We resume on amendment No. 131 and the associated grouping. We have spoken to the majority of the amendments in this grouping. I need to speak to my amendments so I will ask Deputy McAuliffe to take the Chair.
Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 19
Debate resumed on 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”.
- (Deputy Francis Noel Duffy)
Deputy Paul McAuliffe took the Chair.
I will start off where I had to finish last Thursday evening. Amendments Nos. 710 and 712 are related to amendment No. 661, which we have already discussed. The amendments deal with reasons for material contravention of a development plan. Amendment No. 661 sought to include a reason for a material contravention of a development plan in a decision by a local authority for the furtherance of national climate objectives.
I have spoken at length, as have others, about the challenge we have to meet our climate target objectives. These amendments are around applications for renewable energy projects, not just solely limited to wind projects but also including the fantastic advances we have made in solar, at both utility and mini-generation scale, for example, anaerobic digesters and battery electric storage systems. All of these are going to become more prevalent, I hope, over the coming years.
Amendments Nos. 710 and 712 are very closely related. Amendment No. 710 relates to page 250 and amendment No. 712 to page 251. I seek to add to wording on page 250. It refers to section 122: "Decision on application for permission for development in material contravention of certain plans". Amendment No. 710 relates to material contraventions for land development, while amendment No. 712 relates to material contraventions for marine planning. I suspect that the Minister of State will probably respond by saying that there is scope for the commission to grant applications that do materially contravene a development plan. We have often seen the commission make those decisions but my understanding is that a local authority is more firmly bound by the objectives within their development plan. In some regards, that is perfectly right and good with regard to planning. We have seen circumstances where development plans have changed objectives regarding the placement of suitable sites for wind development. Those development plans have changed their objectives in midstream of a planning application for onshore wind energy, and we have a huge challenge in onshore wind energy. It has been one of the successes of energy production in this country for many years, and we are hitting targets in around 40% of our electricity being generated from wind power. That is an incredible statistic, and we have got to move further than that. We have got to move a hell of a lot further and a lot quicker.
Where the objectives change in a development plan, it can be quite unfair on an applicant. These applications take a long time to prepare, all of the studies have to be done, and then they end up with a development plan changing objective midstream. That can come as a result of pressure on local councillors. We have all sat around council chambers crafting development plans, and we have had lobbying from people or letters and correspondence from constituents. There can be pressure on them to change where the zoning is or the areas that are most suitable for wind farms. That does not help our national climate target causes.
In my two amendments, the wording is quite simple, and they are to allow them to make that material contravention where the development or proposed development is consistent with the most recent approved climate action plan - I refer to the national climate action plan, not the local one - the most recent approved national adaptation framework and approved sectoral adaptation plans, the furtherance of the national climate objective and the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State.
The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach's amendment No. 607 is probably related to this as well.
What numbers are those amendments?
These are amendments Nos. 710 and 712. They are related to amendment No. 661 as well in that these are reasons for a material contravention for furtherance of the national climate objectives.
Does the Deputy wish to speak to the other amendments?
I would like to get a response on those first because the next bunch of amendments are quite similar.
Amendment No. 712?
Amendments Nos. 710 and 712. They have to be read with amendment No. 661 as well.
With amendment No. 661?
Amendment No. 661 refers to page 216, and that relates to applications for permission for development in material contravention of a development plan or a national marine planning framework, which is section 96.
It must be made clear that this Bill, as well as the current Act of 2000 recognises the pivotal importance of meeting the climate challenge and the central role that planning can play in these efforts. My 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 my Department under the climate action plan 2023 include the establishment of the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, and the retrofit of approximately 2,400 local authority homes.
From a national planning policy perspective, the national planning framework, NPF, 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 NPF 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 NPF strategy is at an early stage in its implementation.
