Planning and Developing (Amendment) Regulations 2008: Motion.

I propose we defer consideration of Nos. 1, 2 and 3 until the end of the meeting. They deal with the minutes, correspondence, etc. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item is a motion on the Planning and Developing (Amendment) Regulations 2008 which was referred on 26 June by the Dáil to the joint committee for consideration. The motion reads:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:

The Planning and Development (Amendment) Regulations 2008,

copies of which were laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 25th June, 2008.

A similar motion was passed by the Seanad.

The committee will now proceed to consider the proposal. I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, and his officials for the purpose of assisting us in our consideration of the proposal. I thank the Department for participating in the briefing session prior to the public meeting.

I thank the joint committee for allowing me to address it on this issue at short notice, particularly in light of the fact I only appeared before it this time last week. The amendment to be discussed was determined with the Attorney General after the draft motion discussed at last week's committee meeting had been put before the Houses. I trust members will understand the position after I have had an opportunity to outline and discuss the reasons behind the proposed amendment.

I thank my officials who have set out in detail the issue for consideration. We must consider the resolution of a technical problem with the application of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. I am advised the change is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the continued sound operation of the exempted development regime under the regulations.

Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 sets out over 50 classes of development which are exempt from planning permission, ranging from certain extensions to new houses, the change of use of business premises, or the putting in place of temporary structures to the provision of harbours or gas infrastructure which are subject to consent under separate legislation. A range of conditions are built into the regulations to ensure there is no blanket exemption per se and that the necessary safeguards are provided. I have been advised by the Attorney General that there is a potential legal lacuna in the interaction between the exempted development regulations and the ecological protection mechanisms under the habitats regulations that needs resolution by way of a simple amendment to the regulations.

The general exemption provided under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the regulations is conditioned by Article 9 of the regulations. Article 9(1)(a)(vii) states the general exemptions will be disapplied where an exempted development under the Act would consist of or comprise, among other things, interference with a site of ecological interest. Under the current exempted development regulations, there is no mechanism to reinstate the exemption, even where an assessment of the ecological impacts has been concluded to the satisfaction of my Department under the habitats regulations. Planning permission in these cases would be required under the current regulations. The clear advice from the Attorney General is that this does not represent rational regulation. Rational regulation and a consistent approach to environmental protection requires that there be no unnecessary duplication of consent processes. The disapplication of the exemption in subparagraph (vii) makes no sense in respect of ecological sites where an appropriate assessment that meets the requirements of the habitats directive is carried out and where the development is otherwise exempted.

The amendment before the committee is simply rationalising the consent procedure, while ensuring the appropriate consenting Minister safeguards the protected habitats and species in question by ensuring full compliance with the requirements of the habitats regulations. The problem could arise in the provision of infrastructure which is exempt from planning permission, as they are consented under other enactments — this could include the construction, extension or removal of docks, quays, jetties, piers and breakwaters authorised under the Harbours Acts and the provision of underground pipelines for the transmission of gas consented under the Gas Acts. The practical difficulty was highlighted with the latter class of project and specifically the laying of the landfall part of the submarine pipeline for the Corrib Gas project. This part of the project involves the excavation of a 19 m wide portion of the sea-face at Glengad Head to make it into a ramp for the purposes of putting the machinery in place to pull the pipeline ashore. When complete and the pipeline is in place, that part of the sea-face will be reinstated as it is now. I understand the timeline for the project envisages the laying of the pipeline from the wellhead to landfall in the coming months.

This is the only part of the Corrib project affected by the amended regulation I am proposing. It is being dealt with under a legacy regime which involves the following: a consent under section 40 of the 1976 Gas Act, as amended, which issued by the Minister for Communication, Energy and Natural Resources; a foreshore licence under the 1933 Foreshore Act, as amended, issued by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and an appropriate assessment under the 1997 habitats regulations. The final piece necessary to give effect to these consent processes was that an appropriate assessment be undertaken in accordance with the habitats regulations. My Department was asked to advise the consent authorities on whether such an assessment had been undertaken. Following further detailed work and research by the developer and the provision of the required information for my Department's scientific staff, they have formed the opinion that a full appropriate assessment of the impacts of these works has now been undertaken. Subject to detailed mitigation measures being implemented in full, my Department is satisfied that the proposed works as described will not adversely affect the integrity of the designated sites. Despite the completion of this assessment and the consent processes under the Gas and Foreshore Acts, under the current exempted development regulations, there is no mechanism to reinstate the exemption. This general deficiency is what the amendment seeks to remedy. The somewhat Byzantine system of consents that previously pertained to major infrastructural projects has been resolved through the enactment and commencement of the Strategic Infrastructure Act which covers all major infrastructural projects, be they sponsored by the private or public sectors, including gas and oil pipelines and related facilities, oil refining, electricity generation, roads, rail, airports, ports, waste treatment and disposal projects.

