SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Thursday, 17 Jun 2010

Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage

Chairman

This meeting has been convened for the purpose of consideration by the select committee of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 referred to it by order of the Dáil on 25 March 2010. I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for horticulture, sustainable travel and planning and heritage, Deputy Ciarán Cuffe, and his officials to the meeting.

Due to the large number of amendments, we have reserved further time slots to consider the Bill, including on Tuesday next from 10 a.m. We have reserved the room until 8 p.m., although we do not have to continue until then. If we are not finished on Tuesday, we will start at 12.15 p.m., after the Order of Business in the Dáil, and continue until 3.30 p.m. and from 5.30 p.m. onwards. We have made those arrangements in case they are required. I propose we adjourn at 1 p.m. today. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will return at 10 a.m. on Tuesday next.

Amendments have been grouped together for discussion purposes and the schedule has been circulated to members. It has been drafted by the Bills Office for convenience of discussion. Is it agreed to work according to the schedule of grouped amendments supplied by the Bills Office? Agreed.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Chairman

Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Deputy Hogan, who is not here. Is it being moved?

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, before section 3, but in Part 1, to insert the following new section:

3.—The Minister shall, within 3 months of this Act being passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, report to the Dáil on the outcome of any cases involving Ireland in the European Court of Justice rulings, any EU Directives or any other matter which affects Irish planning law.".

Chairman

Amendment No. 101 is related to amendment No. 1. We will allow discussion on this amendment when we reach that one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Ciarán Cuffe)

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, before section 3, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:

3.—The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following new section after section 1:

"1A.—Effect or further effect, as the case may be, is given by this Act to an act specified in the Table to this section, adopted by an institution of the European Union or where appropriate to part of such an act.

TABLE

Council Directive 75/440 EEC of 16 June 19751 concerning the

quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States

Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 19792 on the conservation of wild birds

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive

Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 19913 concerning urban waste-water treatment

Habitats Directive

Major Accidents Directive

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 20004 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 20015 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment

Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 20036 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EC

Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 20037 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC

Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 20068 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community

Birds Directive".

1O.J. No. L194, 25.7.1975 p. 26-31

2O.J. No. L103, 25.4.1979 p. 1-18

3O.J. No. L135, 30.5.1991 p. 40-52

4O.J. No. L327, 22.12.2000 p. 1

5O.J. No. L197 21.7.2001 p. 30

6O.J. No. L41, 14.2.2003 p. 26

7O.J. No. L156, 25.6.2003 p. 17

8O.J. No. L64 4.3.2006 p. 52".

The principal Act is amended by the insertion of a new section which provides a table listing all Community Acts which are given effect through the planning Acts. Directives of the European Community generally contain a requirement that national implementing measures contain a reference back to a the directive they are implementing in order to inform citizens of the legal basis and authority for the provisions in question. This is reinforced by the case law of the European Court of Justice. The Planning and Development Act 2000 is currently silent on references to Community directives. This amendment rectifies the matter. I see it simply as a matter of good housekeeping. It makes it easier for both community groups and developers to acquaint themselves with from where the law is coming.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

This is a large amendment and basically amounts to a new Bill. That is very disrespectful to one House of the Oireachtas as the Bill has gone through the Seanad which discussed and scrutinised it. If this amendment is adopted, when it goes back to the Seanad, it will not have the chance to amend it. It is not appropriate. Deputy Cuffe is not the first Minister to have ever done this, but it is not fair on the Seanad to do that and I would say the same if it was the other way round. It is wrong to introduce the equivalent of a new Bill in one House when it has gone through the other House.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I fully accept that in an ideal world we would have had the amendments delivered much earlier, but there was a great deal of tick-tacking with the European Commission on this issue, and within my Department the officials have been working night and day to deliver the amendments in a timely fashion.

There is a need to get this passed before the summer. Certainly, my colleagues and I have been at pains to ensure that this is delivered and we have been working against the clock to try to get this passed as quickly as possible. Were we not to pass it, Deputy Tuffy and her colleagues would be the first to criticise us for not moving.

It was referred to the committees and the committee Chairs and they decided that the amendments were not so substantial as to require recommittal of the Bill in the first instance.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

It is not right for the Minister of State to use the fact that the Government is criticised if we are held to account by the European Union against us if we want proper scrutiny of legislation.

On the way the House should be used, as a general point, there should be a strategic approach to legislation so that we are dealing with the legislation consistently all through the year. Often there is an attempt to rush through legislation at the end of the term in the summer, and similarly at Christmas, and that is not an appropriate way to deal with legislation. We should receive legislation in a prompt manner, but then it should be given proper scrutiny in the House. When the Minister of State is bringing in these new amendments, he could explain whether there are judgments of the European Court of Justice to which they are in response.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

This is my first chance to look at these amendments because they were posted to my office in Clonakilty only this morning. I would have thought that we might have these at least a week in advance. There are many amendments and it is little too much to ask somebody to come in here this morning to comment on any of them because we have not had a chance to see them. It is a problem for me.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I certainly appreciate that. The amendments were flagged during the Seanad stage of the Bill and it was clear that they were coming. I share Deputy O'Sullivan's frustration. I would much rather that things had happened sooner. Not only had there to be discussions with the Commission but, obviously, the Attorney General had to approve all of this. There are bottlenecks in the process. If there was anything I could do to make it happen quicker, believe me, I would be moving mountains to achieve that.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

We must either agree or disagree with these amendments. I have a problem with it because I have not had time to go through this.

Chairman

When legislation is published — it is not a requirement at this stage — there is an explanatory memorandum. There is so much here, we could have done with an explanatory memorandum on the amendments. We are not really sure what some of them are about as they merely amend sections of other Acts. An explanatory memorandum has probably not been produced and there is not normally a requirement to produce one at this stage. The Minister of State is here to give it to us verbally but if the members had it last night, they could have read through it. It is only an observation.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Last night would not have been much good.

Chairman

Last week then.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I mean last week.

Chairman

The point is well made and it is accepted. Some of these, not the details but the topics, were signalled on Second Stage. That is why we are sitting only until lunchtime today. It will be Tuesday next when we sit again and members will have ample time between now and then to be fully familiar with them. We will probably be receiving phone calls from members of the committee between now and then. The point is well taken. It is short notice.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendment No. 3 in the name of the Minister is a new section. According to the grouping schedule, amendments Nos. 3, 70, 93 and 101 are related and all will be discussed together.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—Section 2(1) of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) by the deletion of the definition of “Council Directive”;

(b) by the substitution of—

(i) the following for the definition of "the Birds Directive":

" ‘Birds Directive' means Directive 2009/147/EC9 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds;",

(ii) the following for the definition of "European Site":

" ‘European site' has the meaning given to it by section 177R of Part XAB;",

(iii) the following for the definition of "Habitats Directive":

" 'Habitats Directive' means Council Directive 92/43/EEC10 of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, amended by Corrigendum to Council Directive 92/43/EEC11 of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora amended by Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded12; Council Directive 97/62/EC13 of 27 October 1997 adapting to technical and scientific progress Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded14, and Council Directive 2006/105/EC15 of 20 November 2006 adapting Directives 73/239/EEC, 74/557/EEC and 2002/83/EC in the field of environment, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania;",

(iv) the following for the definition of "Major Accidents Directive":

" ‘Major Accidents Directive' means Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 199616 amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 16 December 200317;",

(v) the following for the definition of "planning application":

" ‘planning application' means an application to a planning authority, or the Board, as the case may be, in accordance with permission regulations for permission for the development of land required by those regulations;";

(c) by the insertion of the following definitions:

" ‘Act of 2001' means the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001;

‘Act of 2006' means the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006;

‘Act of 2007' means the Water Services Act 2007;

‘Act of 2008' means the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008;

‘Act of 2010' means the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010;

‘adaptation to climate change' means the taking of measures to manage the impacts of climate change;

‘allotment' means an area of land comprising not more than 1,000 square metres let or available for letting to and cultivation by one or more than one person who is a member of the local community and lives adjacent or near to the allotment, for the purpose of the production of vegetables or fruit mainly for consumption by the person or a member of his or her family;

‘anthropogenic' in relation to greenhouse gas emissions means those emissions that result from or are produced by human activity or intervention;

‘appropriate assessment' shall be construed in accordance with section 177R;

‘core strategy' shall be construed in accordance with section 10 (inserted by section 5 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010);

‘electronic form' means information that is generated, communicated, processed, sent, received, recorded, stored or displayed by electronic means and is capable of being used to make a legible copy or reproduction of that communicated information but does not include information communicated in the form of speech and such electronic means includes electrical, digital, magnetic, optical electro-magnetic, biometric, photonic and any other form of related technology;

‘environmental impact assessment' has the meaning given to it by section 171A;

‘Environmental Impact Assessment Directive' means Council Directive No. 85/337/EEC of 27 June 198518 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 199719, Directive 2003/35/EC20 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 and Directive 2009/31/EC21 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009;

‘flood risk assessment' means an assessment of the likelihood of flooding, the potential consequences arising and measures, if any, necessary to manage those consequences;

‘housing strategy' means a strategy included in a development plan under section 94;

‘landscape' has the same meaning as it has in Article 1 of the European Landscape Convention done at Florence on 20 October 2000;

‘Natura 2000 network' has the meaning assigned to it by Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Habitats Directive;

‘Natura impact statement' shall be construed in accordance with section 177T;

‘Natura impact report' shall be construed in accordance with section 177T;

‘service connection' has the meaning given to it by section 2 of the Act of 2007;

‘settlement hierarchy' has the meaning given to it by section 10(2C) (inserted by section 5 of the Act of 2010);

‘strategic development zone' has the meaning given to it by section 165;

‘strategic environmental assessment' means an assessment carried out in accordance with regulations made under section 10(5), 13(12), 19(4), 23(3), or 168(3) as the case may be;

‘substitute consent' has the meaning given to it by section 177A;".

This amendment updates the current definitions in the principal Act. As the committee will be aware, the start of an Act includes definitions. We are bringing clarity to what we mean by "adaption to climate change", "housing strategy", "electronic form", "anthropogenic", in other words, man-made climate change and a number of other Acts for the purpose of the planning Acts. It is all about bringing clarity and definition to phrases which could be fairly general, such as "housing strategy", but making them more precise so that, if it comes down to it, the planning authority, or, indeed, a court of law, can understand what we mean.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

It is difficult to figure out. What if we subsequently spotted a problem in the four amendments grouped together after this meeting?

Chairman

One may table an amendment on Report Stage. That is the option.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Is one allowed do that even though I might not have figured out what the amendment might be at this stage?

Chairman

If the topic is covered on Committee Stage debate, it can be.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Even if I covered it next week, I suppose that would be the case.

Chairman

Yes. Deputy Tuffy may table an amendment on Report Stage. I sense there will be a few amendments on Report Stage. Deputy Tuffy has that option.

Amendment agreed to.

SECTION 3

Chairman

Amendment No. 4 is in the name of Deputy Hogan. Under the grouping schedule, amendments Nos. 9, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 are related, amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and alternative to amendment No. 9, amendment No. 15 is related and an alternative to amendment No. 14. We will discuss amendments Nos. 4 and 9 to 17, inclusive, together. I gather Deputy Tuffy will formally move amendment No. 4.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, to delete lines 18 to 20.

