Executive will have. However, there is a valuable job of work to be done in the meantime, which is to continue to press ahead with the much-needed reforms and modernisation work that we are already engaged in.
Mr Gallagher: I want to return to the issue of modernisation and the huge task involved, both in terms of resources and personnel. I want to ask about the work that has been done so far. First, has the cost of modernisation been estimated? Secondly, is there a timescale for modernisation?
2.45 pm
Mr Maye: We do not have firm estimates yet, but we are working with NILGA to tie down a firm estimate of implementation costs and the longer-term savings it will produce. We plan to spend time on that over the next six months. We will have to keep an eye on costs, because as work continues and the detail of implementation emerges, it will have an impact on costs and the potential for savings over the longer term.
We intend to put the basics of modernisation in place by April 2009: that is the instruction that has been given to us by Ministers, and that is the timetable we are working to. However, Ministers — and everyone involved in the process — recognise that modernisation will continue well beyond that date. We have embarked upon a modernisation and reform programme that will continue over the next 10 years or more. Much work will remain after 2009 to continue modernising local government.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are there any further questions for the members of the delegation? They are leaving a paper for the subgroup and will forward the other documentation to which members referred. The Clerks will contact the representatives about that. I thank the delegation for attending.
I remind Members to switch off mobile telephones. They interfere with the sound recording.
The next delegation is on rural planning. I welcome Tom Matthews and Mike Thompson from the Department for Regional Development. Members have before them the terms of reference:
“To consider —
- the proposals set out in PPS 14;
- the impact of the proposals, if adopted,”
— although it does seem as though they have been adopted already —
“on rural development, rural regeneration and future planning in the countryside; and
To identify any alternative proposals.”
Mr Thompson, would you like to begin?
Mr Mike Thompson (Department for Regional Development): I thank members for the invitation. Members will be aware that draft Planning Policy Statement 14 (PPS 14) is subject to a judicial review, which was granted to Omagh District Council and Liam Ward. The case is scheduled for 15 to 17 January 2007. That will have an impact upon what I can say.
Our job is to provide the subgroup with factual briefing. I propose to summarise the rationale behind draft PPS 14, review the policy and try to provide a review of the results of the consultation process undertaken by the Department for Regional Development. That would be the most useful way to spend the time. It will provide fresh and useful information for members.
Draft PPS 14 was published on 16 March 2006 and introduced, for the first time, a presumption against development across the whole of Northern Ireland. Large areas were already in green-belt zones, so for those there was not much change. The rationale for the statement was grounded in ‘Shaping Our Future: Regional Development Strategy For Northern Ireland 2025’, which was published in 2001. It identified concerns about the cumulative impact of development in the open countryside; the loss of agricultural land and habitats; fields being sold off to house townspeople; increased traffic on rural roads; increased risk of pollution from growing numbers of septic tanks; and so on.
Since the regional development strategy was published, there has been an explosion in the number of planning approvals for single dwellings in the countryside. During the 1980s and 1990s, approval rates were approaching 3,000 per annum; however, those figures started to push up in about 2000.
There were approximately 8,800 planning approvals for single dwellings in the countryside in 2004-05. That was for full and outline planning applications, not reserved applications. To put that into context, that is like approving the size of a town like Coleraine in one year. Those levels of approvals are unprecedented. It is a new phenomenon. It was those levels of approvals that led Ministers to the view that the regional development strategy was being undermined and that a presumption against development in the countryside had to be introduced.
I have already mentioned the ministerial statement to give draft PPS 14 immediate, substantial weight in the determination of all planning applications after 16 March 2006. Ministers took that decision because they felt not to have done so would have meant that the Planning Service would have been swamped with pre-emptive applications.
I wish to make a couple of points about Draft PPS 14. First, many have said it is a moratorium on development, but it is not: single dwellings can still be approved under draft PPS14, but at a reduced level. The evidence for making that statement comes from looking at the old green belts in the east of the Province. There were usually 1,000 approvals a year, so, pro rata, the introduction of draft PPS 14 would have meant that approvals for single dwellings in the countryside would have gone down to about 2,000 to 3,000 a year. That was a guesstimate and no more than that.