The second element of the Corrib project, the re-routing of the main onshore gas pipeline, is being dealt with under the Strategic Infrastructure Act and before An Bord Pleanála. A single consent process, administered by An Bord Pleanála, with clear provision for scoping of potential environmental, archaeological and ecological impacts at pre-application stage, public consultation at the application stage and consultation with prescribed statutory consultees at all stages, are the key elements in thislegislation. It is necessary to achieve co-ordination of consent procedures and the removal of unnecessary regulation. There remains one area where I am yet to be satisfied that this has been achieved. It relates to the foreshore process which is based on legislation that is over 70 years old. The transfer of foreshore functions to my Department in the next few months affords me an opportunity to address this issue.

From the point of view of better regulation, it is my intention to complete an urgent review of the operation of the foreshore functions and ensure they are tightly integrated with the modern planning processes available under the 2000 Planning Act and the 2006 Strategic Infrastructure Act. This will require primary legislation. I look forward to engagement with the committee in the future on this issue.

I will briefly come back to clarify one or two issues raised subsequent to last week's discussion on exemptions for certain renewable technologies. Perhaps this issue has been covered by the officials but I would like to clarify matters. The new exemptions are primarily intended to stimulate demand for new renewable technologies in the specified sectors and encourage a wider range of interests to take positive steps to reduce their carbon footprints.Great care was taken to ensure that the exemptions and the various conditions attaching are well within the limits before which environmental impact assessment requirements become necessary.

On the issue of transparency, my Department held a three month public consultation process on the initial proposals last October and the final regulations reflect a balance of the views expressed in 51 submissions received from a cross section of society, including individuals who made submissions in their own right. It is also worth pointing out that all those who made a submission supported the proposals. The conditions attached to the exemptions reflect a balance between the views expressed in the public consultation.

I intend to publish a summary of the submissions received during the consultation process shortly. As I stated during the committee debate, I welcome feedback from all sectors on the operation of these exemptions, as well as on those that were introduced last year for micro-renewable technologies for domestic houses.

I again thank my officials. I will take questions and will take as much time as is necessary. I must attend the Seanad later for an Adjournment matter and I will be abroad from tomorrow evening as I must attend a Council of Ministers meeting in Paris.

I do not expect the Minister to be held up until tomorrow evening on this issue. I thank him and his officials who gave us a very important briefing and background to this matter under the Planning and Development (Amendment) Regulations. Generally, I am always in favour of simplifying the regulations and procedures for people and reducing duplication. This is what these regulations seek.

However, I always wonder what is the motivation behind it. Since we had another opportunity last week to deal with planning and development regulations and exemptions, it was very unusual to have another one so quickly. Arising from the legal advice the Minister would have received from the Attorney General, could he be more explicit about what was the problem in respect of the Corrib gas field, which he mentioned, and the bank issues arising from the habitats directive that would give rise to concern?

I am sure some individual or company triggered off this concern and that the Minister had to refer this for legal advice. Is there any other project around the country that is either proposed or in the course of consultation at the moment and that could be subject to the same problem? If so, could the Minister elucidate on some of the other examples that come to mind from his ministerial experience to date?

Another issue that is very important for people is the transparency of how the exempted development system will work. There is considerable confusion about what is and is not exempted. Many public representatives, be they in the Oireachtas or at local authority level, would not be sure about the classes of exempted development. We had one example of it when Deputy Bannon asked the Minister's officials about an issue and it was clarified. There would be various interpretations put forward as to how planning regulations generally would be implemented but there should be no doubt about the classes of exempted development and what is or is not exempted.