Chairman

Does the Minister of State wish to comment on amendment No. 4 and related amendments?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Amendment No. 4 proposes deletion of the definition of the core strategy and all references thereafter. However, we see the evidence-based core strategy as a cornerstone of the Bill as it ensures a sound development plan which is the key to ensuring good planning at local level, and it is a central plank to zoning reform. Decisions taken at the development plan stage affect all other planning decisions and the proposed amendment is not accepted.

Chairman

I would advice members that acceptance of amendment No. 3 involves the deletion of section 3.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 3 deleted.

NEW SECTION

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Acceptance of amendment No. 5 involves the deletion of section 4.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.—Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (1) by—

(a) the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (i):

"(i) development consisting of the thinning, felling or replanting of trees, forests or woodlands or works ancillary to that development, but not including the replacement of broadleaf high forest by conifer species;",

and

(b) the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (i):

"(ii) development (other than where the development consists of provision of access to a public road) consisting of the construction, maintenance or improvement of a road (other than a public road) or works ancillary to such road development, where the road serves forests and woodlands;".".

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Amendment No. 5 relates to the issue raised by the farmers forestry group.

Chairman

It relates to land reclamation. Perhaps the Minister of State might read his briefing note relating to amendments Nos. 5 and 6 into the record and then Deputies will be in a position to comment.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

On foot of consultations involving my officials and their counterparts from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which took place since the Bill was passed by Seanad Éireann, it has been decided to retain the exemption relating to the construction of forest roads, which is currently contained in the planning consent system and which is provided for under section 4 of the principal Act. It is as simple as that. However, I can expand on the matter if necessary.

Chairman

Representatives from the IFA came before the committee to discuss this topic.

Deputy Johnny Brady

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. I congratulate the Minister of State and wish him well in his new post. He faces an arduous task but I know he will be well capable of meeting the demands placed upon him.

I welcome amendment No. 5. Anyone who lives in a rural area will be aware of the number of what are termed "rural roads" which run into and through areas of forestry. The IFA representatives expressed concerns that their members would be obliged to seek planning permission in respect of such roads. I welcome the change proposed in the amendment, particularly as so many farmers — an not just organisations such as Coillte — living in remote areas whose land is serviced by the roads to which I refer are becoming involved in forestry.

Chairman

The amendment refers to "development (other than where the development consists of provision of access to a public road)". Does this mean that the access to the public road will be exempt?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

No.

Deputy Johnny Brady

So the access will not be exempt.

Chairman

No, the access will not be exempt.

Deputy Johnny Brady

However, they will still not be obliged to seek planning permission.

Chairman

A person seeking to open a new access road will be obliged to seek planning permission.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

If the access road comes onto a public road, then permission is required. However, if a person is putting in place road infrastructure within a forest on his or her land——

Deputy Johnny Brady

A new road.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

——that will be fine.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Are existing roads exempt?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Yes.

Chairman

However, new access onto a public road is not exempt.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

That is correct. Requiring planning permission in this regard is right and proper because road safety issues arise with regard to where junctions are put in place, etc.

Amendment agreed to.

SECTION 4

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"and

(c) the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (i):

"(i) development consisting of the carrying out of any of the works referred to in the Land Reclamation Act, 1949, not being either works comprised in the fencing or enclosure of land which has been open to or used by the public within the ten years preceding the date on which the works are commenced or works of land reclamation or of reclamation of estuarine marsh or of callows within the meaning of that Act.”.”.

This amendment has been tabled on foot of the Labour Party being contacted by Coastwatch Ireland, which is concerned about trying to protect wetlands. Section 4(1)(l) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 provides that, for the purposes of the Act, certain works referred to in the Land Reclamation Act 1949 shall be exempted developments. Coastwatch Ireland agues that this is inconsistent with the goals of the Bill before us in respect of the management of flood risk and adaptation to climate change.

The amendment seeks to address one uncontrolled source of wetland by de-exempting land reclamation from planning permission. Its purpose is to aid the conservation of wetlands, the management of flood risk and climate change adaptation and to contribute to the halt of biodiversity. Existing legal exemptions are based on the Land Reclamation Act 1949. In 1949 the advent of climate change was not anticipated. It is only of late that the value of wetlands, and how they can be used in respect of managing flood risk, has been recognised. In addition, people also recognise the importance of trying to protect biodiversity.

If the amendment is accepted, it will bring Ireland more into line with the terms of the Ramsar Convention. It would also have a positive effect in the context of our implementation of the water framework directive. I would welcome the Minister of State's comments on the amendment. Will he indicate if he his going to accept it or if he intends to address the matter in a different way?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

The Land Reclamation Act 1949 authorises the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to carry out, with the agreement of the landowner, land reclamation, field drainage and other works for the improvement of agricultural holdings. There is a similar exemption in Class 11, Land Reclamation, in Schedule 2, Part 3, of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, except that in the case of exemption of the exemption in planning regulations, the works will be undertaken by the landowner rather than the Minister.

In general, exempted development is relatively small-scale in nature and it would, therefore, not be expected to create significant environmental impacts such as to warrant environmental impact assessment, EIA. Nonetheless section 4(4) enables the Minister to de-exempt classes of development in respect of the EIA directive. This is given effect by Article 9(1)(c) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001.

The issues of planning permission and environmental impact assessment in respect of field boundaries and land reclamation has been the subject of a European Court of Justice judgment in Case C66/06. In response to this judgment, my Department, in close consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has brought detailed proposals to the Commission which are designed to ensure that all relevant projects are subjected to screening for EIA on planning applications, as appropriate. The required measures are nearing finalisation but are not included in this Bill. If we had introduced the measures to which I refer today, I am sure the Deputy would have been the first to express concern with regard to——

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I would not be expressing concern. The point that was made earlier reflected the fact that we did not receive proper notice in respect of certain provisions that have only just been put forward. I have no difficulty with amendments being tabled. Is the Minister of State in a position to indicate whether a provision relating to the protection of wetlands will eventually be introduced?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

There will be a formal response by way of legislation or regulation in respect of the judgment handed down in Case C66/06. I am confident that this will provide greater protection in respect of wetlands. The Deputy is correct to point out that there has been a sea change in the context of the recognition of the value and importance of wetlands. When one considers the calls that were made in the past in respect of draining the Shannon, it is obvious that there has been almost a 180o turnaround and the people now recognise the importance of wetlands. The latter are extremely good in the context of flood absorption and with regard to protecting biodiversity, flora and fauna. I am of the view that there must be greater recognition of that fact and I intend to make provision accordingly.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

When will the formal response to which the Minister of State refers be forthcoming?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

My speaking note indicates that the relevant work is "nearing finalisation". I would certainly like legislative provision to be made sooner rather than later.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Will the Minister of State be consulting Coastwatch Ireland and similar organisations in respect of this matter?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Representatives from Coastwatch Ireland have spoken at conferences I have organised. I have great respect for the outstanding work it has done. My door is open to that and similar organisations.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

Over the years the Government has been encouraging small farmers in particular to get involved in forestry. Will this affect them in getting a small forestry under way? A forest when planted will be there for 15 years. A road going into it is not like a road into a private house, a factory or other development. It is only used to take the timber out eventually which only takes a matter of two or three days.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

No. I do not believe the amendment will affect that at all.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Where an existing gate goes into a field where a forest has been planted it will not affect that.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

No. This amendment certainly will not affect that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 4 deleted.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

"5.—Section 7(2) of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (a):

"(a) particulars of any application made to it under this Act for permission for development, for retention of development, for substitute consent including for leave to apply for substitute consent, or for outline permission for development (including the name and address of the applicant, the date of receipt of the application and brief particulars of the development or retention forming the subject of the application),”,

(b) by the substitution of the following paragraphs for paragraph (b):

"(b) where an environmental impact statement, remedial environmental impact statement, Natura impact statement or remedial Natura impact statement was submitted in respect of an application, an indication of this fact,

(bb) where applicable, the outcome of—

(i) a determination as to whether an environmental impact assessment is required, or

(ii) screening for appropriate assessment,",

(c) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (s):

"(sa) particulars of any enforcement notice issued under section 177O;”,

(d) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (x):

"(xa) particulars of any notice given under section 177B, decision of the Board under section 177D, or 177K, or direction served under section 177J or 177L,”.”.

This amendment is consequential on the new Part XA, the substitute consent procedure in Part XB, appropriate assessment of plans in proposed developments to ascertain whether, having regard to the habitats directive there would be an adverse effect on a European site. It leads from the substitute consent and the appropriate assessment, which should be welcomed by us all.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

"5.—Section 9 of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) in subsection (4) by the deletion of “have regard to” and the substitution therefore of “take into account”, and

(b) in subsection (5) by the deletion of “substantial” and the substitution therefor of “material”.”.

We believe the proposed words in this amendment would be stronger in their effect. It is very difficult to get a wording that will ensure that local authority members will act in a certain way. I am as much in favour of democracy as anybody else. The Minister of State has been investigating this issue and it is one the Green Party has raised. The words "have regard to" are not strong enough in trying to get councillors when voting for development plans to have regard to the various things they are supposed to have regard to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

One of the main strengths of this proposed legislation is that it joins up many of the dots in the planning process from the national spatial strategy down to local area plans. Amendment No. 8 proposes the deletion of "have regard to" and the substitution therefore of "take into account". The provision whereby planning authorities must have regard to the development plans of adjoining planning authorities is appropriate and therefore this amendment is not accepted.

It boils down to a legal discussion as to whether "have regard to" is weaker than "take into account". I believe that can be argued both ways. The term "have regard to" is fairly strong and "take into account" might be regarded as weaker. I am sure the Deputy has her legal advice and we have ours. My officials have not jumped at this opportunity. As I am sure the Deputy is aware, we are all in favour of a stronger more connected planning system.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I take the Minister of State's point because I am not sure whether "take into account" would be stronger. Ultimately, councillors vote and we cannot control or legislate for how they vote. It is an issue the Minister of State has raised himself. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, referred to his plans to replace the words "have regard to". I agree it is difficult. I only proposed the amendment to see what the Minister of State had to say.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SECTION 5

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, to delete line 36 and substitute the following:

"development plan under section 11 and 12.

