Amendment No. 285 is grouped with amendments Nos. 291, 294, 296, 507, 514, 517, 519, 561, 567, 570 and 572, all of which are in the name of the Minister. I call the Minister of State to address this grouping.
Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 36
I move amendment No. 285:
In page 88, line 3, to delete "Regulator or the National Transport Authority" and substitute "Regulator, the National Transport Authority or any other body, as may be prescribed".
A major feature of the Bill is the work that has been undertaken to ensure the mandatory alignment of the various tiers of planning from national, through regional and down to local level. Inconsistency of approach has been a major challenge within the planning system. This is expected to be significantly reduced through the plan-making processes and structure set out in the Bill.
Under Part 3, the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, is required to assess new or amended regional spatial and economic strategies, RSESs, development plans and area plans to ensure they are consistent with the national planning framework, NPF, national marine planning framework, NMPF, and national planning statements. Separately, the Minister can also request the OPR to carry out assessments of those plans.
Where the OPR forms a view that the RSES or plan is inconsistent with the NPF, NMPF or a planning statement, it can recommend to the Minister that a draft direction should issue to the regional assembly or planning authority. If the Minister is in agreement, he or she may direct the OPR to issue the draft direction. A consultation process on the draft direction is undertaken by the OPR, after which it can recommend to the Minister that a direction be issued. In considering whether to issue a direction, the Minister shall consider any submissions received by the OPR. These provisions are set out in sections 37 and 38 for a RSES, sections 62 and 63 for development plans, and sections 76 and 77 for area plans.
Amendments Nos. 294, 296, 517, 519, 570 and 572 seek to amend these sections to clarify that the OPR should include a summary of the submissions received along with its recommendation, rather than merely forwarding all the individual submissions to the Minister. Given the number of submissions that could be received on a draft direction, it is reasonable that the OPR should provide a summary of those submissions to assist the Minister in deciding whether a direction should be issued. These are minor amendments relating to the OPR's functions with regard to RSESs, development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans and co-ordinated area plans. The Bill currently provides that in assessing these strategies and plans, the OPR shall have regard to submissions and recommendations from the Minister, the OPR and the National Transport Authority, NTA.
Amendments Nos. 285, 507 and 561 add a new regulation-making power to provide that the OPR shall also have regard to the submissions and recommendations of any other body that may be prescribed. Rather than listing all bodies in the legislation, it is considered more appropriate to prescribe different bodies, as appropriate. For example, it may be appropriate to prescribe that the OPR shall have regard to the submissions of the Office of Public Works, OPW, in regard to flooding risk, of Uisce Éireann with regard to water services, and of Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, in respect of transport matters such as national roads.
Similarly, amendments Nos. 291, 514 and 567 provide that when the Office of the Planning Regulator issues a draft direction for either a RSES or a development or area plan, it may, in addition to notifying the Minister, regional assembly, the commission and the NTA, notify any other body it considers appropriate. If the direction relates to flooding, water services or national roads, for example, it may be appropriate for the OPR to notify the OPW, Uisce Éireann or TII, respectively.
I have a number of general questions on these amendments, which I will follow with some specific questions. One of the issues that concerns me is that notwithstanding the details set out on the draft consultation process, it is not clear who will be consulted. In some of the amendments, whether to section 36 or later sections, certain organisations are listed and then there is a catch-all provision referring to what the Office of the Planning Regulator "considers appropriate". Why are some bodies listed and not others? Clearly, there is a rationale as to why certain organisations are listed, along with the general catch-all provision. With respect to each of the amendments in this grouping where new bodies are listed, together with the general catch-all reference, will the Minister of State explain why particular bodies are referenced in specific amendments? In amendment No. 285, for example, there is reference to the NTA. In amendment No. 291, the commission and the NTA are specifically referenced. Likewise, there are references in other amendments to the NTA, the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, and other bodies.
In terms of the use of "prescribed", is it the Government's intention to produce regulations setting out that for certain types of draft directions, these are the bodies that will be prescribed to be consulted, or will that just be left to the discretion of the planning regulator? The use of "prescribed" is a little confusing.
The Minister of State mentioned flood relief and referenced the OPW. Obviously, the OPW has a key role in flood relief but one could argue that prescribed bodies such as An Taisce, for instance, also have a key role to play, as well as, arguably, business and community-based organisations impacted by flooding. There are a number of controversial flood relief schemes that are dividing public and NGO opinion. How do we ensure we get these consultation processes right? This is important because, depending on the content of the submissions and the summaries that will be provided thereafter by the OPR to the Minister, the latter, on foot of advice from the officials, will decide whether the draft direction will become a direction. Therefore, this process has huge significance and weight. It is crucial that we get the consultation process right.
Another consideration is that this process will potentially be very resource-intensive because it will involve not just seeking submissions but also drafting the summary responses. Have there been discussions between the Department and the OPR on the additional resourcing that will require? This provision relates to just one of a series of directions. We are not just talking about the RSES. The amendments are also relevant to the development plans and other plans.
I have similar concerns and questions about who will be consulted. Why, for example, are bodies like the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, not listed? I have concerns about the level of discretion provided for in this section.
Second, there is a significant material change contained in the wording of the amendments. It goes from referring to the submissions being considered by the Minister to talking about a summary of the submissions being considered by the Minister. The summary of the submissions is done by the Office of the Planning Regulator. These are submissions on what that office is proposing to do.
The Minister will no longer consider the submissions, but simply the summary of the submissions prepared by the OPR. What is the rationale for that significant material change in the legislation? These are submissions on what the OPR is doing and the OPR now has full control over the summary of those submissions as well. A lot can depend on how summaries are done. I have seen them done according to different processes and with different levels of detail over the years. A lot can be captured or missed, depending on how the summary is done. The legislation does not get into the level of detail that a summary will or will not cover, so there is huge discretion. The legislation needs to allow for a worst-case scenario where a summary could be missing key details from the submissions. Under these amendments, the Minister is no longer legally required to consider the submissions, just the summary of them. Will the Minister of State explain the rationale for and significance of that?
Deputy Ó Broin referred to the resource issue. We have commenced discussions with the OPR. If additional resources are required, we will provide them. It is an ongoing discussion. The Deputy will appreciate the legislation is working its way through at the moment. On prescribed bodies, what we have given here is by way of example. The Minister will by way of regulation provide a comprehensive list of prescribed bodies but there will have to be some flexibility for the OPR in terms of other bodies from which it may request a submission.
On Deputy O'Callaghan's question, in any draft direction the OPR makes, I always get a summary. The OPR has its work to do. It makes a recommendation. Mine is a delegate role as Minister in that area. The Minister can go back and look at any submissions he or she wishes to look at but the OPR is required under this - which I think is good policy - to give a summary of all submissions it has received as part of the public consultation in respect of the issuing of a draft direction under the regional assemblies, where a ministerial statement is issued.
I have no issue with the OPR doing a summary. It should do a summary. That is good practice. I have no issue with the summary going to the Minister and the Minister reading the summary. All of that is fine. The issue is the legislation will not require the Minister to consider the submissions made, if these amendments go through. It only obliges the Minister to consider the summary produced by the OPR. They are two very different things. I would expect the Minister to get and read a summary but the thing the Minister needs to consider under these amendments is just the summary. If the summary filters out key issues from the submissions and the Minister acts on that summary, the Minister will be acting correctly and lawfully. However, if the wording remained the same and the Minister had to consider the submissions, the onus is then on the OPR and Minister that any summary produced or relied upon reflects what is in the submissions because the Minister has to make the decision based on the submissions, so if the Minister uses the summary as an aid, it must be accurate and not omit stuff. If it does, there is a problem for which the Minister and OPR have responsibility. That is the material change that is being made.
When there is good practice, an attempt to filter submissions does not happen; when there is bad practice, it does happen. The legislation would not allow for such filtering but these amendments allow for the filtering of issues out of submissions. If that filtering happens, that would be allowed by these amendments and would be lawful.
On the regulations the Minister of State spoke of, will there be one set of prescribed bodies with some catch-all caveat the OPR can dip into or will there be separate lists depending on the category of issue at hand? The second version could be one set of regulations that say, "For these types of issues, here are the organisations we definitely want you to consult and if you want to include anybody else you can. For this kind of issue, it is a separate list." It is important we get clarity on that.
I am interested to know about the submissions. This is in the context of the OPR having looked at - in the instance of the first amendments - the regional spatial and economic strategy and taking a view there is something that is "materially inconsistent". Is the submission specific, so the prescribed bodies are being asked to give a view on the issue the OPR believes is "materially inconsistent" with, for example, the national planning statements? Is that what they are being asked to make the submission on? That would be very clear and defined. Is there a wider scope? Can the Minister of State give any indication of the scope of the prescribed bodies? Will it be different from the existing list of prescribed bodies we discussed with respect to other existing plans, plan-making and planning decisions?
Deputy O'Callaghan's points on the summary are important but I presume there is nothing to preclude the Minister and his or her officials from checking the wider submissions. I imagine some of them will have to do that anyway. Is it, like with the process for a county development plan, that summaries are done by the director of planning services for the elected members but the wider submissions are also provided and, if they have a query, they can dip into it? More detail on that would be helpful.
Deputy Ó Broin kind of answered the question at the end. It is the exact same process. At the moment, a development plan goes to public consultation. There are a large number of public submissions. The OPR then engages and, depending on the outcome of its deliberations with the local authority, it may make a draft direction to me as Minister. I will then consider what it has sent. On many occasions, I will go back into the plans to look at submissions. Rather than making it that the Minister has to consider every single submission, the OPR has a role in the process.
The amendment refers to the summary of submissions. It is not referring to a summary of key submissions but of all submissions. Section 37(12) states:
(12) A copy of the recommendation and report sent to the Minister under subsections (8)...shall be—
(a) made available on a website maintained by or on behalf of the Office of the Planning Regulator, and
(b) sent to the regional assembly concerned.
These are all public documents. It is consistent with the current approach, which works quite well and is efficient.
On the regulations, we want it to be as streamlined as possible. When the regulations are published, there will be indications within them. If it involves, say, flooding, you have to consult with the OPR.
However, we have to allow the OPR some flexibility at the end to apply professional discretion and judgment regarding other areas to include. It must be comprehensive and in some way directed, but at the same time some degree of flexibility must be provided for the OPR. The Deputy is asking whether there will be a multitude of regulations. There will not. However, within that, it is quite defined.
I wish to be crystal clear. I believe the Minister of State has answered half of my next question. All the documentation is made public, so when the OPR produces its report with its summaries and links to the longer submissions, everything is made available.
Correct.
That would mean that if something were subject to litigation and the argument were that the National Transport Authority, for example, had made a submission to the OPR but the OPR, in its summary, had excluded X, Y and Z, the full submission would be available and could be taken into account.
Correct.
That is not unlike what we were asking the Minister of State to do with the national planning framework. In this regard, we were saying we would like the Department to produce summaries of people's submissions and make them available to the public, as opposed to a general summary document.
We indicated at the time that we were going to consider that for Report Stage.
Yes, that is my point. My only experience of this is the development plan process. That is very helpful because one can go through the summaries and then dip in and out as an elected member but also as a member of the public.
What we are doing with the OPR entails a consistent approach regarding any development plan.
Yes, and if it were to be extended to the NPF-----
We will look into it.
Members and I have indicated several times that the committee would like to have some involvement as the regulations are being drafted. Will lists of prescribed bodies for certain aspects of the national planning framework or regional spatial and economic strategies, etc., be set out in the regulations?
That would be a helpful document. I thank the Minister of State.
I do not have an issue with the use of summaries but with the legal obligation on the Minister. The legal obligation on the Minister, under the amendments proposed, is not to consider the submissions. Of course, submissions can be dipped into for more detail but the legal obligation is to consider the summary of the submissions. Since the OPR compiles the summary of submissions on its own work, does this legally allow it to filter things out? If so, and if the Minister considers only the summary and not the more detailed submissions, he or she will be acting lawfully and properly under this Bill. I have no issue with the compilation and use of a summary - it makes sense - but if the legal obligation is not to consider the submissions, only the summary, it is watered down or weakened. The Minister of State might clarify the position. With regard to development plans, is there an obligation to consider the summary of submissions or the submissions made?
The summary, but there is access to all of the submissions.
I want to return to the existing development plan issue. Under section 31, with which I would say Deputy Cian O'Callaghan is familiar, the onus is on the chief executive to prepare a report on submissions received and furnish it to the elected members. Typically, the manager's report will have a summary of the submissions but the submissions are public documents. Ultimately, the Minister is provided with a recommendation from the OPR. The OPR does not just provide the Minister with documents. Mr. Niall Cussens sends a recommendation, which he compiles based on his professional opinion. The Minister obviously has to take that on board. Typically, given the way I am made, I would go into it in great depth. On many occasions, I might look at the language. Ultimately, however, the Minister operates on the basis of a recommendation from the OPR. As part of its recommendation, it provides a summary of all submissions. Ultimately, however, it makes a recommendation, and the Minister then has to decide whether to accept it. It comes from a professional, independent body.
If a Minister were obliged to go through every single submission, what would be the role of the OPR? What is proposed is a logical step. The documents are still available to a Minister who wishes to see them. Ultimately, bearing in mind the position on delineation, the OPR has a very valuable role. I am quite comfortable with what we are providing. I have not been in my role for very long, but I have gone through enough to understand how the system works in practice. There is a process and you get a detailed recommendation backed up by reasons. Normally, a summary is provided. As it goes along, it becomes more refined. To dovetail slightly back to Deputy Ó Broin's point, when the matter goes to the public, it is on the one issue that arises or whatever it is. I refer to the planning statement. One should remember it involves an amendment of the RSES, not a variation. Therefore, it is quite specific but it goes through the normal process we currently have for development plans regarding interaction with the OPR.
It would be helpful if, in his response to my further questions, the Minister of State made it very clear whether the discussion we are having on the regional spatial and economic strategies is equally relevant to the development plans and the area plans.
It is exactly the same. It is all the one process.
Okay. In that case, let us tease out the issue of a possible conflict of interest, because I believe that is what Deputy Cian O'Callaghan is getting at and because it is quite important. Let us use a real, live case.
What does the Deputy mean?
I hope that if the Minister of State lets me finish, he will be clear. Let us take a real, live case, namely the controversy over the out-of-town retail park in Cork county. It is useful to discuss this and I am not making a judgment on either side. I realise it is not a matter of a regional spatial and economic strategy but it highlights a particular issue.
It is not open to me to speak about a particular case.
I am not asking the Minister of State to speak about it but my question on conflicts of interest may be best illustrated by my doing so. The Minister of State may speak just to the general matter of conflicts of interest.
The matter may be sub judice.
The Deputy should not mention particular planning issues that may be under consideration.
Let me hypothesise, so. Let us imagine that, in another local authority-----
A local authority.
Let us say a local authority has something in its development plan that the regulator decides in good faith is in contravention with a national planning policy statement, on foot of which decision a draft direction is issued. That draft direction would be sent out for consultation. If some of the bodies in the consultation take views contrary to that of the planning regulator, the latter has to summarise such views in its report to the Minister for the Minister to decide whether to side with the planning regulator or not. I am not suggesting at all that the current occupant of the office would do the following, but a future planning regulator could, in producing the summary, either intentionally or unintentionally exclude those relevant sections of the submissions that contradict its own opinion. In some senses, the submissions invited by the regulator are on the particular belief of the regulator that there is material inconsistency with the national planning statement. There is a potential conflict there. Again, I am not suggesting such a thing would happen in the current context, but how do we guard against it? What is the mechanism? Is it hoped that, because everything is put in the public domain, the scrutiny to which it will be subjected will prevent intentional or unintentional filtering?
With respect to the development plans and area plans, in particular, I presume there will be a provision in the regulations for elected members and members of the public.
I refer to area plans, priority area plans or the co-ordinated area plans, because some of them will be quite localised and there will be quite a lot of public interest. Does the Minister of State envisage a role for wider public or civic participation and for the participation of the elected members who would have approved those plans? That is crucial. So far we have talked about prescribed bodies and there are some lists there. Does the Minister of State envisage those being in the regulations as well?
