I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Kieran O'Donnell, and his officials to the committee this morning. Yesterday, we adjourned on amendment No. 8. There is a large grouping of amendments, so I invite the Minister of State to speak on amendment No. 8 and that grouping and then we will go to members for responses.
Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 2
Debate resumed on amendment No. 8:
In page 28, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
“ “competent in the Irish language” means spoken competency at level B2 at least of Teastas Eorpach na Gaeilge;”.
- (Deputy Cian O'Callaghan)
To provide context, we have divided amendments under seven thematic areas. to be helpful to members, I will read the following notes. The first heading relates to exempted development and Irish-language impact assessment. Section 9 provides for the Minister’s power to make exempted development regulations, which currently includes that the Minister, in making such regulations, must be of the opinion that the carrying out of such development would not offend against the principles of proper planning, sustainable development or maritime spatial planning. Amendments Nos. 53, 85, 87, 90 and 98, tabled jointly by Deputies Eoin Ó Broin, Thomas Gould and Aengus Ó Snodaigh, seek to restrict exempted development where a language impact assessment is required. Amendment No. 53 seeks to amend section 9(3) which restricts exempted development where an environmental assessment is required to provide that this restriction applies where a language impact assessment is required. Similarly, amendments Nos. 85, 87, 90 and 98 relate to requests for a declaration on whether development constitutes exempted development. When considering such a request, it is proposed that a declaration must state whether the development is likely to have significant effects on the use of Irish within a specified Gaeltacht area and if the carrying out of a language impact assessment is required.
Section 9(1) already provides that the Minister may only make exempted development regulations where he or she is of the opinion that, by reason of the size, nature or limited effect on its surroundings, the carrying out of development would not offend against the principles of proper planning, sustainable development or maritime spatial planning. Having regard to the fact that, as such, exempted development regulations are intended for developments of a minor nature, it is difficult to comprehend what class of development is envisaged that would likely offend against the use of Irish within the community so as to preclude the Minister from classifying it as exempted development. It may not be possible to even do so, given a legally binding declaration is being made.
With respect to the proposed prohibition on exempted development, where that development requires a language impact assessment, this would preclude any non-residential development within a Gaeltacht language planning area or any residential development that includes the construction of not less than two housing units from being exempted development. This would create an undue impediment to non-residential development of a minor nature in Gaeltacht language planning areas and place an unnecessary and unworkable burden on planning authorities to adjudicate a planning application for such development in all cases. For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept these amendments, and that is under the area of exempted development and Irish-language impact assessment.
The next thematic heading is matters to which a planning authority and commission shall have regard to and respect of Irish language. Amendment No. 598 is tabled jointly by Deputies Eoin Ó Broin, Thomas Gould and Aengus Ó Snodaigh. It seeks to amend section 83 which sets out the matter to which planning authorities and the commission must have regard when performing a function under Part 4 by requiring that regard must be had to any information available to it relating to the impact of the development and the use of Irish language within certain specified Gaeltacht areas and the viability of Irish as a spoken language of the community.
Amendment No. 603 tabled by Deputies Cian O'Callaghan, Eoin Ó Broin, Thomas Gould, Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Marc Ó Cathasaigh seeks to require planning authorities and the commission, in the case of development on land situated within Gaeltacht areas, to have regard to the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Irish language in Gaeltacht communities. Any relevant language plan and a language impact statement prepared by a qualified independent expert must demonstrate that the proposed development will have a positive impact upon the promotion and use of Irish as a language of the community in order for that community to be treated favourably. Similar to my previous position regarding this group of proposed amendments, I do not consider these to be workable or proportionate and they would place an ineffectual obligation on the relevant authorities. For these reasons, I do not in a position to accept these amendments.
Moving to the third theme, the conditions that must be attached to planning permissions granted, amendments Nos. 619 and 623 tabled by Deputies Eoin Ó Broin, Thomas Gould and Aengus Ó Snodaigh seek to amend section 84 and the provisions that enable a planning authority or the commission to attach certain conditions to planning permissions. Amendment No. 619 seeks to amend the existing provision allowing for conditions to be attached related to the appropriate naming and numbering of, and the appropriate signage for, a proposed development and to include that such conditions could require the naming to be in the Irish language only or, in the case of bilingual naming, for the Irish name to be more prominent in signage. Amendment No. 623 seeks to include a new provision that where a development includes the construction of not less than two housing units in a certain specified Gaeltacht area, the planning authority or the commission may attach conditions to protect and promote the use of Irish within the community and the viability of Irish as the spoken language of the community. These include, but are not limited to: requiring a language impact assessment to be prepared to demonstrate that the proposed development would have a positive impact on the use of Irish compared with English in the area; and the requirement that a certain percentage of the development be reserved for Irish-speaking residents who demonstrate a minimum B2 level of spoken Irish under the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Amendment No. 647 tabled jointly by Deputies Cian O'Callaghan, Eoin Ó Broin, Thomas Gould and Aengus Ó Snodaigh seeks to amend section 92 which sets out the provisions governing the making of an application to a planning authority for a standard development.
These amendments relate to an application for permission for residential developments situated in certain specified Gaeltacht areas. In such cases, where an applicant is competent in the Irish language, that applicant shall be treated as having a social need and the application shall be treated favourably. I do not consider the proposed amendments to be fair, reasonable or balanced in the context of the planning system and its purpose and scope. The proposed conditions are not workable for those having to consider and apply the proposed conditions nor for those to whom such conditions may apply. The proposed provisions are also overtly vague in places, such as providing that certain planning applications are to be “treated favourably”. Without labouring the point, for these reasons, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.
I have other themes if members would like to discuss the other headings. I will give the headings and then members can ask. They are decisions of commission on appeal or on direct application for development in Gaeltacht; competence of planning commissioners and Office of the Planning Regulator in the Irish language; performance of functions by the Office of the Planning Regulator; performance of functions by the commission; and Údarás na Gaeltachta as an approved housing body.
The first three are somewhat related. This is where the confusion comes from - the others have nothing to do with planning. Some are to do with standard requirements for staffing. That is where the problem is. They are all grouped. We will have to go through them individually or grouped where they are related. I thank the Minister of State for giving us the explanation for the first three or four.
That is purposely why I stopped. It is at the behest of members.
It would be helpful to deal with what the Minister of State said now and then move onto the other subgroupings, if that is okay.
I will open up the debate to members.
The Minister of State is not covering amendment No. 8 in this grouping; he will cover that later.
For future days, unless we have these subgroupings-----
It is under a later subgroup. I dealt with the first three.
We will deal with amendment No. 8 later. That is fine. As Deputy Ó Broin said, if we had sight of those on future days, it would help everyone. On amendment Nos. 603 and 647, the Minister of State said what is proposed is not workable, proportionate, fair, reasonable or balanced and is overtly vague. What does the Government propose to do to address the issues we raised? If it does not like our amendments and does not accept them, will the Government bring forward amendments on this matter? There is no point in having the Gaeltacht Act 2012 and language planning on a statutory basis if it will not be given effect. Language planning is there on a legislative basis but in the detail of how it operates, there is no legislation giving effect to it. It is haphazard. It has not been implemented consistently, as we went through yesterday and gave examples. It has not been working.
It is critical that these issues are addressed in this Bill because it is a first Bill and will probably be the only planning Bill for another 25 years, let us say. While I heard from the Minister of State why he does not like the amendments I tabled, I have not heard what he intends to do to address these issues. There is a statutory basis for language plans in the Gaeltacht Act 2012. That needs to be given effect. The Planning and Development Act 2000 pre-dated the Gaeltacht Act 2012 so it did not incorporate language planning. We need to have a statutory framework around language planning and how it operates in detail, beyond what is in the Gaeltacht Act 2012. That gave us the start but it is up to this Bill to put into detail how this will operate. Without it, I do not think it will work.
I will provide one example. I raise it as one example of how it affects many people and communities. Adhna Ní Bhraonáin moved back to Spiddal in May 2023 and was offered a job in the local medical centre as a physiotherapist. She took the job but could not find anywhere to rent. She looked online and saw hundreds of Airbnbs but no one was willing to do a long-term rental. This is in a Gaeltacht area. She was very annoyed to see houses on sale in the area pitched as holiday homes, not for people in the Gaeltacht area with the language who want to work there and have the skills needed. While working in the local medical centre as a physiotherapist in a Gaeltacht area, where we need people with skills like that, she ended up living out of her van. She did not have proper access to facilities to wash or cook meals. This is how our State-run services are operating in Gaeltacht areas, with skilled, qualified staff who return to the areas unable to find housing because planning is failing Gaeltacht communities and Irish language speakers.
This has an individual impact, of course, but it also has an impact on our ability to recruit and retain people with the skills needed in Gaeltacht areas. It has a detrimental impact on the language and culture in the area. We have all the policy in the Gaeltacht Act 2012 about how this is meant to be addressed through language planning. It is not fleshed out; this is the place to flesh it out. I tabled amendments Nos. 603 and 647 that propose to do that. I have not heard from the Minister of State what he intends to do. If he does not like my amendments, fair enough. I do not take that personally. What will the Minister of State do to address this? Does he think the status quo is working? Does he accept it is failing Gaeltacht communities? What does he propose to do about it?
I am still not convinced this will be a functional way of doing this.
I am open to-----
With the greatest respect, it is not for the Minister of State to be open to.
Deputy Ó Broin misinterpreted me.
I have the floor.
I do not mean it in that sense. I am trying to be helpful.
I have the floor. My point is that I do not think this will be effective but we will give it a try and we will see. I remind the Minister of State that it is the committee, under the guidance of the Chair, who decide how we proceed. We want to facilitate to the Minister of State and his officials as much as possible. The problem is that the Minister of State just does not understand the proposition cutting across these amendments. I made a point yesterday when his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, was at the committee, which I will repeat because I would like him to try to get his head around what we are proposing. Let us take the example of the cluster around exempted developments. Typically speaking, when a decision around an exempted development is made, officials look at the categories of permitted exempted developments and the impact of those physical structures on the surrounding built environment. These amendments try to broaden the way in which planning decisions are made to ensure they are not just looking at whether a physical structure is or is not an exempted development but the use of that structure and, in particular, the linguistic use. For example, after it is granted exempted development status, whether it has a positive or negative impact on the use of the language. Granting an exempted development in a Gaeltacht area where the functional use of that building would exclusively be use of the English language is a problem. Our planning system currently is blind to that. Our planning authorities have no tools to assess that and therefore cannot make decisions on it. It is simply not the case that it is not possible to do this. It is a question of whether we want our planning system to do this or not. It is an issue particularly in Gaeltachtaí but also in Líonraí. As a State, we either say we want to ensure within those geographical areas with a designated land area on which planning and development take place that every single planning and development decision has to include an assessment of its impact on the language and use of the language, whether positive or negative, or not.
It is a novel concept and a novel way of using the planning system but, ultimately, it is a political decision rather than a planning decision.
I move to amendments Nos. 603, 647 and 890. We are introducing a new series of plans, including priority area plans and urban co-ordinated plans. Again, having an option for language impact assessments as part of those plans is crucial. I live in Clondalkin village, which Deputy McAuliffe knows very well. Thanks to the hard work of the Irish language community there, it now has líonra or Irish language network status. That is a really good thing. It is good for the village and good for the Irish language because it is good for the rest of us. If we were to do a priority urban plan, for example, or an appropriate plan in that area, it would be really good if, as part of that plan, there could be an assessment as to the contents of the plan and its contribution towards strengthening the hard-won Irish language network status. The idea of having these assessments is to ask a very simple question, which is whether this plan or this category of granted development or unauthorised development will have a positive or negative impact on the growth of the language.
The next point is crucial for me. I want to explain amendment No. 647. The reference to being "treated favourably" was probably a bit too enthusiastic and could probably be taken out. It would be very helpful to this discussion if the Minister of State would publish the rural planning guidelines, which I understand he has sitting on his desk, as did his predecessors. We are all keen to see them. As we know from the national planning framework, where somebody is applying for planning permission in rural countryside areas, one of the categories that has to be taken into account is the requirement to demonstrate a social or economic need. I support that principle. The difficulty is that, because the Minister of State has not published the guidelines, social need is yet to be defined. We are making the case explicitly here that, particularly within Gaeltachtaí, the desire to speak the Irish language every day should be seen as a social need for the purposes of the consideration of a planning application. As I said, the inclusion of "treated favourably" probably was a mistake on our part.
I will demonstrate the core point here by way of an example. If I am sheep farmer and I want to apply to live on the land on which I farm, I can make a case under the existing national farming framework that I have an economic need, which is that my economic activity requires me to live in that location. If I am a schoolteacher from the city who gets a job in a Gaelscoil or bunscoil in a Gaeltacht area, I should be able to make the case that I have a social need to live in that geographical area. The need to be able to speak Irish not just in my employment but in all aspects of my life is a crucial need. This is probably one of the most fundamental issues. When we talk to the Irish language planning officers in rural Gaeltachtaí - they are not planners; their job is the development of the Gaeltachtaí in general - one of the single biggest problems they mention in sustaining and growing their population is that there is no recognition of use of the language in daily life as a social need.
On amendment No. 890, it is completely incorrect to say this proposal would be onerous and unworkable because it is an option for the planning authorities. This amendment sets out a requirement for there to be a language impact assessment on a development of two or more homes. We should keep in mind that in many cases, although not exclusively, this would be in rural countryside areas. The requirement does not have to be two or more homes; it could be three or four. That is up to the planning authority. If it is the policy of the Government, as I believe it is, that we want to see the Irish language community in these designated Gaeltacht areas, that is, the people who speak Irish every day, sustained and enabled to grow, then every single residential development must include an assessment as to whether that development will assist the Irish language to be sustained and to grow or if it will cause it to decline. A private planning application for two, three or four homes, for example, could have a detrimental impact if there is no way of ensuring a portion of those homes goes to Irish language speakers.
On that point, we already have enshrined in our planning law a requirement, under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, for certain portions of housing developments to go people of a certain income standard. That is very sensible. We are not looking to specify what the portion should be in respect of the Irish language requirement. That should be left to the discretion of planning authorities based on their local assessment of need and their own local Irish language plans. The amendments in this cluster seek to make a profound change to the way in which we think about planning. The Minister of State keeps telling us he wants to go to plan-led development. How can we have plan-led development in Gaeltacht communities or Irish language network communities if our plans, development consents and granting of exempted developments are completely blind to whether development, development plans and other forms of plans will have a positive or negative impact on the Irish language. It makes no sense to me. The system needs to be rethought and this is the opportunity to do it.
It is complicated having to jump around to the different amendments. We finished the meeting last night speaking on amendment No. 9. I will try to stick to the ones we are dealing with now and maybe come back to the ones we have skipped over.
In the main, we have been talking about the language impact assessment. A lot of people would presume the best place for this provision would be in an Acht Teanga, an Acht Gaeltachtaí or whatnot. This is a planning Bill. It is important that we do not have enactments that will endanger Gaeltacht areas. As I said yesterday, if a Gaeltacht village switches to English, it is no longer a Gaeltacht area, although it might still be within the boundaries of the larger area. The difficulty of re-establishing that Gaeltacht village is immense. The danger if we put in a development that has no regard to any impact on the language of that area is that we could end up with ten households that are English speaking in a village of 30 houses. We can immediately guess the impact that would have on the day-to-day vernacular of the community. That is the danger and it cannot be overstated.
The purpose of all the amendments to do with the Irish language that I and others have submitted is to find protections within planning laws for identified areas in which the Irish language is still strong enough to be the day-to-day language of those communities. The Irish language is under huge pressure day in, day out, because the language of the media is English, the world is a smaller place in many ways and people who emigrated are returning without the same fluency they had before. There is not enough State effort going into putting in place mechanisms or supports to ensure families can and will rear their families through Irish and attend the local schools and clubs as Gaeilge. I am not making up these difficulties. We know that in different parts of the country, planning applications were made and granted and when people moved in, there was a change in how people spoke. Then, all of sudden, there is a need to work with the new families to try to change the language they speak. In some cases, people had no interest in switching. We are in a housing crisis. People will buy or move into houses where they can afford to do so. If that happens to be in a Gaeltacht, that is what will happen. If a new housing estate is built in which the houses are cheaper than those two miles down the road in Galway city, say, people might move there without a by your leave to the language of the area.
Many people who would seek to live in Gaeltacht areas are Irish speakers who live in cities. For one reason or another, they cannot live in Gaeltacht areas. There are many people within the Gaeltacht who cannot live in those areas either. The language impact assessment would take into account how vulnerable those communities are. In recent years, successive Governments have accepted that there is a crisis in respect of Gaeltacht areas. In my view and the view of most, if not all, of the Irish language organisations and the communities in Gaeltacht areas, the current Government has not done enough. The fact that there is an acceptance on the part of the State that Gaeltacht areas are an exception is why we are seeking a linguistic impact assessment and, in other cases, a language test, in order to ensure that any development happening in the Gaeltacht will be in tune with what is happening in the areas in question. It is the same as if we were looking for environmental impact assessments in order not to do damage to the environment. We are talking here about a linguistic environment, and we are trying to protect it via our planning laws.
In the future, we will hopefully not need to rely on what is proposed because things will be different. There are currently many laws that are not required but that provide protections and can be alluded to if a question arises. Yesterday, I mentioned one of the planning applications that was rejected. The question in the context of the Irish language was "Can you speak Irish?" but it was posed in English. There was no question about the level of Irish or if the person could prove it or anything else. There is nothing there like that. As a result, anyone could reply "Yes" to the question. People can say they speak English. However, a range of questions arise as to their ability in this regard, whether they can speak the language intelligently and with fluency and if they have a vocabulary. I am referring to the B2 test I highlighted yesterday. In this case, the assessment would have to take into account the most recent census information as to the use of the Irish language locally, the nature of the development and whether it is going to attract Irish speakers to stay in their local areas. Is there work associated with it, for example? Deputy Ó Broin spoke of a new school opening in an area and Irish language teachers seeking to return. In some areas, there is a benefit. I refer, for example, to TG4 broadcasting from Ring. People have moved into Gaeltacht areas because the work is there for them, such as with TG4 or other organisations. That is a good thing. This can be part of any conditions proposed as part of an application.
Deputy Ó Broin mentioned the rural housing guidelines. The Gaeltacht housing guidelines have not been published by the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, despite his promise to me three and a half years ago that they would be published. They have bounced back and forth between his Department and the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. One Department says "Yes, the guidelines are coming" and the other one says "It is their fault it is not ready". If they had been published, those guidelines would help to frame what percentage of a development has to be retained. If a development of 100 houses is put in place and 70 of the households there are English-speaking, then only 30% are Irish-speaking. That would have a major effect. If it is two households and one is Irish-speaking and one is English-speaking, that might have the same effect. However, I cannot say so from this distance because I do not know where it is located. Local needs and the effect of the development on a locality must be taken into account.
The Minister of State said that some of the amendments are vague in places. As with other amendments, Deputy Ó Broin and I said that maybe we were wrong and perhaps they would be looked upon favourably. We are happy to work with the Minister of State and the officials in trying to come up with a better formula of words. We are not precious about the list of words or the way they are put. The key thing is the effect whereby the legislation, when it comes into force, will provide the protections we are seeking. I could not care less what formula of words is used so long as it has the effect of protecting the linguistic jewel we have in Gaeltacht areas and it allows those who speak the Irish language in such areas and who wish to stay there can build homes. This is about trying, through legislation, to ensure that Gaeltacht areas can flourish in the future. The main matters I am dealing with relate to amendments Nos. 603, 623, and 683.
On Deputy Ó Broin's amendments, section 46 places an obligation on planning authorities to prepare a strategy relating to the creation, improvement and preservation of sustainable places and communities. Section 46(2)(b) specifically provides for the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage, including the protection of Irish as the community language of Gaeltacht areas in the functional area to which the development plan relates. The Deputy is probably aware that implementation must come about through guidelines and national planning statements. The Deputy is correct that there is an inconsistency in the application at the moment. The 2022 development plans guidelines give further detail on the mandatory objective for Gaeltacht areas based on section 10(2) of the existing Act. The development plans guidelines state that planning authorities should ensure that development plans have regard to the provisions of the language plan and include objectives to support the promotion of the Irish language in Gaeltacht areas. At present, the process is a joint approach involving our Department and the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. The latter needs to advise us as to how they are to be applied in terms of the language assessment.
The Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media commenced a study in February 2023 on the methodology and format for linguistic impact statements as key elements of future planning guidelines for Gaeltacht areas. Initial proposals have been received on foot of consultations and these are informing the draft planning guidelines for Gaeltacht areas, to which Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred. Several interdepartmental group meetings took place in 2023. Bilateral departmental engagement is ongoing. When the draft planning guidelines for Gaeltacht areas are finalised, they will require mandatory screening under EU law for strategic environmental assessment, as well as for the purposes of appropriate assessment. It is intended that, subject to the outcome of the screening exercises, that draft guidelines will then be published for public consultation. All local organisations in Gaeltacht areas and members of the public, including language groups, will be able to submit their views on the draft guidelines during this consultation phase for consideration by my Department. Noting the significant planning policy support already in place and the work under way to further enhance this, I am of the view that the Bill as currently drafted strikes an appropriate balance between recognising the need to promote and maintain the use of our national language with other equally legitimate planning considerations.
The process is provided for in section 46. It is also currently provided for under the 2022 development plan guidelines, but there is an inconsistency in approach. We are working with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media to bring forward specific planning guidelines. We will then move to ministerial statements.
However, we require that Department to advise us on the language assessment guidelines. Obviously we come from the planning side but in regard to the methodology for a linguistic impact statement, that rests with the Department of the Gaeltacht. There are obviously ongoing discussions.
To take up a few points that were made, the Deputy made reference to exemptions. Currently, an exempted development is where, say, someone is doing an extension to their home of 40 sq. m, which does not require planning. The Deputy is making it a condition that it would be required and an exemption would have to be sought if living in a Gaeltacht area. That is my understanding. We regard that as perhaps being overly burdensome.
The Deputy made reference to an example of a teacher moving into an area. Development plans can provide for that. That is a reserved function of councillors in terms of development plans but there is nothing to provide for that. That would be down to individual local authorities. However, we believe what is provided for in legislation is proportionate and balanced.
It follows then in terms of implementation policy that comes through guidelines and ministerial statements. Currently we accept there is inconsistency of approach with the development guidelines. We are currently working with that Department to come up with planning guidelines around the Gaeltacht areas but at present, it is with the Department of the Gaeltacht in respect of the linguistic impact statements, the methodology and how they are applied. We will progress from there.
On the one hand, the entire purpose of this Bill is to do away with amendment after amendment to our planning and development law. We are meant to get a single consolidated item of legislation that planning professionals can work with. Yet, here is another example where we are being told it actually will not be in this Bill but will be in subsequent regulations or might even be in subsequent legislation. It defeats the purpose of asking the Minister of State’s much-beleaguered officials to spend all this time in producing a consolidated Bill when already, the list of future amendments to this Bill by way of primary and secondary legislation is growing exponentially.
Second, the argument that section 46(2)(b) is balanced and addresses the problem just shows-----
The policy-----
I have the floor, with he greatest respect to the Minister of State. The idea that section 46(2)(b) is balanced and addresses the concerns-----
Yes, please go ahead.
-----shows how out of touch with reality the Minister of State is. He should talk to people who live in rural Gaeltachtaí and ask them whether that provision, which already exists in the existing planning development legislation, is not new and provides no new powers or functions to local authorities or planning authorities, is adequate to ensure that our planning system takes decisions and has full visibility on the impact of those decision on the growth or decline of use of the language as a living language. They will tell him it does not.
There were three questions that the Minister of State just did not answer. I hear what he says on exempted development. I do not accept it. It would be a simple and straightforward thing to do. He did not address my concerns in regard to amendment No. 603 which deals with co-ordinated plans and area plans that clearly should have a requirement to have language impact assessments to ensure those plans, among all the other tasks they must do, adequately address the promotion of the use of the language of Gaeltachtaí and líonraí. He did not address the question on social need. This is a fundamental one. The Minister of State should know this because I presume he read the draft rural planning guidelines that are on his desk and were there with his predecessor. The failure of central government to provide a clear definition of social need for the purposes of rural countryside planning to our planning authorities has led to widespread confusion and variance in the granting or refusal of decisions.
I am in favour of sustainable rural planning. I am one of those people who want to see those guidelines published. I want to see consistency and certainty across the local government sector. Part of that means that the Government has to actually tell people what social need means because there is not a definition of social need in the national planning framework. The Minister of State has not published the guidelines either for rural housing or for Gaeltacht housing. I would be interested in hearing his view. For example, does he believe that the use of the language constitutes a social need for somebody who is desirous of living in the Gaeltacht? That is a pretty fundamental question. He also has not answered the question in terms of language impact statements for new developments. Again it could be argued that two or more is too small, it could be different sized developments in different sized areas.