(1D) The written statement referred to in subsection (1) shall also include a separate statement which shows that the development objectives in the development plan are consistent, as far as practicable, with the conservation and protection of the environment.",".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 7, lines 37 to 48 and in page 8, lines 1 to 4, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:

"(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) by the insertion of the following paragraphs after paragraph (c):

"(ca) the encouragement, pursuant to Article 10 of the Habitats Directive, of the management of features of the landscape, such as traditional field boundaries, important for the ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network and essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species;

(cb) the promotion of compliance with environmental standards and objectives established—

(i) for bodies of surface water, by the European Communities (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009;

(ii) for groundwater, by the European Communities (Groundwater) Regulations 2010;

which standards and objectives are included in river basin management plans (within the meaning of Regulation 13 of the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003);",

(ii) by the substitution of the following paragraphs for paragraphs (l) and (m):

"(l) the provision, or facilitation of the provision, of services for the community including, in particular, schools, crèches and other education and childcare facilities,

(m) the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht including the promotion of Irish as the community language, where there is a Gaeltacht area in the area of the development plan,

(n) the promotion of sustainable settlement and transportation strategies in urban and rural areas, including the promotion of measures to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and address the necessity of adaptation to climate change,

(o) the preservation of public rights of way which give access to seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank or other place of natural beauty or recreational utility, which public rights of way shall be identified both by marking them on at least one of the maps forming part of the development plan and by indicating their location on a list appended to the development plan, and

(p) landscape, in accordance with relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or any Minister of the Government relating to providing a framework for identification, assessment, protection, management and planning of landscapes and developed having regard to the European Landscape Convention done at Florence on 20 October 2000.”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 8, line 5, to delete "and".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 14 not moved.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 8, to delete lines 46 and 47 and in page 9, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following:

"(iii) any policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or any Minister of the Government in relation to national and regional population targets that apply to towns and cities referred to in the hierarchy,

(iv) any policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or any Minister of the Government in relation to national and regional population targets that apply to the areas or classes of areas not included in the hierarchy,".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 10, line 18, to delete "as the case may be."." and substitute the following:

"as the case may be.",".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 10, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

"(d) by the insertion of the following new subsection after subsection (5):

"(5A) Where required, a strategic environmental assessment or an appropriate assessment of a draft development plan shall be carried out.",

and

(e) by the insertion of the following new subsections after subsection (8):

"(9) Nothing in this section shall affect the existence or validity of any public right of way.

(10) No objective included in a development plan under this section shall be construed as affecting the power of a local authority to extinguish a public right of way under section 73 of the Roads Act 1993.".".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 10, before section 6, to insert the following new section:

"6.—Section 11 of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):

"(1A) The review of the existing development plan and preparation of a new development plan under this section by the planning authority shall be strategic in nature for the purposes of developing—

(a) the objectives and policies to deliver an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area of the development plan, and

(b) the core strategy,

and shall take account of the statutory obligations of any local authority in the area and any relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or of any Minister of the Government.",

(b) in subsection (2) by the substitution of the following paragraphs for paragraph (b):

"(b) indicate that submissions or observations regarding objectives and policies to deliver an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area of the development plan may be made in writing to the planning authority within a specified period (which shall not be less than 8 weeks),

(bb) state that the planning authority intends to review the zoning of the area of the development plan for the purposes referred to in subsection (1A)(a) and (b) and indicate that requests or proposals for zoning of particular land for any purpose shall not be considered at this stage.”,

(c) in subsection (4)—

(i) in paragraph (b), by the substitution of the following subparagraph for subparagraph (ii):

"(ii) summarise the issues raised in the submissions and during the consultations, where appropriate, but shall not refer to a submission relating to a request or proposal for zoning of particular land for any purpose.",

(ii) by the insertion after paragraph (bb) (inserted by section 83 of the Act of 2008) of the following paragraph:

"(bc) A report under paragraph (a) shall summarise the issues raised and recommendations made by the relevant regional authority in a report prepared in accordance with section 27A (inserted by section 14 of the Act of 2010) and outline the recommendations of the manager in relation to the manner in which those issues and recommendations should be addressed in the draft development plan.”,

(iii) in paragraph (d), by the substitution of “and any such directions shall be strategic in nature, consistent with the draft core strategy, and shall take account of” for “and any such directions must take account of”.”.

Amendment No. 18 proposes a new subsection (1A) which sets out the important context for the review of an existing development plan and preparation of a new development plan to ensure it is strategic in nature, particularly for the purposes of informing the development of the draft core strategy, while also ensuring due account is taken of the statutory obligations of any local authority in the area and any relevant policies or objectives of the Government or Minister of the Government.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

The Labour Party's amendment No. 19 proposes the deletion of a large chunk of section 6. We are concerned that the Bill as it stands will make the process of consultation on development plans more undemocratic and may prevent the making of public submissions, other than those relating to overall strategy. It is possible that the current wording of the legislation will prevent major local issues from being considered. If the Bill does not allow submissions on zoning to be made, it will force such discussions into a less open and transparent channel. I understand that section 6 as it stands is opposed by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation and the Local Authority Members Association, LAMA, which is the representative body of councillors. I am sure the Minister of State is aware of the submission made by LAMA, which has raised this issue in more detail. It believes members of the public should not be restricted when they attempt to make submissions on the preparation of draft development plans. Like the Labour Party, LAMA believes the proposals in the Bill are undemocratic in so far as they seek to restrict the type of submission that can be made on the development plan.

The Minister of State and I have both served on local authorities. One of the best forms of participation by councillors is their involvement in development plans and strategic development zones. It is not a question of opposing or supporting a particular development — it is a question of ensuring people can make an input into the drawing up of plans. In my experience, there is huge expertise out there. I am aware of plans that incorporate proposals that were made in public submissions. Many people, in addition to working in their day-to-day jobs, spend many hours putting together submissions. They may use their expertise as private sector engineers or project managers, for example, to make substantial and comprehensive submissions. That should be encouraged, rather than restricted in any way. I would have thought the Green Party would feel the same. I would like to hear the Minister of State's comments on the Labour Party amendment.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I agree with the Deputy that detailed submissions can and should be made. During the early stages of a plan, one should try to set out its big picture or vision by elaborating in a broad-brush scope on what one wants to achieve in the county or city in question. The detailed haggling on zoning or rezoning should take place at a later stage. In essence, we are saying that one paints the big broad-brush picture at the first stage before getting into the level of detail at a later stage. Rather than getting into a discussion on Mrs. Murphy's land, it is crucial for the elected members of each local authority to think about elements of the strategic picture such as where towns should develop and what areas of the county should be the focus for development at the next stage. They need to devote some time within that process to the broad brush and the big picture. There will be time for detailed discussions on zoning and rezoning at a later stage. That is all we are saying in this new section. We are not removing the possibility of detailed discussions on particular rezoning proposals. We are simply saying there should be a focus on the big picture at the first stage.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Communities are often most interested in the big picture. Communities are generally not interested in small rezonings. They might object to particular rezonings. It is not as if everybody has a piece of land that he or she wants to be rezoned. Most people are concerned with the bigger picture, which is the development of the community. I do not see a problem with allowing submissions to be made before the strategy is drawn up with broad strokes, as the Minister of State has said. One sometimes gets the best or most constructive ideas from the public. People have vision too — they are not just worried about small individual rezonings. If one allows people to make submissions before strategies are drawn up, one can get the best from them. The Minister of State needs to reconsider this proposal. I would have thought the Green Party would not want to stop people from making an input at an early stage. Perhaps the Minister of State can clarify whether he will look at this again.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

My officials are pointing out to me that the public can make submissions if it wants. However, county and city managers are not obliged to report back in detail on individual submissions. This Bill does not preclude the making of detailed submissions at an early stage. I am anxious to ensure managers are not tied up with having to spend an inordinate amount of time reporting back on every single proposal.

Deputy Johnny Brady

In my early days as a councillor, when one sat down to rezone land in towns and villages there was always a policy of starting in the centre and moving out. It was the other way around during the boom times, unfortunately. As the Minister of State suggested, Mrs. Murphy's field was more important than the village or the town. We need to examine this area to ensure we do not allow developments at every end of a town or village, with the town or village centre being allowed to die. I know the Minister of State will ensure that does not happen, as it did in the good times on too many occasions. I am aware of some beautiful villages where the centre is dead but there are big developments at both ends. That is wrong.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

The Minister of State said the public can make submissions to managers, but they do not have to report back on them. What about the democratic engagement that should take place between the public and councillors? I do not think there is a need to restrict such activity. If a city or county manager is doing something important like drawing up a development plan, we should not be worrying about how much hassle we cause him or her in terms of having to prepare reports, etc. Managers are appointed to serve the public, as well as the elected representatives of the public, as part of the democratic system. I will give an example. It is not exactly the same thing. I was a member of South Dublin County Council when it drew up the plans for the Adamstown strategic development zone. Although the work of the county manager was very intensive because of the manner in which the process was opened up to the public, a much better strategic zone planning scheme was ultimately drawn up. I do not understand why the Minister of State is proposing to place restrictions on the manner in which submissions or observations are handled. Why can the process not be opened out? Why can we not embrace what people have to say? Why do we not allow councillors to examine such submissions and treat them with the greatest seriousness? If all strategies are to be drawn up by planners and other local authority employees, there will be a shortage of democratic and proper engagement with the public. If we provide for real and genuine participation by the people, we will be able to sign up to things like the Aarhus Convention and the public participation directive. I do not see any reason for the Minister of State's stance, apart from relieving the manager of a little bit of hassle.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I assume, from my limited knowledge of the development plan process described by the Deputy, that one of the more important decisions taken as part of that process related to whether Lucan would expand to the north, the south, the east or the west. I appreciate that there were strategic policy considerations involving aspects of transport infrastructure such as the existence of a railway line in the area. The debate should focus on such considerations, rather than micro-management, in its early stage. I accept that micro-management is crucial and was very productive in the case of the Adamstown development.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

That is not what it is about. The public submissions on the Adamstown planning scheme did not relate to aspects of micro-management. The people had a vision.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

That happened after the strategic development zone stage had been reached.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

A widespread, time intensive consultation process took place before plans for the Adamstown scheme were drawn up. The planners involved went through a major learning curve and embraced the idea of members of the public being experts and having a vision of the bigger picture. I do not agree with the Minister of State's view that the role of members of the public is confined to making an input in the area of micro-management and smaller, specific issues. They are just as good at seeing the bigger picture.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

That is all the more reason to focus on the bigger picture at an early stage and deal in greater detail later with the smaller submissions.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Submissions made before strategies are drawn up are just as valuable as others. Restrictions should not be imposed on public submissions.

Chairman

According to my reading of the amendment, a facility is available for members of the public to make submissions in writing within a period of eight weeks. A division has been called in the Dáil. As pairing arrangements are not in place, we must suspend the meeting to vote in the House.

Sitting suspended at 11 a.m. and resumed at 11.25 a.m.

Chairman

We were discussing amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Examining the section again and taking into account objections to it made by the lies of LAMA, it is restricting the way submissions can be initially made. It states that submissions shall not relate to a request or a proposal for the zoning of specific land for any purpose. That is a big restriction. It seems to come from the idea that people who make submissions about zoning are doing so because it is related to their plot of land, but there are other examples. Somebody could make a submission stating that there is a need for green belts, or that there should be high amenity zoning for a particular area, or that there should be consolidated zoning for a village and so on. The wording in the section seems to restrict unduly the subject of a submission. Why do that at all? It should be left open to any type submission, so that everything is transparent when reported by the manager and the councillors can see what submissions have been made.