The answer to the Deputy’s first question is that the OPR is a professional independent body and it operates to the highest standards. That is absolutely true in my interaction with it. Within the legislation, there are two elements. In section 37(12) it states, “a copy of the recommendation and a report sent to the Minister ... and any submissions”. Therefore, that must include all submissions. In the amendments we are tabling, take, for instance, amendment No. 294 in terms of the RSES. It states, “in the summary of submissions”. The OPR will be obliged under legislation to provide a summary of all submissions. It is a very professional, comprehensive body that does detailed reports.
The Deputy referenced that we will provide areas like the priority areas and the co-ordinated area plans in terms of, we will say, more granular consultation. We will provide that by way of regulation.
Regarding the development plan priority area plans, it is in section 62 of the Bill by way of example. It is provided. To be all-encompassing, we will provide it by way of regulation as well.
I have a quick supplementary question. Just so we are clear on the import of amendment No. 294, this does not give the summary of the submissions any greater strength, or that is the only thing that has to be considered.
Can the Deputy please repeat that last point?
I am trying to read-----
The Deputy can take his time.
I thank the Minister of State. I am trying to understand-----
The way it will read it is-----
Let Deputy Ó Broin finish his point.
It might be helpful because I know where it is going into the section. Would that be helpful?
Yes.
With the amendment inserted, the new text of the Bill will read as follows:
... state that any such submissions made within the period specified in the notice shall be taken into account by the Office of the Planning Regulator in making a recommendation to the Minister as to whether to issue a direction in the terms of the draft direction and in the summary of submissions submitted to the Minister under subsection (12), which will be considered by the Minister in deciding whether to issue a direction under section 38.
We are basically stating that the OPR will provide a summary of all submissions submitted during the public consultation phase.
The amendment is inserted after the words-----
"And" in line 15.
It is inserted after "the draft direction and ..."
Yes, exactly. It will be inserted after "and".
Bear with me for a second. I ask the Minister of State to be patient with me. When “making a recommendation to the Minister as to whether to issue a direction in the terms of the draft direction and in the summary of submissions submitted to the Minister under subsection (12) ..."-----
Does that give the summary any greater legal weight or effect in the Minister’s decisions than the submissions on which the summaries are based?
The Minister of State is clear about that legally. Okay.
Before we move on, I wish to clarify something as well. All submissions will be available on the website on the Office of the Planning Regulator.
Absolutely.
To clarify further, will that be in conjunction with the summary report so that people like myself, Deputy Ó Broin or Deputy O’Callaghan, who like to trawl the OPR website, will be able to see the summary and also have eyes on all submissions at the same time?
Both. For absolute clarity, Deputy Ó Broin referenced conflicts of interest. On page 637, section 490 is about the code of conduct. This is to give absolute reassurance to the Deputy.
Thank you - page 637.
The code of conduct.
It is the last paragraph on page 637. It is section 490(1).
"The Office shall adopt a code of conduct for dealing with conflicts of interest ..." This begs one question, and I would like the Minister of State to come back on public participation and elected member consultation with the area plans and development plans.
"The Office shall adopt a code of conduct for dealing with conflicts of interest and promoting public confidence in the integrity of the conduct of its business ..." I am not at all suggesting that the Office of the Planning Regulator, as it is currently constituted, is anything other than professional. In fact, I am quite a strong defender and advocate for the office and much of the work it is doing. I sometimes have disagreements but they are policy disagreements. That relates to conflicts of interest where, for example, somebody involved in making a decision has beneficial interest or material interest in something that is related to it. The potential conflict of interest that Deputy Cian O’Callaghan highlights is, for example, a regulator made a draft direction and states that in a certain point of the plan, they believe there is a material inconsistency with a national policy statement. That planning regulator then invites submissions from a range of organisations on their view on whether or not that is a material inconsistency. That same regulator, who believes it is a material inconsistency, will then have to produce summaries of those submissions, some of which might be stating that they do not think it is materially inconsistent. That creates a potential for a conflict of interest. The issue in drafting the legislation is not if everybody is professional, everybody is doing their job to the best of their ability, and we hope that is happening all the time. We know from the controversy surrounding An Bord Pleanála two years ago that there are, unfortunately, occasions where people do not operate in that way and we have to protect against those in the legislation. Therefore, I do not think section 490(1) deals with the specific type of conflict of interest Deputy Cian O’Callaghan is talking about.
I do not want to move on to section 490, although I would not mind being at that point.
Can the Minister of State also clarify on public participation and elected member participation?
I should have gone further down. Section 490(4)(h) states, "following of best practice to be adopted in relation to the functions of the Office including the procedures for the provision of observations ... in accordance with this Act in relation to the preparation, making and revision of regional spatial [plans] ..." I agree with the Deputy’s core point. At the end of the day, that is ultimately the professional judgment of the OPR. The OPR will make a recommendation to the Minister and the Minister then has a decision to make. That is what we are elected to do and that is why we are in that position. We obviously take advice from the officials, who are the professionals. Ultimately, the Minister, whomever that is, has to make a decision based on all the evidence available to them. That is what we have in a democracy. We have the various sequences to get to a point where at every level there are professionals involved and there are democratically elected members. It is the same with the regional assemblies and our good selves here in the Houses of the Oireachtas. This code of conduct covers everything. The core point the Deputy is making ultimately comes down to the OPR making a recommendation to the Minister, whomever that is at that moment in time. The Minister then has to make a decision based on the advice of the OPR and interacting with their officials in the Department. Ultimately, it needs to be gone through it in great depth and one has to then make a decision. That is what the role entails.
The concern I have still stands.
I appreciate that.
Most of the power in this process from the national planning statements being issued is with the Minister. Most of the power in this process lies with the Minister or the OPR. There is very little for the Oireachtas or the regional assemblies in it; most of the power lies elsewhere.
The Minister of State has explained very well how diligently and thoroughly he goes through these.
I am just saying.
I mean that genuinely. However, we must protect against situations in the legislation. Not every Minister goes through things thoroughly and not every Minister will read into submissions. Some will just rubber stamp things.
I do not think the Deputy can say that.
The Minister of State never does that.
I am just saying that anyone in any office would be looking to do their job to the best of their ability. It is not a process in isolation but, ultimately, the Minister has to make the decision on the basis of the advice he or she receives. I do not think you can get away from the fact that the OPR is making a recommendation to the Minister. It is not just providing a bulk of documents but is making a recommendation on its consideration. The Minister then has to consider the position. There is nothing to stop the Minister going back and reconsidering. These are all public documents that are available. We are looking to have an integrated process for planning; that is what we want. It involves councillors at the council level and at the RSES level. It involves interaction with the Oireachtas at every level. We can beg to differ but I am basing my argument on what I see in practice, which I feel works. Everyone has a role to play. It is ultimately a recommendation but the OPR is still required under the legislation to make a summary of all submissions.
I will conclude my point.
The Deputy can do so. I will then come to Deputy Ó Broin.
There is a very limited role for councillors at, for example, the regional assembly level. This whole process allows the Minister to issue national planning-----
May I explain? That is not quite the situation. The position is that if a national planning statement is issued and the director decides in the regional assembly that there is a need to amend a RSES, that will come before the councillors on the regional assembly. Those councillors have a key role to play.
I understand that.
If they decide not to and the OPR disagrees-----
If they disagree, all the cards lie with the Minister and the OPR.
That is the way. It is the same as any development plan process. We can beg to differ but I feel that what we have included in the Bill is quite consistent.
My point is that there is not equal power here. The roles are not equal by any stretch of the imagination. Most of the power lies with the Minister and the OPR. That is why the safeguards around the role of the OPR are important. The point is well made. The legislation must be robust enough not just for situations where diligent people are in the role and doing everything as they should. It must also be robust enough for situations where-----
The record of the OPR to date is very good.
That is absolutely the case but the legislation must cater, as it must for An Bord Pleanála, for instances where that may not be the case in the future. That is the point.
I think it does that but we can beg to differ.
There is one question the Minister of State has not answered. In respect of the regulations that will underpin possible prescribed bodies for these procedures, and particularly with regard to amendments Nos. 507 and 514 on the development plans-----
To which amendments is the Deputy referring?
I am talking about amendments Nos. 507 and 514 on development plans and amendments Nos. 561 and 567 on area plans. Is it the Minister of State's understanding that those regulations will allow for some element of public participation, particularly given that members of the public will have participated in the plans themselves? Does the Minister of State anticipate that there will be a specific role for councillors in those processes? I am particularly keen to hear a response on those two points. I will make one rebuttal point before the Minister of State replies. There is no role for the Oireachtas in this. There is no guaranteed role for the Oireachtas in the national planning statement. I do not want to reopen the argument but for the record, there is no formal role for the Oireachtas in either of those processes. It is subject to the good intentions of the Minister.
We previously discussed that at quite some length.
I know, but I am clarifying the record.
The Minister of State might respond to the question about public participation.
The councillors serve a very good role in terms of their reserve functions in that area and their own local areas. The Deputy asked about councillors and public consultation by the OPR. The answer to both questions is "Yes".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 286:
In page 88, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
(d)(i)where the region includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(ii) where the region includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltachtor a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht naGaeltachta 2012,".
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 287:
In page 88, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(d) any relevant language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network within the region,".
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- Phelan, John Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 288:
In page 89, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
“(iv) (I) where the region includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(II) where the region includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- Phelan, John Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 289:
In page 89, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
“(iv) any relevant language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network within the region,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- Phelan, John Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 290 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 36, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have a technical question.
The Deputy should be very brief because we have full attendance and are making progress.
Sure, but it relates to an important part of the section that we have not discussed. It is really a technical question. We have not discussed section 36(4)(i), which concerns the suspension of the effect of the regional spatial and economic strategy. Is the suspension automatic in terms of the content of the Office of the Planning Regulator's draft direction or is there a role for the Minister to give effect to the suspension? To what exactly does the suspension apply?
I will have to come back to the Deputy on that technical point.
Would the Deputy be happy to have a note issued?
It is relevant to the section.
It concerns a very significant additional power, so it is important that we have clarification.
We will bring the officials back in.
I am not seeking to have a discussion on it.
I suspect that it is pending the outcome of the OPR's consideration. I suspect it is suspended until the Minister makes a decision but I would like to get a technical note on it. That would be the logical sequence. This section is about the regulator deciding.
I invite the Deputy to pose the question again now that the officials are here. It would be helpful to get a direct answer to it.
On section 36(4)(i) and the power for the suspension, as I read it, the Office of the Planning Regulator is the body that would issue the suspension notification. It issues its draft direction, which relates to provision a particular provision, section or the entire plan. The regulator requests its suspension until such time as the process we have been discussing in respect of subsequence section is dealt with.
Ultimately, it will be suspended until the Minister makes a direction.
But the power to request the suspension of the relevant provision of the plan comes from the OPR.
It comes from the OPR, not the Minister.
Question put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 4.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- Phelan, John Paul.
Níl
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 37
I move amendment No. 291:
In page 91, to delete lines 33 and 34 and substitute the following:
“(iv) the Commission,
(v) the National Transport Authority, and
(vi) any other body, as the Office of the Planning Regulator considers appropriate.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 292:
In page 91, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
“(vi) (I) where the region includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Údarás na Gaeltachta,
(II) where the region includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- Phelan, John Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 293:
In page 91, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
“(vi) board members of Údarás na Gaeltachta, Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht, Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga, and any Language Planning Officers within the region.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- Phelan, John Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 294:
In page 92, line 15, after “and” to insert the following:
“in the summary of submissions submitted to the Minister under subsection (12), which will be considered”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 4.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- Phelan, John Paul.
Níl
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 295:
In page 93, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“(13) The Minister may prescribe a period or periods that shall be disregarded for the purposes of reckoning any period referenced in this section.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Question put: "That section 37, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 4.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- Phelan, John Paul.
Níl
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 38
I move amendment No. 296:
In page 94, line 2, after “any” to insert “summary of”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 4.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- Phelan, John Paul.
Níl
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 297 to 299, inclusive, 520 to 523, inclusive, 574, 576, 578, 666, 715, 757 and 753 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 297:
In page 95, line 11, to delete “3 working days” and substitute “5 working days”.
Government amendments Nos. 297 to 299, inclusive, 520 to 523, inclusive, 574, 576, 578, 666, 715, 757 and 753 extend the number of days provided for a number of tasks in Part 3, which relates to the making of plans, taking on board the operational feasibility of the same. The extensions are minor and practical in nature. The amendments relate to section 38, which is on the power of the Minister to issue directions to a regional assembly in respect of a regional and spatial economic strategy, section 63, which relates to the power of the Minister to issue direction to a planning authority in respect of a development plan, and section 77, which has regard to the power of the Minister to issue a direction to a planning authority in respect of an area plan.
Amendments Nos. 297, 298, 299, 520 to 522, inclusive, 574 and 576 extend the provided timeframe for the circulation and publication of directions from two or three days to five days in each instance. While it is very important that these directions are circulated and published within as short a time as possible, on review, it was considered not to be feasible to do so within two or three days. Extending the time period to five days gives the regional assemblies and planning authorities appropriate time to put arrangements in place while still ensuring that they are published and circulated in less than a week.
Amendments Nos. 299, 523 and 578 change the time provided for the regional assembly or planning authority to comply with the direction from three days of the receipt of the direction to "as soon as is practicable". Again following review, it was considered that three days was too short a period and that it may not be possible for them to do it within that time period as arrangements and notifications may need to be put in place in order to comply. Regional assemblies and planning authorities recognise the importance of complying with directions once they are received but providing that they must do so within three days may not always be appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 666, 715, 747 and 753 enable the applicant to agree to the planning authority taking longer than the periods provided for. Amendment No. 14 relates to section 98, titled "Time limit for decision of planning authority", amendment No. 16 relates to section 110, titled "Time limits for determination of appeal by Commission", amendment No. 18 relates to section 124, "Time limit for-----
They are not in this grouping.
Is the Minister of State speaking to No. 576?
They are all in the one grouping.
Amendment No. 16 is not. Did the Minister of State say amendment No. 16?
I apologise; I am talking about amendments Nos. 666, 715, 747 and 753. Did I call out amendment No. 716?
I thought amendment No. 16 was mentioned.
I apologise.
We are on track.
For the sake of clarity, amendments Nos. 666, 715, 747 and 753 enable the applicant to agree to the planning authority... I am sorry; that is it. There is a misprint. The amendments enable the applicant to agree to the planning authority taking longer than the periods provided for. Amendment No. 666 relates to section 98, which is titled "Time limit for decision of planning authority", amendment No. 16 relates to section 110, which is titled "Time limits for determination of appeal by Commission", amendment No. 715 relates to section 124, which is titled "Time limit for decision of Commission", and amendments Nos. 747 and 753 relate to certain timelines of the commission in section 141, which is titled "Time limits for deciding material alteration request where deciding authority is Commission".
These amendments cater for the practical running of what is a time-bound system where, on rare occasions due to particular circumstances relating to the case, the applicant may offer additional time for the planning authority to reach a decision on an application rather than instigate further process due to the time period being breached. It still remains a requirement for the deciding authority to reach a decision based on the requirements of this legislation and in the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development.
For the sake of clarity, will the Minister of State very clearly set out the types of decisions that amendments Nos. 666, 715, 747 and 753 relate to? Is it the case that the applicant, on the request of the relevant planning authority, can consent to an extended period for a decision?
It applies to all planning applications and it applies both ways. If the planning authority asks for more time, the applicant can give consent. Equally, the applicant can tell the local authority that, if it wants to take more time, he or she does not have an issue with that. In practice, it would apply where the planning authority came back to the applicant saying that it needed more time. Applicants can give such consent, as they can currently do under the existing legislation. It is just to be consistent.
Again for the sake of clarity, will the Minister of State repeat exactly what type of consent each of the four amendments deal with?
Amendment No. 666 to section 98 relates to decisions of a planning authority.
Is that any decision by any planning authority?
If the Deputy looks at section 98, he will see it relates to any decision. Section 110 relates to time limits for the determination of appeals by the commission, the board.
When the Minister of State says section 110-----
Amendment No. 715-----
Amendment No. 715 relates to section 124.
