I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the Final Draft Revised National Planning Framework, as approved by the Government on 8th April 2025; a copy of which was laid before Seanad Éireann on 22nd April 2025 together with the Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report, the Post-Consultation Natura Impact Statement, the Post-Consultation Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Report, and the Appropriate Assessment Determination.
It is great to be in the Seanad this evening. I spent four and half good years here as a Member, so it is always a pleasure to be back in the Seanad.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss and seek approval for the final draft revised national planning framework, which was approved by Government on 8 April 2025. The finalisation of the approval process for the revised framework plays a key role in delivering on our broader objectives across Government. It will allow the significant policy changes and other factors that have taken place since 2018 to be integrated into the planning system.
I will give a brief overview of the revision process, which began formally on 20 June 2023, when Government gave approval to commence the process of undertaking the first revision of the national planning framework in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. The revision process has provided for wide-ranging consultation and engagement with stakeholders and the public. It included the reconvening of the planning advisory forum and the establishment of an expert group, a cross-party departmental group and an environmental assessment technical steering group.
The draft first revision to the NPF and the associated environmental assessments were published in July 2024 and a national public consultation ran from 10 July to 12 September 2024. An information campaign, including broadcast, print digital and social media, also ran to raise awareness of the consultation process and to encourage the public to engage with the draft first revision. A total of 272 submissions were received during the draft consultation stage.
On 5 November 2024, Government agreed to progress and publish a draft schedule of amendments to the first revision of the NPF arising from the public consultation. On 8 April 2025, Government approved a final draft revised NPF following the conclusion of the environmental assessments.
One of the key drivers of the revision process related to the need to reflect updated population and housing projections further to census 2022 and subsequent demographic changes. The revised NPF strategy sets out the need to plan for a projected population of 6.1 million people in Ireland by 2040 under the baseline scenario provided by the ESRI and a possible requirement to plan for a high migration scenario of 6.3 million by 2040.
Taking into account pent-up demand, the strategy sets out a need to plan for the delivery of approximately 50,000 additional housing units per annum nationally to 2040. This will result in the need to plan for more housing delivery than the capacity currently available within development plans across the country.
The strategy sets out the spatial planning policy approach to accommodating projected population growth to 2040 in a manner that contributes to delivering balanced regional development with an even split of growth between the eastern and midland region and the southern, northern and western regions combined, based on a city-focused and compact growth pattern of development that will reverse the patterns of sprawl that have been a feature over recent decades. In terms of identifying locations for further growth and housing development at scale through transport-orientated development - a new element of the strategy - it is critical that planning for these opportunities commences immediately and is aligned with phased infrastructure investment.
Another critical element of this revision is the inclusion of new policies regarding renewable energy development, in particular, the inclusion of regional renewable electricity capacity allocations. This is to facilitate the accelerated roll-out and delivery of renewable electricity infrastructure for onshore wind and solar generation development in addition to the supporting grid development intended to support the achievement of the national targets set out in the climate action plan. The spatial planning system can play a key role in mitigating against climate change through the reduction of carbon emissions in sectors such as electricity and transport through the combined integration of land use and transport planning to support the use of public transport, cycling and walking. Areas of focus such as district heating, biomethane and the circular economy are also flagged for particular attention. The NPF revision will ensure that our planning system can adequately reflect these important Government objectives.
The revised NPF also acknowledges the clear link between climate action and the potential for investment generation and employment, including in connection with the offshore wind industry and green technology. The NPF highlights a need to plan for jobs and employment at locations that are integrated with the planned distribution of population and aligned to the development of the green economy and smart specialisation strategies that allow all regions to focus on their economic strengths.
The final draft revised NPF continues to support the overall development of urban and rural areas and deliver strengthened and diversified rural communities consistent with Government policy. Regarding supports for rural towns and villages, the draft revised NPF has been updated to take account of the town centre first policy approach and other Government initiatives such as the rural and urban regeneration funds, croí cónaithe and the continuation of the village renewal scheme and the vacant homes action plan.
Regarding the rural economy, the circular bio-economy, rural enterprise, the agrifood sector and diversification are strongly supported within the plan. The development of tourism and other industries suited to rural areas is addressed throughout the document aligned with the Department of Rural and Community Development's Our Rural Future policy, which is the Government's blueprint for rural development. Single rural one-off housing will also continue to be supported in line with programme for Government commitments. The final draft revised NPF continues to reflect the commitment to achieve the objectives set out in the 20-year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010 to 2030 and retains the policy support for the implementation of language plans in Gaeltacht language planning areas, Gaeltacht service towns and Irish language networks.
Approval for the NPF revision will ensure that the most up-to-date policy position becomes formally embedded as national planning policy with which the regional strategies and local-level plans are required to be consistent. The revised NPF will provide the basis for the review and updating of regional strategies and local authority development plans to reflect matters such as updated housing figures, projected jobs growth and renewable energy capacity allocations, including through the zoning of land for residential, employment and a range of other purposes.
The plan-led approach to development further enhanced under the Planning and Development Act 2024 will continue to provide the basis for the identification and prioritisation of infrastructure delivery. The enhanced delivery of key infrastructure projects is a core objective of Government and a particular focus has already been placed on identifying blockages and ensuring they can be removed. In this regard, priority actions from the programme for Government are being progressed, including the establishment of the new housing activation office. This office will enable infrastructure to support public and private housing development while providing solutions to infrastructure blockages. It will draw on a new towns and cities infrastructure investment fund established to support strategic investment in housing-orientated infrastructure.
Noting the urgency associated with the scaling up of housing delivery, the Minister, Deputy Browne, and I have already signalled the intention to issue a policy direction to local authorities following finalisation of the revision process to enable rapid implementation of the updated planned housing requirements, by local authority area, into the current development plans. This will give a clear direction to be followed by planning authorities in updating their plans allowing for all stakeholders in the planning system to have clarity on the location and scale of development proposed to meet our housing need across the country. I look forward to hearing the contributions of Senators this evening as we discuss a critical piece of policy, namely, the NPF and its revision.
I welcome the Minister of State and wish him the best of luck in his role. Hopefully, he will bring the energy he brought to the Senate when we had housing debates to his current position. Fianna Fáil supports this motion to approve the revised NPF. This framework is set to create the conditions necessary for accelerated housing delivery across Ireland. This approval follows a thorough revision process of the NPF that has been ongoing since June 2023.
This milestone decision sets a clear direction for Ireland's growth and development up to 2040. It establishes a policy environment designed to unlock potential and address critical priorities, particularly in housing, infrastructure and climate action. The revised NPF will directly inform the broader Government policy agenda. It will guide the actions of a wide range of public and private entities, including home builders, the renewable energy sector, infrastructure agencies and domestic and international investors. Ireland is in dire need of a significant shift in housing delivery. With the revised NPF and the new Planning and Development Act being implemented this year, we are ensuring that the essential conditions for accelerated delivery of new homes are embedded within our planning system.