I do not see why people cannot put in submissions that cover the broad issues but also particular aspects. There has been an ongoing battle for years in my constituency to try to get land zoned in the Liffey valley for housing. It comes up in almost every development plan and it has been defeated nine times. Sometimes it has not come to a vote, it is dropped well before that, although other times it has come to a vote. It should be possible to deal with these because strategic zoning issues are involved. If housing is to be consolidated in particular areas, if specific areas are to be protected or if there is enough land zoned, those considerations are relevant to the initial strategy that will be drawn up. There is no justification for this, it is a judgmental provision about those who talk about zoning. I do not accept it.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

There is a clear template for development plans. Before the manager considers anything, he must invite submissions and the council would hold meetings to find out the views of the general public. Having gathered all that information, the manager considers it and prepares a draft plan, which then goes before the council before being put on public display.

Councillors do not have much power to change anything in the development plan. While the manager has independent advisors, the councillors do not have access to such technical advice. It should be included in the Bill that councillors should have free technical and professional advice in the preparation of development plans so that when they make a case for zoning or dezoning, it would stand up to legal or professional challenge.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

In my 12 years as a councillor, this issue came up repeatedly. I always took the view that the officials had to sit down with the elected representatives and respond to them. On a practical side, that worked — planning officials were willing to discuss plans with councillors. It would come to a head when the legal advisor to the council would give an opinion to the manager. I found that councillors could ask to see that advice. I faced that battle many times in the local authority system and usually I got good advice.

The three issues identified by Deputy Tuffy — the green belt, the Liffey Valley and the expansion of the town — are all strategic in nature and the manager would take cognisance of them. In my experience in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, we got over 500 separate zoning requests within the development plan process at that early stage. Does the Deputy want the manager and his team to spend his time going through each of those rezonings one by one or to focus on the housing strategy for the county, the green belt strategy and the transport strategy? At that early stage it is all about the broad brush, be it the Liffey, the Dargle, an increase in size for Lucan, Shankill being built towards the Luas or the sea. These are strategic issues that are very important and that is where the development plan should focus in the early stages.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

By allowing the manager to make decisions that disregard submissions excluded under the new provision while including others gives the manager too much power. It is not transparent because councillors will never get to see some submissions and will not know why the manager excluded or disregarded certain things. The Minister of State is wrong. If I was to make a submission saying the land at Edmundsbury beside the Liffey valley should not be rezoned for housing, it could be excluded under this section. That is a key issue in the overall strategy to protect certain areas from housing or other development. Some areas might be zoned for residences for senior citizens. The Minister of State is making a judgment that there is something wrong with people making submissions about zoning. Sometimes the submissions are not good but sometimes they are and they make a valid point. It should always be permissible, however, to make submissions and the manager should then have to report transparently, without excluding some things but not others. This could drive landowners to deal under the counter, whereby their dealings are not transparent or open and the county manager cannot report on such dealings to councillors.

The public is a general mass and general submissions should be allowed. I understand the argument that the new section does not prevent community groups from making submissions but zoning is the key issue. A point can be made about land being green belt or agricultural, such issues fall within the rezoning heading and they could be excluded. We are giving too much power to the manager to exclude some of the submissions. The councillors will never know why those have been excluded. He might do it because he does not want the hassle or his interpretation is too broad. We should allow all submissions, the manager should make a report and that would be the end of it. If someone wants to submit that land should be zoned for housing or for the community, so be it. That is related to the broad brush strategy. Zonings will be done on a development plan, it is not an aspirational document, that is where its power lies.

The manager could say his broad brush strategy is to have no more land zoned for so many years, he is allowed to draw up reports referring to zonings but the public cannot make submissions in that regard. The process then moves into the backrooms and I cannot see how that can be accepted.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Members will have an opportunity at the right stage, when the detailed of the plan is being discussed. At the early stage——

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

The early stage is just as important as the later stage.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

It is important at an early stage to get the general framework right. Submissions that focus on zonings at a strategic level will be considered at that early stage. Councillors will see all submissions, they are all part of the public record. It is not the case that a submission that is made will be thrown in the bin, they will all be visible.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

How can they be seen? Will people have to make freedom of information requests?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

No, they will be visible.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

They will not be reported on by the manager and he will have made decisions not to include things without discussing them with councillors. The idea that they must search for excluded submissions is unacceptable.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

They will be there at the public counter.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

They must go to the public counter, the county manager does not present them to them. That is not democracy.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Sorry, elected representatives will get a copy of all the submissions.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Even those that are in breach of the paragraph (b)?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Yes, it is just that the manager does not have to report on all the submissions.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

He should have to report on all of the submissions.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

From my own experience, there were mixed feelings with a four foot pile of submissions arrived at one's home, certainly in the case of the Dublin city plan in the early 1990s.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

A person could get that anyway. The Minister of State is judging some submissions to be bad compared to others. It is not that clear-cut. Submissions on zonings could relate to local communities saying that some lands should not be zoned for housing but a school should be build there. They should be able to say that at an early stage. Such matters are strategic just as much as they are particular.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I agree with the Deputy and believe the manager would see them in that light.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

No, but one cannot simply believe the manager would do so. One must make sure of the manager and I believe that as it stands, this provision gives too much power to the managers.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I respect the Deputy's views.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

Would the Minister of State accept that providing councillors with proper independent legal and professional advice would prevent much of this, because councillors are lobbied on various matters, such as rezoning etc.? Proper advice would state that it was wrong to do that. In the past, managers were completely reluctant to afford councillors the legal advice for which the planning laws allow. I understand that under the Planning Acts, it is allowable to provide such advice to councillors. However, while managers would provide councillors with the council's legal advice, I believe they should be provided with legal advice that is independent from that received by the council.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I consider an official within a local authority to be a public servant and I stress both those words. They are public servants, not the manager's agents, and there is an onus on them under law to be answerable to the elected members.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

Does the Minister of State accept that the plan is the members' plan?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Yes. I consider the law to be quite well set up for that and there is nothing to prevent elected representatives from producing and agreeing on their own plan. The officials of the planning authority are there to assist the elected representatives in the drawing up of a plan. My view is that they are there to serve the public and the elected representatives.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

After this amendment has been voted on, can my amendment No. 19 be tabled again?

Chairman

We are dealing formally with amendment No. 18 now and then will come to amendments Nos. 19 and 20. We will decide on the Minister's amendment now and will only vote on amendment No. 18, if there is a vote, before coming formally to amendment No. 19.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.

Section 6 deleted.

SECTION 7

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive, 27 and 28 are related and may be discussed together be agreement.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 11, to delete lines 21 to 23 and substitute the following:

"(II) thereafter, issues raised by other bodies or persons,",".

Amendment No. 21 is a technical amendment to section 12(4) of the principal Bill to delete the reference referred to in subsection (1), given that it is already captured by the introductory paragraph, specifically in lines 18 and 19, through the phrase "made under this section".

Chairman

Is Deputy Tuffy satisfied with this explanation? Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 27 and 28 are related. The Minister of State has stated that essentially, these are technical amendments.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Okay.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 12, line 6, to delete "paragraphs (aa) to (ad)” and substitute “paragraphs (aa) and (ae)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 12, to delete lines 19 to 46 and substitute the following:

" "(aa) The planning authority shall determine if a strategic environmental assessment or an appropriate assessment or both such assessments, as the case may be, is or are required to be carried out as respects one or more than one proposed material alteration of the draft development plan.

(ab) The manager, not later than 2 weeks after a determination under paragraph (aa) shall specify such period as he or she considers necessary following the passing of a resolution under subsection (6) as being required to facilitate an assessment referred to in paragraph (aa).

(ac) The planning authority shall publish notice of the proposed material alteration, and where appropriate in the circumstances, the making of a determination that an assessment referred to in paragraph (aa) is required, in at least one newspaper circulating in its area.

(ad) The notice referred to in paragraph (ac) shall state—

(i) that a copy of the proposed material alteration and of any determination by the authority that an assessment referred to in paragraph (aa) is required may be inspected at a stated place or places and at stated times, and on the authority’s website, during a stated period of not less than 4 weeks (and that copies will be kept for inspection accordingly), and

(ii) that written submissions or observations with respect to the proposed material alteration or an assessment referred to in paragraph (aa) and made to the planning authority within a stated period shall be taken into account by the authority before the development plan is made.

(ae) The planning authority shall carry out an assessment referred to in paragraph (aa) of the proposed material alteration of the draft development plan within the period specified by the manager.”,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments No. 24 is in the Minister's name. As amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are related and are alternative to amendment No. 24, amendments Nos. 24 to 26, inclusive, will be discussed together.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 13, paragraph (e), lines 2 to 37, to delete subparagraphs (i) and (ii), and substitute the following:

"(i) by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (a):

"(a) The members of the authority shall, by resolution, having considered the manager’s report, make the plan with or without the proposed amendment that would, if made, be a material alteration, except that where they decide to accept the amendment they may do so subject to any modifications to the amendments as they consider appropriate, which may include the making of a further modification to the alteration and paragraph (c) shall apply in relation to any further modification.”;

and

(ii) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (b):

"(c) A further modification to the alteration—

(i) may be made where it is minor in nature and therefore not likely to have significant effects on the environment or adversely affect the integrity of a European site,

(ii) shall not be made where it relates to—

(I) an increase in the area of land zoned for any purpose,

or

(II) an addition to or deletion from the record of protected structures.",".

Chairman

I invite the Minister of State to comment on this group of amendments.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Amendment No. 24 deletes section 12(10)(c) regarding the higher approval threshold of a two thirds majority of the members. The Government has listened carefully to the arguments, presented by Senator Coffey in particular, opposing the imposition of this higher threshold, such as introducing the possibility of a blocking minority of members leading to difficulties and uncertainties in making a development plan. Furthermore, given that members no longer will be able to make zoning amendments that have not been subject to public consultation, there is no substantial or real added value to the two thirds voting amendments and therefore this proposal now is being dropped. The amendment also clarifies that a further modification to the alteration may not be made where it is likely to have significant effects on the environment or adversely affect the integrity of a European site.

While there were many internal discussions about this issue, concerns were raised in the Seanad and the Government has listened to those concerns. In fairness to the Opposition, the Government has adopted its proposal.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

To clarify, I presume this proposal deals with the issue raised in my amendment No. 25? Is that its purpose?

Chairman

Yes. It is on the same topic.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

As a general point, while the Labour Party obviously will examine this proposal, just in case it does not deal with this issue adequately, it appears as though it does and I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the point raised in the Seanad. As a former Senator, I make the point that it demonstrates the importance of legislative scrutiny and the role the Seanad plays in that regard.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

To clarify, the Minister of State has proposed that it no longer will require two thirds of the council's members?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

A simple majority.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 14, line 6, to delete "4 months" and substitute "4 weeks".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 14, lines 8 and 9, to delete "4 months" and substitute "4 weeks".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 8

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 29 to 31, inclusive, 33 and 35 are related. As amendments Nos. 32 and 35 are related to and are alternatives to amendments Nos. 31 and 33, respectively, amendments Nos. 29 to 35, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 14, to delete lines 26 to 28 and substitute the following:

"(II) thereafter, issues raised by other bodies or persons,",".