I am sorry; the Deputy will appreciate that there are a couple of typos here that I need to navigate. Amendment No. 715 deals with section 110.
It is actually section 124.
I want to deal with section 110. Amendment No. 715 relates to section 124. Amendment No. 666 relates to-----
Section 98.
-----section 98.
That relates to any decision of any planning authority.
That is correct. Amendment No. 715 relates to section 124, which relates to the time limit for a decision of the commission. Amendments Nos. 747 and 752-----
Amendment No. 753.
-----relate to certain timelines under section 141. Section 141 is on material alterations.
To recap, amendment No. 666 relates to standard decisions of a planning authority, No. 715 relates to decisions of the commission on planning applications and No. 747 relates to decisions of the commission on material alterations.
Unless Deputy Cian O'Callaghan would like to come in first, I will ask some questions.
I did not notice who indicated first. I call on Deputy Ó Broin.
I have two different sets of questions on this.
With respect to the change in the timeline from two or three working days to five days across the three groups of amendments, other than giving the OPR a little more time to circulate, is there any other legal significance to the change in the timeline or is it just to give it an extra two or three days to circulate?
It is purely practical.
With respect then to the different formula of words in amendments Nos. 299, 523 and 578, instead of stipulating-----
Amendments Nos. 299, 523-----
And amendment No. 578. Instead of stipulating a number of days, the formulation "shall, as soon as practicable" is used.
If I understood the Minister of State correctly, he indicated that this all relates to the compliance of the regional assembly with the direction. What does the phrase "as soon as practicable" mean? I presume the Minister of State is saying that three working days is too short. How is that determined and who decides it?
It is put in as a plaster measure because the regional assemblies are required to do much more work. I have looked at it. I want to have another look before Report Stage in the context of whether we can put a defined timeline in place. It is done with practical purpose with respect to the additionality of work that is involved for the regional assemblies. We will have another look at it prior to Report Stage.
To be clear, I am not making the case that it should be changed.
I know that.
It is just for clarity. The issue here is----
I suppose I am-----
I ask the Minister of State to bear with me for a second. I know he is eager to answer the question I am asking, but he should at least let me ask it. When we talk about compliance, there are two aspects involved. One is that the spatial and economic strategy has to be physically altered. The text of it has to be altered and published. Compliance can also mean decisions arising out of that text. In the case of these three changed timelines, does compliance relate to just the physical changing of the text and publishing it or to the application of the changed text?
It is purely the physical change and publishing.
Just the alteration and publication of the text.
Purely.
Correct me if I am wrong, but in the context of amendment No. 715, we have a situation where the only hard-and-fast statutory timelines in our planning process, outside of LRD, are those that local authorities have to apply. We are introducing - and we will get into the detail of the timelines when we get to the relevant sections - statutory timelines for all different phases of the process. At the same time that we are looking to tighten up decision-making timelines by having statutory timelines, however, what appears to be happening here is that we are also potentially removing the one very clear and fixed statutory timeline, which is the local authority decision-making timeline. When I saw this, I was somewhat surprised because it seems to run contrary to the spirit of the Bill. From memory, it had not been discussed or raised during pre-legislative scrutiny, either by the Department or anybody in the development communities, local authorities or the Irish Planning Institute.
I am a very strong advocate of statutory timelines. I have been arguing for them since 2016 in the context of pre-planning, decisions of planning authorities, FI and appeals. In fact, I would like to have statutory timelines for the courts. All of that is obviously subject to proper resourcing of our planning authorities and the sub-panel of the High Court with respect to planning and environmental decisions. Are we at risk of tightening up the timelines at board level but softening up those at local authority level? This is a time when local authorities are losing planning staff to the board. Approximately half of the employees that the board have recently taken on with the new sanction have come from local authorities. Are we running the risk in certain instances - and I do not mean across the board - where particular decisions are the subject of shortened timelines at board level but potentially timelines at local authority level? The net result would be that we would not make the process more efficient.
I am interested to know where this originated, who has asked for it, why it is here and, crucially, what the import of it is. This is with particular regard to amendment No. 666 but it also applies for the other three, amendments Nos. 715, 747 and 753.
When the officials were reviewing the legislation, it was noted that it is provided for under the existing development Act. We are doing it for the sake of consistency. A situation may arise at planning level. If you were dealing with planning in the past, you might have been looking for a voluntary extension of time or whatever. There may be circumstances, in terms of good planning whereby a some more time might be required to consider an application. That flexibility will be allowed, but only with the consent of the applicant and only in limited circumstances. I really feel it would not apply in all circumstances because local authorities are going to be engaged. Some 89% of applications are normally dealt with through the local authorities in any event. It was provided for under the existing legislation in order to provide the degree of flexibility to which I refer.
It is also to prevent a default situation where certain circumstances arise in practice. In the context of planning, the Deputy will know that in the past that small bit of extra time may have brought about a more rounded or better decision. It is to give that extra bit of flexibility consistent with what is in the existing Act.
We will go back to Deputy Ó Broin. I will then go to Deputy O'Callaghan.
I have a couple of supplementary questions. Let me get this right. The Minister of State is saying that this provision exists in exactly the same manner in the existing Planning and Development Act 2000? If I submit a standard planning application to a local authority, the Minister of State is saying that a local authority can come to me and seek a voluntary extension of the-----
I have never seen it being done, but it is available.
That is not my question. Is that provision, exactly as the Minister of State has described it, currently available to me?
Under the current plan, the applicant can offer additional time to the planning authority.
Just so I am clear, that was not my question. Given that the Minister of State said at the start that in the main, these four amendments are really a provision for the planning authority-----
No, they are-----
The Minister of State absolutely said that both the applicant and the planning authority could avail of this. He said that very clearly. However, he then went on to say - I cannot remember his exact words - that this is a provision that the planning authority may choose to avail of if it needs some extra time. Under the Planning and Development Act 2000, if I have a standard planning application with my local authority that is subject to a very strict statutory timeline, can I avail of exactly the same procedure today? I apologise. I will flip that around. If I am an applicant who has put in a standard application to the planning authority, can that authority avail of this procedure today and seek to extend the statutory timeline? My understanding is that it cannot do so. Can the planning authority use that function?
I want to go back to the provisions in the Act. The Deputy might give me a bit of time to pull out the relevant information. I want to get this correct for him.
My understanding is that a planning authority cannot do that currently but I will stand corrected if it is in the Act.
Under the existing legislation, an applicant can offer more time to the planning authority. I have never seen it done, but it is available.
My question is different.
Yes, and I may not be totally correct so I want to double-check. Under what is now being provided, once again, the applicant can volunteer more time to the planning authority. However, on whether the planning authority can request more time of the applicant, I want to clarify that. I may not be accurate on that point.
Again, my understanding is that with regard to a standard planning application to which a statutory timeline that is very clear and fixed applies, the planning authority currently does not have the capacity or ability to ask for an extension. That is really important.
If that interpretation is correct and that is not a facility that is currently available to planning authorities-----
Which one?
Where the planning authority can seek an extension of time on a voluntary basis from the applicant.
If the Deputy looks at section 34 of the existing planning Bill, and I want to read it out-----
Of the Act rather than the Bill.
Yes. Sorry. I meant the Act. Section 34(9) reads:
Where, within the period of 8 weeks beginning on the date of receipt by the planning authority of the application, the applicant for a permission under this section gives to the planning authority in writing his or her consent to the extension of the period for making a decision under subsection (8), the period for making the decision shall be extended for the period consented to by the applicant.
I want to get absolute clarity on that. That reads to me as though the applicant can go to the planning authority, but it looks to me as if the planning authority could tell the applicant it needs a bit more time. I want to get absolute clarity on that point for the committee. I do not have it now. I have never seen section 34(9) before; maybe others have. Normally, you work with the eight weeks. Typically, I have seen this in practice where an applicant looks for a voluntary extension of time. The normal process is that you go for eight weeks. The planning authority may come back and say it is going out with FI, and in many cases there might be a refusal. Typically, then, the applicant would look for a voluntary extension of time - two or three months - and in that period it may resolve. It may go from being an outright refusal to the provision of a bit more time. I want to get the committee a proper note on that.
I have more questions but I am conscious of-----
Unless Deputy O'Callaghan-----
Yes.
I will bring you back in, Deputy Ó Broin.
I want to give the committee a detailed note setting that out, but that is the relevant section in the Act.
On the point about the wording as to why an applicant would consent to an extension, my read of what the Minister of State has said is that it could be in the applicant's interest to consent to an extension because it could result in a decision that would be more favourable to the applicant. If the planning authority asks if the applicant will consent to an extension and the applicant feels if he or she does not, it might entail a refusal, is that really the consent of the applicant or does the applicant feel he or she does not have many options? Therefore, if that is the way, why is it being constructed in this way? Is it due to a lack of alternative ways of constructing exceptional circumstances?
As regards the intent of this amendment, section 34(9) reads "Where, within the period ... the applicant for a permission under this section gives to the planning authority in writing his or her consent to the extension of the period for making a decision". There are two aspects to that on which I want to get a proper note. First, if the planning authority is amenable to further time, the applicant must give consent for that time. If the planning authority deems that the applicant is not willing to give further time, that is the point I want to get absolute clarity on. If you look for a voluntary extension of time at the moment, the planning authority can refuse it. This goes back to Deputy Ó Broin's point. I want to get a note and absolute clarity on this. This should arise whereby the planning authority deems it needs more time and the applicant consents to that period.
I have a follow up-question to that. From what I see in my local area, the larger, more complex applications almost always get additional information requests from the planning authority. Maybe sometimes there is an outright refusal or something, but nearly always there are additional information requests on the larger, more complex planning applications. There is a lot more work in them for the planning authority and they require a lot more time. Given that that additional information process is frequently used for those larger, more complex applications, why is there a need for this as well?
There are two aspects-----
Could this be used in addition to additional information for quite complex-----
Typically, in the standard case, it either grants it within the eight weeks or it goes out for further information. This is to provide for a situation whereby there may be cases where additional time is required - a small bit of time - by the local authority to make a decision. The local authority, however, is entitled to make a decision at any time it wishes. As the committee is well aware, you have to give five weeks for submissions, and then the local authority can make a decision at any time within the following three weeks, that is, within the eight-week period. It could technically go out in week six or week seven with an FI or a grant. In this case we are providing for circumstances, and this is the point on which I want to get absolute clarity for the committee, where the local authority deems that it requires additional time - a small bit of time. It is not about further information; it is just about time to make a decision and the applicant consenting to that extra time. I want to have definitive clarity on that because the Deputies raise an important point.
These are questions for clarification. There is a substantive issue I want to get to. It is significant that we are not clear right now whether what is proposed is the same as what currently exists or new.
It is what currently exists.
That is not exactly what the Minister of State has said insofar as he has said he wants to get absolute clarity on that and give us-----
I ask the Minister of State to bear with me. I raise the point only because our job here is to consider these amendments. Some of the questions we may raise and some of the commentary we may make would depend fundamentally on whether we can categorically say that what is proposed both by way of the amendment and what the amendment is amending in the Bill is exactly the same as the current Act, and there is some ambiguity on that. That is the first thing.
Second, I would like to know, notwithstanding the confusion around that, whether, if the planning authority seeks additional time instead of, for example, seeking further information, that has any effect on its subsequent ability to request further information. We often hear about the cases where a local authority is under pressure to make a decision - it might have a resourcing challenge - and, instead of making a decision, it throws out a request for further information. Is this to try to avoid or deal with that to give the authority some more time? If the applicant agrees to give it more time, can it still request further information at the end of that period?
The Minister of State keeps using the phrase "a small bit of time". "A small bit of time" is not mentioned in the legislation, so who gets to decide how much time? Again, that is quite important. I am not making a case currently for or against that, but it is not a small amount of time. Ultimately, the applicant has to agree to it. For example, however, some FI requests might require studies to take place at a certain season of the year and, given where the decision-making timeline might be, that could be six months away from the request. It could be a matter of days or weeks or months, and the applicant then has to make a decision as to whether he or she gives an additional amount of time or faces the risk of an FI request that could require a considerably longer time.
Within the eight-week period, the planning authority must either grant or go out on further information, FI, and the applicant has six months in which to come back with that further information. They have a further four weeks then to make a decision. The local authority has to make a decision based on the further information when it is submitted by the applicant. This particular amendment is consistent with section 34(9) of the existing planning Act, "Where ... the applicant for a permission under this section gives to the planning authority in writing his or her consent to the extension of the period for making a decision under subsection (8), the period for making the decision shall be extended for the period consented to by the applicant." Obviously, the applicant will take that under advisement from the local authority. The decision then has to be made by the local authority within that extension of the period.
Theoretically, it can request further information. If the extension is for a month, then within that period of time the council has to make a decision on whether to grant it. It could look for further information in that period but that is not what it is there for. In theory it could, but what it is there for is to give a further extension of time for the council to be able to make a decision. If it looks for further information, then that request is sent out within the initial eight-week period. I want to be legally categorical on this for Deputy Ó Broin.
In this, the standard six-month period would no longer apply-----
Correct.
-----because the planning authority would have to take the decision within the agreed extra period.
Correct.
In some senses an FI request would be redundant unless it was something relatively minor.
In most cases-----
It is an extension without looking for further information, whereas if an FI is used, information needs to be sought on X, Y or Z.
Further information is FI. If it arises in the applicant's discussion with the local authority that there is a need for just a small bit more time, that should be on the basis on making the decision.
The Minister of State keeps using the phrase "small bit of time".
That is ultimately a discussion between the local authority and the applicant. The applicant consents to that extra time. It is consent by the applicant. The point I am trying to make is that it is not designed for further information. It is designed to give a bit more time for the council to make a decision within the defined period of time.
My next question is whether this provision is designed, or is it the intention of the provision, to avoid a planning authority using an FI request when it really needs just an extension of time.
What is it there for? What problem is this trying to fix?
It is for a situation arising where eight weeks is too tight for the council to make a decision and it believes it needs a further short period of time, perhaps a month, within which a decision can be made. There might be a resourcing issue. I do not know what the issue would be. If it looks at an application in the period of time and deems it needs further information to make the overall decision, this goes out by way of an FI. It is not there to stop FIs going out. FIs are the standard process. We expect councils to look at applications, but if a situation arose where the council was looking at an application and decided it just needed, for whatever reason, a small bit more time to make a decision on the application - there might be some issue - then it could speak to the applicant and the applicant could give consent for an extra period of time. In the normal course of events, the council would look at it within the eight-week period and either grant it or ask for further information if it needs it to make an ultimate decision. It is not for the routine.
Does Deputy Ó Broin want to go again?
No, I have more questions but I will cede to Deputy O'Callaghan.
The Minister of State said the small extension of time is to make a decision and it is not to look for further information. When the local authority or planning authority makes a decision, it is to grant, refuse or look for further information. That is its decision.
That is the standard.
That is the standard. While it might not be the intention of the Minister of State to use this to have an additional four weeks, there is nothing in the legislation to stop an authority getting an extra four weeks and then the decision it could make at the end of 12 weeks since the application was made would be to seek further information.
No. It is final.
The legislation states it is the final decision so it cannot make a further decision.
Correct.
It can but it still has to make the decision within the agreed period, whether the information comes back or not.
Apologies; that is in theory. It is not designed for a situation where a local authority is looking for further information. It is designed to give extra time for a local authority to make a final decision. If it is an extension for a four-week period, then within that four-week period the local authority must make the decision and it will either grant it or refuse it. In the eight-week period it is looking to grant it, refuse it or seek further information.
There is certainly a view that sometimes planning authorities ask for further information because they are not ready to make a decision but that is not being addressed in this.
Each local authority and each planner will look at a case on its merits. That is their professional expertise. Initially in the case, technically in the main they will decide to grant it, refuse it or ask for further information. If a situation arises where a small bit more time is needed to make a decision and they discuss this with the applicant and the applicant asks them to make a decision now, then the planner will make the decision based on what is there. Equally, they could tell the applicant they need another three weeks and the applicant consents to this. Then the planner has to make the decision within that three week period. That is it.
Go ahead, Deputy Ó Broin. You might cover it.