The need to accelerate housing delivery is paramount and this is where I wish to make some observations and express concerns regarding the NPF, particularly the implication roadmap that will follow this publication. This roadmap will contain the prescribed details necessary for effective execution. As a Senator who participated throughout the entire process of the current NPF, I vividly recall my engagement with Niall Cussen, my concerns around the population target, the population distribution, its misalignment of infrastructure availability, the necessity for local flexibility and the top-down approach in adopting county development plans. I will raise some of the issues I raised then that are pertinent to the discussion today. These concerns must be addressed in the roadmap to ensure successful implementation. I was a member of the Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage when the first NPF was introduced. The significant difference between the NPF and the national spatial strategy was that it was put on a legal footing. This was significant. After that, the Office of the Planning Regulator was set up. This was the enforcer of the NPF. This has led to complications and possibly over-prescribed figures and too much of an onus on a core strategy and a table within a development plan.
I have no issue whatsoever with the general policies within the NPF. The strategy of compact growth whereby we want to try to achieve 40% nationally - 50% in the cities and 30% elsewhere - is a good policy. However, that policy is protracted and takes a lot longer. We are dealing with brownfield sites and we could be dealing with sites with environmental issues. It takes a lot longer to deliver on that. Perhaps when the Government is looking at reviewing its housing policy, it might look to see what is necessary to actually deliver that because that is where we would create a sustainable environment.
In the area of population, I recognise that the revised NPF projects an additional 950,000 in population growth up to 2040. This does not correlate with objective No. 42, which is to deliver 50,000 houses per annum per year to 2040. The average household size according to the census was 2.74. If we even take a lower figure of 2.4, that is a population of 1.68 million. There is a significant difference there and we need to try to focus in on how we address that. I already accept that the roadmap can introduce the headroom space, which in the current one is 50%. However, even if we look at the 50% that is in the current one, in my constituency and in Leinster, the population exceeded in 2022 what was projected in 2026. We cannot allow that to happen again because that has unintended consequences, specifically in Wicklow. I will probably focus in on that later. Around that population, we must get it right. Let us not make the development plan so prescriptive that it is preventing the delivery of housing.
With regard to the distribution of population, Niall and I had a humdinger on this many years ago and I still cannot accept it today. Fine, I fully understand and appreciate we need our levels - level 1, level 2 and level 3 towns. However, there is absolutely no point in allocating 32% of a county's population growth to a level 1 town that does not have the infrastructure required to deliver that population growth, while in the same county there are other towns that have the infrastructure available and that can deliver but are capped because they are at a much lower percentage population growth. We need to focus in and take account, and maybe leave some discretion for our local councillors to manipulate those figures. In Wicklow, we have now refused five significant planning applications for residential developments, two of which, sadly, were on core strategy, because they exceeded the population target of that town. In Wicklow town now, where we are, we have refused two planning applications on R2 lands despite all the R1 lands having been completed on the very same site. We are currently now doing a variation of the Wicklow town environs plan, which is only allowing us to grow the population by an additional 3,000 until 2031. I can tell the Minister of State right now that those houses are already being built, so before we even adopt this new plan, our population figures are out of date. In fact, when we adopted our 2022 county development plan, 16 of our 21 towns were already exceeding this 2031 target. We need to make sure that does not happen again. We need to make sure we allocate population growth to where we have the infrastructure today. There is no point, while we have it, waiting ten years and then using it. The other example was in Arklow in Wicklow. We just spent €149 million on a brand new wastewater treatment plant. It increased the population growth by another 22,500. The NPF is telling us we can build 80 houses per year for the next ten years. At that rate of going, it will take us 154 years to reach the capacity of the new wastewater treatment plant. That is the example. We should be able to take the population from where we cannot deliver it into areas where we can deliver it.
With regard to the whole area of democracy, this has completely removed the power of the councillors. We have left them with absolutely no flexibility. I will revert back to the Wicklow town plan that has just been amended. Councillors proposed 14 amendments to that county development plan. Eight of them were to zone R2 lands to R1 because we had already reached our targets. Every one of the 14 amendments the councillors proposed has come back from the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, with the administration saying it exceeds core strategy.
It comes back to this single table in a document that is so prescriptive. Even though those towns I mentioned have the services and transport, we are saying they cannot build houses there because they are exceeding the population target within that document. The language that is used in the roadmap will be critical if we are going to overcome this because there are opportunities. We need to sweat the assets where we have the assets. We need to follow the population where the assets are today, not where they might be in ten years' time, while preventing towns to grow.
I understand Senators Murphy and Kennelly are sharing time. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Christopher O’Sullivan.
I thank the Minister of State for joining us. What we have before us in this revised national planning framework is a document that holds the potential to transform our nation's landscape, economy and communities for generations to come. We must consider our fundamental duty to the citizens of the entire country, focusing not only on those who wish to live in an urban setting but also those who choose to live in the many rural towns, villages and farms in this country. This framework is an opportunity to create a sustainable, inclusive and thriving environment where every individual can flourish regardless of the area in which they choose to live. The national planning framework is not merely a set of guidelines; it is a vision for our future. It reflects our collective aspirations and the shared responsibility we carry as the stewards of the Irish landscape.
In recent years, we have witnessed the challenges posed by rapid urbanisation, climate change and evolving social dynamics. These challenges demand a comprehensive and forward-thinking approach to planning. The revised framework addresses these issues head-on, offering a roadmap that balances economic development with environmental stewardship and urban growth with rural revitalisation.
One of the most commendable aspects of this draft is the commitment to sustainability. It emphasises the need for a low-carbon future advocating for smart growth and green infrastructure. By prioritising renewable energy, enhancing public transport and protecting our natural resources we are not only safeguarding our environment but also paving the way for a resilient economy that can withstand the tests of time. Furthermore, this framework promotes inclusivity. It recognises the necessity of engaging with communities across Ireland, ensuring their voices are heard in the planning process. This is crucial as we forge ahead. We must listen to the voices of all communities, urban and rural, and ensure their needs are met in terms of planning, transport, energy, water and wastewater infrastructure. Every community has unique needs. Some areas, such as my constituency in south-east Galway, are greatly in need of investment in wastewater infrastructure, while in other areas we see massive deficits in the energy supply networks. It is our responsibility to honour and integrate these needs into our planning efforts.