However, I am going to press the Minister of State for much clearer responses to amendments Nos. 603, 647 and 890. When we have expedited those we will come through to the other clusters as well. Maybe there is a conceptual problem here. For me this has nothing to do with other Departments. This is about how we think about our planning system. I say this as somebody who is not an Irish-language speaker but who wants our planning system to be plan-led. That means, who are these plans for, who are the actual people who are going to live in these planned areas, whether urban or rural? For example, with Gaeltachtaí and líonraí, if we are saying that a portion of these people are to be Irish speakers, then our planning system has to have visibility on that.
Finally, with respect to the methodology, I have no issue with the Minister of State reaching out to another Department for the methodology and impact assessment. That makes complete sense but the decision to require the language impact assessments is a planning matter. It is not a matter for another Department. How that is then calculated is separate. Given that we are going to have several years of enactment of this Bill - I meant to ask yesterday, I get the impression that there is kind of an enactment schedule that is to be drafted - it would be really great if we got a copy of that for the committee.
We can do that.
Given that the schedule for the publication of the Bill was greatly delayed - this is no criticism of any officials because it is not the officials' fault - I suspect that if we get a copy of the enactment schedule, I will be reminding the Minister of State, if he is still in government in a year or two years' time, of the delays in meeting that. Nevertheless, given that there is going to be an enactment schedule and some of the elements of this Bill are going to be enacted over time, there is no reason a requirement for language impact assessment could not be put in at various points in this Bill. Then, once the methodology for undertaking those is agreed by way of regulation, put them on the statute. I am going to press the Minister of State on amendments Nos. 603, 647 and 890.
The Minister of State was quoting from the development plans as to what the obligations were for section 46(2)(b). There already is an obligation that in some cases has failed miserably in most Gaeltacht areas. Part of the frustration of Gaeltacht communities is that they will be left in limbo without the developments which would allow many of those families to stay within the Gaeltacht, while seeing developments happening where there are no linguistic protections. The amendments here are to try to ensure that at every level of planning, whether it is the local authority planning section, the councillors preparing the development plan with the management, or whether it is the coimisiún in the future, or the Rialaitheoir Pleanála, they must by law have regard to this. If it is not clearly specified, then it is put to one side. While mention is made of guidelines, we are still waiting, two and a half years later.
It is back and forth like a tennis game. The Minister of State has mentioned that it is now back with his Department whereas two weeks ago it was with the other Department, which says it is finished with it and was before Christmas. I do not know. That is neither here nor there. The key part is that these guidelines have to be published, go to public consultation, go to the EU for oversight, and that will be another two years, at least. It will be four and a half years and maybe five years from the date the Minister promised they would published. In the meantime, when the city and county managers came before the Oireachtas committee on Gaeilge, the Gaeltacht and the Irish language-speaking public, their excuse or reason for not having proper guidelines in their development plans was because they did not have guidelines. They were appealing to the Minister to produce the guidelines so that they could ensure there was a consistency in development plans in each of the counties that have Gaeltacht regions in them.
There is an urgency and that urgency has not so far been reflected by the publication of the Bill. I take the Minister of State at his word, as I have done the Minister of State, Deputy O’Donovan, and the Minister, Deputy O’Brien, that these guidelines are imminent, or the draft ones anyway, and we will see thereafter. Even in draft form, they will be a statement of intent that perhaps some of the counties could look at their development plans to ensure they reflect them. They all have development plans at the moment, so the next round will be in four years’ time, but some of them may be able to adapt as a policy on top of the development plan the guidelines as issued to ensure there is no development happening over the next short while which would undermine the Gaeltacht regions.
The amendments we are discussing deal with linguistic assessment. The Minister of State will find that, when our committee dealt with this issue of planning in the Gaeltacht and we had all the organisations and public consultations, in a way, every single organisation asked for a language test but also for language assessments as part of the requirements to ensure the Gaeltacht can survive from a planning point of view. There are a whole load of other things and that is what we are trying to get across in these amendments. They are not onerous and because they will be in the midst of a whole load of other obligations in some of these amendments we are setting down, and if they are part of it, like any obligation in planning, whether it be the developer or, at the end of the day, the person purchasing the house who ends up paying the cost, whether it is the State building social housing, a developer building private housing or, in the case of a one-off house, the person producing a certificate they have to pay for, they will become part of the cost. I do not believe there is a huge cost in this and, once it is in place, it will be a lot more fluid than people think. It is not onerous and it would become part of planning for any local authority, the regulator or the commission. It would be part of all of the other work they do in preparation for an application, the development plan or a strategic plan at State level.
The Minister of State did not respond to some of the points I made, so it would be good to get a response to some of those initial points. It is alarming that it seems to be the Government's view that section 46(2)(b), which is the status quo in legislation, is any way acceptable. Clearly, there is a complete planning failure with regard to Gaeltacht communities in what is happening right now. The Government does not seem to recognise that and there is a lack of urgency in this. The Minister of State might tell us when the planning guidelines to Gaeltacht planning authorities regarding their statutory obligations to protect the Irish language in the Gaeltacht will be issued. This is long overdue. It was promised two years ago, except they are going to be draft guidelines in a process which has to happen thereafter. When are we going to see the draft guidelines, when will they be published and why have they been promised for so long and have not materialised? Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us that.
We have no view from the Government yet as to where an Irish language speaker fits in in a Gaeltacht area when it comes the issue of social need. The example was given of physiotherapists, who are needed in Gaeltacht areas, who have a housing need which is not being recognised, and who are living in a van while being surrounded by hundreds of empty holiday homes, which, let us be very clear, is exactly what the planning system is facilitating now in Gaeltacht areas. There are empty holiday homes for most of the year while Gaeltacht speakers, who have a housing need, grew up and want to work in that community with their skills, cannot get their housing needs met. That is a complete and absolute planning failure. That is the planning system creating this through a lack of regulation and the Government’s failure to issue these necessary guidelines and make progress on this. That is what is happening here. It is not the status quo and it is not working.
We need to go back to the first principles of planning on this. Why do we have a planning system? When we brought in a planning system, no one said let us bring in a system to try to break up and destroy Gaeltacht communities. That was never the intention of the planning system but that is exactly what is happening now with what the planning system is facilitating with the lack of regulation in this area. Indeed, as I said before, the Bill, in its regulation of short-term lets, which is the driver resulting in many of these empty holiday homes in these communities, specifically aims to exclude Gaeltacht areas which are not in RPZs and, given the way RPZs are defined, will never be eligible to be an RPZ. It is a statistical impossibility in most cases.
What can be seen in Gaeltacht areas is new housing built over recent years, which is empty for most of the year and provides holiday homes for people who are primarily English language speakers from other parts of the country, from cities and so forth. These are empty homes which the planning system has facilitated but it has not facilitated the housing need of Irish language speakers in the Gaeltacht communities.
I have not heard convincingly from the Government what it plans to do about this. I make the point that this increased pressure in terms of housing is a relatively new phenomenon in Gaeltacht areas which has been driven by the growth in unregulated short-term lets and the holiday homes that have come with it. When the previous Bill was done in 2000, there was not the same issue in terms of pressure on housing in Gaeltacht communities, yet here we are 24 years later with the same text - a couple of lines - and that is it.
On my amendment No. 603, I specifically make the case that language impact statements should be prepared by independent experts. As I said yesterday, we have the situation in some places where language impact statements are required, the builder or architect signs off on it, and it is very much a box-ticking exercise. I am not sure if that fulfils any particular need or if we get any benefit out of that kind of box-ticking exercise.
Where we have language impact statements, as the Minister of State has acknowledged, there is a lack of uniformity in this regard. If this is just a box-ticking exercise, with the builder saying everything is going to be fine or whatever, rather than it being prepared by an independent person with independent expertise in the area of language and how the language will be affected, then I do not see how this will work.
Does the Minister of State have a view on this part of my amendment No. 603, the requirement for a language impact statement to be prepared by an independent expert? Does he think the current situation is working? When are we going to get these draft guidelines and get some movement on this issue? Is this the only thing the Minister of State is proposing to deal with this aspect? As a Bill, is this not meant to be the all-encompassing planning bible people can go to and get guidance on these issues? To use the word the Minister of State used about our amendments, why is section 46(2)(b) being left so vague? I ask this because it does not give detail. All it gives is more vagueness, a vagueness that has failed people terribly in Gaeltacht areas.
I will deal with Deputy O'Callaghan's amendments, going from last to first. He referred to empty properties. As he is aware, we are waiting on the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media to bring legislation forward. We will provide guidelines in this area. I am sorry, the legislation is with the European Commission.
As a general observation, there is nothing to stop local authorities from putting provisions concerning the Irish language and linguistic impact statements in their development plans. There is nothing to stop them doing so legally, if they wish to. On an equally general note, just looking through the legislation, I have asked the officials to examine section 83(1) regarding matters to which planning authorities and the commission shall have regard. We will have a look at this section to see if there may be anything in the context of what the Deputy is proposing. We will look at this aspect before Report Stage.
We have amendments to this section in this cluster that the Minister of State has not spoken to.
It is amendment No. 603, which Deputy O'Callaghan mentioned specifically, and that relates to section 83.
We would like to take that away and look at it. We will come to this, but I am saying we are open to looking at it. To deal with the issues in the round, in respect of the language and linguistic impact statements, we must have a structured approach. The Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media is responsible for the Irish language in terms of a Government context. We are working with that Department. It must bring forward the methodology around the format of linguistic impact statements. However, there is nothing to stop local authorities from putting these measures into their development plans, if they wish to do so. It is not a legal requirement but there is nothing to stop them from doing it in a practical sense. We would hope to get those statements out as fast as possible. They would then go, in draft form, for public consultation. They may afterwards need to go to the EU or they may not. This is a process. Ultimately, the best way to implement policy is by way of guidelines. We have the 2022 guidelines which provide for special mention in terms of Gaeltacht areas. We are working with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media on specific planning guidelines for Gaeltacht areas to ensure consistency of approach nationwide. Under this planning legislation, they will ultimately lead to national planning statements. This is our view. I believe this covers the substance of most of the points made.
Deputy Ó Broin also referred to local need. This would be covered in detail for Gaeltacht areas under the planning guidelines we are working on with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. Each local authority in its development plan, however, can apply whatever interpretation it takes in this context. The Deputy referred to the example of a teacher. If a teacher moves into an area, many of the local authorities will interpret this in respect of their having a need in the area. This is down to the development plan of the individual local authority. In terms of process, it is currently being worked on between our Department and the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. This work will result in the creation of guidelines. Regarding the language impact assessment, the methodology in this regard is the preserve of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. Obviously, there is a need to have something structured and that works with the Gaeltacht areas. It is important this is done right. It is an element of these planning guidelines for the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. As I said, we would hope to progress them as quickly as possible.
National policy objective No. 29 in the national planning framework is to, "Support the implementation of language plans in Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas, Gaeltacht Service Towns and Irish Language Networks." That is a statutory obligation on our planning system and our local authorities. The problem is that nowhere in this Bill is it set out how this should be done. It is remarkable that the Minister of State is saying the local authorities can do this if they want. We are going to have a huge row later today or tomorrow about many areas of this Bill where the Government does not want local authorities to decide how they will do things. The whole purpose of national planning policy statements and expedited measures to retrospectively amend local authority plans is due to the position of the Minister of State's Government, as he will articulate it when we get to the relevant section, that there should be absolute consistency across all our planning authorities. I am sure the Minister of State's officials will tell him privately that the whole purpose, for example, of the rural planning guidelines that have been buried in the bowels of ministerial offices for some years is to avoid having a situation where different local authorities are applying completely different sets of rules. This is because if I am applying for a one-off rural house in one local authority area, the same set of rules should apply in another local authority area, especially if the areas are contiguous. We have spoken at great length about the need for consistency and sustainability in our rural planning guidelines. The Minister of State is right in this regard. One local authority decides one thing while another decides another, and this is done without any regard to the national planning framework or the principles of good and environmentally sustainable development or the sustainability of the language.
The Minister of State has not answered any of the specific questions in this regard. I will ask one final question in this context now. In his view, should use of the Irish language be considered a social need in a planning application in a rural Gaeltacht? I am not saying it should determine whether planning permission is awarded because there are many other considerations to be taken into account, like sustainability and access to services. However, should this aspect, the use of the Irish language, be considered a social need in a planning application? Does it merit this type of consideration? I ask this because, right now, if I was a planning officer in a local authority where there was a rural Gaeltacht, I might have my own view on this point but I would not know what the Department's position is on this issue. This is why I keep coming back to amendment No. 647 as being crucial. The Minister of State has not addressed the issue of whether language impact assessments are needed. He keeps telling us the methodology will be developed somewhere else, and that is fine. However, does the Minister of State think these language impact statements are needed, for example, with our urban co-ordinated plans and priority area plans? Are they needed in residential developments? Deputy O'Callaghan gave a very good example of why these language impact statements should apply with exempted developments, such as where an exempted development is intended to add capacity to a short-term letting facility in a Gaeltacht. This could clearly have a detrimental impact. The Minister of State has twice told us interesting things that were not related to the questions we asked.
I really want to pin him down on use of language as a social need in a Gaeltacht area, and if we should have language impact assessments as part of our plan-making process, separate to the methodology of it. I know we have spent a lot of time on this but there are a few other clusters in this same group that we did not get to.
Could I comment?
Could I just let the Minister of State respond? Is it on the same question?
I just want to respond to what the Minister of State said.
Deputy O'Callaghan can go ahead.
We can let the Minister of State respond and then I will come back.
I will get him to respond to Deputy Ó Broin and then I will come back to Deputy O'Callaghan. I want to try to put a bit of structure on the direction of where we are going.
First, one of the key purposes of the new guidelines that are being produced for the Gaeltacht areas is for a language impact statement to be provided. That is accepted.
I apologise for reading from my phone but I want to be clear. I refer to the current development guidelines issued to local authorities in 2022 in respect of Gaeltacht areas. I purposely looked at this. There are a number of subsections.
In cases where Gaeltacht areas including the Language Planning Areas (Limistéir Phleanála Teanga - LPTs) straddle administrative boundaries, a co-ordinated policy approach will be required between the relevant local authorities and this must be reflected in their respective development plans;
As a means to contribute to the protection of the Irish language, development plan policy for [local authorities in] Gaeltacht areas [must] provide clarity in relation to the requirements for new residential development in Gaeltacht areas. The planning authority shall ensure that policies in Gaeltacht areas prioritise the protection of the language;
This is already included.
I apologise for interrupting but I want to make an important point.
Could I-----
It does not answer the question I asked.
No, but I will answer the Deputy's question. It is important that I put on record what is the current position. Section 7.6(c)(4) states:
That development proposals in Gaeltacht areas have a positive impact on the linguistic and cultural heritage that can be robustly assessed at planning application stage - some forms or scales of development may not be appropriate;
That is standard.
Yes, but it does not address the question I asked: in those areas, does the desire to use the language on a day-to-day basis constitute social need? In my development plan, for example - other Deputies will know this - when you apply for a new house in a countryside area, you have to demonstrate an economic need to actually live in that physical area or a social need. Economic need is much clearer, more or less. Social need is not. This is what I am trying to pin the Minister of State down on. For example, right now, does the Government actually have a position on this or is it just a come-all-ye, whatever you are having yourself, with the local authorities?
It should be an important consideration but it is not the only one. With due respect, planning is an inexact science.
My point is that in any planning application the planning authority has to assess a range of factors. I get that.
It is not binary.
My point is to ascertain whether it is the position of the Government. What the Minister of State has just read out from the development plan is-----
They are the 2022 guidelines for development plans.
Absolutely. It was given to many local authorities after they had got halfway through completing their development plan review, but that is a separate issue. Does social need in a Gaeltacht include use of the language or desire to live in an area where the language is spoken? That is a pretty straightforward question. I think the answer is that the Minister of State does not know because the Department does not have a position on it. That is okay. If that is the case he should say it. That is the very reason we are proposing the amendment.
The 2022 development guidelines, as currently provided, clearly indicate that local authorities should take it into account as part of their consideration. It is not the only factor.
That does not answer the question but I do not want to hog people's time.
They are the facts. To provide absolute certainty in the area, we are currently working with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media to deal with the linguistic impact statement in terms of the speaking of the Irish language. That is currently being finalised with that Department. That will provide specific planning guidelines for Gaeltacht areas.
Will it provide clarity on whether use of the language can be considered as a social need? It appears that the officials have literally no answer to this.
We are working on the guidelines. It is one of the considerations. It cannot be the only consideration.
I am not asking for it to be the only consideration.
Currently, under the existing guidelines it is one of the considerations, but it is not the only one. If local authorities wish – Deputy Ó Broin will appreciate that development plans are a reserved function of the councillors – there is nothing to stop them incorporating a linguistic impact statement into the development plan as part of their considerations for planning in Gaeltacht areas. However, we are looking at it in a more structured way to take away any degree of ambiguity and to provide consistency in the area. That is what we are working on.
I thank the Minister of State. Deputy O'Callaghan wants to come in. I propose that we take a five-minute break at 11.30 a.m. if that is okay with everybody. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On the linguistic impact statements and the guidelines that are going to come through, the draft guidelines will provide certainty on that.
They will obviously go for public redraft, which is the normal process. They may not have to go to Europe. It will depend on how people view them.
Yes. That is welcome. Will the guidelines be on Gaeltacht language planning areas only or will they also refer to towns within the Gaeltacht? That is covered in my amendment.
They are primarily to cover the Gaeltacht language areas. Once again, the current development guidelines that we have speak about boundary areas anyway. To have an integrated approach they would have to take into account other areas as well, but the guidelines are primarily about the areas where the Irish language is spoken, the Gaeltacht areas.
On a general note, this is hugely important. Irish is our first language. For me, it is all about process and getting to something that works and provides consistency.
I understand the guidelines will primarily be about the limistéir pleanála teanga Gaeltachta but will the bailte seirbhíse Gaeltachta, the serviced towns within the Gaeltacht, be covered under this?
Yes, absolutely.
There is some good practice there currently. It is important to say that. There is also an absolute lack of it in other areas. It is the lack of consistency that is a huge problem.
That is it. It will speak about that in a general sense as well. We are moving towards a ministerial statement to provide that level of consistency.
Yes, but there is an issue with linguistic impact statements if they are just being signed off by a builder and they are ticking the box and saying this is going to help the language in the area or whatever else. Is that aspect going to be addressed in the guidelines that are issued? In amendment No. 603 we refer to a language impact statement being prepared by an independent expert. Is that going to be addressed?
That is something that is currently being looked at by the Department of the Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. The Deputy makes a valid point but all those matters will be considered as part of the new guidelines.
When are we expecting the draft guidelines to be issued?
We are hoping to get them out as quickly as possible but we are working across Departments. We are in discussions with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. It is our intention to get them out as quickly as possible.
The Minister of State responded to the issue I raised about Gaeltacht areas. We see estates of relatively new-build homes in Gaeltacht areas, which presumably were given planning to try to help to meet the needs of the local community, but they are predominantly if not exclusively holiday homes. Of course they can be holiday homes for Irish-language speakers from other parts of the country but they belong to English-language speakers predominantly, which has an impact on the Gaeltacht. Irish speakers not being able to access housing has a detrimental impact. The Minister of State said he is working with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media on the regulation of short-term lets.
The Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media is bringing forward legislation. We will deal with the planning aspect.
Yes. However, this Bill refers to measures to regulate short-term lets, which directly impact on Gaeltacht communities. I gave an example of an Irish-language speaking physiotherapist who sees hundreds of short-term lets in the An Spidéal area while living out of a van and working in the local HSE clinic.
An Spidéal is not a rent pressure zone. This Bill mentions regulation of short-term lets only in rent pressure zones. Most, if not all, of the Gaeltacht areas are not in rent pressure zones and will be exempt from any regulation the Minister of State says he is going to do with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media on short-term lets. The Minister of State may not be aware of what is being proposed in the Bill but it simply does not answer the points I was making about the detrimental impact in Gaeltacht areas outside of rent pressure zones. This Bill does not propose to do anything about them. When there is a need for regulation in these areas and Gaeltacht areas are impacted, why are they being exempted? Given that part of it does not deal with this, what is the Minister of State proposing?
I propose we take a short break and the Minister of State can come back and respond. Deputy Ó Broin said there is more he wanted to deal with on this. I just want to get an idea of time until the next group as I need to organise the Chair.
The Minister of State spoke to the first cluster of amendments, but there is a second series of clusters within this grouping and it is about half the amendments, so we have only dealt with about half the amendments in this grouping.
Do you reckon I need to organise who takes the Chair for the next session and not this session? I do not know how much you want to speak on what is left or how extensive it is.
It depends on the quality of the Minister of State's responses. I do not know, Chair, is the short answer.
I know this is an incredibly important aspect of the Bill. I can tell from the conversation how much study and research has been done and how important it is. We have been on it for quite a long time, so if everyone could be more concise with their contributions, I can give everyone time on it.
Sure, no problem.
Sitting suspended at 11.32 a.m. and resumed at 11.49 a.m.
I welcome everybody back. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan just finished a point to which the Minister of State was going to respond.
Deputy O'Callaghan switched to amendment No. 47 about the short-term lettings, which I can deal with.
Not specifically. The Minister of State brought in that, in his response.
Okay, I am sorry.
I was questioning his response because it is not actually applicable to what I was raising. That was the point I was making. We can deal with amendment No. 47 later. It is not in this group.
It is not in this group. Does the Deputy want to leave it then?
Yes, but the Minister of State might want to speak to it. I was asking whether he has another response on the issue of how this is affecting Gaeltacht areas. Amendment No. 47 is more general. It is not about Gaeltacht areas. The Minister was saying that short-term let regulation is going to sort out these problems of empty vacant homes in Gaeltacht areas.
I am saying in the generality. It is not in Gaeltacht areas but in the generality.
However, it will not work in Gaeltacht areas that are not in RPZs, and the Bill specifically does not include them. Does the Minister of State have another way he is proposing to deal with this problem of empty holiday homes in Gaeltacht areas that are creating problems for Irish language speakers and Gaeltacht communities?
The Deputy will appreciate that the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media has brought forward legislation in terms of short-term lets having to be registered with Bord Fáilte and they have to apply for planning to be on that register. We are doing sister regulations to accompany that. We are looking at it in the round, in a balanced way. It is not finalised as yet. It is about striking that balance and ensuring that the houses or properties that are not availing of the spirit in terms of short-term lettings are available for people who need them for housing. Equally, however, we have to strike that balance in terms of areas where there would be tourism aspects to it as well. We are, therefore, looking at that.
That will include specifically Gaeltacht areas.
That will include all areas generally. It is not specific to Gaeltacht areas.
However, it will include Gaeltacht areas even if they are not in rent pressure zones.
No, the rent pressure zone is the current legislation. I am saying we are looking at it in the round. I am not saying specifically what will be in it. I am just saying there are a range of factors that we are considering.
I thank the Minister of State. I was asking Deputy O'Callaghan which amendments of his in this grouping we had not addressed yet. Do Deputies Ó Broin or Ó Snodaigh wish to come in?
The issue is that the Minister of State in his opening statement went through the first group of his subgroups. He now has to go through his next group of subgroups and then we can respond to those.
Are members okay to do it that way?
Is that agreeable?
Absolutely. The Minister of State can go through the next grouping.
I am not sure it is agreeable but I would say that we can proceed on that basis.
I am sorry for my choice of language. Is it in order for me to proceed, Chair?
It is indeed. The Minister of State may go ahead.
I think that is a better choice of language on my part.
Thematic 4 deals with the decision of the commission on appeal or on direct application for development in the Gaeltacht. This refers to Opposition amendments Nos. 683, 709 and 890. Deputy Ó Broin already made reference to amendment No. 890.
Section 107 provides for the making of decisions by the commission with regard to development that is in contravention of a development plan or the national marine planning framework. Amendment No. 683 is tabled by Deputies O’Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh and Ó Cathasaigh. It intends to provide that where an appeal relates to a development located within certain specified Gaeltacht areas, and which materially contravenes a relevant language plan, the commission shall refuse permission, subject to subsections (3) and (5) of section 107.
Amendment No. 709, tabled by Deputies O’Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh and Ó Cathasaigh, provides for a similar prohibition on granting permission in respect of planning applications made directly to the commission under section 121 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 890, tabled jointly by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, seeks to include a new Part in the Bill entitled Language Impact Assessment, which also sets out the procedures for the carrying out of such an assessment.
