I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, and his officials. We will start where we finished yesterday a the large group associated with amendment No. 120. We have gone through all of the amendments in that group as far as amendment No. 168.
Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 15
Debate resumed on amendment No. 120:
In page 58, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
“ “built up area” means a collection of statistical small areas, identified by the Central Statistics Office as a built up area following a census of population of the State;”.
-(Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage)
It is a straightforward amendment that relates to the procedures for the review of the national planning framework under section 21. When I was reading that section of the Bill, it seemed there was no consideration of the possibility of transboundary consultations. This has come up on a number of occasions at this committee with respect to nuclear power plants in Britain and the need for transboundary consultation. It may be that this is not the right place for it. If the Minister of State thinks it is not, he might indicate in his answer how he thinks it could be dealt with. However, it is an important issue and needs consideration at some point in this part of the Bill.
This is to make an insertion in page 63 between lines 4 and 5. There is wording relating to Northern Ireland which reads "any Department or body in Northern Ireland having responsibility for regional development". However, as Deputy Ó Broin has said, transboundary development not necessarily connected with Northern Ireland could have impacts and this needs to be covered. We spoke to the Minister yesterday, who made a point about section 21(3), which reads "The National Planning Framework shall be subject to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive". Article 7 of the SEA directive is about transboundary consultations. Article 7(1) states that:
Where a Member State considers that the implementation of a plan or programme being prepared in relation to its territory is likely to have significant effects on the environment in another Member State, or where a Member State likely to be significantly affected so requests, the Member State in whose territory the plan or programme is being prepared shall, before its adoption or submission to the legislative procedure, forward a copy of the draft plan or programme and the relevant environmental report to the other Member State.
Before Brexit, the UK would have been incorporated in that. Most likely with transboundary issues, if it is not covered by the existing wording regarding Northern Ireland, we are going to be looking at Wales or possibly England, which are not explicitly covered by the directive because they are outside the European Union. I think the wording we propose makes sense. Will the Minister of State respond?
I will go through it for the Deputy, and give him the note followed by my own thoughts. Amendment No. 168 seeks to add states where transboundary impacts of the plan may arise or where such consultation is requested by another state or jurisdiction, as well as the public in that state, to the list of those in respect of which the Minister must put in place arrangements for consulting as part of the public consultation on the review of the national planning framework.
Transboundary issues are dealt with in co-ordinated fashion with respective administrations, particularly those in Northern Ireland. Regarding public consultation, my Department takes into consideration all submissions made irrespective of where they come from. For these reasons, unfortunately I cannot accept this amendment.
I direct members to a number of sections within the Bill. Section 21(2) covers procedures for review of the national planning framework and reads "The Minister shall make provision for public consultation". Subsection (2)(i) reads "any Department or body in Northern Ireland having responsibility for regional development (where that Department agrees to such consultation)". Second, section 215, which specifically deals with transboundary environmental impacts, confers powers on the Minister to make regulations governing the process by which member states of the European Union and transboundary convention - the Espoo convention would also covers that - would be concerned in relation to an application for permission for developments in the state that are likely to have significant effect on the environment in their territories, and where the state is concerned that proposed developments in those other states are likely to have significant effect on the environment of that state.
In the Bill generally, we feel under section 21(2)(i) that jurisdictions, in particular in the vein of Northern Ireland, are covered. On public consultation with people living in those jurisdictions, the departments in Northern Ireland would obviously consult the public in Northern Ireland. That is within their domain. It is the exact same for transboundary. Deputy Ó Broin asks where that is dealt with. It is dealt with in section 215. On the general review of the national planning framework, we feel that section 21 covers other jurisdictions, and more particularly in respect of the environment impact, which is a key feature, that is covered directly and specifically within section 215 of the Bill.
The problem with the answer is section 21(2)(i) is far too restrictive in that it is departments or bodies in the North with responsibility for regional development. That does not include all sorts of other areas that would be integral to the national planning framework. Particularly if you think of the north west and the interconnectedness between Tyrone, Fermanagh, Derry, etc., and the surrounding counties in the 26 Counties, it will be much more than regional development. It will be transport and infrastructure and it could even be health or housing, for example, if there was any significant movement on the Government’s side in relation to the Irish language amendments we have tabled. It could be issues relating to language culture, built heritage, natural heritage, biodiversity, so I do not accept that subsection (i) covers it. Again, you could use the same argument as the Minister did yesterday that subsection (2)(j) covers it because you can include anybody but, again, without rehearsing the detail of the argument yesterday, it is better to specify stuff if you really want it to happen than leave it loose.
Then, on section 215, the problem is it is very general in terms of regulations. It does not make explicit the requirement for transboundary engagements and consultations with specific reference to a NPF review or a NPF. That is the real issue for me here. Again, it is one of those instances where there is nothing in the Bill that stops it happening but would it not be better, given the importance, particularly on an all-Ireland basis and on an east-west basis in particular, that it be much more explicit in the legislation?
On section 215 and transboundary environmental impacts, the section says specifically that “the Minister may prescribe arrangements for”, and I will spare everyone from reading it all, but it repeatedly refers to “applications for permission” for development. We are talking about the national planning framework and not planning applications for development. They are two different things. I fail to see the relevance of transboundary environmental aspects with regard to people applying for planning permission when we are talking about the national planning framework. I assume we all understand the differences between applying for planning permission and consultation about the national planning framework. If I am missing something, the Minister of State might elaborate on why he thinks section 215 is actually relevant to the national planning framework and a review or consultation around the national planning framework. It keeps on just talking about applications for permission. There is no mention of the national planning framework that I can see. If I have missed it, the Minister of State might point it out.
On Deputy Ó Broin's point on section 21(2)(i), we will look at it and come back on Report Stage to see if we can do something to broaden that.
On the second point around section 215 and the transboundary convention, section 21(3) states, “The National Planning Framework shall be subject to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive”. Under the Espoo convention we are required automatically to consult with non-EU countries. That automatically kicks in as part of that process. The process is there.
On the more general point about section 21(2)(i), rather than going over and back, I will say that we will look at it for Report Stage in terms of broadening the type of consultations, etc. Deputy Ó Broin will be a lot more familiar with the bodies in the North than I am but in any jurisdiction it is the role of the government in the jurisdiction to consult with its citizens on various aspects. Then we consult, as a country, with them. They will consult with their own people, with the citizens and people who are living in their jurisdiction. We will come back on section 21(2)(i).
On the second point, we feel that section 21(3) covers that in terms of process because the national plan will be subject to this environmental assessment directive. As part of that the Espoo Convention, we have to consult with transboundary countries that are outside the EU. That is automatic. We have to do it anyway. It is a statutory obligation. We feel that covers the point that Deputy O’Callaghan is making.
My question about section 215 was about applications for permissions not about the national planning framework. Will the Minister of State tell us how he feels section 215 is particularly relevant to the national planning framework because I cannot see any mention in section 215 of the national planning framework or of anything similar?
It is a point well made. We will clarify on that and come back on Report Stage. Is that okay?
Then on section 21(3), I raised the point that in order to be consistent with the Strategic Environment Assessment, SEA, Directive, article 7 would be much better to have this explicit in the legislation. The point has been made before. There are 700 pages here. If things are buried and not comprehensively dealt with here then the chances of them getting missed increases significantly. While it may be covered there, if it is not written in when a review is being done by the Department then the chances of it being missed is increased. That is why I support our amendment.
I know the point the Deputy is making but in the section it is clearly signalled and flagged where we reference Part 6. Part 6 deals specifically with environmental assessments. It is like this when you write anything. The Deputy is saying to be sure to be sure. We have to have a structure in legislation. This makes specific reference to part 6 which deals with the point the Deputy is making.
The point I am making, though, is that section 21(2) lays out the structure in the legislation for making provision for public consultation. It is listed in (a) to (j) but the transboundary issue that we are raising is not in the list. Why have a list of (a) to (j) but have the transboundary issue buried as an implicit obligation under section 21(3)? An invisible, implicit obligation.
We will look at it. The Deputy makes a valid point.
Amendment No. 170 is mine. I cannot move or speak to it from the Chair. I will ask the Minister if he will read the response to that and I will not speak to it at all.
Amendment No. 170 seeks to expand this provision by requiring the Government to respond to such observations, as well as having regard to them.
The purpose of public participation is to gather and collate their views as they relate to the particular draft framework that is being consulted on. It is not unusual for a range of views, which may be contradictory, to be expressed on any particular objective or range of objectives of the draft under consideration. Such views must be considered in a balanced and integrated fashion to best inform the final wording of a particular objective and the document as a whole.
A report is prepared on the collated views, as they effect either the overall drafting of the framework or more likely particular elements of the document. This allows for an integrated and balanced consideration as to what changes, if any, are proposed or warranted. I consider that the provision to "have regard" to these views is appropriate in the context that participation with the public is to improve the overall quality of the document.
All submissions are considered but it is not the intention to individually engage on the merits of individual submissions. Instead the value of public participation is to collate a range of views as they effect a particular section or objective or indeed the document as a whole and to allow the Government to reflect on any changes that may be required. This not only takes account of the range of views but changes are made in the light of Government policy and legal obligations. In view of this I cannot accept the amendment.
With respect to the format of public consultation, I consider that the Bill as drafted is appropriate and sets out in balanced fashion the format for consultation. Regard is always had to submissions received as part of any consultation process.
The intent of what the Deputy is putting forward is worthy. The practical import would be difficult. It is a consultation process. Obviously, there will be a large number of a submissions, which will be carefully considered. They go through various forums and are public documents. We regard that what is being required in respect of the practical application and looking at it all in balanced way is reasonable.
Deputy Francis Noel Duffy took the Chair.
I thank Deputy Duffy for stepping into the Chair. I think we all become aware during our time here - some of us have been here a shorter time than others - that when drafting an amendment, it needs to be written in a careful manner because it becomes the law. When we discuss things in this room about amendments and insertions, although they are well intentioned and the thought behind them is to try to improve the process, we need to be careful that we do not end up drafting a policy document that is actually a piece of legislation. I think sometimes we may end up blurring the lines a little bit. This is something that barristers, planners and so on will have to rely on in court to be able to read very clearly. When I read my amendment back and respond to it, I see that it could have been written in a little bit better manner in that, as it reads now, one can infer from it that I mean that every single person who puts in a submission must be responded to.
That is the import we took.
That was not my intention behind this amendment. I will explain the intention. This information comes into the Department on whatever process - it might be the national planning framework and I think I have something similar in on the policy statements as well. What I meant by the term “respond to” was, as with a development plan process, that the county or the chief executive does not respond to each individual submission but they collate it and produce a written document. It sort of proves that we have had regard to the submissions. I do not, for example, need to say that I will respond to Kieran O’Donnell’s submission on the national planning framework. Rather, we would list out who the submissions have come from the same way that it would be done for a development plan. It provides a little bit of a paper trail. I do want to load any more work on anybody in the Custom House; they have enough on their hands as it is. However, it would be a benefit not to just "have regard to" but to produce a written response albeit without responding to everybody in the manner understood by the Minister of State.
I can see my amendment is not written in the correct manner and would probably add confusion. Could the Minister of State respond to this in the spirit in which it was intended? I accept that, as written, it is probably not clear and applicable.
I hope that the valid point Deputy Matthews is making is already covered. If submissions are made, they come into the Department and are then collated. An overall report is done by officials in the Department, which is published. In essence, overall what the Deputy is putting forward happens. We believe it is already covered. To outline the process, it requires that we produce an overall report of all the submissions, giving a summary. It will not specify individual submissions but it will cover all aspects that were made.
Is that covered in the legislation? Does it state that?
That is what we mean by “have regard to”. It is a process that involves having a regard to observations. Let us look at it. In practical terms, we do it. It is done.
I accept that the submissions come in, they are gone through and they are assessed on whether they are relevant to the plan. Often submissions come in to a plan that are not relevant to that particular plan but are well intended. If we had somewhere in that process of public consultation a submissions period and then the production of a draft plan-----
That is exactly what is done.
-----we could also have, in between those processes, what we might call a "respond to" document which acknowledges and collates the submissions we have considered around that. It must be done anyway in order to create a draft document, so there must be such a document somewhere.
What the Deputy is putting forward is happening in practice. Let us look at bringing in some wording on Report Stage that will clarify the point.
I appreciate that.
It is an important amendment. Learning comes from the process of getting feedback on submissions. People who engage in a public consultation process need to see what consideration has been given. If it has not been accepted, why? It may not have been accepted because it is not relevant to the process, for example, or because of some other policy objective. Over time, there is much invaluable learning from that. Without feedback in a public consultation process, it can be a dead end. People can be left with the sense of having no idea why the thoughts they put in were not reflected in the final plan. They will wonder what has happened with their ideas or perhaps only parts of those thoughts will be reflected. It is essential. The Minister of State is saying this is already in the practice.
It would definitely be preferable if it was in the legislation because it is so important to the process. The phrase “shall have regard to” does not necessarily cover that level of practice. Obviously the work is being done internally and the submissions will be considered. However, it would be an improvement if the legislation recognised the need for feedback to be given out and made public.
I think the Chairman does himself a disservice because the amendment is sensible, well crafted and is sufficiently open to allow the Government to decide what “respond to” would actually mean. I do not think the immediate implication of inserting this would be a requirement for an individual response to be posted to everybody. The way in which primary legislation works is it sets out the broad principle and it is up to the Government, through regulation, to decide. I think the Chairman’s amendment is a good one.
Second, it is not the case that this is already done. For those of us who went through the last national planning framework, as the Minister of State and I both did, there were response documents but those documents did not even have single-sentence responses to submissions. The Chair rightly makes a comparison with the development process. As the Minister of State knows, the city or county manager provides a report to his or her members which gives short summary responses to what are often long and complex submissions. That has two values. First, in this case, those in government who are considering the NPF get that written response. They are not giving the Oireachtas its full and proper role in the NPF process but we will have an argument about that in a few minutes.
Second, to emphasise Deputy O'Callaghan’s point, we are asking people to engage in a public consultation. When individuals, community-based organisations, professional groups and private sector interests go to the effort of making submissions, and those submissions are not taken on board, people have a rightful expectation to understand why that has happened. If people make submissions that just disappear down a black hole of Civil Service work, that will disincentivise them to engage in the future whereas at least now they will get some sense of why something was not taken on board.
I appreciate that would be a huge undertaking for the national planning framework because it is much bigger than a development plan. However, it only happens every ten years. Therefore, on the grounds the Chairman and Deputy O’Callaghan outlined, there has to be a way to find some mechanism. The response documents mentioned are general and high level in nature.
Deputy Steven Matthews resumed the Chair.
I can go back and have a look at them now but from memory, that is the way they are. Even if there was some way of clustering submissions together and dealing with their issues rather than referencing the submission reference numbers, etc., that could work. I am sure the officials can tell us how many submissions there were to the NPF last time. It was a very large number. There has to be a mechanism because the public has a right to know their submissions were considered and, if they were not taken on board, the reasons for that, in summary form. Otherwise, I think it will lead people to feel that sure, there is a “consultation”, but there is no real engagement with the substance of submissions.
That is just a recipe for undermining public confidence and participation in the process.
Has Deputy O'Callaghan spoken or does he want to come in on it?
I have, yes.
Okay. The Minister of State responded to me and I am satisfied with that but Deputy Ó Broin may require a response.
And on what I said as well.
Yes, I am sorry.
Which is the Chair's amendment?
We are discussing amendment No. 170.
Does the Chair wish me to come back in?
Just to respond to Deputies Ó Broin and O'Callaghan. I am satisfied.
Am I ready to go?
Absolutely, just on the points Deputies Ó Broin and O'Callaghan raised with regard to amendment No. 170.
There is a process there in practical terms. Reference was made to the development plans, and there is a process there. I want us to look at that process before Report Stage to see if we can include something in the context of the national planning framework. There is a question of practicality here in that you have large volumes, and you are coming down to policy with regard to exactly what is put forward. There has to be a practical aspect in terms of workload as well. Let us go away and look at what is there on the development plan process, which was mentioned, and the manager's reports and so forth. We will come back on Report Stage with an update on that. Is that okay?
I think that is the third commitment the Minister of State has made in half an hour to come back to us on Report Stage.
I think that is positive. I am keeping a notebook here.
Everything we have said in here is factual. We all want to get a point where-----
No, I am just noting it.
Absolutely. The points the Deputy made are valid ones.
I am going to move on to amendment No. 173 now, in the name of-----
What the Deputy is looking for is a bit more around going back and finding a process to see if there are elements we can use.
Amendment No. 173 is in the name of Deputy O'Callaghan and others.
It is the spirit of partnership, Deputy Ó Broin.
Have we ground the Minister of State down? I suspect not. We will see on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 173 is from Deputy O'Callaghan and others. Does Deputy Ó Broin wish to speak to it?
Yes, sure.
It is an individual one. I do not think it is grouped with anything else. Does the Deputy want to go with that?
Yes, and I just want to say that I welcome this new spirit of partnership from the Minister of State. I hope that it is not a tactic to avoid detailed consideration of the various sections, and that it is a genuine commitment to come back on Report Stage. Of course I will take the Minister of State at face value on that. However, we will be keeping a record and if it is not, we will remind him vociferously when we get to Report Stage.
As is the Deputy's democratic right.
Okay, let us go with amendment No. 173 before too much co-operation breaks out.
Okay. Amendment No. 173, in section 22, relates to the way in which the NPF review process deals with a variety of other plans, documents etc. I have two issues with the way in which section 22 is worded. Section 22(1) provides that in carrying out a review under section 20, the Government "may have regard to" such plans or documents as it considers appropriate. It is very different language from that of section 21(4), which provides that in carrying out a review under section 20, the Government "shall have regard to" any observations made in the consultation. Given we are talking about plans or documents that are broadly speaking Government policy, it seems strange that we are saying that it "may have regard" to them rather than that it "shall have regard". I think that is a mistake and it needs to be strengthened.
On a similar point, the text of the amendment it is much more explicit with regard to the range of plans and documents that should be considered. It goes a step further because some of those matters fall within the remit of relevant Oireachtas committees. As the Minister knows, I am a great fan of Oireachtas committees and their important role in holding the Government to account and making sure the Governments take their views on board. Therefore, the amendment does a third thing, which is to insert relevant joint Oireachtas committees into that process. It is about "shall have regard to" rather than "may have regard to"; a much more explicit list of the types of documents and policies; and reinserting the relevant Oireachtas committees into this part of the national planning framework review process.
I do not want to get into a lengthy discussion about committees and legislation. We have had long discussions around "may" and "shall". We all understand the implications of it. If the Government considers plans or documents to be relevant and appropriate, it is hard to understand why the legal obligation would just be "may". There is a huge amount of discretion anyway in that the Government effectively considers and decides whether they are appropriate. Why would we have a situation in which the Government could consider them appropriate but then merely "may have regard" to them? It seems like a strangely loose discretion. In the rest of the section, and in section 22(2), it is "shall have regard to". The Minister of State might explain to us why it is "shall" in section 22(2) and "may" in section 22(1), and why that difference is there.
With regard to what else this amendment is trying to do, I think it is important that there would be a role and input where relevant from different joint Oireachtas committees. As such committees have a democratic mandate and a huge amount of experience, they could make a relevant input here. It would be strengthened if our suggestion regarding the role of joint committees were accepted.
On amendment No. 173, I do not see any mention of sport, which is under the remit of an Oireachtas committee, or local government. I wonder if it is the case that when you do a very prescriptive list, you will always leave somebody off it. I question whether this is the right way to proceed. I am just looking for clarification on that.
Will it be withdrawn and brought back on Report Stage?
I do not know. I am just wondering if that is purposely done. I am just looking for clarification on it.
We might hear the Minister of State's response first.
Amendment No. 173 seeks to provide that the Government "shall have regard" to plans and documents that are considered appropriate and to assist in this, the Government shall consult a range of joint Oireachtas committees and shall include a statement in any draft provision on the new NPF about why information would be considered appropriate for the purposes of this review. On this one, I disagree. I do not consider this amendment appropriate or necessary. This is already provided for under section 21(2), which provides that the Minister "shall make provision" for the public in the review, including arrangements for consulting Members of the Oireachtas. Obviously, that includes Oireachtas committees as well. It is not necessary to list the range of joint Oireachtas committees. In the round, section 21(2) very much covers that area.
On Deputy O'Callaghan's point, he will see that section 22(2) states:
Without prejudice to subsection (1), in carrying out a review... the Government shall have regard to such plans or documents... as may be prescribed.
There must be some degree of flexibility but it says the Government "shall". We do not believe that the amendment to "shall" is appropriate because "may" gives the level of flexibility that we need to put in the legislation. However, in the legislation it also states that the Government "shall", or has to, look at documents. With regard to the ones Government deems to be relevant, there must be flexibility around that area because some may be appropriate and some may not.