Ultimately, we are speaking about section 98 of the Bill versus section 34(9) of the Act. What might be very helpful in advance of us getting to section 98 of the Bill is if could have as detailed a note as possible. To avoid us having a circular conversation about something we cannot answer, I am really interested to know the differences between the procedure set out in section 98 of the Bill versus the comparable procedure set out in section 34 of the Act. The text of both is very different and I would like to understand them. I would also like to understand, because this is the substantive issue I want to discuss but I do not think we can discuss it until we get the note, given that part of the purpose of the Bill is to have clear-----
This is why I want to get a proper note. If we look at section 34(9)-----
Of the current Act.
-----it does not prescribe a definite view of the additional period. If we go to section 98(4) and we go to paragraph (b), that defines that the additional period cannot exceed four weeks.
Yes.
This is a positive measure. Once again, I would prefer to come back to it with a definitive note on all the questions that have been asked on the changes between what is in section 34 of the Act and section 98 of the Bill. It is quite clear that section 98(4)(b) puts a time limit on the extension of time.
Yes.
Typically in my experience it is between one and two months.
It would be useful if the officials, who must do the heavy lifting on this, could set out very clearly the difference between the current provisions of the Act and what is proposed in sections 98, 124, 140 and 141, and the interaction of the new proposals with further information requests and decision-making timelines.
If we had that information, it would mean that when we would get to section 98 and section 124, etc., we would probably have a more productive conversation than we are having now. We will deal with those amendments as they come. Can I ask the Chair for latitude? Given that we may then have questions pertaining to these amendments, will the Chair give us a bit of latitude when we are discussing those sections to return to the substance of this discussion on foot of the Minister of State's note?
We can absolutely discuss the amendments or we can discuss the section-----
That is my point.
When we get to sections 98,124 or 140, we can have that discussion.
You will not close down any discussion on the sections because it is related to the amendments.
Yes.
Okay.
For clarity, the note the officials will go through will be a sequential note that will say where it starts, the various sequences in terms of planning, the eight weeks, further information, FI, requests, the extension of time, and comparison between what is in the current planning Bill and what will be in the new section 98. That should provide absolute-----
It is not just section 98 but the other four areas.
Sorry, we will do the other ones as well.
To clarify, when further information is sought from an applicant, it essentially puts the ball back in the applicant's court-----
Correct.
-----and the applicant can come back within two weeks or six months with the information-----
Correct.
-----whereas if the voluntary extension is sought, it may say only four extra weeks are needed, so that means the ball is kept in the court of the-----
There is a change in what is currently there. This Bill defines that the extension time period can only be four weeks. It is quite time limited.
Okay, so we will get a note on this.
Just for smoothness, we will provide that note.
We were going to break at 3 p.m. anyway because of the changeover of Ministers. We have a vote in the Dáil Chamber on the Order of Business so I will suspend the meeting and suggest we take a 25 or 30-minute break.
We are looking at sections 98, 124 and 141 versus section 34.
Sections 98, 124, 140 and 141.
Versus what is currently in section 34.
Versus section 34.
Yes. I will suspend the meeting for 30 minutes and we will meet back at 3.30 p.m. At that point I will put the question on amendment No. 297.
I might have one small additional question on the amendment.
Okay. The select committee is suspended until 3.30 p.m. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, and his officials for their attendance.
Sitting suspended at 3.02 p.m. and resumed at 3.39 p.m.
I welcome everybody back to our consideration of Committee Stage of the Planning and Development Bill 2023. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, who is with us for the afternoon.
We are resuming on amendment No. 297 in the name of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. It was grouped with a number of amendments, which we have spoken to and addressed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 298:
In page 95, line 21, to delete “2 working days” and substitute “5 working days”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 299:
In page 95, line 36, to delete “shall, within 3 working days of receipt of the direction,” and substitute “shall, as soon as practicable,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 300:
In page 96, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(18) The Minister may prescribe a period or periods that shall be disregarded for the purposes of reckoning any period referenced in this section.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 2.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Níl
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Amendment declared carried.
Question proposed: "That section 38, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have a question on section 38(16).
We can invite the officials back in.
It will be short.
Whether a vote is called or not, it will still take ten minutes because we do not have full attendance. We are just about to agree or not agree to section 38. Deputy Ó Broin would like clarification on section 38.
It is just to explain section 38(16). That subsection states:
Where, in any application for judicial review of a direction made pursuant to this section in accordance with the Rules of the Superior Courts ... and Part 9, the Court concludes that the Minister was not entitled to form the opinion that one or more of the criteria in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (8) of section 36 is met, this shall not warrant the quashing of the direction where—
(a) the Minister was also of the opinion that one or more of the other criteria in [the] paragraphs [mentioned] is met, and
(b) the Court finds that the Minister was entitled to form such an opinion.
I am looking for a plain English explanation as to what the purpose of this is. What does it do? It seems odd that a partial direction to a court proceeding seems to be contained in primary legislation. The Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong in reading that way.
It is only if one part of it has been quashed, as I understand it. The overall direction stays valid. It is just if one part of it is quashed. If part of a direction is quashed by a judicial review, then the other parts of it still stand.
That obviously refers to section 36(8)(a) to (d). If the direction is based on more than one of those in section 36(8)(a) to (d) and, in the court proceedings, just one of those is deemed invalid, then the direction should still have legal standing.
That is correct.
Unless the court finds that the Minister was not entitled to form such an opinion. Is that a new provision? Has it been used before? I am intrigued to know.
It is new.
I presume, therefore, there is a reason it is there.
Not unless it is "and".
It sounds like there was some case somewhere where there was a list of reasons something was deemed invalid but because only one of them fell foul of the court, a decision was overturned and this is to try to prevent such an occurrence. I presume there was a real-life case of something like this.
It brings clarity to what happens when there is a direction from judicial review proceedings. I am not sure if it was based on a previous case. It may be.
The Department officials probably know.
Again, I do not know. It is just to bring clarity.
Am I right in saying this is there to fix a problem that has been identified from previous court proceedings of a similar nature?
The answer is that is not necessarily the case. It is more to give legal certainty.
Okay
Question put: "That section 38, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 4.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Níl
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 39
I move amendment No. 301:
In page 96, line 27, to delete “plan” and substitute “strategy”.
Amendment agreed to.
Question put: "That section 39, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 4.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Níl
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 40
Amendments Nos. 302, 303, 334, 338 to 340, inclusive, 348, 393, 394, 435, 436, 442, 444 to 446, inclusive, 450, 456, 459, 460, 462 to 464, inclusive, 466, 471, 476, 477, 480, 490, 501 and 528 are related and may be discussed together.
We are now moving on to Chapter 5 on development plans.
I move amendment No. 302:
In page 97, line 6, to delete “8 years” and substitute “7 years”.
Most of my amendments on this section are stand-alone so I will take them one by one.
Yes. That is fine.
Amendment No. 302 seeks to make a small but important change to section 40(2). The current text provides: "Not later than 8 years after the making of each development plan for the functional area of a planning authority, the planning authority shall commence a review of the development plan..." It might seem that reducing the time to seven years is not a big change, but there was quite a lot of discussion during pre-legislative scrutiny, especially with the local government sector and elected members who were keen to ensure councillors would not lose out on the opportunity to be part of either a development plan or a development plan review. This small change would ensure that no councillor is left out. It should allow us to give all councillors a role by ensuring that if they miss the original plan, they can at least participate in the review or the initiation of the review. If there is a better suggestion for an alternative number of years, I am open to it. However, eight years is too long.
I will first address amendment No. 302 tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, which seeks to amend section 40(2) of the Bill by changing the period for commencing a review of a development plan from eight years after the last plan to seven years. I cannot accept this amendment as it would have consequential implications for other periods set out in the Bill for the completion of the development plan. The development plan adoption process has been adjusted in the Bill to allow for some additional time to take account of balancing the necessary time to prepare and adopt a development plan with the need to make the plan in an effective time. This proposal effectively reduces the life of the development plan as the statutory timelines for each stage in the adoption process - pre-draft, draft plan stage, etc. - remains unchanged. This is not warranted and indeed would have the unintended consequence of reducing the capacity of the planning authority to deploy resources to activate policies contained in a plan by significantly reducing the period between the intermediate review of the plan, after five years, and the time the review of the plan would commence in year seven.
It is obvious I will not convince the Minister of State of the merits of the amendment. However, does he accept and has he heard the concerns of councillors?
I have.
They desire to ensure that a councillor who is elected midway through a ten year development plan cycle would get the opportunity to shape either the review or the revised plan. The premise of the Minister of State's refusal to accept the amendment lies not so much with the substance of what I am proposing, but with the knock-on consequences, some of which are unintended-----
That is it.
-----as opposed to the substantive issue, which is ensuring it would not be possible to have a situation where an elected representative who was elected for five years had no functional role in the development plan process. Does the Minister of State not think that should at least be looked at?
I can appreciate it. Certainly, having been involved in several development plan processes when they were for a five-year period, I know the role is important for elected members. However, we are moving to a ten-year timeframe now and it has knock-on implications for the development planning process. In particular, the 99 week period has now been extended, as the Deputy will be aware. The preparation of the draft plan by the CEO is moving from 12 weeks to 18 weeks and sending notification of the draft plan is changing from two weeks to four weeks. It creates a timeframe and condenses the lifespan of the plan. There are many other opportunities for councillors to participate and contribute to policy through policy committees and so forth. It does not diminish their role. However, I accept the point that councillors who are only elected for one term may end up being locked in a period when they may not have any input into a plan.
I will make a final point about it. Unfortunately, the policy committees the Minister of State mentioned do not have any real statutory function. They are statutory committees, but they are broadly consultative as the Minister of State will be aware from his time on the council, like the rest of us. The development plan, not unlike the current expenditure budget, is one of the few areas where councillors have some real policymaking functions, albeit that the centralisation in this Bill will further reduce that.
If I am to consider Report Stage amendments, if I were to find a way to craft amendments that do not have the unintended knock-on consequences on the ten year development plan, would the Government at least give some consideration to finding a mechanism to bring councillors into the review earlier without in any way diminishing the ten year life cycle of a plan?
There is an opportunity under the interim review of a plan. The Bill provides for it to happen "not earlier than 4 years and not later than 4 years and 9 months". Officials have listened to councillors and local authority staff to consider this in terms of what is appropriate. There is an opportunity at the interim review for one-term councillors to have an input. If the Deputy wants to bring forward amendments on Report Stage, he should by all means do so. However, as I said, it has significant consequential implications for other periods in the Bill. I absolutely appreciate, and did appreciate, having been a councillor for 16 years, the important role councillors have in the development plan process, but unfortunately in this case I cannot accept the amendment.
It is not the case that it only affects one-term councillors. If councillors are elected in the second half of a ten-year development plan, how much of an input will they have? I understand why the Government wants to extend the development plan, but the unintended consequences are that it affects the ability of councillors who are democratically elected to have a say in the way, for instance, Cork city's development plan is shaped. Local elections are coming up. People are running and putting forward ideas about what they want to see happen in their towns and cities. This new legislation will prevent them from having the democratic mandate they were elected by the people to bring forward. It is not only one-term councillors. What I saw in my time as a councillor was a reduction in the powers and input councillors have. I remember that at one time councillors sat on health boards and had input into roads and into many different aspects. Their functions have all been diluted over the years. We do not want to see a dilution of councillors' ability to have an input into strategy and development plans, because at the end of the day we would then lose local democracy. In fact, we need more local democracy, not less.
I agree wholeheartedly. I attended the launch of the National University of Ireland, NUI, Maynooth, research into the role of elected members at local level. Certainly, we should all take cognisance of it. It is an important report. In some cases it may seem there has been a diminution of a councillor's role. In other cases, there has actually been an enhancement of the role in recent years, especially in relation to many areas such as climate change and mobility.
It is a hugely important role and one the Government strongly values.
There is an opportunity for councillors to get involved, within the ten-year cycle, if the review begins before the end of year eight. If, like the Deputy said, a councillor is elected after an interim review, he or she or will still have a role in the review and the preparation of a new plan. Councillors who are elected in an interim period between plans will still have a role. There is always an overlap whereby councillors have a role in either a review phase or in the statutory development plan phase itself. That role is still there. I was conscious of these considerations when the move was made to ten-year plans. I think we can all agree that the rationale behind it is to allow for strategic planning at county level for the longer term.
Deputies Gould and Ó Broin indicated they are contemplating bringing forward a Report Stage amendment. On that basis, does Deputy Ó Broin propose to withdraw amendment No. 302?
I will give it further consideration before deciding.
The Deputy can decide when we come to voting on it. Amendment No. 303, in the names of Deputies Duffy, O'Callaghan and Ó Broin, is the next amendment in the grouping.
This amendment propose to delete some wording. Subsection 40(7)(s) states:
In making or varying a development plan, a planning authority shall have regard to the development plans of adjoining planning authorities and shall, insofar as is practicable, coordinate the objectives in the development plan with the objectives in the plans of those authorities.
We are proposing to delete "insofar as is practicable". There should always be co-ordination, not just where it is practical that it be done.
We all have seen cases over the years of very poor planning and poor planning outcomes when there has been competition between local authorities. I will not name those local authorities, although perhaps I should do so. There are local authorities that have given planning permission right on the border of the jurisdiction of their neighbouring local authority in ways that undermine the objectives of the development plan of the latter. It is very hard to see it as being about anything other than trying to capture rates that otherwise would be due to the neighbouring local authority. There have been some very poor planning decisions as a result, some of which go against good sustainability policies. There has been some very car-dependent planning policy on that basis. Some very large commercial premises have been built right on the border of another local authority area that are not necessarily in ideal locations in terms of how they integrate with existing development and so on. We sometimes see that type of competition between local authorities and planning authorities undermining good standards and good planning.
Why would we not want to have the core objectives of planning authorities aligned in terms of making and varying development plans? Over the years, we have seen some variances made to development plans in a way that undermines good planning. They might involve rezoning land on the border of another local authority's functional area in order that the local authority doing the rezoning can, in effect, capture very large rate bases. It is a strategic, opportunistic rezoning that undermines sustainable development patterns. It has happened with some very large rate bases.
Retaining the words "insofar as is practicable" in this subsection means we will not have that alignment in terms of objectives. That leaves the door open to continued poor planning outcomes. For example, a local authority might have a very good objective to implement consolidated development using brownfield sites in its area. A neighbouring local authority could undermine that by rezoning a greenfield site on the border between the two local authority areas. One local authority is doing the responsible thing in trying to fill out its brownfield sites, put large commercial development in places with good public transport connections and all those sorts of things. It could be undermined by a neighbouring authority ignoring the first authority's overall objectives and deciding to go off and do something different altogether as a result of which it will be the beneficiary of a massive rates income. We need to be careful with the language in this provision. We should remove "insofar as is practicable".
I am far less generous on this point than Deputy O'Callaghan has been. Charlestown in Dublin is the obvious example. If I had been an elected representative for Finglas at the time Fingal County Council decided to develop Charlestown, I would have seen how "insofar as is practicable" becomes technically a problem. One of the consequences of the Charlestown development was its really negative and detrimental impact on the core population centre of Finglas village in a way that is contrary to good planning. That is a widely held view other than among a number of officials and elected members of Fingal County Council.
I have a very specific question in regard to this provision. What does "insofar as is practicable" actually mean in legislative terms? Who decides that? We have spent a lot of time talking about the Government's desire to have greater consistency, co-ordination and clarity in these matters. There was a very helpful discussion around the co-ordinated area plans. However, they do not apply to developments like Charlestown. I know I am not allowed to get into the detail but I will mention it anyway. The same issue arises in respect of the co-ordination between Cork County Council and Cork City Council. Again, if there was a firmer requirement, we might not be in the situation where we cannot discuss that particular issue because it is before the courts. I am asking the Minister of State to convince me that these four words should remain in the subsection. Will he tell me what they mean and who gets to decide what is practicable? This is a reasonable question.
With that mention of Cork, I call Deputy Gould.