The associated regional spatial and economic strategies were adopted in 2019 and 2020, which each contain a number of ambitious policy objectives to ensure emissions can be reduced and targets met, and the majority of city and county development plans have now been updated to be consistent with the NPF. A key feature of this new Bill is greater alignment of national policy, including those relating to climate objectives, with regional and local implementation.
The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 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 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 annex 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 also to reach net-zero emissions by no later than 2050.
This Bill recognises the importance of the NPF 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 NPF 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 and, 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 of these proposed amendments. This is to ensure that the language in the Bill fully reflects my 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 commit to liaising with both the Office of the Attorney General and my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, and will revert on Report Stage should any changes required to the current drafting of the Bill be identified regarding the amendments referred. In that sense, I must reject these amendments but, again, I am giving that commitment to examine the amendments and see how we can strengthen this Bill with regard to the climate Act.
That is a somewhat positive response, so I look forward to considering this very seriously. There has been so much discussion about delays in the planning system, and I do not particularly agree with some of the commentary about delays in the planning system. We have a very good, participative and democratic planning system, and I do not lightly suggest amendments that would contravene a democratically approved and crafted county development plan.
I do so because of my concerns and because we have to act. I quoted the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, which tells us that we need to act with more speed to address emissions in this country. I take the point made by the Minister of State, which is positive.
Does the Deputy wish to address the other amendments?
I think other members have indicated to speak on these amendments.
With respect to the NPF and issues of speed and delay, it might be helpful for the Minister of State to give the committee an update on the announcement made earlier today of the decision of the Government to defer the publication of the revised national planning framework, which is obviously relevant to this section. It would be helpful to put that information in the public domain regarding whether it will have any consequence for the delay of the review process, which is commencing this year and which, again, is relevant to this section.
I am conscious that we are speaking to the amendments. While the intervention of Deputy Ó Broin is a helpful suggestion, we might just keep the focus on the amendments.
I have a point that is specifically on the amendments. The whole point of a development plan is that it is democratically decided, so contravening it is a serious matter. I would be interested to hear Deputy Matthews come back on this. The amendments suggest this should be overridden because we have climate objectives, or that this might be allowed. On the one hand, it is imperative, but the Deputy knows that a lot of the potential areas of conflict are going to be around conflicts between biodiversity or marine life and the wishes of industrial developers of wind turbines. In actuality, that is where a lot of the conflict is going to emerge, I would have thought. I am worried that if we say we can contravene the democratically decided development plan because developers say their development is consistent with the Government's imperative to meet climate targets, although the developers can reference our climate objectives, for them, there is an imperative just to get the development done because they have a lot of money invested in it. I would be concerned about that because the biodiversity crisis is every bit as important, from the point of view of protecting the sustainability of existence on this planet, as developing wind energy.
I will let Deputy Matthews respond and then bring in the Minister of State to respond to Deputy Eoin Ó Broin.
In response to Deputy Boyd Barrett, all planning decisions should be made in the interests of proper planning, sustainable development and the common good, so my amendment is not that any planning application would be granted just because it is in the furtherance of climate objectives, but it would have to meet the high bar that we are going to set in this Bill for sustainability, common good and climate objectives. It is not that a planning application would be automatically granted on the material contravention of a plan. It is just something that needs to be considered, especially where the objectives of a development plan may conflict with what is proper planning and sustainable development in the furtherance of the common good. It is not that people would get it straightaway. All the other considerations of the planning application would have to be taken into account both by the planning authority and the commission.
I would be grateful to get a view on the following point: let us say the elected members in a local authority adopt a development plan and, for a geographical area, put in objectives around flood relief works having to involve nature-based solutions. Then, if there was a proposal for flood relief works that were not nature-based solutions but fitted with the criteria for the material contravention, could the sustainable approach of the elected members through the development plan, a plan that is good in terms of climate and biodiversity, be overridden because, while it would fit with the criteria for the material contravention, it might not necessarily fit with the nature-based solutions that the elected members were trying to put through based on the development plan? I would be interested in a view on that.