In terms of energy security infrastructure, my colleague, Senator Kennelly, will speak in more detail on the LNG terminal proposal. I am also delighted to see that this amended plan makes specific reference to the Galway wastewater strategy, which covers the city and areas such as Moycullen and Athenry. Regrettably, however, I have noticed the absence of any specific reference to the greater Galway main drainage scheme, which was intended to serve my area of south Galway. I ask the Minister of State to engage with Uisce Éireann to see to it that this critical scheme is progressed to site selection stage as a matter of urgency.
Overall, however, this framework emphasises the importance, in general, of regional balance. It seeks to distribute the growth and investment more equitably across our regions, thereby addressing the disparities that have long existed between the greater Dublin area and provincial Ireland. By doing so, we can invigorate our rural areas, create jobs and enhance the quality of life for all citizens regardless of where they call home.
At the heart of this framework lies a crucial emphasis on the development of infrastructure, especially in rural towns, villages and settlements. These communities are the backbone of the nation. They are rich in culture, heritage and potential. However, they often face significant challenges due to underinvestment in critical infrastructure. The revised framework recognises that robust infrastructure is not merely a luxury. It is an essential foundation for growth and prosperity. Investing in infrastructure in rural areas - whether it be transportation networks, broadband connectivity or essential services - can dramatically transform the landscape of these communities. Improved roads and public transport links can enhance accessibility, making it easier for residents to commute and for businesses to thrive. Fostering inclusive dialogues with rural communities is paramount. It is essential we engage residents in the planning process to ensure their voices are heard and their needs are met. As we consider this vital document, let us remember that the decision we make today will shape the Ireland of tomorrow with regard to the infrastructure and amenities available and the shape of our future communities.
I have spoken on many occasions in this House of the importance of a focus on the development of infrastructure in rural towns and villages. I am glad to see that this framework puts an emphasis on this. For a long time, I have been of the opinion - and I continue to be - that before we can remedy our housing crisis, we must first remedy our infrastructure crisis. This planning framework sets out with a degree of certainty such aspirations and, while no plan is flawless, I am happy to support the adaptation of this plan.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I speak in opposition to the amendment proposed by Senators Cosgrove and Harmon, not out of convenience but because of my deep concern for the energy security and future of our nation. I stand in firm opposition to the proposed insertion that states “, subject to a clear prohibition on the development of a Liquid Natural Gas terminal,”.
This is not because I ignore climate change and the challenges we face, but because I refuse to ignore the energy realities that are already upon us. On 8 January this year, Ireland recorded its highest ever electricity demand of 6,024 MW. On that day there was no wind or sun and nature did not co-operate, yet the country could not shut down. Therefore, 80% of our electricity came from gas-fired generation. That moment was not an outlier. It was a warning, a clear reminder that until we complete the energy transition, natural gas remains essential and not optional. The National Energy and Climate Plan 2024 recognises that a continuous and secure supply of gas is crucial. It is a bridge to a renewable future, not a detour from it, and as we strive for the clean, green ambition, we must keep the lights on, the hospitals running and our economy moving.
Let us now talk about real, documented risk. On 26 September 2022, three of the four Nordstream gas pipelines were intentionally destroyed. Less than a year later, on 8 October 2023, the Baltic gas pipeline suffered the same fate. It was disabled for six months by nothing more than a ship's anchor. These are not hypothetical scenarios. They are facts and they are warnings for any island nation that depends on a single point of entry. Today, Ireland gets virtually all its gas from the UK via a single interconnection. If that supply is interrupted by accident, sabotage or simply market pressures, the consequences will be immediate and catastrophic. In November 2023, the Department's security of supply review was published. Its conclusion was stark. If our UK gas supply fails, we have no backup. Protected customers will not be served. That means our homes, hospitals, schools and businesses would all go without heat and power.
Let us be clear. This is not just about discomfort. It is about human safety, economic survival and national resilience. The ESRI has warned that such a failure would cost Ireland up to €1 billion per working day. That is not a typo. It is a nightmare scenario with a real price tag. There is only one solution that provides full protection. It is a floating LNG terminal or a floating storage regasification unit, FSRU, like the one proposed for Shannon. It is mobile, low-cost, quick to deploy and geopolitically flexible. It is our insurance policy and it is the only one that would ensure we are never again one broken pipe away from a disaster.
The amendment before us seeks to pretend that these facts do not exist. It is internally irresponsible, strategically dangerous and politically populist. Worst of all, it gambles with the lives and livelihoods of millions of Irish people. That is a gamble I will not be part of. A just transition does not mean an unstable one. A decarbonised Ireland must still be a functioning Ireland. If we are serious about protecting our people, securing our economy and reaching our renewable goals, we must support Shannon Energy as part of a broader responsible energy strategy. I urge all Senators to look at the evidence and risks and to do what is right for the nation's future, that is, reject this prohibition and support the resilience Ireland deserves.
I understand Senators McCormack and Conor Murphy are sharing time. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Statutory planning frameworks are an important part of the planning system. If we get them right, they provide a clear framework for the social, economic, cultural and environmental development of the State and the entire island. However, if the plan is not right, it will be an impediment to development.
While I welcome that we will have a debate and a vote on the revised draft planning framework, the process leaves a lot to be desired. This statutory plan is of such significance that there should have been an opportunity for committee scrutiny, with presentations from external organisations and opportunities for Senators and TDs to propose amendments. The consultation process was far too short. Reasonable requests for extensions of the submission deadline were denied and now the Government has come back with a fait accompli. It is a real shame and means that many of us in opposition will have no option but to vote against the plan in its current form. The Government could have made this an opportunity to reach out to the Opposition and to reach a consensus.
While the document has some merit, on balance the weaknesses and omissions mean that it does not command Sinn Féin's full support. The plan has a number of fundamental flaws, in particular how it deals with predicted population growth, regional balance and development, tackling spatial disadvantage and the calculation of housing need. Predicted population growth is difficult. However, the way it is done in the national planning framework makes it more prone to error. A census is conducted. Two years later, the ESRI is commissioned to undertake a report. A year after that, the national planning framework review is approved. By that time, the census data are out of date and in turn the entire underlying assessment of the statutory plan is fatally undermined. This has an impact on all aspects of the plan.
Sinn Féin's view is that the national planning framework needs to be subject to a more timely review immediately after the census to ensure it is based on the most up-to-date information. The reliance on outdated data especially affects the national planning framework's assessment of housing need. The 2018 national planning framework was based on the 2016 census. By the time that plan was agreed in 2019, the data were already three years old. That means that the previous housing need assessment of an average of 25,000 new homes was hopelessly inadequate. The current draft, which estimates housing need at an average of 50,000 new homes a year, is simply flawed. It is based on 2022 census data and an ESRI report that did not examine unmet housing need with the existing population growth. This was not the fault of the ESRI but of the Government that set the terms of reference for the ESRI report.