For a number of reasons, I will not go into that specific case. Colleagues have made good points as to why there is an issue with the words "insofar as is practicable". We have seen evidence that some local authorities do not co-operate and do not work in a sustainable manner. If the management of a local authority has issues with funding, it might see that rezoning a particular location will bring in big companies and lead to a large rates take every year. As the manager of that local authority, why would one not do that, especially given that the authority's central funding has been slashed since 2009 or 2010?
The problem for half the local authorities in the country is that they are struggling to get money in because they do not have the same funding they had before the financial crisis. Some have no alternative but to generate money in a way that is not sustainable and is not for the greater good of their area. That is why they have taken some of the decisions we have seen. Without going into examples, I have seen it happening in my county. We need local authorities to work together. This is not just an issue in Cork. These issues have arisen with a number of local authorities. Unless the wording of this subsection is a lot stronger, it will leave the door open for decisions like the ones mentioned to be taken. For local authorities that struggle with funding, until there is proper funding from central government to allow them to operate, we will see some of them looking for loopholes and ways around because they might have no other choice.
Will the Minister of State explain what "insofar as is practicable" means? That is the key question.
We also need to know who decides what it means.
It might be best for the Minister of State to address that question straight away.
I will read the note and point to some other elements in the Bill that might expand on this provision and give clarification as to the role of local authorities in terms of co-operation. Amendment No. 303 seeks to remove the reference in the provision concerning the co-ordination of objectives between adjoining planning authorities in their development plans to it being done "insofar as is practicable". I cannot accept this amendment as there is an operational need to allow for practical co-ordination between local authorities. This is to take account of their operational and administrative functions and also the likelihood, particularly in urban areas, that there will be the circumstances in which co-ordination will be between multiple authorities, requiring the capacity for judgment and flexibility to be employed.
I think provision to allow some flexibility with regard to implementation in practice where necessary is reasonable, such as where there may be competing objectives between planning authorities. I will say as well that all plans have to be materially compliant with the RSES and the national planning framework.
If members look at section 40(7)(b), the paragraph where the proposed amendment is, it states: "(b) The Minister may require two or more planning authorities to coordinate the development plans for their functional areas generally or in respect of specified matters and in a manner specified by the Minister. It goes on to state:
(c) A planning authority shall comply with a requirement made of it under paragraph (b).
(d) Any dispute between the planning authorities in question arising out of the requirement under paragraph (b) shall be determined by the Minister.
(e) Where a planning authority fails to comply with a requirement made of it under paragraph (b), the Minister may apply to the High Court for an order directing the planning authority to comply with the requirement.
It goes on to refer to the content of a development plan under section 41(3)(f) on page 99. It states: "... a statement demonstrating the manner in which the plan is coordinated with the integrated overall strategy of the development plan of any adjoining planning authority and any matters specified by the Minister under paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of section 40, ..." I think there are good safeguards in there to ensure the planning authorities are co-ordinating and working together. Obviously, the Office of the Planning Regulator has a role in oversight as well. I do not know if it goes into any great detail to explain the "insofar as is practicable" but what we are doing here is building in that flexibility to allow the local authorities, particularly where there is a crossover of a number of local authorities, to ensure that there is co-ordination and checks and balances there with regard to the statement demonstrating the manner in which the plans are co-ordinated.
On the basis of what the Minister of State said, it seems to me that it is the local authorities themselves who decide whether it is practicable or not in each given instance.
Could the Deputy run that question again?
It seems what the Minister of State is actually saying is that it is a matter for the local authorities in question to decide whether the co-ordination is practicable or not. It seems that this is about whether they have the resources, wherewithal or whatever at the time, and that the local authority decides if it can or cannot.
As I said, all plans have to be materially compliant with the regional strategies and the national planning framework, and there is the OPR as well.
Sure, and I accept that.
When I say flexibility, it does not give the flexibility to a point where it is maybe not convenient to do something, or it is conflicting with the objectives of another local authority.
Sure. The Cork situation might not apply in this instance but Charlestown would, in a sense that it is conceivable that within the confines of Fingal County Council, Charlestown had a certain planning logic but in the assessment of what is proper planning with the two planning authorities contiguous, it would not be seen as such. There is nothing other than a local authority might just decide that it does not want to co-ordinate in that area.
The critical thing out of this is that it will come to a point where development plans will align with each other. The kick-off time periods will be the same around the country, so there will be co-ordination between planners in each local authority as they are going through their development plan process. It is important to have that flexibility there. Plus, it is the oversight. You go to a higher level at the regional planning level, and then the national planning framework to ensure that there is co-ordination. The flexibility is really there to ensure that, yes, there is co-ordination, but also "insofar as is practicable" means that it allows the local authorities to collaborate.
I have a final point on this. In my local authority, we have a boundary with five other local authorities - the three other Dublin local authorities, and Kildare and Meath. If, at the very same time that planning officials in South Dublin County Council are doing their development plan, and there is also a requirement under this section that "insofar as is practicable" they try to co-ordinate with others, that is a lot of additional work. Therefore, it is going to be difficult for it to be practicable, particularly if the timelines for the development plans are aligned. My question is still the same one. What is practicable, and who gets to decide? What the Minister of State is kind of saying is that there is no definition of "practicable" but it seems to be left to the planning authority in the context of a hierarchy of plans to decide if it is practicably possible for them to do this or not.
I think that is a good way of summing it up. As I said, if you look at section 41(3)(f), that is the important part as well. It states: "... a statement demonstrating the manner in which the plan is coordinated with the integrated overall strategy of the development plan of any adjoining planning authority ..."
I think that is the rationale behind it.
I thank the Minister of State. Deputies O'Callaghan and Duffy wanted to come in. We will do in that order please.
First, with regard to section 40(7)(b), where it states: "The Minister may require two or more planning authorities to coordinate the development plans ...", the difficulty with that is that the Minister may not exercise that. If the Minister does not exercise that, and given how busy the Minister's Department is going to be, that may not happen. The default then is section 40(7)(a). With regard to section 40(7)(a) and that wording there, how does that compare to the 2000 Act, or is it a completely new wording? The Minister might answer that but I have subsequent questions.
That is all right, go on.
I will come back to the Deputy on that.
I will finish my point, if I may. I thank the Chair. I will give one concrete example, but not Charlestown. Up the road from Charlestown is IKEA, which is in Ballymun but in Fingal County Council's area. When IKEA opened, the rates were worth so much to Fingal County Council that the rates for all ratepayers and businesses in Fingal were cut by 10%, the biggest rate decrease that council has ever done, and probably the biggest rate decrease in the history of any local authority in the country, I would imagine. I do not know for sure. The rates that came in from that one commercial ratepayer were such as a windfall for that council. That, I think, shows what is at play here for local authorities, if they are looking to get rates or to zone or facilitate developments on the borders of neighbouring local authorities. There is a risk - notwithstanding what the Minister of State is saying about national planning policy and regional plans - that for some local authorities, there could be a race to the bottom and the lowest common denominator in terms of standards, within what is allowable in national and regional policy. That is the concern I have about this, that there is so much scope in "insofar as is practicable" while there is an overriding interest in maximising rates income. Let us be honest, for a lot of local authorities, of course that is going to be a very high priority for them. Their rates income is their main source of income, so maximising that is a huge imperative for a lot of local authorities, if not all. That can impact on planning and good planning outcomes.
I think the problem with this is that wording. Those four words are leaving the door open. Something should be changed with those words because if you leave them there, it means an authority can be impractical. That is what it can do. That is what the law will say. If this local authority wants to be impractical, it can be because that wording has been left there to say that, and therefore it will be detrimental to another local authority. If the wording is not there at all, it means one local authority has to co-ordinate with another one when it is doing its development plan or reviewing it. There is the problem; it is the wording. If the wording was changed, it locks it down a bit more. Humans run local authorities, and some people might say, "Well, we are going to do something that is impractical". It is practical to us but impractical to somebody else, and it does not matter. I think the Minister of State should think about it.
On Deputy O'Callaghan's first question, section 9(4) of the Act of 2000 states:
In making a development plan in accordance with this Chapter, a planning authority shall have regard to the development plans of adjoining planning authorities and shall co-ordinate the objectives in the development plan with the objectives in the plans of those authorities except where the planning authority considers it to be inappropriate or not feasible to do so.
The difference in the Bill before us is that all development plans now must be materially consistent with the regional economic and spatial strategies and the national planning framework. Those are the overarching documents. Sections 40(7) and 41(3)(f) must be taken together. The reference to having regard to the plans of adjoining planning authorities in the making of a development plan must be taken together with the reference to the statement demonstrating the manner in which the plan is co-ordinated with the integrated overall strategy of the development plan of an adjoining planning authority. Therefore, there are significant checks and balances to ensure co-ordination and consistency across the development plans. I note the points made by Deputy Cian O'Callaghan on the development he spoke about, but the legislation is robust to ensure consistency and that plans must be materially compliant with both the regional strategies and the national planning framework.
My amendment No. 334 is on the obligation to prepare a strategy for sustainable development and regeneration. Section 42 states a planning authority shall prepare a strategy for the sustainable development and regeneration of the functional area of the planning authority and that "the strategy shall set out objectives relating to the prioritisation of and measures to facilitate compact urban development". We believe "regeneration and" should be inserted after "facilitate" so there will be regeneration in addition to development.
Will I respond to each amendment individually? There is a grouping.
Are there amendments similar to amendment No. 334?
Amendments Nos. 338 to 340, inclusive, are related. I can deal with them individually.
If we dealt with them individually, it would probably be better.
Amendment No. 334, tabled by Deputy Duffy, seeks to require the prioritisation of and measures to facilitate "regeneration" in addition to compact urban development. The strategy must also, among other things, include objectives concerning the regulation of development, including the setting of appropriate development management policies and standards, for the purposes of promoting the sustainable use of land and sustainable rural development, preserving the character of an area and avoiding, reducing or mitigating significant adverse effects on the environment and residential amenity. I am not in a position to accept the amendment. While its intent is good, it is already covered by the Bill.
That is fair enough.
Deputy Eoin Ó Broin took the Chair.
Amendment No. 338 is to insert "and district heating networks". This relates to the strategies. In section 42(2)(c), infrastructure such as water, wastewater and waste-recovery infrastructure is listed. We include a list of necessary utility types. The Minister of State may argue that "energy generation infrastructure" covers this. Could he clarify whether "energy generation infrastructure" covers district heating networks? The latter will become part of our heating systems over the coming decade as part of our climate action measures. Can the Minister of State convince me that district heating networks are covered by "energy generation infrastructure", because I do not believe they are covered by the term "generation of renewable energy"?
In short, the answer is "Yes". The renewable energy reference covers it. I do not need to be prescriptive about it here but renewable energy covers district heating, anaerobic digestion and many other types of-----
I do not believe a reference to the generation of renewable energy covers district heating networks; it just covers generation.
The legislation refers to "energy generation infrastructure".
Would "energy generation infrastructure and facilities" include district heating networks?
That is fine.
Deputy Steven Matthews resumed the Chair.
Amendment No. 339 seeks to delete the word "rural" on page 101 with respect to the obligation to prepare a strategy for sustainable development and regeneration. Why is there a reference to "sustainable rural development"? While I am for sustainable rural development, we need to have sustainable development in other areas as well. I am conscious that section 42(2)(a) refers to compact urban development on brownfield sites and sites that are derelict or underutilised. I wonder whether the reference to rural areas is included so as to have a reference in addition to the one to urban areas in section 42(2)(a). Surely, when preparing a strategy for sustainable development and regeneration, there should be a reference to sustainable development in both rural and urban areas, not just rural areas. The Minister of State might explain this or clarify why the relevant provision is limited to rural areas.
First, it is not limited to rural areas. Sustainable rural development is a defined term. It is important in light of the reference to "sustainable development and regeneration" in the section heading. Section 42(1) states, "A planning authority shall prepare a strategy for the sustainable development and regeneration of the functional area of the planning authority." There is a reference to urban development later in the section. Section 42(2)(c) states the strategy shall set out objectives relating to "the provision, or facilitation of the provision, of infrastructure including water supplies, waste water services, waste recovery and disposal facilities". It is important that the plan set out relevant objectives to promote sustainable rural development. The phrase "sustainable rural development" is warranted to prevent the section from being read as applying only to urban settings. Therefore, what the Deputy proposes is covered in the Bill. It is important to include the phrase because it applies to a broad set of policy objectives concerning rural settlement and rural development generally. It applies not just to agricultural development but also to the development of rural communities and broadband infrastructure in rural areas, and also to the general economic and social well-being of rural communities.
I thank the Minister of State. It is a good explanation.
Amendment No. 340 is from Deputy Duffy as well and very similar. Both may be taken together.
I have one other point. If you take it out or put "urban" in after "rural", you cover rural and urban but it is being left out.
"Sustainable rural development" is a very defined term used expressly because of the very different challenges facing rural communities. It emerged out of European policy. It is critically important to have it in there because it applies to a certain distinct set of circumstances affecting rural communities, particularly in disadvantaged parts of the country.
In that context, where is sustainable urban development? It is not there; that is the point. The Bill states it is only rural sustainable development and not urban. We are not even putting in "regeneration" regarding compact urban development. Regeneration means you do not just flatten everything; you try to work with what is there.
I appreciate the point the Deputy is making. At the outset of section 42, it is stated "A planning authority shall prepare a strategy for the sustainable development and regeneration of the functional area". Section 42(2)(a) refers to "the prioritisation of ... measures to facilitate compact urban development, including the development and renewal of lands or sites within existing developed urban areas".
This wording applies to all planning authorities so they must do what is set out in section 42(1) and (2), which reads "The strategy shall set out objectives relating to ... sustainable rural development". What if there is a planning authority that does not have rural areas in its functional area? This states they have to set out objectives relating to sustainable rural development. There are some planning authorities that do not have rural areas. There are not many but there are a few.
If there is a planning authority that does not have a rural area-----
This states it must set out objectives relating to sustainable rural development, but it may have no rural areas in its functional area. I appreciate that most planning authorities have rural areas but not all do.
Section 42(2)(d) states "the regulation of development, including the setting of appropriate development management policies and standards, for the purposes of promoting sustainable use of land, sustainable rural development". That is as it applies to local authorities that have rural areas.
It says they all have to do it, does it not?
It states "of appropriate development ... policies". If it is not appropriate for that authority by virtue of the fact it does not have a rural area-----
Where is the "appropriate" bit?
It is in section 42(2)(d), "the regulation of development, including the setting of appropriate ... management policies". It says appropriate to the local area.
The word "appropriate" is quite ambiguous.
I will ask somebody to step in while I take the next four amendments, if possible, please. Will somebody step in?
I will.
Deputy Cian O'Callaghan took the Chair.
I will take amendment Nos. 348, 393, 394 and 435. They are grouped. I will withdraw amendment No. 348. I intended to insert "natural and cultural heritage" but I think it is covered.
Amendment No. 393 concerns page No. 107 of the Bill. I do not even know if this is possible but the Bill refers to the "functional area of the planning authority" but there are things done by a planning authority within its own functional area that may have an impact on the functional area of another local authority. There could be air emissions or discharges to water, etc. The way I wrote this is probably poorly worded but I wonder if it is possible for the planning authority to have a strategy that protects and improves the environment even in the bordering parts outside its own functional area? That is what I attempted to try to do with this amendment. Let us call it transboundary stuff.
Exactly, I love that word. In short, yes. We covered this in detail when we discussed the issues around adjoining local authorities.
We did.
It is well catered for.
I accept that. I thank the Minister of State. Amendment No. 394 relates to section 47(2)(b). We had the discussion before when we talked about transport and active travel, etc. It is about the word "promotion". It is a very weak word. We talked about it in relation to promotion of climate action. I feel we are a decade beyond promoting this. It really requires implementation, controls or actions rather than just promotion. The Minister of State will be well aware and more aware than most that our water quality is in serious decline. Is the promotion of compliance with the objectives, for example, of the water framework directive, strong enough wording in a strategy? Should it not be measures to control or measures to implement compliance?