The exceptions to draft PPS 14 are based on local people. It is those exceptions on which much of the consultation focused. At the consultation, we had community technical aides facilitate six public meetings, which about 380 people attended. The PPS 14 team and I were available to appear at council meetings and public meetings. A number of members present at this subgroup attended or, indeed, chaired those public meetings. We met with councils, interested groups and, of course, elected representatives. There was a good, open, wide-ranging debate in both the community and the media about what rural planning should mean and about what the right rural planning for Northern Ireland should entail.
The consultation closed on 9 June, and we received 8,513 written responses. That is a phenomenal number of responses for a consultation to receive. Breaking down the results, the vast majority of responses — 87% — was made up of about 10 different types of petition letters for which political parties, pressure groups and other interested parties canvassed. For example, the largest number of responses came from Sinn Féin, from whom we received 3,247 pamphlets that were opposed to draft PPS 14. The other 13%, or 1,147 responses, were usually, but not exclusively, substantive replies from individuals, professional bodies, councils, political parties and other non-Government bodies. To set aside the petition-type letters for a moment, those 1,147 responses amount to a really large number for any consultation. Normally, consultations receive 100 or 200 replies.
What were the conclusions of the consultation? Of the 8,513 responses, not surprisingly 95% of respondents were opposed to the broad thrust of draft PPS 14. The main focus of those who objected to it was on the presumption against development. The type of comments that we received were:
“Draft PPS 14 should be withdrawn, reconsidered and substantially amended”, and:
“Its proposals are too sweeping, too restrictive and take no account of their impact on the rural economy, house prices or the history and social life of rural dwellers.”
That gives a flavour of the comments that we have received.
Another comment said:
“PPS 14 is inherently wrong as it fails to acknowledge or illustrate any real understanding of the sensitivities, needs and complexity of the rural context. The proposals are simply inappropriate and threaten to undermine the future of rural communities.”
On a similar note, many expressed the view that that PPS 14 was a ban on building single dwellings in the countryside and that it would have a detrimental impact on rural schools, community groups, sporting organisations, businesses and, by definition, the rural community. Many held the view that rural areas and populations were not homogeneous and that implementing a one-size-fits-all blanket policy such as draft PPS 14 across all regions was inappropriate. There was much debate about that one-size-fits-all approach. We have always believed that adopting a pepper-pot approach — different policies in different areas — would only result in demand being moved around and funnelled into areas that had looser planning policies.
I will turn now to specific policies, and I want to mention four areas about which people had useful ideas. The first area involves farmers and the farm viability tests. Draft policy CTY 2 states that planning permission for a dwelling house on a farm would be granted where it was essential to the needs of the farm and the farm business was established and viable according to the definition of viability as stated by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. That test of viability, and the linking of it to PPS 14, was discussed by a lot of consultees and participants. People pointed out that farming has changed so much in recent years that many farms would never meet that viability test. We had to look again at the test because it was irrelevant to a large swathe of agricultural Northern Ireland. It simply did not work.
It was also pointed out that part-time farming is increasing and financial input to many farms comes from income earned off-farm. Part-time jobs provide essential supplementary income that helps to support farms. People told us that the overall total financial input from farming families should be taken into account rather than simply an assessment of the farm viability. There were many thoughts and ideas about that, and it was felt that any new definition of viability should allow both small and large farms to be considered eligible. People felt that the farm viability tests worked against the smaller farm and discriminated against small agricultural holdings.
The replacement policy also generated a lot of interesting debate. Many of those who were unsupportive of that policy expressed a view that it was just too restrictive and recommended that it should be much more flexible. The issue involved residential abandonment — the old abandoned house out in the countryside with the roof falling off it. Many people felt that as such houses were blots on the landscape, they should be able to bring them back into residential use. Again, I will quote from a interesting comment made by a consultee at one of our workshops:
“There are far too many examples throughout Northern Ireland of what were once sound family homes that have now become derelict and cannot be replaced because of antiquated planning regulations.”
Restrictions on the size and siting of replacement dwellings were considered unnecessary by some, and many felt that they led to additional costs. Some also suggested that policy should maximise the potential afforded by rural brownfield opportunities. Similarly, it was suggested that not allowing the replacement of existing derelict buildings could actually lead to a greater loss of built heritage. In many instances, replacement, conversion and re-use of existing buildings as residential accommodation was seen as the only economic and viable alternative.
Issues around VAT were also raised. Many felt that it was wrong that VAT was payable when restoring an existing building, but that it was not payable on new builds.