Significantly, the revised national planning framework document ignored the Housing Commission's calculation of the housing deficit. When this is taken into account alongside the ESRI's estimate of emerging demand, we would actually need at last 60,000 new homes per year. With each year it is not met, the deficit grows, as does the need. If the plan underestimates housing need, this will impact on zoning, critical infrastructure, transport, public service planning and, crucially, public and private sector investment in residential development. This is one of the most serious flaws in the plan and must be urgently reviewed.
Sinn Féin is concerned about the proposal of 50-50 distribution of the future growth population between Dublin and the east on one hand, and the rest of the State on the other hand. It is just not balanced. There is a view that this will continue an over concentration of development in the greater Dublin area to the detriment of the south-east, south-west, Border and north-west regions. Far greater attention needs to be paid to the views of the regional assemblies and elected representatives from these areas to ensure the population distribution is regionally balanced and that investment in infrastructure, economic development, public services and houses is targeted to achieve this balance.
Sinn Féin is also concerned that the plan, like its predecessor, is blind to the spatial distribution of social and economic disadvantage. It is vital that investment, particularly public investment, whether in employment, services, amenities or housing, is targeted at those areas that need it most. If you are not mapping the geographical distribution of social and economic disadvantage and in turn aligning with public investment and that need, you run the risk of reinforcing that disadvantage. There are many other areas that Sinn Féin is concerned about, but my colleagues will address these. Unfortunately, the plan in front of us does not meet the needs and on that basis Sinn Féin will not be supporting it.
I will address what I see as some of the deficiencies in the all-Ireland nature of what should be included, and it is very much part of the national planning framework. From a previous role I am acutely aware of the enormous benefits that can be derived from real, deep and long-lasting all-Ireland co-operation and the effect that co-ordinated economic and social development can have in an area. That makes sense not just for people, communities and businesses on both sides of the Border, but to unlock the potential of the island as a whole. While there are some welcome specific references to cross-Border initiatives and issues, in the round the revised national planning framework is disappointing when it comes to all-Ireland development, particularly given the timeframe involved with it. It is a missed opportunity, and perhaps a whole array of missed opportunities, around planning, managing population growth, balanced regional development, development of all-Ireland transport and energy infrastructure, unlocking the economic potential of the north west and the Dublin-Newry-Belfast economic corridor. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's response as to what level of engagement took place between Ministers and officials from here with ministers and officials who represent the Northern Executive and Assembly across the range of departments. I suspect it was limited and I think, as a consequence, the document is deficient.
It is particularly disappointing that the issue of all-Ireland co-operation is only included in what appears to be summary form in chapter eight, Working with Our Neighbours, rather than integrated into every chapter in the plan. As my colleague referenced, this week the ESRI has launched its latest research report, which is the culmination of 15 previous research reports on a wide range of policy areas providing in-depth analysis on key areas such as health, education and the economy. One of its key findings was that cross-Border co-operation has the potential to improve skills development, employment opportunities, healthcare provision, efficiency of energy supply and help develop approaches to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Reports like that make an invaluable contribution and provide objective evidence to inform policy for systemic collaboration across the island. They have outlined the clear advantage of substantially upscaling North-South collaboration in existing strategic areas such as education, health and environmental policy, and in extending the remit of co-operation to include new strategic areas such as skills provision, foreign direct investment, labour market access and energy security. We have welcomed the Taoiseach's commitment to resourcing the next phase of research and to explore joining the FDI offering across the island as well as combining the capacity of the North with FDI in the South. The global economic turbulence we are now experiencing highlights that that must be a priority.
I also welcome that the planning framework contains some of the spirit of the ESRI report, but it is lacking in detail. What ultimately matters in these documents, given the NPF's legal status, is the detail. The policy objectives 56 to 63 set out general statements on economic co-operation such as the Dublin-Belfast rail corridor, the north-west city region, co-operation on health, transport and infrastructure, the canals network and tourism. These are all steps in the right direction, but it is the lack of detail and firm commitments to a detailed plan that is most disappointing, as is the inability to have further consultation input that my party colleague referenced. All of that leaves us in a disappointing position that we do not have a real opportunity to have substantial input and engage with others with regard to the proposition of this document.
I turn to the Labour Party amendment. We will not support it, but we will not vote against it either. However, if we had been given the opportunity, we wanted to insert issues about the proposal on commercial liquified natural gas to ensure any proposition in this area is State led, is for emergency use only, does not increase gas demand, is temporary and functions in a manner consistent with the climate change Acts. While we understand the concerns outlined by previous speakers, we would have other ways to approach the same issue. We will abstain on that amendment. I welcome continued opportunities, and we will take whatever opportunities we can get to continue to make an input to this, but the consultation and opportunity for further input are limited and restricted. It is disappointing in a document with such far-reaching potential.
Senators Cosgrove and Noonan are sharing time.
I move amendment No. 1:
To insert the following after “That Seanad Éireann”:
“, subject to a clear prohibition on the development of a Liquid Natural Gas terminal,”.
While generally perceived as a document which sets the agenda for accelerated housing delivery, the draft revised national planning framework is concerned with all aspects of life, including a 26-page section on climate transition and our environment. Therefore, I bring forward this amendment primarily because of the recent policy reversal by the current Government with regard to the building of LNG infrastructure. There are three core considerations relating to energy in this national framework, namely, energy procurement, energy generation and energy storage. The overall ambition is to adhere to our legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 51% over the decade 2021 to 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions no later than 2050. This target should inform everything we do in the context of energy procurement, generation and storage.
The national energy policy referred to on page 132 of the framework insists that all energy policy relating to planning should be built on the pillars of sustainability, security of supply and competitiveness. We in the Labour Party support these ambitions and want to work with the Government in achieving a just transition to reach our targets. However, the ambitious target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 51% by 2030 will be difficult to achieve as it is. The SEAI report of 2023 states that 85.8% of our energy still comes from fossil fuels, so we have five years to reach 51%. This target will be rendered completely impossible if we allow the development of LNG infrastructure, which also flies completely in the face of, and contradicts, all three pillars of the national energy policy.
The first pillar of the national energy policy is sustainability. LNG is high in methane, which is 80 times more warming than CO2. If it were a matter of filling the terminal once in case of emergencies, it might be justified in some way to build a reserve, but it is not. LNG needs to be vented to maintain safety of this volatile explosive gas. We either vent the gas into the atmosphere, or into the grid, or we use it. We are obviously going to use it. Maintaining a seven-day strategic reserve requires six replenishments per year, each of 170,000 cu. m of gas, equating to an additional 500,000 tonnes of carbon per year. It will take five years to build a terminal and if we are to reduce our 2018 emissions by 51% by 2030, how does building this terminal make sense? Should we unveil a new piece of fossil infrastructure the year we are hitting the 51% mark?