Amendment No. 394 concerns the obligation that such strategies include objectives, among others, for the promotion of compliance with environmental standards in relation to water quality and status, having regard to the water framework directive. Amendment No. 394 seeks to replace “promotion” here with “the control of measures”.The Bill as drafted is appropriate and balances a series of disparate inputs to allow for the creation and operation of an appropriate planning framework and to support the sustainable development of a planning authority’s functional area. The use of the word "promote" allows the development plan objectives to be appropriate and relevant to the role of the planning system in the water framework directive while being integrated with other necessary objectives to support the appropriate development of the area. I cannot accept the amendment. I hope that explains the rationale.
It explains why the word "promotion" is used but in paragraph (f), the word "control" is applied when it comes to the exploitation of natural resources. The ability to have control measures in place is stated there. Could something stronger than "promotion" be used? We are 25 years past just promoting these things.
We could look at this.
I thank the Minister of State. This is just my interest in protecting our water quality.
I will not accept the amendment but-----
No, but perhaps the Minister of State could look at it because stronger wording again is needed. Amendment No. 435 relates to section 51 on page 113 of the Bill, which concerns the development plan being reviewed before a new one being prepared. I suggest in this amendment an analysis of the modal shift and transport patterns that may have developed over the previous development plan. We have strategies in there for sustainable transport patterns, and we spoke about this earlier.
When we are considering a new draft development plan, where do we assess the measures in the previous plan in respect of this modal shift we have to make in transport and the movement to lower carbon-emitting modes of transport? I admit these may not have existed in previous development plans. Does the Minister of State think it is appropriate to include an analysis of the modal shift in transport patterns? I think, as well, that there is a spelling mistake in my amendments.
Yes, I see that.
I can amend that on Report Stage.
This amendment relates to section 51, which sets out the consultation process with the Office of the Planning Regulator before the preparation of a draft development plan by a local authority. It seeks to amend section 51(2), which sets out what should be contained in a development plan review report furnished to the OPR, and to provide that it should contain an overview of transport patterns and proposed modal shift to achieve sustainable transport. As the purpose of this section is to allow the OPR to provide a view on the national policy framework, it would not be appropriate for the OPR at this stage to give its views on matters that are essentially operational and will emerge as part of the process of writing and adopting a development plan, so I cannot accept this amendment.
Okay. I accept that section 51 might not be the location for this proposed text, but where in the preparation of any draft development plan, which will be a ten-year plan, will an assessment be done of measures from the previous plan to address unsustainable and high carbon-emitting transport patterns? We can learn from our previous development plans what was done correctly and what is working and what is not. We can then make amends in this regard and the new plan goes forward from there. Where in the whole development plan process, therefore, will an analysis be done of the transport patterns that emerged during the lifetime of the previous development plan?
Under section 42, concerning the obligation to prepare a strategy for sustainable development and regeneration, section 42(2)(b) refers to 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, air and sea transport, and the promotion of the development of local transport plans.
Sure, and it is good to have that strategy prepared going into a new development plan, but where in the review of a previous development plan, to feed into the new development plan, will we analyse the transport patterns that emerged during the lifetime of the previous plan? I refer to feeding this information into the process to create a new development plan. It is great that we have put in a reference to sustainable transport plans. That is fantastic, although we did not quite get a good definition of them, but how will we be able to analyse if we have achieved any form of modal shift? I ask this considering the NTA is a consultee under section 51.
As it has just gone 5.05 p.m., it might be better to suspend now and continue this discussion afterwards because we all have related amendments coming after this one.
This point raised is also an important one.
Do the other amendments also relate to the modal shift in transport and associated transport patterns?
I do not have them in front of me just now.
I am just asking because I think we could have this amendment dealt with in another minute or two.
Deputy Matthews can have another couple of minutes on this amendment and then we will suspend.
Yes.
Okay. I am trying to clarify a situation where we are going to set plans for ten years and we have a national strategy for a modal shift in transport patterns. It is in our development plans in respect of where rubber hits the road, literally. This is where we need to know that our local plans or county plans are actually assisting in achieving this modal shift. I want to know where the analysis will be done in this regard to feed into the next development plans.
Yes, absolutely. I referenced this in terms of the obligations to prepare a strategy. The preparation of a strategy, however, also involves looking back at the progress of previous plans. Quite an amount of scoping work must take place in the preparation of the new plan, in developing the new plan, in setting out the context of it and where the city or county stands at a given time in respect of preparing the new plan. This is a constant process that is ongoing in terms of evaluation, looking back and then using informed data to help to better inform the process and see where policies need to be changed or improved.
Okay. That is grand. I thank the Minister of State.
Sitting suspended at 5.06 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Niall Collins. We are dealing with a group of amendments starting with amendment No. 302. We have spoken about and covered the amendments up to No. 435 and will now move to amendments Nos. 436, 442 and 444 in the names of Deputies O'Callaghan, Ó Broin, Boyd Barrett and others.
Amendment No. 436 relates to section 51, which is on consultation with the OPR before the preparation of the draft development plan. We will have a row about whether that is a smart idea when we get deal with the section separately. Notwithstanding the fact that I am not in favour of the overall proposition outlined in section 51, my strong view is that if it is to go ahead, there needs to be a more explicit requirement for consultation with elected members and prescribed bodies as part of the production of the report by the chief executive for the OPR. As I am sure the Minister of State knows, the development plan process currently involves the manager producing a draft report. That report is put out for public consultation and there is a formal process. It is currently the role of the planning regulator to make interventions if it feels that is appropriate in order to ensure that the plan being made will be in line with Government policy. One concern I have with the section is that there is a blurring of the lines between the role of the planning regulator as an independent enforcement body, which body I support, and policy-making. This is because the regulator is being brought in at an early stage without consultation with elected members or prescribed bodies. It is to be consulted first, and therefore it is incumbent on us to ensure, even at that stage, and given that a development plan is ultimately a function of elected members, that elected members have a key role. Notwithstanding my opposition more generally to section 51, amendment No. 436 has some merit as a kind of defensive measure, if nothing else. I am interested in hearing the Minister of State's views.
Deputy Ó Broin is being generous in stating that there is a blurring of the lines between the roles. There seems to be incredible overreach. That the Bill is changing the OPR from a regulator into something else altogether while still requiring it to carry out its regulatory functions is highly problematic. The amendment seeks to mitigate this somewhat. How can an office be the regulator and also have such a role in the formation of development plans, which is what section 51 entails? While we can discuss the section later, the amendment we are proposing is necessary to ensure there will at least be consultation with the elected members and prescribed bodies.
Amendment No. 436, tabled jointly by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Bríd Smith, Gino Kenny and Cian O'Callaghan, seeks to provide that the chief executive of a planning authority shall, in preparing a development plan review report under section 51(2), consult the elected members and prescribed bodies and shall reflect the matters raised in the consultations in such report and give the input due consideration in any conclusions and recommendations made.
It is appropriate that the development plan review report be prepared by the planning authority to facilitate consultation between the authority and the OPR on the preparation of the draft development plan. The elected members are extensively involved in preparing and agreeing to the development plan, and there is also significant engagement on it with a range of bodies as well as the public. On that basis, we cannot accept this amendment.
Three questions arise. First, why is the general provision being introduced? My sense of the most recent round of county development plans is that the role of the planning regulator has been broadly positive. Not all Members of the House agree, but that is certainly my view. One of the aims of the regulator was to achieve consistency between central government planning policy and development plans. In the context of residential developments, including large-scale residential developments, it has been very successful. This is one of the primary reasons the number of judicial reviews of large-scale residential developments has declined significantly by comparison with the number sought previously under the section 28 strategic housing development regime. Therefore, it seems the proposed mechanism is trying to fix a problem that does not exist, certainly with respect to residential development. The key proposition is not that elected members are not adequately consulted at other stages of the development plan process. The Minister of State read out a relevant section that outlines they are, and we are all pretty familiar with that. The specific purpose of the amendment is to give elected members some consultative role with respect to the very particular engagement between the chief executive and the OPR before the development plan process begins. I see no reason the planning regulator should be involved at that stage, but if so, as per the legislation, we need to see elected representatives involved. What is wrong with giving elected members a consultative role in addition to prescribed bodies regarding the interaction between the chief executive and OPR prior to the commencement of the development plan process? Why is the OPR even involved at that stage, given that the way the OPR reviews development plans under existing legislation broadly works and is not in need of change?
The elected members have a key role throughout the development plan process. In many ways, it is their development plan and they are elected to produce it. In the context of local democracy, it is one of the key functions of local councillors. Section 51, which brings in the OPR before the preparation of the draft development plan begins, is significant; however, not having the elected members involved in any way at that stage is also significant. Throughout the Bill, there is centralisation of power to the Minister and the OPR. When we submit amendments to include democratically elected representatives in the early part of the process, however, we are told they should not be included. Whenever power is centralised and elected representatives are excluded from the process, it never ends well. It does not matter who the individuals starting out are or who they centralise power to; what happens is that, over time, with the centralisation of power and the lack of involvement of democratically elected representatives, sooner or later, things inevitably go wrong. That is a given. I could take up considerable time giving examples of where things have gone wrong with planning but I do not need to as everyone is aware of them. However, why design a process to centralise power and not accept our amendment, which would at least include the elected representatives in the early part of the process?
The development plan is supposed to be made in a democratic way by elected representatives.
If I missed any previous explanation as to why section 51 has been put in and the rationale for involving the Office of the Planning Regulator at this early and formative stage of the development plan, apologies, but could the Minister of State tell me why the Government is doing this? It does smack of distrust, essentially, of local democracy and of the need to centralise power at an early stage and limit what the democratically elected councillors might do or decide in developing a development plan. What is the rationale for doing this and making this change? Why, given that this is being done, would we not have the check and balance at least of having the councillors involved in this early consultation?
I would like clarification that this is prior to the preparation of the development plan and it is not in any way impacting on the preparation of a development plan and the councillors' roles in this.
The role of the Office of the Planning Regulator is to ensure development plans are consistent with the national planning framework and national planning statements. The engagement of the office on strategic matters prior to the commencement of the review of a development plan, along with the requirement for the office to issue an opinion to the planning authority, is intended to minimise the need for the office to participate in the later stages of the development plan review process.
I think this does have an impact on the development plan process. It is designed to have an impact. Otherwise it would not be there. My concern is that I am not clear as to why it is there. I do not want us to have the substantive discussion on section 51 now because we have other amendments on other sections and we will get to it then. The specific question I asked is what is wrong with giving elected members some consultative involvement in the exchange between the regulator and the chief executive prior to the commencement. Really what this amendment is doing is saying that if we think it is a good idea that there should be this pre-development plan process engagement, and if the chief executive is to produce a report and there is some engagement between the chief executive and the OPR, why not have some involvement for elected members at that point. I have yet to hear the argument as to why elected members should not have some involvement at this point. On this basis I will press the amendment.
If the amendment is not accepted it will mean that before elected members have any say or involvement in the development plan process, or in the section 51 pre-development plan process, the OPR will have a say. Council members are the people elected to represent local communities in local democracy. It is meant to be their development plan and they have this key responsibility. They will not have a say whereas the Office of the Planning Regulator will. This is highly problematic.
What we need in the Bill are provisions to ensure early engagement with communities. There is a body of evidence to show that when we have co-creation and we involve communities early in the planning process, we get much better results and much better outcomes for everybody. Instead, we are having early engagement with the Office of the Planning Regulator. This is a new role for the Office of the Planning Regulator. It is being given powers and a say over and above what the elected members have. This is deeply problematic. If the amendment were accepted, it would ameliorate it somewhat.
I do not have a whole pile more to add. It is our view that it is appropriate the OPR is involved in the process to bring consistency to the various tiers in plan-making. We want to see less of a need for directions to be given on development plans, ultimately.
I suggest we move to amendment No. 442.
I have a very brief comment. What the Minister of State just said at the very end was the most insightful thing. If the purpose of the engagement under section 51 is to prevent the need for directions at a later stage, it shows the intention is to have an impact. We will come back to it. It is a very important clarification and I thank the Minister of State for it. It will be helpful in our discussions later.
Amendment No. 442 proposes to insert "any states where transboundary impacts may arise and the public in such states". It is an insertion we believe is consistent with the Espoo and Aarhus conventions where there are transboundary impacts and impacts on the public in said areas. I will be interested to hear the response of the Minister of State.
Amendment No. 442, tabled jointly by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Bríd Smith, Gino Kenny and Cian O'Callaghan, concerns the requirement for planning authorities to give a copy of a notice of intention to review a development plan to a number of specified bodies and seeks to amend this list of bodies to include any states where transboundary impacts may arise and the public in such states.
Similarly, amendment No. 444 would require that the notice, in addition to being published on the planning authority's website and in a newspaper circulating in the functional area, where an adjoining planning authority or transboundary state is consulted, would also need to be published in a newspaper circulating in those areas, and all such newspaper notifications would have to be repeated in at least two non-consecutive issues of the relevant newspaper.
I understand the intent of these amendments and we would like to consider them further. If appropriate, we will bring forward amendments to address these matters on Report Stage. On this basis, we ask the Deputies to withdraw these amendments.
Just so I am clear, are the officials telling the Minister of State it is their intention to bring forward amendments or that they are just considering it at this stage?
It will be looked at and they will engage with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on it. If there is a need for amendments, they will be brought.
I would like clarification on this. We have discussed amendments on transboundary issues previously and received the same response. The commitment is to look at it with regard to development plans as well as other areas.
Yes.
We have covered amendments Nos. 442 and 444. I suggest we take amendment No. 456 now and then I can sit in to discuss my six or seven amendments that are sandwiched between.
On a point of order with regard to a difficulty I have, and perhaps there is nothing I can do about it, I have to leave at 7 p.m. and I have two amendments in the next grouping, namely, amendments Nos. 370 and 381. It is highly possible that I will not be here when we reach them.
I can only deal with amendments as they are grouped. What numbers are the Deputy's amendments?
Amendments Nos. 370 and 381.
I think we have a considerable number of votes to take after we do this section. I do not imagine we will get to those amendments. If I read the brief correctly, once we are finished with this group of amendments, I have approximately 18 votes to take. If I do not have full attendance, that will take about eight hours. Deputy Boyd Barrett may come back on Tuesday week.
We will not get to those tonight in any way at all and possibly not even tomorrow. It will very much depend on whether everybody attends the committee. In that case we would probably get through the votes in a much more timely manner.
Does Deputy Ó Broin wish to speak to amendment No. 456?
Section 53 is with regard to the making of the development plan.
It is an addition on page 120, line 9. I just want to make sure I have my bearings right. The Bill currently states, “The Minister and the Office of the Planning Regulator may, in relation to a draft development plan, make such recommendations as they consider appropriate.” I am looking to insert “the relevant Regional Assembly” to it to include those at this point. I am interested to hear the Minister of State's response.
Amendment No. 456, tabled by Deputies Eoin Ó Broin, Thomas Gould and Aengus Ó Snodaigh, seeks to amend section 53 providing that a planning authority is to send a notice and a copy of a draft development plan to specified persons and bodies within a specified period. Section 53(3) provides that the Minister and the Office of the Planning Regulator may make recommendations in relation to a draft development plan. This amendment seeks to include that the relevant regional assembly may also make such recommendations. I do not consider it necessary to specify that a regional assembly may make recommendations in respect of a draft development plan. Under subsection (1), a copy of the notice and draft development plan is circulated to the relevant regional assembly. Under subsection (6), the planning authority must prepare a report on any submissions received, which would include any from a regional assembly, and give a response to the issues raised. This both appropriate and necessary.
The Bill seeks to introduce a plan-led system based on an integrated hierarchy of plan-making. This, in effect, means that a planning authority’s development plan must be aligned to a regional authority’s regional spatial and economic strategy and so a planning authority must take account of it when preparing a development plan. With respect to regulating such compliance, this is a function of the Office of the Planning Regulator. It is a role of the Office of the Planning Regulator to assess and advise the Minister, if a direction is warranted to, in their view, bring the relevant plan into compliance with the statutory requirements. Ultimately it is a decision of the Minister to issue such a direction.
On this basis, we cannot accept these amendments.
I have a technical question. There is nothing stopping the regional authorities on foot of receipt of the relevant documentation from making submissions or engaging in the process in the ordinary manner.