The Gaeltacht Act 2012 gives statutory effect to the implementation of the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010-2030, where it is stated that “Under the new Act, a language planning process will be instigated whereby a language plan will be prepared at community level for each Gaeltacht district”, co-ordinated by Údarás na Gaeltachta.
Under that Act, an integrated language plan may include proposals for, among other matters, physical planning and development. A development plan should have regard to the provisions of the language plan and include objectives to support the promotion of the Irish language in the Gaeltacht.
It is through development plan policy that the relevant elements of a language plan are integrated into the planning system. Individual applications are considered in the light of the development plan and its compliance with its integral polices.
It is not appropriate that language plans, or language impact assessments for that matter, should form part of the assessment criteria for individual applications. A valid planning application should be assessed on its merits in a clear and accountable manner. However, there is nothing to stop local authorities if they wish to put it in there. Obviously, however, it is only one of the aspects in that if they are considering a plan, the normal criteria that are in any planning application would apply.
Furthermore, it is the function of a planning authority to make decisions on applications within statutory periods. There are prescribed bodies named in regulations whose function it is to advise a planning authority with regard to their particular area of expertise. It is not, nor should it be, the function of prescribed bodies to evaluate and decide upon a planning application, nor is there capacity in the planning system to pre-approve a particular element of a prospective application prior to being submitted. In essence, this would prejudge an application, which is neither appropriate nor reasonable. For all these reasons, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.
Amendment No. 921, tabled Deputies O’Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh and Ó Cathasaigh, seeks to amend section 233 of the Bill by providing that it shall be lawful and permissible for Údarás na Gaeltachta to carry out the functions of an approved housing body. The Housing (Regulation of Approved Housing Bodies) Act 2019 provides for the regulation of approved housing bodies in the State. For this reason, I am unable to accept this amendment.
The fifth thematic area deals with the competence of planning commissioners and the Office of the Planning Regulator in the Irish language.
Amendment No. 8, tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan and Ó Cathasaigh, and amendment No. 9, tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, seek to include at section 2 of the Bill a new definition for the phrase “competent in the Irish language”. This will mean at least a B2 under the common European framework of reference for languages or Teastas Eorpach na Gaeilge.
Amendment No. 1111, tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, relates to Irish language competency within the Planning Commission and the Office of the Planning Regulator. It seeks to provide that there be no fewer than 20% of new staff appointed to the commission who are competent in Irish from 1 January 2030.
Amendment No. 1036, tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan and Marc Ó Cathasaigh, relates to section 337 of the Bill, which sets out matters concerning oral hearings conducted by the commission. Under the current provisions of the Bill, where an oral hearing relates to development within the Gaeltacht, the hearing shall be conducted in Irish unless the relevant parties agree that the hearing should be conducted in English. Where a hearing relates to development wholly or partly outside the Gaeltacht, the hearing shall be conducted in English unless it is otherwise agreed that it should be conducted in Irish. This amendment seeks to provide an additional requirement that hearings in respect of development within the Gaeltacht must include a chairperson competent in the Irish language, hearings in respect of development partly in the Gaeltacht must be conducted bilingually and include a chairperson competent in both languages, and hearings in respect of development outside the Gaeltacht shall be conducted in English by a chairperson competent in the English language.
The Irish Language Services Advisory Committee was established by the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media in June 2022, in accordance with section 18A of the Official Languages (Amendment) Act 2021. The committee’s primary focus is the preparation of the first national plan for Irish-medium public services, due to be delivered by the statutory deadline of 19 June 2024. The preparation of the national plan is in line with achieving the overarching objective of the Official Languages Act , which is that 20% of recruits to the public sector will be competent in Irish by 31 December 2030. An Bord Pleanála and the Office of the Planning Regulator are both listed in the first Schedule of the Official Languages Act as public bodies in scope for the purposes of the Act. It is for this reason I am not in a position to accept these amendments.
I will move to thematic 6 on the performance of functions by the Office of the Planning Regulator.
Amendment No. 1127, tabled by Deputies O’ Callaghan and Ó Cathasaigh, and amendment No. 1128, tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, relate to the performance of the functions of the Office of the Planning Regulator. The proposals intend to amend section 470 of the Bill, which currently provides that the Office of the Planning Regulator is independent in the performance of its functions, subject to Part 18 of the Bill, and sets out matters to which the office shall have regard to in the performance of its functions. The amendments seek to include an additional matter, that is, the necessity of protecting the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Irish language and Gaeltacht communities and promoting the use and viability of Irish as the spoken language of certain specified Gaeltacht areas.
Amendment No. 1132 as tabled by Deputies O’Callaghan and Ó Cathasaigh, and amendment No. 1133 as tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, seek to amend section 472 of the Bill, which relates to the office's research and education function to provide that the office must conduct research and training programmes for planning authorities, regional assemblies and the commission in respect of their role under the Act in supporting the implementation of language plans.
The proposed amendments overextend the scope of the OPR's functions under both the existing legislation and those functions as set out in the Bill. They do not take account of the additional resources, expertise, funding or policy-related requirements that such proposals would give rise to. As I do not believe these amendments are workable, especially given the now well-established role of the OPR, I am not in a position to accept them.
I will now address the final theme, the performance of functions by the commission. Amendment No. 1040, tabled by Deputies Cian O'Callaghan and Ó Cathasaigh, seeks to amend section 347 of the Bill, which requires the commission to have regard to certain policies and objectives in the performance of its planning functions. The amendment seeks to provide for an additional matter relating to an appeal, application, referral or request for a development in certain specified Gaeltacht areas. The commission must have regard to the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language in any relevant language plan.
The matters set out in the proposed amendments are captured generally under section 347(1)(a). This paragraph brings into scope the policies and objectives of Government and State entities, which will include the matters specified under this proposal, and it is for this reason that I am not in a position to accept this amendment.
I can have a stab at dealing with these three topics, which are in some ways totally separate. We have already addressed some of the subject matter.
Amendment No. 890 outlines how the language impact assessment would work. It is quite specific. I am not precious about the language but the intent exists. I would be happy to work with the Department if it wished to adopt the concept of the language impact assessment and consider how it would work. It would have to be independent of the developer. There would have to be an expert in language planning or sociolinguistics. It is a question of what the impact would be based on. It would relate to the likes of census information, the scale and nature of the development, and additional conditions proposed as part of the application to ring-fence a percentage of a development for Irish-speaking residents. That is where the question of level B2 comes into being.
We have set out the need for this amendment. The Minister of State has mentioned previously that local authorities can put criteria in their development plans. Nobody is denying that. In fact, in the latest round of development plans, several counties have enhanced or, for the first time ever, recognised specific Gaeltacht plans. That is on foot of the debate that has been raging on the lack of planning guidelines. It is reflected in conversations I had with Conradh na Gaeilge in advance of and during the production of the report of my committee on the Irish language. The very people working in language planning should understand the role they have.
We heard from representatives of various councils at the time of our deliberations. In a letter containing information separate from that in the oral presentation, the chief executives of Cork County Council, Kerry County Council, Meath County Council and Waterford City and County Council appealed for guidelines but also raised issues such as the need for statutory local area plans. Again, this is a function of local authorities, but a local authority is not going to act in many cases unless it is directed to. This is why statutory local area plans must be presented. The representatives said that, in general, local authorities would welcome greater co-ordination of approach in the area of granted planning permission and recommended eight specific measures, although I do not agree with all of them. I will give the Minister of State a copy of the letter for his perusal. Some of what is in my amendment reflects the council representatives' frustration. Since the work that was undertaken and the publication of the report, the new group Bánú, which was specifically set up to highlight this issue, and also the likes of Meitheal Pleanála Teanga An Iarthuaiscirt and Conradh na Gaeilge have tried to focus on and be constructive in examining legislation. This is why we are seeking the insertion of a provision on a language impact assessment. Just as environmental protections are vital in all our planning, there should be language protections. They are equally important but achieve different things. Sometimes, they enhance each other.
The language impact assessment would relate to a proposed development. If a proposed development is to have a negative impact on the viability of Irish as the community language or lead to an increase in the ratio of English speakers to Irish speakers in a language planning area, permission should be withheld to protect the linguistic cohesion of the area. That is the idea behind the language assessment. It is not just a matter of stating how many Irish speakers are in an area and the number of schools; it is also about whether a development would be detrimental or beneficial. Amendment No. 890 lists what the language assessment would be based on.
Amendments Nos. 683 and 709, which are in the same group, state permission for developments should be refused if they contravene the language plans agreed under Acht na Gaeltachta 2012. The proposal is straightforward, namely, that a development should comply with plans agreed upon by the Government to support the use of Irish in Gaeltacht areas. Conradh na Gaeilge explained that current Government policy recognises the need for a development to have a positive impact on the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht and that, to this end, some forms of developments or developments of a particular scale must be discouraged. No development should materially contravene any development plan.
The Minister of State addressed his amendments in his contribution. I will leave it at that and contribute again in a few minutes.
I thank Deputy Ó Snódaigh. I will bring in Deputy Ó Broin, followed by Deputy O'Callaghan, and then the Minister of State.
It was with a wry smile that I greeted the Minister of State's comments on how some of our amendments would not be acceptable because there is no capacity to cope with them in the planning system. If that were a rule for not including things in the Bill, very significant sections of the Minister of State's own portions of the Bill would be ruled out, because there are currently no resources within our planning system and no multi-annual workforce plan to deal with them. I do not, therefore, accept that the requirement for additional resources is a reason not to do things that need to be done; that is an argument for additional resources. I am speaking specifically about the Minister of State's comments on amendments Nos. 683, 709, and 890, as well as his comments on the additional responsibilities we want to give to the Office of the Planning Regulator and An Bord Pleanála, whose name will be changed. I am also unclear about the Minister of State’s response to amendments Nos. 623 and 1111, which are on staffing. Could he be a little clearer about that?
With respect to amendment No. 921, I presume nothing is prohibiting Údarás na Gaeltachta from seeking to establish an approved housing body to assist us with its work. We just have to comply with the various statutory requirements that are set out in the approved housing body legislation. That would be a good signal to send to them; it would be appropriate for a body such as Údarás na Gaeltachta was interested in going down the route of getting support from the Irish Council for Social Housing and the relevant officials from the Department. Therefore, establishing an AHB and being compliant with the approved housing bodies Act is probably the more appropriate route. I am interested in hearing the Minister of State’s thoughts on that.
I will start on that point. I am interested in hearing the Minister of State’s thoughts on that as well. I think that is the best way. As the Minister of State will know, Údarás na Gaeltachta is already involved in the provision of some housing in Gaeltacht areas. If the Minister of State thinks the best route is to establish an approved housing body, then Údarás na Gaeltachta could do that. The Minister of State’s view on that would be welcome.
In relation to amendment No. 1132, it is very clear that decisions that are taken by planning authorities and the commission significantly impact the language and Gaeltacht areas. Surely, therefore, there is a need for training in these areas. If that is not to be done through a legislative requirement here, how will it be done?
Could the Deputy repeat that point?
Does the Minister of State agree that planning authorities and the commission have a significant role in the decisions they make and how they go by their planning decisions, and that can impact Irish-language communities and Gaeltacht areas? If he agrees that they can, then clearly it would be important to have training for people in those areas, so they are aware of their obligations, responsibilities and what they need to do to protect and support the language. If the Minister of State does not feel the legislative requirement is needed to ensure that happens, what is he proposing to be done to ensure that there is training in those areas? That is amendment No. 1132.
Likewise, amendment No. 1127 discusses the need of the Office of the Planning Regulator to protect the linguistic and cultural heritage of the language and Gaeltacht communities. Does the Minister of State agree that it needs to do that? If he agrees that it is part of its remit, why would he not have it included in the Bill as a legislative requirement?
Likewise, regarding the role of the commission in the status of language plans, why should it not be a requirement for decisions and appeals to the commission not to materially contravene language plans? I will give an example of this in a Gaeltacht area. The Minister of State fairly made the point that language is only one of the aspects. I have not at all been arguing that language should be the only aspect of planning decisions. I am absolutely not arguing that point. Of course, it should be one of the considerations. If, in a Gaeltacht area, there is a new housing development where 20 homes are built, which has happened in recent years, and the developer sells those 20 homes as holiday homes to English-language speakers from outside the community who do not have the language, that will impact the Gaeltacht area. It will not meet the local housing needs of Gaeltacht speakers. It will also bring more English-language speakers to this area and will have a tipping effect on the Gaeltacht status. I am not arguing, and I have never argued, that of those 20 houses, there could not be some short-term lets or some that are geared towards tourism or renting of the sort. Yet, a problem occurs when 20 out of 20 of them are sold as holiday homes and short-term lets. A very significant problem is created by that. If the language plan sets out the need to promote and protect the language in the area, but planning decisions like this that are contravening it, why would the language plan not be able to have this status in the Bill? That is my question about that.
Amendment No. 8 deals with competency in the language at B2 level of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Does the Minister of State not accept that there needs to be some sort of competency level? If he does not propose this level that has been put forward, what level is he proposing? Why should it not be in the legislation? There is inconsistency in this. As Deputy Ó Snódaigh said, some local authorities are insisting on competency levels, such as this level. Indeed, the organisations working in the area are proposing this. Why, then, should it not be a uniform competency level?
I do not think we can be satisfied with situations in some areas where there is no competency level. Housing is being built and developed with the idea that it would be made available to Irish-language speakers in the Gaeltacht area, but it then ends up in the hands of people who are not Irish-language speakers. That creates a further threat to the Gaeltacht area and undermines it. There is an urgency here. If we do not do what we can and if we continue on the current route, in a number of years we could be left with a situation where we do not have these Gaeltacht areas. I would therefore welcome the responses of the Minister of State to those questions.
Regarding Deputy Ó Snódaigh’s comments, I would like to see that item of correspondence. He made a valid point about a local authority area giving focus to specific Gaeltacht area. Individual local authorities can create local area plans. That provision is currently there. It is up to them to decide on that, but in many cases they do it on the basis of electoral areas. In some places, they use different criteria.
As we discussed yesterday, when this legislation comes in, local area plans will basically be succeeded by different types of plans. The way that will work is that any local authority will have an overarching development plan, but once a new development plan comes in, that existing local area plan will effectively cease. They can be replaced by three types of plans: a priority area plan, an urban area plan - which probably would not apply to Gaeltacht areas - and joint area plans that straddle two areas. That is already in the Development Plans guidelines, which were published in 2022. That covers that particular area. Once again, this is a matter of providing balance. The Deputy made reference to amendment No. 890, which is on language impact assessments. He made reference to the individual local authorities. Some local authorities are already proceeding in that area.
I will deal with Deputy O’Callaghan’s point. The Department with the responsibility for the Gaeltacht has accepted that B2 is the standard. That is what they recognise.
The structure is that we are working with that Department to bring forward specific planning guidelines for Gaeltacht areas. Incorporated in that will be language impact assessments. On Deputy O'Callaghan's point regarding the process, that is being actively considered. He referred to independent assessors, which is something that is being considered. The expertise on the language is within the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media.
Deputy Ó Broin made reference to resourcing. The OPR has been established for only a relatively short period, since 2019. The Deputy made a point about the office bedding down.
The Minister of State is giving the OPR a considerable additional workload under the Bill, which we will come to separately. He cannot reject our amendments on the basis they will increase the workload of the OPR when he is increasing its workload under the Bill's provisions. That is a political decision.
I accept that. Section 472 relates to research, education and training. The OPR is required, under this general area, to cover all aspects of training and research. The training aspect of the OPR is covered under section 472. However, I note the Deputy's point.
The requirement for 20% of staff to be proficient in Irish is already catered for. The national plan is in line with the objective of the Official Languages Act, which is that-----
Where is that stated?
The Deputy made reference to the 20% requirement.
Yes, and the Minister of State is saying it is already there. Where is it stated?
It is already covered. I am reading from the note. The Irish language service advisory committee was established by the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media in accordance with section 18 of the Official Languages (Amendment) Act 2021. The advisory committee's primary focus is the preparation of the first national plan for the Irish-medium public services, due to be delivered by the statutory deadline of 19 June of this year. The preparation of the national plan is in line with achieving the overarching objective in the Official Languages Act, which is that 20% of recruits to the public sector will be competent in Irish by 31 December 2030. An Bord Pleanála and the Office of the Planning Regulator are both listed in the first Schedule to the Official Languages Act as public bodies within the scope of the Act. Therefore, we believe what Deputy Ó Broin is proposing is already catered for. The approved housing bodies are dealt with under the Housing (Regulation of Approved Housing Bodies) Act 2019. I do not have the details of the Act here. I am not certain whether Údarás na Gaeltachta, for example, would qualify under the terms of the Act and the scheme. I will come back to the Deputy on that.
The Chair will have to secure a different committee room for these meetings because the broadband coverage is very poor here in committee room 4, as I know from experience over many years. It still has not been sorted.
The Oireachtas Wi-Fi is fine but other Wi-Fi connections are not. If the Minister of State links to TRA, he will find it is perfect.
One learns something new every day.
Deputy O'Callaghan made reference to the impact of developments on Gaeltacht areas. That is one of the considerations. In my role as Minister of State, I can no longer get involved in such matters but we all would have dealt with planning a lot. It is day-to-day work for us. Each planning application has to be dealt with on its own merits. In Gaeltacht areas, Irish language competency has to be one of the considerations. It is already there under the planning and development guidelines of 2022, in the national development plan and under objective 29 of the national planning framework. In effect, we are introducing a further structured approach to bring certainty in terms of specific planning guidelines for Gaeltacht areas. However, language competence is only one of the considerations.
I do not have any Gaeltacht areas in my constituency and cannot speak with authority in that regard but I certainly know, from going on holidays to the Gaeltacht over the years, that tourism is a key feature of what they do. We are trying to strike a balance. The one thing we do not want is an abuse of any system. It is about achieving a balance between ensuring houses are occupied by people who are living in the area and, equally, ensuring that area, including Gaeltacht areas, continues to have a viable tourism offering. That is what we are considering in the overall regulations that will accompany the legislation on short-term lettings. Those regulations will come from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media.
I think I have covered all the points that were raised.
The issue is that a balance, or anything remotely like it, is not being achieved. That is the problem and it is undermining Gaeltacht areas. I gave the example earlier of a physiotherapist, who is just one of many people in that situation. I am not arguing that language should be the only consideration. It is just one of many considerations. I am saying that developments that could undermine the language in a Gaeltacht area, and ultimately destroy it, may, on the balance of things and because of different considerations, get the green light. That is where I have a fundamental disagreement with the Minister of State. I absolutely am not saying language competence should be the only factor that is considered. My concern is that developments, in a cumulative sense, could undermine and destroy a Gaeltacht area such that it would no longer be a Gaeltacht. The Bill should be very clear in saying that this should not and cannot happen. The message should be that we are deadly serious about planning. There are a lot of objectives in planning, all them very good, including environmental objectives. In terms of Gaeltacht areas, however, one of our absolute objectives must be that we protect the language and the linguistic cultural heritage of the area and the Irish language community. That is an absolute planning objective and it should come through in this Bill, which is what we are seeking to do in these amendments.
On the question of whether Údarás na Gaeltachta could be established as an approved housing body, that is, in effect, what would be enabled by my amendment. Clarification in this regard is important because if it is prohibited from doing so, that needs a legislative fix. My amendment may not be the best way of doing it but given the role Údarás na Gaeltachta is playing at the moment, the seriousness of this issue and the positive work it is doing in meeting housing need, we need clarity on this. If the Minister of State does not provide that clarity, my amendment certainly would be useful.
On the amendment Deputy O'Callaghan mentioned that deals with Údarás na Gaeltachta working as an approved housing body, this is not just something we have dreamt up as a fix for a problem. We have met with representatives from Údarás na Gaeltachta in committee a number of times. In fairness, they recently announced that a pilot scheme is up and running and they are looking for expressions of interest for three plots of land to build housing in the Gaeltacht. Údarás na Gaeltachta was set up mainly to provide sites for factories, digital hubs and so on. The Gteic hubs are very welcome. However, without housing, communities will struggle. We need housing for the workers who have Irish and are living in and contributing to the area in which work is available because of the various businesses attracted into those areas. Údarás na Gaeltachta is responsible for the development of the Gaeltacht in many ways but it does not have the powers of the local authorities. There has been a campaign for it to get local authority status.
That would be convoluted, but that is again because of the frustration about the local authorities not addressing the issues in Gaeltacht areas. They were often forgotten about. While the Minister of State said we can do so much with local authorities, if we continue to depend on them without providing in legislation that they must look after the needs of Gaeltacht areas, we could struggle. The Gaeltacht areas in Ráth Cairn and Baile Ghib are a minuscule part of all the pressures Meath County Council deals with, so they do not feature as much as they should. They do not have the same protections. They do not have a voice because they are not big enough to elect a single councillor for the Gaeltacht region. Údarás na Gaeltachta elections were got rid of by an bord snip and we are still waiting for the legislation to reintroduce some part of those elections later this year.
If Údarás na Gaeltachta, which has shown it can be quite flexible, becomes an approved housing body, it would be one of the mechanisms under which surplus State land could be used, rather than giving it to the Land Development Agency, LDA. It is already held by Údarás na Gaeltachta which has moved to facilitate the local community. One of the big problems in the area, and in most Gaeltacht areas, is that they are environmentally delicate. There is also a need for the other infrastructure to be dealt with, including sewerage works by Uisce Éireann and such matters. Again, Údarás na Gaeltachta was willing to facilitate that in the past and to work with Uisce Éireann for it to provide wastewater treatment for factories, which would also be big enough to service the needs of the local community, but it was not forthcoming. Much better co-ordination between organisations is needed.
Irish Water has its priority lists and the Gaeltacht areas do not feature on them for development or future development at the level that is required. That is why a State body that mainly deals with protecting the community in the Gaeltacht by providing employment opportunities has now seen the dire need for housing for those living in the Gaeltacht. I fully endorse this amendment. I hope the pilots will work quickly so that other land can be used to facilitate Údarás na Gaeltachta doing the job that local authorities have not done in Gaeltacht regions for years. That could be land in the land bank of Údarás na Gaeltachta or, if necessary, the Government could give it the imprimatur to source land locally. The frustration is that, all of a sudden, another State body is doing what the local authority or an approved housing body should be doing.
Amendment No. 619 is about planning authorities requiring Irish only naming or that Irish would be more prominent in the case of bilingual signage for developments. Some councils, not only in the Gaeltacht areas, already implement the policy of having Irish language place names for new housing estates and that is welcome. It should be applied nationwide. It is not just to do with new estates, but also new streets, developments, towns and the like. In my area of Dublin 8, where a new development is replacing St. Michael's Estate, primacy is being given to ensuring the names are not a replication of the past. You could go back to the founding principles of the first President of the new State, Dubhghlas de hÍde. He wrote about the necessity to de-anglicise Ireland back in 1892 and we are still trying to do it. He said at the time, before partition and even before an céad Dáil, "I hope and trust that where it may be done without any great inconvenience a native Irish Government will be induced to provide for the restoration of our place-names on something like a rational basis". We still have a work to do. We still see estates popping up with names which do not seem to have any connection to the local area and they appear in English only. That habit needs to stop. My preference would be for signs to be in Irish only, but at the very least, the two languages should be on equal terms and the names should have connections with the areas they are in.
Amendment No. 1111 is about implementing the target of 20% recruitment. The Minister of State said this is already covered by the Official Languages Act, Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla. However, given that not all the provisions are implemented yet and that and Coiste Comhairleach that sets out how to achieve the 20% target for future recruitment to Departments has not produced its interim report, never mind its final report, it is important that all legislation that sets up new bodies reflect that there is a provision or requirement that 20% of future recruits be people who have a B2 level of competency. As was mentioned, that level is already set. My amendment No. 1137 was ruled out of order for some bizarre reason although it is the same. I do not know why it was ruled out of order due to a potential cost when it is already law. We will probably come back to that when we are dealing with the relevant section.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to local area plans and so on. Section 69 speaks about priority area plans. Before Report Stage we will look at perhaps incorporating Gaeltacht areas and the islands so that priority area plans could be done in that category. That is something we will come back to.
The Deputy also spoke about Údarás na Gaeltachta becoming an AHB, as other organisations have. As this a housing matter rather than a planning matter, we will get a note from our housing section. Has the Deputy interacted with Údarás na Gaeltachta under the Housing (Regulation of Approved Housing Bodies) Act 2019?
Yes. Before, it went down this road, Údarás na Gaeltachta, and many others, were of the view that it could not go down the road of dealing with housing. However, it has obtained legal advice - I do not know if it was from the Attorney General or someone else - that it can go down the road of at least providing sites, which is what it has done so far.
The next step is a different one. The question is whether it will build and run the housing developments as an approved housing body. That would have implications for other things. The HSE and the Department of Health could develop houses on their lands.
