The Government's National Spatial Strategy document seeks to determine where development will take place in Ireland. In other words it will decide where we live, work and play, and so crystallise much about our way and quality of life. Because of demographics the next 10 years will set in concrete our environment for several generations.
A recent Government paper called Indications for the Way Ahead gave pointers on what the strategy would contain. Suggestions are that it is likely to be fundamentally undermined in practice by a lack of realism and teeth.
The paper is an unstrategic strategy. Ostensibly pandering to electoral populism, it implies that an unrealistic number of places - perhaps all 40-odd centres outside Greater Dublin - will become significant growth centres. It also suggests a lack of will to restrict anything much, even (whisper it) growth of Greater Dublin.
Typical of the paper's vision of where development growth should take place is the following notion: "Functional areas promoting development of a new gateway combined with hubs to secure the developmental role of other major towns in the area." In other words, in language that developers will certainly understand, even if the public does not - pretty much whatever you're having, wherever you're having it.
So, what are the problems of "whatever you're having"?
Firstly, "whatever you're having" suggests a large number of centres can and will grow. But if they do, the principal or "Gateway" growth centres - cities outside Dublin - will not grow enough to develop the critical mass to be counterpoints to Dublin.
Secondly, allocating too many growth centres means that many places that are not growth centres will decline.
The non-growth centres will be most towns, and nearly all villages. Their decline will create unnecessary losers.
Thirdly, allocating too many growth centres means some so-called growth centres will, in fact, not grow. Whether a particular so-called growth centre grows will be determined, not by plans which say they'll all grow, but by landowners. This serves a developers' agenda, not the common good, making losers of us all.
Fourthly, "whatever you're having" will lead to the unsustainable continuation of policies that have led to over 35% of our recent housing being built in the countryside. Indications for the Way Ahead does not inspire confidence that this problem will be dealt with. Much reference is made to the desirability of developing rural areas, without clarifying that this refers primarily to towns and villages.
Fifthly, we believe the spatial strategy will allow Greater Dublin (meaning Dublin and its hinterland in Meath, Wicklow and Kildare) to continue to grow disproportionately, to the detriment of rural Ireland.
There is no political will to give teeth to limiting population in the Greater Dublin Area. If there was, why wouldn't Indications for the Way Ahead propose setting a strict population limit for the Greater Dublin Area for, say, 10 years? Then you could have appropriate population targets for specific places all over the rest of Ireland.
In this way you might orchestrate regional balance.
There are already signs that there is no political will to curtail development of Greater Dublin. Provision has been made by local authorities in Meath, Wicklow and Kildare for a population over 100,000 greater than the already inflated target of 1.76 million for the Greater Dublin Area by 2011.
Finally, before the spatial strategy was even contemplated, the National Development Plan had made it clear the Government is not serious about sustainable transport. It provides £6.3 billion for roads and nothing at all for new rail outside Dublin.
In a discussion document, An Taisce is proposing an alternative win spatial strategy based on the following:
1) The development of a strictly limited number of "Gateway" growth centres with an inter-regional spread, providing dense and sophisticated alternatives to Dublin.
So, An Taisce supports the high-quality development of Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. Beyond this, balanced regional development suggests there should be a growth centre in the north west, perhaps Sligo, or Letterkenny and Derry.
Three further towns: Tipperary, Portarlington, Co Laois and Claremorris, Co Mayo, representing a geographical spread and all either currently or potentially well-served by rail transport, could be added to the list of growth centres but no more.
2) All existing towns and villages should be encouraged to consolidate, providing local growth including that generated from the surrounding countryside, though not for significant growth generated elsewhere.
They should make full use of existing infrastructural potential - social, economic, cultural and environmental.
3) Publication of Strategic Planning Guidelines implementing the spatial strategy as soon as possible for all cities and major towns and their hinterlands.
These SPGs should have mandatory, statutory teeth so they cannot be ignored.
4) A general end to commuter-based/urban-generated one-off housing in the countryside. Real, affordable alternatives must be provided to one-off housing, in towns and villages.
5) A shift in population growth away from Dublin and its hinterland. The Greater Dublin Area should accept no more than 25% of future population growth. This is an obvious win:win:win prospect for the whole country.
Dublin doesn't want pressure on its infrastructure, its hinterland does not want reluctant, deracinated commuters and rural Ireland wants quality development in the right places.
6) A transport investment policy which is based on rail as the primary mode of inter-regional transport.
7) Above all, however, acceptance that development must be to the highest possible quality standards and be community-led rather than developer-led.
With our country so rich, we have the opportunity to re-create its living environment.
We currently have a building stock of around 1,000,000 houses. We will build close to another 500,000 housing units over the next 10 years.
We have the money to forge a model new Ireland, the best-planned country in the new Millennium. We must not squander our opportunity.
Michael Smith is chairman of An Taisce