The thing I am confused on is in section 21(2), it says the Minister "shall make provision", and in section 21(4), it says "the Government shall have regard to any observations", yet in section 22(1) it says the Government "may have regard". My question to the Minister of State is this: why was a decision taken to use "may" there, which is weaker language? Part of the Minister of State's argument is that we should not worry about "may" being in section 22(1) because "shall" is in sections 21(2) and (4). In fact, the very opposite is the case. If what the Minister of State suggests were the case, it should say "shall" in section 22(1). Why is there a different use of wording there? Clearly, that is a deliberate decision.
Taking the point Deputy Ó Broin raised, the Government "shall" have regard to this, as far as the Government is concerned.
With regard to consultation with Oireachtas committees, in the overall context, without being prescriptive to any individual committees, that is provided for under section 21(2).
My apologies, but that is not the question I am asking. While I do not agree with the Minister of State, I accept his point that Members of the Oireachtas are included in section 21(2). My question is a different one. Section 22(1) provides that in carrying out a review under section 20, the Government "may have regard to" such plans or documents as it considers appropriate. It uses the word “may”, whereas “shall” is used for the consultative process, in the sense of “shall have regard to any observations” coming out of that process. The Minister of State is giving a weaker provision for the NPF review with respect to Government plans or documents. Why was the decision taken to use a weaker formulation of words in section 22(1) than in section 21(4), for example? Why is there a greater level of obligation on the NPF reviews to have regard to public consultation documents rather than Government policy? It seems odd.
I probably did not explain myself properly. Where the Government “shall have regard”, obviously, “shall” is used in the context of prescribed documents. Section 22(2) states that the Government “shall” have regard to plans as may be prescribed but section 22(1) deals not only with prescribed documents but other documents as well, so the Minister or Government “may” have regard to such plans or documents as may be appropriate. Apart from the “shall” in respect to prescribed documents, it allows the Minister to look at other documents as well. That is the explanation.
I do not think section 21(2) covers what we are trying to do in this amendment. I take the Minister of State's point about why the Bill would exclude certain ones. The Cathaoirleach mentioned sport, which is a reasonable point. I accept that we should rethink our amendment. However, there is a difference between what is in section 21(1) and what we are trying to do here. To say that we will consult Members of the Oireachtas could just mean that all Members of the Oireachtas are notified that a review is happening and if they feel like banging in a submission, they can do so. What we are trying to do is say that the committees should be notified and, as a collective group that looks at particular areas of policy, should be asked if they wish to make a submission. That is different from randomly asking all Members of the Oireachtas, which is fine and, of course, all Members of the Oireachtas should be notified. However, it seems to me that if we are reviewing a national planning framework, every single committee is relevant, except maybe one or two. Even the Good Friday Agreement committee is relevant. All committees should be told that it is happening, asked if they want to make a submission and required to make a decision one way or the other on that. That is for the obvious reason that they are the experts in particular areas of policy. They may say that the Minister needs to take something into consideration because the committee is dealing with certain new information or new facts that the Minister needs to know about in order to put together the best possible review of the national planning framework. I accept that we need to amend our amendment to say “all Oireachtas committees” or words to that effect, but the Minister of State could save us the bother by accepting the point.
I would ask the proposers to add local government and built heritage to that.
I take the point that there are certain areas that could be added to the list or, indeed, it could be “all Oireachtas committees”, although perhaps not some of the committees that are not listed here. I accept that all of them could have a perspective on it.
In terms of the Bill overall, there is a whole range of issues that are ongoing and that affect people in local communities across a number of different issues that this Bill does not respond to. Various groups are not involved in the consultation around issues and there is a loss in that regard. If the points raised are not relevant or cannot be addressed, that is fine, but we should give the opportunity. I do not think section 21(2)(a) on Members of the Oireachtas covers that. The Minister of State says that includes the joint Oireachtas committees.
It is not stated, however.
It is not obvious and, as Deputy Boyd Barrett said, to be compliant with that could mean an email or a letter to every Member of the Oireachtas to say “This is happening if you want to submit any views.” While there is a use to that, it is very different from a structured approach or engagement with the Oireachtas committees. Members of Oireachtas are inundated with different emails, consultation processes, submissions and all the rest, and we would probably get very little input from that compared to a structured engagement with joint Oireachtas committees. The benefit of a structured engagement with joint Oireachtas committees is that it is collective, there is discussion, it is considered and it is not just what somebody is doing individually from their own perspective under the pressure of time. It should be explicit. If section 21(2)(a) stated “Members of the Oireachtas and joint Oireachtas committees”, it might be a way of addressing that issue.
The final part of the amendment reads: “The Government shall include a statement within any draft revision or new National Planning Framework of why the information was considered appropriate for the purposes of the review.” That is also a good suggestion. The phrase “considered appropriate” is very broad and flexible so if that power is being given to the Government, it is just to have an explanation as to why something was considered appropriate. The insight from that and the transparency around it would be useful.
I will not repeat the points that Deputies O'Callaghan and Boyd Barrett have made, although I strongly support them. I want to go back to the other element of our amendment, which is the weaker language in section 22(1). With the greatest of respect, the Minister of State's response to me confused the issue. In the part of section 21 that deals with the documents that come back from the public consultation, it states “the Government shall have regard to any observations made on foot of the consultations under subsection (2)”. That is not just with statutory bodies but also with members of the public and anybody else. In fact, the use of the stronger language in subsection (4) is not just for statutory bodies and it does not even mention prescribed bodies. We had a row with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, yesterday because he would not include prescribed bodies in that section. That also includes observations from members of the public, as it should do, by the way, and includes observations from industry and wherever else.
What I do not understand, and what the Minister of State has not yet explained, is why there is a weaker formulation of language with respect to plans and documents, which I presume means Government plans and Government documents, as set out in section 22(1), where the Government only “may have regard" to them. The Office of the Attorney General and the Minister’s officials carefully choose their language in the sections, so in addition to responding to my colleagues’ questions in regard to the need for a more explicit form of consultation with the Oireachtas committees, I am looking for an explicit explanation as to why weaker language is used in section 22(1), which states “may have regard to”, as compared to section 21(4), which states “shall have regard to”. There is an explicit reason that that language has been chosen and I would like to understand it.
I will go back to the core point. If it is agreeable to members, I will undertake to come back on Report Stage, so that section 21 will read:
The Minister shall make provision for public consultation in the review of the National Planning Framework, including arrangements for consulting-
(a) members of the Oireachtas and Oireachtas committees,
I undertake to come back with that on Report Stage. I think that covers it in general terms.
On the point made by Deputy Ó Broin, I probably did not explain myself well so I will go at it again. Under section 22(2), the Minister in carrying out the review “shall have regard” and, obviously, he or she shall have regard to plans or documents that may be prescribed, so, by definition, they should be consulted. It states that this is “Without prejudice to subsection (1)”. That is in addition to the phrase “the Government may have regard to such plans or documents as it considers appropriate”. However, if the proposers of the amendment are asking Ministers or the Government to look at every single document out there, that is impractical.
The Government "shall" consult and look at documents that are prescribed, but it may look at anything else it deems relevant to the review. That is as good an explanation as I can give.
That is a much clearer explanation. Can the Minister of State then give me a real-life example of what a prescribed document is versus a document that may be considered appropriate?
I would presume, for instance, a transport plan or environmental plans. It is anything that is relevant and specific. It may have regard to another document. It could be any document.
I apologise. If the Minister of State looks at section 22(2), "prescribed" in that instance means statutory plans, such as a development plan, for example, whereas with respect to section 22(1), it could be-----
It could be any document.
-----Housing for All, which is not a statutory plan, or would that be prescribed?
I would expect that would form part of the consideration. It may relate to some other document, however. I cannot give the Deputy an example because that is not what section 22(1) is about. The Minister may look at any document outside of it. They could be research documents. We are trying to be prescriptive.
Again, it is just for clarity and to understand. What does "prescribed" mean with regard to section 22(2)? That is obviously a particular type of document or plan.
I understand the point the Deputy is making. The Government will have to set up what the prescribed documents are in terms of looking at the regulations around the NPF. Outside of those documents, the Minister "may have regard" to such plans. Therefore, we have to put in something whereby the Minister at the time or Government at the time "may have regard" to same. The phrase "shall have regard" means the prescribed documents have to be looked at. It is, dare I say it, a general covering section of the Bill that allows the Minister to consider everything. The Minister might decide there is some research document he or she deems to be relevant that is not prescribed under the regulations.
Just so I am clear, on foot of the passing-----
It could be an ESRI report, for example.
Sure. I have two questions and then I am done with this. This is just for clarity. After this Bill passes in the form it is in, there will be a regulation and that regulation will actually list-----
Correct.
-----what documents are prescribed for the purpose of the NPF review. It will set that out. One assumes they are documents of a higher order, such as development plans, etc. They will be listed out. That is covered by the word "shall" in section 22(2).
Correct.
Then, section 22(1) means any other document that is not prescribed and it does not even have to be Government policy; it could be anything else.
The only thing I will say to the Minister of State is that part of his justification for having "may have regard to" is that he is saying the Government should not have to consider everything. It does not, because there is not-----
I am sorry, I do not mean it in that sense, but-----
Sure, but the provision at the end of section 22(1) states "as it considers appropriate".
It is a positive statement rather than a negative one.
Without overburdening the point, and this is my last question on this issue, do the Minister of State's officials have a sense at this point how encompassing the prescribed documents will be?
It would very much be around, obviously, maritime plans and environmental plans. It will be quite prescriptive. It cannot be hugely general in-----
It will broadly be plans that have some kind of statutory function.
Correct.
Okay. I am clear on that now.
We will move on to amendment No. 174 and then we are finished with this group. I can then proceed to a vote on amendment No. 120. It would be great if members could be as brief and straight to the point as possible on amendment No. 174.
Amendment No. 174 is an amendment to line 33, which states:
In page 63, line 33, after “prescribed.” to insert the following:
“Such prescribed documents shall include at least information on the following:
(a) current information on current and projected population and demographics, including on net-migration and inward migration, coastal and flood related retreats, and climate refugees;
(b) the state of the environment report and indicators on greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, status of protected sites, air quality, water quality, soil quality,
and
(c) human health and well-being.”.
We had quite a good discussion yesterday on human health and well-being. We have been discussing sections 22(1) and 22(2) on page 63. There is a list in subsection (3), but there is no list in subsection (2). This amendment will be to give some detail, and there was good discussion, as to what documents would be prescribed and what would not. This is-----
Is the Deputy referring to section 22 of the Bill?
Yes. This is an amendment to section 22(2) of the Bill.
I am sorry; I did not hear properly.
This is to put bones on what the prescribed documents are.
These issues relate to the prescribed documents.
It follows on from the discussion we were just having. Some of the issues here are listed in the amendment. They are things like "coastal and flood related retreats", "biodiversity loss", "greenhouse gas emissions", "air quality" and "water quality". They are highly relevant and very important. Maybe it is already an intention of the Minister to ensure that all these are prescribed, but, certainly, the legislation is silent on it. The legislation would be much stronger if it were not silent on it and if we had these listed. These are absolutely key in terms of planning issues and in terms of any review of the national panning framework, which is what this section of the Bill is about.
That is pretty clear. The Minister to respond, please.
We discussed this issue in the last couple of minutes with Deputy Ó Broin. First, we will be bringing clarity in terms of the prescribed documents. That will come as part of the regulation when the legislation is enacted. Second, if we were to go with this particular amendment then this would be the only prescribed list, whereas "prescribed" is going to cover a lot of other areas. On that basis, therefore, we cannot accept the amendment as it only covers certain areas. The point made by the Deputy is acknowledged and we will be bringing this forward by way of regulation. We will take all aspects into account and that will cover what is meant by "prescribed". That is the structure we have. On that basis, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
The Minister of State misunderstands the amendment because, in fact, it is not exclusive. It states that it "shall include", but "shall include" means other things can be included. It does not state "shall only be" or "shall only include". That is the first point.
The second point is that in some sense, it is not that we are trying to list the documents but we want to ensure that certain really important information is provided and, therefore, this is actually listing the types of information. We had very detailed discussions yesterday about the inadequacy, in our view, of only having NPF reviews after the second census rather than after every census.
There are also issues, and we had some discussion yesterday, about the need for information around measuring and monitoring, for example, biodiversity loss or impact on the environment. First of all, it is not the case that this would limit the prescribed documents to only certain categories of document. The Minister of State will do that with regulations and this does not get in the way of that. However, it is saying that these two clusters of information are of such importance that they need to be stipulated in the legislation to ensure they are absolutely considered in the context of the review.
I will take one step forward.
I will take Deputy Boyd Barrett, please.
That is the point. It is the minimum required information to have a proper review. If we do not take these things into account, we will not fully be able to discharge our environmental, climate change, biodiversity and, indeed, housing needs. That is the point; this information is needed to make a proper plan or have a proper planning framework. To be honest, I would add to the list when I look at it. It is a point I will make later on sections that are not in our amendments but in my view should be. We need to have a housing needs assessment throughout this entire process of the requirement, specifically, for social and affordable housing.
This is the one thing we have learned over the past few years. We have regard for population demographics and we look at what the housing need might be but we do not actually match that properly with need because we do not take into account the ability of people to buy the houses that are often built. We often end up with mismatches between supply and need. I think it should be right across the entire planning process that among the pieces of information that are necessary for national planning frameworks, planning statements and development plans is an assessment of what the social and affordable housing need, specifically, will be whether it is nationally or in a particular local authority area. I want to throw that in now and signal I think these are things that also need to be minimally required pieces of information that are taken into account when developing frameworks, statements or plans.
The way the amendment is worded is it is not an exhaustive or exclusive list, in that it provides that "such prescribed documents shall include at least information on the following" but there can of course be lots of more information sought and lots more prescribed documents. It is just to make sure these things are not missed and the amendment is worded that way.
We had a very good discussion yesterday, which I will not repeat, around the importance of human health and well-being in the planning process. It was acknowledged by the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, that the concept of well-being was not really talked about 25 years ago when the last legislation was made. Human health and well-being, while we go back to planning 100 years ago, was at the forefront of town planning and designed areas it has often been missed along the way as not necessarily a key component when the sheer volumes or the structural side of things is looked at.
We have a very necessary move towards increased density in our planning process in the country in terms of compact growth and sustainability around that. It is critically important to get that right and that higher-density communities are well-designed, have good amenities and good open spaces. Having the frame of human health and well-being within our national planning framework is really important to getting that design right and getting the sports facilities and all the things that are needed to make those more compact developments work. In my view it is really important that this runs through our entire planning process and definitely the national planning framework.
If we were in a situation where all of this stuff was being got right I would not feel the need for this amendment. However, I can absolutely tell the Minister of State, and I do not say this with any kind of pleasure, that areas of my constituency have had newer developments in recent years that have not been designed and planned well and where human health and well-being is not to the forefront of the delivery of housing. We are getting the housing but not the infrastructure and amenities needed with that. It is having huge social impacts on those newer communities. The newer communities there are crying out for the facilities needed to ensure their human health and everything that flows from that. There are higher-density areas built around the playground but then the playground was taken out when the development is finished because the issues around taking in charge and all the rest are not dealt with properly in our planning legislation. I have amendments related to that but this needs to flow through everything we do and absolutely needs to flow through the national planning framework.
As the Minister of State referenced, there can be great policy documents and strategies done at Government and State level but when they are not, the Minister of State will be aware there can be silos where documents are done by particular Departments but when they are not done by the lead Department in an area, it is not always encompassed across everything. It is really important that if there is good stuff done around human health and well-being, for example by other Departments, that it makes it into the prescribed documents that inform the national planning framework. That is what this amendment seeks to do. Paragraph (a) of the amendment is around demographic and population changes and is absolutely key in terms of meeting housing need and paragraph (b) is around key issues on environment such as greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, water quality and biodiversity loss. As this is so important to getting the planning right and the national planning framework right, I ask the Minister of State to consider the amendment and to consider agreeing to it or dealing with it on Report Stage.
I ask the Minister of State to respond as quickly as possible as I do want to move on as we have spent a lot of time on this.
I cannot accept this amendment for a number of reasons. First, we are doing the prescribed documents to a regulation. Second, that is the structure. I take the point, "shall include at least", but by putting in "shall include at least information" we run the risk we are making these more important than other elements that should be included. On human health and well-being, just looking at that particular point as I was looking at the Deputy's amendment, with respect to the measure to support improved health and well-being, I believe that would be more practically done through guidance because health and well-being is spread across a lot of other areas. Coming back to the core principle, in terms of prescribed documents, we are doing that by way of regulation and it is covered off already in section 22(2). On that basis, I cannot accept this amendment.
Just to reflect health and well-being and that being dealt with through guidance being issued, there is nothing in this amendment to stop guidance being issued in those areas. This amendment is about review of the national planning framework and what documents should be-----
That was just an addition but the core point is we are bringing this through by way of regulation.
Okay but what we seek to try to do in the amendment, because we feel these areas are so important, is to make sure it is in the legislation. I appreciate it could be done by guidance but a lot of things could be done by guidance and we are trying to have this not be a matter of discretion. We are trying to have it as a statutory obligation.
We believe bringing in prescribed documents by way of regulation is the more appropriate mechanism in terms of the model we are using for the national planning framework. On that basis I cannot accept the amendment.
I appreciate that but there could be a change of Government when this is done. There could be Ministers who do not put importance on these issues. Having it in the legislation would ensure that no matter whether there is a change of Government or not these issues around biodiversity loss, status of protected sites, air quality, water quality, well-being and human health and so forth would have to be considered in terms of reviews of the national planning frameworks.
The Deputies have made their point well. The Minister of State has responded that he is not accepting the amendment. The amendment can be pressed at an appropriate point but I want to move on because we have had good back and forth on it.
I want to confirm, yesterday the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, said that amendment No. 251 is withdrawn. Can I confirm with the Minister of State that this is correct? Yes. That completes the debate on that grouping.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Níl
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Amendment declared carried.
We will now move on to amendment No. 121. Amendments Nos. 121 and 389 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 121:
In page 58, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
“ “community garden” means an area of land made available to members of the community for collective gardening purposes for personal or local consumption of produce and is operated otherwise than with a view to making profit, to be prescribed in regulations as “community garden” meaning an area of land that—
(a) is owned or leased by a local authority,
(b) is let or available for letting from the authority to members of the local community for collective gardening purposes, and
(c) is used or intended for use—
(i) wholly or mainly for either or both—
(I) the cultivation of vegetables or fruit, grown mainly for personal consumption, and
(II) the propagation of plants for environmental or decorative purposes,
and
(ii) otherwise than with a view to making a profit;”.
I will be brief and to the point. I am sure the Minister of State knows what a community garden is.
I do.
The law of the land, however, does not. It is completely silent on the definition of "community garden" in any legislation I can find. "Allotment" is well set out. "Community garden" is not. For that reason, I prepared a Private Members' Bill that sets out the definition of "community garden" and provides for a number of other measures, particularly around the obligations we could usefully place on local authorities with respect to community gardens.
I am grateful for the input of Dónal McCormack of Community Gardens Ireland and of Blessington Community Gardens, who is a constituent of the Chairman's. I also thank Justyna Traore of the Top of the City Community Garden in my city of Waterford.
This is a very simple definition. Nowhere else in legislation is there a working definition of "community garden", even though everybody in this room knows exactly what I am talking about. This provides the perfect opportunity to insert a definition where it will have relevance in terms of how a local authority might apply. There is always a concern about the wording of amendments. I reassure the Minister of State that I went consulted with the Parliamentary Counsel when preparing my Private Members' Bill, which has been through a full drafting process. This is a legal drafting. It was not written by me but by people who are expert in the drafting of parliamentary material. What is in the amendment is oven-ready. It is a useful definition that helps us to set into law something we already understand. I am not looking to place any other obligations on local authorities at this point. I am simply asking that we have a working definition of "community garden" in order that the law makes clear what everybody in this room understands.
Does the Deputy wish to speak to amendment No. 389, which relates to the insertion of the definition into plans and strategies.
As I understand it, that is the Cathaoirleach's amendment.
It is in my name only.
I have not joined in on that. It is very simply where we are referring to allotments. The position regarding allotments is well set out in law and is well understood. It is to include, side by side with that, a definition of "community garden". In practice, very often these community spaces have an element of both happening together. There will be an area that is managed by a community together and so there will be some allotmenteering going on. The other amendment deals with that and ensures that the definition is included there.
I thank the Green Party for tabling this important amendment. In some sense, it does more than just provide a definition. As the Minister of State will know, far too often if something is not set out somewhere in law, even by way of a definition, it can be extremely difficult to get really worthwhile projects over the line. We all have experience in our own constituencies of people who want to establish community gardens very often on small, derelict, underutilised pieces of land and it can be a real struggle. If there is a good official in a local authority or somebody who is on board, they can provide help to progress it. However, without such a person, it can be very difficult.