This brings me to the second pillar, which is security of supply. This document states that the inter-island gas network has been extremely reliable since its introduction 30 years ago. At the moment, everyone knows that we have two gas pipe gas lines supplying natural non-fracked gas from Scotland. Inter-connector 1 lands north of Dublin and interconnector 2 at Gormanston. A third available pipeline from Scotland to Carrickfergus is also connected to the Irish gas network through the North-South network. The same document assessed the risk of a failure to each pipeline and the results showed that the failure risk for interconnector 1 is once in 49 years and for interconnector 2 it is once in 52 years. For two failures to occur at the same time is extremely unlikely.
The third pillar is competitiveness. LNG is consistently more expensive than piped natural gas - in fact, it is five times more expensive than natural gas. While gas is used to provide heating and hot water in some homes, its chief use in Ireland is being burned in power stations in order to generate electricity. However, once the initial capital investment has been expended, the cost of generating electricity from renewable energy sources is minimal. As I said, our commitments to deliver our climate targets and reduce emissions by 51% by 2030 are legally binding. They are accompanied by penalties for failure to meet these targets.
The Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and Climate Change Advisory Council described the Government's seeming willingness to pay these penalties as staggering. We could pay anything from €8 billion to €26 billion per year in penalties. If the Government allocates just 10% of the planned national overall spending budget over the next five years to climate action measures, this could be enough to halve our projected penalty costs. True competitiveness will be achieved by working toward self-sufficiency and becoming a net exporter, not importer, of energy. Spending money in the building of new fossil fuel infrastructure such as an LNG terminal is not an investment. Rather, it is a monumental frittering away of our climate and financial future.
I have other concerns about the framework document that I need to address. A number of county councillors from rural constituencies have contacted me to express their concern that the planning framework could drive another nail into the coffin of rural Ireland. For example, there is no acknowledgement of the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Donegal. The defective concrete block scandal, whereby a plan to restore thousands of homes in Donegal to a liveable condition is required, needs to be included. In parts of County Leitrim, to which I have referred in terms of the threat of fracked gas, there is widespread belief that the rural heartland of the county is being transformed into a sacrificial zone. The wholesale plantation of unsuitable non-native Sitka spruce now covers over 20% of all of the land in the county. There is a very real risk posed by future exploration of precious minerals such as gold and a fear that allowing the importation of fracked gas will be a Trojan horse for the exploitation of significant gas reserves under the county as a whole. Leitrim is being sacrificed.
These concerns need to be listened to. A chronic shortage of housing has been reported in the Gaeltacht, exacerbated by the proliferation of holiday homes and short-term lets. Housing in the Gaeltacht is not addressed in the framework. I live in Sligo, which, despite being a regional centre recognised in the framework as performing a similar function as a city in our region, does not receive the support it needs to grow and develop in a sustainable manner. The deficiencies in our rail network illustrate this perfectly. The planning framework should support our communities and promote genuinely climate positive infrastructure projects such as the reopening of the western rail corridor, allowing populations throughout smaller towns and villages in Sligo, Mayo and Donegal to commute to larger centres to work while being able to live in their own villages, supported by essential services such as schools, GAA clubs, primary health care centres and community centres.
I urge Members to support my amendment. This framework will last until 2040. If we really want to see a commitment to reach our climate action targets and not pretend that investing in fossil fuel infrastructure will meet that, we need to instead invest in balanced regional development by opening up the western rail corridor and improving links between Sligo and Dublin.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I will focus on some of the positives in terms of green initiatives in the NPF. I refer to the stronger focus on compact low-carbon growth, helping to reduce car dependency emissions, the formal integration of environmental assessments, including SEA and appropriate assessment, the national policy objectives aimed at supporting biodiversity protection, commitments on a new national nature restoration plan, which I know the Minister of State is leading on, policies of no net loss for biodiversity - it should be a net positive for nature - supporting green belts, urban green belts and blue spaces, commitments in alignment with the climate action plan and the biodiversity duty under the national biodiversity action plan.
Commitments on transport orientated development are hugely welcome. I believe that approach is central to reducing private car use, lowering transport emissions and improving accessibility to jobs, schools and services. The requirement that 40% of new houses nationally would be within existing footprints is important. The Minister of State's colleague mentioned town centres first in terms of heritage regeneration. How does this square with a business as usual approach to rural housing?
The NPF supports the development of offshore renewable infrastructure, including wind farms, and places an emphasis on onshore generation. It reinforces policies and supports vibrant rural towns and villages and investment in local infrastructure. The NPF does not specifically mention LNG projects but it places a stronger focus on renewable energy development, highlighting the need for the accelerated delivery of renewable energy generation to meet climate targets and the Government's national hydrogen strategy.
I want to make a specific point on Uisce Éireann and water supply, and the midlands and eastern water supply project, which is referred to as the Shannon pipeline. That project will suck up all of the resources of Uisce Éireann. It will take ten years to complete and I do not think it is feasible. Where is the balanced regional development? We will continue to facilitate the expansion of Dublin through projects like this. I have significant concerns about that.
In terms of housing, the NPF sets a target of 50,000 homes per year, falling short of the 60,000 recommended by the Housing Commission. It does not include binding housing delivery mechanisms or legal accountability for meeting targets. It lacks binding targets for social and affordable housing, despite the clear and growing need we are all aware of in the House.
Planning remains too loosely aligned with employment centres and essential services and risks disconnects between housing location and community need. For those of us Senators based in rural Ireland, we see the NPF as business as usual in terms of lopsided development. I will support it, but I will also support the amendment put forward by my colleague.
I welcome the Minister of State. In considering this, I have to join with others in saying that given the length of time the planning framework will cover and how important it will be as a frame for all of the policy discussions and issues we will raise over the next few years, I regret that we have not had a proper process going through committees with an opportunity to engage and consider the collective wisdom we may be able to draw from Oireachtas Members of all parties and expert witnesses. There have been consultations, but we should take more time to consider the plan.
I want to look to a few of the key points, some of which have been addressed by others. I refer to social and affordable housing. There is concern about mixed development in the context of the LDA and others. It is not clear what that will mean. Will it involve profit-maximising development or social and affordable housing, and to what extent? We know from the recent articles we have seen there are those who bemoan that there may be a gap in the luxury housing market in terms of a recession. The actual gap is about the houses that people can afford to live in.