In line with the first-step principle, we will get a note from our housing section about who exactly can apply and qualify to be an approved housing body.
I will come back to the Deputy as to whether the údarás qualifies.
That would be useful.
That is the first step in that regard. On amendment No. 619, under the current guidelines, names should be related to the local area. That is the intention. There is no particular requirement for them to be in Irish. It is something we will consider in the new planning guidelines we are bringing out for Gaeltacht areas. I take the Deputy's point.
On amendment No. 1111, I will once again go back to the fact that this is already covered under the Official Languages Act. A plan is currently being prepared for 20% of those recruited to the public sector to be competent in Irish by 31 December. As I have said, an Irish language services advisory committee was established by the Department of tourism and the Gaeltacht in June 2022, in accordance with section 18A of the Official Languages Act. The committee is focused on preparing the first national plan for Irish-medium public services. That is due to be delivered by 19 June this year.
As the Deputy has said, amendment No. 1137 has been ruled out of order. That was a decision of the Bills Office.
It is the Chair's fault really.
I signed the letter so I can be blamed.
For this and for so many other things.
The logic of the amendment on the naming of estates is that street signs and everything else are now addressed in law. One of the functions of local authorities is to allow for the naming of estates. Most local authorities do not change easily. If a ministerial directive or legislation says that, in the future, new estates shall be named bilingually with each name having equal status, it would reflect the provisions of Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla as regards street signage. It would make logical sense. It would be difficult for tourists if a sign tells them a certain place is a certain way and then, all of a sudden, they come to a new estate with a different name, a name in English.
Many of the new estates are named in Irish now.
In fairness, some of the local authorities are absolutely brilliant at it. Some of the councillors take it as a duty to reject certain names. However,, it does not seem to be taken as seriously in other local authorities, especially given that some of the names bear no relationship to the area. With so much history and heritage in our country, I find it difficult to understand why developers have to name estates after something in England or something they have seen on the telly rather than something in the local habitat. In some ways, that is a separate issue from that addressed in these Irish language amendments. It is a function of local authorities that some do not take as seriously as they should.
On another function of the local authorities, I have a note here on the development plan guidelines for planning authorities. It is from the Minister of State's Department.
Is that from 2022?
I presume so, yes. Under the heading "Mandatory objective: Gaeltacht Areas", it states: "That development proposals in Gaeltacht areas have a positive impact on the linguistic and cultural heritage that can be robustly assessed at planning application stage".
I read those guidelines earlier.
The problem is that this is not happening in practice. The vast majority of these Irish language amendments arise from past failures of local authorities. We are looking for these measures to be in legislation rather than in guidelines because legislation has a higher status. That would allow communities to go to court if the provisions are not complied with. In fact, quite a number of groups have gone to court over developments in Gaeltacht areas that were at odds with the community or that were going to be detrimental. In many cases, these groups have won in the High Court. That is why many developments have not occurred. While we are changing the law, we should make sure that what is being said in the courts is reflected in law. That is the basis on which we are trying to grapple with this set of amendments. There are one or two others.
On amendment No. 8 specifically and setting the competency in the language, which we spoke about previously, at the B2 level under the common European framework of reference for languages, the Minister of State has said that is the level of competency the Department is accepting and using. If that is what is being accepted and used at government level, why would we not put it into this legislation to provide clarity? There is a lack of consistency in the approach. As I have said, some local authority planning authorities are using it while others are not. If there is agreement that it is the appropriate level of competency, why not put it in? Why not implement that?
I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh. Many of these amendments would not be proposed if the system was working properly to protect the language in the Gaeltacht areas. It is as a result of failures that many of these amendments are in front of us.
To take the latter point on the B2 level, the Department of the Gaeltacht is the expert on competency in that area. It has made us aware that B2 level is what it is accepting but that may change. It has to come through. It goes back to what will have a practical impact, which is the planning regulations to be brought out specifically for the Gaeltacht areas. The most important thing is to get these new planning guidelines out as quickly as possible to give a level of consistency across all areas.
To go back to Deputy Ó Snodaigh, who read from the guidelines, that is provided for in the 2022 development planning guidelines but the consistency across local authorities he spoke about is not there. He made reference to certain local authorities that are doing it. I welcome that but our main focus is on bringing together our work with the Department of the Gaeltacht. That Department brings the competency as regards language. We need to get these planning guidelines out as quickly as possible. As I said earlier, we will look to bring forward amendments regarding priority area plans for Gaeltacht areas and islands. Such plans are addressed in section 69, which is on page 156 of the Bill.
I will go back to the question about short-term letting. I will give the Minister of State the report. The problem with Irish language news is that most people do not read it and it does not get carried in the English media. On 18 January, Pádraic Ó Ciardha of Tuairisc.ie produced a report-----
Was that in January of this year?
Yes. I will give the Minister of State a copy of the article. That is no problem. His report was on the number of holiday homes in local electoral areas in Gaeltacht areas. It is absolutely scary. In Baile an Sceilg, 55% of homes are holiday homes. He goes all the way through every region. In Ros Goill, the figure is 58%. These homes are not available to the local community. They may be available to the likes of the physiotherapist mentioned earlier for seven or eight months of the year but they are then turfed out because the property is more valuable as a holiday home. Some are just sitting there. They are of absolutely no benefit to the community from one end of the year to the other. Some just sit there and are only used for two or three weeks of the year. That is the frustrating thing. Members of communities cannot get housing built for themselves and they see these houses just sitting there virtually empty.
They are not derelict. They are holiday homes. The State has a second home property tax, but that is not a discouragement. Those are the figures, and I will give them to the Minister of State. The other competing factor is that in many cases these are slightly richer people coming from the east coast into Gaeltacht areas and driving prices up. When a house comes up for sale in the locality, people are not just competing against Billy or Johnny next door, they are competing against everybody from outside. If I am looking at some of the feeds on Facebook and so on something pops up and it says, "Look at this gorgeous little gem". People are competing against people in America who are encouraged to buy holiday homes in a Gaeltacht area. There are competing demands with tourism. However, frustration builds up if people cannot live in 55% of homes in an area that are linked by water, sewerage and roads. That is part of the frustration we saw yesterday with the group outside. Part of the problem is the one Breanndán Ó Beaglaoich was having in Dingle at the same time. It was the 1970s when Cumann Chearta Sibhialta na Gaeltachta took to the streets to demand rights. They got some of them but they were the same questions then. There has been an explosion in the building of holiday homes since. A lot of the building of holiday homes has stopped, but people are buying family homes. It is causing its own disruption. Part of planning legislation is about how to protect against people buying. These homes have to be functional and lived in for as much of the year as possible so they play a role. The secondary role is that a local shop, pub or cafe will close if 50% of the population disappears for nine months of the year. It is not sustainable and they might not reopen. The tourism product then disappears as well. That point is not directly related to any of my amendments but it is directly related to what Deputy O'Callaghan said about short-term lets because some of these are also short-terms lets.
The Minister of State might wish to respond. Before he does I inform members that we will finish at 1 p.m. I also propose that the committee will run from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it likely that I will be able to put the question on amendment No. 8 before 1 p.m., as I need to organise cover for my sections coming up?
If the amendment is put, we will not finish at 1 p.m. because a vote will be called.
I am factoring that in. We may go to 1.05 p.m. if there is a vote.
I welcome that report and note the point raised by Deputy Ó Snodaigh. Everything is about balance but I very much take his point on board. He put flesh on the bones of the points articulated by Deputy O'Callaghan. I also take on board the points about the deliberations on the regulations from the Department of tourism. We should let it work in that area.
There is always a problem in Gaeltacht communities and other rural locations with holiday homes, but unregulated short-term lets have exacerbated that. There is now a whole category of people, who because of the income stream through short-term lets are able to afford to purchase holiday homes where they previously were not. It is exactly as Deputy Ó Snodaigh outlined. That creates a problem in restricting supply for others and for people who want to live there all year round, which has an economic impact. It also has the impact of pushing up prices. People from the east coast or cities who are on higher incomes because of higher living costs have higher purchasing power. If they also have the income stream from an unregulated short-term let on top of that, it really exacerbates that problem and those pressures. I completely accept that tourism visitors are part of a sustainable community. However, the warped nature of it is so extreme that it is causing huge pressures and problems to the point where qualified practitioners such as physiotherapists are not able to get housing in a Gaeltacht community and are living out of a van instead.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
Sitting suspended at 1.04 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Malcolm Noonan. We had just dealt with amendment No. 8 before we suspended. We now move to amendment No. 9.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 28, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
“ “competent in the Irish language” means spoken competency at level B2 or higher under the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 28, line 6, to delete “ “Deputy Chief Planning Commissioner” ” and substitute “ “Leas Phríomh Choimisinéir Pleanála” ”.
I withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 28, to delete line 11 and substitute the following:
“(ii) on, in, over or under the maritime area,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Níl
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 30, line 13, after “means” to insert “(except in Part 3)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 30, line 21, to delete “ “Governing Board” ” and substitute “ “Bord Rialúcháin” ”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
As amendment No. 14 is in my name, I will vacate the Chair and I ask Deputy Higgins to take over.
Deputy Emer Higgins took the Chair.
Amendments Nos. 14, 31, 144 to 146, inclusive, 197, 198, 236, 238, 253, 335 to 337, inclusive, 345, 350, 358, 374, 375, 426, 448, 481, 534, 538, 542, 546, 615, 616, 618, 793, 794, 1154 and 1188 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 30, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
“ “hierarchy of road users model” means design of roads and public spaces that prioritises in the following order, people walking and wheeling, people cycling, people using public transport, people using taxi and shared transport, people using private cars;”.
This group of amendments relates to transport and aligning transport with planning. Everybody will be aware that this has always been one of the difficulties when we do development plans, regional plans and local area plans. It is about trying to align good transport. Of course, the planning authority does not have control over transport, although in the Dublin area, we have the NTA strategy and there are other strategies in other areas. However, it is not really possible to compel that public transport be provided.
I have always seen this as one of the weaknesses in our planning system. To my mind, proper planning, where we set out the strategic or appropriate use of land, should be the lightning conductor for services. I know members will be aware that, in many areas, the services do not follow and we end up with zoned land and development proceeding when we do not have a sufficient level of services, whether transport services, community services or other services, for example, school services. In my constituency, Greystones is going through real difficulty at the moment. There has been a lot of housing development in the north Wicklow area but we do not have sufficient capacity in the schools. Although it is planned that schools will be constructed and extended, this has not kept pace with the level of population growth.
Amendment No. 14 refers to the "hierarchy of road users" model, with which we will all be familiar. It sets out that we should prioritise walking, cycling, active travel, public transport and so on, down to private car use, and do it in that order of priority. The hierarchy of road users model is a well-recognised and identifiable model. Most people will have seen its triangular shape, where the priority at the top should be for active travel and it moves down from there. Essentially, it is about climate action and not just the provision of services and assisting people to get around their towns, through their towns or to other places, for example, to work. It is also about climate action.
We have to introduce proper measures for transport into the planning system and give the planning system some scope to provide that transport. I suggest that it lies within the remit of the planning system to provide for good active travel. We see that work being done at a local authority level and it can be done through the Roads Act by including those objectives in the development plans. Where it probably fails a little is in regard to public transport. Although we can set out that public transport is present, it is often not a sufficient level of public transport, whether that is the level of frequency or the capacity to support growth. Therefore, I seek to introduce a definition whereby the “hierarchy of road users" model means the design of roads and public spaces that prioritises, in the following order: people walking and wheeling, people cycling, people using public transport, people using taxi and shared transport, and finally, people using private cars.
I will address amendments Nos. 14, 31, 144 to 146, inclusive, 197, 198, 236, 238, 253, 335 to 337, inclusive, 345, 350, 358, 374, 375, 426, 448, 481, 534, 538, 542, 546, 615, 616, 618, 793, 794, 1154 and 1188 as tabled by Deputy Steven Matthews. Amendments Nos. 31, 144 to 146, inclusive, 197, 198, 236, 538, 542 and 546 relate to transport-orientated development. Amendment No. 426 relates to the indicative alignment of active travel networks. Amendment No. 793 relates to access to public transport and active travel routes. Amendment No. 794 relates to electric vehicle parking and charging and bicycle and e-bike parking.
Amendment No. 1118 relates to public transport accessibility, while the remainder of the amendments cited relate to the hierarchy of road users model that the Deputy has referenced. Some of the latter group also include references to other areas relating to sustainable transport already mentioned.
There is no doubt but that the alignment between sustainable transport options and spatial land use planning is an essential element of proper and sustainable development, a fact reflected in the growing influence of public transport and active travel in the context of national planning policy. For example, in May 2023, my Department, along with the Department of Transport, published a report outlining the opportunities for transport-orientated development, TOD, for four Dublin local authorities. The report outlined the benefits of TOD that can be attained through strategic placement of new and expanded settlements next to existing and planned public transport infrastructure, most importantly in regard to the environment and how such an approach can benefit national policy objectives such as the Climate Action Plan 2023, Housing for All and various spatial and transport strategies. Officials are currently considering TOD opportunities in the wider Dublin region and the regional cities, and further reports on these opportunities will be published shortly.
However, as outlined in the published report relating to Dublin, TOD is a particular form of development with higher densities located in close proximity to high-frequency public transport nodes and corridors, and thus is not generally applicable to areas without such access, including rural areas. Through engagement with my colleague the Minister for Transport, I am committed to exploring further opportunities for TOD through the development of integrated land use and transport policy and guidance measures, with a need also to consider the delivery mechanisms required to maximise opportunities in this regard. For example, the potential to designate these areas as urban development zones will ensure that State funding will be prioritised to facilitate the timely delivery of development. However, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary or appropriate to include reference to TOD itself in legislation where it would not be appropriate to all locations and circumstances. It is for this reason also that amendments such as No. 75, which seek to replace "promotion of" with "requirement for", cannot be accepted as this cannot at this time be required universally.
Likewise, with regards to the hierarchy of road users model and active travel, over recent years we have seen the emergence in prominence of this model, for example, in updates to the design manual for urban roads and streets, DMURS, and in the Government’s commitment to increased pedestrianisation of streets and delivery of cycle infrastructure, which we are all seeing in our communities across the country. As with TOD, it is considered that these elements are more appropriate to policy measures than to primary legislation, as this will allow for proper consideration, having regard to particular circumstances as they arise in different locations, of the potential for and suitability of these measures.
My colleague, the Minister for Transport, has developed a sustainable mobility policy and is currently developing a national demand management strategy, and officials from my Department are directly engaged in these polices to ensure they are appropriately aligned with spatial planning policy. Similarly, the current revision of the national planning framework, NPF, will need to consider the need for further alignment with sustainable transport options.
While the Government has recognised the value of the hierarchy of road users model, active travel, public transport and transport-orientated development, these measures are better implemented through policy development, which will ensure that the statutory plan-making system facilitated by this Bill, led by the NPF and national planning statements, will be aligned with related policy across Government.
For these reasons, I am unable to accept these amendments.
I thank the Minister of State. He is correct that we have seen the hierarchy of road users model included in many Government publications for many years. It is a recognised hierarchy. I have sought to introduce a definition of it and to apply it right the way down through the hierarchy of our planning system. My amendments, including amendment No. 144 and others, relate to the NPF, national planning statements, regional spatial and economic strategies, RSES, development plans and housing strategies, right down to settlement-specific objectives. The inclusion of that definition would give greater powers to the local or regional authorities when they are setting out those plans and to the Oireachtas when it is setting out the NPF. It is absolutely critical.
This Bill has been referred to as once-in-a-generation legislation. We owe it to the next generation to take whatever specific climate action we can. I introduced these amendments as a climate action objective and I have further amendments on climate action. It is well recognised and documented that our challenges on transport emissions are probably going to be the greatest challenges we face in trying to address climate change.
Amendment No. 31 seeks to introduce a definition of "transport-orientated development" and there are various definitions of it. I have heard it said that TOD is about big-level and high-capacity rail lines and high-capacity bus services. However, if one thinks about it, it means development around transport. We should not limit our view of transport just to high-capacity rail or high-capacity bus services. Transport is about how people get around their towns, how they get to school, work and shops, and how they get to transport hubs to reach higher frequency transport. My definition of "transport-orientated development" focuses on development. It is not about the transport system but focuses on development that is compact, mixed use and accessible, with extensive pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure that is integrated with public transport by clustering jobs, housing, services and amenities around public transport nodes.
I think the Minister of State said that a definition for "transport-orientated development" is being worked on. Is that through the Department of Transport or the Department of housing?
It is happening through the DMURS.
It is happening through the Department of Transport.
It is.
The DMURS is a good document and our plans generally adhere to it. However, if we look at some of the consents given for housing estates, there is talk about permeability but those estates do not necessarily provide optimum permeability. I have an amendment on this issue. Permeability to allow people to get to a sports field or shops might be included but not necessarily to get to transport. Unless we make it easier for people to get to transport, to cycle or walk around their towns, we are not going to win the battle to provide people with good alternatives to their car use. We see it in every town and village. When the schools return, there are traffic jams everywhere because people are driving their children to school since there is not that permeability. It is hard to retrofit afterwards. If we try to knock a hole through one housing estate into another, for all the benefits it may bring, we will find that most people do not want that to happen. We have all had those battles at local level. I would like the Minister of State to consider how we can bring in a definition of that hierarchy of road users model that would be acceptable to the Department. It is something for us to aim for in the hierarchy of plans we produce, from national to local level, and also for TOD. I am open to my suggested descriptions of those two things being amended so they sit well with planning policy. The definition of TOD I included is a mixture of two definitions, one of which is from a Government publication and the other is an international description.
Amendment No. 144 seeks to delete "promotion of sustainable settlement patterns". I find the word "promotion" incredibly weak in terms of planning. "Promotion" could mean putting up nice photographs at the open days and public consultations. How exactly can we promote sustainable settlement patterns and transport strategies in the NPF? For a start, how do we define what a "sustainable transport strategy" is? What research and documentation do we have to say a transport strategy is sustainable?
What is a sustainable transport strategy? If we are to include a reference to one in legislation, I want to know where it is coming from.
As I understand it, a sustainable transport strategy is one delivered at local level through the local development plan process but also governed by national policies on sustainable mobility.
Deputy Matthews also asked about the definition of transport-oriented development. That is being worked on as a Housing for All action between my Department and the Department of Transport.
As I stated in my opening remarks, the response to this is in overarching plans and policies that will guide authorities towards implementing and developing their own plans, through their development plan processes, to put in place sustainable transport. I appreciate what the Deputy is saying about promotion but the measure does place an obligation on local authorities. The overarching climate action plan sets out sectoral targets for all bodies. This governance provision dictates how authorities respond.
Certain transport providers in the country claim their model is sustainable and will become more so with the production of certain types of fuels, etc. Sustainable transport has to reduce emissions. That is the only way transport can be sustainable.
I agree. The hierarchy is walking, cycling and public transport, and lower down is private car travel. This is what all local authorities are directed to achieve. The Deputy mentioned greenhouse gas emissions. Addressing this is part of the bigger solution. It is a matter of sustainable communities and public health but also of the overarching ambition to reduce emissions.
If there is a good example of the challenges of the Green Party in government, it is the exchange we are having now. I do not say that in a flippant way because, to be fair to Deputy Matthews, he is tabling a range of amendments that I support and that are very sensible. His party colleague is reading out speaking notes arguing why policies that are, broadly speaking, Green Party policies should not be implemented in the way suggested.
Let me take a step back and make a few general comments before I comment on some of the amendments. This Bill has been presented to us as a once-in-a-generation reform of the planning system to clarify and consolidate existing laws and make the planning system fit for future planning challenges. The built environment, the urban environment, is one of the four largest emitters of greenhouse gases, as the Minister of State knows, along with energy, transport and agriculture. The Minister of State is right that we have legally binding emissions reduction targets across every sector, including the sector of the built environment, but we do not have a roadmap or clear, statutory requirements through our planning system to achieve that objective. While there is much debate on whether we will meet our renewable energy, transport and agriculture emissions targets, as there should be, there is virtually none on the roadmap and the legislative and policy changes that will lead to very dramatic reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions in the built environment in the lead-up to 2030 and then 2050. In fairness to this committee, it has produced reports on this, and the Irish Green Building Council has done good work on it.
With the greatest of respect to the Minister of State, the argument that he should not legislate in our planning system to provide clear, coherent rules that insist on transport-oriented development, not just in high-density urban areas but also in mid- and low-density urban areas in towns and low-density rural areas, beggars belief and makes no sense. It speaks to the fact that every time this committee has brought in representatives from various sections of the Department to discuss what should constitute the roadmap and how we should meet emissions reduction targets across the built environment through planning, building control and building materials, it has noted there is just no plan. This points to one of the very substantial omissions in the Bill. Other than restating existing, very loose and soft policy obligations requiring local authorities to think about climate change and emissions reduction in general, the Bill, in terms of new content, is absolutely silent on several key areas.
We will get to embodied carbon when scrutinising later amendments because that is also key. I will share with the Minister of State my private view, which is not that of my party. One of the great weaknesses of our system is that our housing, planning and transport systems are not integrated. For example, local authorities do not control transport. In fact, there is not just a single external agency. Responsibility is fragmented across a range of agencies. Likewise, in the Minister of State's Department there is no overlap.
Let me give some examples. There are three areas in my constituency and that of the Chair, Deputy Higgins, where this is particularly pertinent: Adamstown, Citywest and Clonburris. It is clear that, even when elements of transport policy are worked into the planning, the implementation and achievement of those objectives just disappears. This is a little like Deputy Matthews's point contrasting promotion and delivery, which are separate.
There should be a definition of hierarchy of road use. An unintentional omission in Deputy Matthews's amendment is that it does not ensure visibility on including people with disabilities and mobility challenges. It is implicit but it would be valuable if it were more explicit.
There should be a statutory requirement for transport-oriented development across all areas. It would apply in different ways. We are going to come back to this same point over and over again. There is a clear differentiation throughout the Bill between the language used by the Government when it really wants something to happen and that used by it when it believes something would be nice to have but that it will not force it. The completely different language is remarkable. When we get to the planning policy statements, I will get into full flow on this. As I pointed out to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, that it is simply not good enough to state local authorities can do what is envisaged anyway in a Bill that is, according to the Government's justification for it, about moving away from leaving things to each local authority towards consistency across the board, although there should be far more clarity on subsidiarity within the local authorities. Given that we have legally binding commitments in our climate action plan, which we support, and commitments based on our Paris climate agreement targets for 2030 and 2050, and the possibility of fines where we do not meet sectoral targets, this is the Bill that should contain the relevant measures on transport-oriented development, embodied carbon and changes to the planning system concerning the reuse and recycling of existing buildings. We will come to the latter separately. I am surprised there is not even some willingness on the part of the Minister of State to have a meeting of minds with his party colleague on a proposal I presume he actually agrees with, but in his position as Minister of State he has to give the official view rather than his own deeply held view. There is no willingness even to contemplate this or revert to us on it on Report Stage. That is remarkable.
I want to comment on the group of amendments. I commend Deputy Matthews on introducing his amendments, whose thrust I strongly support. There is no question that there is an absolutely compelling case for sustainable public transport in planning and development. Building transport-oriented communities is what we should be doing. New housing developments, affordable housing and all other types of housing should be very much aligned with public transport provision. It is very frustrating that expenditure under the national development plan and our capital plan is not strongly aligned with housing provision where housing is needed. This is done at a political level. It is almost as if we need one large project for everyone in the audience as opposed to planning according to housing and population needs.
That has a major effect on people and communities and involves a significant sustainability cost. Planning is an area that has absolutely failed. Between 2002 and 2006, 4% of the growth in population took place in our main five cities. That is a planning disaster. Ireland's energy consumption from 1990 to 2007 increased by 83%; at the same time, our transport energy consumption increased by 181%, which is off the charts. Those two figures are not in the same timeframe but are related. We built a huge volume of car-dependent housing outside of cities and urban areas and outside of public transport connections. That leads to car dependency, increased energy costs and pollution, increased costs for individuals and massive impacts on sustainability. As Deputy Ó Broin said, the Bill is very specific on measures which it is on the public record that some developers have lobbied for. They are specific and clear in the Bill but when it comes the kind of measures we need in the interests of all of us in society and of the environment, things become vague and we do not have it spelt out clearly the way it should be. It should not require these amendments. Now the amendments have been tabled, they should of course be accepted. If the Minister of State is not happy with exactly how they are, we should hear how they will be addressed on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 14 is important because many of the other amendments rest on it. The definition needs a bit of work to be more explicit about prioritising the needs of disabled people. They can fit in implicitly but need explicit prioritisation in that hierarchy of road users. The hierarchy is silent on transport of goods and emergency vehicles. Where do they fit in? I fully support the main thrust of the amendments.