I consider this to be a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 14, to delete line 42 and substitute "plan.",".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 15, to delete lines 11 to 23 and substitute the following:

"(d) in subsection (6)—

(i) by the substitution of the following paragraphs for paragraph (a):

"(a) Subject to paragraphs (aa) and (ae), the members of the authority, having considered the proposed variation and manager’s report may, as they consider appropriate, by resolution, make the variation which would, if made, be a material alteration, with or without further modification or they may refuse to make it and paragraph (c) shall apply in relation to any further modification.

(aa) The planning authority shall determine if a strategic environmental assessment or an appropriate assessment or both such assessments, as the case may be, is or are required to be carried out as respects one or more than one proposed modification that would, if made, be a material alteration of the variation of the development plan.

(ab) The manager shall, not later than 2 weeks after a determination under paragraph (aa), specify such period as he or she considers necessary following the determination as being required to facilitate an assessment referred to in paragraph (aa).

(ac) The planning authority shall publish notice of the proposed material alteration, and where appropriate in the circumstances, the making of a determination that an assessment referred to in paragraph (aa) is required, in at least one newspaper circulating in its area.

(ad) The notice referred to in paragraph (ac) shall state—

(i) that a copy of the proposed material alteration and of any determination by the authority that an assessment referred to in paragraph (aa) is required may be inspected at a stated place or places and at stated times, and on the authority’s website, during a stated period of not less than 4 weeks (and that copies will be kept for inspection accordingly), and

(ii) that written submissions or observations with respect to the proposed material alteration or an assessment referred to in paragraph (aa) and made to the planning authority within a stated period shall be taken into account by the authority before the variation of the development plan is made.

(ae) The planning authority shall carry out an assessment referred to in paragraph (aa) of the proposed material alteration of the draft development plan within the period specified by the manager.”,”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 32 not moved.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 15, paragraph (d), lines 25 to 43, to delete subparagraph (ii) and substitute the following:

"(ii) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (b):

"(c) A further modification to the variation—

(i) may be made where it is minor in nature and therefore not likely to have significant effects on the environment or adversely affect the integrity of a European site,

(ii) shall not be made where it refers to—

(I) an increase in the area of land zoned for any purpose,

or

(II) an addition to or deletion from the record of protected structures.",".

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendment No. 34 cannot be moved because it is a substitute for amendment No. 33, which has already been agreed.

Amendment No. 34 not moved.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 15, after line 43, to insert the following:

"(e) in subsection 8(c), by the substitution of “the Board, the relevant regional authority and,” for “the Board and”,

(f) by the insertion of the following new subsection after subsection (12):

"(13) An appropriate assessment of a draft variation of a development plan shall be carried out in accordance with Part XAB.".".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 16, to delete lines 16 to 28 and substitute the following:

" "(bb) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), a local area plan shall be made in respect of a town with a population that exceeded 1,500 persons (in the census of population most recently published before a planning authority makes its decision under subparagraph (i)) except where—

(i) the planning authority decides to indicate objectives for the area of the town in its development plan under section (2), or

(ii) a local area plan has already been made in respect of the area of the town or objectives for that area have already been indicated in the development plan under section 10(2).",".

This amendment provides that a local authority must opt for a statutory plan for towns and villages with populations between 1,500 and 5,000 residents but will be given the flexibility to decide whether these are best dealt with through the county development plan or a specific local area plan. We have listened carefully to the concerns about whether the preparation of local area plans in areas below 5,000 should be made discretionary by the raising of the mandatory population threshold for preparing local area plans from 2,000 to 5,000 persons. Significant centres of population may not have a local area plan prepared for those areas in future, including where a local area plan has been prepared previously. A population of 1,500 is the CSO threshold for defining an urban area and it is proposed that for towns of between 1,500 and 5,000 persons, planning authorities must prepare a local area plan as per section 18 or indicate the zoning objectives for the town in the development plan when it is next reviewed. We do not want to tie the hands of the planning authorities, we want to provide some flexibility.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Does that mean the limit of 2,000 no longer applies? What does this mean in practice? I will use Dublin as an example because the villages may be consolidated in terms of their development. Must a development plan be prepared unless the discretion applies?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

We had proposed that if the figure was over 2,000, a plan had to be prepared. We are raising the figure to 5,000. It is up to the council to decide what to do with towns between 1,500 and 5,000. It gives wiggle room to the council to decide whether it needs a detailed local area plan for a village. Instead of laying down a rigorous procedure, it provides the councillors and the manager with more power.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

A statutory development plan for villages is welcome. I am not sure about the cut-off point of 1,500 to 5,000. It should be left to local authorities to decide what villages should have statutory development plans.

In previous plans, local authorities designated small villages as settlements. Within that area, landowners were allowed to undertake particular investment in respect of sport, recreation, housing and light industry. However, under current Government plans that designation has been removed and the land is reverting to agricultural use. That is unfair to those who have bought land within the settlements and have had their land devalued substantially. They are at a great disadvantage.

I am not referring to large-scale developers because they do not get involved in developing land in small villages. I am referring to small farmers and small businesspeople who got involved. Under statutory development plans, there will be a restriction on the number of houses built in these villages over a period of years. If we restrict development, that would curtail what will happen in the village. Most of these villages do not have sewerage and may not have water and other facilities. In the past, developers provided this facility where otherwise it would not exist. I have not read this Bill in detail but I would not like to see small, rural villages put back in the dark ages where they cannot have running water and sewerage facilities because of restrictions we impose.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Plans always provided for projected populations but the essence of this Bill is to work out exactly how much development is needed and where the focus should be. In the past there were broadbrush rezonings. An example was brought to me by one of Deputy Fitzpatrick's colleagues. I will not refer to the town name or the county. Everything for three miles in every direction was rezoned as far as a motorway. A supermarket chain proposed to develop a supermarket at the exit ramp off the motorway, killing off the town centre. If we zone everything, towns can be killed off. That is one of the best things about this Bill. It asks how we make our towns and villages viable.

The traders visited me with this colleague of Deputy Fitzpatrick and explained that they were about to lose 100 years of a business that was carefully built up. If there is new development, it should take place in the correct position. That is the kernel of this Bill. It is always up to the council to decide on this and the proposal gives further discretion to the council. If there was a settlement strategy in this village, there is nothing to stop the manager saying where the settlement should be. We should get away from the over-ambitious Celtic tiger years where everything was to treble or quadruple in size and everyone will be happy. We must have an air of reality about this.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

Is there a directive directing managers to delist settlements? In Kildare, the settlements are being revoked and the land is going back to agricultural use. I am concerned about ordinary people like ourselves who have been doing development. They understood they would receive planning permission but that has been knocked on the head. I would not like to see all of the zoned land included in the settlement but I would like to see a smaller amount of the land used for settlement. Settlements should have been allowed to remain.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I have seen headlines above scare stories about only three houses being allowed in an area. I do not see anything of that in this Bill. I see an element of consistency in respect of the type of growth we will get and where we want it to occur. This provides wiggle room because the core strategy anticipates greater growth than is projected. With regard to rezoned land out the road, the bank has already made a judgment call on whether development will take place. Changing the colour on the map will not have an impact on this.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

What about the relationship with the bank?

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

It is important to hear the view of country representatives. My constituency is dotted with small villages. We do not have major settlements, with our biggest town having a population of 5,000. It is important to have a proper development plan for villages with 300 to 500 people.

My experience with many of these villages is that there is no infrastructure. We must try to get to the point where when villages are developed, infrastructure must be developed simultaneously. Settlements are different as they can be at a crossroads where three or four houses have been built in the past. There is a need to expand on that concept as settlements are very important in country areas. A house may be built close to where a bus passes or another form of transport service is available. This is not to take away from the one-off house in the country, which is different altogether. We have not reached that stage yet and we might discuss it later.

Villages, particularly those in very rural areas, must be targeted for infrastructure in forming development. I do not want to see sprawling development of villages, some of which has already taken place, and perhaps we are just in time to check that expansion. This is not to say a parkland development could not be removed from a town centre, where there may be sites of half an acre or larger, and we may have to consider such scenarios also.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

We are all familiar with small villages where an apartment block appeared ten years ago half a mile outside the centre with no connection to the village itself. What we want to see through the planning process is some level of certainty for the village and the county as to what will happen. There is a cost to anticipating where growth will happen; for example, there is the expense of putting in mains drainage or a footpath. The problem is if land is zoned in all directions, the manager has an obligation to provide a footpath two miles out the Farranfore road, for example, or the Letterkenny road. At a time of very scarce resources we should bring back a little certainty to where the development should take place. It might be a town of 5,000 people, a village of 800 people or a settlement of 100 people.

The emphasis in the strategy brings a note of realism and an element of certainty as to where the manager and the councillors will spend money on improvements of benefit to the existing community and those who become part of it in future.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

I will comment on a few of the issues raised. It is undoubtedly correct to develop from the centre out because if we have learned anything from England it is that there are major towns there where one cannot buy a loaf of bread in the centre. We do not want that to happen here and although there was a tendency towards this type of development, people are now changing their minds, which is good.

The market will ultimately decide the development in villages, and that has cooled over the past two years. I do not foresee much development happening in the near future because there is an over-supply of houses currently. There are lands already zoned and I do not know about the process of dezoning land. We could be going down a slippery slope as people bought zoned land — a product with certain expectations — and a number of people not in NAMA are waiting for two, three, four or five years to develop it. If a local authority dezones such land and devalues the property, will the local authority be open to being sued through the courts? I am concerned that this is a strong possibility.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I see dezoning as the last resort as there are two other options. Under the 2000 Act, the landowner cannot apply for compensation. The best alternative to dezoning is for the planning authority to identify a phasing for future development. For example, the land beside the town centre may be the first phase and the land slightly out the road would be in a second phase. Land further away would make up the third phase. That is happening in Clare within the county development plan.

The zoning could also be changed. Land zoned for the town centre could be changed to residential, for example, and as a result the zoning does not have to be completely wiped from the map. Land can be zoned to a different use or a phasing strategy can be used. Under the 2000 Act there is no option for compensation. The Deputy may recall that in the 1970s and 1980s significant compensation went out to land owners when a development plan changed.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

This is exactly what I was trying to get at a while ago with regard to parkland development. Land zoned in a village could be used for lower density development in a parkland setting. There could be a house to the half acre or even an acre. There could be four or five houses on four or five acres in a parkland scheme. Sewerage schemes would not be necessary in such development. Rather than dezoning we should consider such development.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

That is a fair point. The higher density three-storey developments should be at the centre of a town and as one goes away from the centre the density should fall and there should be much more greenery.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I have not seen any three-storey buildings in any villages in west Cork.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

The Deputy knows much more about west Cork than I do and it has been a while since I travelled that way.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

A big problem is that local area plans were being used to zone land when they should not have been. The issue of zoning should be totally restricted to development plans. In Dublin I have never seen a local area plan stipulate increased development. Local area plans have been used in Dublin but in a different sense. It has more to do with planning an area for development that has already been set out in a strategic development zone, etc.