I will discuss only four policies today, the third of which is the social housing policy. It was generally welcomed, but people were aware that it had problems and shortcomings and could be improved in a number of areas. That leads to the issue of affordability, which obviously applies to urban, as well as rural, Northern Ireland. It is an important issue, and Sir John Semple is currently investigating it. One consultee remarked that:
“Future policy should proactively address integrated social and affordable housing in rural Northern Ireland.”
3.00 pm
In view of the current trends, many people felt that there was an inconsistent approach to planning and that rural approvals lacked effective enforcement.
Therefore, they called for greater accountability in the planning process and better co-ordination between Government departments.
Many people felt that the planning policy should be tailored across the region to reflect differing needs and pressures. Furthermore, they wanted the dispersed rural community designation to be reinstated. There were similar calls for the reinstatement of policy to facilitate special personal or domestic circumstances.
I now turn to kinship ties and occupancy conditions, the most strongly represented alternatives to the proposed presumption against development.
Participants suggested that we operate instead a presumption favouring development with restrictions, and that such restrictions could perhaps focus on providing connections with the land.
A frequent request in the consultation was that planning permission for houses be given to local people who could provide evidence of links with the land in their local area. It was suggested that such a link might be to have lived, worked or gone to school locally; to be able to trace grandparents back to a particular bit of land; or to provide a family connection with the land through parish records. The Republic of Ireland’s system was often cited to us as a system we should operate here.
However, there are a number of reasons why we have not implemented that system. We discussed those issues in the consultation. First, we raised issues about enforcement. Would a kinship or local needs test work when approximately 400,000 people already live in the open countryside? Would there be any point in having it?
Secondly, we raised equality considerations, which were not accepted by the people we were talking to. They said that the presumption against development would have a better chance of success if realistic exceptions that centred on genuine rural need were factored into the equation.
I think that everyone agreed that speculative development around the countryside was harmful and that we must stop it and address genuine rural needs.
In that quick overview I focused on four broad areas that may clarify the consultation. I make two final points.
The contents of draft PPS 14 already applied to a large extent across Northern Ireland, particularly in the east of the Province, via the old green belt regulations. Therefore, many did not see it as a new policy. However, its impact has been felt particularly strongly in the west of the Province, and most of the consultation responses came to us from that area.
The general agreement seemed to be that something needed to be done to stop the speculative developers. There was broad agreement about the need for balance between sustainability and thriving rural communities. However there is a strong feeling that these two should not be mutually exclusive: we should be able to have both. The challenge for us was how to marry the two.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will take questions beginning with the DUP, then Sinn Féin, the SDLP and finally the Ulster Unionists.
Mr Weir: Thank you. Mr Thompson, you mentioned that there had been an escalation from 1,800 to 8,500 successful single-building applications. You said that as a measure that the policy was working, you would expect that number to be between 2,000 and 3000 per year in areas that would be covered by PPS14. What are the figures now?
Mr Thompson: We do not know yet, because there is a time lag in the introduction of draft PPS 14.
Because of the backlog of applications, our colleagues in the Planning Service are still working through applications that were made before draft PPS 14 was introduced. I am not sure whether the Planning Service has started to process any applications that came in after the introduction of draft PPS 14. The only reason that I used the figures 2,000 to 3,000 is because, historically, that was the typical number of applications for single dwellings in the countryside. I do not think that there is any right number.
Mr Weir: I appreciate that, because of the timing of applications that are going through the system, DRD is not in a position to monitor the figures. However, if only 300 applications were being made in countryside areas, that would clearly indicate that the policy had gone badly wrong. At the other end of the scale, if the idea were restricted and there was a shift down from 8,500 to 8,000 applications, there would not be a great deal of impact. There may not necessarily be a right number, but there would be clear indications as to whether the policy has gone badly wrong — or not.
Mr Thompson: I totally agree with that.
Mr McGuigan: Thank you for your submission. You will be aware of my party’s position with regard to draft PPS 14. My party submitted a proposal and felt that that the Minister made the wrong policy choice. My party is still of that opinion today.
I want to make a few points about your presentation. The 3,427 leaflets that you mentioned were not Sinn Féin leaflets. They were submitted by 3,427 individuals who chose to use that method. Those people should not be disregarded; I certainly do not want that to happen. The fact that 95% of people are opposed to the policy gives a good indication of the strength of feeling that the policy has engendered.