When I was on the council, a local authority department sought to shut down a community garden on land that had been derelict for 20 years. The garden was located in an area of extreme disadvantage and people did great voluntary work there teaching young people about biodiversity and growing their own plants, flowers and vegetables.
I emphasise that including the definition in the Bill would give it a grounding in legislation. That would then strengthen the argument of people who want to utilise it. Inserting the definition of "community garden" into the relevant section by means amendment No. 389 will also elected members and members of the public to try to make the case in the context of the relevant plans for community gardens to become a more considered feature. This is a really worthwhile amendment, and I am happy to support it.
I support the amendment. Having a definition of "community garden" in legislation is important. It will be helpful if that is done. Earlier today and yesterday, when dealing with the planning process and the national planning framework, we had a good discussion on the importance of well-being and health. Among their numerous benefits, community gardens contribute to well-being and human health. They are also very important in community building, cohesion and integration. I have come across cases where they have been very successful in bringing together newer residents with longer term residents in an area. They are very positive in bringing cohesiveness, integration, friendships and community building. They also play a very important role in derelict and underutilised spaces. Significantly, they have brought life into open spaces. The activity in community gardens have had a positive impact in some open spaces where people might not have felt safe. I strongly support the amendment. I commend the Deputies on bringing it forward.
I support the amendment. I would like to provide a practical insight into its benefit. During the Ballymun regeneration process, a large number of areas were not developed for several years because of the desire to have owner-occupied houses on those sites - a very different time from now. Community gardens sprung up on many of those parcels of land. When it came to drafting the local area plan, we wanted to accommodate those in some way within the large overall bank of land that was there. It would have been very helpful to have a definition such as this that the LAP could rely on regarding what a community garden was. It would be useful because when community gardens go well, they go very well, but when they go wrong, they can also become the exclusive reserve of a very small number of people. I have not experienced that in my constituency, but I know it has happened elsewhere. If a garden is not for the use of the community as defined in Deputy Ó Cathasaigh's amendment, it could give the local authority additional leverage in order to ensure the community gets the advantage of it. There is merit in the amendment. I accept that the Minister of State may need to review it on Report Stage, but I ask him to consider it strongly.
I ask the Minister of State to respond on both those amendments and then we can move on.
I will now address amendment No. 121, which was jointly tabled by Deputies Matthews and Ó Cathasaigh, and amendment No. 389, in the name of Deputy Matthews. These amendments seek to amend section 46 with an obligation to prepare strategy relating to creation, improvement and preservation of sustainable places and communities by providing that such a strategy would reserve land for use of and cultivation of community gardens in addition to allotments as already provided for in the Bill. Amendment No. 121 provides a definition of "community garden". The amendments have merit, but I ask the Deputies to withdraw them in order to allow me to consider them further and for my officials to engage with the Office of the Attorney General on how the amendments are worded. I am not in any way questioning the Deputies' legal advice, but the Government is required to work with the AG and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to ensure they are appropriately drafted and align with provisions in the wider Bill.
I will bring forward amendments on Report Stage to address the points raised.
Based on what the Minister of State just said, is it very promising that this will be included?
I welcome the Minister of State's response. It makes common sense to include it. I have been doing this work with Community Gardens Ireland and we identified this lacuna in the law. It has been a barrier for community groups and a barrier in ensuring that local authorities provide really valuable services in all sorts of ways, including things like addressing climate change, reducing food miles, biodiversity benefits and most importantly the social cohesion element that community gardens provide. The Top of the City Garden is a case in point. Many people go there to grow vegetables but many more people go there to meet members of their community. The vegetables, fruits and flowers provide an excuse for people to come together. I welcome the Minister of State's positive response. The groundwork is done. As I said, it is not my work; the parliamentary drafters within the Oireachtas service put it together. It will be a really welcome inclusion.
I look forward to speaking to it again on Report Stage.
Just to confirm, is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?
Yes, I am withdrawing it on that basis.
Is amendment No. 389 being withdrawn as well?
Amendments Nos. 121 and 389 are being withdrawn. I will formally withdraw the latter when we get to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 122:
In page 58, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“ “functional area” means—
(a) in relation to a planning authority (other than a coastal planning authority), its administrative area for the purposes of the Act of 2001, and
(b) in relation to a planning authority that is a coastal planning authority, its administrative area for the purposes of the Act of 2001 up to the high water mark;”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 123:
In page 58, to delete lines 17 to 19 and substitute the following:
“ “key town” means a settlement that has been identified and designated as a key town in the National Planning Framework in accordance with paragraph (g)* of subsection (3) of section 19 (as read with subsection (5)** of that section);”
From our discussions yesterday, I had understood that this amendment is being withdrawn. Is that still the position?
That is correct.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 124:
In page 59, lines 5 to 7, to delete all words from and including “town” in line 5 down to and including “Office,” in line 7 and substitute the following:
“built up area or city identified by the Central Statistics Office following a census of population of the State, .
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- Stanton, David.
Níl
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 125, 126, 330, 333, 417 to 419, inclusive, 422, 427, 429 and 553 are related and may be discussed together. I invite the Minister of State to speak on amendment No. 125 and on the other amendments in this group if he wishes.
I move amendment No. 125:
In page 59, line 27, to delete “or range”.
This amendment seeks to remove the reference to range from the definition of zoning objectives. Amendments Nos. 330 and 333 make the necessary consequential amendments throughout Part 3.
The definition of "zoning objectives" relates to the zoning of lands for particular use as part of a development plan. Currently the section reads: " “zoning objectives” means objectives for the zoning of land for a particular use or range or mixture of uses included in a development plan in accordance with subsection (6) of section 41." These amendments seek to bring clarity to the definition of "zoning objectives"; they do not change the meaning or intent. The reference to range of uses is not clear. Referring to a mixture of uses only is sufficient. We are removing the word "range".
Amendment No. 553 seeks to amend section 73, which sets out the procedure preparing and making co-ordinated plans. These are specific area plans for a settlement or part of a settlement that straddles two planning authorities. Under the Bill, a regional spatial and economic strategy will designate settlements that require such plans. Two planning authorities are required to make a co-ordinated area plan together, with one of the authorities leading its preparation. As currently set out, co-ordinated area plans shall be prepared within one year of making a development plan taking account of the joint nature of co-ordinated area plans and operational considerations in the time required to prepare such plans. Amendment No. 553 extends the window for preparation of these plans to within the first half of the development plan cycle. A co-ordinated plan must be prepared and agreed before the time comes to prepare an interim report and the implementation of a development plan. The interim report is undertaken five years after the adoption of a development plan.
While planning authorities will prepare these plans as soon as possible after preparation of the development plan it is prudent to extend the one-year period given the specific operation arrangements that will need to be put in place for such plans where they involve more than one local authority. While the Bill does not specify the areas where such plans will be required, a typical example would be Athlone, responsibility for which lies with the county councils in Westmeath and Roscommon. One planning authority is designated as the lead planning authority for the purpose of preparing the plan and the other local authority is the associated authority. The two local authorities collectively appoint a co-ordinated area plan committee to prepare the plan with representatives of members from both authorities. Does the Chair wish me to continue with the other amendments?
We will take two technical questions on this, and then I will ask the Minister of State to comment on the members' amendments.
On amendment No. 125, was the word "range" in the original definition in the existing legislation or was it a new word that was put into this draft and then to be taken out for the reasons just stated?
In the context of amendment No. 553, I am not clear on what the actual practical consequence are of the insertion of the proposed text into section 73. Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify the position.
Amendment No. 553 means that rather than co-ordinated area plans happening within one year of a development plan being passed, there will be a five-year window. That is a significant change in timeframes. I appreciate that there are resource and capacity issues involved but five years, potentially, for a co-ordinated area plan is a long period after a development plan is passed. It is half a decade before an area might have a co-ordinated area plan. Will the Minister of State outline his thoughts on that? Going from one year to five years is going from quite a tight period to a very extended one. Will the Minister of State explain the rationale behind this? He mentioned capacity, but will he explain the rationale for the full five years and whether a shorter period was considered? Why is it not proposed to extend it to two or three years? This is just for co-ordinated area plans. What are the timeframes for other priority area plans? Are they within a year or is the timeframe specified too?
On the first point, the main reason the word "range" is being removed is because it causes confusion. This is due to the fact that the word can also refer to data. The view was taken that the section in the existing Act contains the word "ranges" in the context of a mixture of uses. If we look at the original reading of the Act, section 10(2)(a) refers to areas in the development plan already zoned for residential use or for a mixture of uses. It was brought in as a new term and then when it was looked at, in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, it was decided it just caused confusion. That is why we are seeking to take it out. The term "mixture" will cover suffice.
On the point raised about the practical impact, it was felt that one year was too tight if it involved two local authorities. The natural fit was that yes it gives a period of time alright but the new plans must be reviewed. Let us say they are ten years plans and they must be reviewed within five years. There is nothing to stop the local authorities going ahead and doing it much earlier but it would give a degree of flexibility if the natural cut-off point was five years thereafter.
I believe we are okay on amendment No. 125, on removal of "range".
Yes, it is very clear. I thank the Minister of State.
Prior to area plans, there are five years for urban plans or is that for the co-ordinated area plans? Before the amendment, it was just one year rather than five years. With the amendment, it will be five years. Was there a rationale for having those as only for one year initially. Why is this? Clearly that was a deliberate difference in the initial draft of the Bill. Why is this being rowed back on? I appreciate the issues around capacity and resources, but there would not be a lot of co-ordinated area plans.
There would be far fewer co-ordinated area plans, priority area plans and urban plans, so a decision must have been made previously for this to be given priority. It is my guess that this is because they are involved in two local authorities and we do not want one local authority to hold up the other local authority, etc.
Will the Minister of State explain why that decision was made? Priority was given to co-ordinated area plans but that decision has been rolled back. Related to that, the Minister of State said there is nothing to stop local authorities from doing this sooner. There is currently a problem whereby development plans specify that local area plans will be done, but they are often not done because of resource constraints at local authority level. The local authorities do not have enough planners and forward planning is not given sufficient priority or resources. I ask the Minister of State to expand on the reason he believes the timelines in the legislation will work given the deficits there have been in having local area plans provided?
The co-ordinated area plans are really important. I remember the urgency with which the then Minister of State, Deputy John Paul Phelan, brought forward a general scheme on this particular issue. In Athlone, Ferrybank in Waterford and Drogheda and that part of east Meath, there is obviously a certain level of urgency. I am not against the idea of giving more time because one year is probably too little, in fairness.
I have one question with respect to this. Does the Department have a list of the areas that will be likely to utilise this? The number is small. I mentioned three areas and there cannot be many more. For the record, will the Minister of State list the co-ordinated area plans?
I will go back to the practical import of this. If two local authorities both have development plans, under the legislation, the regional assemblies would be required to indicate where they deem the co-ordinated area plans should be. When they come back, they will indicate where these are. There may be two local authorities with different development plan conclusion dates-----
Yes, cycles.
-----but one would not expect them to be five years apart. We sought to bring in a practical measure to ensure this is workable. If two local authorities are each doing a development plan and a local area plan and will now do an urban plan, the additional workload involved will be considerable. We want to be certain it is practicable to do the plans and that we give them sufficient time to do so. We have opted for a five-year period because that is what is built into legislation. There will be a five-year review after ten years. We will see how it works and there is a mechanism for doing so.
To address Deputy O’Callaghan’s point, we cannot set time limits that are not practical for the two local authorities. Deputy O’Callaghan’s point was on not going ahead. We cannot have a situation where it is almost impossible to do so. It could be argued that we may be giving them too much time but five years is a natural cycle. We want to ensure these plans go ahead. They are not large in number. We believe they feed into an integrated model that includes the national planning framework and the regional plans. We want this integrated model and a key element of that is for two local authorities to do a co-ordinated area plan. The Deputies could argue that the date is too flexible but there is a defined date in the legislation for the review of development plans. Obviously, we want to fit those back in. It makes sense that co-ordinated area plans would be part of any review. From a practical perspective, for example, as part of a review of a development plan after five years, it would be a natural fit to have co-ordination between two development plans and a co-ordinated area plan between two local authorities. That is the logic behind that.
We will conclude the discussion of amendment No. 553 and then take a break.
I appreciate that it takes time and resources to do co-ordinated area plans, priority area plans and urban plans. There is no question about that. The difficulty I have is with the change. The Bill states the principal planning authority shall "commence" the process, not that it should complete or finish the process or anything like that. It "shall commence" the preparation. It shall begin it and make a start on it within one year of making the development plan. Therefore, all they have to do under the current wording, which the Minister of State is seeking to amend, is start the process within a year. This amendment would mean that by the time of the review of the development plan, it will be five years into the lifetime of the development plan. Let us bear in mind that existing development plans have been running for six years. A five-year period is a significant period. While one would expect many of these plans to be finished for the review to take place, the only obligation is that the process will have commenced. When the elected members of the local authority do their review of the development plan - the co-ordinated area plan could very important - all they may have ascertain is whether the process has commenced and there may be nothing else to review at that point.
The five-year period within which the process must commence seems very long. I fully accept that the process will not be completed within a year but does it not make sense to provide that it must commence within a year? If the Minister of State feels that one year is too tight, he could increase the period for commencing the process to two years. In a ten-year plan, all that will be legally required within five years is to begin the process of the co-ordinated area plans. There are not many of them. It is very important for the co-operation between local authorities to get cohesive plans and developments. Without a co-ordinated area plan, there could be ad hoc development, or will there be refusals on the basis that the co-ordinated area plan has not been done? Why is a period of five years provided just to begin the process?
Deputy Ó Broin has a very brief point to make.
I have some questions, rather than points. The Minister of State may not have this information to hand but if there is an indicative list, or a list of the current co-ordinated area plans, I would be interested in having it. I know of three or four of them.
When we were discussing the propositions made by the then Minister of State, Deputy John Paul Phelan, in the previous Oireachtas some of the Deputies who represent Athlone highlighted the urgency of this. They stated that this issue had been around for a long time and there was a real need to make progress. For example, wastewater infrastructure was needed and other issues were not progressing. They called for movement.
I want to be clear about this. Let us take Waterford as an example because it is one of the areas, with Waterford and Ferrybank. This is not to reopen the Crotty the Robber war from a previous Oireachtas. The issue is that Waterford currently has a development plan that runs until 2028. Am I reading this section and amendment correctly if I say the current development plan will be allowed to run its course, a new development plan will be put in place, which will be a ten-year plan, and it would be within the first five years of the new ten-year plan that these plans would commence?
Correct.
If that is the case, it means that in the case of Waterford and the bit of Ferrybank in Kilkenny, it could be as late as 2033 before the plan commences. Given that it will take one or two years to produce the plan, the plan might not be in place till 2034 or 2035, which is a decade away. That is even longer again. I do not represent any of these areas so I do not have the same level of knowledge about this area.
I recall Deputy Naughten making a compelling case for the urgency in Athlone in particular because it crosses three local authority boundaries. It is a complex set of issues. With Drogheda and Waterford, it is only that their suburbs have spread into neighbouring counties. It is a little less serious. That is quite a long timeline. Even if the amendment passes, would it be possible for a local authority to proceed with a co-ordinated area plan prior to the new development plan cycles if that section of the legislation was enacted? It appears the answer is "No", and that they could only do it in the new development plan cycle.
Yes. The legislation is based around new development plans.
It could be - it does not have to be - a decade before we get any of these co-ordinated area plans.
There are current ones. Going back to Deputy Cian O'Callaghan's points, section 70 sets out co-ordinated area plans and the procedure is in section 73. They will be defined procedures. They will go through a structured approach.
Going back to Deputy Ó Broin's point, we know of Athlone and Carlow. We will get a list for him. There is no point in-----
Carlow is the other one.
Carlow is one. We will get the Deputy a list. Under the legislation, the regional assemblies will be required to come up with what they believe to be the locations for co-ordinated area plans. There are current plans already. I am not certain; we will get the deadline dates by which they must conclude for the Deputy.
I have those here. I can look them up myself.
When a new development plan cycle comes in, let us assume there are two local authorities rather than three. They may have different conclusion dates for the development plans but one would hope, in time, they will be coterminous because it will be a structurally good process overall. If they are not coterminous, it is important to give some level of flexibility. There may be a situation in which there are three years of a differential in the five-year review. It would make sense that both local authorities would have carried out their reviews to feed into the co-ordination plan process. It is to provide flexibility. If the Deputy has thoughts on it on Report Stage, he can return to the issue. That is the process. We will come back to him with the details on it.
That is clear. This is just for clarity. I am looking at, for example, Westmeath, for which 2027 is the end date of the current plan. That means, potentially, in Athlone - I know it is only one of the three local authorities - it could be as late as 2033 or 2034 before it has a co-ordinated plan.
There is nothing to stop it from doing it earlier.
That is 100% the case. I am just looking at the outer limit. If there are two or three local authorities, would you have to wait until both or all three local authorities have their new plans before you can initiate the co-ordinated area plan? Or, could it be commenced when one, more than likely the lead local authority, has agreed its plan? Do they all have to agree their new plans?
No, I think is once one has commenced. Let us remember that one authority has to be designated the lead authority.
I assume the lead local authority would have to have the new plan.
Correct. If that is in train, the process kicks in.
The timeline could be as long as ten years, although it could also be shorter. It cannot commence until the new development plans are in place.
Yes, that is correct.
There are no plans in place co-ordinating the different local authorities; that is the problem.
No. There are similar plans but on the core point, the Deputy is correct.
That concludes the debate on amendment No. 553. We will take a break now, as agreed. We will resume with discussion on amendment No. 126, which is next on the list.
Sitting suspended at 12.05 p.m. and resumed at 1.03 p.m.
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien. We will continue where we paused before the break, on amendment No. 126, in the names of Deputy O'Callaghan and others.
The amendment relates to section 16, on public inspection. That section states:
Where this Part requires publication by the Office of the Planning Regulator, a regional assembly or a planning authority of a notice stating that any matter or thing is or will be made available for inspection by the public ... [where the time period is not specified in the legislation] the Office of the Planning Regulator, regional assembly or planning authority, as the case may be, [will make it available to the public at a point that body] considers reasonable.
Of course, the problem is there is no definition of "reasonable". Who will get to the decide and on what basis? The core of what I am trying to do with this amendment, along with Deputy O'Callaghan, is to give some clarity as to who will define "reasonable". The amendment states:
In considering what constitutes a "reasonable” period, the requirement shall be to provide for a period consistent with affording the public an opportunity to effectively participate, bearing in mind the volume and technical complexity of the materials involved, and that traditional holiday periods are not conducive to public participation and therefore the periods need to be extended accordingly.
Many of us have had the experience, as the Minister probably has, that sometimes consultation periods are in July or August or over the Christmas period. Often, where the period is not specified in legislation, they pay no regard to whether it is a simple matter under consideration or one of some complexity. I am trying to find a way of defining or giving some guidance as to what is reasonable because if we do not, "reasonable" may be what is reasonable to the agency in terms of how quickly it wants to get on with the matter rather than what is reasonable for the purposes of public participation, which is the crucial issue at hand.
The amendment is worded to have flexibility because that is a key point we are making with the amendment. There are areas that are complex and technical and require longer, such as where a notice is being issued or there is public consultation. More complex and technical areas often require getting expertise, whereas in the case of a more straightforward notice without complexities and technicalities, the same length of time is not needed. Nothing makes people more cynical about consultation periods or, in this case, public inspection than if they run over August or Christmas periods. That makes people feel, even if it may not be the case, that it is a deliberate attempt to keep people in the dark or reduce the opportunity for public scrutiny or input.
The amendment applies to the Office of the Planning Regulator, regional assemblies and planning authorities, as in local authorities, and its aim is to ensure there will not be such a high level of discretion as is provided in the wording "considers reasonable". Under that wording, the body that makes a determination on what is reasonable for the Office of the Planning Regulator will be the Office of the Planning Regulator, and the same will be true in the case of a regional assembly or planning authority, which is very wide. There is a lack of consistency. The Office of the Planning Regulator could take a totally different view as to what it considers reasonable. It may take the view that having public consultations running over holiday periods is not appropriate or that more complex and technical matters take more time, whereas a regional assembly might have a different view and there could be huge variance among planning authorities. I am not seeking with the amendment to prevent that flexibility, but it is to give some definition as to what constitutes "reasonable".
There are a few issues with the amendment but, in principle, I agree having a public consultation over, say, a holiday period will not exercise the minds of the public. In practice, however, that is extremely rare. As an example, we discussed yesterday the sustainable residential development and complex settlement growth guidelines. I had them ready before Christmas. Most local authorities, if not all, will ensure consultations do not occur over holiday periods, especially Christmas. Deputy Ó Broin mentioned July and August, and while this is not a criticism, one question relates to what we would define as a traditional holiday period. People would normally see that as Christmas, Easter or, say, the St. Patrick's Day or other bank holiday period. I do not think July and August is any longer defined as a traditional holiday period, even if the Deputies and I might think it is. One issue with the amendment, therefore, relates to what a traditional holiday period is.