I do not see why the 1,500 figure is better than the 2,000 figure. These decisions must be left to local authorities and if they make a bad decision, there should be checks and balances in that regard. I do not see why it is bad to have a local area plan for under 1,500 houses rather than 2,000. There is too much interference with local democracy. Local area plans should be used in a much more positive sense than they seem to have been in some areas. I do not know enough about the issue but if the process is being used to decide how much housing is developed, this is wrong.

The point was made about dezoning land. We should be able to dezone land because if money can be made from land being rezoned, why should it not be the other way around? People talk about the market but it works both ways and people take their chances. We must move away from the idea that somehow, zoning belongs to one person who owns the land who can go off with pockets full of money. It should be possible to work for the common good and change the zoning of land one way or another.

We must move away from the idea that the only value to be given to land is to rezone it for residential development. We need land for food production and we need parks and forestry for tourism. Many other uses for land have an economic value and can have economic activity associated with it. We need a broader perspective on the matter as there was too much emphasis on people having their land rezoned. We lost the character of rural Ireland because of much of the zoning which happened. We should consider the matter again.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I agree. I am a major fan of local area plans, which benefit developers, landowners and communities and introduce a little more certainty to the process. No one is ruling out the preparation of a local area plan for even the smallest settlement. That is still allowed under section 18(1). All we are saying is that if an area is of a certain size, a local area plan must be introduced.

I agree with the concerns of members about zoning and rezoning. Rezonings were being thrown out like snuff at a wake as part of the excesses of the Celtic tiger years. It is time to introduce a touch of realism. I share members' concerns about the loss of land for food production; in north Dublin we have lost some of the best horticultural land in Ireland to suburban housing. The focus of this Bill is to ensure we have the right kind of development in the right places. A good local area plan will identify where housing will be and whether it will be one, two or three-storey housing. It will identify places for shops and community sports grounds. The fellow who wants to build the shop knows where the best place is, and the family living across the road know that an office block will not be built across from them. There is an element of certainty, which is what we all want in the development plan. It is what the developer wants.

I would not rule out down-zoning where there is excessive rezoning. We all know areas within our own counties where things went a bit mad at some stage over the last ten or 15 years. However, there are other options as well.

Deputy Johnny Brady

I agree with what everyone has said here. When I was elected to the county council in 1974, some of the villages in south Meath had populations of a couple of hundred; this area is now one of the most populated in County Meath. One village that had a population of 50 or 60 now has 10,000 or 15,000 people. That is all wrong. However, our end of the county suffered because there was no development at all. Small-scale developments are important to some of our villages and small towns, and I hope such development will continue.

I agree with the Minister of State's point. That is what I was referring to earlier when I spoke of development here and development there. In some villages where development took place, there is a bit of footpath each side of the road for about half a mile outside the village, and none back in to where the churches and schools are. This is totally wrong and should not be tolerated. It has happened in the last ten or 12 years.

The planners who allowed the building of apartments in small towns were very wrong. In view of the way we are crucified in rural Ireland in terms of trying to get planning permission for young couples, with conditions imposed on the type of house that can be built, it is ridiculous that a mile or two up the road in a small town they can build what they like. There are some desperate-looking buildings. It is very unfair. It is all right in Dublin, Cork or Limerick, but in the smaller towns apartment building should be totally cut out because it is wrong, and the social problems arising from it are unreal.

I agree with the Minister of State that over-zoning has taken place in many of our small towns and villages, but I agree with Deputy Fitzpatrick that we must allow development in some small towns. As he says, if there is no incentive for the 40 or 50 houses to get a water scheme or a small sewerage scheme, these villages will be dying on their feet.

I agree with the comments of the Minister of State about big supermarkets or shopping centres close to motorways. Many of our smaller towns and villages are dead because of these shopping centres. Too many of them were allowed in every county. I know villages, as Deputy Scanlon says, where one cannot get a bottle of milk or a newspaper. This is wrong. There are villages where the county council has built beautiful houses but the inhabitants cannot get a loaf of bread. They must walk four or five miles. Many people who are given council houses do not have transport. Councils should consider this before they start building houses in some areas.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I recently had the pleasure of visiting Castlepollard in County Westmeath.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Part of my constituency.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

It is a beautiful part of the world. Whether one calls it a town or anything else——

Deputy Johnny Brady

A small town.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Yes. It has developed relatively well. There is new housing and a beautiful green in the centre of the town which should be a beacon for tourists from all corners of Ireland and beyond. It still has pubs, shops and a church. The three legs of the stool are there. There is some magical new development there. I might quibble with bits of detail, but the fact remains that there is good private housing, good local authority housing and a great school with a green flag outside it and trees around it. It has all the ingredients. We would all like to see development such as this taking place. It has worked well. A few miles outside the town one does see houses, but most of these are houses of people who are working in the countryside, on farms or on the land. There is a nice balance.

One of the things we want to do once this Bill is passed is to move ahead with local area plan guidelines. We must consider best practice and apply it to everywhere in Ireland, showing councillors, officials and the public how best to establish a framework for how an area might develop.

Deputy Johnny Brady

It is a pity I did not know the Minister of State was in the area or I would have met him. Did he go out to Fore?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I have yet to see the seven wonders of Fore, unfortunately. I went to Loughcrew; I do not know if there is an opera there every weekend, but I was very impressed with what was put on two weeks ago.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Another beautiful part of the country. Fore is a historic area, as is Loughcrew. When mentioning Castlepollard we must pay tribute to the Leader of the Seanad, Senator Cassidy.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Strangely, I met Deputy Bannon down there by accident. I thought I would bump into Senator Cassidy but I did not.

Deputy Johnny Brady

He should have been there. He should have been on the far side of the bog.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I know. Chairman, I digress.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

Could I have half an hour of the committee's time to sell my own constituency as Deputy Brady has done?

Chairman

On Tuesday morning.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

I wish to return to the issue of local area plans. I welcome the Minister of State's indication that the Department will shortly be setting out guidelines for local area plans. I am not a developer and I have never had anything to do with housing, but I feel sorry for people in settlements. This land is not zoned land, so a developer cannot go in and build houses. There is no guarantee that anyone could build houses, a factory or a playground on it. However, it has a particular status which is a little better than agricultural land.

I refer to Kildare, because this is the area I know about. These villages should be allowed to retain the status they have. We should not allow their status to be downgraded , as is currently happening under county development plans. Some of these villages were to be revitalised, which meant that water and sewerage would be brought to them, but this has not happened because of the recession; if it had, some of the work would have been done. If guidelines for local area plans are to be developed, the Department should give some indication that it will allow villages that now have settlement status to retain that status until the new guidelines are issued.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman: Amendment No. 37 cannot be moved as it is an alternative to No. 36, which has been agreed to.

Amendment No. 37 not moved.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 are alternatives and may be discussed together.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 16, lines 30 to 39, to delete subparagraph (iii) and substitute the following:

"(iii) by the substitution of the following paragraphs for paragraph (c):

"(c) Subject to paragraphs (d) and (e), notwithstanding section 18(5), a planning authority shall send a notice under section 20(3)(a)(i) of a proposal to make, amend or revoke a local area plan and publish a notice of the proposal under section 20(3)(a)(ii) at least every 6 years after the making of the previous local area plan.

(d) Subject to paragraph (e), not more than 5 years after the making of the previous local area plan, a planning authority may, as they consider appropriate, by resolution defer the sending of a notice under section 20(3)(a)(i) and publishing a notice under section 20(3)(a)(ii) for a further period not exceeding 5 years.

(e) No resolution shall be passed by the planning authority until such time as the members of the authority have:

(i) notified the manager of the decision of the authority to defer the sending and publishing of the notices, giving reasons therefor, and

(ii) sought and obtained from the manager——

(I) an opinion that the local area plan remains consistent with the objectives and core strategy of the relevant development plan,

(II) an opinion that the objectives of the local area plan have not been substantially secured, and

(III) confirmation that the sending and publishing of the notices may be deferred and the period for which they may be deferred.

(f) Notification of a resolution under paragraph (d) shall be published by the planning authority in a newspaper circulating in the area of the local area plan not later than 2 weeks after the resolution is passed and notice of the resolution shall be made available for inspection by members of the public during office hours of the planning authority and made available in electronic form including by placing the notice on the authority’s website.”,”.

Amendment No. 38 amends subsection (19)(1) to provide that a local authority may defer the review of a local area plan for up to a further five years, increasing the lifetime of an local area plan to a maximum life of ten years but only in circumstances where the manager certifies that the LAP would remain consistent with the development plan, the objectives of the LAP are not substantially secured and the period for which notice to review the LAP has to be deferred. The public would also have to be notified of any deferment by the planning authority.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

How many reviews can take place within the lifespan of a plan?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

The plan has to be reviewed every six years but one does not want the planning staff to be running after themselves to review LAPs all the time either. We allow for the LAP to extend for ten years, in certain circumstances, carrying over through two plans.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

In most local authorities there are planners designated to deal with the development plan who do not do any other type of work, as far as I am aware. It is forward planning. A review should happen more often than every six years to give everybody a chance to see what is happening and if there is something in the plan that needs to be changed it can be done without waiting for six years. I would like to see a review taking place more often during the lifetime of a plan, if that is something the Minister of State might consider

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I would approach this in the opposite way from some of the Deputy's colleagues. One can argue both ways. If there is a relatively steady county development plan or local area plan——

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

All I am saying is that where a need for review is identified, a plan would not necessarily have to run its full term but could be brought in without——

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I have just been reminded that the period can be less, that it is not necessary to wait until the end. One can move things along.

Chairman

I thank the Minister of State.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 39 not moved.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are related.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 16, lines 40 to 45 and in page 17, lines 1 and 2, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute the following:

"(b) in subsection (2) (amended by section 8 of the Act of 2002)—

(i) by the insertion of ", its core strategy, and any regional planning guidelines that apply to the area of the plan" after "objectives of the development plan", and

(ii) by the insertion in paragraph (b) of “the objective of development of land on a phased basis and,” after “the area to which it applies, including”,”.

This amendment is a tidying up of the equivalent provisions in the Bill which place the LAP in the context of the core strategy of its parent development plan and the relevant regional planning guidelines.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 17, lines 13 to 17, to delete paragraph (e) and substitute the following:

"(e) by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (4) (inserted by Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Environmental Assessment of Certain Plans and Programmes) Regulations 2004):

"(5) An appropriate assessment of a draft local area plan shall be carried out in accordance with Part XAB*.

(6) There shall be no presumption in law that any land zoned in a particular local area plan shall remain so zoned in any subsequent local area plan.".".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 11

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 42 to 45, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 17, lines 19 to 21, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:

"(a) in subsection (1) by the substitution of “consult the Minister and the public before” for “consult the public before”,”.

This amendment is technical, to place the Minister together with the wider public, as opposed to local residents, in regard to consultation by a local authority in preparing, amending or revoking a local area plan.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 17, to delete line 28 and substitute the following:

" "(I) subject to paragraphs (e) to (r),”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 17, to delete lines 36 to 48 and in page 18, to delete lines 1 to 29 and

substitute the following:

" "(e) Where, following consideration of the manager’s report, it appears to the members of the authority that the draft local area plan should be altered, and the proposed alteration would, if made be a material alteration of the draft local area plan concerned, subject to paragraphs (f) and (j), the planning authority shall, not later than 3 weeks after the passing of a resolution under paragraph (d)(ii) (inserted by section 9 of the Act of 2002), publish notice of the proposed material alteration in one or more newspapers circulating in its area, and send notice of the proposed material alteration to the Minister, the Board and the prescribed authorities (enclosing where the authority considers it appropriate a copy of the proposed material alteration).