I do not want to rehash all the arguments that were made throughout the consultation process. At the time, there was a dispute — a non-consensus, shall we say — with regard to figures. Your presentation highlighted that a large number of people submitted applications at a time when they knew that proposals were being put forward that would later restrict those applications. That does not create an accurate sense of the number of people who were planning to build at that time. People submitted applications because they knew that restrictions were being put in place. I do not believe that it would have been the case that several thousand houses would have been built in the countryside in any given year.
Under the previous policy, as members who are also local councillors will know, it was quite clear that one reason for refusing applications to build dwellings in the countryside was the build-up argument. To some extent, that was built into the previous policy. Many of my party’s difficulties concerned the level of enforcement of the planning policy that was in existence.
I have some further general points. The consultation process ended in June. I would have expected that a decision would have been announced. You raised four of the policy issues. Is that an indication that you expect changes to be made on those four policy areas when the Minister has responded? Does the judicial review restrict the Minster in making a decision?
Mr Thompson: Thank you for those points. I will try to cover them all. If I do not, please return to any that I have missed.
The Department certainly did not in any way disregard the 3,427 people who submitted leaflets. I apologise if what I said came across as otherwise. That was not intended. Indeed, the Department acknowledged every single one of those responses individually and separately — as it did with the other 8,500-odd people. In our analysis, each one is included as a unique individual response. I hope that, from our presentation, members are in no doubt about our understanding of the clear message that came through from the consultation.
I attended many of the meetings, and I am in no doubt about the views expressed.
There are many factors involved in the increase in the number of approvals. There is no question that a number of pre-emptive applications were submitted. However, a trend started from around 2000, and the number of applications has crept up every year since then. There were other factors responsible. The change in agriculture and Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms were driving forces. It is hard to consider rural housing in isolation. Rather, it is necessary to examine the housing market as a whole. As house prices began to increase, building in the countryside became a much more attractive option. People’s perceptions of where they want to live and work are changing, and many people travel greater distances than they did 30 or 40 years ago. There is a wide range of factors: lifestyle choices and perceptions are starting to kick in, as are mortgage rates and readily available finance.
However, although I do not dispute that pre-emptive applications were being submitted, that alone does not explain the total number of applications made. It is difficult to say how many applications were due to one cause and how many were due to another. It is a complicated picture, and all the factors are mixed up.
That point strengthens the reason for the ministerial statement, if that is the case, for the immediate introduction of draft PPS 14 — but that is another point. The judicial review impacts on the Department, and legal advice is that we should not move to finalise draft PPS 14 until after the outcome of the review, which is currently listed to be heard by the courts on 15 —17 January 2007. The two cases will be heard at the same time, and the judgement will be made about three or four weeks after that. We are in the hands of the court, but that is the sort of time frame involved.
Mr Gallagher: I am very concerned about the outworkings of draft PPS 14 and the way in which it has been handled. With respect to the Department officials here today, they are preoccupied with the pre-emptive and speculative applications submitted over a number of years. On top of that, there was a consultation period that was not really a consultation period. On such a contentious issue as planning, there should be, in the future, a proper and detailed consultation on rural planning. I hope that there will be an Assembly to facilitate that.
A further couple of points, which bear out what I have just said, relate to some of the issues that have arisen today. Part of the replacement dwelling issue to which Mr Thompson referred is the test of abandonment. Already, in my experience, that test is creating problems and is impacting unfairly on some applicants. Everyone understands that a house with four walls, no roof, no windows and no doors can hardly qualify under the rules for a replacement dwelling.
However, I have experience of cases in which new farmhouses were built, perhaps 20 years ago, without Housing Executive grants or anything like that, and where the original farmhouse has been maintained in good condition: roofed, weatherproofed and could be habitable. However, when an application is submitted to planners, there is a strict interpretation of the test of abandonment. That aspect must be re-examined.
Some outworkings of draft PPS 14 are also unfair in respect of applications submitted before 16 March. I am referring to unresolved issues, and we all know that in going through the process unresolved issues will crop up. Up until draft PPS 14, resolution was facilitated. Now, if an issue arises with an application submitted before 16 March, such as road frontage, it can be difficult to resolve if neighbouring property comes into it. I have come across several examples, and my colleagues, and elected representatives from other councils, have had the same experience. A little bit of time resolved the issue, and the planners are now saying that because an application was made before 16 March, it has to come in as a new application, which means that it comes in under the very strict criteria operating since the date of effect. That must also be examined urgently.