A couple of important points were raised by Deputies. On Deputy O'Callaghan's point, that hierarchy is defined in the design manual for roads and streets. If there is further clarification needed on that, we can provide it. I agree on the importance of what Deputy Matthews is trying to achieve with amendment No. 14. That can vary depending on type of development and location. Deputy O'Callaghan mentioned issues around the growth of housing in rural Ireland and how unsustainable that has been. Work is ongoing on rural housing policy. We should develop and grow our urban centres in a compact way. That should be the priority and that is what we are trying to achieve as policymakers. There is an impact in terms of transport-orientated development in rural areas where rural transport is not so well developed. The Government has made significant progress in enhancing bus routes and connectivity, particularly in rural areas, which is one of the reasons, as the Deputy pointed out very well, that we have this challenge in service provision in rural communities. It is not just public transport but all services for rural areas, including broadband. It has created a huge challenge for us.
On local authority development plans, they adhere to, and have to adhere to, national plans and policies. They are screened. They have to go through an appropriate assessment process. There are checks and balances to ensure local authority development plans are strengthened and have the correct measures in place. Deputy Ó Broin suggested we go back and look at achieving the spirit Deputy Matthews seeks to achieve. We can do that and come back with a proposal on Report Stage. There is no doubt these amendments are important but it is about the whole interaction with other NTA policies and Department of Transport policies. We need to look at the challenge of how all that interacts. If it is okay, we might try and achieve that.
I know that response is a little bit vague. I recognise what the amendments are trying to achieve but a joint approach is being worked on by the TOD working group between the Department of Transport and our Department. That work is ongoing. There are evolving elements to this. We commit to looking at that to see how we might support the spirit of Deputy Matthews' amendments.
I do not understand, if the hierarchy of road users model is contained in DMURS, a document local engineers and roads designers must comply with, why we cannot reference it in another statutory document, which would be the planning Act. I take the point some people would consider TOD to be big development around high capacity - Adamstown and that type of thing - but we need to recognise how many of our transport emissions come from those 2 km or 3 km car journeys that happen in every town and village because roads are not safe or there is not segregated cycling or decent footpaths. That is because the car has taken over for the past 60 years. If the Minister of State commits to looking at that and coming back on how we can work it in, I will accept that. However, there are a number of questions I want to ask on this.
Amendment No. 144 concerns section 19(3), which states the NPF shall make provision for certain matters. The amendment suggests instead of "promotion" to put in "implementation". That may be a difficulty because the NPF is not really an implementation model and more an overarching framework, and possibly RSES is as well but once we get into development plans and local area plans, there should be implementation because that is where the action and the delivery happens. What is the difficulty? I do not mean amendment No. 144 but possibly further on. I will have to have a look through the numbers.
Where it refers to "sustainable settlement patterns" in section 19(3)(c), is it understood that "sustainable" also applies to "transportation strategies"?
That is correct. It is "promotion of sustainable settlement patterns and transportation strategies". On the preparation of development plan strategies, it states the strategy shall set out objectives relating to public transport road traffic systems, including sustainable integrated transport. That is quite explicit and use of the word "shall" gives it good strength.
We differentiate between urban and rural areas when we talk about sustainable settlements and sustainable transport strategies. Although transportation needs in rural areas are often different from those in high-density areas, we should not differentiate between them when we talk about sustainable settlement patterns. They should apply countrywide. A rural dweller has as much desire and need for sustainable transport and a settlement pattern as an urban dweller. This language is still 20 years old. We are in a climate crisis.
I accept approximately 70% to 80% of this is transposed from the 2000 Act. That is the language of 2000, when we were building roads to everywhere. We have moved on from that. The language in this Bill, which will serve us for the next ten, 15 or 20 years, needs to move with the times. Where I have asked for the hierarchy-of-road-users model to be implemented through the various plans, I will accept that the Minister of State will look and see what the difficulty is with having a definition of that model in the interpretation and definition sections of the Bill. Will the Minister of State come back to me on TOD?
On amendment No. 337, section 42 relates to the obligation to prepare strategy for sustainable development and regeneration. At the end of subsection (2)(b), the phrase "development of local transport plans" is used. Is it understood that a local transport plan would adhere to the hierarchy-of-road-users model and that it would include active travel, cycling, walking and access to public transport?
That is my reading of it.
Are local transport plans defined? What is to stop anybody from saying, "There is the roads network. We are going to have nicely lined roads great for drivers and there is your local transport plan"? The purpose of my amendment is to include, after-----
The subsection already includes the phrase "pedestrian and cycling infrastructure". Would that adequately meet it? The Deputy's amendment includes the phrase "including walking and cycling network plans". Is what is in his amendment more specific than the reference to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure? I accept that it is nuanced.
The subsection states refers to the promotion of the development of local transport plans. I do not know what a local transport plan is. It comes back to this language. Twenty years ago, a local transport plan would have been about how we were going to get cars around a town. Is it understood that a local transport plan adheres to the hierarchy-of-road-users model?
That is a good question. I see what the Deputy is saying.
The purpose of my amendment is to-----
That is in relation to the implementation of national transport policy and local transport plans, as I understand it.
My amendment seeks to include the phrase "walking and cycling network plans".
Does the phrase "pedestrian and cycling infrastructure" satisfy that?
That is earlier in the section, where reference is made to "the provision, or facilitation of the provision, of sustainable integrated transport" plans. However, in the context of the promotion of the development of a local transport plan, I want to know that a local transport plan also includes active travel. As matters stand, it is too vague.
I think we can accept that. We probably need to clarify the wording.
I will leave it to the Minister of State to come up with a wording that fits with what I am trying to achieve, rather than his accepting my amendment and dealing with the knock-on effects of that.
I appreciate what the Deputy is trying to achieve. There is a distinction. Obviously, local authorities are implementing active travel plans, and that is probably something which is not too dissimilar. Certainly, we could accept it in principle and see how we might come back in terms of a wording.
I will move on to amendment No. 350. I might have been a little cheeky with this one. I am not entirely sure this is where it should go. Section 43 relates to the obligation to prepare a strategy on economic development. In the context of the strategies to be contained in the development plan, I do not see a strategy that would meet what I am seeking in the amendment, which refers to "identifying education and training needs within the functional area, having regard to sustainable transport aligned with the hierarchy of road users model and the vibrancy of town centre". I am concerned about the capacity within our school systems. I may have missed out on that one. I have confused myself a little in respect of that. Could one of the officials point out where in the strategies for development plans it is stated that we need to take account of education capacity? I refer here to schools' capacity and further and higher education institutions' capacity? It is probably a function of either the local authorities and the Department of Education to prepare-----
I would imagine it would be a function of the Department of Education.
I am not entirely sure how this ended up in the section relating to transport. I think I had included something about there being access to the hierarchy-of-road-users model, but I do not see it. The reference may be missing.
Section 45(3)(d) refers to community facilities, which would include schools.
Under zoning, schools would come in under community and education. These are new ten-year development plans, and this is a good part of the Bill to in which to include these strategies. However, we should outline matters a little more clearly. The necessity for an educational capacity assessment should be part of one of these strategies. As stated earlier, we have had a lot of housing growth in north Wicklow but the development of schools has not progressed. That is the experience all around Kildare, Meath and Dublin. Maybe the Minister of State could take that one away and see what might be done.
If the Deputy does not mind, we can do that.
I thank the Minister of State.
Deputy Matthews is feeling the pain that we have been feeling.
I have been sitting in the Chair all day.
It is much more painful when one has to do it in real time.
Amendment No. 375 relates to expanding what are understood to be community facilities by including the term "sports and recreational". Although it could be for sporting or recreational purposes, a community facility does not necessarily have to be used for such purposes. I wonder if it would gave other implications. If not, it is something to be considered.
We could look at that. I assume the term "community facilities" includes that, but we could look at inserting the word "recreational". The Deputy might let us examine that.
I am fine with the Minister of State assessing what the implications of that would be. Apart from school places, one of the other biggest issues that we, as public representatives, all hear about at local and national level is the lack of playing pitches and other facilities.
They say there are two things one should never watch being made, namely, sausages and legislation. My apologies to the vegetarians. I say that because what we are witnessing is a good example of probably how not to make legislation.
I say that with the greatest respect to everybody involved in the process. We are scrambling around with two different sets of groupings of amendments. I appreciate the Minister of State has been dropped in to fill out bits of this but he is scrambling to cope with that. That is not a criticism; it is just a fact.
No, I appreciate that. Yes.
It is just a fact of the process. Moreover, this is on an issue that is not peripheral to good quality planning in the 21st century but one which is absolutely essential. Again, this is no criticism of anyone in this room but this is what happens when you ask the former Attorney General and a bunch of lawyers to go off and do the first draft of a Bill. On profound issues of planning, had the Government put the country’s leading planning experts, including some people in this room, into the initial drafting room or had it asked some of the country’s leading academics on transport-oriented development from TUD, etc. to produce a Bill, much of this would already be in the legislation, possibly in a better way than Deputy Matthews, I or any Opposition spokesperson could draft. Again, it speaks to the frailty of the legislation we have in front of us.
I have four specific questions on amendments. I am not clear at all why the Minister of State is not willing to accept amendment No. 350. I am not sure why he will not accept No. 481 – these are all separate to the issues we have raised heretofore – or Nos. 616 and 794. I would like the Minister of State to explain as clearly as he can either why he cannot accept the amendment or, if he cannot accept the spirit of the amendment, why he cannot do that. I refer to the idea, for example, that in Chapter 7 in the miscellaneous section - this relates to Deputy Matthew’s amendment No. 794 - one would not provide, apart from the Minister to make regulations, for issues regarding electric vehicle charging points and car parks, for example. We have a plethora of problems in our new development housing estates where there is a lack of clarity on what the actual requirements are. Some developers have a very high volume of charging points but in other places, the number of houses that have charging points is completely random. Likewise, if I understand amendment No. 616, it is to ensure that it is not only space for parking but also storage of, say, bicycles and those sorts of things. That seems eminently sensible. I thought amendment No. 350 being located there made complete sense because Deputy Matthews proposes to put into that economic development strategy a series of really important conditions that would be helpful to the development of the strategy. Can the Minister of State give more clarity on the refusal to accept amendments Nos 350, 481, 616, 617 and 794?
I will bring Deputy Matthews back before the Minister of State responds.
On amendment No. 350, I understand that the Minister of State has agreed to return to that matter.
I also seek a clear justification for the position, even if it is only the official note from the officials.
We can do that.
It is okay. I will return to my amendments in order then.
If it is helpful, we can get a note back to the Deputy from the officials.
Sure. The only thing I would say is that if the frequency of that statement continues with the frequency we have had to date, the officials will be obliged to draft an awful lot of documents to bring back to us, which is giving them extra work. The purposes of these sessions is to tease this stuff out in public session where there is a record of it and where external parties can view it.
I appreciate that.
While I will of course accept a note, the Minister of State should be careful of the number of extra notes he is giving to his officials to do. In addition, those notes do not get scrutinised and discussed publicly.
I appreciate the exchange so far. I would like to know why, on the public record, amendment No. 794 on providing for electric vehicle parking and charging systems and for centrally located sheltered secure bicycle and e-bike parking is not being accepted. The lack of provisions around the charging systems for electric vehicles is a live issue that is affecting people in communities across Ireland. Not to have it provided for in the Bill when it needs to be addressed flies in the face of all our climate change targets and all the rest. These issues are not being addressed. They are all being talked about down the years but people are moving towards electrically-charged vehicles and the infrastructure is not there. This is meant to be the Bill that updates everything from the last 25 years and that will see us in good shape for those next 25 years. The point is highly pertinent. Had there been input from people with expertise in all these areas at the starting of the Bill's drafting, we would have these issues covered. Instead,it has been a case of getting the Attorney General’s office to take a legalistic approach. The bits that are being fed into the Bill are those that seem to have come from developers or whatever but these are key issues that affect people now and need legislative remedy. Why not accept amendment No. 794?
The Minister of State to respond.
I think I have responded to that. On car parking and storage, I think that was on e-bikes. If it is okay, I will come back with a note to the Deputy on that.
I will continue on amendment -----
Before doing that, I will return to the stuff we discussed. Apologies, but I will press the Minister of State. I am looking for a clearer explanation on the refusal to accept amendments Nos 350, 481, 616 and 794. I appreciate the Minister of State read through a long note at the start but it is very difficult for me, and I am sure for people outside the building, to keep track of all of those. There are four amendments that we have already discussed. I am not clear why the Minister of State is not accepting them. I would like him to put on the record of the meeting the reason in respect of those four, namely, amendments Nos 350, 481, 616 and 794.
We have dealt with amendment No. 350 at this point.
We have but the explanation is not clear. I am not looking to discuss it any further; I simply would like the Minister of State to be clear on why that and the other three that we have already discussed are not being accepted. I am not so sure the Minister of State is clear.
To be helpful, I am not entirely confident that the wording I put forward in amendment No. 350 is absolutely correct and I want to give the Minister of State and the Department the opportunity to perfect that. It has not been not accepted. The position on amendment No. 350, as I understand it, is that I am offering it back to the Department to improve and provide what seems to be missing.
I appreciate that and understood that but I am asking the Minister of State in summary form to explain the concerns regarding those four amendments because I am just not clear. I am not looking to respond to that; I just want the Minister of State to put it on the record.
On amendment No. 350, as Deputy Matthews said, I want to check the wording consistency on that, if that is okay. We will come back on it if that is all right. Is that okay?
And the other three?
Similarly with that, yes.
I call Deputy Matthews.
I am not looking to be awkward but the purpose of this Stage is that we table amendments and the Minister of State gives his views. If there is anything unclear, we get the Minister of State to clarify and we move on. There are three amendments here that I am asking the Minister of State about because I am not clear what is his position in front of our committee. Is it that possible just to clarify the current position on amendments Nos. 481, 616 and 794?
Can I speak on those first because I have not actually got to address those? I am only up to No. 427.
The Minister of State has responded to those already.
Fair enough.
Yes. I did state that we would look at the issue of transport or in relation to amendment No. 481, we would look at the issue of transport oriented development within the Bill. So I did give a commitment in relation to that.
Did Deputy Matthews wish to continue on those amendments?
I would like to continue because I am up as far as amendment No. 427. Amendment No. 427 is related to page 110 of the Bill and relates to settlement-specific objectives.
Further up, section 51(1)(c) references providing a map identifying various settlement-specific objectives.
Which amendment are we talking about?
Amendment No. 427.
No, amendments Nos. 426 and 448 are in this group.
Is amendment No. 427 in this group?
Sorry about that.
This is not easy.
Amendment No. 448 is in this group.
Amendment No. 448 relates to page 118 of the Bill, which lists various strategies to be included in the review and preparation of a development plan. I am looking for the inclusion of a strategy on active travel networks. My amendments align with transport-orientated development and the hierarchy of road users model. There does not appear to be a strategy around active travel in the Bill. It would be a very helpful strategy to have at local authority level. We saw funding announced last week where millions will go to local authorities to develop active travel networks in their functional areas. If there was a strategy that members fed into, it would smooth the way significantly for active travel networks and their delivery.
Would the Deputy like to continue with the rest of his amendments or will we go to the Minister of State for a response?
Let us go to the Minister of State for a response.
Transport is already integrated with the other strategies. I am not sure whether that responds to what the Deputy is trying to achieve with the amendment.
The Bill references various strategies on page 118, including a proper planning and sustainable development strategy, a strategy for sustainable development, a housing development strategy, a strategy for economic development, a strategy for creation and improvement, and a strategy for conservation and protection. Maybe I am missing it, but where is the active travel network strategy? Where will it fit in under those seven proposals?
Under section 42 of the Bill, "Obligation to prepare strategy for sustainable development and regeneration", that strategy "shall include objectives relating to compact urban development, sustainable integrated transport systems, the provision of infrastructure and regulation of development".
What part of the Bill is the Minister of State referring to?
Section 42 of the Bill states, "The strategy shall include objectives relating to compact urban development, sustainable integrated transport systems-----
What page is that on?
Sorry, I am going from the explanatory memorandum.
I see it. It is section 42(2)(b) because we were discussing that-----
It is under section 42(2)(b), which states: "the provision, or facilitation of the provision, of sustainable integrated transport, public transport and road traffic systems (including appropriate parking provision), pedestrian and cycling infrastructure". It is included there.
Amendment No. 337 referenced that. The Department will look at the local transport plan to ensure it is included. It hinges on that. If the local transport plan is to be defined as an active travel, cycling and pedestrian plan, then that is covered under section 42. However, this is about a notice of intention to review a development plan and preparation of a draft development plan. Is the Minister of State saying that section 42 is understood to have to be complied with in order to comply with section 52?
Yes. That is the obligation to prepare a strategy for sustainable development. That is there.
I can understand that. The notice of intention to review a development plan and preparation of a draft development plan under section 52 lists seven strategies that should be issued by the chief executive. Are all those strategies aligned with all the strategies under section 42? I am getting a nod that they do. I do not see specific-----
There is no need to include it, as I see it. It is very clear in the strategy statement.
Why is the strategy stated in section 42 under different headings? Different strategies are required but they are not exactly aligned. I do not see a transport strategy in the terms of a review. There is an economic strategy, a housing strategy, and a sustainable development strategy under section 42 but I do not see a transport strategy. Section 42(1) states: "a strategy for the sustainable development and regeneration of the functional area of the planning authority." Is the Minister of State saying that takes in-----
Yes. It is quite clear in the explanatory memorandum, which states, "The strategy shall include objectives relating to compact urban development, [and] sustainable integrated transport systems".
I see what the Minister of State means. The strategy that I suggested should be put in is covered by section 42, which is more detailed than what has just been highlighted.
I will move to amendment No. 481, which is to do with the review of a development plan, or an interim report on the implementation of a development plan. My suggestion is, as part of that review, that "an outline of progress on transport-oriented development, [which we will come back to] and the integration of the hierarchy of road users model, transport patters [there is a spelling mistake in the amendment; it should read "transport patterns"] and modal shift to sustainable transport modes" be included. We are setting out these strategies for sustainable development, for active travel networks, and for accessibility, permeability, walkability and all those things. We will then have an interim review of a development plan, but we do not seem to have included an assessment of how our transport patterns evolve after the plan commences and the modal shift required in order to reduce our transport emissions. It would be very sensible, as part of the interim review of the plan, to include an assessment on how our transport strategies are operating. I imagine it will be found they are going in the wrong direction.
Are those not reporting mechanisms within the functional area of the local authority? In addition, local authorities are also reporting through sectoral plans for the climate action plan. Are reports on transport patterns not already catered for within the review of the development plan for local authorities?
I do not know. If there is a review of the development plan, and it should be remembered we now have ten-year plans as well, it most likely occurs at the halfway stage. Does the Bill specify that transport patterns have to be assessed, including whether the modal shift to sustainable transport modes is being achieved? How do we know that the transport strategies we are employing are working?
Under section 54(3)(c), a statement on "the progress made in implementing each of the strategies" is required. That includes the sustainable transport strategy. The provision is already included in that.
Would it necessarily be recorded?
I can just imagine that if that review was put before me, it probably would not include modal shift.
You would assume that it should.
Can we specify? We need to give direction on some of these assessments or interim reviews. Again, we are talking about transport. It is the hardest nut to crack in our sustainability challenge.
You would assume then that if the strategy will include objectives with regard to sustainable integrated transport systems, that would encompass all modal options, including walking, cycling, public transport and others, and in terms of the mechanism to review in the interim implementation of the report, any relevant transport strategy of the National Transport Authority, which includes modal shift. That would, in my view and with regard to the legislation, place an obligation that would include modal shift and the breakdown of modal share in the functional area of each local authority.
That would be included in those strategies?
Okay. On page 155, I will withdraw amendments Nos. 534, 538, 542 and 546 because I think there is a difficulty with the word "consistent" in the context of the national biodiversity action plan. It did strike me that in a number of places we use the terminology "have regard to", and that has been well discussed. In a number of other places we say "shall take account of", and in other places we say "consistent". We understand "consistent". Say, in the climate action plan, we absolutely know that all actions have to be consistent with section 15 of the climate Act. On "take account of" and "have regard to", can the Minister of State explain to me the level of scrutiny that has to be applied when you are taking account of something or having regard to it?
I would assume they mean the same thing.
For consistency then - which is that third one I said - we should either be using "have regard to" or "take account of". I do not know which one would stand up the most in a court case, if I took account of something or had regard to it. Which one means I applied, studied or adhered to the strongest?
Again, I would assume that "take account of" would be the stronger of the two. The "take account of" is stronger in the sense that it must show how you propose to meet a certain action.
I might just come in, with the indulgence of Deputy Matthews. It is remarkable that we are talking about assuming one formulation of words is equal to or stronger than another. This is the legislation that is meant to be underpinning our planning system. One of the reasons this legislation is being produced is that years of amendments to the Planning and Development Act 2000 have created confusion. That confusion has created conflict between different players in our planning system. That has ended up in court with enormous amounts of litigation regarding wind farms, residential developments etc. I would have thought if this legislation is not just produced by the officials here but run through the Attorney General's office, we would have something a little more than a Minister of State - with the greatest due respect to the Minister of State - saying, "I would assume that". Either they are the same and have no legislative difference in terms of language, which is one answer, or there is a difference and one is stronger than the other.
It is not unreasonable for the proposer, or indeed any of us, to have that clarity. Legislative language is very specific and prescriptive. Is it the same or is it different? If it is different, how different, and not, "Is that the Minister of State's assumption"? What is the advice from the legal experts who produced this stuff?
The wording "take account of" is stronger than "have regard to" because, as I said, you have to demonstrate how you give effect to certain requirements.
That is clearer.
I am sorry, I went off on a wrong tangent there talking about "consistent". It is on another bunch of amendments.
On amendments Nos. 534, 538, 542 and 546, I am withdrawing them because what I have asked is for a transport strategy of the National Transport Authority to be aligned with TOD and the hierarchy of road users model. The National Transport Authority produces its own strategy documents. It is not a matter for the planning Bill, so I withdraw those amendments.
I will move to amendment No. 616 then, which is on page 199. This is about the-----
An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach
Amendment No. 615 as well?
I have amendment No. 615 but I have kind of addressed that because the Minister of State is going to come back on the hierarchy of road users model.
Amendment No. 616 is about car parking and storage. What I am trying to achieve here is to address this kind of old, car-dependant language that is a hangover and legacy of our planning past, where we talk about "car parks". That is valuable space around a community where people live, and I do not think it should be designated just for cars. It should be for parking. We are seeing this shift, especially with e-bikes and e-scooters, where a lot more people are using those as a form of transport. Rather than just having car parks, it should be "parking". What I infer by the word "storage" is adequate shelters, storage and facilities for people who use electric bicycles and scooters. Rather than just having them up against a Sheffield stand stuck over in the far corner of the car park, they should be treated with the same importance, in fact more importance because they are fighting climate change. That is what that amendment refers to. Could the Minister of State look at that and take it in the spirit that we should not just designate that for the car? It should be for parking for sustainable transport.
I will. Car parks, by definition, are storage. They are storage facilities.
For cars.
For cars. Most car parks we use also have cycle parking in them and now additional spaces for e-scooters. There is a changing nature to them but they are storage effectively.
They are but what I want to try and do is focus the minds of people who would refer to this Bill when they are designing their developments so they will say that it is for parking and storage. It is not just a case of them needing this amount of space for the minimum amount of cars per household that development plans set out, and saying it is a facility for the owner and the people who live there. I would prefer that it was "parking and storage" with the understanding that is for all users.
Yes, we will take a look at that.
Okay. Amendment No. 618 is in this grouping as well. Again, it is around the hierarchy of road users model. What I am looking for with this amendment is to optimise access to public transport or active travel networks. You will often see where a development or housing estate takes place, the developer decides where the walking routes will be and where people are going to walk. In fact, I have heard it said that you should never put in pathways at the outset, just put down grass, and in a year's time you will know where people want to walk because there will be a path across the grass, and you can then put down the pathway. However, I am not suggesting we should do that.
It is about optimising direct access to make it as easy as possible. I know people who live in housing estates where the bus stop is 20 m away as the crow flies - as the NTA likes to measure its transport fares by these days - but it could be a 200 m or 300 m walk around the estate to get to the bus stop. Easy access at the early design stage is how we get people on board and help that modal shift. I do not even know if "optimise access" is the correct wording but if we are trying to align with the road users model, then we should provide that accessibility, access or egress from those developments.
Is there better wording for that? What is the response on amendment No. 618?
There could be unintended consequences. We need to be a little bit careful. I am not sure if there is necessity for this. It would probably be more appropriate in a development plan specifically.