It would be very useful for the Department to engage with directors of services and councils generally to ensure that there is proper interpretation of the planning regulations and that a study or training day is carried out in conjunction with them. This would help to ensure there is consistency in respect of what is or is not regarded as exempted development because there is some confusion about this matter depending on the local authority with which one deals.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch suggested that a site notice be erected at the site of a proposed exempted development, which is a good idea and should be looked at. I understand the Minister's officials were of a mind to look positively at that and perhaps we could include it at a future occasion. Given that the Minister is returning to us so often, I am sure he will return soon.

I have no major issue with avoiding or eliminating duplication in respect of regulations. I can see the issue that has arisen. I believe the Minister mentioned five areas under the various Acts, so that needs to be tidied up. However, it must be done in such a way that people, be they a sponsoring firm or project or members of the public, are on the side of ensuring that everyone knows what is involved and what classes of exemptions are involved and that there is an opportunity through advertising in the local media or a site notice to bring these matters to people's attention so that they can make their submission or objection if they subsequently wish to do so.

Like Deputy Hogan, I wish to find out how this lacuna came about. The question is whether we can identify whether it was on a particular issue or whether it related to the debate we had here last week. In his response this afternoon, the Minister referred to duplication. We would all like to see a more streamlined planning process come into effect. However, there is a distinction between duplication and context and I will deal with this in a moment.

As I said to the Minister's officials earlier, what we are discussing here is the legislation governing exemptions. We must then look at what gets exempted. As has been referred to in this meeting, the question of how we go about that arises. Is it through primary or secondary legislation? The Minister chose secondary legislation last week to provide a number of exemptions, which was unfortunate. I will address the points made by the Minister in that debate in a moment because there are some weaknesses in what he brought forward last week.

In respect of the context, the Minister introduced the idea that a biomass facility of 200 sq. m. which is 10 m. high will not require an environmental impact study to be carried out.

I will come back to the Deputy. I have listened to his points.

The Minister introduced it this afternoon.

I know. I am listening to the Deputy's points but there are very good explanations for that.

The Minister had the opportunity and said last week that he would return to clarify some points. I introduced this point last week.

The other point introduced last week and which I raised again this afternoon is the process of enforcement and examination. The Minister proposed last week to introduce a number of significant developments that do not require a site notice and an advertisement to appear in a local newspaper. If I do not know that something is being built at the end of my street, how can I be aware that the development is complying with the conditions under which the exemption has been granted? There is a difficulty from the outset because I do not even know what is being built at the end of my road as there is no notification in the newspaper or by means of a site notice.

This could have been dealt with if the Minister had chosen the primary legislation route last week instead of the secondary legislation route. When the Planning and Development Act 2000, which allows exemptions by ministerial order, was debated in the Dáil, the Minister spoke about how a more people friendly and community friendly planning system which would ensure greater transparency, efficiency and public participation was required. If something is being built in a housing estate, and the Minister's officials spoke about a duty of care during the briefing session this afternoon, there is a precautionary principle when granting exemptions regardless of merit. It could be the extension of school or renewable energy which all of us, not just the Minister, would like to see. There must be some context in which those developments proceed.

The Minister spoke about how a three-month consultation process took place. I accept that such a process took place. However, such processes are not ring-fenced periods but are an open-ended process. Applications also need public consultation. One no longer gets that public consultation with exemptions. I also understand that of the 51 submissions made — I am not too sure how significant is the number — some were from people in the industry who would benefit from the exemptions. If I was in industry, I would be looking for an exemption because it makes my business much easier regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the type of business I am in.

Fundamentally, what we have here is an issue of process. The legislation is in place to grant the exemptions. I am on the slow track and perhaps I need an exemption on my learning curve in order to speed matters up. Why are we at this point this afternoon? What lacuna has been identified? Given that this is the advice of the Attorney General, I am at a loss to understand what consideration was given to the Aarhus directive and the public participation directive. If the motion the Minister has proposed does not pass, what is the legal standing? If the Attorney General's advice is that there is a difficulty with the Act, does this mean that what was brought in last week is on legally questionable ground?