3.15 pm
Mr Thompson: The point about the consultation is, perhaps, one for another day. The matter of the replacement and abandonment test was raised frequently, and there was a great deal of good discussion about it. Many ideas and options to consider came out of the consultation.
On the question of applications received before 16 March, or applications not fully completed, the Planning Service line has been that an application only becomes a proper application when it is complete, and some have been caught out. That is an operational issue that is outside my remit, but it is an issue for the Planning Service, so I cannot comment on it any further.
Mr Tom Matthews (Department for Regional Development): I may be able to offer some help on the abandonment issue. It was a part of the old rural strategy policy, Housing and Mixed Use (HMU) 13. Draft PPS 14 has utilised some guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in 2000, which clarified how to assess the issue of abandonment properly. Much of the thrust of that is in the old policy. What is new is the decision on what an owner’s intentions were. It is not really a new test, but the courts provide clarification, and we have tried to adapt and incorporate that clarification into the new policy, albeit that it was something that came forward during the consultation as a major issue.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): One of the things that I picked up on was that even in Tommy’s example, where there was no roof on a house, it had mature trees around it, was on a good site and had integrated well with its surroundings over a 50- to 100-year period. It may be down to its foundations now, but it was a good site. It also lends credence to the line being followed in the case of normal brownfield sites. The example that was given was that of a brownfield site that had been reactivated.
Mr J Wilson: I would not agree with those who argue that draft PPS 14 should be scrapped and that we should go back to the drawing board — far from it. As someone who has lived his whole life in the countryside, I tend to get uptight when people who live in cities try to tell me how I should spend my life in the countryside and what the countryside should be like.
That is the personal element out of the way.
Mr Maskey: You have too much time on your hands, Jim.
Mr J Wilson: There is an argument for re-examining the particular part of draft PPS 14 that says that there should only be a “few exemptions” to the presumption against new development. We must examine the whole question of exemptions, particularly with regard to retirement dwellings for farmers. In the research that we have been provided with, there is an interesting phrase, which is “dwellings for non-farm enterprises.” I think I know what that means, but at a time when the farming community is under considerable pressure, diversification is very much the “in” thing, and there surely is a case for looking at other developments in support of farm incomes. To scrap the whole thing, however, is out of the question.
I can give many examples of bad planning in the countryside, planning verging on the irresponsible. Great damage has been done to the countryside. In some instances, bad planning policy is to blame; in others, ill-considered implementation of policy. There are many examples of large-scale development in the countryside with little or no consideration for infrastructure. The infrastructure — roads, sewerage or drainage — is simply not there. That has resulted in gridlock in many small towns and villages. Villages are used not just as places for commuters to begin their journey, but as through-routes, yet they are not designed for the traffic they are taking.
With respect to some planning decisions, it is the case that, during the consultation process, the Environment and Heritage Service advised against the granting of planning permission, yet permission was granted nevertheless. So much for joined-up government. In other examples the Roads Service advised against the granted of planning permission, and its advice was disregarded. I have proof of that. I am not simply making it up. There are examples, although members might find them hard to believe, of several hundred houses being built on a greenfield site without connection to a main sewer — the sewage was tinkered for a long period until the Department could find the money to provide a sewerage system. Houses can hardly be brought closer to the sewers. Those are all examples of bad practice which had to stop; and cessation of those practices was due more to pressure groups like Friends of the Earth than to sensible proposals by the Government.
I therefore support the broad principles underlying draft PPS 14, but in certain circumstances, it may be too restrictive. It should remain in place as a principle. Were I a candidate for the proposed super-councils, I would relish taking the planning portfolio, for restrictions and exemptions are best dealt with at local level.
Mr Thompson: Thank your for those comments. Many of those consulted offered their experience of the implementation of existing planning policy. Many had concerns about inconsistencies in planning.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Mr Wilson mentioned the lack of sewerage. I recall several instances when the Water Service refused to consider provision of a main sewer until houses were in place. It refused to put in a sewer in case the houses were not built. Chicken-and-egg situations then arose. In such cases overall planning is poor.
Mr McGuigan: In the countryside there are developments that have not been well-planned. No one here argues that good decisions have been made with regard to every application. However, a presumption against development was a drastic way of addressing the problems. Other measures may have been taken to ensure that good planning practice was implemented and supported by sound enforcement policies.