These are conditions that would be attached to the commission. I would like to give the local authority the following ability. Someone can submit a design, layout and a permeability and mobility plan or whatever might go with the development but the local development should be able to say that footpath should go over there and they should knock a hole in that wall so that people have easy access to the bus stop. Local authorities tend not to make those kind of decisions.
Fair point. Back to the original point I made, local authorities can do this anyway, but the point the Deputy is making is that they may not always do that. However, they can do that as part of conditions on planning specifically.
They can do so at the moment.
Yes, they can.
I see conditions requiring the provision of roads and I understand "roads" includes footpaths and cycleways. We have quite a long list of planning conditions that can be applied there but it does not jump out at me. You do want to be on the back foot when putting in a submission on a development plan to say you had requested a condition to be applied to optimise access to local transport links. I see it in my area in newly built housing. People have to walk 300 m or 400 m to a bus stop when it is only over the wall. The developer just did not build it that way.
In planning principles, it is a good idea. Local authorities may not see that it is not there. However, when it is written here that they can optimise access to it, I think it sharpens their mind. This is the section planners will refer to when they are looking at applications.
I absolutely appreciate what the Deputy is saying. It should be designed that way anyway and that should be the case. However, as the Deputy said, there are probably examples in all of our constituencies where it does not take place. My view is that it is best placed in a development plan more overtly.
But is it in the development plan? Where is what should be included in a development plan stated? I think we would all agree with this, and I want to see it written somewhere so that we are not just all agreeing with it. A planner cannot rely on this. An applicant could come back and ask why a certain condition was put in that they do not agree with and then appeal it because it is not set out in the Act.
It could be in the departmental guidance that is issued to local authorities on the setting of development plans. That would be a more appropriate way of doing it.
We will take it back to the development plan stage rather than the conditions of an application stage. I still think it is better on an individual planning application to be able to apply that condition rather than it just being a generality development plan where there is much scope to say that something should not apply to a certain development plan for a particular reason. Perhaps the bus service is not frequent enough therefore we are not giving optimal access to-----
The development plan itself is the document that any proposers of a planning application will have to adhere to when they submit a planning application.
Is it in the guidance on development plans that was issued quite recently?
I do not know if it is. I do not know but I can find that out. I think the point is that it is much more specific to the actual design of a scheme. I am trying to think of the best way to-----
We leave the design to the applicants generally. They are guided by the principles in the development plan and they produce, design and submit it. If it correlates closely with the development plan, they are likely to get their planning permission. That is our planning consent process.
However, if we want to give planners the ability to apply a condition, I suggest it should be in this section rather than just in the generality of design in a development plan. Can the Minister of State find out if it is in the guidance that was issued recently on development plans?
Yes, we can, but I mean-----
If is not, can we see if it can be crafted in here somehow?
Again, in section 84 there are conditions that may be attached to permission granted, for example, “conditions can be attached requiring the carrying out of works (including the provision of facilities)...” It could be there but we will come back, if that is okay.
I am not trying to pick holes in this. I am just trying to make a better plan so that-----
I know what the Deputy is trying to achieve.
-----over the next 20 years people are not tempted to jump into their car because the bus stop has been put far away because of the layout of the development that was granted.
I am getting towards the end now. Amendment No. 793 refers to large-scale residential development. It is on page 306 of the Bill. It is along the same lines. It is about setting out matters related to the holding of an LRD meeting. It requires the person to furnish the planning authority with information, drawings, plans or documents. Section 169(2)(b)(iii)(II) states: “the provision of public and private open spaces, landscaping, play facilities, pedestrian permeability, vehicular access and parking provision, where relevant”. I note we do not have "car" parking there. That is better. I am wondering about including “access to public transport routes” after “pedestrian permeability”. It would include pedestrian permeability and access to public transport routes. I presume a large-scale residential development would have to be on public transport route or have access to public transport. It is similar to the last amendment I spoke on. If the Minister of State is going to look at it in relation to the conditions, could we look at it in relation to an LRD application as well?
We will.
I am thinking of a particular LRD application and I do not see that included in it.
I hope somebody is keeping a list of these.
I am.
It has to align with transport policy. I will give a commitment to look at it.
That is good. I think amendment No. 794 is mine as well and it also amends page 306 of the Bill. It is the same. The Bill states, “and parking provision” and my amendment is to add the following after that: “including electric vehicle parking and charging systems, and centrally located sheltered secure bicycle and e-bike parking”. It is to define more clearly what the parking provision would be. As it is, you just need to provide parking provision for-----
As we are looking at the wording around car parking and storage, “parking provision” includes and encompasses all types of parking. That would include-----
(Interruptions).
I was just going to ask that. Where do we define what "parking provision" is? If I come in with an LRD and it is 100 or 101 units - whatever it might be - and I have to provide one parking space per unit, where does it set out that it must have an electric vehicle charging system or a shelter for e-bikes?
Is that in the guidance documents?
This is one of the points I asked about earlier. Again, it is just one of those amendments that seems so eminently sensible. My understanding is that in their development plans local authorities will have policies with respect to e-charging and car parking and, therefore, when applications go in, depending on what is in those individual development plans, conditions could be attached to a grant of planning, if there was not already a request in.
This goes back to the Minister of State's point about the fact that local authorities can do this anyway but the problem is that, first, there is not a consistent approach across all local authorities. Second, even within local authorities, and within the same geographical area, we could have a situation where one development could have quite a lot of e-charging and parking, another can have some, and one could have none.
He knows my argument that there needs to be very clear demarcation on what is the responsibility of central government policy and what is the subsidiarity responsibility of the local authorities. If it is not even explicit, that means it is less likely to get done. It is not good enough to say that parking includes all parking when we know in the real world that is not what happens. Generally, parking means car parking in the traditional sense. We have lots of constituents who are buying homes – in my view ones that are too expensive – in Adamstown, but they are buying them, and one of the big problems is far too few of them have e-charging points and then, depending on the ESB set-up, the ducting and the road network, they may or may not be able to get them connected. Some are multi-unit developments with owners' management companies, OMCs, where it is not straightforward even in the case of a homeowner with a stand-alone house because one has to get permission from the OMC. This amendment seems to be a simple and obvious one.
I made the point repeatedly yesterday and I will make it repeatedly in other sessions, that it is remarkable that it does not seem that any meaningful consideration has been given to some of these amendments. If the Minister of State's response is going to be that he will take a look at it, what is the point of having Committee Stage if the amendments are not looked at before people come in? I say that in genuine frustration.
I know; I appreciate that. That is what we have given a commitment to do.
The challenge is that we cannot do that. If the Minister of State comes in and proposes an amendment, I cannot ask a bunch of questions and say we will look at that. We are meant to be deciding. We have 1,200 amendments. We are not going to have the same time on Report Stage even if the Government side in the Business Committee is very good to us. I do not want to have to repeat shedloads of these amendments. I would like to use Report Stage for what it is meant to be, which is for other amendments about issues that have emerged here. The list of issues the Minister of State is willing to look at and come back to is growing ever longer. That either means we have to defer our amendments to Report Stage if he does not honour his commitment, or the Government does not honour its commitment, because I know it is not just the Minister of State. What if we do not get time to discuss them? Surely the Minister and the Department come up with clear enough positions on these amendments before coming in here. If the quality of our arguments is so great, and we convince him to reconsider, that is fine, but if the default position every time is, "Oh well, we'll go and look at it", I just wonder what we are doing sitting here in the first place. I do not mean to be flippant.
I appreciate that. This process is about a Deputy arguing the case if he or she puts forward an amendment.
Yes. I do not hear the Minister of State giving a case against it, what I hear him say is, "Oh yeah, that is kind of interesting. We'll go and look at that."
That is the case. What we are trying to achieve is consensus, in as far as we can. The overarching objective is to improve the legislation. That is the Deputy's role, and it is really appreciated. When I say we will come back to him, we will. We will give due consideration to the proposed amendments. Although we may not be able to take the exact wording of the amendment, there may be a way to give effect to the spirit of what the amendment is trying to achieve. I ask him to appreciate that. It has been useful this afternoon to try and tease out these issues.
I am ever the optimist.
I thank the Minister of State. I do appreciate that fact. I have marked the amendments he said he will take away and have a look at. I fully accept that we are dealing with very complex legislation and that anything that goes in here, for example, even a comma in the wrong place, can have unforeseen consequences.
The Minister of State is taking what I am trying to do here in the spirit it is intended, which is to bring transport, walkability and active transport into the planning system as best we can. I am happy with the discussion on those amendments.
My last amendment is No. 1188, which relates to Schedule 4 - "reasons for refusal of permission that excludes compensation". Section 390 1.(g) refers to:
any existing or prospective deficiency in any infrastructure capacity which would be required to facilitate the proposed development.
Does "infrastructure capacity" include public transport?
Before I ask the Minister of State to respond, I wish to advise the committee that we will take a five-minute break at 4 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Yes, it does.
Could the applicant have a basis for argument if there was a refusal and the reason for refusal was a deficiency in public transport? I say that considering that the provision of public transport is outside the remit or capability of the applicant. I just want to get clarity on that.
Is the Deputy asking about when an applicant makes a planning application?
Yes. My understanding is----
Is the Deputy asking if they are basing the infrastructure they put in on the provision of public transport in that area?
I just want to make sure it is understandable and clear. If there is a deficiency in public transport, is it a legitimate reason for refusal? Would we rely only on section 390 1.(g) of Schedule 4 for that? Is it clear enough in paragraph (g) that it could be a reason for refusal?
The case law is very clear on lack of consideration of public transport. It can be refused if consideration is not given to the public transport in an area. Does that clarify the matter?
It does, but it leads to a further question. When we talk about infrastructure in development we talk about the hard infrastructure - the pipes in and the pipes out. Irish Water is able to say whether there is not enough capacity in the drinking water supply or the wastewater treatment system is at capacity but it is a little bit of a grey area to define a deficiency in public transport. One often hears a place being advertised as "close to public transport". It could be a meandering bus that comes once an hour. I just wonder how we define "deficiency" in public transport. There was a case in this regard but did it clarify it?
Yes. It is an existing or prospective deficiency in any infrastructure capacity. It can be assessed on the basis of location. Sometimes applications are based on projected public transport provision in the next year or two years or on the basis that a new route will be added or that there will be a new Luas line or a new DART service. It is a consideration and planning applications can be refused on that basis if an application cannot prove that there is an adequate supply of public transport infrastructure coming into an area that is clearly defined and funded. That is what it relates to.
I thank the Minister of State. That is the end of my amendments. On the basis that he is going to come back to me on the transport-oriented developments and the hierarchy of road users model, I will withdraw amendment No. 14, while reserving the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sitting suspended at 4 p.m. and resumed at 4.13 p.m.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 31, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“ “industrial emissions licence” means a licence under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 for the carrying on of an industrial emissions directive activity (within the meaning of that Act);
“integrated pollution control licence” means a licence (other than an industrial emissions licence) under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992;”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 31, line 24, to delete “ “Maritime Area Regulatory Authority” ” and substitute “ “an tÚdarás Rialála Limistéir Mhuirí” ”.
I will withdraw my amendment with a view to reintroducing it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 32, to delete line 11 and substitute the following:
“ “Aire” means An tAire Tithíochta, Rialtais Áitiúil agus Oidhreachta;”.
I will withdraw the amendment with a view to reintroducing it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 32, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“ “National Biodiversity Action Plan” has the meaning assigned to it by the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023;”.
In this amendment, I seek to introduce the national biodiversity action plan to the definitions section. I do not have to tell the Minister of State that this is the fourth national biodiversity action plan. It is now on a statutory footing and has been legislated for. Long-term funding is in place so it can deliver on many of the actions in it. Does the Minister of State believe it is necessary, and I suggest it is, to insert in this section that the meaning of the national biodiversity action plan is that assigned to it in the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023?
I will address amendments Nos. 18, 135, 234, 265, 282, 290, 304, 314, 315, 395, 432 and 1189, which have been tabled by Deputy Matthews. This set of amendments relates to a new definition for the national biodiversity action plan along with the insertion of several references to that plan at specified points throughout the Bill. It is important to note that the national biodiversity action plan is already defined under section 48 and several references to biodiversity currently feature in the Bill. I also acknowledge that the Deputy is seeking to expand upon the extent to which biodiversity features in the planning system. That is hugely important.
Amendment No. 18 intends to define the national biodiversity action plan by way of a reference to the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023. This differs from the current approach taken under section 48. I believe additional time is required to determine the most suitable approach for the purposes of the Bill. Multiple definitions of the same term are not usually desirable and this could lead to some confusion or misunderstanding. Subsequent proposals within this cohort of amendments insert new paragraphs and subparagraphs into existing provisions to increase the number of references to the national biodiversity action plan, primarily in Part 3 in relation to the national planning framework, regional spatial and economic strategies, and development plans.
The Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023 has introduced a new public sector duty on biodiversity and provides that all public bodies listed in the Act must have regard to the objectives and targets in the national biodiversity action plan. This legislation has been spearheaded by my Department and I hope it is clear for all to see the importance that is being placed on biodiversity across all levels of society, and rightly so.
I acknowledge the proposals brought forward by Deputy Matthews but I believe further work remains to be carried out on the definition of the action plan, as I have touched upon, but also on the subsequent proposed amendments and their cohesion with the Bill’s existing provisions. These considerations will be in the context of the need to maintain the capacity of the planning system to effectively and appropriately evaluate a wide range of legitimate considerations, which need to be balanced, in pursuance of its function of facilitating proper planning and sustainable development.
I ask the Deputy to consider withdrawing his amendments relating to the national biodiversity action plan. I will ask my officials to engage with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in order to bring forward corresponding amendments on Report Stage, where appropriate.
I thank the Minister of State. I note that in section 48 the term "the national biodiversity plan" refers to the National Biodiversity Action Plan 2017 to 2021, which was published by the Government on 5 October 2017. The Minister of State recently published the fourth national biodiversity action plan. I consider the reference in section 3 to be outdated. For this reason, I suggest that we insert this text in the section dealing with definitions.
There is probably nobody in the room who knows more about the national biodiversity action plan than the Minister of State. I accept his statement that he wants to check whether we are referring to this in the correct form.
My next amendment is amendment No. 135. As with the transport issue, I am trying to integrate this. My issue with transport was related to climate action and proper transport planning. This amendment relates to the other crisis we have, namely, biodiversity and how our planning system can impact biodiversity and nature.
Development and nature protection and restoration can co-exist. We talked about that co-existence of development and nature when we were doing the marine protected areas legislation as well. It is something we have overlooked in the past in planning. Nature protection, enhancement and restoration has often been something that has followed after the damage has been done rather than proactively asking how we would protect and look after nature, as well as allowing all the necessary development for housing, energy and transport. Amendment No. 135 starts with the national plan with is our national planning framework. Is it necessary and would it be helpful in section 19(2)(g) to add in "integrating the pursuit and achievement of the objectives of the National Biodiversity Action Plan into plan-led development in the State.”? That is under the objectives of the national planning framework. Will the Minister of State respond on that? Is the NPF the right place in which to put it? Again, this is the overarching planning framework for the country. It is probably not an implementation one; it is much more higher-level stuff. Will the Minister of State consider amendment No. 135 and see if that is the correct place to put it?
Before I bring in the Minister of State, I will take Deputy Ó Broin.
I would like to speak to amendment No. 201 in this group. Deputy Matthews is right that there is probably nobody, certainly in this room, let alone in the Oireachtas, who knows more about the national biodiversity action plan than the Minister of State. While he has not said "No" to the 36 amendments trying to promote and strength the biodiversity elements of this Bill, he has said a kind of soft "maybe", and, therefore, we will all be watching with great interest to see what comes from that. Amendment No. 201 seeks to add to the section of the Bill on the national planning policy statements. In that section, there is a list of issues that can be considered for the issuance of the national planning policy statements. The list is not exhaustive but by virtue of being in the list, it clearly indicates that those things are important or important enough to warrant a mention. The inclusion of protection, conservation or restoration of biodiversity would be crucial. There is something odd in the way in which the Bill's Office has worded or changed the wording of our amendment because my amendment was to come after subparagraph (o) not to replace it, which is the way it is worded here. Notwithstanding that, given that national planning statements are going to be the heavy-hand of central government stating which things are really important and what it wants to do them - and I am not against national planning statements so long as they are done in a democratic manner - this should be in the list. I see no reason this or a version of this should not be and I am interested in the Minister of State's views specifically on that.
To clarify, the Minister of State has not addressed amendments Nos. 136 and 410 yet. Are they being discussed later or shall I speak to them now?
The Minister of State addressed those in his opening remarks because they were all discussed.
Has the Minister of State addressed amendments Nos. 136 and 410 in his opening contribution?
I have not.
He has not yet. Has he addressed amendment No. 201?
No. Will I address those now?
No. I will speak on amendment No. 201 seeing as Deputy Ó Broin has, if that is okay?
Would the Deputy prefer the Minister to speak first?
I can speak to the grouping, if that is okay?
Will the Minister of State speak to the grouping because Deputy Duffy wants to come in as well on this?
I will address amendment No. 136 as tabled by Deputy O'Callaghan; amendments Nos. 164, 244 and 1171 tabled by Deputy Matthews; amendment No. 199 tabled by Deputy Duffy; and amendment No. 201 tabled by Deputies Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Smith and Kenny.
Amendments Nos. 136 and 164 relate to the national planning framework and amendments No. 136 proposes to insert a new paragraph in section 19(2) to add biodiversity objectives to the policy objectives included in the framework. As the objectives and targets for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are already provided for in the national biodiversity action plan, I see a considerable overlap between Deputy O'Callaghan's proposal and the relevant provisions of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023, and for this reason I am not in a position to accept this amendment.
Amendment No. 164 intends to amend section 21 by inserting a new paragraph in subsection (2). This subsection sets out the list of consultees when a review of the NPF is under way. Section 21 provides that the Minister of the day can consult with any "other persons or public bodies as the Minister considers appropriate", and as such, any State bodies responsible for the protection and conservation of nature and biodiversity is covered by the existing provision. On this basis, I do not consider that it is necessary to specifically provide for it but I will ask my officials to consider the matter further and if required, an amendment will be brought forward on Report Stage. I, therefore, ask the Deputy to withdraw this amendment pending the result of those considerations.
Amendments Nos. 199 and 201 relate to the national planning statements, specifically the addition of biodiversity-related provision to the matters listed under section 24(1).
Amendment No. 244 seeks to add a similar provision into the regional spatial and economic strategies. Again, I thank the Deputies for the proposals but as two different approaches have been suggested, I will ask officials to further review both proposed amendments with view to bringing a finalised position on Report Stage if appropriate.
I will now address amendments Nos. 397, 398, 400, 411, 424, 487, 498, 504, 535, 539, 543, 547, 620,1164, 1171, 1173 and 1175 tabled by Deputy Matthews; amendment No. 410 tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Smith and Kenny; and amendment No. 1176 tabled by Deputy Duffy.
Amendments Nos. 397, 398, 400, 410, 411, 424, 435, 487, 498 and 504 propose a range of amendments of development plan provisions. In general, these impact development plan strategies, objectives and consultations. Amendments Nos. 535, 539, 534 and 547 seek to introduce requirements that urban area priority area plans are consistent with biodiversity and nature restoration plans or strategies. Amendments Nos. 1164, 1171, 1173, 1175 and 1176 intend to establish requirements for urban development zones relating to biodiversity and nature restoration plans or strategies. Amendment No. 620 inserts several new paragraphs into section 84(3), which lists a range of conditions that can be attached by a planning authority or the commission to a granted planning permission. Additional consultation and analysis is required before a finalised position can be formed on this amendments. Issues related to undefined terms and the comprehensiveness of linking provisions to any relevant national biodiversity or nature restoration plans needs to be worked through fully to determine whether unforeseen avenues for legal challenges are being created here unintentionally. Again, we are in the process of the development of a national nature restoration plan. I ask Deputies to consider withdrawing these amendments and I will instruct officials to begin further work on these matters. Following consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel, I will table corresponding amendments on Report Stage where possible.
I thank the Minister of State. That was really helpful. We will now take Deputy O'Callaghan, then Deputy Duffy and I am sure others may want to come back in as well.
I would like to clarify the point raised by Deputy Matthews on the reference to the National Biodiversity Action Plan 2017-2021. That was the plan in place when the Bill was published therefore the fourth national biodiversity plan covers the period from 2023 to 2030.
I will speak to amendment No. 136, and also to amendment No. 201.
On amendment No. 136 specifically, Ireland declared a biodiversity emergency in 2019. Given the habitat loss and fragmentations from the main drivers of biodiversity loss in Ireland, this should be an objective of the national planning framework alongside the other objectives here to protect, enhance and, indeed, restore our biodiversity. What I am proposing here is fully aligned with what is happening at an international level where other countries are focusing more and more on biodiversity enhancement and not just protection. We can see that the new biodiversity net gain regulation in England, the proposed EU restoration law and all of these measures are taking place. However, the Minister of State is saying this is not necessary because we have the national biodiversity plan. Have I got that wrong?
I apologise, Deputy. What I am saying is that we need to consider that given we have just adopted the new national biodiversity action plan, it is now on a statutory footing. It is important to look at the totality of this legislation and how it interacts with that. There is a hierarchy of plan-making in terms of the national planning framework, this Bill and, particularly important, local authority development plans. I have given a commitment to come back to Deputies on Report Stage on how we interact with and embed this. Because of that biodiversity duty that exists now for all public bodies, it is really important that we do that and embed this into this Bill.
I welcome that. The real difficulty I have is that the time on Report Stage could be highly limited. We want to ask questions about, comment on and improve what the Minister of State comes forward with. It may simply be timed out on us. The Government usually guillotines Report Stage, which means there are only two, three or four hours when we need much longer. We probably will not even get to these issues on Report Stage, which means there is no accountability on it.
The Minister of State is acknowledging that there is something in the legislation that needs to be improved here. He is acknowledging that the work is going to be done but, potentially, there will be no accountability in the Dáil on that. This is our opportunity on Committee Stage to see what the Minister of State is proposing and interrogate that to see if we are happy with it. However, now all we know is that he will be doing something, but we do not know what. That is highly unsatisfactory. This is an area of key interest and key national importance around biodiversity enhancement, protection and restoration. We know the Government is going to do something in the Bill on it, but we do not know what with respect to the national planning framework. Therefore, it strikes me that this area of the Bill, as with many other areas, has come to us prematurely before this work has been done. It should be coming to us on Committee Stage with the Minister of State's proposals on biodiversity regarding the national planning framework, not a commitment that we will look at it on Report Stage. The crisis was declared in 2019. This is not new. I am in the dark as to what the Government is planning to do. All the Minister of State is saying is that he does not want to take my amendment and that he is planning to do something, but he cannot tell me what because that work has not been done yet. That puts us in a very poor situation indeed in terms of democratic process and accountability.
Amendment No. 201 on the national planning statement proposes to insert "protection, conservation and restoration of biodiversity". These are glaring omissions that should have been in the original draft of the Bill. From what the Minister of State is saying, there is agreement that they are omissions. Given that we have proposed specific wording here and given that the Minister of State cannot come to us with his wording or tell us what it will be, why will he not accept our amendments? If he does not disagree with our amendments, what is his rationale for not accepting them?
I do not disagree with any strengthening of this Bill with regard to biodiversity, absolutely not. The Deputy will appreciate that the national biodiversity action plan was only adopted by Government since this Bill was published. It is now on a statutory footing. What we want to do is try to achieve that strengthening within this Bill and give effect to what the national biodiversity action plan is trying to achieve. It will require some considerable work. I am more than happy to update the committee on how we set about doing that. I absolutely appreciate, however, that all the amendments here are about trying to strengthen our planning legislation and planning law with regard to biodiversity. As we have just adopted this fourth national plan, it is important that we do it in a way that ensures there is an alignment across all plans in that hierarchy of plans we mentioned in the national planning framework and in this legislation and, critically, as I said, down to local authority development plans, which is where the granular element of the implementation of the national biodiversity action plan will be delivered.
I will keep this short. I have no issue if the Minister of State comes to Report Stage with measures to improve this Bill and these provisions to bring them into line with the national biodiversity action plan. That is great and I am very supportive of that. That does not mean that the wording I proposed cannot be adopted now. There is an absolute omission in the Bill. There are no strong measures here. There is no mention of biodiversity in section 19(2). There is a passing mention in section 19(3), but no mention in section 19(2). My wording is very clear about supporting the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. From everything the Minister of State said and, indeed, all the work he has done in this area, I do not see how he could be opposed to that wording. Why not accept this amendment and then come along on Report Stage with the extra amendments and provisions to give full effect to the national biodiversity action plan? Nothing the Minister of State said has made me clear on the case as to why my amendment should not be accepted now, notwithstanding that he wants to do further things to incorporate biodiversity into the Bill.