In practice, what will happen where there is a bank holiday or something similar is that this additional day will be added, as already happens. We have been prescriptive in other parts of the Bill, such as in regard to development plans. The notification of a draft plan to relevant parties, for example, is set as happening within a four-week period. The provision in the Bill will provide the flexibility the Deputies are seeking and it is a catch-all provision. That is the purpose of it. In other areas of the Bill, such as with regard to development plans, the period is specified. Let us take development plans as an example for a draft stage publication. If that draft stage publication is over a period when there happens to be a bank holiday, an additional day will be added to that.
The Deputies' definition – this is not a criticism – is problematic, unless they tell me what they deem a traditional holiday period to be. I acknowledge they have referred to the consideration of what constitutes a reasonable period. I genuinely believe that what we have included is more than sufficient. Especially regarding my Department, I cannot remember a consultation in recent years that covered a traditional holiday period. We are even conscious of the circumstances over the summer months, for example. In Fingal, which is my area and that of Deputy Cian O'Callaghan, the authorities made sure to hold public consultations, including on the likes of New Street, at times when people could interact.
The other point to remember, on which I will conclude, is that public consultation is now much broader and much more accessible. It is not just a case of putting a notice in the library and presenting the plans, as used to be the case fadó, fadó. Information is now put online and notices are published on social media. It is all accessible online, which is good. The lessons from Covid are such that, in many instances, we still have hybrid-type meetings, whereby people can engage virtually by video call or Zoom and various other technologies. For this reason, what we have included in the legislation is more than sufficient.
Obviously, I disagree. I am not going to labour the point but wish to make three points. The first concerns the determination of what constitutes a holiday period. Ultimately, that would be a matter for regulation. General provisions could set out what the periods are, and that would be in the gift of the Minister. The problem with this section is that it deals precisely with those cases in which the time period has not been prescribed in the legislation.
Notwithstanding the Department's record, as the Minister has outlined it, the relevant provision relates to the Office of the Planning Regulator, regional assemblies and planning authorities – a whole range of actors. Although I do not believe all these bodies engage in best practice, let us imagine they do. This would not be an argument against ensuring clarity regarding what "reasonable" means, because best practice can come and go depending on who is running the planning authority, the staff, the conditions, etc. Likewise, even if the Minister's efforts regarding consultation are the gold standard – if so, I commend him – he could be replaced by somebody who does not believe in consultation, for example.
Like the Deputy.
One would like to ensure such people would adhere to the same high standards the current Minister has set for himself. Therefore, there needs to be some clarification regarding what "reasonable" means or a linking of "reasonable" to meaningful public participation. "Reasonable" could mean what is reasonable to the authority or what is reasonable to the person trying to engage. If the Minister is unwilling to accept our wording, further clarity is needed, particularly on linking reasonableness to meaningful public participation.
To be helpful, I do not believe we are a million miles away from each other on defining "reasonable". The Deputy has attempted to expand on "reasonable" and the requirements in his amendment. I genuinely do not believe the language is appropriate for inclusion in the primary legislation and that it would be more appropriate to address the matter via a circular or guidance, which can be done. We have certainly been very clear with local authorities on what we have discussed already.
The provision in section 16 of the Bill is the catch-all provision. Where specification is required, as with a development plan, that is absolutely set down.
Yes.
The last two words of the section read "considers reasonable". I know that Deputy has flipped it the other way. On whether it is more appropriate to specify through guidance, this could be done anyway. It certainly could be done under the provision. However, on the basis of what I have mentioned already, and without being in any way dismissive, I believe the wording of the amendment is problematic. I take Deputy Ó Broin's point that a Minister could set out what he or she believes to be a traditional holiday period. I am not being facetious in saying we now have a changed Ireland. The period could be over Christmas, during Ramadan-----
Ramadan, for example.
It could be Eid or another occasion. These types of matters are appropriate at the time. With regard to trying to come up with a definition, we could certainly consider setting down the principle in guidance. It already applies to bank holidays and the like. No one is going to put something out for public consultation during St. Patrick's week. It is effectively a week now as opposed to just a day. I do not want to labour the point. We can deal with this in guidance. I cannot accept the amendment as it stands but I do understand the point.
On public consultation, public notices and public display periods, there is often a huge gap between the view of those who run consultations regarding how inclusive those consultations are and the view of the public. People running consultations will often feel they are doing a great job in making information available but the general public will have a very different experience. The public often finds it very hard to find the information. It is often towards the end of a public consultation or display period that people become aware of it. I will not labour the point. There is a great passage in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which I will certainly not quote, that really emphasises that while officials think they are doing a fantastic job with public displays and the public thinks they are doing an atrocious job. Funnily enough, people refer to this at the doorsteps when I go around my constituency.
Do they?
They do. I have heard it recently – obviously, it is an exaggeration – with regard to their experience of public consultation and displays.
The Deputy should give us the quotation.
I will not because it is too long.
Is the answer 42?
No. I will not give it. We are not on section 42 of the Bill; we are on section 16. My issue with the wording of section 16 is that it is the Office of the Planning Regulator, the regional assembly and the planning authority that decide what is considered reasonable. It is not decided in legislation. Through our amendment, we are trying to put some shape on this. Where there is good practice in the Office of the Planning Regulator, regional assemblies and planning authorities, this will not be an issue but the problem concerns where there is poor practice. If there is not a good attitude and there is poor practice, there could be an issue related to limited times and limited access to information. That is why the current wording is far too vague and discretionary. Where there is good practice, we will not have a problem but where there is poor practice or a poor attitude, we will. We have all seen that the value of public consultations and displays can vary significantly, depending on the individuals involved in the process and their resources and time constraints. Time and resource constraints can result in minimisation. If people are under pressure and the legislation does not impose requirements on people, we have a difficulty.
Does the Minister have anything to add?
Not really. I agree with Deputy O'Callaghan that public consultation is crucial. I have always believed in it. Unquestionably, it makes things better when the public is consulted, even in the case of small schemes like schemes for ramps on roads, for argument's sake. In our own area, draft proposals for road ramps are put on display for public consultation, and rightly so. The public's submissions are assessed and then the proposals go out again. With any of our proposals, such as our development plan, I really do not regard this as an issue.
On traditional holiday periods, which I have already covered, I refer the Deputies to page 557, section 370, on the running of time. It might be helpful. Section 370(1) refers to the Christmas period, and subsections (2) and (3) are also relevant. The Deputies have got to remember that the provision we are considering, related to the Deputies' amendment concerning page 59 of the Bill, is a catch-all and needs to be.
It provides that flexibility as we have already discussed.
Was that example on page 557?
Yes, under section 370, by way of an example.
Is that amendment No. 557?
No, it is page 557 in the Bill.
Basically, I do not have anything further to add. It was to be helpful. It would be much more appropriate in guidance. There is no issue in doing that and setting out the principles in which public consultation can occur. The final thing I will say is to ask if anyone can put an example to me now of really poor public consultation through a State body or a local authority. It is greatly improved and the access to it is much better. It is really just about ensuring people know about it. When you get to the end of the process, many residents, even though it has been published and advertised, may not have engaged with it. It is after that process that complaints would generally be received. I do not have anything further to add to it. The provision as is included on page 59 in section 16 under "public inspection" is a catch-all and it should be. It is appropriate and reasonable and it will work.
I want to say-----
Will the Deputy be as brief as possible, please?
I am always as brief as possible.
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Where I get feedback about the timeframes being insufficient is on the complex and technical information. I have received that feedback quite a bit. Where a period for a regular amount of consultation or notice might suffice, when you are dealing with something much more complex, people really struggled. We have to bear in mind that there are a few weeks for people to even become aware of something. As it is not necessarily as soon as a notice is published that everyone becomes aware of it, there can be a few weeks of a lead-in and then if it is complex and technical, there is usually a need to get expertise. Again, that is not instantly available and can take a number of weeks. People with expertise can be across a number of different things at the same time and not just instantly able to drop everything immediately to be able to input. Therefore, that part of the amendment is really important. It is the principle of when it is complex and technical, more time is required. That does not come through the wording in the Bill at all. It is simply whatever period the OPR, the regional assembly or the planning authority considers reasonable.
The Minister has asked for an example and I will give him one this committee is currently dealing with. There was huge concern from people who use the River Shannon and our canals with the public consultation. In fairness, it was the Minister's own colleague, Deputy Flaherty, and this committee, who created a political focus on it and played some part in forcing Waterways Ireland, albeit in an amicable way, to change that. The big complaint of many of the people who use the canals and the rivers was actually June, July and August because it was the holiday period both for workers and people on holidays. Thankfully, Waterways Ireland did the right thing. I know it is not a planning authority but the Minister asked for an example and that is the most recent one.
That is a good point.
I was going to suggest we take amendment Nos. 419 and 429 together.
Yes, we can take the two together.
They are in different sections but the principle is the same.
Yes, these amendments are very straightforward and I am probably more interested in hearing the Minister's response.
Amendment No. 419 relates to section 49 of the Bill under the heading "obligation to prepare objectives for management of areas, uses and structures." If we look down to section 49(2)(g), it talks about "preserving a specific public right of way, including a public right of way which gives access to any seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank". I want to insert “, monument” there because it is materially relevant and I hope the Minister will consider it.
The second amendment which the Cathaoirleach has rightfully asked me to discuss is amendment No. 429 to section 50, which deals with "settlement-specific objectives". Section 50(3)(b) provides for "sustainable placemaking objectives relevant to the protection, renewal and growth of the settlement concerned, having regard to the physical, socioeconomic, cultural", and again the amendment looks to insert “, linguistic” here before "and environmental context of the settlement". They are unfortunate omissions. There is no reason why the Minister should not accept these amendments and I am interested to hear his response.
I will deal with amendment No. 429 first, on the linguistic piece. That crosses over to what we have discussed at length with regard to the Gaeltacht planning, in particular the preservation of and supporting the growth of the Irish language in our Gaeltacht areas. I have dealt with the broader issue of linguistic context previously. We debated this at length. I did not believe it was appropriate to include in settlement objectives but I note that I am bringing forward two specific amendments on Report Stage which I mentioned, around the special plans in the Gaeltacht areas, the priority area plans and also for the islands. They are being prepared now to be brought forward. We had a long debate on this as to the appropriateness of it within this but I will be bringing Report Stage amendments on that.
Regarding amendment No. 419, this seeks to include public rights of way giving access to monuments in this provision. Are we dealing with amendment No. 417 as well now?
As they are my amendments, I will have to step out of the Chair to cover those.
Amendments Nos. 417 to 419, inclusive - which have not been spoken to yet so I will come back in then - seek to amend section 49 concerning the obligation to prepare objectives for the management of areas, uses and structures as part of the development plan. Section 49(2)(g) states the development management statement may include objectives for a number of matters including preserving public right of way "including a public right of way which gives access to any seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank or [any] other area of natural beauty". Deputy Ó Broin's amendment seeks to include public rights of access to monuments in this provision. I have come across instances a number of times where monuments are on private land. I will look at this with respect to the potential for the provision of a new paragraph (h) in section 49(2) related to habitats, green space, etc. I will consider the consequences of including such a provision.
I am giving a clear undertaking here that I will come back on Report Stage on this. I just have to think that through. I have sympathy on the monument side. I have personal experience in my own area of that where there are monuments that are designated that may be in private ownership but there are complexities there as well. Many landowners allow access to them. I am thinking of old passage tombs as well and Fourknocks out by Naul as well. In that instance, the tombs are privately owned but access is allowed. Therefore, I will look at that to see whether we can insert a new paragraph but also looking at what the Cathaoirleach will be speaking to in a moment so I may come back in when he has introduced his amendments.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is willing to look at adding "monument", keeping in mind that this subsection relates to the preserving of specific public rights of way. It is not about opening up new ones but about ones that exist already.
I meant to say that.
The Minister can think of all sorts of historic and archaeological monuments so I would welcome his Report Stage amendments on that if they come forward. I do not understand the refusal of amendment No. 429, notwithstanding the Report Stage amendments the Minister has spoken about previously. I can see no reason "linguistic" should not go in here, and in fact, it would probably complement what the Minister is doing elsewhere. It would also allow for wider application of the consideration of the linguistic elements of this section of the Bill. Again, I ask the Minister to reconsider or perhaps give a clearer explanation as to why it does not fit here.
The word "linguistic" as it is positioned there, does not refer specifically to Irish or English-----
Nor should it.
It could be Ogham, Anglo-Norse, or anything that is of linguistic and historic significance.
That is deliberately done so it is not overly prescriptive.
I am not sure and I will have to consider that further. I am not in a position to accept it right now. Our big focus on the linguistic piece is in practical terms, whereas, as I said, we know what we are doing with the priority area plans and I will not labour that, but that would be a very significant step forward. Just to clarify on the point, in respect of the inclusion of monuments in a new paragraph (g), I will consider its inclusion. I had previously outlined that the creation of rights of way are not a function of development plans. I am satisfied this subsection should remain where it is currently drafted in the interests of the practical operation of the development management system, taking into account the particular characteristics that may apply to a particular plan area but I am actively looking at that piece to see if we can bring further clarity to it. I have sympathy on the monuments side there as well.
Can I ask Deputy O'Callaghan or Deputy Ó Broin to take the Chair while I speak to the four amendments.
Deputy Cian O'Callaghan took the Chair.
I will speak to my amendments Nos. 417, 418, 422 and 427. These are the only amendments in the group I have not spoken to yet so I will try to cover the four of them now, if that is helpful.
Amendment No. 417 may have been referenced by the Minister and it refers to a development management statement including objectives for a range of things. I seek to insert a new paragraph (h), which I believe the Minister referred to. Again, the wording is not good because I do not suggest what should be done with them, as in promoting, regulating, managing or whatever it might be. I would hope the Minister might include that in it. I am talking about those important areas for ecology, wildlife and green spaces that we all know about and which may not have a designation because they may not qualify for one, but that does not mean they are not important. I have a Private Members’ Bill on that which seeks to give a little bit more power to councillors to designate these areas and not to neutralise the area in any way. It does not mean nothing can happen in them. It is just an objective to say this is an important area for biology, biodiversity, nature or whatever it might be. I accept what the Minister said about amendment No. 417, where he said he would look to potentially insert something in respect of paragraph (h).
I will discuss amendments Nos. 418 and 422 together. Amendment No. 418 is to delete paragraph (g) about preserving a specific public right of way, etc. The reason I seek to delete that is because section 49(2) reads “A development management statement may include objectives for any of the following”. Every one of us knows the difficulties there are on rights of way issues in Ireland. It is a very complex and difficult part of law, involving landownership, land rights and access over many years. We have loads of old coach roads, nun’s paths and all of those kind of things that have been there for many years. Some of them have been there for so long that nobody really knows who has access to them. What we often see is a barrier going up and we have to start trawling through records going back maybe 200 or 300 years to see what the situation is on it. I am, therefore, seeking to delete (g) because I do not want it to be a “may include objectives” section.
Amendment No. 422 proposes to insert a new wording “A development management statement shall include objectives for preserving a specific public right of way”. When I say that, I am talking about non-contentious rights of way that are proven in law and are shown to be rights of way. There is nothing contentious in obliging the local authority to have a statement on that rather than giving it the option to do so. I understand, and I know myself, from development plan meetings that what would have been seen or thought to have been rights of way have been listed, landowners then make contact, it becomes very contentious and it is then dropped from the development plan. Where we have those proven rights of way, the local authority should be obliged to include a statement on that to include those rights of way. Again, I stress the proven ones, not the contentious ones. The contentious rights of way require some action from the Department of Justice such as the setting up of a commission to assess contentious rights of way or determine what is exactly required to prove it. That is for the Department of Justice and is not relevant here today.
I will speak to amendment No. 427 as well, which relates to section 50(1)(c) which reads “A planning authority shall prepare a statement containing ... a map”, and it identifies many things which should be in maps. Maps are very helpful in developing plans. People like maps because they can read them rather than a whole load of text. What I want to do, and I have tried this at development plan meetings, is, when land is being zoned, to have some indicative line between the zoning and the places where people want to go: the retail areas, the schools, the recreational areas, etc. There should be some indicative line there to say an active travel route will be required as part of the development of this land. This is not exactly straightforward. It could be suggested that section 50(1)(c)(vii) covers that, but my amendment provides that there would be a map showing the active travel network connecting those other things that are set out in paragraph (c). Subparagraph (vii) would allow for the production of a map but it does not necessarily show how all those items listed in the other subparagraphs are being connected. Where we have development plans, maps and zonings, it should always be at the forefront for anybody who will develop those zones to consider how people will get around and get between these areas. A map would clearly show that. It would be indicative and non-binding, but it would just say we expect connectivity in these.
On amendment No. 422, which covers public rights of way, I will consider that on foot of what we have said but I need to balance it and we will have to look at it because I do not believe rights of way should be legislated for, although I am not saying we are doing so within this Bill. I have to see what other consequences would be there, but I take the point.
I have said on amendment No. 417 that there is an opportunity with a new paragraph (h), which I am saying to the committee here that I am genuinely looking at, which will cover the areas of wildlife corridors, good ecological status, water and all of that piece.
I have already mentioned to Deputy Ó Broin that the monument piece has a lot of merit and we will see if that can be included.
On maps, in practice, and I have seen most of the development plans that come up, I am of the genuine belief here that (c), which reads “a map identifying” and then outlines right down to (ix) in those areas, in strong enough. For indicative cycle routes or permeability through one estate or another, particularly with the progress that has been made on the implementation of active travel plans and so forth, I know in any development plans I have seen that indicative routes are shown, and rightly so. They should be and they are indicative. We talked about public consultation as well and you see indicative routes shown, and sometimes where they are indicative and are aligning with people’s back gardens, people think they are in their back gardens and all those types of things, but they are indicative routes. Indicative is already covered appropriately in this section. The detail of the actual routes is a matter for a local area plan or a development plan and when it is put on display to implement those routes. I am pretty confident the provisions set out in (c), right down to (ix), are strong enough. It is fully up to Deputy Matthews if he wants to define it further. I see it in practice and it does happen in practice. Sometimes, the indicative routes, when they are shown, are the things which cause difficulties where people actually think they are the actual routes. Problems arise because people get concerned, and I am actually dealing with one of these very things in my own area where an indicative route has been shown.
People thought, incorrectly, that it meant the council was going to run a cycle route through their back gardens. That is the balance.
I take the Minister's point. I remember being advised never to draw a line on the map because there will be a row when putting the line on the map, and a row when it has to be taken out again. We have considerable investment in active travel links. We are seeing a lot of it being constructed throughout the country. The linkage, those bits and pieces in between, will be the next challenge. It is easy to do an active travel route when there is no contention. I take the Minister’s point regarding the map identifying it and the difficulty in trying to do that.
It is worth repeating too that we want to look at this on Committee Stage, before Report Stage. The Deputy is right on the active travel piece, we are seeing a significant increase of routes being opened and developed throughout the country. That is great to see. On how they link up, I can speak from experience from my own local authority, Fingal County Council, where it has actually shown how those routes link up from Deputy O'Callaghan's area in Howth all the way through Baldoyle and Portmarnock into Malahide and beyond. That route has shown how the routes interlink. The local authorities show that once they are approved. If there is a further refinement that the Deputy wishes to come back with on Report Stage, I am open to looking at it. I am going to look at a paragraph (h) to deal with the other matter raised today.
To clarify in regard to amendment No. 422, I am talking about non-contentious or proven rights of way that are established.
That is understood.
To clarify, in the current Act, is the local authority obliged to include this?
We can check that.
Can we check that, because I do not want a weakening of language because rights of way are contentious?
That is understood.
We should be very specific on those that are not contentious.
I will check that. Before Deputy Ó Broin comes in, regarding the deletion of that section, we will have to look at what consequences might arise from the deletion of that amendment. If we were to replace it with something suggested by the Deputy, that is fine. We need to look at what that potentially would be replaced with, or added to in a new subsection. That is the issue I need to look at.
The Minister needs to look at that.
That is why I cannot accept its deletion today.
I accept that.
We will check that. We might have an answer.
Is Deputy Matthews finished?
I want to clarify, the current Act obliges-----
When Deputy Matthews is finished, Deputy Ó Broin will come in and I want to speak on amendment No. 422 as well.
I have finished speaking.
Is it okay if I answer that? For the record, page 68 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 states that the preservation of any existing public right of way, including, in particular, rights of way which give access to seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank or other place of natural beauty or recreational utility with public rights of way should 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. The landscape piece is not relevant to it, is it?
It is currently a "shall", is it not?
Yes, it is a "shall".
I do not want a weakening of that but I understand why rights of way are an issue. I thank the Minister.
Deputy Steven Matthews resumed the Chair.
On that, and I will come to this in more detail when we deal with the section, my understanding is that under the current Act there is an obligation for the local authority in the development plan to list those rights of way so that they are clearly identified. That goes in the legislation. While they may do it, there is a significant change in the Minister's Bill that weakens the obligation currently on the local authority. It is just a point of information.