We need social housing that allows those families who cannot afford to purchase a house or be secure in the unstable rental environment in Ireland to have foundations on which their families can build and grow and homes from which their children can go to school. We need to allow them to plan their lives. Our greatest social substructure is social housing that ensures every family can have a proper start in life. I regret that social and affordable housing has not been identified more clearly in the ambition of the targets. Others have mentioned that the plan falls short of what was recommended by the Housing Commission. There are disjoins.
I acknowledge that this is not just about housing but one piece that was missing from Housing for All was the failure to acknowledge the positive reality, from my perspective, of migration and to acknowledge that it is part of the population change we have. At the time, Housing for All simply left out whole sections of people who need to be housed but were not featured within the plan and strategy. Then, when we had people coming through, it was treated as a emergency, rather than an actual reality of modern states. Migration is a reality and should be planned for just like other housing need and should be built into the picture, rather than being treated as an emergency at the fringes. That was missing from Housing for All, even at the time when we knew that Ireland had committed, rightly, to give support to those from Ukraine who were coming through. This needs to be planned for to ensure that our housing capacity is genuinely there in terms of where our population will be.
Another piece in terms of housing that notably is not coming through, despite being identified again and again as probably one of the single, earliest things we could do, is to really tackle vacancy and dereliction. There are not strong measures within this around tackling the extraordinarily high levels of vacancy and dereliction. I acknowledge there is reference to brownfield sites and existing footprints but these are very indirect. However, there are no robust measures that will tackle the issue of dereliction and the extraordinarily large amount of housing left vacant. Sometimes properties are left vacant as part of investment portfolios and not used as residences. When we talk about vacancy and dereliction, it is not just about the boarded-up houses in our towns and villages, it is also about having apartment blocks with apartments empty, because they simply are driving up the price.
There are some positive measures. I am glad the Minister of State has joined us because of his remit in terms of biodiversity. There is some hopeful language in relation to biodiversity in this. I was glad to see that the SDGs are mentioned in national policy objective 14 and biodiversity in national policy objective 88. These are quite strong references to biodiversity. This will be one where I will look to the Minister of State specifically, because it will be about how strongly the Minister of State interprets his powers in this regard and how he applies them. When the document says that this should be done in relation to biodiversity, it is important that it is not with regard to biodiversity at the fringes, but that there is an assertion of biodiversity sustainability being in the core design of the steps that are taken in the core projects. It should be central to projects rather than being at the fringes of projects. That will be crucial, as it cannot be the scatter of seeds at the end. The word "sustainable" is used constantly in the document. When we talk about "sustainable" it is important that we are clear that this interpretation should be a "sustainable" that matches the sustainable development goals. It should not just be "sustainable" as in "you can keep doing it", but sustainable in the more meaningful sense.
These are areas where a robust interpretation will determine if those paragraphs and policy protections actually mean something. There are areas where I am concerned about contradictions. For example, national policy objective 32 talks about rural areas and investing in ICT and in climate services. I am hoping that should read, "ICT related". If that is to do with data centres then that is a problem because it is in total contrast to our climate goals. It is important when we see that language to know exactly what it means. One of the things not being acknowledged or properly addressed is the fact of very large energy consumers and what that does to our planning and to our energy piece. This is where I want to come to. I had a few other points but I will put them aside because I want to use my last two minutes to speak in support of Senator Cosgrove's amendment. The issue is around demand and we have to be honest about this issue.
There is a driving up of demand when we look to having data centres and other large energy users that may use up to 30% of the electricity in the State. We constantly hear about the lights going out in hospitals but we do not hear about the risks posed by data centres and other large users. These are commercial services that in many cases, all they produce are ads that refresh every millisecond. They are vampires on our energy system and they are jeopardising the country's energy security, in the long term. Let us be real and acknowledge that we are on a planet which has a limited period of time and a limited amount of space before it becomes so hot that people start dying in their hundreds of thousands, if not millions. That is where we are at. We need to be real and acknowledge that climate change is real, as are its impacts and costs. It will be hitting us if we contribute to it. Liquefied natural gas, LNG, has an 80% higher impact, that is, the impact comes sooner and is quicker. The reality is that most LNG will be gas that is fracked in the United States. That is where it is largely produced and the United States has left the Paris Agreement. We should not be setting up infrastructure that requires us to take one of the dirtiest fossil fuels in the world from a place that is not even measuring it or limiting it or making any effort to ensure that the way it is extracted does not contribute to the escalation of climate change. It makes us complicit in that and it is dangerous. I spoke about the disasters in the past in Bantry. There we saw deaths from the Whiddy Island disaster and others. We are talking about a very dangerous fuel, which as has been described, requires venting and all kinds of processes that will be taking place in Ireland. There is a reason we banned fracking in Ireland but now we are looking at bringing that in at a time when it will take a long time to be created anyway. It will compete directly with and undermine renewables. For example, British Petroleum has now said that it will abandon renewables and go back to focusing on fossil fuels because of this new wave of cheerleading on fossil fuels. If we choose renewables, we must choose renewables. I support the amendment. I think it is a responsible one and I hope that the Government would have regard to it in their policies.
There are 13 minutes left and three speakers so I ask you to each take about four minutes. Next is Senator Kyne.
I welcome the Minister of State and the review of the national planning framework being legislated for. The 2018 framework provides a basis for review and revision. It allows us to guide and tweak policy, based on the needs of 2025, while at the same time not reinventing the wheel. We need to plan for the million or thereabouts extra people that we will have in the country between now and 2040, never mind those who are already here, who we have to house, employ and care for. This is a very significant challenge. We all accept that growth is guaranteed and that we must manage it. We need to spread it out across the country to create and sustain communities, while at the same time ensuring that our five engines for growth, the five main cities, are able to drive economic development and be centres for innovation and creativity. The framework also recognises the crucial contribution made by rural areas and that they are central to the economic and societal development of the country. Initiatives like the national broadband plan have given a new lease of life to rural communities. Flexible working has provided opportunities for people who live at home to commute one or two days a week, as necessary. This has been a game changer for many communities.
We need to continue the investment in our towns and villages to ensure that they are attractive places to live. The various rural development funds such as the rural and regional development fund, RRDF, have been central to this work and underpin the provisions in this framework. I also welcome the focus on linking the growth centres within the regions, such as Galway to Sligo to Letterkenny and Cork to Limerick, to mention just two. The framework's vision of improved transport links leading to better economic and social outcomes is welcome. It is not new thinking but it is good to see it as part of policy.
Turning to the west, the northern and western region is a region in transition. This means it has gone backwards regarding its status within the EU regions. That is not to say that every part of it. One could look at a town like Athenry or at Galway city and argue they have not gone backwards. The region as a whole, however, has. It is disappointing. It now ranks as one of the bottom 20 regions across Europe out of 300 regarding infrastructure and the gap between the northern and western region and our other two regions is actually growing. We are launching this new framework from a poor starting point. It is a challenging task to remedy that situation. We need to discriminate positively towards the northern and western region in terms of policy and resources. It is a sad state of affairs that we have two of the more prosperous regions in the EU and beside them we have an area in transition. That imbalance must be corrected.