To which amendment is the Deputy speaking?
That was amendment No. 136, but I was also speaking to amendment No. 201, which is similar. It was mainly amendment No. 136, however.
I will speak to amendment No. 199 first if that is okay. It is relative to considerations on the national planning statement. From what I can see, it covers three pages in the Bill and it does not mention biodiversity anywhere in those three pages. The Bill states that "the Minister shall have regard to", which does not necessarily mean he or she has to. The definition mentions looking at the matter concerned and factoring its relevance and-or weight, if any, as those matters appear to the decision-maker, which is the Minister. Really, therefore, it is just adding in a piece to "support and enhance biodiversity". It is a simple line to go into the Bill so that there is something in there about biodiversity for the Minister at the time when he or she is putting forward a national planning statement, because there is not at the moment.
Again, biodiversity is referenced in Chapter 2 on the national planning framework. I am coming back to the point that I appreciate the point Deputies O'Callaghan and Duffy have made. The critical thing from our perspective is to try to achieve coherence across the plan as it pertains to the recently adopted fourth national biodiversity action plan. That is what we are trying to achieve. We also note that we will be embarking on a national nature restoration plan, which will include implications for urban development but also right across the country. From that perspective, we would come back with a broader suite of proposals on Report Stage that would give effect to the national biodiversity action plan and achieve exactly the objectives that all these amendments are setting out to achieve, which is strengthening this Bill to ensure it aligns with national biodiversity policy and recognises that we are in a biodiversity crisis, and that our planning system has to give credence to that and ensure we have a robust planning system that is able to meet these requirements to address the loss of biodiversity in Ireland.
Going back to amendment No. 199, it is in the national planning statement, if one is made, that there is no regard for biodiversity. It is not in that section at all.
It can be covered elsewhere but a Minister reading this would not have to have regard to biodiversity.
Is the Deputy talking about the planning statement?
Yes. There is no regard for it at all.
In the specific section the Deputy is talking about, titled "Considerations for issuance of National Planning Statement", subsection 24(1)(g) refers to "prevention, reduction, amelioration and mitigation of risks of environmental damage". It is important to look at that specific section to ensure that wording around biodiversity is included. It addresses issues such as damage or "risks to human health and safety from natural and man-made causes, including from flooding". It is important to address that section and to ensure the wording there is strengthened as regards biodiversity.
I am sorry but the Minister of State does not believe that. Is he seriously telling me that section 24(1)(g) satisfactorily includes biodiversity? Come on.
What I am saying is-----
Let us refrain from assuming what other people are thinking.
That is why I am asking. It is a very big stretch.
The point I am making, and that I keep making, is that we have just recently adopted the new national biodiversity action plan. For the first time, the plan is on a statutory footing. All public bodies will have to have regard to it and there is a reporting mechanism back to the Minister with regard to its delivery. We want to ensure this Bill reflects that. I have given a commitment to come back on Report Stage as to how we are to achieve those objectives. We have a number of amendments from various Deputies. I will not say they are piecemeal but they need to be looked at in their totality if we are to strengthen this on Report Stage. I appreciate the point Deputy Cian O'Callaghan is making but, if it is useful to the committee and if it is of any use to members, we can come back with proposals as to how to do that.
I will make the wider point I was going to make. It is not that I was looking to put words in the Minister of State's mouth but there is such a distance between the text of section 24(1)(g) and Deputy Duffy's amendment and my own that it is factually inaccurate to suggest that it could somehow be accommodated.
I am not. I am suggesting that it is an area of the Bill that will be strengthened.
That is slightly different from how the Minister of State phrased it earlier but I take his point. Here is my point. The Minister of State is one of the most vocal advocates for Government action to address the biodiversity crisis. It is one of the great contributions he has made to the Oireachtas since being elected. It is very rare that I compliment a Government Minister of State but it is something I have said in our debates on the floor of the Dáil and I want to acknowledge it here. We would not have made some of the progress we have made were it not for his efforts. I am sure that privately he shares the disappointment of many of us on this side of the House that there is virtually nothing new in this Bill with respect to improving the operation of the planning system to give greater visibility to the negative and positive impacts on biodiversity loss and restoration. I am sure that privately he probably shares the view of many of us on this side of the House that two years of work-----
Again, let us not assume people's views and thoughts.
The Minister of State can speak for himself. I suspect I am not wrong. If the Minister of State says I am wrong, I will happily accept his word. He is right that our amendments are piecemeal. This is the first opportunity we have had to table them but at least we have gone and tabled them. At least we are attempting to strengthen the way in which this Bill and the planning system impacts on what is an increasingly accelerated loss of biodiversity. I fully accept that the Minister of State faces a dilemma with amendments Nos. 199 and 201 because they have different wordings. I fully accept that there may be better ways of wording them. If he were to give this committee a commitment to do everything within his influence to ensure section 24 includes a specific consideration of biodiversity and to say that he will go away and work very hard to ensure that, I would be somewhat satisfied. Here is the reason why. The list in section 24 is clearly a list of what the drafters of this Bill have decided are the most important considerations. It is no accident that biodiversity is not on that list because the drafters of this Bill do not think it is important. I know I am making assumptions but it is pretty obvious that they do not. If the Minister of State would do everything he can to convince his colleagues in the Department and the Government and come back with a wording that gives us a stand-alone requirement for the Minister to have regard to - I am trying to think of the exact wording - the desirability of setting out policy and providing guidance in respect of planning matters on this issue, that would be welcome. However, I would like to hear it more definitively.
The national planning policy statements are probably the single biggest innovation in this Bill. They are probably the single most significant change to our planning system, in good ways and bad, as we will discuss them when we get to them. If it is not in here, it is not going to happen. It will be left to the development plans of local authorities and to regional spatial plans. If the Minister of State will give us a firmer commitment as to what he intends to do, I will take him at this word but we will hold him to it when we get to Report Stage. I will come back in on amendment No. 410 when we get to it.
It is a point well made. I will give a commitment. The Deputy is correct in what he is saying. I will try to paint a broader picture of what we are trying to achieve. This is the first real test of the national biodiversity action plan and how it beds in with legislation. What we are attempting to achieve, as we said in the plan, is an all-of-government and all-of-society response. It therefore has to be reflected across all Government Departments, not just our own. The biodiversity duty that came through in the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023 is critically important to that. The Deputy will appreciate that this legislation was drafted and published before that. That is not to say that it is strong enough in terms of biodiversity because it is not. It is important that we strengthen it further. I absolutely and wholeheartedly accept the spirit behind the amendments that Deputies have put forward in good faith and that they feel frustrated that the Bill is not as strong as it could be. However, it must be appreciated that we have just adopted the plan and that the biodiversity duty is there. There is now an obligation on public bodies to ensure they align with the national biodiversity action plan.
We are about to embark on work on the nature restoration plan. Regardless of the outcome of discussions in Europe, that is going to be very significant, particularly for urban development as regards sustainable urban drainage and nature-based solutions. The climate and nature fund will underpin the delivery of those programmes on the ground. Our development plans will also be critically important because that is where the granular detail of setting about these actions will be laid down. I want to ensure that this plan is implemented in full at every level and every tier of our system, in national policy and in how that beds down at local community level. We heard the criticism of the third plan and how it underachieved. There were actions in it that were open-ended and not concluded. We want to ensure this plan is delivered and implemented in full. In that regard, I will give a commitment to strengthen the Bill with specific regard to biodiversity.
I will make one quick supplementary point. I welcome the Minister of State putting that on the record.
We have a number of people who are still to come in.
Let us be very clear. The only way planners are going to be able to comply with that duty under the biodiversity action plan is if we set out very clearly how they are to do so. Some of that will be in legislation, guidelines and so on. The same point as was made in the conversation we had yesterday on section 52 guidelines and the national planning framework will have to apply. It is all very well to have a duty but, if we do not set out in statute and secondary legislation how each individual section of our public sector is to address it, that duty is less likely to be adhered to. I welcome the Minister of State's commitment and look forward to seeing what he comes back with.
I was at the launch of the fourth national biodiversity action plan in the National Botanic Gardens in Glasnevin.
It was a packed house, and the level of expertise in that room represented lifetimes dedicated to nature protection and enhancement. Often they were lonely voices for many years. The sense of enthusiasm, optimism and hope in that room at the launch of that plan was palpable. It is highly significant that it is now statutory and being legislated for. That is one of the most important measures for biodiversity. I know people want to see tangible results but a foundation has now been set on which we can build and I that is particularly important. That is of course matched by future funding for climate and nature investment.
As I was reading this document, like the rest of us over the Christmas holidays, it was noticeable that although environment is mentioned quite a bit, there was a lack of mention of nature or restoration or those important measures. The Minister of State has stated that plan was only launched while this was being drafted, so I understand why the biodiversity action plan has not quite been weaved into this document yet. I accept that and do not think there is anybody better placed than the Minister of State to take a crack at the concerns expressed by everybody here. I believe every one of us is united in our desire to roll back the damage and degradation to our natural environment. Much of it is unseen and we do not even notice it out there but it is happening. Some of the measures put in place for nature protection have been quite impressive. We are talking about a national biodiversity action plan here. Of course, there will also be biodiversity action plans at county level. My amendments follow in a similar pattern to the transport ones, which is to start at the highest level document, the national planning framework, and weave it in there. I was faced with a dilemma. If you look at a transport delivery plan, it is a lot more tangible if you say you are going to build a rail line from A to B. However, substantial actions on nature and diversity can take quite a time to deliver. Unless you set targets for X km of rivers and lakes and so on, it is a difficult thing to definitively apply into something like this legislation. However, I accept the Minister of State will do his best on that, and I agree with many of the comments made by my colleagues here too.
I welcome the clarification on amendment No. 18. It is important to get that right because it sets the footing for the rest of the references to the national biodiversity action plan, NBAP, throughout this document. I have tried to introduce it at national planning framework level and then look at the national planning statements to make sure it is included in that. The regional, spatial and economic strategies and the content of those are part of that, as is the process for putting them together. The Office of the Planning Regulator needs to assess those plans and ask if they take account, have regard for, or are consistent with whatever wording we settle on. It goes right down to the development and local area plans too. It is at the development of the local biodiversity action plans that the real detail will be put in and the fact that we have a biodiversity officer now in every local authority gives real hope. We have filled those positions and have people there to deal with the strategic level of trying to protect our environment. The National Parks and Wildlife Service will have a critical role in this. The Minister of State's Department is the best place for the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the biodiversity plan because he will need to have regard to that plan, or any plan or assessment of plans, as will anybody else associated with assessment of plans. I am comforted by that.
There has been significant progress in terms of the announcement of new national parks. In three years we have gone from 2% to almost 10% in marine protected areas. This committee did a lot of pre-legislative scrutiny on the marine protected areas legislation. We look forward to seeing that coming forward. I accept that the Minister of State will go back because the national biodiversity action plan is new. I do not see how it could have been weaved into this because it had not been published at that stage, which was prior to this being published. They should take it away and look at the most appropriate places to reference the national plan and the most appropriate places to include the local biodiversity action plans.
The nature restoration law is something else we will have to consider. It is a European regulation so we will have to be compliant with that and I expect, coming back, we probably will. I do not know how many times the 2000 Act was amended. It was many times. I have no doubt this will be too. The nature of a planning Act is that it is so big, complex and far reaching that from time to time, things will come up and it will have to be amended. We will get further European directives. I think the water framework directive is mentioned as well. We are trying to restore that good ecological status to our water bodies and many other aspects of nature. I am satisfied the Minister of State is the right person to bring our views back, to weave them into the plan and bring them forward on Report Stage. That would be helpful. I also accept that we are all well intentioned here. I cannot honestly stand over amendments I have made and say the wording is perfect, will have no other implications and should go in the plan. I bring these forward with the suggestion of what my intention is, and leave it to the Minister of State to craft it in a way that does not have unforeseen consequences or implications for other sections of the plan. I refer to what Deputy O'Callaghan has said about how this wording is fine and should be accepted. If the Minister of State accepts some of that wording and it is seen to be not right, then he will have to amend it on Report Stage. The Deputy whose amendment he accepted will feel put out that he accepted it and then changed it.
Not necessarily.
There are feelings.
I accept that the Minister of State will take our concerns away and bring them back on Report Stage. On that basis, and because he has clarified amendment No. 18, I intend to withdraw it.
I reflect on all of the contributions from Deputies. It is a marked departure in this Dáil that we have had such a focus on biodiversity in the past number of years. It speaks volumes about how all Deputies across the House care for this. That is reflected in the quality of amendments brought forward. I wish to give assurance that what we are trying to achieve is a strengthening of the Bill and a reflection of the new national biodiversity action plan. Deputy Matthews is right. We will embark on a two-year process of developing a nature restoration plan, which will have significant implications within local authorities and right across the country, in particular for urban development but for other areas too. I cannot stress enough the importance of our local authority diversity plans. We now have a network of biodiversity officers to deliver on the NBAP at local level through their local biodiversity plans. The fund is important too. All of these interrelated actions have been important but they mean nothing if we do not have a strong planning Bill to underpin that. That is why I appreciate the amendments brought forward by Deputies today. I give assurances that we will come back to say how we propose to address them. The NBAP has just been adopted.
A review was undertaken of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and there is a recommendation to look at the responsibilities for nature right across Government. That is a piece of work we still have to do but it is an important piece of work. We must to give credence to that too.
I thank the Minister of State. I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.
It is 5 p.m. and the officials have to eat before the next session.
Will the Minister of State be back here at 6 p.m.?
I do not think so. No.
Before we break can I ask a very short question which is very relevant?
We have a number of speakers still. Do members want to make a decision as a committee as to what-----
Can we go for another few minutes while we have the Minister of State here? Is that okay?
We have a meeting scheduled for 6 p.m. and for people's welfare they need to have a break.
We will go for ten minutes. We have four speakers and I ask that each will try to keep it short to try to give the Minister of State time to respond, if the Minister of State's response is what people want.
In fairness to the staff and officials - and I have no difficulty staying here all night - if we go another ten minutes we still have to break for an hour. Folks here have to eat. If people are happy with that then I have no issue with it.
I have submitted a number of amendments on this grouping dealing with biodiversity, or the lack of reference to biodiversity, in the national planning statements and elsewhere in the Bill. I will just add to some of the points that have been made.
As our amendment suggests, biodiversity and the protection, conservation and restoration of biodiversity is the poor relation of the climate and biodiversity crisis. Often it just gets dropped in the discussion about the existential crisis that our planet faces. This is unfortunate because actually the collapse of ecosystems and the destruction of biodiversity might well put paid to human existence on this planet long before carbon emissions do. It is very important from a legislative point of view that there is often a trade-off between what is considered to be climate action to reduce CO2 emissions and this is particularly seen around the development of renewable energy or sources of renewable energy and the protection and conservation of biodiversity. These are often important trade-offs where decisions have to be made. This will be very real in this country. We see this trade-off for example when forests are cut down on the top of mountains in order to build wind turbines and then the mountains collapse as a result with incredible destruction following. Turbines may also be built in the wrong place where they might destroy marine life biodiversity. We know the sea and the oceans are some of the big sinks for dealing with climate emissions.
If we do not have the references to protection, conservation and restoration of biodiversity in national planning statements and if they are omitted, then it legally downgrades biodiversity, its protection, its restoration and its conservation in the priorities for sustainable planning and development as against what are considered other priorities. This can have a very real impact on very real issues that our society has to confront. It is a major omission and to be honest it is quite a surprising omission. It has to be addressed.
The Minister of State said he cannot accept our amendments because he is worried about how it will align with the rest of the legislation and consistency in the legislation. I get that but we are all grappling here with an enormous piece of legislation that is extremely difficult. I can see stress on the Chair, the officials, the Ministers and the Opposition because what we are trying to deal with here is just a nightmare. It will be extremely difficult to get this right before and during Report Stage. We do not have a commitment that there will not be a guillotine when it comes to Report Stage. If we were to get a commitment from the Government there would not be a guillotine it would make some difference and give us some comfort as to how we can deal with these things-----
I remind the Deputy that we have our own guillotine-----
Yes I know but I have not said a word up now and no one else was pulled up on time.
We need notice in advance of Report Stage with significant lead in time to Report Stage around the Government outlining its amendments to this Bill. We should not get the Government amendments on the Report Stage of the Bill just before Report Stage, where again we are grappling to catch up. There needs to be a lead in time where we have time to fully absorb the extent to which the Government is meeting commitments it is making here. In this case the Minister of State is making the commitment that this lack of reference to biodiversity conservation is an omission in the Bill. If that is the commitment the Minister of State is making, that these will be inserted in the national policy planning statements and elsewhere where they should be included in this grouping, then we need to see the proof of that well in advance of Report Stage.
I will withdraw the amendments and hopefully bring them back on Report Stage. Hopefully the Minister of State can bring biodiversity into both national planning statements. This is about what is missing. There is no biodiversity in this, the word is not used at all in the section on urban development zones either. It should be included or referenced back to the national biodiversity action plan. There should be the reference there in both those sections.
I welcome the Minister of State's commitment to address this. The amendments we brought forward do not just talk about protecting and conserving biodiversity. They also, very importantly, refer to enhancing biodiversity and restoration. Will the Minister of State give us a commitment that when he brings the Bill back on Report Stage, it will not just refer to protecting and conserving biodiversity but also enhancement and restoration?
I think it has to.
Sitting suspended at 5.08 p.m. and resumed at 6.10 p.m.
Deputy Steven Matthews resumed the Chair.
Welcome back to the select committee where we continue Committee Stage of the Planning and Development Bill 2023. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Niall Collins, to the committee. We were discussing a grouping containing amendment No. 18. Deputy Ó Broin wishes to speak an amendment.
Amendment No. 410 relates to section 48 on page 107 of the Bill. This is the obligation to prepare strategies for conservation of natural and built heritage. In the amendment, from (1)(a) through to (l), there is a variety of different areas that could be considered for the strategy. I want to include an additional one, under (k), which would be areas subject to special amenity area orders, SAAOs, and the identification of areas where such orders would be beneficial for the community or biodiversity. These are areas that would then be required for the strategies. I am interested in the Minister of State's response.
I call the Minister of State on amendment No. 410.
I am advised that the Minister of State, Deputy Malcolm Noonan, is going to look at the whole area of biodiversity within the Bill as it stands. He is going to come back on Report Stage with an alternative proposal.
Is there any initial response that the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, or his officials can give us in terms of the proposition with respect to this specific amendment? I realise the Minister of State has just come in. We had quite a lengthy discussion around other areas but this is a very specific proposal which we have not discussed with the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan.
Please bear with us a minute.
No rush. We are here all night, literally.
Is the Deputy referring to special amenity area orders?
The function of this section of the Act is to place an obligation on planning authorities to prepare strategies for conservation. It gives a list of the various areas that should be considered in those strategies. I want to include areas subject to special amenity area orders but also to go beyond those that are currently designated to include identification of areas where such orders would be beneficial for community and biodiversity. It is to include that in the list of matters with which the strategy for conservation would deal.
I will make the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, aware of exactly what Deputy Ó Broin has just articulated. I will ask him to consider it in terms of the proposal that he is going to bring forward on Report Stage.
I wish to make one point. I do not envy the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, at all because he has been dropped into an area that is not his ministerial brief. We are going to have other Ministers come in who are not from our Department, and this is absolutely not a criticism - I want to stress that. However, we need to be able to engage with the substance of the amendments, no matter which Minister is in. It is fine for this one but it will be a problem if this becomes a pattern simply because Ministers are being drafted in to deal with a Bill which, through no fault of their own, they would not have the background on. I just make that point. I will come back to it again, if I need to. The Cathaoirleach can see my point, surely.
I can.
It would not be a satisfactory way to proceed.
Please repeat that.
It would not be a satisfactory way to proceed, if it was to happen repeatedly.
On the basis of what Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, committed to before the break, I would expect that this amendment will be considered in the same vein.
I will take it as said.
Can I just ask Deputy Ó Broin to clarify something, so that I can understand what he is trying to do here? It is already set out how to create an SAAO, but the Deputy is seeking to have creating an SAAO as an objective within a strategy as well, is that it?
Is this amendment No. 410?
The purpose of this section is it places an obligation on planning authorities to develop a strategy for conservation and it lists a range of issues that would be included. I want to have those SACs included in the consideration for that strategy. That is the first part of the amendment. The second part is that there would be no harm in developing that strategy to look beyond the current designation to see whether other areas, for example, might be useful to consider seeking the future designation of or to include those in the strategy as well. However, as the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, said, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan will come back to us.
As all members will appreciate, we all want to avoid unintended consequences. If there is a change at one end of the Bill, it may have consequences for another end of the Bill. That is why it will come back on Report Stage.
I look forward to that.
In regard to amendment No. 410 I struggle to see what the unintended consequences of our amendment would be. It is clear and straightforward. SAAOs are very important. Having them listed here in the obligation to prepare a strategy for conservation of natural and built heritage is an omission. It is missing. We are correcting this flaw in the Bill. What could be the unintended consequence of having this?
We are just----
This is quite a distinct section of the Bill. It is literally just listing the obligations for preparing strategies for conservation. It is listing this as one of the areas. I cannot see how it impacts on other parts of the Bill.
The main section of the Bill dealing with areas of special amenity is section 242. If we are amending an earlier section, section 242, from the official side, a look-through would have to be taken to make sure there is no knock-on impact or consequential impact which would be normal in the passage of any legislation.
Section 242.
Yes, but I do not see-----
I am advised that one is recreational use and one is amenity. There might be a conflict between those two classifications of use and biodiversity.
I have tabled this amendment as well. Apologies for missing Deputy Ó Broin's contribution. Again, it seems like an obvious omission, that is, for the requirement in a development plan to prepare a strategy for conservation of natural and built heritage, not to include special amenity area orders and the identification of areas where such orders would be beneficial for the community or for biodiversity objectives. I would have thought that is an obvious matter that should be included in such a strategy and in a development plan. It would be a matter of considerable concern from the biodiversity point of view we just discussed in some of the previous amendments, as well as from the point of view of local communities and areas they consider important to them as amenity areas, which often have a significant natural, local or environmental heritage aspect.
The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, is giving a commitment and saying he accepts the principle - if I understand that correctly - but he wants to align it with the Bill from the point of view of having tight legislation. Is it a commitment?
What I said before the Deputy came in was that the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, was clear that he will look at the whole area of biodiversity and bring back a proposal on Report Stage. What I am advised on this side is that there may be potential conflicts - we do not know; it needs to be considered - between amenity areas and conservation areas in terms of biodiversity.
That might affect how we would put this into the Bill or the way in which we would put forward the amendment. It would not negate the central point that the special amenity areas should be part of such a strategy and should be required in the identification of such areas as part of a development plan. Is that not the case?
They are not created by development plans; they are created by the Minister, I think. I refer to section 242.
They may also be created by a reserved function. One could argue that tree preservation orders should be in here too, but there is a distinct section in the Bill to create orders for tree preservation and to create special amenity area orders. I do not know if that would add to the conflict. Is that another omission? We might ask the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, to consider if that is the appropriate place to put this.
Yes, and we are putting forward the case that it is the appropriate place to put it. I am confused by the explanation that there could be a conflict between amenity areas and conservation areas, so-----
Recreational areas.
There is then a concern that there could be a conflict between special areas of amenity, conservation areas and recreational areas. Will the Minister of State expand on that for me?
It will have to be screened on this side. Prior to the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, coming back with any proposal, the view is that some recreational activities may have an impact on a biodiversity area, and I think we all understand that. It just needs to be considered a bit further.
I am finding it difficult to understand the explanation, and I will explain why. First, this is about the obligation to prepare a strategy for conservation of natural and built heritage. Natural heritage is the obvious place where one would place our amendment as regards areas subject to special amenity area orders and the identification of such areas. If they are not included under that heading and that strategy, I do not see where else they would be included. If there were a view that they should be included somewhere else, that could be put forward. As regards these potential conflicts, the situation now is that we have special areas of amenity and, within those areas, conservation areas as well, and there is no conflict. In fact, it is quite complementary to have a conservation area in the same area as a special area of amenity. I sat for many years on the management committee of a special amenity area so I have a lot of experience of this, the management of it, dealing with all the various agencies and so forth. From my experience, far from there being conflicts around having special areas of conservation within amenity areas, it was really a bonus to have those kinds of double levels-----
What special area was it?