I have seven amendments that I would like to speak to. I am trying to get somebody to take over the Chair for me. If you like, we can move to amendment No. 476 until I have somebody to come in. Would one of the members be willing to step in?
Deputy Cian O'Callaghan took the Chair.
He did such a good job last time.
Here is the gavel that Deputy Ó Broin could not find earlier, in case the Acting Chair needs it. The amendments I have are amendments Nos. 445, 446 and 450. They are not related but perhaps we can just work through them. Amendment No. 445 relates to section 52(5)(c). My suggestion is to add “district heating systems” to “energy”. We had this discussion earlier on another section. If the Minister of State can assure me that district heating systems would be covered under “energy”, I am happy to accept that.
Yes.
At the moment, I do not feel we have enough attention on district heating systems and I feel they will be very much part of our energy and climate transition. However, it is covered under “energy” in that the Minister of State will accept that.
Yes.
On that basis, I will withdraw amendment No. 455.
I wrote amendment No. 446 prior to the biodiversity action plan becoming a statutory document. We have had much discussion, especially with the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, on this. The Minister will review how we look at biodiversity protection and consultation in relation to it. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 446.
That brings us to amendment No. 450. This is about voting records and the ability for the general public and people who would perhaps not be in attendance at a development plan meeting or any other meeting where a resolution is required of members to get information. I have gone through the Bill and picked out every Part or section where there is a reserved function for members to take a vote. All of the information on voting is available on the public record; it is just very difficult to find much of the time. I have been at development plan meetings and meetings where a resolution has taken place and I have seen members of the public there to see their councillors vote in a certain way being totally confused. The councillors voted against what they were there for but they are getting a thumbs up because they cannot follow it. Therefore, I am trying to bring a little bit of transparency.
We are always trying to engage more people in the planning process. I am seeking for the Minister to consider this and set out in regulations that the details be displayed in respect of every resolution taken by council. All this information is there; it is just a matter of putting it in an easily accessible format. People may want to see which way their local representative voted; the plan or process to which the resolution related; the proposal or the proposed amendment; the name of the proposer and seconder; the chief executive’s response; any other prescribed bodies response if applicable in that situation; the voting record of the resolution; and the date of the resolution. It would be a bonus and a benefit to our democratic and participative planning process in this country. I think we have one of the most participative planning systems anywhere, right the way up to the election of councillors, to the crafting of development plans, to the decisions made on those development plans, to the opportunity to appeal and the opportunity to go further than judicial review if you feel the need or requirement to do so. I am interested to hear the response on this. I take on board that all that information is there. I am just trying to make it more easily accessible and readable for members of the public or anybody else with an interest in planning.
The Deputy made a valid point. Amendment No. 450 seeks to include a new requirement that any resolution by elected members relating to reserved functions under a number of specified sections in the Bill must be recorded and clearly displayed on the local authority website. In this context, it also seeks to include a requirement that the Minister shall set out in regulations the details to be displayed in respect of each resolution. The introduction of such requirements may be more appropriate by regulation, which I think the Deputy mentioned. We instructed the officials to review the matter in further detail and consult with Parliamentary Counsel on other legislation, such as the Local Government Act, which may be impacted. If appropriate, we will bring forward amendments on Report Stage.
I thank the Minister of State. I appreciate that. It sounds quite positive. The reason I ask that the Minister set it out regulation is so that we have it standardised across the local authorities.
I will move on. My grouping of amendments is amendments Nos. 459 and 460. I ask the Minister of State to give me a moment to get my bearings. Amendment No. 459 relates to section 53 on page 121, between lines 2 and 3. It is just after subsection (4) and it relates to the making of a development plan.
This relates to a notice detailing protected structures. Amendment No. 459 would insert "the planning authority shall erect a site notice detailing the proposed protected structures". This would follow paragraph (4)(b)(v), which states, "that, if the proposed addition or deletion was recommended by the Minister", etc. It is just to erect a site notice to inform people. I think there are parts missing here in bringing the public into the addition or deletion of a protected structure to or from the register of protected structures, RPS.
Amendment No. 460 is related. I think all these amendments are related. Amendment No. 460 relates to the report on the reasons for an addition or a deletion. I ask the Minister of State to read out the response he has to amendments Nos. 459, 460-----
And 471.
Yes. It is all about just a little more oversight in bringing the public into the addition or deletion of protected structures.
Amendments Nos. 459, 460 and 471 concern additions or deletions to the record of protected structures as part of the draft development plan process.
Amendment No. 459 seeks to amend subsection (4) of section 53, which currently requires that where a draft development plan proposes additions to or deletions from the record of protected structures of particular structures, parts thereof or specific features, the planning authority must serve a notice on the owner or occupier of that structure. The amendment also seeks to include a requirement that the planning authority shall erect a site notice detailing the proposed protected structures.
Amendment No. 460 seeks to provide that a copy of proposed additions or deletions must be available for public inspection and shall include the rationale for the proposed action, any reports or recommendations relating to the structure and any submissions received prior to commencing the public consultation process under subsection (4).
Similarly, amendment No. 471 concerns a planning authority notice served on owners or occupiers of protected structures that are added to or deleted from the record following the making of a development plan. This amendment requires that such a notice be displayed on the local authority website and included in the register of protected structures.
We will consider the consequences of these proposed amendments and the revision of publication requirements, which we can see merit in. With respect to site notices, there may be practical issues relating to their placement on land that is not in the ownership or control of a planning authority. The notification procedures are at present designed around informing the owner of the property intended to be protected in order to allow for their views to be considered. The wider public's views are garnered through the public participation exercises that form part of the development plan process. We are open to looking at this issue.
That is fine, and I totally accept the point that you cannot put a site notice on somebody else's land and that it is up to the applicant to do that. Some sort of public notice is what I meant. It is just in order that the public are aware that something is happening with the structure or that it is being added or deleted. I think that would be beneficial.
Yes. It has merit.
I accept the Minister of State's response on that and thank him for it.
I refer to amendments Nos. 462 to 464, inclusive. Amendment No. 462 proposes to include "submissions or observations made by public representatives" in this process. The relevant passage in the Bill states:
A report under paragraph (a) shall—
(i) list the persons who made submissions,
I am suggesting that, rather than just a list of persons who made submissions, it would be beneficial to the process if the public could see the submissions made by public representatives on that aspect of this as well. The Minister of State might say it is covered in the Bill but, generally, in a development plan report, there is a separate section for public representatives' submissions. I think this would bring benefits and I ask the Minister of State to consider it.
Amendment No. 463 relates to the report by the chief executive. Amendments Nos. 463 and 464 are about a notice regarding a decision not to comply with the Minister's recommendation. Amendment No. 464 proposes that the voting record be displayed, but that refers to a previous amendment of mine, amendment No. 450. Is the notice about not complying with the Minister's recommendation publicly available? Is it published?
Yes, I am advised that it is.
That is what I am trying to do here. It is under paragraph (7)(d).
Basically, these amendments are similar to amendment No. 450 and we will look at them in the same context, with a view to regulation.
I just want to be sure on amendment No. 463. It relates to the following passage in the Bill:
Where, in making the development plan ..., the members of the authority do not comply with any recommendation made by the Minister or the ... [OPR] ..., they shall so inform the Minister or the ... [OPR], as the case may be, as soon as practicable by notice in writing which notice shall contain a statement of the reasons for not complying with the recommendation or recommendations concerned.
Is that notice publicly available? Is there a public record of it? Can the public see that notice?
It is a public record because it is a public decision of the planning authority.
Yes, but the Bill states "by notice in writing". The decision not to comply with it might be made in public or at a public meeting, but then a notice in writing which "shall contain a statement of the reasons for not complying" must be provided. What I want to know is whether that written notice is a public document.
It is a public document, yes.
Would it be available on the local authority website, say? I am just wondering how somebody would have access to the written notice stating, "We will not comply with the recommendations of the Minister."
It is a public document.
And it would be made publicly available on the website.
Yes.
That is fine.
Amendment No. 466 relates to material alterations. This is under subsection 53(12). A report is to be produced listing all persons who have made submissions and providing a summary of the recommendations and submissions made by the Minister and the recommendations and submissions of the Office of the Planning Regulator. I am suggesting that there should also be a summary of the submissions made by the public representatives. This relates to material alterations as well. Again, is that a public document? I know the Minister of State will say that this comes under paragraph (III), which refers to "submissions ... by any other persons", but, again, I would suggest a separate one for public representatives. It is really important for the public to know what way the people they have voted for are making submissions on material alterations.
We see the merit in the amendment but we must consider its wording to define appropriately terms such as "public representative". The contribution of elected members in the course of their deliberations on the development plan should not be covered by this requirement but, reflecting on it, we will, if appropriate, bring forward an amendment on Report Stage.
If the wording is changed to "elected members" to cover it, then I will be happy. That is precisely what I mean. It is the elected members, rather than a public representative maybe.
An elected member at a meeting sitting in public session is entitled to make his or her contribution in the normal course of events, similar to any other issue on the agenda. As regards what the Deputy is getting at here, though, I think the member would need to have made a separate written submission.
I would take it as referring to the list of persons who made submissions. If the interpretation here is that a submission can be written or verbal at a meeting, then section 53(12)(c)(ii) requires the provision of a summary of the recommendations and submissions made by the Minister and recommendations and submissions made by the Office of the Planning Regulator. In this context, I am happy if it is recommendations and submissions, written or verbal, made by elected members as well, just to cover this aspect.
I do not think verbal works.
Well, it could refer to any written submissions by elected representatives in respect of the process. I would imagine that the report of the chief executive would, though, encapsulate submissions made at a meeting as well.
It would not.
No. The planning authority receives the submissions and the chief executive officer prepares his or her report, summarises the submissions and makes a recommendation regarding the written submissions received. As is normal with standing orders of local authorities, agendas are drawn up and circulated. The chief executive officer's report is also circulated. Members have an opportunity to consider it in advance of their meetings. As I stated, verbal submissions made while members are sitting in public session are made in the context of their role as elected representatives.
Okay. Let me try to clear this up. If an elected member makes a written submission to the chief executive as part of this process, which I presume they are entitled to do, that would be provided as part of the summary of the recommendations and submissions made by the Minister and the OPR and the summary of submissions made by elected representatives to the process, but not their verbal submissions at the meeting.
Yes.
Okay. That is grand. I think my group of amendments in this section is finished.
Deputy Steven Matthews resumed the Chair.
We move to amendment No. 476. Does Deputy Ó Broin or Deputy O'Callaghan wish to speak to this amendment?
I will speak to amendments Nos. 476 and 477 together. Amendment No. 528 seems to be in the wrong place. As it is a consequential amendment to an amendment that was discussed in another group, there is no need to discuss it again. It may be a small error on behalf of the Bills Office but, given the volume of amendments, I do not think it is the fault of that office in the slightest.
Let me try to clarify this issue. Deputy Ó Broin thinks amendment No. 528 has been spoken to already.
No. It is an amendment that is consequential to a separate amendment related to this section that was discussed in an earlier group. I am pretty sure of that.
I thought that as well, without having discussed it with Deputy Ó Broin.
I am not withdrawing it.
Let us see if we can figure this out.
It does not make sense without the other amendments before it.
Amendment No. 528 was already discussed with amendment No. 302. Have we discussed amendment No. 302? Actually, it is in this grouping. We will continue.
It is a small error. I will press the amendment when we get to it, but we will have the discussion first.
Okay. I invite the Deputy to speak to amendments Nos. 476 and 477.
I will not labour the point, given the lateness of the evening, but both these amendments are intended to strengthen the involvement of elected members, prescribed bodies and the public. In this instance, this relates to the implementation report and the timing of this report in the context of amendment No. 476, but it is also concerned with the report itself. I suspect we will be told that the level of involvement of the elected members, the public and prescribed bodies is already sufficient and that the Minister of State will not be accepting the amendment, but we live in hope. The Minister of State might have good news for me on this occasion.
I am intrigued to know what "working well" means in this amendment.
There are many phrases whose actual meaning we have yet to get to the bottom of.
In effect, amendment No. 476 is about implementation of the development plan. It is also a kind of a monitoring exercise. My experience as a former local councillor and that of other local councillors is that there is a lot in development plans that are passed that does not come to fruition in terms of different policies and objectives. It will not always be feasible for all of it to be implemented, particularly given the dependence on what development does or does not come forward in a lot of instances. This would still provide an opportunity, however, to look at key areas in terms of what is working well and what is not, and any issues or actions that need to be taken as a result.
I will give an example. The development plans in which I and my predecessors on the council were involved had objectives concerning mapping out public rights of way, but no progress was ever made on any of those objectives by the local authority I was on. In fact, there was resistance to it. For every development plan, therefore, we went through the process of putting in our motions saying we should map out the public rights of way, but then it never happened. This proposal would provide an opportunity for elected members to say the process was not working well in respect of an important objective in the development plan that had been discussed at length and democratically voted on, but on which there was no progress being made. This would provide an opportunity for people to raise these kinds of issues.
Amendment No. 477 relates to section 54 and the interim report on the implementation of the development plan to be provided by the chief executive of a planning authority to its elected members. The amendment seeks to insert a new subsection to require that the chief executive must consult the elected members, prescribed bodies and the public on the content of an interim implementation report.
I cannot accept these amendments. The purpose of the interim report is to allow for a review of the progress of the implementation of the plan. It is not intended to be a review of the development plan, which occurs after eight years. In view of this, the Bill takes a careful balance between the capacity to review the implementation of the plan while maintaining the effective delivery of the overall strategy of the plan as adopted. If, arising from the outcome of the implementation review, a variation or variations are deemed to be required, these will be undertaken with the capacity for public participation.
In a similar vein, amendment No. 476 seeks to provide that the chief executive, within 20 months of making a development plan, must consult with the elected members and prescribed bodies on what is working well with the implementation of the development plan and on any issues or actions which need to be taken.
It shall consult again prior to the production of the interim implementation report on progress. It shall reflect the matters raised in the consultation in such report and give the input due consideration in any conclusions and recommendations made. A key reason for the extension of the plan period to ten years is to allow the local authority to implement and activate the plan objectives. This will take a period of time, particularly in view of the likelihood of the requirement to do urban and priority urban plans. The progress report on the implementation of the plan will be carried out after five years. This is considered to be an appropriate period. In view of this we cannot accept the amendment.
Gutted as I am that the Minister of State cannot accept the amendments, let me at least make the case on the record for the spirit behind both of them. A chief executive or director of service might have a very different view on whether implementation on any individual aspect of a development plan is progressing compared to elected members, prescribed bodies or the wider public. Therefore, allowing some level of consultation on that implementation report as set out in amendment No. 477, to which I was speaking, is a good idea. It does not have to be overburdensome or too complicated. I am more than happy if there is better wording than the wording here. It is more the principle, particularly given the fact, as many of us will have experienced - indeed the Minister of State might have experienced it also - that specific local objectives were often inserted into our county development plans following significant effort by local communities or elected members. Very little progress was ever made on their implementation because the executive was never really keen on them, but they were still inserted. Therefore, having some public consultation on the implementation report is valuable.
Separately, a five-year review is a very formalised process. However, earlier than that, the need not so much to undertake a full review, but to have some kind of process of looking at implementation is really valuable, because if we wait five years until the review process occurs, in some senses a fair amount of time is lost. Whereas, if lack of progress on the implementation of some aspects of the plan was identified, following a two-year mark, after the 20 months, that would be quite useful.
It seems that where the Government wants to place onerous reporting responsibilities to ensure consistency of approach across the plan-making process, there is never any issue in terms of the impact on the capacity or that wonderful word that is used, "balance". However, where it is with respect to the involvement of elected members, or the public, or implementation of aspects of plans, there seems always to be a problem. If we suggest something additional, then it is a resourcing issue or a balance issue, which I do not accept. It is a challenge for the Minister of State, because this is not his responsibility, but I am really making the case to the officials as much as to the Minister of State, that there really should be something by way of assessing implementation, separately from a full-blown review. Waiting for five years means too much ground is lost. I will press the amendments nonetheless. I hope someone at least hears the intention behind the amendments, notwithstanding the fact the Minister of State cannot accept the text of them.