Galway serves as the regional capital for the north-western region and involves a movement of people for business, education and health services daily. We simply must improve the transport links north and south. We must upgrade the N17 links within Galway and Sligo. We also must reopen the western rail corridor. We have talked about it for long enough. We need to see action on that very quickly
Hear, hear.
It would be a game changer and I have been a long-term supporter of it.
Galway city is the earmark for the minimum target population of 122,000 by 2040. This would be an increase of 36,000. It is a tall order when one considers the traffic issues around the city and the lack of progress on the Ardaun concept, which was a new town that was envisaged back when Adamstown was being envisaged and commenced in Dublin. It is a new town immediately to the east of the city near where the motorway ends. We have not seen a lot of progress on this to be honest about it. One of the main necessary drivers to develop it would be a wastewater strategy encompassing that whole area and places like Athenry, Oranmore, Clarinbridge and Craughwell. That will take pressure off Galway city and allow it to develop as well.
Relating to the review of the development plans which are necessary to come to. These cannot take two years. A measure must be put in place to fast-track those in order that if there are to be an extra 500 people in a certain town, it can be done quickly and not take years to review plans, strategies and everything else like that.
I welcome the Minister of State. I wish to take a moment to speak on the section on realising our island and marine potential. The current approach set out in this section is quite weak from a fisheries and seafood perspective, in particular the importance of embedding the principle of consensus and co-creation between the fisheries, the offshore renewable energy, ORE, and environmental protection sectors on the formation of marine protected areas and the identification of future sites of offshore renewable energy and development.
There is little reference to seafood development. National policy objective 49 is the only objective referring to the entire seafood and fisheries sector and while it broadly covers a vague commitment to the sector, it is lacking in ambition. The focus of the chapter is on promoting the development of the ORE. The seafood sector has always recognised the need for ORE development but in a way that does not impinge on the livelihoods of the fishermen and aquaculture producers. While this continues to be recognised and discussed by the seafood-ORE working group and is referenced in the programme for Government, this document does not even make reference to co-existence with other marine users, including the seafood sector, or the importance of assessing potential impacts on fish stock and habitats from ORE development if approved in sensitive areas.
On aquaculture, some of actions and objectives in the national strategic plan for sustainable aquaculture need much more ambition and overall policy, such as the NPF, to realise the potential of the seafood sector. There appears to be lack of synergy with the national marine planning framework, NMPF. The NMPF recognises the important role of seafood production, fishing and aquaculture as a source of economic and employment activity, most notably, within those coastal communities that are more economically dependent on those activities than alternative sources of employment. Coexistence of aquaculture and ORE could be considered in the future as there are opportunities for aquaculture activities that should be explored.
The IFA aquaculture committee agrees that the development of offshore renewable energy is important to achieving Ireland's energy and climate targets. The ORE development could help to deliver positive, local, economic, social and environmental benefits. However, stakeholder engagement and consultation would be vital for this part in making this work. The aquaculture industry must be represented at any stakeholder engagement groups, relating to the proposed the establishment of any further proposed designated maritime area plans, DMAPs. Aquaculture provides an important social dividend by providing employment in rural, coastal and island communities through the sustainable production of high quality food with a low carbon footprint. The sector's contribution in sustaining vitality and in coastal areas must not be ignored or underestimated.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta O'Sullivan, agus an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Cummins, a bhí sa Teach níos luaithe, as ucht teacht isteach chun an rún seo a phlé. It should be noted that Ireland is one of only a small number of European countries with a coherent and overarching plan for sustainable development. In general terms, I am supportive of both the revised national planning framework and Project Ireland 2040. With the significant population growth Ireland has been experiencing in recent decades and the challenges that this and future population growth presents in areas such as transport, renewable energy and climate action, it is vital that the national planning framework is comprehensive and inclusive of regional strategies, metropolitan area strategic plans and our 31 city and county local development plans. It is crucially important that the NPF specifically targets the delivery of key infrastructural projects that will dramatically transform the communities in which we live.
One concern I have relating to the NPF process to date is the lack of direct involvement from our three regional assemblies and the extent to which the suggestions made in the submissions of the three regional assemblies were included in the final draft of the NPF. The principle of subsidiarity is based on recognition that decisions impacting on our regions are best made at regional level and likewise that decisions impacting on our counties, cities, towns and rural areas are best made at local level. This point was made in a recent Council of Europe monitoring report, which recommended that Ireland should seek to reduce the current centralised nature of government by looking to strengthen both local and regional government throughout the country.
One of the national policy objectives in the revised national planning framework, NPO 95, states:
Metropolitan Area Strategic Plans for the Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford Metropolitan areas and in the cases of Dublin and Cork, to also address the wider city region, shall be reviewed by the Regional Assemblies in tandem with the appropriate authorities and as part of a review of the relevant Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy.
I welcome the inclusion of this objective but I take this opportunity to stress the importance of backing up the objective with budgetary commitments, particularly for projects identified as key priorities across each of our regions.
From a Cork perspective, we have just begun a public consultation process relating to the emerging preferred route for our new light rail or Luas system. If we are serious about balanced regional development and the importance of strategic capital investment outside of our capital city, it is vital that ambitious plans, such as Cork Luas, are supported by specific budgetary commitments and delivery timelines. This will boost public confidence and buy-in to hugely significant capital projects of this nature which, if delivered effectively, will transform the way we live.
Meaningful and closer co-operation with our three regional assemblies and with our 31 local authorities - given the local and regional knowledge and expertise that they possess - will inevitably result in more effective delivery of the key projects we seek to deliver for our communities and regions under the national planning framework, the national development plan and Project Ireland 2040.
Before I call on the Minister of State, I welcome Deputy Feighan to the Visitors Gallery. He is accompanied by Mr. Michael Dugher, former MP for Barnsley East, Mr. Michael Lonergan from the Irish Embassy in London, Mr. Jeff Cooke and Mr. David Wild. They are all very welcome and I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House and the Seanad.
I acknowledge Deputy Feighan and his esteemed guests. I thank the Senators for their contributions to today's debate. I have listened intently and will try at the end of the main body of my speech to come back to many of the comments and points raised. I will also respond on the proposed amendment, which the Government will be opposing. I will touch on the reasons for this towards the end of my contribution.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to outline the importance of the first revision of the national planning framework. I welcome the valuable discussion that has taken place, which reflects the importance of ensuring there is an up-to-date national strategic plan in place to guide the decisions that will shape Ireland for the next 20 years and provide the policy clarity needed to give certainty in these challenging times. The NPF is the Government's high-level strategic plan for shaping the future and development of our country to 2040. As outlined earlier by the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, this framework has been revised and updated to take account of changes that have occurred since its initial publication in 2018. It is a framework to guide public and private investment, to create and promote opportunities for our people and to protect and enhance our environment, from our villages to our cities and unique rural areas.