I support amendment No. 422. I make a similar point, that the change in this Bill is a serious weakening. As Deputy Matthews said, these are established rights of way. It is not about creating new ones or anything like that. The current obligation under the legislation is for these to be marked out in the development plan maps. It is a "shall". We have gone from that to "may". What we are looking at here is development management statements, in terms of amendment No. 422 on obligation to prior objectives for management of areas as structured. That is a significant weakening, in my view. This is a very minimalist matter we are looking at, trying to get some sort of restoration of the existing wording. However, we are way behind. For example, in the UK there are legally-protected rights of way all over the country. In fact, it is possible to walk the entire coast of the UK at this point. There are right of way paths designated around the entire coast, not to mention, everywhere else. We are a million miles away from where we should be on this and this is minimalist, just trying to get back what is in the existing legislation, even though that only refers to a small number of recognised rights of way. This is an important provision all the same.
I thank the Deputy. Does the Minister have anything to add? No, and I take his response as being positive but we will have a look at it before Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16
Amendment No. 126 has been discussed.
I move amendment No. 126:
In page 59, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
“(2) In considering what constitutes a “reasonable” period, the requirement shall be to provide for a period consistent with affording the public an opportunity to effectively participate, bearing in mind the volume and technical complexity of the materials involved, and that traditional holiday periods are not conducive to public participation and therefore the periods need to be extended accordingly.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
Amendment declared lost.
Question put: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
Níl
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 17
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
I have two questions. Is this a new provision or is this just a transposition of the existing-----
Is the Deputy talking about section 17?
Is it a new or an existing provision? Could the Minister set out the purpose of this section?
It is in the current Act. It is a transposition.
What is the function of this section?
It is a transposition. It basically reads a copy of or part of a planned strategy or statement made under this Part and certified by an officer. It can be used as evidence in a case and it details what that is in the case of the national planning framework or the national planning statement. It outlines it pretty clearly.
The minister talked about a case. For example, it could be a planning enforcement case or a judicial review which pertains to the plan in question.
It is section 17 in the current Planning and Development 2000.
It is just carried over.
Perfect.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18
Question proposed: “That section 18 stand part of the Bill.”
I have the same two questions. Is it new or is it a transposition? What is its function?
Section 18, which deals with regulations, replaces 4 sections of the current Act - sections 10, 13, 19 and 23, so it is not a new provision. It is a transposition. The Minister may for the purposes of giving further effect to the SEA Directive by regulations in the Act referred to as strategic environmental assessments may make further provision for the application of the directive to any plan or programme within the meaning of the directive, which is made in this Part. It is dealt with in the Explanatory Memorandum as well. It states that the section provides for a regulation-making power for the purpose of giving effect to the SEAssessment Directive.
Why is there a specific provision providing for the Minister to be able to make regulations with respect to this when we have already dealt with sections where there are general provisions to make regulations with respect to any aspect of the Act. Is this requirement under EU law?
I will check that but I imagine everything is guided by legal advice and it is in line with what is required in the SEA directive.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 127 not moved.
SECTION 19
I move amendment No. 128:
In page 60, lines 21 and 22, to delete “National Planning Framework” and substitute “Creatlach Pleanála Náisiúnta”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 129 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 130, 155, 301, 320, 376, 473, 474, 510, 564, 575, 577, 580, 651, 654, 655, 659, 662, 688, 708, 717, 739 to 743, inclusive, 746, 752, 754, 755, 765, 813, 836, 857, 878 to 880, inclusive, 912, 964, 972, 973, 975 to 978, inclusive, 1028 to 1035, inclusive, 1096, 1097, 1140 and 1184 are related and will be discussed together. This is quite a long grouping and I intend for us to go into private session at 2.55 p.m. to discuss the matter of meeting schedules.
I move amendment No. 130:
In page 60, to delete lines 27 to 29 and substitute the following:
"(a) securing sustainable national and regional development strategies;
(b) maximising the potential of the regions, while supporting proper planning and sustainable development in urban and rural areas;".
As the Minister knows this relates to section 19 and the national planning framework. I am looking to insert two lines of text into the list of areas which the national planning framework should pertain to. The first is securing sustainable national regional development strategies and the second is maximising the potential of the regions while supporting proper planning and sustainable development in urban and rural areas. They are pretty self-explanatory. I am interested to hear the Minister's response and I may come back with questions or further comments afterwards.
The amendment is to change the structure of how this is worded, which is:
(a) securing national and regional development strategies, including maximising the potential of the regions;
(b) supporting proper planning and sustainable development in urban and rural areas;
We propose a wording whereby proper planning and sustainable development runs through (a) and (b):
(a) Securing sustainable national and regional development strategies;
(b) Maximising the potential of the regions, while supporting proper planning and sustainable development in urban and rural areas;
Instead of (a) and (b) as currently worded in the Bill potentially being set against each other, the proposed wording would mean it is very clear that both objectives run concurrently with sustainable development. While it may seem like a minor rewording there is significance in terms of how these could be interpreted. There is also significance in the prioritisation given to balancing sustainable development with the other objectives. It should go without saying how important it is that sustainable development and sustainability are included in (a) and (b) in terms of the national planning framework and setting out the objectives.
There is often a tension between maximising potential and sustainable planning and development. The point of this is to rephrase it. Much of it is the same wording as the Minister's own draft. It is to just change the emphasis so there is not a conflict and it is fully understood that there is no maximising potential that is not sustainable and written and hard-wired into any notion of development and developing potential is that it has to be sustainable. This is the point. It is to avoid the potential conflict and tension that is often there in the real world.
Amendment No. 130 seeks to replace section 19(2)(a) which outlines the first key objective of the national planning framework, including policies and proposals for:
(a) securing national and regional development strategies, including maximising the potential of the regions;
(b) supporting proper planning and sustainable development in urban and rural areas;
In place of the above, the Deputies wish to insert:
(a) Securing sustainable national and regional development strategies;
(b) Maximising the potential of the regions, while supporting proper planning and sustainable development in urban and rural areas;”
With regards to (a), section 19(2) already states very clearly that the national planning framework as a whole sets out the "Government’s broad national plan in relation to the strategic planning and sustainable development of the State". I place emphasis on the latter part. This principle is true of all objectives, including objective (a), which flow from or fall out from it. While objective 19(2)(a) pertains to the regions, 19(2)(b) has regard to proper planning and sustainable development in general in urban and rural areas. There is no need to repeat the objective relating to 19(2)(a) in 19(2)(b) and, therefore, I oppose the proposed amendment.
From his answer it appears the Minister misunderstands the proposition.
In your opinion; I do not misunderstand it at all but carry on.
I think I have the floor.
All right.
I will start again. It is my opinion that the Minister does not seem to understand the proposition as set out by my colleagues. I would like to offer the Minister the opportunity to convince me that he does understand the proposition, as well as set out a more credible case as to why he opposes it. Words matter and they matter more in legislation than anything else. What the amendment is trying to do is find a better formulation of words that ensures the conflict that Deputy Boyd Barrett has rightly highlighted is adequately resolved from the very beginning. The difficulty is that the conflict is real and live. It runs through the current national planning framework. It runs through the development plan. It also runs through our approach to housing.
We had considerable discussions at an earlier stage on whether we will meet our emissions reductions target with respect to the built environment. We had considerable exchanges with the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, on how many of us on this side of the House feel the Department is very behind the curve in terms of putting in place the necessary changes to planning, building control and public procurement within its remit to ensure those areas for which the Department is responsible for the built environment, in the building of social and affordable homes, for example, or its facilitation of the private sector to develop them, is done in a way that is consistent with sustainable development in terms of emissions reductions. Therefore, unless we make the requirement for sustainable development more explicit, and we elevate it above maximising potential in terms of spatial and regional development, the tension sides on the wrong side of sustainability argument. There is a very strong case for rewording this.
It is important to emphasise that we are seeking to change not the objectives, but the relationship between the objectives and ensuring that sustainable development is at all times at the centre and the principal consideration. If, for example, we miss our emissions reductions targets in the built environment, including in those areas that the Department has responsibility for, we will be in breach of our own legally binding climate action plan as well as international agreements. That would trigger fines that will involve a cost to the State and to the taxpayer. Therefore, this is not an issue of semantics. It is an issue of priorities. It is an issue of legal clarity and certainty.
Anybody operating, either for the production of the national planning framework, that is, the Minister's officials in the review of future NPFs but also all subsequent plans that are derived from those, understands clearly the prioritisation of sustainable development when considering issues of regional development and maximising potential. I genuinely think the Minister does not fully understand the import of what is being proposed but I invite him to convince me that he understands it and make a more credible case for not supporting it.
I strongly support maximising the potential of the regions once it is closely aligned with proper planning and sustainable development. I am concerned with the current wording, in subparagraph (a), where "including maximising the potential of the regions" is there without being linked, in subparagraph (a), with "proper planning and sustainable development". We have sustainable development in the introduction in subsection (2). We do not have the issues around proper planning.
Why does this matter? For example, you can see this all over Ireland where some people, no doubt some planners and others, would justify decisions that were made over the past ten, 15 or 20 years about out-of-town development. They could say they were trying to maximise the potential of the regions in granting planning permission for out-of-town developments but you can see how, when that was poorly designed and not sustainable planning, it ultimately undermined the potential of areas by having a negative impact on town centres. Poor planning around our regions that some would justify as maximising our potential can be counterproductive when it is not done as sustainable development and proper planning.
This is not something that we can take lightly. We have to get the wording of this right. If we want to realise our potential in the country and in the regions which is important, we have got to do it in a sustainable properly-planned way. I am sure we all agree with that. In my opinion, the Minister agrees with that. I would invite the Minister to look again at our amendment.
I will be brief, as the point has been made. Do we have the maximising of the potential of regions and then they are subsequently screened against a notion of sustainability or do we start by saying all development has to be sustainable development and the two are not separate? My reason for saying that is because how it often works is we have developers saying what they want and then we try to screen that against environmental considerations. The amendment is saying "let us end that conflict". It is, in effect, saying "end developer-led development". That is really what it is saying, and that the principles of sustainability and development are not separate but the same. It is a better wording. It is about wording but it does resolve that tension.
I fully understand what is being put forward. There is a bit of hair splitting in this but let me try to be helpful.
This is a question with which we go way back to the start of committee where we have the amendment on the Long Title of the Bill that will be taken last for procedural reasons. For the information of Deputies, it might help on this that the Long Title will be changed to include "development; to provide for proper planning and sustainable development in the interests of the common good;". That will be the new Long Title of the Bill subject to the approval of the committee.
Specifically in relation to this, everything flows from subsections (1) and (2) and I genuinely do not think it can be any clearer than as it is outlined in the section right now. The Bill states, "The National Planning Framework shall contain a statement setting out the Government's broad national plan in relation to the strategic planning and sustainable development of the State" and goes on, under subparagraph (a), "securing national and regional development strategies ...", and, in subparagraph (b), "supporting proper planning and sustainable development in urban and rural areas;". It is well covered within this although Deputy Ó Broin does not believe it is. I firmly believe that it is well and appropriately covered here.
In the interests of clarity around the debate, the Long Title will also clearly guide that it is not planning and development and then, afterward, in some way, one shoehorns sustainability into it.
I have been interested to hear the references on emissions and the climate action plan. Deputy Ó Broin has a different view on the climate action plan because his party opposed it. On climate budgets and all of that, Deputy Ó Broin speaks on one side about climate and the other side when it comes to action. The Deputy does not act upon it. This Government is guided clearly by the Government's climate action plan.
On regional development, in particular, and taking Deputy Cian O'Callaghan's point about historical out-of-town type developments, particularly commercial ones, we are guided completely by the town centre first policy and by looking as well at the further development of brownfield sites within our cities. Hence, I brought forward mechanisms - we could have a whole housing debate here - such as Croí Cónaithe cities which is for apartment developments within our cities focusing on brownfield site development and getting people to live there. Under the town centre first policy, right the way across every local authority, we have town centre first teams. There is what we are doing in tackling vacancy, etc. Sustainability is at the heart of not only the legislation but Government policy right the way through. It is at the core of the national planning framework and is appropriately covered and given the weighting and import that it deserves right here in section 19, Chapter 2. That is my position.
To correct the record, Sinn Féin enthusiastically supported the Government's legislation underpinning the climate action plan.
You did not.
We absolutely support the budgets. In fact, to the credit of this committee, in respect of the Department and the area of embodied carbon and emissions arising from the built environment, we have done strong cross-party work. We produced two reports which we have sent to the Minister. It is disappointing that many of the recommendations relevant to this Bill are not in it but we will deal with those as we go.
There is an important issue here. Many of us spoke at the Irish Green Building Council's report card event recently. The Minister's party colleague, Senator Fitzpatrick, was there. There was a sense in which, particularly in areas of planning, building control and public procurement, including public procurement in social and affordable housing, the Department is behind the curve in comparison to countries, such as France and Denmark. Some examples include putting in place the methodologies to be able to assess whole-life carbon in the built environment; to promote the use of new building technologies, including timber over heights of 10 m; ensuring, through changes to planning law, that we have far greater clarity and certainty in terms of restricting demolition when it is not necessary; ensuring that we have reuse of building materials beyond landfill by way of planning conditions; and also ensuring that, particularly in all social and affordable housing funded by the State, we are achieving the highest levels of sustainable development. That is all directly relevant to this. It is not only the view of many of us in opposition. It is the view of many professionals out there. They expressed their concern on the floor of the Irish Green Building Council's report card event that on those areas that fall within the purview of the Department, to which the national planning framework and this amendment are essential, it is way behind the curve.
Carbon emissions in the built environment is the fourth largest area of carbon emissions. Over the next number of years, it will grow to be the third or second. Therefore, unless we properly prioritise - as this amendment does - sustainable development, it will not matter a whit if it is in the Long Title of the Bill.
I did not intend to come back again but the Minister misrepresented our position with respect to the Government's climate action plan, which we support, and specifically those areas that the committee has repeatedly been raising and to which the Minister has yet to take any action. Part B of the building regulations currently being reviewed. It is crucial. It is directly relevant to this amendment -----
I would just make a general point -----
I will just finish this one sentence. We had considerable discussion at an early stage about the need, for example, for a review of fire safety regulations in terms of BCAR to ensure that, for example, we can use low-carbon building materials over 10 m to ensure sustainable development. Because of all that, this amendment is absolutely crucial. It is not a matter of semantics; it is a matter of ensuring adequate prioritisation to force the requisite level of action from Departments, including the Minister’s, as well as planning authorities and those people who seek and secure consents through those. I will press the amendment.
Does the Minister wish to respond?
We could have a general housing discussion and I would disagree with most of what Deputy Ó Broin said about progress. I met representatives of the Irish Green Building Council. With regard to the MMC programme framework that is being led by the local authorities, I visit sites regularly looking at the very best of sustainable product. With regard to cross-laminated timber, I met those groups too. We established the interdepartmental working group, which is independently chaired. I want to see that done. I could discuss those issues all day that do not relate directly to the Deputy’s amendment because it is about the positioning of words that are already there and principles that are underpinned by the Government in actual delivery. Does the State have to catch up on social housing delivery particularly, with regard to methodologies and the type? I have said very openly that yes, it does and it is, by the way. In a few short weeks, the social output for social and affordable housing will be available at the end of quarter 1, when it is all verified. We will see a very significant step forward there too. These are general housing points that are all relevant and I am happy to debate them but they are not relevant to this amendment. My position on the amendment has not changed and will not change either.
I am quite happy to discuss them, as I am sure everybody is, but not in this forum because this is Committee Stage of the planning Bill. We are on amendment No. 130. I know the points that have been raised are relevant but I want to stick to the amendment. The Minister has responded. Deputy Boyd Barrett wishes to come in.
There is a clear difference of opinion so there is not much point in labouring it. There is a disagreement here, though. I will just give one example. We got a policy passed in Dún Laoghaire Rathdown that there had to be green roofs on everything. It was a People Before Profit proposal. It was overturned by a decision of central government, which was able to override -----
Was it in the development plan?
I am trying to remember the details but there was some legislation that was brought in centrally, which essentially gave the Minister the right to override a decision that had been made by the council regarding green roofs so it went out the window. That demonstrates the tension that exists between the imperative to maximise the potential for development, which is what the section 19(2)(a) provides for by "securing national and regional development strategies, including maximising the potential of the regions”. That is the first point and the second point is that it will be made it sustainable. Our amendment is saying that the only type of maximisation that we should consider is one that is, from the beginning, sustainable so we do not have that tension. There is no point in saying there is not a tension between developers who want stuff, or even governments, which can be for good reason because we do need lots of housing and then, as an afterthought, will screen it against our obligations for sustainable development. However, there is essentially a desire to get it through at the lowest point possible rather than having a starting point whereby all development should be sustainable from an environmental point of view.
My concern is also the way it is drafted. Section 19(2) begins: “The National Planning Framework shall contain a statement setting out the Government’s broad national plan in relation to the strategic planning and sustainable development of the State .. securing national and regional development strategies, including maximising the potential of the regions”. That could be interpreted that the objective is to maximise the potential of the regions and this is part of the strategic planning of the State and that sustainability can be done elsewhere. The problem is we are nowhere near best practice in sustainable development. We are miles away. Embodied carbon is a massive contributor to our whole-life carbon emissions from development. It makes a huge contribution to our carbon emissions. We do not even measure whole-life carbon or embodied carbon in what we build. We are nowhere near what we need to be doing. We need to have limits on it. We need to have incentives to move towards more sustainable building practices, to use less carbon-intensive materials and less carbon intensive concrete more. Concrete is being used all over Ireland in development, maximising potential in our regions, which is high-carbon concrete when there is no reason and low-carbon concrete could be used. It is fine to say this is all being done and it is in the legislation and everything is great but it is not being done. We are miles behind where we need to be. We are missing our carbon emission targets as a country. We are heading towards massive fines. We could better use that for funding sustainable infrastructure, sustainable developments, sustainable housing and everything else. I just do not accept that what is happening now means we are somehow best in class. We are actually laggards compared to some other countries in this. We need to get the wording in the legislation right.
Let us take France as an example. France’s social housing delivery, per capita, it is way behind what we are doing. Out of 19 surveyed European countries, it is way behind. Out of 19 European countries surveyed, we are the only ones last year and this year where construction was to grow. We are not laggards in delivery.
There was very good discussion on this with the Irish Green Building Council. This is not the place for policy discussion here. We must discuss the amendment.
A number of the initiatives that have been put in place. With regard to incentivisation of local authorities, we wrote-off €94 million of debt for local authorities to develop lands using MMC and best practice for additional social homes. That is another discussion. I made the point on the amendment. I understand; everyone wants the same thing but it is more than covered in what we have here. Section 19(2) in isolation and then just skip to paragraphs (a) or (b) and say we are going to do sustainability after maximising development. That is not it. The Deputy might want to read it that way and interpret it that way but I cannot see how he would read it that way, frankly. That backs up the point the Deputy is making and maybe that is the reason he is doing it but I am not accepting the amendment.
We have discussed it. Members made good points. The Minister said he is not accepting it. We have to move on now.
Does the Minister wish to deal with amendments Nos. 115, 301 and 320. Are they quite technical, straightforward amendments? They are grouped but I do not know if they are all relevant.
Amendment No. 115 basically changes a full stop to a semicolon. Amendment No. 301 -----
We dealt with that.
There are a lot of technical amendments here. Amendment No. 301 seeks to change the word “plan” to “strategy”, which is the correct term to use in the section. Which other ones does the Chair want me to speak to?
Amendment No. 320 if it is related. They are grouped. I do not know.
Amendment No. 320 seeks to delete “and range” from the sentence on the type and range of services in section 41(4)(c) as the term “range” is superfluous alongside type in this context.
We dealt with that this morning in the context of the development plans.
There are a lot of other very technical amendments here which are effectively corrections. I can go through them now such the committee wish.
I will stop at 2.55 p.m. and go into private session.
If I am going too quickly, members can stop me. Amendments Nos. 473 and 474 seek to replace three months with 12 weeks for consistency with other time periods in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 510 and 564 seek to replace "simultaneously" with "on the same day". That is to avoid any confusion that may arise from a literal interpretation of the word "simultaneously". These amendments all seek to expand and clarify the language to remove any ambiguity in how a sentence may be interpreted, thus seeking to remove any confusion around that, which could, in turn, lead to arguments and different interpretations. They are basically clarifications and technical corrections.
I can run through the remainder of them in this section if members wish. Amendments Nos. 575 and 577 include regional assemblies, which have been omitted in error from a list of bodies that should be notified should a ministerial direction be issued under section 77.
Amendment No. 580 clarifies that Chapter 6 State authority development can relate to development that does not require AA or EIA "or", instead of "and", State authority emergency development.