That is exactly the point. The thrust of this Bill is that it gives considerable powers to the Minister, who can issue national planning statements, give all sorts of direction to local authorities and planning authorities through that. There are considerable powers for the Office of the Planning Regulator as a kind of enforcer to ensure the wishes of the Minister are adhered to. However, when it comes to mechanisms that might help to ensure the wishes of the democratically elected councillors and what they pass in the development plan might be adhered to, then the Bill is lacking. We are putting forward a measure to strengthen that. Having this happen after 20 months, in addition to the review much later on, would be a good point for the elected members to review objectives that were passed 20 months ago, and to ask what is happening on them. They are not going to bring up every issue. They are going to concentrate on areas of particular strategic importance. I have given the example of development plans, not just local authorities. I was on several local authorities which had objectives to publicly map the rights-of-way. The elected members felt that was important. The executives of the councils did not. They did not do it. A mechanism such as this would give the elected members an opportunity to try to follow through on that.
In the local authorities of which I was a member, many policies were passed by the elected members long before they became national policy, including issues around active travel, cycleways, sustainable travel and transport, which is a very important proposal that is now being heavily advanced around the coastal greenway and walking and cycling route. However, in one development plan after another these issues were passed by the councillors but not acted on by the executive. While a mechanism like this would not have ensured they all were acted on, it would have slightly rebalanced matters. We have all these measures in the Bill, power for the Minister and the Office of the Planning Regulator, but it is lacking in terms of elected members.
We want to see the plans implemented and not be in a constant rolling process of making and creating plans. It says that the chief executive will review implementation not earlier than four years but not later than five years. It will start in year four. Similarly, both Deputies will be well aware that it is open to the members of the local authority to make a variation to their own plan in terms of a material contravention to their plan at any point in time.
The real issue here is not material alterations to the plan that might arise. It is to do with implementation of the stuff that is already agreed, which is a fundamentally different point. It is not so much about providing an opportunity for an amendment to the plan because that can happen through the procedures. It is to try to find a mechanism to track implementation. This is probably a bad example but, many Departments publish periodic implementation reports or action plan progress reports and so forth. We quibble about the content of them sometimes, but insofar as they provide accurate information, they are the mechanism of assessing implementation of the plan. That is what we are trying to get at with these amendments. The worry is that a huge amount of effort could go into the development plan. There can be implementation reports but there is a lack of consultation and it is a bit too late in the process. I am not going to waste time pressing the argument any further but I am not so sure the Minister of State or the officials understand what we are trying to get at with the amendments.
There is also an annual local authority report.
There is, yes.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, and Deputy Ó Broin. Amendments Nos. 476 and 477 have been discussed. Deputy Ó Broin said that amendment No. 528 has already been dealt with. We can deal with a vote on it when we come to it but it has been discussed. I have three amendments here, amendments Nos. 480, 490 and 501.
Deputy Cian O'Callaghan took the Chair.
Amendment No. 480 follows a similar line to the previous contributions made by Deputies Ó Broin and O'Callaghan. This is in section 54(3)(b) on page 127. This is the interim report on implementation of a development plan. All of us have sat through a development plan process.
We can see zoning maps for residential, mixed use, employment zones, etc., but when we come to the next development plan it is still there on the map and nothing has happened. I appreciate that we are introducing various land activation measures so that we do not have zoned lands sitting there for so long. Incentives are being introduced to make people develop those lands, or disincentives to not do it. It would be helpful for the general public to be able to read these plans and also for elected members to monitor progress if we were to show a map of the zoned land – I do not know what the exact wording is - and a progress report on the zoned land where no planning consent has been applied for or is in the application process and land that has extant planning permission but where development has not been commenced. We already produce maps for the zoned land tax so it is well within the capabilities of local authorities to do that but it would be a helpful part of an interim report to show what land is activated and the current status of it. That is the purpose of amendment No. 480.
I thank Deputy Matthews. There is merit in what he says and in the requirement, so we would like to review and consider the matter further, particularly with regard to whether there are any practical ramifications that may result from its inclusion which could inadvertently undermine the basis of a particular development plan. If appropriate, we will bring back an amendment on Report Stage.
Okay. The next amendment is No. 490. This refers to the variation of a development plan and relates to section 56. Again, we have had a discussion on this matter. It states that the chief executive's report should include submissions by public representatives separately. I have used the term "elected members". It should be a separate category from others in terms of submissions. There would be a summary of any submissions by the Minister or the OPR and I want a summary of any submissions by public representatives, not just to have them lumped in with "other persons". We have had that discussion and I think the Minister of State is open to looking at the matter.
Yes.
Okay. That is grand. I will withdraw amendments Nos. 480 and 490 on that basis.
Amendment No. 501 is the last in the grouping. Section 60 relates to the expedited variation of a county development plan. We had this discussion already on the regional spatial and economic strategy. This provides, in section 60(3), that "the chief executive shall, with a view to avoiding duplication of assessments, take account of the fact" that an assessment has been done by the Minister. I totally agree with avoiding duplication because we do see a lot of it in planning. What I want to have is some ability for the chief executive, if he feels that the Minister's assessment may have been inadequate or did not take something into account, to apply to put his own screening assessment in place. We had this discussion in relation to the RSES and I think it was something the Minister was willing to consider or examine for Report Stage or at least to consider the merit of giving the chief executive the latitude to do that.
Amendment No. 501 concerns section 60 and the new procedure enabling the timely variation of a development plan to make it materially consistent with a new or amended national planning statement where the Office of the Planning Regulator has informed the planning authority under section 59 that it is satisfied with the steps proposed by the planning authority. In this context, the chief executive undertakes screening for strategic environmental assessment and appropriate assessment in respect of the draft amendment and shall, in accordance with subsection (3), with a view to avoiding duplication of assessments, take account of the fact and content of any assessment that the Minister has conducted in respect of the relevant national planning statement.
This amendment seeks to provide that the chief executive must consider the adequacy of any assessments conducted by the Minister. It is not the role of the chief executive to critique the adequacy of the environmental assessments undertaken by the Minister. The section seeks to limit duplication of assessments which are undertaken to discharge the State's responsibilities on foot of the relevant directives. It is for the chief executive, in view of the content of the proposed variation, and of the particular environmental circumstances relating to their functional area, to conclude whether a strategic environmental assessment or appropriate assessment is required as part of the variation proposed to the relevant plan. Therefore, we are not accepting the amendment.
Will the Minister of State clarify that response? I support the intention of avoiding duplication and unnecessarily taking up the resources and time of the local authority planners. Can the chief executive take account of the fact and content of any assessment that the Minister has conducted?
Yes.
Does that mean the chief executive cannot carry out his own screening assessment on a national planning statement in relation to his own county?
Chief executives carry out their own screening assessment but they would take account of what the Minister says in his assessment.
In other words, the national planning statement is applicable countrywide or may be subject to guidance in some situations, but chief executives can, in relation to their own county and the unique aspects of the county or certain locations in it, carry out a screening as well.
Yes.
Okay. That is grand. I thought it meant the chief executive could not carry out a screening. I accept that. I will withdraw the amendment.
Deputy Steven Matthews resumed the Chair.
I thank Deputy O'Callaghan. We have completed that section. I will now put the question on amendment No. 302.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 303:
In page 97, lines 32 and 33, to delete “insofar as is practicable”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 304 not moved.
I move amendment No. 305:
In page 98, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(v) Ireland’s climate targets as set under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 306:
In page 98, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(v) each local authority’s Traveller accommodation programme.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 307:
In page 98, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(v) (I) where the planning authority’s functional area includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(II) where the region includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 308:
In page 98, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(v) any relevant language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network within the area of the development plan,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 309:
In page 98, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“(vi) (I) where the planning authority’s functional area includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012, the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(II) where the planning authority’s functional area includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012, the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 310:
In page 98, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“(vi) the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 40 stand part of the Bill."
My question relates to section 40(7). I ask for clarification on three areas of the subsection. Section 40(7)(b) reads, "The Minister may require two or more planning authorities to coordinate the development plans for their functional areas generally or in respect of specified matters and in a manner specified by the Minister." I am interested to know what the intention and scope of this is. I can imagine City Edge would be a good example of it, but I ask the Minister of State to give us a little bit more detail on what is hoped to be achieved by this.
The next paragraph, (c), stipulates “A planning authority shall comply with a requirement”, so I have no query in relation to that. However, section 40(7)(d) goes on to state, "Any dispute between the planning authorities in question arising out of the requirement under paragraph (b) shall be determined by the Minister." I am interested to know against what criteria, to what scope or to what end such decisions would be made.
Paragraph (e) in subsection (7) reads, "Where a planning authority fails to comply with a requirement made of it under paragraph (b), the Minister may apply to the High Court for an order directing the planning authority to comply with the requirement." That is quite unusual. All the other directions we are dealing with in the legislation are just directions by the Minister. Why the High Court? What is the reason for that? Is that just the way things have been done until now? Is it an existing practice? Is it something new? Why is it that we have this area of a High Court-secured direction as opposed to a standard ministerial direction?
These are just questions for clarification. I may have follow-up questions depending on the answers, but I am not looking to debate these.
I will let Deputy O'Callaghan ask his question as well. I do have the option to allow the officials to answer this question. It is quite a technical question and I am aware the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, is not a Minister in the Department. If members wish, I can bring in the officials, but I would need to go into private session for that.
My preference is at least to try to put some of it on the public record. I am not trying to put the Minister of State on the spot because I know it is not his portfolio, but these are important public questions. Let us see how we go and maybe we will go into private session, if necessary. There are key parts of this, and if we can put some of the responses into the public domain, that would be very helpful.
That is okay. Does Deputy O'Callaghan wish to pose a question as well?
No, my question is actually related to head 52. It is not about this.
Okay. I call the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, to respond to that, if he wishes, but I do have the option to bring in the officials as well, if necessary.
An example of two local authorities co-operating would be co-ordinating a development on zoning across two local authority boundaries. Reference is made to “specified matters”, which would obviously be on a case-by-case basis. Any matter specified by the Minister would be on a case-by-case basis. Anything general would be like the example I have given the Deputy of zoning across local authority boundaries. Regarding any dispute between the planning authorities arising from the question, if, for example, local authorities have a difference in interpretation of what the Minister is saying, he can step in and clarify his position on it. Regarding the High Court, that will be kept as a last resort. If a Minister asks a local authority to act and it refuses to do so, then he or she will has to have recourse to the High Court.
Those answers are very clear and helpful. With respect to zoning, I presume we are talking about, for example, if a UDZ traversed two local authorities.
Yes.
That is clear enough to me. With respect to section 40(7)(d), the Minister of State seems to be suggesting that the only dispute would be a dispute over the interpretation of the Minister's request, as per sections 40(7)(b) and 40(7)(c). Would this stray into other disputes that might occur between the local authorities, for example, over the boundaries of a UDZ, the allocation of resources or who takes the lead?
No, I am advised that this is solely to do with what is stated in 40(7)(b). It is basically for the co-ordinating of development plans for their functional areas. Boundaries are a different matter.
However, a UDZ boundary is actually ultimately determined by the Minister. In that case, it would be-----
It would be determined under the UDZ provisions.
Yes. Regarding the High Court, the only thing I do not understand is why there is a provision for the High Court here when, elsewhere, activities can just be directed by the Minister. I presume there is some legal reason but clarity on that would be helpful.
It is for where they are not complying with the Minister's directions. If the Minister, as all Ministers do in the ordinary course of events, gives directions, and if the local authority does not comply with them, it gives the Minister the option to go to the High Court.
That is very clear-----
It is a last resort.
-----but the last bit of my question which has not been answered is, elsewhere in the Bill, there are very clear provisions to force compliance on a planning authority without recourse to the courts. What is special about this that requires recourse to the courts rather than some other form of ministerial direction?
It is because it is being co-ordinated between two local authorities.
A little more clarification on that would be helpful.
It is a last resort. One local authority may be complying but the other may not be complying.
Where there is a potential dispute between the two, it is to have that independently determined by the courts.
Yes.
I have a final question. Is this the only such direction that requires court intervention in the Bill generally?
Yes.
That is separate from Part 9, obviously.
Yes.
Okay, that is helpful.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 41
I move amendment No. 311:
In page 99, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“(iii) any language plan agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network which is relevant and applies to the functional area to which the development plan relates,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 312:
In page 99, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“(d) where the functional area to which the development plan relates consists of or includes a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, a Gaeltacht Service Town, or an Irish Language Network, as defined in the Gaeltacht Act 2012, a settlement strategy for any Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, any Gaeltacht Service Town or any Irish Language Network which is relevant,”
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 313 to 315, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 316:
In page 100, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“(i) (i) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, a statement demonstrating the manner in which the plan is consistent with any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(ii) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, a statement demonstrating the manner in which the plan is consistent with any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 317:
In page 100, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“(i) a statement demonstrating the manner in which the plan incorporates objectives to conserve, protect and promote the role of the Irish language as a spoken language within the area to which the development plan relates and supports the implementation of—
(i) Article 8 of the Constitution,
(ii) any language plan agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network which is relevant and applies to the functional area to which the development plan relates, and
(iii) potential future plans for the development of Irish Language Networks, communities or neighbourhoods within the functional area to which the development plan relates.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 318:
In page 100, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“(i) a statement demonstrating the manner in which the plan incorporates objectives to facilitate and support culture and recreation, including artistic creativity and performance, and to secure access for all to participate in, learn, enjoy, and engage with the arts in their community, including through the provision, protection and promotion of cultural spaces within the functional area to which the development plan relates.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 319:
In page 100, line 11, after “strategy” to insert “and under the Gaeltacht Act 2012”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 320:
In page 100, line 13, to delete “and range”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 321:
In page 100, line 15, after “facilities,” to insert “cultural spaces,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 322:
In page 100, line 15, after “facilities,” to insert “Irish language facilities,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 323:
In page 100, line 15, after “facilities,” to insert “night venues,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 324:
In page 100, line 16, after “for” to insert “cultural,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 325:
In page 100, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(d) the location and extent of Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas or Irish Language Networks in the city,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 326:
In page 100, line 23, after “facilities,” to insert “Irish language facilities,”
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 327:
In page 100, line 23, after “facilities,” to insert “cultural spaces,”
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 328:
In page 100, line 23, after “facilities,” to insert “night venues,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Collins, Niall.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 329:
In page 100, line 24, after “for” to insert “cultural,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 330:
In page 100, line 26, to delete “or range”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 331:
In page 100, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
“(7) The written statement referred to in subsection (2) shall allow for the zoning of land for the particular use of providing affordable housing as defined in Parts 2 and 3 of the Affordable Housing Act 2021.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 332:
In page 100, line 36, after “area” to insert “, including to the use of Irish and viability of any relevant Gaeltacht community,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Collins, Niall.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 333:
In page 101, line 7, to delete “or range”.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 41, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have a technical query on this section.
We will bring in the officials. To the rest of the members, I do not think we will have any more votes tonight, so we will see the rest of the members all at 9 a.m. tomorrow. We still have a lot of votes to get through, so full attendance would really assist us if it is possible.
My query relates to section 41(8), which states:
Where a development plan as made or varied departs from any relevant guidance contained in National Planning Policy Guidance, the written statement referred to in subsection (2) shall include a statement of the reasons why, in the opinion of the planning authority—
(a) the departure is not detrimental to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and
(b) the departure is justified having regard to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
It is similar to previous questions. Who defines what is not detrimental or what is justified? You could obviously end up with a dispute where a planning authority states that the departure from the relevant guidance is not detrimental and is justified. I presume the Minister will be the ultimate arbiter of whether the local authority's arguments on sections 41(8)(a) and (b) are valid or not. I would like clarity on how that works in practice.
The planning authority makes the determination in the first instance. It goes to the Minister and then to the OPR. The Minister can refer to the OPR.
If the Minister is not satisfied, they will ask the OPR for a second independent opinion and will potentially be informed by that as to whether or not to issue a direction.
Yes.
We will adjourn until 9 a.m. in the morning, when we will start with the vote on section 41. We have a series of votes after that, so full attendance will be much appreciated. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Niall Collins, and his officials for their attendance.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select committee adjourned at 8.59 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Thursday, 21 March 2024.