The Minister was presented with a number of options prior to his decision on draft PPS 14. Requests under the Freedom of Information Act have attempted to garner the information given to the Minister and the nature of those options — it would be useful to this subgroup to have all of that information without redaction.
If the Assembly were to get up and running in March, I imagine that it would consider that issue very carefully under devolution. If this subgroup is to do the job that is expected of it, we should be furnished with that information.
Mr Thompson: That freedom of information request is currently under appeal. I will check its status and see what we can do.
Mr Poots: Thank you for coming to the subgroup today. It seems that you have gone from a free-for-all to something that Trotsky would be proud of in respect of state interference in an individual’s rights.
I am concerned about paragraph 4.26 of the consultation document, which refers to other development opportunities and states that permission for additional houses will be refused where other development opportunities exist. Many people have found themselves in a situation that they could not have foreseen, in that sites have been sold off from farms that were not originally in the green belt.
Under the new policy, sons and daughters working on their parents’ farms will be unable to get a site because a site has previously been sold off. That will apply throughout the country, given the circumstances of the agriculture industry, particularly in the last 10 years. Many farms were only sustained because farmers sold off sites from their dwellings.
That is one of the most reprehensible aspects of draft PPS 14. I note that you did not mention it, even though you referred to other matters. I hope that that will not pass unnoticed, because that policy will have a crucial impact on individuals whose farms were not previously part of the green belt, as most of my constituency was. However, if those people now try to get a site through legitimate means and there is a farm to act as a basis for the site, they will not get a site because of those circumstances.
Mr Thompson: I mentioned two areas within the range of available policy options that could address such a situation. The first is the farm viability test. Many people wanted the test changed to make it more adaptable for such a scenario, namely for farmers’ sons and daughters. The second option, which many people indicated to the Department as their preference, is the kinship option. However, implementing the kinship option involves many operational and practical difficulties.
I understand your point, but suggestions that would address those concerns have been highlighted in the range of options that have been put to us through the consultation exercise.
Mr Poots: My local planning office has referred me to paragraph 4.26 of the consultation document, which is very clear about other development opportunities. It states that:
“if any houses or sites have been sold off from the farm holding.”
In other words, if anyone has ever sold a site, there is no specific period of time during which the policy applies; it applies for ever. If a site has ever been sold off from a farm holding, an applicant will not be entitled to a site. It does not matter whether a farmer has 500 milking cows and only one house on the farm; the farmer will not be entitled to an additional site.
Mr Matthews: I can perhaps provide some assistance. Under the old rural strategy and the policies that applied, that was the criterion. However, it was agreed that that option was essentially only applicable in green belts or countryside policy areas.
Mr Poots: Under the old system, there was a time frame of about 10 years, but there is no time frame with this policy.
Mr Matthews: There was not a time frame in the old one; a 10-year period may have been as a rule of thumb. However, one issue that arose through the public consultation was that the criteria dealing with other development opportunities, and their sell-off, should be time limited. At some of the public meetings held as part of the consultation, time limits of five, 10 or 15 years were bandied about. Perhaps the policy should be time limited, and that is something to consider.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The main problem is that the policy has effect from 16 March 2006, so anyone who had already sold sites did not have that type of opportunity.
Mr Matthews: Yes; that is a question of planning ahead.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The idea of Lord Rooker as a Trotskyite is interesting. [Laughter.]
Mr Poots: That will cut no ice with the Department.
3.30 pm
Mr J Wilson: There is something that I should have mentioned earlier. I do not wish to get too bogged down in detail, but I referred to restrictions that apply to the farming community and those who provide services for it. That matter must be re-examined. However, in doing so, we should also re-examine criteria that may be laid down by agencies other than the Planning Service. For example, when a farmer makes a proposal to diversify or build a retirement dwelling, DARD lays down strict criteria, particularly in respect of diversification. The Tourist Board may also impose criteria. Easing such restrictions would assist in removing hostility to draft PPS 14. The principle behind draft PPS 14 is not wrong.
Mr Poots: There are a couple of other issues that I would like to raise. One is health, which was addressed in the old policy but has since disappeared. I do not suppose that health problems suffered by people in rural areas have disappeared. It is critical that that measure is restored. The number of sites approved in such circumstances was limited but, nonetheless, the health measure should be reinstated. There was no reason for its removal.