It was the Howth special amenity area order management committee. It was very useful because the National Parks and Wildlife Service was involved as it has a particular interest in SACs and so forth, and this was complementary. There were no conflicts. Within that area, there were recreational uses as well because there can be special areas of amenity and recreational uses in those as well. The idea, then, that these all potentially conflict and cannot exist in the same place and, therefore, that we cannot have our amendment is just hard to understand. It certainly goes against the ten years of experience I had on that management committee and how we managed the area very successfully and very well and with very good community participation. At no stage was any advice ever given to us that the special area of conservation within the amenity order area was in conflict with it - far from it. It is therefore surprising to hear this rationale put forward now when it flies against all the experience I had on the ground in this area.
The Minister of State has given an undertaking to look at the whole area and take on board the Deputy's-----
My concern is that we have had a lot of undertakings since we started this Bill - every time we raise an issue there are undertakings - but we are not actually getting concrete proposals. We are not being told our amendments are wrong, only that the Government wants to look at this more. My concern is that all this could be lost within the commitments on biodiversity and that we may have other measures on biodiversity but the specific things we are looking for here, such as the listing of special areas of amenity, will be lost in that process. At least a commitment on special areas of amenity, and that they be dealt with under these obligations to prepare strategies for conservation of natural heritage, would be a specific commitment. However, we already have a general commitment around biodiversity and we do not know that this will not be lost in it.
To add to that, the section our amendment No. 410 deals with states: "A planning authority shall prepare a strategy for the conservation, protection, management and improvement of the natural and built heritage and landscape in the functional area". It continues, "The strategy shall include objectives for the conservation, protection, management and improvement of", and then it gives a long list of things. The Minister of State can see it in front of him: UNESCO sites, archaeological sites, places and features of natural beauty, etc. We propose to add "areas subject to Special Amenity Area Orders and the identification of areas where such orders would be beneficial for the community or biodiversity". Our amendment therefore allows for establishing that this is for biodiversity or community, and it is about protecting those things, so I do not really see how the clash the Minister of State talks about comes into play. The only scenario I can imagine is where we have already designated somewhere as a special amenity area and then somebody comes along and says it should not be a special amenity area because having it as such conflicts with biodiversity objectives, which is pretty unlikely, to put it bluntly. That is a pretty tenuous argument. I therefore do not really see why there would be any difficulty with the principle of what we are saying.
The Minister of State has outlined that the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, will take the Deputy's proposal on board. I have been taking note, as I am sure others have, of commitments to return to. I do not think we will get any progress on this now so I suggest we move on from it.
I do not find the explanation given satisfactory. We have been told about these conflicts but, in fact, the experience is that you can of course have recreation functions in special areas of amenity and you can have special conservation areas. This is the reality now - it happens - so being told that it poses these potential conflicts and that therefore the amendment cannot be accepted at this point, the rationale does not stand, unless-----
I did not say there were conflicts; I said that there may be and that the matter will be looked at.
It is a fact that certain forms of recreation may impact biodiversity in special areas. For example, the cliff walk around Howth impacts biodiversity. There are activities in areas of biodiversity which damage that biodiversity.
I completely accept that.
That is what we are saying.
It was being put forward that there are conflicts which mean we cannot necessarily have conservation areas in amenity areas and we cannot have recreational uses. In fact, we can. What was put forward is that there are potential conflicts. Either there are real conflicts-----
There may be.
There are potential conflicts-----
We are saying it needs to be looked at. There may be knock-on consequences within the Bill.
Our wording states: "Areas subject to Special Amenity Area Orders and the identification of areas where such orders would be beneficial for the community or biodiversity objectives." I fail to see how that is a rationale for not accepting the amendment.
Maybe we cannot agree here and now. I have reiterated the undertaking that the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, gave to the committee. There will be another opportunity on Report Stage to thrash it out with him when he brings back a proposal.
Nobody is disputing that there could, under certain circumstances, be a conflict between a decision to identify or establish a special amenity area order and biodiversity objectives. That could potentially happen. This is the point about the wording of our amendment. If an area is subject to a special amenity area order, why would we not want to conserve it? One would assume that the proper screening is done before such an order is made. If someone wants to question the order and identification of such a site, that is fair enough. If someone states that it clashes with our biodiversity objectives, then consideration might be given to removing an order or whatever. If an area is identified as one in respect of which it is right to have an order, why would we not want to conserve and protect it and for it to be identified in a section about conserving certain things that have been decided in the development planner as important to conserve? The possibility that these two things conflict does not negate our amendment; it just requires people to have both things in mind. That is a point which the Department might contemplate in its considerations.
I have a question on section 202 of the Planning and Development Act regarding what it states about special areas of amenity. It states that they can be defined in terms of for beauty or recreation. Am I to take from what the Minister of State said that this is no longer the case? Is there a change regarding special areas of amenity and their recreational use? One can talk about conflicts, whereas up until now you could have a special area of amenity because of the beauty of the area or because of recreation. Is there a move away from that in this legislation?
Did the Deputy say section 242 or 202?
Section 202 of the current Act.
Are they the same? There is no change. Recreation is still there.
Can I clarify that what we are trying to communicate back to the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, is that the process for making up an order will not change in this Bill. It will remain exactly the same as that provide for in the 2000 Act. The question we want the Minister of State to answer is if he could consider adding it to the strategy on built and natural heritage. Can we agree on that? Yes. There is a commitment to do that.
I am concerned by comments which seem to imply conflicts that would appear to go against what the legislation states. We are being told there could be a conflict with recreation, yet the Bill seems to state otherwise. That gives rise to concern.
Is there anything else on this grouping?
Is there a response on that?
I have nothing further to add, only that the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, will address the matter on Report Stage.
I thank the Minister of State.
Section 242(1) includes the phrase, "Where, subject to ... the opinion of the planning authority by reason of ... its special recreational value". It is there and yet we are told about these conflicts and that it is not necessarily possible to have an SAAO if there is recreation. Yet, the Bill refers to special recreational value. I am struggling with the information we are being given by the Minister of State because it does not seem to be consistent with what is written in black and white in the Bill. There is no explanation for why that is.
Not now.
That is extremely unsatisfactory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 33, line 20, to delete “or”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 33, to delete lines 21 to 23 and substitute the following:
“(ii) a lease under section 2 of the Act of 1933, of a part of the foreshore that consists of, or includes, the maritime site, or
(iii) a licence granted under section 3 of the Act of 1933 authorising the licensee to do any act or acts referred to in that section for the purpose of development on, in, over, under or otherwise in relation to, the maritime site,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
Níl
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 21, 25, 26, 581, 582, 586 to 589, inclusive, 643, 646, 678, 777, 790, 792, 795, 852 and 877 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 34, line 10, to delete “permission for retention” and substitute “retention permission”.
These amendments all relate to retention permission and retrospective consent. Amendment No. 25 amends the definition term in Part 4 of the Bill to reflect the use of the term “retention permission” instead of “retention”. The remainder of amendments are minor wording amendments that substitute the phrase “retention permission” for “permission for retention” throughout the Bill. These minor amendments are required to bring clarity to the retention and retrospective consent procedures.
I accept that some of these are minor amendments but I do not accept that all of them are. I would like the Minister of State to go through six amendments in this group individually and explain the rationale and consequences. The first one is amendment No. 26. Could the Minister of State explain the use of the phrase "retrospective consent"? Regarding amendment No. 581, I am looking for an explanation of the rationale for the change. Regarding amendment No. 586, I am looking for the rationale for the deletion of "retention" from the original wording.
The same applies to amendment No. 587. On amendment No. 588, I am looking for a further explanation of the use of the phrase "unauthorised development" and, in particular, whether that refers to developments that took place without planning permission or developments that took place with planning permission that were subsequently found to be unlawful.
I am concerned about amendment No. 790 insofar as it relates to removing the phrase "in relation to retention permission" on land, a maritime site, etc. I ask the Minister of State to have his officials talk him through those amendments and explain the rationale for them.
Retention permission is defined in the Bill to mean permission for retention of a development which, immediately before the grant of such permission, was an unauthorised development. Retention permission is a way of regularising unauthorised development. Where a development has been carried out without first obtaining the necessary planning permission, a person may apply to the planning authority for retention permission in accordance with Part 4 of the Bill. An application for retention permission is required to be assessed by a planning authority in the same way as any other application, that is, the planning authority is required to consider the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, having regard to the provisions of the development plan, any submissions or observations received and relevant ministerial or Government policies, including any guidelines issued by the Department.
It should be noted that the fact that a person has made an application for retention permission is not a defence to a prosecution for unauthorised development and a development carried out without planning permission, or in breach of planning conditions, remains unauthorised unless and until retention permission is granted. In relation-----
Just before the Minister of State moves on to amendment No. 26, while I understand what retention permission means in that sense, why is it being inserted here? What is the value of inserting retention permission in this particular section?
There is a definition section in the Bill. This clarifies that the term “retention permission” is replacing the term “permission” and the term “retrospective consent” is being inserted.
I am genuinely not being awkward but what I am trying to get at is why that is being done.
To clarify, the drafters have picked up that this was not in the original Bill, as published, and they believe it should be inserted to bring clarity to the Bill.
Will the Minister of State explain amendment No. 581?
That is the amendment on retrospective consent. The Bill, as it stands, refers to a “proposed application for permission for development or retention”. This amendment seeks to break up that wording to give clarity by referring to “(a) permission for development” and “(b) retention permission”.
Some of these definitions and sections end up being subject to significant legal challenges, not only in the Irish courts but in the European courts. The specificity of the language is probably more important here than in other places. What is the utility of splitting "permission for development or retention" into "permission for development" and "retention permission"? That is the bit I am trying to understand.
The Bill refers to a "proposed application". The purpose of the amendment is to bring greater clarity by providing for two types of application, namely, an application for permission for a development and an application for retention permission. Does that clarify the matter?
How does that differ from retention because retention is the seeking of permission after the fact?
We are changing “retention” to "retention permission".
I get that and that change is being made a number of times. The reason I am querying it is I am wondering whether “retention permission” has a greater utility than “retention”?
This is to clarify that an application has to be made for retention permission where there is an unauthorised development or a breach of a condition.
The process by which one seeks retention is not being changed in that people will always have to apply for retention.
No, that remains the case.
Okay.
I spoke to that already.
I ask for an explanation of amendment No. 586.
Does it relate to retrospective permission?
I am asking about the rationale for deleting the word "retention" in this amendment.
We are inserting the term “retention permission” and deleting the word “retention”.
This is consequent to the earlier amendment. On the rationale for the deletion in amendment No. 587, is it also consequential?
Yes, it is consequential.
On amendment No. 588, which inserts the words "retention of unauthorised development", why is the word “unauthorised” used? There are occasions where a development can be authorised but subsequently found not to be legal. Therefore, one could have a situation where one could have retention of what was initially an authorised development.
If something is found to be illegal, it is unauthorised. It is not in compliance with the permission which was originally granted.
Alternatively, the permission could have been challenged subsequently in a superior court so the original planning grant could have been authorised and the development could have been-----
The development may not complied with what was authorised.
It may not have exactly complied. Is the Minister of State saying that is captured in-----
Specifically-----
An unauthorised development will include all categories, even where it might have been at one stage authorised but subsequently found to be-----
Yes.
Is the Minister of State and his officials satisfied with that?
They are, yes.
Amendment No. 790 proposes to delete the line "in relation to any permission for the retention on land or a maritime site of any structure" and replace it with the words “in relation to retention permission for any unauthorised structure”. That seems to be a significant change.
I apologise, I am just not getting this piece. Will the Deputy run it by me again?
Yes. It is because it is confusing is the reason I am asking. I will explain afterwards. My understanding is that a sentence would be deleted by this amendment, which is "in relation to any permission for the retention on land or a maritime site of any structure"
We are deleting that.
That is being replaced with "in relation to retention permission for any unauthorised structure". That is a significant change in wording. I would like to know what is the rationale for the change.
I am advised we are bringing clarity to what it shall not apply to.
The amendment is to bring clarity to what the retention permission cannot apply to. Perhaps the officials could explain to the Minister of State to explain to me what it is then we are excluding. The words being changed are "in relation to any permission for the retention on land or a maritime site of any structure". To what is this wording now being disapplied?
A retention permission cannot be extended. The wording is to bring clarity to that.
Let me just make a general comment and then ask one last question. Apologies for being so pernickety about this but we have had two rounds of very controversial substitute consent legislation that have been passed by the Oireachtas in the past two or three years. They often relate not to retentions as we would often understand them but to very complex and damaging unauthorised developments or developments that at one point were authorised and subsequently fell foul of the rules. These are all cases where there has been enormous litigation. What I am looking to be reassured of is that, in this entire cluster of amendments but particularly those, there is no change that would row back on anything that was in the most recent round of substitute consent legislation or open us up - when I say "us", ultimately it is the State, because in the case of Derrybrien, it was the State that was taken to the European Court of Justice and it was the taxpayer paying heavy fines - undermine, roll back or open the State to any difficulties, unintended or otherwise, by these wording changes.
The officials and the legal people have looked at this and the advice was to ensure it would comply fully with all substitute consent permissions.
The definition underpinning this that we discussed at the start is completely compatible with the definition of substitute consent under the 2000 Act. There is no variation or change.
Yes, that is what I am advised.
As I read it, and pardon me if I do not understand - I am sure the Minister of State is struggling as well - under section 166, which is the "Effect of expiration of duration of permission":
Subject to subsection (3), a permission granted under this Part shall, on the expiration of its duration, cease to have effect as regards—
(a) the entire development, where the development to which the permission relates is not commenced prior to the expiration of the duration of the permission, or
(b) so much of the development as is not completed within the duration of the permission, where the development to which the permission relates is commenced within that duration.
What we are dealing with says that shall not apply "in relation to retention permission for any unauthorised structure".
Yes, because a retention permission does not have a duration.
It does not expire. Is that correct?
Yes.
I just want to fully understand it. It does not expire.
Yes. There is no expiration of a retention permission. A normal permission runs for five years, as the Deputy knows.
If it expires, the permission no longer has effect.
Correct.
However, retention is about something that is already built.
It is in the here and now.
Just so I am absolutely clear on this, does the definition of retention permission include substitute consent?
Substitute permission is retrospective consent under the Bill.
Does this wording, the definition of retention permission, which is the language being put in the Bill, include substitute consent or is substitute consent not included in this definition of retention permission? This is going back to what Deputy Ó Broin spoke about regarding substitute consent. Does the definition of retention permission include substitute consent or does it exclude it? That is what I am trying to clarify.
I have a brief which I will refer to as it might bring clarity for the Deputy. Retrospective consent is defined in the Bill to mean retention permission for a development or part of a development in respect of which an appropriate assessment or environment impact assessment is required. Retrospective consent is a way of regularising an unauthorised development where an EIA or AA of the development is required.
Retrospective consent replaces substitute consent in the Act of 2000. There are additional procedures for making an application for respective consent under Part 4 of the Bill. Applications for retrospective consent are made as direct applications to the commission. Any environmental impact assessment report and-or any Natura impact statement shall be submitted with an application for retrospective consent in respect of the entire development, including any part of the development that has not yet been undertaken. Applications for retrospective consent must satisfy the exceptional circumstances before the granting of permission.
Exceptional circumstances include whether granting retrospective consent would circumvent the objectives of the environmental impact assessment directive or the habitats directive; whether the applicant had or could have had a reasonable belief that the development carried out was unauthorised; whether the ability to carry out environmental impact was substantially impaired; the significant effects on the environment or adverse effects on a European site of the continuation of the development; the extent to which significant effects or adverse effects can be remediated; and the applicant’s history of compliance with planning control.
The public are entitled to make submissions to the commission on the application, including submissions as to the existence or absence of exceptional circumstances justifying a grant of retrospective consent. The commission must consider any significant effects on the environment or on a European site which have occurred, or which are occurring, or could reasonably be expected to occur, as a result of the development. The commission, when granting retrospective consent, may attach conditions requiring the taking of measures to remedy any significant adverse effects on the environment of the development.
For clarity, "retrospective consent" is what we know as "substitute consent" under the 2000 Act.
Yes.
Ministerial amendment No. 26, on retrospective consent, states this "means retention permission for development in respect of which an appropriate assessment or an environmental impact assessment is required". There can also be regularisation of development in breach of EU law that goes further than an EIA failure or appropriate assessment, so this proposed amendment does not cover everything here. It is relevant all right but it does not cover everything where there are other breaches of EU law.
Well, our advice is it does.
Okay, but if it is being said that "retrospective consent" does cover all that, how come it does not say that here in the definition? It just refers to "development in respect of which an appropriate assessment or an environmental impact assessment is required". It does not say "and other potential breaches of EU law".
Could we have an example?
I do not have an example to hand.
The Deputy is referring to another EU directive.
Yes, to EU law.
To go back to Deputy Boyd Barrett's question concerning there being no time limit on the retrospection, in a normal retention situation, someone goes and builds something, they apply for retention and they are allowed to do so. Substitute consent does not work like that and the Minister of State's officials will know this. Under the legislation we dealt with, and I am pretty sure it was the last round, when someone is putting in a substitute consent application, they can co-join with that a request to do additional new works as part of that substitute consent application. Sometimes, this could be to regularise or to fix a problem identified in the engagement, but sometimes it is just to expand the nature of their operations. There is a problem, therefore, if there is no time limit on that element of the "retention permission", which is the phrase we are now using. Potentially, then, within a substitute consent grant, or "permission" as we are now calling it, there could be an indefinite time within which the applicant for what we used to call substitute consent can deliver it. This is quite unusual.
People will remember that we had big rows over this element of allowing an application for new development to be rolled into a substitute consent development. Some of us opposed it very strongly. This is particularly the case, for example, sometimes regarding unauthorised peat farms and unauthorised quarries, etc. Perhaps the Minister of State could ask the officials to clarify whether - I offer my apologies, because it is late and I am jumping between three different phrases for the same thing - the application for retention permission is essentially a substitute consent application. Additionally, if the application is not only asking for consent for the unauthorised portion of the development but also for new additional developments, surely there should be some time limit on that, as there is with an ordinary planning application. Is the Minister of State absolutely sure that the answer to the question is that it does not have such a time limit? I hope this makes sense at this hour of the evening.
They are done separately, though, are they not?
No. They are rolled into the one application. That was the controversy the last time.
What is it the Deputy is saying? Is it that if someone is looking for retrospection on something that exists, he or she might tag on a future development as part of it?
When we did the substitute consent legislation, there was a very controversial element to it. This is probably a very good time to remind people why it is a very bad idea to introduce complex substitute consent legislation using amendments on Report Stage at the end of another piece of legislation. That, however, was a battle we lost. There was a facility whereby if there was an unauthorised development, let us say a quarry, for example, and there was a desire to apply for substitute consent-----
To regularise it.
Yes. There was a procedure whereby as part of that substitute consent application it was also possible to make a request for additional new development connected to the activity for which substitute consent was being applied for. At the time, we argued that those two things should not be allowed to happen. It was almost like a reward was being given for breaking the planning rules in the past. With respect to the answer the Minister of State gave to Deputy Boyd Barrett, that there is no time limit on the retrospective permission, does this apply in the type of substitute consent applications I have just outlined? It will be extremely problematic if there is no timeline for this type of application.
How would the Deputy envisage that? Would it be a case where a development was required to assist in the regularisation?
Actually, when we were discussing this, one of the things we asked the officials at the time was why this would be done. They said one instance could be a case in which a quarry owner who had been illegally quarrying material wished to retrospectively regularise that but also to expand his quarrying activity. In fact, in that case, the new bit of development is not about fixing or cleaning up the mess he made, but about expanding his activities. Rather than forcing the person to have a substitute consent application over here and a brand-new planning application over there, this approach would let them roll those applications in together. We were very critical of this at the time because we were saying, "Hang on a second, the applicant had been breaking the rules for a while, so why allow them to roll the two applications into one?". We were defeated on this aspect though. What I am saying is that in such a case where there is, as part of the substitute consent application, a new element of development, surely that should have a timeline as all new development does, which ordinarily is five years. This would seem reasonable.
Yes. I see the point the Deputy is making.
Will the Deputy clarify that for me? The retrospective consent has to be granted first before the new planning application.
No. This is the whole point. I am trying to remember-----
Would the Deputy not think the planners would condition it?
No. The question to the Minister of State from Deputy Boyd Barrett was with respect to retention permission and if there is a time limit. The Minister of State had indicated, on the basis of the information from the officials, that no there is not. I am asking if that answer applies in the case of substitute consent, where a portion of it includes a new development.
No. The official is advising me the answer is "No".
All I am saying, and I do not know if this situation is intentional or just emanating from the complexity of this Bill, is that I strongly urge the officials to look again at this aspect. I say this because if someone gets a grant - it could be for an additional development, a factory space or an outhouse - surely some time limit should be placed on it, like any planning application.
Just to underline that point, the ministerial amendment states that in relation to retention permission for any unauthorised pre-existing structure which has got permission, no time limit is imposed on it because it is pre-existing. That is what the Minister of State said to us earlier.
Yes.
I refer to a situation, however, where that permission included permission to do something that had not yet been done.
It is rolled in with the existing structure. They now have a permission, which has no expiration date, to do things that have not yet been done. It is an open-ended permission.
Retention will be granted for what is in existence, and permission with a time limit will be granted for the additional one.
If the two are rolled into one, however, and this is the point on which people were seeking clarity-----
I imagine it will be conditional.
Is that clear? The Minister of State seems to be getting two different bits of advice.
If the commission rolls the two together, it will roll the two together.
There will not be an expiration of what is retained, but there will be a time limit for completion or additions. If there is another development, a time limit will be built into it in the normal way.
Is that within the retention permission?
It is within the substitute consent grant, because it is specific to its substitute consent.
It will be a permission to retain and develop. The application description will be to retain and to-----
It is the "and to" bit that is the point.
I have one final technical question relating to this. A lot of the discussion on the substitute consent legislation and a lot of the reasons for it related to Derrybrien and the very significant fines. To go back to the original definition of “unauthorised development”, are the officials absolutely clear that Derrybrien, as they understand it, would be captured by that definition of “unauthorised development”? Would it be captured unequivocally?
Based on the legal advice, yes.
I thank the Minister of State.
Under ministerial amendment No. 26, retrospective consent is defined as “retention permission for development in respect of which an appropriate assessment or an environmental impact assessment is required”. As I was saying, there could be a retention permission for a development in broader areas in breach of EU law, such as the water framework directive. The Minister of State has said this retrospective consent definition does include other breaches beyond appropriate assessments or environmental impact assessments, such as Article 4 of the water framework directive, on the impact on water bodies, or whatever provision. Why is it worded that way if it is broader than that? It is confusing. This is meant to be clear legislation that anyone who picks up will understand. Why is that implied broader definition, which we are told is there, not outlined explicitly?
The water framework directive is being dealt with separately.
Will the Minister of State give me a longer answer than that? What does it mean that the water framework directive is being dealt with separately? In what sense is it separate? Is it separate to the Government’s definition in amendment No. 26 or where is it being dealt with separately?
Retrospective consent deals with EIAs and AAs.
Does it deal with them only?
Yes, only.
It does not deal with a breach of, say, the water framework directive.
No, not as it stands.
It is, therefore, exactly as written. It does not cover other breaches of EU law or whatever.
In that case, that is not different from what we understand to be substitute consent under the 2000 Act.
There were wider breaches than just those relating to EIAs and AAs, were there not?
The amendment states that "an appropriate assessment or an environmental impact assessment is required".
Nothing else, therefore, will fall under retrospective consent.
I have one more question, and I apologise for being so pedantic about this. The Minister of State indicated that the legal advice was that cases such as Derrybrien would be covered by the definition on page 36. Was specific legal advice sought as to whether Derrybrien itself would have been covered? This might seem a little abstract to the Minister of State, being new to it, but that was such a huge legal challenge against the State, with such significant losses, that it is important we are really clear on this.
The experience of Derrybrien was a key factor for the legal people in coming up with the definition.
It was not, therefore, explicitly about whether it would have covered Derrybrien, but it would have been assumed to be part of the overall assessment of the legal advice.
Yes.
I thank the Minister of State.
The answer I got there was a complete change to that which I got earlier, when it was said the definition did include more. The issue I was raising related to the fact the definition of substitute consent has been completely insufficient, so I would have thought the Bill was a chance to update that and to cover other breaches of EU law and directives. Clearly, however, from what has been said, that is not being done. I am just looking for absolute clarity, because the Minister of State had said other assessments would be covered but then stated it would be only EIAs and appropriate assessments.
It is being looked at completely separately, and if proposals are required in respect of the water framework directive, they will be brought forward separately.
Okay, so that is being looked at separately altogether-----
Yes, it is a separate exercise.
-----with different legislation altogether, potentially.
Yes.
I thank the Minister of State.
Amendment agreed to.
We will now adjourn, as agreed. I thank the Minister of State and his officials.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select committee adjourned at 7.29 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 15 February 2024.