I thank members, although Deputy Hogan has left. They raised good points. I would have liked to have concluded this last week. It would have saved me much bother. I was rigorous in my assessment. Anytime there are difficulties with habitats, I have asked my staff at the national parks and wildlife service to go through this in great detail. We liaised with the Attorney General and it was at this stage that he discovered there was a potential conflict or lacuna that needed to be addressed. I would like to have addressed this last week but we must deal with it now.

I take on board the points raised about site notices and I will do so in the context of bringing a memo to Government. I seek feedback from people on problems with our planning system, of which there are many. I want to improve our planning system and remove difficulties.

The nub of the issue is that we have strategic infrastructure, which can work to the benefit of people, as we know in Cork, and it is a speedier, more efficient process. This is what we will deal with from now on. This project is broken into elements and I must deal with one element, the habitats matter. That is where the anomaly arose. I am afraid this has application in other areas, some of which I listed. Any time one is dealing with a habitat, a special area of conservation or a special protection area, we will run into this difficulty. I do not want to take all the credit but we have many of them around the country. Any development by a harbour authority under the Harbours Act, as it relates to exempted provisions under class 24, includes a series of difficulties. This has application to anything to do with the reconstruction, extension, or the removal of docks, quays, wharfs, jetties or embankments; any development under the Gas Act 1976 as related to exempted provisions under class 25, including the laying of underground mains pipes, cables and other apparatus; and the carrying out by any electricity undertaking of development consisting of the laying of underground pipes, cables and other apparatus for the purpose of that undertaking. I have discussed this with my ministerial colleague, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and this relates to wave energy projects that we are trying to get off the ground——

——under water, and wind farms. If they create a landfall in a special area of conservation, there are potential difficulties. The Attorney General is correct in identifying this but I would have liked if we could have identified this much earlier. That was not the case.

I refer to the questions raised by Deputy Lynch on the environmental impact statement. The CHP plant does not require an environmental impact statement and would not have required it under any circumstances. There is one project that has undergone the strategic infrastructure process, the construction of a biomass combined heat and power CHP plant with annual intake of approximately 105,000 tonnes. That must undergo the strategic infrastructure process and requires an environmental impact statement. It requires planning permission but not the environmental impact statement to which Deputy Lynch refers.

Deputy Lynch quoted me in his press release last week, it was nice of him to do that. The press release also referred to new developments that did not require an environmental impact statement. They do not planning permission but they never required an environmental impact statement.

The question is why this is the case.

It is because they never did.

Exactly. Why do they not?

Deputy Lynch is of the view that I should have——

The Minister is muddying the water in making a comparison between strategic infrastructure and exempted developments. There was a concern that communities would be railroaded in cases of strategic infrastructure. The example of An Bord Pleanála shows that if the additional infrastructure will not be in place, An Bord Pleanála will take it very seriously. Hence the ruling this week. It is disingenuous to merge strategic infrastructure and exempted developments as if they are one and the same, which they are not. I refer to the fact that the 200 sq. m biomass facility, which is 10 m high, can be exempted from an environmental impact statement. The site notice and the advertisement should be examined.

Deputy Lynch made another point.

We all welcome the increase of a school size. If one increases the school by two classrooms, and there are many schools that would like two new classrooms to get them out of the prefabs they are in, planning is not a difficultly. Funding is the problem. Local authorities are very efficient and quick to give standard due process to the planning process. The whole matter of a school extension can be wrapped up in one and a half or two months. In examining that application, other matters are considered, including pedestrian access, traffic surveys, egress and access and cycle lanes. The idea that a school can put in two classrooms, potentially bringing 60-70 students or 30-40 cars to the school, without taking into account contextual difficulties of a planning application is a shortcoming of the exemption process.

It was outlined by officials last week that there was ongoing consultation with the community in respect of these matters. Regarding the CHP system, I said last week that it had to be 200 m from the nearest inhabited building. There are conditions attached, such as a restriction of one per site. There are certain anxieties in this regard but I hope they are not overplayed and that people understand we are doing this to ensure we have renewable energy and good energy security. We are not doing so to facilitate individuals with an interest in this. Noise levels must be lower than 43 decibels, as I stated last week. Deputy Lynch is concerned about those who live in the neighbourhood but we have addressed that. There are a number of issues concerning schools. The exemptions are not about introducing ad hoc indefinite arrangements. They are clearly within the context of a policy framework. More importantly, they are within a context of planning permission already having been received. In this context, it makes sense to provide for five years’ exemption marrying the five-year planning permission limit as set out under section 40 of the Planning and Development Act.