Countering the trend of urban sprawl, supporting the targeted delivery of infrastructure services and increasing the availability of new homes is a key focus of the revised NPF. In the period between 2022 and 2040 it is expected there will be roughly an extra 1 million people living in our country. This population growth will require new jobs and homes which we need to plan for in a sustainable manner. This will require more land to be zoned as well as more housing from other sources, such as through tackling vacancy and dereliction to utilise our existing building stock and to assist in meeting our climate obligations. The NPF does not itself zone land and there must, therefore, be a further step to formalise the translation of updated NPF population and housing figures to the local level. The allocation of updated planning and housing growth requirements on a local authority by local authority basis will involve the balanced methodology that factors in the level of housing demand arising and performance in terms of recent housing delivery and capacity while ensuring adherence to the policy parameters of the NPF strategy. Work on this stage is under way based on revised NPF housing figures and it is intended this will inform the updating of development plans across the country in the coming months. This strategic plan-led approach to future housing development will inform the making of decisions on planning applications in a robust and efficient manner assisted by the statutory decision-making timelines contained within the Planning and Development Act 2024.
The impact of this will be significant and will require co-ordination and prioritisation to ensure that necessary infrastructure is in place both to support and enable housing delivery and to ensure housing delivery is aligned with the provision of services and facilities, including education, childcare, healthcare and recreational facilities, to support the expansion of existing settlements and the creation of new, sustainable communities. Therefore, it will be critical to continue to deliver compact and sustainable growth patterns and any allocation of land related to updated targets will need to reflect the potential of brownfield land, including infill sites, the conversion of existing buildings and the reuse of vacant and derelict buildings, in addition to greenfield land, to deliver housing.
Addressing vacancy and making efficient use of existing housing stock is a key Government priority. To address this, a number of structures have now been established, including a dedicated vacant homes unit in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, a full-time vacant homes officer in each local authority and the publication of a vacant homes action plan to draw together a number of vacancy-related measures across relevant Departments. The latest vacant homes action plan progress report, published in March, shows real progress is being made in tackling vacancy and dereliction, with significant investment through schemes such as the urban regeneration and development fund, the vacant property refurbishment grant and the repair and leasing scheme that help local authorities and property owners to bring vacant and derelict properties back into use and revitalise towns across the country.
The cornerstone policy of both the existing and the draft revised NPF is the achievement of greater regional balance in future population and employment growth. The ongoing shift to more regionally balanced growth supported by urban centres of scale will be important in ensuring effective regional development and in supporting competitiveness, economic prosperity and environmental sustainability.
Critical to the achievement of greater regional balance is the overall development of both urban and rural areas in Ireland, with a particular policy focus on delivering strengthened and diversified rural communities, consistent with Government policy. This extends to the Gaeltacht areas across the country where the promotion and protection of the Irish language through the implementation of the language plans are supported in this revision.
The revised NPF provides clear support for the continued development of Dublin as our capital city, along with a focus on the potential of our regional cities to provide an effective counterbalance to Dublin. The opportunities provided by the green energy transition to effect regional development are promoted by the strategy, in addition to the need to deliver essential infrastructure such as transport, water, wastewater and electricity projects that are needed to support additional population and employment growth in all of our regions. The funding of infrastructure projects with specific public investment projects to support and promote greater balance in regional development that align with the NPF is facilitated by the national development plan, NDP. Accordingly, the important interaction between the NPF and the NDP is essential to realising our objectives. The Government has committed to provide increased support for infrastructure through the creation of a dedicated infrastructure division in the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform and through the new housing activation office in my Department. It is essential we continue to address barriers to delivery to meet the needs of current and future generations. This NPF provision builds on the existing policy approach to ensure we develop resilient, vibrant and inclusive places and communities. I am confident that with the implementation of the policy objectives of the NPF at national, regional and local levels, we will ensure the sustainable development of our country for future generations.
The proposed amendment to the motion tabled by Senators Cosgrove and Harmon is opposed for the following reasons. First, the national planning framework is a high-level policy strategy and it would not be appropriate to prohibit any particular type of development which could be considered under the Planning and Development Act. Approval of the House is being sought for the final draft revised national planning framework, noting the specific wording of section 20C(8) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. If any amendments were to be applied, it would require the environmental assessments to be recommenced, meaning the revision process would not be concluded for a number of months. This would further delay the completion of this important piece of work which, as the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins outlined, is critical to informing the updating of regional strategies and local authority development plans to reflect matters such as updated housing figures, projected jobs and growth, renewable energy capacity allocations, and the rezoning of land for residential employment and a range of other purposes. This would delay the process which would further delay the development plans which have to be amended quickly and efficiently in order that we can achieve housing targets. There are also energy security issues, which have been alluded to by other Members of the House.
I will very quickly touch on what Senator Casey was speaking about as I entered the House, which was the Office of the Planning Regulator and the frustrations at county development plan level in terms of the reserved functions of councillors. I agree with him that it is very important we give those reserved functions back to councillors and ensure they are able to implement them in a way they see fit at a local level. We saw during the most recent iteration of county development plans where towns were dezoned and areas that were suitable for development were dezoned. That must be addressed as these development plans are being reviewed.
We have heard time and again from many Senators about the importance of and the need for investment in infrastructure, whether that is in water supply, broadband, roads and public transport. It is absolutely vital if we are to see a sustained development.
Many Senators spoke about the need for regional balance and that is the core policy of this framework. There has been some criticism of the consultation. This process has been going on since 2023. There was an extended public consultation period from July to September 2024. The Oireachtas joint committee on housing also met to discuss this very plan. I appreciate the support that has been offered and I am heartened to hear of the mentions of biodiversity and the nature restoration plan. I am delighted it is getting a sounding in this House as well because it is important.
All development must have this at its core as well. Regarding the nature restoration plan, it is grand to have it in the national planning framework but we must ensure it also makes it into the national development plan and that it is funded, so that if we do have a nature restoration plan, we can actually fund it and put those measures in place.
I thank all the Senators for their contributions today.
I thank Minister of State. I welcome guests of Deputy Maeve O'Connell to the Gallery. They are all very welcome and I hope they enjoy their visit here this evening. Enjoy the experience here, not only in the Seanad but in Leinster House as well.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow morning at 10.30.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