(f) The planning authority shall determine if a strategic environmental assessment or an appropriate assessment or both such assessments, as the case may be, is or are required to be carried out as respects one or more than one proposed material alteration of the draft local area plan.

(g) The manager shall, not later than 2 weeks after a determination under paragraph (f) specify such period as he or she considers necessary following the passing of a resolution under paragraph (d)(ii) as being required to facilitate an assessment referred to in paragraph (f).

(h) The planning authority shall publish notice of the proposed material alteration, and where appropriate in the circumstances, the making of a determination that an assessment referred to in paragraph (f) is required, in at least one newspaper circulating in its area.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 20, to delete lines 7 to 9 and substitute the following:

"(q) A further modification to the material alteration—

(i) may be made where it is minor in nature and therefore not likely to have significant effects on the environment or adversely affect the integrity of a European site,".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 12

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 46 to 50, inclusive, and Nos. 52, 54 and 69 are related and will be discussed together. Amendment No. 49 is an alternative to amendment No. 48.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 20, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

" "(a) The National Spatial Strategy shall be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas.” ”.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Amendment No. 46 proposes that the national spatial strategy shall be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. The strategy is Government policy and is, therefore, a matter for the Government. This amendment is not accepted. Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 seem to oppose the Government's effort through this Bill to bring consistency between the national spatial strategy and the regional planning guidelines and, accordingly, cannot be accepted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 20, to delete lines 43 to 46 and substitute the following:

" "(a) any policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or any Minister for the Government, or any policies contained in the National Spatial Strategy in relation to national and regional population targets;”,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 21, to delete lines 4 to 10 and substitute the following:

" "(j) landscape, in accordance with relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or any Minister of the Government relating to providing a framework for identification, assessment, protection, management and planning of landscapes and developed having regard to the European Landscape Convention done at Florence on 20 October 2000;

(k) the promotion of sustainable settlement and transportation strategies in urban and rural areas, including the promotion of measures to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and address the necessity of adaptation to climate change;

(l) such other matters as may be prescribed.”,

and

(c) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (3):

"(3A) An appropriate assessment of draft regional planning guidelines shall be carried out in accordance with Part XAB*.".".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 21, before section 13, to insert the following new section:

"13.—Section 24 of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of the

following subsections for subsection (6):

"(6) (a) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (e), following consideration of submissions or observations under subsection (5), and subject to section 25, the regional authority shall, subject to any amendments that it considers necessary, make the regional planning guidelines.

(b) The regional authority shall determine if a strategic environmental assessment or an appropriate assessment or both such assessments, as the case may be, is or are required to be carried out as respects one or more than one proposed material amendment of the draft regional planning guidelines.

(c) The director of the regional authority, not later than 2 weeks after a determination under paragraph (b) shall specify such period as he or she considers necessary as being required to facilitate an assessment referred to in paragraph (b).

(d) The regional authority shall publish notice of any proposed material amendment, and where appropriate in the circumstances, the making of a determination that a strategic environmental assessment or an appropriate assessment or both such assessments, as the case may be, is or are required, in at least one newspaper circulating in its area.

(e) The notice referred to in paragraph (d) shall state—

(i) that a copy of any proposed material amendment and of any determination by the authority that an assessment referred to in paragraph (b) is required may be inspected at a stated place or places and at stated times, and on the authority’s website, during a stated period of not less than 4 weeks (and that copies will be kept for inspection accordingly), and

(ii) that written submissions or observations with respect to the proposed material amendment or an assessment referred to in paragraph (b) and made to the regional authority within a stated period shall be taken into account by the authority before the regional planning guidelines are adopted.

(f) The regional authority shall carry out an assessment referred to in paragraph (b) of the proposed material amendment of the draft regional planning guidelines within the period specified by the director of the regional authority.

(6A) Following the consideration of submissions or observations under subsection (6), and subject to section 25, the regional authority shall make the regional planning guidelines with or without the proposed material amendments, subject to any minor modifications considered necessary.

(6B) A minor modification referred to in subsection (6A) may be made where it is minor in nature and therefore not likely to have significant effects on the environment or adversely affect the integrity of a European site.".".

This amendment provides for the substitution of amendments for modifications in section 24(6) of the Act in order to ensure that following consideration of submissions or observations on draft regional planning guidelines the regional authority will, as may be necessary, be able to make amendments to the regional planning guidelines. The amendment also provides for a regional authority to determine if a strategic environmental assessment or an appropriate assessment or both such assessments are required to be carried out on the proposed material amendment of the draft regional planning guidelines in line with the relevant EU directives as well as a second consultation period to allow public scrutiny where either or both have to be carried out.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendment No. 52 was discussed with amendment No. 46.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 21, before section 13, to insert the following new section:

"13.—Section 27 of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):

"(1) A planning authority shall ensure, when making a development plan or a local area plan, that the plan is consistent with any regional planning guidelines in force for its area.",

and

(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (5):

"(6) The Minister may make regulations concerning matters of procedure and administration to be adopted by a regional authority in the performance of its functions relating to the preparation of a draft development plan, making of a development plan or variation of a development plan, as the case may be.".".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 53 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 13 be deleted."

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Are we discussing amendment No. 52?

Chairman

Yes, but we are still on the section so the Deputy may speak on that.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

The wording "is consistent with" is new, as in "a planning authority shall ensure in making a development plan or local area plan, that the plan is consistent with any regional planning guidelines in force for its area". Am I right in thinking that is new?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

We are moving away from the wording "have regard to".

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

My only concern is that it will be very difficult to police. Unless one went to court to adjudicate on whether something was consistent it would be very difficult. Councillors will still vote and one cannot legislate for that. One can say "have regard to" and people can make up their own mind but "consistent with" is much more demanding. My difficulty is that regional development plans are not prepared in a democratically accountable way because there is not the proper democratic input one would get in the drawing up of development plans.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

They have to be approved by the elected members of the regional authority.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

People are appointed to regional authorities from local authorities. I was a member of the Dublin Regional Authority for some time. In reality, it was only a talking shop and is not the same as having people directly elected to an authority. I wonder whether it is implementable. A regional authority does not carry the same democratic accountability as an elected council. The regional planning guidelines are largely drawn up by officials and then rubber stamped. I refer to the Dublin regional planning guidelines. I was a member of a related sub-committee which only had a couple of members and the officials controlled the process. We held a half hour meeting, at which we were shown certain material. It was not drawn up in the same way as a development plan. The same transparency and accountability were not evident. It is not implementable to propose that a planning authority should ensure a development plan is consistent with regional planning guidelines, as various interpretation issues arise. It is not possible to legislate for what is in people's minds when they vote a particular way. Regional planning guidelines do not provide for the same democratic input as development plans.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I have always maintained that this is a way of joining the dots on planning between the national spatial strategy and the county or city development plan. Ireland needs a joined-up planning system. There is a strong 20-year national spatial strategy which feeds into regional planning guidelines. There are also in place county and city development plans and, in many cases, local area plans. Essentially, we want to line up in a row all of the ducks to have the various plans in agreement with one another and flowing naturally. In a sense, we are strengthening the status of the regional planning guidelines by providing that a local area plan and a county or city development plan must be consistent with the regional planning guidelines in force for a given area to achieve coherence between the hierarchy of plans. The Deputy's amendment which we discussed only one hour ago was concerned with securing greater consistency rather than simply inserting the phrase "having regard to". If I am not mistaken, the Deputy was arguing for greater links and joined-up thinking.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

We continue to use the words "take account of" instead of "have regard to". I have tabled the amendment because someone suggested it and it is worth airing the issue. I am unsure whether there is much of a difference between the phrases "have regard to" and "take account of". However, saying something must "be consistent with" is akin to suggesting the idea of a person examining something and making up his or her own mind is being removed. I suspect it will be difficult to police and ensure consistency, unless the Department begins to interfere with local democracy, which would not be a good idea, as there are other ways to deal with the matter. One should allow for democracy at local level, and if something is wrong, there should be checks and balances and some way to reverse a bad rezoning decision. The words "be consistent with" could tie people up in knots. Legal cases could arise if it was suggested councillors did not do something that was "consistent with". The concept of local democracy could be interfered with. There might have been a better way to address this matter. I am unsure whether this is the magic bullet, for which the Minister of State is looking.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I can appreciate the view of the Minister of State who is trying to get two bodies, the local authority and the regional authority, to work together. We do not have that problem in my neck of the woods; the problem is associated more with cities. We do not have a regional authority. However, the idea that there be such a body has been mooted. Many regional authorities comprise people serving in local authorities, including councillors. I foresee problems, therefore, in lining up this proposal. How does the Minister of State propose to implement it? How does he see it working?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I see the national spatial strategy as an important document. It sets the broad parameters of where we wish the hubs to be located and where we wish development principally to take place. This feeds in to where we wish to locate educational institutions, provide for significant industrial development and major activity. This will help the IDA and other large semi-State companies to make decisions and to put in place the big picture. This does not apply only to Dublin. It could equally apply to counties Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon. For example, at regional level there must be thinking about what happens in Sligo and neighbouring towns. What are to be the main road links? Where should the main focus in terms of the creation of new jobs be? This feeds in at a regional level to the county development plan. It is not about casting plans in stone but brings in an element of consistency from national to local policy which will lead to better decision making and a saving to the State in terms of infrastructural costs.

Consistency between plans is what I am arguing for. I take Deputy Tuffy's point that county councils are more democratic than regional authorities because authorities is made up of appointees. I served time on a regional authority also and realise its members are not directly elected. In an ideal world one should be, but that is a matter for local government and regional reform. It is important to remember that regional planning authorities do not zone lands.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Who has the final say if their views differ? Is it the local or regional authority?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

The county council zones land.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

There is more to it than zoning.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I agree. On a more serious note, the regional authority comes up with a broad strategy on where the focus should be placed, whether it be on particular towns within three counties or the promotion of activity along a road corridor at particular places. At regional level, the strategic plan is placed in context. This helps to integrate and co-ordinate city and county development plans. Often, there is a disjunction between what the city council and county council are doing. In a sense, the regional authority should knock heads together, perhaps not so much in Dublin but in Limerick city and county and Galway city and county. It is important that these bodies and others work in tandem on common goals and objectives.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

County Kildare encompasses neither a hub nor a gateway. Listening to the Minister of State, I am concerned that he will denude the county of industry but especially housing. I fail to imagine how the regional planning guidelines can be wound down to small local communities in County Kildare and how we can get communities to grow. I envisage the county manager arguing that, in accordance with regional planning guidelines, a house cannot be built in a given area because it would be in a green belt. For example, I live in a very small village, Four Cross Roads, which has a shop, a post office and a pub. The community came together and developed on a brownfield site a community industry which now employs 100 people. If that proposal were to be the subject of a planning application today, one would not have a hope in hell of being given planning permission.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

If there is a shop, a post office and a pub, one is well placed to allow a certain amount of development within that settlement.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

On that point——

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

There may also be churches.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

There is also the question of landfill sites.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Deputy Fitzpatrick made a very good point. One will be immediately directed to a town in which land has already been zoned. In effect, one is depriving the small settlements to which we refer of the opportunity to conduct their own business by having this industry in place. The matter should be examined. Many industries start on a very small scale, employing three or four people, and then expand. They are of huge importance to the shop, pub and church. If one suggests doing anything, one is immediately directed to a bigger town or settlement or, in some cases, a city.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

This week the new regional planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area were adopted. They encompass the mid-east economic strategy which covers counties Kildare, Wicklow and Meath. I am not familiar with the nuts and bolts, but I imagine the strategy seeks to provide employment in the kind of settlements to which the Deputy refers.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

It is slightly different. That is the problem.