For the next four minutes or so I will let the Minister go through the technical amendments. Members can underline the ones they wish to respond to and we will come back to them.
Amendment No. 651 improves ease of reading of the sentence by inserting "that the public are entitled' in place of 'the public are entitled". Again, it is a correction.
Amendments Nos. 654 and 655 substitute "UDZ or SDZ scheme" for "any planning scheme under Part IX of the Act of 2000" simply for completeness.
On that, I assume UDZs and SDZs are covered under Part IX of the Act.
Yes.
Amendment No. 659 to section 96 clarifies the resolution of members referenced means "passed by not less than three-quarters of the total number of the members of the planning authority". This is the case already but provides clarity to the reader of this section without him or her having to refer to elsewhere in the Bill.
Amendment No. 662 deletes section 96(6), which contains a detailed formula for voting procedures that was deemed overly prescriptive and unnecessary as local authorities have established practices for such procedures. By way of example, in amendment No. 688 the words "environmental impact report" are corrected to the correct term "environmental impact assessment report"; in amendment No. 1140 the word "fresh" is replaced with the word "new" as "fresh" is considered to be too colloquial, as in a new application is required rather than a fresh application is required; and amendments Nos. 1031 to 1034, inclusive, add the words "first mentioned" before the word "request" in section 336 to assist the reader to reference the correct request in question in a section where there is more than one request referred to. In all cases the changes merely increase clarity without changing the function of the section in question.
Amendment No. 689 enables the applicant to agree for the planning authority to take longer than the periods provided. That is probably not a technical one; I will leave it.
I am not sure it is in this group.
It is in the group, but it is a more substantive one. There are a few other very minor amendments.
Amendment No. 708 clarifies for certainty that section 122(1)(b)(ii) refers to both the national maritime framework or the relevant maritime spatial plan.
Amendment No. 717 corrects the positioning of apostrophes when referencing the CRU.
Amendment No. 755 does the same with reference to the word "section".
Amendment No. 752 improves the language clarity of section 141 by replacing the word "further" with "longer" without changing the intent of the provision.
Amendment No. 765 clarifies that the development referred to in section 149 is State development rather than any other type of development.
Amendment No. 813 tidies the layout of the definition of "competent authority" without changing the wording. That is just a layout change.
Amendment No. 836 changes the phrase "is satisfied" to "considers" in the sentence "specify the reasons for which the competent authority is satisfied considers that there are no alternative solutions" as to be fully "satisfied" may be too absolute in nature.
Amendment No. 857 changes the word "assessment" to "screening" as a screening for the need for assessment must be carried out prior to an assessment itself.
Amendments Nos. 878 and 879 delete the phrase "in the context of" and replaces with "upon" to refer to the screenings required with certain planning applications.
Amendment No. 880 changes the term "within 90 days of" to "not later than 90 days after" for absolute clarity.
There are a couple more I can go through if the Cathaoirleach wishes. We are nearly done.
Will we finish them then?
Deputy O'Callaghan will want to come back on one.
I have noted amendments Nos. 580 and 689 as ones we will come back to.
I have only a few more to outline. Amendment No. 912 reorders the definitions outlined in Part 7 (Housing Supply) into alphabetical order. That is all it does. It does not change any of the definitions at all.
Amendment No. 964 seeks to replace the word "issued" with "brought" for clarity. Similarly, amendments Nos. 272 and 273 improve the syntax of sections 270 and 271 without changing their substantive meaning.
Amendment Nos. 975 and 976 delete "mechanism" and substitute with the agreed full title of "environmental legal costs financial assistance mechanism" in respect of the new access to justice initiative in Part 9.
The remaining amendments merely reorder the existing syntax for increased clarity, such as amendment No. 977 on page 458, lines 30 and 31, which deletes the phrase "was in a position to, but did not make submissions of a material nature," in favour of "was in a position to make, but did not make, submissions of a material nature".
Amendment No. 978 inserts parenthesis around the words "having regards to all circumstances" in section 271, which concerns further provisions relevant to environmental legal costs financial assistance mechanism.
Amendment No. 1030 deletes the word "for" as it is superfluous in section 336(3).
Amendment No. 1184 deletes the parenthetical phrase "(a wind farm)" as it is unnecessary after the preceding phrase "installation for the harnessing of wind power for energy production".
Sin an méid.
I thank the Minister. Before we deal with the other business, I wish to confirm we want to return to amendments Nos. 580 and 689.
I want to come in on amendment No. 662.
I will note these and come back to them because most are fairly straightforward. There was amendment No. 376 in Deputy Ó Broin's name.
I will withdrawing the amendment. I do not know why it is there.
That is fine.
We discussed our meeting schedule last week and another meeting slot has become available. We will go into private session to discuss this housekeeping matter.
The select committee went into private session at 2.59 p.m. until 3.13 p.m. and resumed in public session at 4.09 p.m.
I welcome back the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell. We will resume with the amendment No. 130 grouping.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to begin. For the information of the committee, I will be withdrawing amendment No. 662.
I thank the Minister of State. That leaves us with amendment No. 689, which Deputy O'Callaghan has raised.
I was concerned about amendment No. 662, so I am glad that will be withdrawn. That wording in the Bill is important and I am glad it will remain.
As for amendment No. 689, I will need to look at it but I have not raised anything in respect of it.
While the Deputy does that, I will ask Deputy Ó Broin to speak to amendment No. 376.
I am not going to waste time on this because we have had these debates over and over. The section relates to the obligation to prepare housing development strategies where a planning authority's functional areas comprise solely a city. Section 45(3)(d) refers to the "identification of existing capacity, and planned investment in capacity, in transport (including, in particular, transport infrastructure), community facilities, water services, utility infrastructure and any other necessary public infrastructural facilities and services". Given that, for example, community facilities are mentioned, the proposition is to include Irish language facilities thereafter.
Could the Deputy reiterate his point? I apologise but I think I may have the wrong note to hand.
The amendment will insert “Irish language facilities” in the list of infrastructure and facilities that are mentioned in section 45(3)(d) with respect to the obligation to prepare housing development strategies. It mentions community facilities, and we are proposing the inclusion of Irish language facilities.
I apologise for the confusion but there was a correction to the amendment. It originally referred to water services in error when it should have referred to Irish language facilities, and that is now the wording in the substitute amendment list.
I thank the Deputy for his indulgence. Section 45 refers to community facilities, which include education, which by definition includes the Irish language. We believe it is covered within section 45(3)(d) and, therefore, we will not accept the amendment.
I do not agree but I am not going to repeat the debate we have had.
Is Deputy O'Callaghan in a position to speak to amendment No. 689? Was he seeking a clarification on it?
No, I have no issues with it.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- Stanton, David.
Amendment declared .
We now turn to amendment No. 131, which is in the name of Deputies Duffy and O'Callaghan. There is quite a large grouping of amendments in this. I ask Deputies Duffy or O'Callaghan if they wish to move amendment No. 131 and then speak to it. We can then follow some logic in the grouping.
I move amendment No. 131:
In page 60, line 30, after “supporting” to insert the following:
“Ireland’s climate targets as per the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 and”.
This is to include a reference to the climate Act. There are a number of amendments, and that is probably why they are grouped. I think there are about six of them - amendments Nos. 229, 230, 232, 233 and 893 are similar. I have an idea of what the answer is going to be but can the Minister of State tell us if it will be somewhere within, or where in the Bill will there be a reference to the climate Act?
Amendment No. 131 is about inserting climate targets into the Bill to make sure that meeting climate targets are part of the objectives of the national planning framework. We had some discussion earlier that is relevant to this. In my view, it is just not sufficient to have these targets in other legislation. They have to be a core part of what is being done in the national planning framework. If it is not explicitly written there, I do not think it will get the prioritisation that is necessary. If we look, at the moment, at our building process, embodied carbon and whole-of-life carbon emissions from buildings, we are nowhere near where we need to be with regard to sustainability, measuring what goes into buildings, and limiting the carbon emissions from what goes into buildings and from its entire life cycle.
I, along with other Deputies, was recently at an event organised by the Irish Green Building Council. The frustration among people involved in the industry was palpable, with the lack of progress we have made on this. We were discussing the planning Bill, and this is very much a planning matter. Look at what is happening with regard to sustainability in planning, and planning permissions being granted to demolish buildings. Sometimes they should be demolished but often they should be reused, repurposed and renovated. It is much more sustainable to do so. You still have demolition going on. You do not have carbon limits or incentives in the planning process or elsewhere to ensure use of low-carbon materials or concrete. We have not had the progress we need on timber frame. Even in terms of what has been provided, we have not had enough leadership from the State on procurement or taxation policies. We are way behind countries like Denmark and France. Carbon measuring and limits would lead to more sustainable designs. Building materials would make a huge and practical difference.
There are also issues not just in terms of materials used in building but also in design. We could be making huge progress on improving design around sustainability, which would have an impact. That could be done through our planning process, which would then impact on the amount of carbon being used. For example, the Irish Green Building Council recently circulated findings from the Construct Innovate-funded viable homes project, and in that was a whole range of design suggestions that will reduce and limit the carbon that goes into buildings if they were implemented through design and the planning process. It is a key weakness in the Bill not to have this here. I will leave it at that but I may come back in depending on what the Minister of State says.
I have an identical amendment, which is amendment No. 139. The only difference is one is an (f) and one is a (g) but the text of the amendments is the same.
To add to Deputy O'Callaghan's point, a number of organisations which either engage directly in the pre-legislative scrutiny, or which have engaged with committee members since then by way of correspondence, have raised the need to have a much more explicit recognition of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 here. The Irish Green Building Council has already been mentioned by Deputy O'Callaghan but there are also organisations involved in renewable energies. We have had significant engagement with representative bodies of people involved in renewable wind and solar energy. They are obviously very keen to ensure the planning Bill but, crucially, the national planning framework and all subsequent plans that flow from that have as strong and explicit a commitment to climate action, and particularly the legally-binding emissions reduction targets that flow from the 2021 Act.
It is probably the Act that has received the greatest level of cross-party and cross-Chamber support. The Minister of State will remember that when it passed in 2021, only a very small number of Deputies did not support the legislation, which I think is recognition of the importance of it. Given that section 19 of the Bill sets out the high-level areas that the national planning framework should speak to and address, and given the absolute centrality and importance of ensuring that we meet our emissions reduction targets, language around sustainable development in and of itself is not sufficient. We need something much more specific and, in turn, legally binding.
I encourage the Minister of State to either support the amendment or to set out an alternative way of achieving the same thing. We are rapidly heading towards 2030 and we are missing all of our emissions reduction targets. There are very significant consequences with regard to our environment, biodiversity loss, public health and potential fines to the Exchequer for failure to comply with our Paris climate agreement targets. This is a really important amendment and I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say in response.
Amendments Nos. 133, 153, 196, 313, 601, 602, 634, 661, 681, 707, 710, 712, 724, 763, 1056 to 1058, inclusive, 1155, 1169 and 1191 were tabled by Deputy Matthews. Amendments Nos. 229, 232 and 614 were tabled by Deputy Duffy. Amendments Nos. 396, 759, 760 and 761 were tabled by Deputy McAuliffe and amendment No. 420 was tabled by Deputy O’Callaghan. The remaining amendments in the group, amendments Nos. 131, 134, 135, 139, 142, 143, 230, 233, 305, 342, 354, 366, 594, 596, 607, 612, 613, 614 and 893 were tabled jointly by Deputies Cian O'Callaghan, Duffy, Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Bríd Smith and Gino Kenny.
Amendments Nos. 131, 139, 230, 233, 235, 305, 313, 420, 594, 614, 893 and 1191 seek to insert references to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 in the context of the various national, regional and local plans. Amendments Nos. 133, 134, 135, 396, 607, 661, 710, 712 reference pursuit and achievement of the national climate objectives, while amendments Nos. 342, 354, 601 and 602 propose having regard to climate mitigation throughout Part 3 on plan-making and Part 4 on consents processes. Amendments Nos. 342 and 354 seek to insert a reference to climate and climate mitigation measures in relation to preparation of a development plan. Amendments Nos. 601 and 602 seek to delete section 83(1)(x), which is a reference to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015.
It must be made clear that the Bill - like the Act of 2000 - recognises the pivotal importance of meeting the climate challenge and the central role that planning can play in our efforts in this regard. The Department has a broad remit over the built environment, planning, the marine environment and national biodiversity policy, as well as Met Éireann’s role in climate science and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Many of our actions are high-impact and play an important role in the delivery and implementation of the Climate Action Plan. Examples of actions delivered by the Department under the Climate Action Plan 2023 include the establishment of the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority and the retrofit of approximately 2,400 local authority homes.
From a national planning policy perspective, the national planning framework provides a means to implement and integrate climate change objectives at national, regional and local levels and to support the transition to a low carbon and climate resilient society. The 2018 national planning framework states clearly that in addition to legally binding targets agreed at EU level, it is a national objective for Ireland to transition to be a competitive low carbon economy by the year 2050. The national planning framework strategy is at an early stage in its implementation.
The associated regional spatial and economic strategies were adopted in 2019 and 2020, each of which contains a number of ambitious policy objectives to ensure that emissions can be reduced and targets met. The majority of city and county development plans have now been updated to be consistent with the national planning framework. A key feature of this new Bill is greater alignment of national policies, including those relating to climate objectives, with regional and local implementation.
The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act was enacted in 2021, with a commitment to a binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 51% and increase the share of electricity generated from renewable sources by up to 80% over the decade from 2021 to 2030 and to achieving net-zero emissions no later than 2050. The Climate Action Plan 2023 was published on 21 December 2022, with the supplementary annexe of actions published in March 2023. The plan implements the carbon budgets and sectoral emissions ceilings, identifying actions aiming to ensure that Ireland achieves a reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and reaches net-zero emissions by no later than 2050.
The Bill recognises the importance of the national planning framework in establishing a broad national framework for strategic planning and sustainable development of urban and rural areas to secure balanced regional development and co-ordination of plans at regional and local level. The current revision of the national planning framework identifies climate action as one of the key drivers for consideration as part of the revision process, having regard to policy and legislative changes since 2018. Therefore, climate objectives will be a key consideration cascading consistently throughout the planning hierarchy.
While the Bill as initiated makes reference to the climate action plan and other environmental considerations, I see the merit in examining the intent behind these proposed amendments. This is to ensure that the language in the Bill reflects fully the Department’s commitment to the Government’s climate objectives while maintaining the capacity of the planning system to effectively and appropriately evaluate a wide range of legitimate considerations, which need to be balanced, in pursuance of its function of facilitating proper planning and sustainable development.
With this in mind I and the Department commit to liaising with the Office of the Attorney General and with my colleague the Minister of the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Ryan. We will revert on Report Stage in terms of any required changes to the current drafting of the Bill in relation to the amendments. We take on board the merit and intent of what has been put forward. We would like to examine it further and engage with the Attorney General and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and come back on Report Stage.
The Minister of State is racking up a large number of amendments for Report Stage. It is good to have the collaborative spirit back after the brief interregnum of the past two hours. I have several questions. Given the enormous priority the Government has given to the climate Act, the carbon budgets and the sectoral targets, and given that during the process of producing the Bill much of the discussion was happening, how does the Minister of State explain, unless I am missing it, that nowhere of any significance in section 19 or in the other sections relating to the planning framework is there explicit mention not only of climate but also of carbon budgets or of the Act itself? That would seem to be a glaring omission. Even though this is meant to be one of the key features of what the Government is doing, and so it should be, it is taking Opposition Committee Stage amendments - and Government backbench amendments; apologies to the Cathaoirleach who has tabled very good amendments on behalf of Green Party - and stating that it will look at matters in the context of the national planning framework. Given how significant the national planning framework is for all of the cascading plans, as the Minister of State phrased it, this seems to be one of the areas where there is a glaring omission.
I wonder whether the people holed up in the previous Attorney General's office even understood that there is a climate emergency, let alone being aware of the importance of stipulating it explicitly in the Bill. I welcome the Minister of State is saying, at this very late stage, that he is willing to look at it.
Again, I will not hold my breath in the context of seeing what comes out the other side. I would still like an explanation as to why it is not in the Bill in the first place. Quite a number of amendments aimed at trying to fix this particular problem were tabled by me, Deputies Duffy, Matthews and O'Callaghan and others. I am intrigued as to why it is not in there in some shape or form already.
The Minister of State has covered the ten amendments in this group that I tabled. I will go through them as it is my turn to have a go. With regard to amendment No. 131, section 19(2)(f) makes reference to the pursuit and achievement of the national climate objective. I do not see why the Bill cannot be strengthened by including a reference to climate Acts. An Act is referenced in section 19(2)(c) in the context of the circular economy. It is vague to say that something is a national climate objective. Where do we find national climate objectives? It is easy to find an Act. I ask the Minister of State to consider this.
It is the same with regard to the regional spatial economic strategy. Is it devoid of reference to the climate Act in this regard? The planning framework and the regional spatial economic strategy sit with the regional assemblies, which I am sure the Minister of State is aware of. I sat on a regional assembly, as did the Cathaoirleach.
I am looking for an answer on those three: the development plan, the regional economic spatial strategy and the national planning framework.
Section 19 and the definitions on page 32 refer to the national climate objective, which was also covered in the points raised by Deputy Ó Broin. The Bill states at page 32 that ““national climate objective” has the meaning assigned to it by the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015”, so it is covered. However, we have committed to looking again at this. There is a common thread through all of these amendments, so we have committed to looking at it. It is not fair to say that it is not dealt with under section 19 but it may not be dealt with in the-----
As the Minister of State has pointed out, it is in the definitions but the older Act does not refer to it. The Minister of State might educate me.
Once again, I want to check, but my understanding is that the 2021 Act is an update of the 2015 Act.
That is fair enough.
I just want to get to the intent. We will come back to this on Report Stage. I note the point the Deputy has made.
The Deputy also made reference to the development plans. Section 47 of the Bill refers to the “Obligation to prepare strategy relating to environment and climate change”. Section 47(2) states:
The strategy shall include objectives relating to:
(a) the facilitation of climate adaptation and mitigation and implementation of the local authority climate action plan made under section 14B of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 by the local authority”.
As the Deputy is aware, each local authority has to prepare a climate action plan, which they are currently doing. Section 47(2)(a)(ii) refers to “the climate action plan approved by the Government under section 4(9) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015”. Therefore, it is covered in the development plans. I give a commitment that we will undertake a thorough review to make certain that the intent of what the Deputy is putting forward in the amendments is covered in the legislation. Given the “Obligation to prepare strategy relating to environment and climate change”, section 47 makes explicit reference to this. It is not in the current section 19 but we believe it is covered by the directive. Once again, we will go back and look at this, and come back on Report Stage.
Section 27 refers to the regional spatial and economic strategy. Section 27(1)(f) refers to “a strategy relating to climate change adaptation and mitigation that reflects national policy objectives and provides for the coordination of public bodies in pursuance of the strategy”. We believe that what the Deputy is looking for is covered but with regard to the specific intent that the Deputy is seeking, we will look at it and come back on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 366 concerns carbon emissions and the housing development strategy.
The grouping also contains amendment No. 596 in the names of Deputies Duffy, O'Callaghan and Ó Broin and amendment No. 612 in the name of Deputy Ó Broin.
Amendment No. 366, which is Deputy Duffy’s amendment, and amendments Nos. 596 and 612 relate to whole-life carbon emissions. This is a complex area that is, from a data point of view, at an early stage of development, particularly when this is applied to a complex area such as the built environment. I note the report by this committee on embodied carbon, published in October 2022. This detailed report focused on the issue of embodied carbon and the positive role that building materials can play. These matters are not directly related to plan-making. Furthermore, issues such as the baseline for measurement are not fully defined. However, I recognise the need to reduce carbon emissions.
Development plan policy is one that takes a series of legitimate but disparate inputs that create a framework that promotes sustainable development and takes measures to reduce our carbon emissions, such as promoting compact urban growth. In view of this, I consider that the Bill as drafted is reasonable and balanced and sets a framework to proactively reduce our carbon emissions. Therefore, I cannot accept these amendments.
That is fair enough. The language is that this is to be a strategy, so it is a statement of intent by the maker of the housing development strategy. It is an intent and does not specify that anyone has to do anything. The Bill uses language to say the State should be cognisant of the whole-life carbon emissions of the strategy when it is looking to prioritise compact urban development sites. It is not putting some obligation on anybody and is simply to say “This is our strategy” or “This is our intent”. It does not necessarily mean it will be complied with but it is the strategy of the State that this is what we want.
I will first deal with amendment No. 131 on the national planning framework and I will then move on to amendment No. 366. The Minister of State said there is merit in what we are saying, it will be looked at for Report Stage and there will be a thorough review to make sure the legislation covers this. However, he is also indicating that he thinks the Bill covers this. It is unclear.
If we look at the sections that deal with development plans, it is explicit under the low carbon Act. Section 19 deals with the national planning framework. I am just making a normal observation that we need to look at it and we will come back to it on Report Stage.