We could consider many different scenarios and cases. I have full trust in the planning officials in a local authority and in the commission to make the right decision. This just gives them a greater option where objectives in the development plan may have been changed midstream, which we have seen. It is to allow that greater flexibility in the decision-making process. However, all necessary considerations would be taken into account, including the environmental impact assessments to which the Deputy referred. It is not carte blanche. It is just another option that would be available.
I ask the Minister of State to reply to Deputy Ó Broin's request.
I might try to reply to all of the points raised. With reference to Deputy Ó Broin's point on the deferral of the approval of the revised national planning framework, that is the case, and the Government decided that today. Pursuant to section 20C(5)(b) of the Planning and Development Act, as amended, the Government has published a statement explaining why the Government has decided not to revise the framework. The statement also includes a revised timeline. The revised timeline for the revision process will involve publication of the draft revised NPF and accompanying technical assessments for a national public consultation in June 2024. This will be followed by an amendment stage in August 2024 for review and consideration of the submissions received and the application of any relevant amendments. A finalised document will be published, subject to approval, in September 2024.
With regard to the reasons, revision of the NPF is informed to a significant degree by census data. The postponement of the census in 2021 due to the global pandemic resulted in the delay in publication of crucial census outputs relating to housing and demographics. Members will recall that we had a discussion the last day I was here about the fuller data from the census. Further to census 2022, and in regard to the key drivers to the NPF revision, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage has engaged the Economic and Social Research Institute to update its previous projections relating to population growth to 2040 based on demographic and econometric modelling, and having regard to the results of census 2022 and other factors with the potential to influence fertility, mortality and migration trends. In addition, the research will outline projections relating to structural housing demand, having regard to factors such as headship and obsolescence. The ESRI is currently finalising its research with a view to providing a draft report for consideration by the Department in March. Following this, the report will be peer-reviewed and published, and the final report is likely to be available in April 2024.
In light of the extent of the recent demographic change and the implications for future population projections on the structural housing demand, the Government has decided to defer the approval of a draft revised NPF until a full suite of data required to properly consider matters relating to demographics and population projections has been received from the ESRI. Having regard to the above, it is proposed that the revised timeline for the revision process will involve publication of the draft revised NPF and accompanying technical assessment for national public consultation in June 2024. That will be followed by an amendment stage in August 2024, review and consideration of submissions received and the application of relevant amendments. The finalised document will be published subject to approval in September of this year.
Deputy Boyd Barrett specifically referenced biodiversity. It is now the case that the national biodiversity action plan, NBAP, is on a statutory footing. It is going to require Departments to report back to the Minister of the day on their responsibilities in respect of biodiversity, so there is good cross-checking in terms of the NBAP and how it interrelates with development plans. We gave a commitment earlier in this process to also look at the biodiversity requirements in this Bill.
It is also the case that material contraventions need to be considered on their own merits and this has to be compliant with development plans.
It would not be appropriate to materially contravene a development plan to deal with climate-related developments but the plan must include a strategy on environment and climate change. Decisions on any application regarding climate or renewables must be within the development plan, including the strategy on environment as I stated. This is to ensure there is a robustness to the plan in relation to climate and the queries that have been raised.
I cannot remember what Deputy O'Callaghan asked. I do apologise.
My questions were more to Deputy Matthews.
He was looking for answers from me.
Does Deputy Matthews wish to respond to Deputy O'Callaghan?
I have done so.
Deputy Matthews responded.
The rest of my amendments in this grouping are on environment and climate and the checks and balances that need to be applied. Amendment No. 724 relates to consultation prior to a request under section 135, which relates to extensions and alterations to planning permission. Section 134(5)(c) states:
(c) advise the person who made the application under subsection (1) regarding the considerations, related to the following matters, that may, in the opinion of the deciding authority, have a bearing on its decision:
(i) the impact of the proposed development on the environment;
I suggest adding "and climate" after "environment" in subparagraph (i).