We stated we had to develop key liaisons at central and local level to provide for an efficient exchange of information to help resolve the difficulties which the Deputy outlined. I am aware of difficulties with traffic and I am dealing with one issue which does not relate directly to schools but to a development beside a school. We have tried our best to take account of all of these issues. Another issue raised was why we are doing this through these regulations. It is because it is what is provided for under the 2001 Act.

With regard to planning enforcement, where a local authority or relevant section of a local authority has been unsuccessful with regard to an unauthorised development, trying to get the issue to court is like watching paint dry. The Minister must examine this because it causes many problems. I had experience of a number of cases in my former local authority area. How will the Minister address this matter?

I could not agree more that enforcement is a major issue and it is also extremely frustrating for ordinary citizens when they see what is going on. It undermines confidence in the planning system. We want to address it in new legislation. We want to introduce a series of measures. We want to find out which local authorities are doing the business and which are not. There is a disparity between local authorities, not only on this issue but on a range of issues.

Now that I am a Minister and leader of a political party which has always prided itself on encouraging good planning, I find I am being contacted by my local authority members who tell me nothing is being done. We must deal with a range of issues, including controversial matters such as the retention of use. These must be examined to see whether we can find a model which is the equivalent to best practice worldwide. My aim as Minister is to have a planning system which rivals that of other countries. I admire and am envious of what one sees elsewhere but in these other places they are strict. We must be extremely strict with regard to planning and the devil may care attitude must go.

In cases of planning permission for one-off houses in designated natural heritage areas or SAC areas, are applicants obliged to have an environment impact study? Vast areas of Connemara in my constituency are designated as NHAs or SACs. The Minister seems to be taking credit for the number of areas designated as NHAs or SACs. Is he aware of the extreme hardship encountered by people applying for one-off houses in the area? Land is designated an NHA or SAC without compensation to the landowner. They are now in positions of extreme hardship where they must produce environmental impact statements for applications for once-off houses. Are once-off houses exempt with regard to environmental impact statements and other studies?

The words I used were "appropriate assessment". This is what my Department does. Any development within an SAC must have an appropriate assessment on what the impact will be on the SAC. The Department carries this out in conjunction with others and will ensure it does not have a negative impact on the area. This is how it must be. Unfortunately, rumours go around. I was in Galway at the weekend and the latest rumour is that people will have to stop cutting turf in Connemara and other such areas.

I am quite aware of the regulations. I have clarified them for many people.

I would be delighted if this were the case but my ranger tells me many people are of the view they cannot cut turf in blanket bogs. This rumour is going around the country and apparently it had an effect with regard to the Lisbon treaty. This is not the case and all responsible Deputies must get the message out that the Government and the European Commission are not doing this.

With regard to appropriate assessment, we treat people fairly. We are not coming down on anybody. We are ensuring that we give adequate protection to our habitats.

The Minister answered a question I did not ask. The people of Connemara voted 3:1 against the Lisbon treaty in the recent referendum. This was mainly because of directives affecting their everyday lives, including once-off houses for family members living and working in the area with connections to the area, which is all that is allowed in these areas anyway. They must go through the process of carrying out environmental impact studies to satisfy the wildlife section at the Office of Public Works prior to dealing with planning permission. This is a major burden on people. I do not know what rumours the Minister heard in Galway but I will help the Minister to straighten them out.

I thank the Deputy and I appreciate it.

Part of our problem is that we are not getting enough information out to the citizens of the country with regard to regulations and statutory instruments. We can do this and the Minister's Department has a role to play. He has heard from various speakers today and at our previous meeting he heard about inconsistencies throughout local authorities with regard to the interpretation of planning guidelines and regulations. One can go from one local authority to the neighbouring local authority and see different interpretations adopted. This causes frustration, not only among citizens but also among local authorities. The Minister must address this matter. He acknowledged that problems exist, particularly with regard to guidelines and regulations.

The Minister acknowledged we have difficulties with the foreshore licensing procedure. I am glad the Minister raised this matter. Many local authorities experience serious difficulties in this area and it causes major frustration. In the Seanad I outlined the seven-village sewerage scheme which has been held up for three years due to the inadequacy of the foreshore licensing process. I am glad the Minister will address this.