Deputy Johnny Brady

I see the difference in other parts of County Meath. We are aligned more with counties Cavan, Monaghan and Westmeath, but, unfortunately, County Meath is seen as forming part of the greater Dublin area and we are suffering because there are small towns and villages. When I visit Oldcastle, Ballynacree, Crossakiel, Moyle and other places, I find a large number of people are employed there. They all started in back gardens, some of them in a shed in a cottage garden. Their enterprises have expanded and employ hundreds of people today. That could not happen today, as it all happened without planning permission. The people concerned would not have a hope of setting up in these areas today. It is sad, but that is the position.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

One has to get the high capacity centres working right to inform where the FÁS office, the HSE office and larger functions will be located. Unless that is in place at a strategic level, it is difficult to provide support for the person who has set up a business in his or her backyard and enable him or her to thrive.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 14

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 21, to delete lines 29 to 32 and substitute the following:

"(a) any policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or any Minister of the Government in relation to national and regional population targets, and the best distribution of residential development and related employment development with a view to—”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.

SECTION 17

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 23, line 37, to delete "consider" and substitute "take into account".

This amendment deals with the same issue. I do not see a huge difference in the words used. People sometimes ask me to table amendments and the issues are worth considering. Does the Minister of State have any thoughts on the amendment?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

The amendment proposes to substitute the words "take into account" for "consider" as regards the policies and objectives of the Minister contained in the section 28 development plan guidelines for planning authorities when preparing and making a draft development plan. The word "consider" is wholly appropriate, as the consideration is in the context of the statement the planning authority is obliged to append to the draft development plan or development plan, as the case may be, which must demonstrate how the planning authority has implemented the policies and objectives of the Minister contained in ministerial guidelines issued under section 28 of the planning Acts. Equally, planning authorities must detail the reasons such policies and objectives were not implemented. On that basis, I do not accept the amendment.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

It seems the Minister of State is using different words and phrases in the Bill such as "consistent", "consider" and "have regard to". The same wording should be used throughout the Bill.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

In the past few months I have come to a much greater understanding of the reasons lawyers are paid the sums they receive. I have had my own internal robust discussion of the specific wording to be used. I have to acknowledge the work everyone in the office has done in choosing the form of words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 17 agreed to.

SECTION 18

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 56 to 60, inclusive, and Nos. 62 to 66, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 24, to delete lines 14 to 43 and substitute the following:

" "31.—(1) Where the Minister is of the opinion that—

(a) a planning authority, in making a development plan, a variation of a development plan, or a local area plan (in this section referred to as a “plan”) has ignored, or has not taken sufficient account of submissions or observations made by the Minister to the planning authority under section 12, 13 or 20,

(b) in the case of a plan, the plan fails to set out an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area,

(c) the plan is not in compliance with the requirements of this Act, or

(d) if applicable, having received a submission prepared under section 31C or 31D (inserted by section 95 of the Act of 2008) that a plan of a planning authority in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) is not consistent with the transport strategy of the National Transport Authority, the Minister may in accordance with this section, for stated reasons, direct a planning authority to take such specified measures as he or she may require in relation to that plan.

(2) Where the Minister issues a direction under this section the planning authority, notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter I or II of this Part, shall comply with that direction and the Manager or elected members shall not exercise a power or perform a function conferred on them by this Act in a manner that contravenes the direction so issued.

(3) Before he or she issues a direction under this section, the Minister shall issue a notice in writing to a planning authority no later than 4 weeks after a plan is made.

(4) The notice referred to in subsection (3) shall, for stated reasons, inform the planning authority of—

(a) the forming of the opinion referred to in subsection (1),”.

The amendment provides for consolidation of the discretionary powers of direction of the Minister to ensure consistency between a development plan, variations of a development plan or local area plan and the transport strategy of the National Transport Authority. When section 18 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 is commenced, the old section 13 of the principal Act, including the amendments inserted by section 92 of the Dublin Transportation Authority Act 2008, will be substituted by the new provision.

This is a technical amendment to consolidate within section 31 the intent of section 92 of the Dublin Transportation Authority Act 2008, namely, the provisions relating to ministerial discretionary powers of direction where a submission is received by the Minister from the National Transport Authority that a draft development plan or a variation to a development plan within the greater Dublin area is not consistent with the National Transport Authority's transport strategy. As I outlined, these powers were originally provided by section 92 of the Dublin Transportation Authority Act 2008 which commenced on 4 January 2010.

Furthermore, in the light of the Minister's new powers of direction for local area plans, the amendment has also been updated to include local area plans and the National Transport Authority role in making, amending or revoking local area plans within the greater Dublin area, as provided for in section 95 of the Dublin Transportation Authority Act 2008, namely, inserting a new section 31E in the principal planning Act.

To summarise, it is about joined-up thinking in transport and planning matters. For far too long there has not been enough consistency between transport and planning policies. The amendment establishes a dialogue between these two areas to give us greater consistency.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

To my knowledge, the National Transport Authority has no democratic accountability. Again, the Minister of State is asking for consistency with something that has been developed by a body which is totally unaccountable. Is the National Transport Authority up and running?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Yes, it is.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Is it accountable to the committee? I do not think it is. We are giving all these powers to unelected bodies and then asking the democratic institutions to be consistent in their strategies. I wonder about the wisdom of that. Where will the mayor for Dublin fit in, if there is one?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I share the concerns about unelected bodies but the NTA has been given a robust mandate to come up with not only a strategy for 2030 but to look beyond that to 2050. That is the thinking needed in transport, instead of a stop-start approach with short-term horizons. My personal view of the mayor's role is that she would chair the Dublin regional committee of the National Transport Authority but that is being worked on in detail in consultation with the Ministers for Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and Transport.

This is good news, particularly the vast investment we are making in transport infrastructure being linked to strategic planning objectives.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I can see where the Minister of State is coming from and support him regarding larger urban areas but how will this affect development in rural areas for one-off houses? Must transport be available before development can take place?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

This is just in the greater Dublin area. Knocking heads together on transport is another day's work, and the Minister for Transport and I have spoken on many occasions about getting the Department of Education and Science, the HSE, the Department of Transport and Bus Éireann to work together. Sin scéal eile.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

We welcome that. I can see the merit of linking transport to infrastructural development.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

The Minister for Social Protection would never forgive me if I did not emphasise the central role of the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs in the provision of rural transport.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Before this legislation was introduced, was the situation that there had to be "regard to" the strategy as opposed to being consistent with it?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I do not think the DTO's work formed part of the mainstream 2000 Act.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Was there anything similar?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

No, it is only since the DTA Act 2008. It takes that transport Act and makes planning legislation reflect it.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

It is a stretch to say the phrase "consistent with" allows councillors to make up their own minds. This can work either way. There are plans for metro west, which may or may not happen, but that is part of the strategy and it could be argued that land should be rezoned all along that corridor. If it was not zoned, would that not be inconsistent with the strategy? The emphasis should be on local councillors making up their own minds about things. If they do something wrong, it should be possible to intervene then. That wording, "consistent with", might cause unforeseen difficulties.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I take the point about metro west but I am thinking of projects such as the western rail link heading to Claremorris and on to Sligo. What is the alignment of that corridor and how will the development plan reflect where stations might be? There would be a good discussion of where development should take place and how a reservation for a road or a railway would be put in place. That would be a regional discussion where there would be competency at county or local level but the big picture would be crucial in making the county plan reflect the national transport priorities.

Chairman

If I am reading the amendment correctly, it follows from the discussion we had at this committee dealing with the ministerial directives. It says in section 3, "Before the Minister issues a direction under this section, the Minister shall issue a notice in writing to a planning authority not later than four weeks after making a plan." The Mayo county development plan caused the argument that the ministerial directive came out of the blue and there was no advance warning. There was no consultation process or negotiations. The Minister gives advance warning as a direct result of the report from this committee.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

It is a consultative process.

Chairman

Yes, it was a major improvement to the directive procedure and the committee should be proud of that.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I am mindful of that report.

Chairman

It is reflected here. There is much here that can be missed out and I wanted to highlight that.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 24, line 52, to delete "area, and" and substitute "area,".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 25, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following:

"(c) those parts of the plan that by virtue of the issuing of the notice under this subsection shall be taken not to have come into effect, been made or amended under subsection (6), and

(d) if applicable, requiring the planning authority to take measures specified in the notice to ensure that the plan is in compliance with the transport strategy of the Dublin Transport Authority.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 25, to delete lines 5 to 9 and substitute the following:

"(5) The Minister shall furnish a copy of the notice referred to in subsection (3) to the manager and Cathaoirleach of the planning authority, where there are regional planning guidelines in force for the area of the planning authority, to the regional planning authority concerned and, where relevant, to the Dublin Transport Authority.".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 25, to delete lines 10 to 19 and substitute the following:

"(6) (a) Notwithstanding section 12(17), 13(11) or 20(4A), a plan shall not have effect in accordance with those sections in relation to a matter contained in the plan which is referred to in a notice under subsection (3).

(b) If a part of a plan proposed to be replaced under section 12, 13 or 20 contains a matter that corresponds to any matter contained in that plan which is referred to in a notice under subsection (3), that part shall not, save where subsection (17) applies, cease to have effect in respect of that matter.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 61, 67 and 68 are related and will be taken together.

Amendment No. 61 not moved.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 26, to delete lines 14 to 16 and substitute the following:

"reasons—

(i) to issue the direction referred to in subsection (4)(b) with or without minor amendments, or”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 27, lines 1 and 2, to delete "subsection (13)(c)” and substitute “subsection (13)(d)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 27, line 7, to delete "subsection (13)(c)” and substitute “subsection (13)(d)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 27, lines 13 and 14, to delete "subsection (13)(c)” and substitute “subsection (13)(d)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 27, line 27, to delete "subsection (13)(c)” and substitute “subsection (13)(d)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 27, lines 37 and 38, to delete all words from and including "A planning" in line 37 down to and including "subsection (16)" in line 38 and substitute the following:

"As soon as may be after a direction is issued to a planning authority under subsection (16), the planning authority shall make the direction so issued".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 68 not moved.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.

The select committee adjourned at 1 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 22 June 2010.