The wording proposed is that rather than section 19(2)(c) referring to “supporting the circular economy (within the meaning of section 6 of the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022)”-----
There is also section 19(2)(f).
Section 19(2)(f) refers to “outlining how the pursuit and achievement of the national climate objective is to be integrated into plan-led development”. I want to be specific about Ireland's climate targets as per the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2021. Stronger wording would be more specific.
On amendment No. 366, the Minister said this is complex, is at an early stage and is not directly related to plan-making. Amendment No. 366 is about the obligation to prepare the housing development strategy, so it is an important part of the plan-making process. This should be an objective. In fact, why would the addressing of whole-life carbon emissions not be an objective at the plan stage? The Minister of State said this complex. In one sense, it is not terribly complex. As a country, we declared a climate emergency in 2019. We are behind in terms of getting our carbon emissions down and 11% of carbon emissions are coming from the building process and the building industry. There are technologies out there that could be used today if there was an obligation to use them and they would significantly reduce that percentage. For example, we have mentioned low-carbon concrete rather than high-carbon concrete, timber and the work that has been done by Construct Innovate around the viable homes projects and designs that are less carbon-intensive.
To some degree, this is not terribly complex. Many of the solutions are known and are being implemented in countries like France and Denmark, which are streets ahead of us on this. We are dealing with this fast enough. If we do not put it into legislation, we will fall even further behind. We need it in our legislation now. This is meant to be the legislation that will guide us for the next 25 years. There needs to be urgency on this. We can describe anything as complex, but something being complex is not a reason to not do it. Much of what needs to be done here is not terribly complex. We need measurement of carbon in the construction process. We need to look at carbon in the context of the whole life of a building. The point was again made by people in the industry at the Irish Green Building Council event that some of the building process around A-rated homes means they will never get their carbon footprint back if measured across their whole life. The view of World Habitat is that, if you are not using the right low-carbon materials to build your home, it can take 50 years to balance out the energy use of demolishing a current home and building a new one. These things need to be addressed now.
I will speak to some of the other amendments. Amendment No. 230 relates to the regional, spatial and economic strategies. The purpose behind it is to have these align with Ireland's climate targets.
Amendment No. 305 is about obligations to make and review a development plan and states that planning authorities should take due account of Ireland's climate targets.
Amendment No. 342 relates to the strategy for sustainable development and regeneration. It is about mitigating significant adverse effects on the environment, including climate. The current wording is just on the environment, which is very broad. It needs contain the words "including climate", because the reference to the environment is far too broad. It is also to ensure that planning authorities take into account the environmental impact on the climate. Some of the wording in the amendment is designed to update the broad wording around environment. It is what you would expect from the 2000 Act. There has been so much progress since then with recognition that the environment is broadly important, but we must also have specific regard to impacts on climate. That should be in our legislation.
Amendment No. 366 is also in my name. The Minister of State's response to the amendments is deeply disappointing and frustrating. It speaks to an approach to this issue that does not seem to understand the significance of ensuring that there is, in the planning legislation and, in particular, with respect to the housing strategies in the development plan, an absolute requirement for the Government to ensure that those strategies, in this instance and in the context of all other aspects of plan-making, take real action to require that the issue of embodied carbon is at the centre of these plans. We mentioned the Irish Green Building Council and the event at which we all spoke. A number of us, including me, Deputy Duffy and others, are ambassadors for the Irish Green Building Council and are happy to be so. The council did two significant things at that event. First, it launched a manifesto . I will read from a short section of that. It directly challenges the contention made previously by the Ministers of State, Deputies O'Donnell and Noonan, that embodied carbon is not a planning matter but a building control matter. In my view and in that of the Irish Green Building Council, it is both. One of their core policy objectives in the manifesto is to ensure that all new homes built in Ireland are truly sustainable. The manifesto states:
When new homes are built, they must not only be highly energy efficient [which we all agree with], but they must also be well located and built in a sustainable manner to address both operational and embodied carbon emissions and to reduce transport related emissions. This would ensure new homes are cheaper to run, improve people’s quality of life, and contribute to better use of scarce financial and human resources.
In the context of how this will be achieved, the manifesto states:
Review planning and building regulations, so that they better support the decarbonisation of the built environment and fully reflect Ireland’s climate objectives. Besides planning, specific areas to consider include [technical guidance document] B to reflect international research and developments in mass timber construction, and [technical guidance document] G to integrate water efficiency requirements for sanitary ware.
During the question-and-answer session at that event, the planning Bill was a significant issue of concern. The Irish Green Building Council asked us for an update and wanted to know to what extent, if any, the Bill was addressing issues of embodied carbon through planning. There were questions from the floor relating to that issue as well. If it is left to the building control and technical guidance documents, it is a slow process. As we know, technical guidance document B is currently not likely to recommend any significant changes with respect to timber-based products above 10 m. This is the Bill to make provision in that regard.
In the section to which amendment No. 366 relates, the imperative of having the issue of addressing whole life emissions in housing strategies is fundamental. First, that is because those housing strategies in particular will include the elements of housing delivery, which the State is funding, either through the direct delivery of social and affordable housing or through the purchase of Part V social and affordable housing, cost rental, etc. It is also about how they frame those strategies with respect to private sector delivery. Much of this is also about sending signals to industry. If we are moving on this path, industry needs to know where we are going and putting them into strategies is vital. I again make the comparison with what we used to be told when we were doing plans and strategies, namely, that they were tenure blind and that we had to focus on the planning elements. This is the same argument. We had to win that argument before. Thankfully, new plans and strategies are increasingly not tenure blind. However, they also have to not be embodied carbon blind too. Amendment No. 366 is a reasonable proposition in the context of an issue of such profound importance to our built environment.
One of the slides the Irish Green Building Council displayed at the event last week was based on research from carbon and climate experts in UCD. They looked at where our carbon emissions are right now. As I said earlier when the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien was here, emissions from embodied carbon in the built environment are the fourth highest. The experts to whom I refer then mapped out what was likely to happen over the lifetime of the national development plan, which sits underneath the national planning framework and which is one of the matters to which these amendments relate. They said that if we meet targets for renewable energy with respect to agriculture and public transport but do not tackle this issue of embodied whole-life carbon monitoring and reduction, then the volume of carbon or greenhouse gas emissions directly from the built environment will grow to become one of, if not the, highest. We have an opportunity in this Bill to name it and to place obligations on our planning authorities as well as the State and all other agencies through the planning process to have some visibility on this. For the life of me I cannot understand why it is not here at all. I am keen to hear more about the Minister of State's refusal to accept the logic of amendment No. 366. I will comment on some of the other amendments in this group after that.
When the officials handed me the committee's report on embodied carbon, I looked at the recommendations. The second recommendations contains the phrase "that the Department prioritise the preparatory work for measuring embodied carbon to ensure that once EU proposals are agreed there won’t be delays". I like things to be measured. It is the accountant in me. Our Department, as the Deputy is probably aware, has already commenced work with the SEAI to put in place the embodied carbon framework for 1 January 2028 in respect of new buildings with areas of more than 2,000 sq. m., and for new residential buildings from 1 January 2030.
This declaration of global warming potential will be included in the building energy rating certificate. Significant work is required to establish a certified materials database and accounting framework for embodied carbon and the development of software and training of assessors. My Department is working with the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, to put these systems in place in accordance with the proposed energy performance of buildings directive and the construction products regulation. The energy performance of buildings directive is due to be adopted.
Based on industry figures 48% of new housing is currently built using timber methods under the Housing for All. It is a key initiative. We know where the Deputy is coming from and the intent is well acknowledged but we take the view that the question here is whether the amendment is trying to change building standards through primary legislation when in fact we see this as a measure through building control standards. We have a different view overall, in the context of the climate action plan itself, and the measures. We are going to go back but it is a fundamental difference of view.
When we did the report, as the Minister of State referenced, we had officials from the Department in. They told us they were waiting for the European Union to complete its work in this area, which is due to be completed in 2027, and that only after this were they going to act. The Minister of State has broadly repeated that timeline here. The difficulty is that we have legally binding emissions reductions targets in the built environment to hit by 2030. The Minister of State confirmed to us that the measurement methodologies and the architecture to ensure our built environment between now and 2030 is not going to change, and it is really only going to change from 2028, 2029, and 2030 onwards. This means the Minister of State is now stating on the public record, with respect to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and those areas he has responsibility for, that we are simply not going to meet our 2030 emissions reductions targets in the built environment. This is the problem here. The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, was in here earlier discussing this. He kept talking about modern methods of construction, MMC, and timber frames. This is not the issue at hand. Our building control regulations allow for timber frame but our problem is that only half of our estate houses currently use timber frame construction. Even if 100% of houses were timber frame that is not the quantum of change in building materials and methodologies that is required to get to the 50% reduction by 2030.
We are not trying to change building standards through primary legislation; it is the very opposite. We are, obviously, referring to the fact that we are deeply disappointed that the review of Part B is not going to deal with some of these issues. If I am wrong and if that has changed, please let us know. When the revised Part B comes out, if it does not facilitate the use of timber-based product, for example, such as cross-laminated timber and others over 10 m, then we have a problem. That, however, is a separate argument. We are saying, as is the Irish Green Building Council which represents architects, planners, builders, and people across the public, private and semi-State sectors, that there is also a planning requirement. Section 44 provides for the obligation to prepare housing development strategy. If we cannot even name in that section a requirement to include mechanisms to address whole-life carbon emissions, then we have a problem.
What are the planning issues in this context? We dealt with this at some length with the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, but since the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, is here, we will deal with it again. That deals with things like demolition, demolition audits and aspects of reuse. It also deals with issues around using the planning system and using the housing strategies to signal to the public, the private and the semi-State sector that building technologies have to change. They have to change to such an extent that if I hear somebody talk again about timber frame as a modern method of construction, I will pull my hair out. Timber frame construction has been around for 100 years. In fact, before we were building houses with poured concrete into moulds in Crumlin and Cabra in the 1930s houses were built with timber frames. The types of building technologies we are talking about are technologies that are not 2-D panelised and not frame, but are almost 100% low-carbon building technology that is off site manufactured and then assembled on site. Obviously, if the design is for more than 10 m, there must be a certain amount of concrete for fire prevention, stairwells and lift shafts and so on.
This is not about timber frame. Timber frame is not a modern method of construction anyway. As that report sets out, it is about including the planning recommendations for what is required. Apologies if this sounds patronising as I do not mean it to be but I get the sense the Minister of State just does not understand what we are talking about. The Minister of State does not understand the significance of making these sections of this Bill attentive to the need to address seriously whole-life carbon impacts.
Deputy Cian O'Callaghan has already mentioned the two EU member states that have already progressed. They are not waiting for 2027 and the European Commission. They are moving forward and moving forward in areas we could move forward in. The Commissioner responsible for this has also said we do not need to wait for the EU and work could be done now. I am aware that the Minister of State will not accept the amendment but I urge him to go back to his officials and go to people outside of the Department, such as the Irish Green Building Council, and to look at this. If we do not get whole-life carbon and embodied carbon into this Bill - currently, it is not in the Bill anywhere - it is such a wasted opportunity and we should not have to come back with amending legislation at a later stage. I have taken a bit more time to speak than I normally do but this is so fundamental to our concerns.
At the Irish Green Building Council event every political party was represented. Deputy Francis Noel Duffy was on the platform with his colleague MEP, Ciarán Cuffe, who was in the audience. Senator Mary Fitzpatrick was there for Fianna Fáil. Deputy Richard Bruton was there, albeit briefly, from Fine Gael. Deputies O'Callaghan, Bacik and I were there for the Social Democrats, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, respectively. There is cross-party consensus on this and it should not be controversial. Given how controversial other areas of the climate agenda are - we all saw the disagreements between Sinn Féin and Fine Gael yesterday over the EU nature restoration law - this is one area where there is no disagreement. This is one area where there is strong cross-party consensus. For the life of me, I just cannot understand the reluctance to get it into this Bill in the appropriate places to provide the impetus to all levels of our plan making and to all forms of development that emerge from it afterwards by moving in the right direction, not after 2027 and not by 2030 but on enactment of this particular Bill.
Deputy Ó Broin has probably said it all. I believe this is an obligation on the local authority to put together a housing development strategy. One part of the strategy is about compact urban development sites. We have a lot of towns and a number of cities. In itself, building in compact urban sites is sustainable - brownfield sites - and it is about making that work. If the Minister of State could define some wording to go into the Bill in the context of embodied carbon then it is up to the local authority, the planning department, the director of the department and his or her staff to work out what is the strategy and what is the statement of measures that this development plan will have relative to compact urban sites in the context of embodied carbon. It is coming anyway. As the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, said, this is a 25-year plan. What we are talking about is coming in hopefully within the next five years or less. It should have been put in last year. The State architect sat here last year and said we could have embodied carbon measurement at the beginning of last year 2023. Pat Barry from the Irish Green Building Council said the same. It is not hard to do it. I have done it myself. There is software to just measure the embodied carbon. I do not see why the Minister of State cannot find some sort of wording that can reference this going forward.
First, it is worth noting that timber is not only not a modern method of construction. In fact, it is really oldest method of construction. Buildings were made of timber before even stone or concrete. Hundreds of years ago, the buildings and houses in Dublin city were constructed out of timber. We sometimes hear it referred to as some sort of modern or novel use but it is not.
As the Irish Green Building Council showed last week, the trajectory we are on is such that if carbon limits in our building sector and built environment are not addressed over the coming years as other sectors decrease their emissions, the building industry is going to start taking up those emissions. Overall as a country, therefore, our emissions are not going to fall as building expands, as we build more homes and as everything in the national development plan is done. Other sectors are going to be making sacrifices and innovations and doing their bit while, at the same time, the building sector, if this is not addressed, is going to eat that up. That means we will have no chance as a country of meeting our emission reduction targets that are legally binding and for which we will face fines as a result of not meeting. Stating this might not kick in until 1 January 2030 is alarming. It needs to be done now.
There is a fundamental difference here in that the Minister and the Department seem to be of the view this is solely a building standards and control issue and not a planning issue, whereas we are strongly of the view this is also a planning issue. I will quote a document from the Irish Green Building Council. I have made this point previously but I do not think it has landed. The council stated in respect of the Bill that the initial findings of the viable homes project indicate that greenfield housing developments outside towns and cities can contribute up to 30% more embodied carbon per home than equivalent infill developments that use existing infrastructure. It went on to state the Bill should support planning bodies in encouraging the more efficient use of infrastructure as a way to better address carbon emissions.
As I said earlier, the work being done by the viable homes project from Construct Innovate shows this very much is a planning issue. While we can reduce embodied carbon and whole-life carbon through building standards, materials and products used, we can also address it through planning and the overall design and layout of, for example, new housing developments and it has done work on that. That is very important. We have to address it from a materials and building standards point of view but also from a planning point of view, and it is really serious if there is not an acknowledgement that it needs to be both. We do not have a hope of making the progress we need to make if there is not an understanding it needs to be tackled in both directions. The planning Bill is absolutely a relevant item of legislation to address the issue of embodied carbon and carbon limits in our building structures.
I will begin with Deputy Duffy's point. Deputy Ó Broin referred to my level of understanding. I look at this in pretty straightforward terms. Embodied carbon is a large element of dealing with reducing carbon emissions, but to do this properly we must come with the metrics for it. Departmental officials are actively working on this. I have spoken to them about this in my role. Work is ongoing with the SEAI and with the Department of the environment as well. The dates I mentioned relate to when this must be brought in under the EU directives. I hope we will bring it in faster than that, but we must get a metric as to how we can do it in respect of certified material. The database is just an accounting framework. Those are the technical terms, but in layman's terms it is about how we will measure it and how we will provide local authorities, which do not have that skill set at the moment, with a framework by which they can measure it in their plans. Nevertheless, it is not a planning matter but a building control matter.
Deputy O'Callaghan spoke about sustainable development. I worked intensively with the officials on the sustainable guidelines. They deal with sustainable and brownfield sites. We are looking at addressing flood risks and considering areas such as the distance from public transport. Under the sustainable guidelines for densities, they are strongly linked to the accessibility of public transport. In summary, we take the view the Bill is about planning and is very much about sustainable locations.
Building materials are not a planning issue but a building control issue. To get to the embodied carbon issue, we must come up with a proper metric. Intensive work is ongoing at the Department with the SEAI through officials, whom I meet regularly on the issue, and with the Department of the environment. When that is arrived at, as a building control issue, this is something everyone will be able to implement through a common framework and we will have the measurement. This concerns even knocking down existing buildings and so on. Fundamentally, we do not believe the planning Bill is the place for amendments relating to the embodied carbon measurement area.
Going full circle, however, on the overall issues Deputy Duffy raised, with respect not specifically to his amendment but to the need to refer to the climate action legislation, we will look at that. An obvious case concerns development plans. We are going to look at that and come back to it on Report Stage, but this is the basis on which we cannot accept the amendment. It will still come through building controls and not through the planning Bill.
I will move on the conversation to incorporate amendments Nos. 612 and 613 but they relate to the same issue. In my opinion and I say this respectfully, the Minister of State is plain wrong that it is not a planning matter. My two amendments Nos. 612 and 613 seek to explain in practical terms that this is a planning matter. Amendment No. 612 relates to section 84, which deals with conditions that may be attached to permission granted under the Part of the Bill relating to obligations on planning authorities or the commission in the context of grants. Section 84 goes through all the types of conditions that can be attached to a grant of permission. Again, this was discussed with the Irish Green Building Council. There is a proposition in amendment No. 612 to include a new paragraph (m) referring to “conditions requiring to measure and address whole life carbon emissions and address whole life carbon emissions of new developments in line with the States carbon targets”. Amendment No. 613 moves beyond embodied carbon, again relates to a new paragraph (m) and refers to “conditions requiring the development to have regard to the ratio of infrastructure to buildings and homes to ensure a more efficient use of infrastructure and associated emissions”.
A real-life example we often use, because it is pretty straightforward, is concrete and cement. Two types of concrete and cement are currently available on the Irish market. This has been well rehearsed at this committee. One is high carbon and the other is low carbon. All the major concrete and cement manufacturers can produce the low-carbon cement. They all have the technology, from the largest company to the smallest. There is the same cost for anybody who is carrying out development, all other things being equal, to use the low-carbon cement or concrete as there is to use the high-carbon one. Deputy Duffy is contradicting me here and he will come in on this in a moment, but all things being equal, there is broadly the same cost. In my opinion, a planning authority should be able to apply a condition to ensure the lower carbon cement will be used on certain projects where not doing so would have a negative impact on the environment. I am simplifying this to make it as easy as possible to understand, but that could be a planning condition.
The question of how to quantify and measure is clearly a building control matter. However, there is no reason that option should not be available in the grant of a permission, particularly where there are infrastructure projects or utility company projects that would be very concrete-intensive. It would be eminently sensible thing to do. The Minister of State seems to suggest that there is this complete separation of building control from planning permissions and that is a position I just do not accept. When the NZEB requirements to phase out gas boilers were coming in, which Deputy Francis Noel Duffy will remember, we kept asking who would enforce and monitor them. We kept being told the building control section was going to do it. Of course, we know that section is the poor cousin of our planning department’s chronic understaffing of our building control sections. There is a bad history of building control enforcement. Some local authorities, such as Dublin City Council, have gold-plated building control sections while others do not. Therefore, we made the point at the time that there should be a planning element as well as a building control element. I am making the same point here. I just do not accept there cannot be a planning element.
To extend the point, while it is not in these amendments, it confirms the point that the demolition of buildings and the reuse of materials from demolition is a planning matter and should be a matter that could be included as a condition in a grant of permission. Therefore, planning plays a key role in this.
On that basis, I urge the Minister of State not to reconsider the amendments because I know he will not but I ask him to go back and think this through. If we wait until 2030, it will be too late and we will be playing catch up. That means we will be multiples of years behind the curve meeting our 2050 targets when other member states such as France and Denmark will be way ahead of us.
Amendments Nos. 612 to 614, inclusive, are essentially the same. Amendment No. 614 puts the other two amendments together. I will speak to amendment No. 613. Infrastructure could be put in as a condition. As was said, the expertise needs to be in the planning department so it can understand things, and this is about infrastructure. If there is too much infrastructure going in, that is a lot of embodied carbon. We do not want to completely cut it all out but if there is a way of streamlining infrastructure, the Department could do that or it can put down conditions. Again, it needs the expertise.
Returning to the strategy amendment-----
Which number is that?
It is the one on the compact sites. Deputy O'Broin moved on to this one but I just want to go back to it and the fact that it is-----
Which number is it?
It is amendment No. 366.
It is the Deputy's earlier amendment.