Other matters include the building of developments within older courtyards, which contain many vernacular buildings. Has consideration been given to crossroads developments, where four or five dwellings already exist around a crossroads and there is scope for further development? In such cases, a small sewerage works might be built so that a proliferation of septic tanks does not arise.
Mr Thompson: Both of those suggestions are interesting. The development of a social housing policy was challenging, but the service did not get it quite right. We are starting to push in the right direction. People talk about the old clachan concept: a small group of houses at the crossroads, beside the church, the sports club or school, where one can install support facilities. The idea of using older farmyards and vernacular buildings is very interesting.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There is concern about social housing policy because some small blocks of Housing Executive houses were simply dropped into the middle of the countryside without provision of services. The style and design of developments is important.
Mr J Wilson: I have concerns about development around settlements. I recall that, in the past, extension of development around small villages and settlements was permitted. However, instead of one or two houses being built along the roadside in support of a local school, or a church or — dare I say — a local pub, fields to the north, south, east and west of those settlements were bought, and thousands of houses were built around villages, creating commuter and gridlock problems. That policy contributed to instances of housing development without infrastructure.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): And the need for a bigger pub. [Laughter.]
Mr McGuigan: On the agricultural viability test, has DARD set a test in terms of income, for example, on an average industrial wage? Even before draft PPS 14, in green belt areas, many complaints were made to the effect that the Planning Service had rejected applications that had been approved by other agencies. For example, when the Tourist Board has agreed that there is a need for tourist accommodation, and has proved that need, the Planning Service should take that into account.
Mr Thompson: I cannot speak about individual cases. I have no knowledge of them, nor do I have the authority to comment on them. However, the Tourist Board looks at proposals from one perspective only; the Planning Service considers it from a different perspective. It is feasible and understandable that each may, from time to time, produce different answers because each asks a different question. However, I do not know the details, and that is beyond my remit. I take the point about joined-up governance and, as we are striving to promote farm diversification and tourism, the views of the Tourist Board are an important consideration. Much depends on other factors in making a determination.
The farm viability test is a test undertaken by DARD. There are options with how that test is utilised.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Another measure that the Assembly introduced was that DARD would undertake rural proofing that should cut across all Departments. Rural proofing seems to have become lost in PPS 14.
Mr Thompson: Reference is certainly made to that. We went through a rural-proofing process in developing this policy. Rural proofing is about the differential between urban and rural, but by definition this policy is a rural policy.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): But you need people living in rural areas.
Mr Thompson: Absolutely.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is important. Are there any other pressing questions?
Mr Poots: I have a question relating to business and diversification. Some time ago, I became aware that DARD grants from European funds were being awarded but could not be used because about one third of planning permission applications were not being granted. That was before this policy came into operation and when about a third of Northern Ireland was green belt. My concern is that, as virtually nobody in the green belt was getting planning permission then, virtually nobody will get it now. Those people who want to stay in the countryside, who want to establish a business in the countryside or who want to develop tourism in the countryside will, as a result of this policy, come under the same restrictions. As a consequence, a substantial number of economic development opportunities will be lost.
Let me put it like this: I am glad that this is a draft document and that it will not be the final PPS 14. Issues such as those that I have outlined need to be addressed prior to draft PPS 14 becoming a fully operational document.
Mr Matthews: On the diversification issue, we are working with our colleagues in DOE in respect of where there is overlap, for example, between draft PPS 4, which includes an element on farm diversification, and draft PPS 14. We need to iron out the overlaps and ensure that there is less ambiguity and as much clarity as possible.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): This has been a useful meeting as regards the subgroup’s consultation with the Department. However, I hope that you will be able to view this meeting as consultation with the Assembly subgroup in regard to draft PPS 14. As such, it is a two-way process. We may request additional papers or information from you.
I have a final question. I heard recently that a new policy is being developed in relation to farm buildings, as opposed to farm dwellings. If that policy is in draft form, it might be useful for the subgroup to see it. If the policy will restrict the building of silos and other buildings on farms, it will have a big effect on the viability of farms.
Mr Thompson: That is not something that I am fully familiar with.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I think that it may be a Planning Service document.
Mr Thompson: We will check with our DOE colleagues. I am not aware of that policy, but I will check.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): You will come back to the subgroup on that?
Mr Thompson: Yes. We will also reply on the FOI issue. We will check the progress on that and see whether we can give you further information.
The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Thank you very much.
Adjourned at 3.38 pm.