The Minister mentioned he will bring forward new planning legislation. Will he be more explicit and provide a timeframe on when he hopes to bring it forward? We will welcome it. I concur with some of the comments made on enforcement. Local authorities have difficulties with regard to resources in enforcing planning legislation. The Minister stated he will conduct research throughout the country to establish who is and who is not enforcing the legislation. He will find serious difficulties arise with regard to the resourcing of the enforcement sections in planning departments. This needs to be addressed and proper resources must be put into this area to avoid court cases.

I welcome the Minister and his officials. This is my first meeting as a member of this committee. I fully support what Senators Glynn and Coffey stated with regard to enforcement which is a serious problem. As a member of a local authority for many years I have seen what has happened. Council officials seem to come down heavy on minor offences while the major issues are left unattended and those involved do what they like.It is about time they were pursued and severe action taken against them. They are building apartments and, in some cases, extra houses on estates before seeking planning permission when it is ready to be sold. That activity must be stamped out.

Recently, I sent the Minister a letter about listed buildings in my home town of Kells. Kells is classed as a heritage town because of the Book of Kells, the high crosses, St. Columba's House and so on but buildings are being listed that should be knocked and rebuilt. Unfortunately, significant anti-social behaviour is taking place. For example, what is going on on Maudlin Street is disgraceful and I would like the Minister to visit the town and see this for himself. People cannot sell houses because they are listed and it costs too much to repair them. They are put to too much hassle and expense. I appeal to the Minister even to send his officials to Kells to examine the situation. I am not happy, nor are local councillors, local residents and business people. Even in good times where there was serious demand for such buildings, they were not demolished and rebuilt. Because of the conditions attaching to them, I ask his officials to examine this because changes should be made.

It was remiss of me not to welcome Deputy Brady, who has replaced Deputy John Cregan, to the committee. We look forward to his continuing participation.

I thank the Chairman.

A number of Deputies expressed concern about having Ministers before the committee within a few weeks of each other. A Minister should appear before the committee every week and the Minister is welcome any time.

The Minister expressed his concern that the planning process is not as streamlined as he would like and undertook to examine it, which is welcome. Clearer guidelines are needed on exempted development because it is a grey area. It is interpreted differently by local authorities. Perhaps the Department could issue guidelines which might help to resolve some of the issues. We come up against this issue on a regular basis and it should be clear what is exempt.

I echo the Deputy's remarks. It might be useful for the Department to issue further guidelines because when public representatives call the enforcement officer to examine an issue, they must take out the guidelines and the regulations, which are complicated. For example, manufacturers are producing antennas to within a millimetre of what they consider to be within the exemption and they combine them within something else. They are stretching everything to within millimetres of the exemption and that makes it difficult even for the enforcement officers to be clear. If a council has an issue with this, it must go through an expensive legal process, which is at its own expense if it comes out on the losing side.

The regulations relate to Glengad Head and the Minister understands the pipeline to the well head will be laid over the coming months. I take it nothing has happened yet and these regulations will facilitate this. Nothing has, therefore, made it through the net and the problem has been spotted before it has arisen.

That is precisely the case. Information is absolutely vital and we are trying to update the planning leaflets in order that information is disseminated. Clearer guidelines are needed and we want to write to the committee in this regard setting out in great detail what is the position on exempted development to ensure the committee is clear about it and we will update the planning leaflets in order that the public is absolutely clear on this.

Deputy O'Sullivan referred to streamlining. I will streamline the Foreshore Act 1933. It is acknowledged that the foreshore consent system needs to be updated and rationalised to reflect the changing nature of development on our foreshores.

Members asked about planning legislation. I would like to update it but I must bring my proposals to Cabinet first and members will appreciate I will not tell them everything in the proposals. Local authorities have stated they need money to ensure good enforcement. It is inevitable that planning fees must increase and I hope we all agree with that. Perhaps we do not all agree but that is my intention.

In response to Deputy Brady, I will send an official to Kells. I have sanctioned a significant increase of 42% in the allocation for heritage protection but I take on board what the Deputy said and someone will make a visit and have a look.

We must go to the House for a division.