Yes, but the two of them are related. I kind of get it is the horse before the cart. I have to disagree with the Minister of State in the context that the technology is definitely there because I have used it. The embodied carbon of a building can be quantified. The technology is there and it is being used. When that comes, will there be a case for the next Government or whichever Government to amend the current Act to bring it in to strategise going forward? Alternatively, is there a way of putting something into the Act that when these things are coming – because the Minister of State referenced them coming – going forward, there will be measures put in place that we have to take all this on board with what is coming instead of it being blank?
Amendment No. 614 is a combination of amendments Nos. 612 and 613. We oppose amendment No. 612 on the same principle as we oppose amendment No. 366.
I understand. Amendment No. 612 is one of my amendments. I get that. However, the second one is about infrastructure. It is on a larger scale. A developer, an architect or an engineer does not have the bigger picture that planners have.
I will read the note and then go back. Amendment No. 613 is effectively the same as amendment No. 614.
It is the same point. Amendment No. 613 seeks to place an additional condition on planning applications “requiring the development to have regard to the ratio of infrastructure to buildings and homes to ensure a more efficient use of infrastructure and associated emissions". However, we believe this is covered at the wider plan-making stage through the zoning of land for various purposes, to which the consent process must have regard.
The zonings would be a huge aspect. Going back to the Deputy’s core point, the advice we have from the Department is that the codes cannot be crossed. We cannot cross the planning code with the building control code. We will use concrete as an example because Deputy Ó Broin referenced it. The question is, is the type of concrete poured a planning matter? We believe it is not.
Fundamentally, with regard to planning, one local authority may have expertise and another may not. I do not want to digress but I will use the example of ministerial statements on planning. That is about ensuring that we have consistency across local authorities. Equally, we need to provide a structured process by which embodied carbon is measured in a consistent manner by local authorities. We as a Department are preparing that. We are working with the SEAI and other Departments, including DECC. When that comes out, we are legally required under EU directives to have them in place by a certain date. There is no reason we cannot have those in place before that date. Under our sustainable residential development compact, in appendix C, local authorities are required to consider various environmental aspects. They may have to do appropriate assessments, which they all have to consider. They have to consider ecological impact assessments, EIAs and site-specific flood risk assessments. They cover many of these areas already.
There are two aspects in respect of embodied carbon. First, we believe it is a function of building control, not planning. Planning is about the physical location. Second, there is work under way. We have to get a measure of it and that then will become a building control standard as distinct from a planning standard. We can differ on this. That is our final say on it.
On amendment No. 614, I accept what the Minister of State said in that there is reference within development plans to cover that. I agree that building control is a place where measurement should happen. However, in the context of the State strategising going forward, architects and engineers strategise for the site they have and comply with whatever is put in front of them, but they do not strategise for a county, town, village or urban centre. That is not their job; that is the planner’s job. We are not giving them instruction to strategise. There may be a statement of measures and perhaps objectives.
At government level, under the climate action Act, each local authority is legally required to produce a climate action plan. All local authorities are doing that and they are across various different areas. I have seen some of the draft plans. It is unfair to say that local authorities are not required to have any account of climate; they are through the climate action plans. I refer to embodied carbon, which is a specific area.
We need to do that in a very structured way and have consistency across local authorities to provide certainty to people. I again go back to the core principle that it is a building control standard rather than a planning one. I feel I am going around in circles at this point.
Deputy Boyd Barrett wishes to make a new point on this. Deputies O'Callaghan and Ó Broin also want to make points.
It is a question as much as anything else. Maybe I missed the explanation. Why is it a building control standard and not a planning one? I do not get that. I believe concrete accounts for about 8% of global emissions. If it was a country, it would be the third biggest emitter of CO2 after the United States and China. I do not understand how it is a building control issue to decide on materials. Surely, it is very much a planning and development issue to say that, in doing our development plan, we want to reduce the amount of concrete because of the damage it is doing to the environment and we will look more favourably on planning and development that is less damaging to the environment and that uses materials which, throughout their life cycle, do less damage to the environment. I may be missing something, but why would that not be a legitimate aspiration in doing a development plan?
A developer planning to build 100 homes makes the application through the planning process. At that point, through the development plan and through engaging with the planning process and the national planning framework, or whatever it is, the developer should know what the carbon limit is for the construction of those 100 homes. The way they are going to achieve compliance with that carbon limit may be affected by whether they are doing any demolition on site that might be unnecessary with embodied carbon in it. They might choose to retain some existing buildings, extend and renovate. The design and layout of a project are very important in terms of whole-life carbon.
I have already referenced studies on that and issues relating to the number of car parking spaces, layout, design, active travel and infrastructure. These are all issues that will affect the whole-life embodied carbon of the whole project as well as building materials. The developer will be able to achieve compliance with the carbon limits through a range of these. If the developer decides it is important for the project to demolish existing buildings because they want to go considerably higher, the buildings are too old or for whatever other reason, they will have to meet their carbon limits in other areas.
Most of these are planning matters that will be determined through the planning application. I accept that the measurement of building materials is a building control issue. However, if the planning process does not specify the carbon limits for the project with the design done to meet them, it will only potentially be looked at in terms of building materials, and the other elements, which are also very important, simply will not come into it. This absolutely is a planning issue.
The Minister of State said this is done through guidance. The point we are making is that we are not looking at the guidance here; we are looking at the Bill. This is so important that it needs to be in the Bill, as well as in the guidance. There could be a change of Government within a year. That Government might be reliant on a block of TDs with no interest in limiting carbon in our buildings. That is absolutely possible. We could be in a different political scenario and then we will have missed the opportunity to ensure this is written into legislation because the guidance could then change depending on who is Minister for housing and so forth. This is far too important to have it only in guidance and not to have these important principles in the legislation, which is why we have tabled these amendments.
As Chair, I would love to partake in this private conversation but I cannot. The Deputy has made his position very clear on it in terms of buildings-----
May I make a brief additional comment?
Please do.
Currently the Department is carrying out work with the SEAI to come up with a measurement of embodied carbon, which is very important. That policy has not been fully settled yet. Once that review is done and if it proposes including it in planning legislation, the Minister whoever it is, will look at it at that point. Certainly, if I were the Minister, I would be looking at it at that point. As it stands, it is still a building control measure. I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the review the Department is doing. As matters stand, we need to come up with a measurement of embodied carbon.
Inconsistencies in planning interpretations by local authorities are a big factor for me. Like many of the members present, before becoming a Minister of State I did a lot of work on planning issues. It is what we have always done as public representatives at every level, working with people applying and residents in areas. It is doing what one would normally do. Again, it must operate in practice. We believe it is a building control measure. Legislation will always require that something be built in compliance with building standards. That is standard within any legislation.
Regarding the process at the moment and these amendments, the policy has not been fully defined yet. We need to do it having regard to the directives that are coming in. We would like to have that work done well in advance of the statutory date. Once that work is complete, obviously we will look again at legislation to underpin that.
On the other amendments the Deputy has tabled, we will go back and consider them for inclusion on Report Stage to reflect the intent of the climate action plan. I have nothing further to add.
We will now move on to amendments Nos. 142 and 143, which are closely related. I suggest we discuss them together.
This comes back to the various areas to be considered in the national planning framework. Amendment No. 142 seeks to insert the words "air quality management". Amendment No. 143 seeks to insert the wording "compliance with the State’s European Union obligations for waste management, water quality, air quality, nature conservation and restoration, and reduction of green house gas emissions,”. Amendment No. 154 states:
In page 61, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“(e) promotion of sustainable development consistent with a focus on improving human health and well-being and the establishment of metrics and criteria for evaluating these considerations and monitoring them within the life of the plan;”.
The formulation is similar to an amendment in an earlier grouping which the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, refused to accept. Even though I am an eternal optimist, I do not expect the Minister of State to accept it now. It is really just trying, in those relevant subsections of section 19, to be much more explicit on issues of air and water quality, waste management and public health, and how to monitor those matters post the plan.
Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 by Deputies Cian O’Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Bríd Smith and Gino Kenny, respectively, seek to insert reference to air quality management. Amendment No. 153 tabled by Deputy Matthews seeks to insert reference to ecological status of water bodies, both respectively with regards to the making of the national planning framework. I cannot accept these proposed amendments as in the case of ecological status of water bodies, this is already covered by the water framework directive, which already informs the national planning framework. In the case of air quality management, this is a separate code of compliance covered by other legislation.
Does anybody wish to respond? No. We shall move to amendment No. 420, which is solely in the name of Deputy Cian O'Callaghan. Call me out if I have skipped any. I am marking them as we speak to them.
Amendment No. 420 is about the obligation to prepare objectives for management of areas, use and structures. This is to include wording to support reaching Ireland's climate targets. It refers to page No. 109. It would insert, "Supporting reaching Ireland’s climate targets as set under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021.”. In the climate emergency we are in, which has been declared since 2019, all policies and programmes must support Ireland's binding climate targets. We covered the issues related to this matter in quite some detail already.
Does the Chair wish for me to respond?
Yes, please do.
To be helpful, there is the same point with respect to my final amendment in this group, No. 893.
What number is that?
Amendment No. 893.
Amendment Nos. 420 and 893 are related.
I had not spoken to amendment No. 596 so I will now, briefly. This is about matters to which planning authorities and the commission shall have regard. The amendment is to ensure that specifically includes carbon emissions. A point was made before that the language in this Bill should be up to date with the climate emergency we declared in 2019. On the wording, I made the point that "environment" is far too broad. I want a specific mention of climate targets written into the Bill so that they cannot be ignored. It is just too important to have any of these things as implicit and not explicitly named.
Are we discussing amendments Nos. 420 and 893. Is that correct?
It is amendment No. 420 and Deputy Ó Broin's amendment No. 893. Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment No. 596 is closely related.
It deals with separate things in different sections of the Bill.
I will address all three because they have common themes. I dealt with them in the initial overview on the sections. I have accepted that they are matters we will look at on Report Stage.
Can I confirm with Deputy Ó Broin that he spoke to amendment Nos. 612 and 613? I did not tick them off. Did he mention them?
Please bear with me. We had a lengthy debate on those.
I missed knocking those off. Next is amendment No. 614 from Deputy McAuliffe and then I will speak to my amendments.
Amendment No. 614 is in the name of Deputy Duffy.
Excuse me, Deputy Duffy. Has he spoken to amendment No. 614?
We dealt with those.
We already dealt with that.
The only remaining amendments I see are in my name or the name of Deputy McAuliffe. I might go down and cover them, although we had a lengthy conversation.
What numbers are they?
Let me get settled down there and I will try to go through them one by one. Will somebody please take the Chair? It would be very helpful.
Deputy O'Callaghan should try it for a while.
I have been there plenty, do not worry.
Deputy Francis Noel Duffy took the Chair.
I will not delve into it too much because we covered a lot of it in detail.
Will the Deputy provide us with the amendment numbers?
It is great to be able to sit down and talk to this because I was dying to get involved in that conversation. Going back to the IPCC report, all of the reporting on climate is that we need an immediate, rapid and concerted effort from all angles to address climate, without a shadow of a doubt. It is the reason I am here - we need to address climate. When I hear things like, "We will do something by 2027 or 2030", I fully understand and take the Minister of State's point completely. If one puts in something that is not easily measurable by applicants or the people who have to judge a planning application and they all do it in a different way, that just creates chaos. I understand that. I spoke to Deputy Duffy about this before; he is an architect and has done huge work in this area. There are tools available to do it. Do you put the onus on the planner to make the judgment about whether the applicant has achieved what is to be done or do you put the onus on the applicant to include, and for them to measure, using a standardised methodology? I do not know how we do it but I do know that we need to do it. We need to do it a lot quicker than 2027 and 2030. I know we are doing a lot of work on climate. To be honest, I do not think any of us are moving fast enough. Many people speak out both sides of their mouths on climate. They know it is the challenge of our time but they do not really want to take the action required. That is not an attack on anyone in particular, I just see that as the discussion out there.
Amendment No. 133 relates to the furtherance of objectives in the national planning framework in Section 19(2)(f) of the Bill. It is on page 60. Currently, subsection (f) refers to one of the objectives as "outlining how". That is language from ten or 15 years ago. A stronger action word is needed like "integrating" the pursuit and achievement. I made this point the other day. A lot of stuff around transport has just been transposed from a 20-year-old document. When people drafted the original legislation, "outlining" was probably okay as it was not the most immediate challenge of our time. It has gone beyond that now. We need stronger action and to challenge people to do things better and faster. Does the Minister of State think "outlining" is too weak a language? Using "Integrating" or "incorporating" in subsection (f) into the national planning framework objectives is important.
Amendment No. 153 proposes to add to section 19(3)(d), "good ecological status of water bodies." I actually wrote it myself - I accept that it is a water framework directive objective. It is nearly taken directly from it. Our water quality is deteriorating at quite a rapid rate. Although we have signed up to the water framework directive - a European directive - have transposed it and will do our best to achieve it, it needs to be stated in the legislation, although it is from an EU directive. Does the Minister of State think water is covered enough in the list in section 19(3)(d)? It is on page 61. There is reference to "landscape; ecology; biodiversity; archaeological, architectural and natural heritage". Water needs to be included there. I would not include water with biodiversity. One could suggest it is included in ecology but that could be argued. We should specify the status of our water quality in there. I ask the Minister of State to consider that.
Amendment No. 196 concerns national planning statements. It proposes to insert a new subsection (k) to include "protection and restoration of nature". I accept that the Minister of State may argue that subsection (i) covers it but "protection of landscapes, and features of natural, archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage of value;" does not quite encompass "nature".
I do not see that nature is specifically included there. Deputy Boyd Barrett referred to the climate crisis the other day, but we often omit the nature crisis we have as well. The nature restoration law being passed in Europe is very positive. Having the biodiversity action plan on a statutory footing is extremely positive. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, agreed that because the biodiversity action plan was not on a statutory footing when this was drafted, he would look to try to incorporate this into this new Bill now.
Amendment No. 313 is to section 41, which is on page 99. This concerns the content of a development plan and it refers to the wording in (h), "a statement demonstrating" and "supports the implementation of", and which then lists out the Acts and plans etc. I really think it needs to be consistent with. The language of "supporting" is gone. The climate Act sets out very specifically in section 15 the mandatory requirement to be consistent with that Act. The word "supports" is weak and it should be "is consistent with" the implementation of (h)(i), (ii) and (iii).
My amendments Nos. 601 and 602 suggest the Minister of State deletes reference to the climate Act. This is in section 83. It might be asked why I would suggest removing or deleting reference to the climate Act? If we read the introduction, and we discussed this the other day, which is on page 195, although section 83 starts on page 193-----
Is the Deputy dealing with amendment No. 601 or 602?
I am dealing with amendments Nos. 601 and 602.
I suggest the reference to the climate Act in section 83(1)(a)(x) and (b)(x) be removed. The reason I suggest deleting it is because the introductory headline to the section again has this thing about having regard. I had two amendments, one of which was to change that language to strengthen it so that we do not just have regard to the climate Act but that we be consistent with the climate Act. We cannot just have regard to the climate Act in planning. We must be absolutely consistent with it. I accept we did have a good interaction. I cannot remember which Minister it was with.
I think the word "consistent" might be something we will go with.
If we have "consistent" with the climate Act, I am happy to leave that in, but because it says "regard"-----
We feel it is necessary to have it in there, so maybe the word "consistent" might allow us.
Amendment No. 634 relates to page 205 of the Bill. This concerns pre-application consultation on large-scale residential development, LRD. Section 87(8)(c) reads a planning authority "may advise the prospective applicant of the considerations related ... to the environment". It is all about that discussion we had earlier. If we were to add "greenhouse gas emissions" to that, the prospective applicant could be advised. Although it is not measurable, and we have had the discussion that it is very difficult to do that, I do not think it is any harm to advise an applicant they should consider greenhouse gases rather than just the environment. It could be argued that it is governed under the environment and sustainable development, etc., but it focuses the mind and there is no harm in being able to advise. It is non-binding, obviously.
Amendment No. 661 relates to page 216 of the Bill. It concerns applications for permission in material contravention of the development plan or the national marine planning framework. This is one I thought about for a while. I do not like to see permissions that are materially contravening planning because planning goes through a very long process and it is set out. However, if it is in furtherance of our climate objective, which has to be the imperative, and may not have been included in the development plan or may not have been considered at the time the plan was being drafted, amendment No. 661, which I have submitted, which I think is a new section-----
When the Deputy speaks about the climate action plan, is he referring to local authorities' own climate action plans?
No, I am speaking about the climate-----
One sentence of the amendment refers to "the most recent approved climate action plan" and another refers to "the most recent approved national long term climate action strategy". When the Deputy speaks about climate action plans, is that the national climate action plan?
On the wording I used in amendment No. 661, by "the most recent approved climate action plan" I mean the national climate action plan, and the national climate action strategy.
It is very broad.
It is.
We would, quite possibly, have reservations in that regard. I understand the intent.
The intent behind it is that a material contravention of a development plan that is in furtherance of climate objectives is something that should be considered. I do not see it stated there. It is something that needs to be considered.
You are either materially contravening planning or you are not. It is a planning aspect. Anyway, I know.
Say that again. I did not quite catch that.
If you are looking at a material contravention, a plan is either materially contravened or not. It is a planning issue.
Yes. It is a planning issue, but we have had considerable discussion on the role planning plays in climate action.
If an application contravenes a plan and that application is in the furtherance of national climate objectives, it should be a matter that can be considered to materially contravene a plan. It would obviously have to be agreed. There is a process for contravening a development plan.
Yes. These were all in the general submission and we have agreed to look at them in their entirety.
Amendment No. 681 relates to page 225 of the Bill and refers to a development "causing or likely to cause significant negative impact on the local environment". That would actually be quite difficult to apply because I have not given a level of it. While I favour the spirit of amendment No. 681, I just do not think it is possible.
Amendment No. 707 relates to page 250 of the Bill. If a development requires a licence for emissions, discharges or emissions to air, that can be often covered under an integrated pollution control licence, a waste licence or a discharge licence to water. Can a planning authority attach conditions to an application with regard to emissions, even if there is an IPC or other type of emissions licence as part of that to the EPA?
Not on planning, no.
I know there are two separate processes. You apply for a licence and you apply for planning development for the structure and for the building. A local authority-----
You apply for your licence through the EPA. We are talking now about that.
They are, but if issues of concern to the local authority are not included in the conditions attached to the licences, can the local authority apply its own conditions with regard to, not the same matters, but some other matters such as discharge, emissions, odours or noises?
The licensing authority looks at that.
The licensing authority makes its decision independent of the decision of the local authority on the physical structure.
Yes, I know that there are two separate application processes-----
Yes. Very definite.
-----and you apply to the EPA for that. Would planning permission have to be got before getting the licence? I do not believe so.
Essentially, you could have a licence that covers all of these emissions-----
Sorry, I will not stand over that. I want to check it. I am reasonably familiar with the area but I do not want to be misleading. We have seen cases in which permission for a physical structure was granted before the licence was applied for. I will come back to the Deputy on the matter. You can apply in respect of a physical structure before having the licence, but it is a question of whether the licence can be applied for without the permission for the physical structure. I will need to come back to the Deputy on that.
The structure may be in place and then you apply for a licence-----
Correct.
-----and then you apply for a change of use. It may be like that, but-----
So it is possible that the planning authority would have eyes on the licence and know what is contained in it before issuing a planning consent.
I will come back to the Deputy on that.
I will tell the Minister of State what I am trying to get at.
I do not think the licence can be applied for without having applied to the local authority first regarding the physical structure.
If it occurs to the planning authority that something has not been included in a licence issued by another authority, can it apply a condition to it such that it does not fall through the gaps just because another licensing authority has covered it?
Could the Deputy say that again, please?
If the planning authority is aware of an additional possible environmental impact on its local area that is not referred to in a waste licence, integrated pollution control licence or other licence issued by the licensing authority, can it apply a planning condition to that licence to cover this?
That is beyond the function of the local authority.
I referred to the planning authority, so it could be the commission.
Yes, but the licensing is a function of the EPA.
I know that, but if a licence is issued that covers emissions to air, noise or something like that-----
Where the permission has been granted by the council and the licence has been granted as well-----
Say the permission has not yet been granted by the council.
I do not think one can apply to the EPA without having applied to the local authority first. I will have to confirm that.
I ask the Minister of State to check whether a planning authority can, in respect of emissions, noise, odour and so on that could affect, for example, a local community or water quality, add conditions to a licence for a development.
We will come back to the Deputy on that. I understand his question.
I thank the Minister of State. Are we out of time?
Yes. Has the Deputy many more amendments to deal with?
Yes, I have a good few, including a couple that are not directly related to what we have been discussing.
There are several amendments in the grouping that I have to address. I believe there are four.
Deputy Steven Matthews resumed the Chair.
We have reached the end of the meeting, so I will now adjourn the select committee. We will recommence on amendment No. 131. I thank the Minister of State and his officials. I hope they all have a decent couple of days' break away from us in the committee room.
I thank the Chair.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select committee adjourned at 6.04 p.m. until 6.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 5 March 2024.