Amendments Nos. 1056 to 1058, inclusive, also propose adding the words "and climate" to consideration of the environment. It relates to oral hearings and others. Amendments Nos. 1155 and 1169 propose adding "and climate" to consideration of the environment relating to SDZ or UDZ planning schemes.
Amendment No. 1191 is to Schedule 5 and conditions relating to reducing greenhouse gases. We have had considerable discussion on climate. I welcome the Minister of State's commitments that we will strengthen the climate and biodiversity action parts of the Bill. This is what these amendments relate to.
Amendment No. 763 relates to the revocation of planning permission. It is with regard to the start of section 144 on the revocation or modification of permission by a Minister. The Minister can liaise with the Ministers for Justice, Foreign Affairs and Defence, and Health on the revocation of development where the permission is likely to be harmful to the security or defence of the State, the State's relations with other states or public health. I suggest that we add climate and environment to this list. This means that in section 144 we would have to include the Minister for the environment and climate action.
I do not know whether the Minister of State has any comment to make on these amendments. I take from the previous discussion we had that he will look at how we can craft climate into this a little better.
I thank Deputy Matthews. I have certainly given that commitment. We see the word "environment" as being sufficient. In the broader context, and given the commitments I have already outlined on biodiversity and climate specifically, and on strengthening the Bill, we will certainly give consideration to looking at this and specifically at the word "climate". I think "environment" is sufficient but we will look at it.
Amendment No. 763 relates to section 144, on revocation or modification of permission by a Minister. This relates to section 144, which enables the Minister to intervene in certain instances, and upon the request of the Ministers for Justice and Foreign Affairs and Defence, to revoke a permission directly, in the event of threat to the security of the State, the State’s relations with other states or a public health emergency as recently utilised during the Covid-19 pandemic. It seeks to include "harmful to the climate and environment" to this list but this is too broad in scope for such a direct emergency power to be invoked. I cannot accept the amendment.
I accept what the Minister of State has said. When we are writing these amendments we probably do not craft them in the way they should be written to go into legislation. I will withdraw amendment No. 763 and I may introduce tighter wording on Report Stage. I am also willing to withdraw my other amendments in this group based on the Minister of State's responses.
Deputy Matthews resumed the Chair.
I have four amendments in this group. They relate to various areas and I might get the response of the Minister of State on each one. Amendment No. 396 relates to providing sufficient suitable lands for renewable and low-carbon energy zoned lands. It is to ensure that renewable and low carbon energy has a practical resource to provide the energy in a positive way consistent with achievement of the national climate targets.
The amendment seeks to amend the obligation to prepare a strategy relating to environment and climate change to provide that when a planning authority is preparing such a strategy it shall also include objectives relating to the zoning of sufficient and suitable lands for renewable and low-carbon energy deployment consistent with the achievement of Ireland's national climate targets. I cannot accept the amendment as I consider that it is already covered by section 41 on the content of development plans. This provides the plan shall include objectives for the zoning of land for a particular use or range or mixture of uses, and shall incorporate an accompanying map that illustrates the zoning objectives applicable to all land in the functional area of the planning authority. This will cover any land required to be zoned for energy development where appropriate. I do not consider that it is necessary or appropriate to single out different classes of zoning.
The purpose of amendment No. 607 is to address concern regarding section 15 of the climate Act, which requires planning authorities and the commission to exercise their duties in a manner consistent with a set of policies and objectives set out in the amendment. Section 83 appears to change this and relies on the wording "have regard". There is a concern among those involved in energy generation that this weakens the current obligation. This is the rationale for tabling the amendment.
The amendment seeks to amend section 84 to provide that planning authorities and an coimisiún pleanála shall perform their functions under the Act in a manner consistent with the climate action plan, the climate action strategy, the national adaptation framework and sectoral adaptation plans, furtherance of national climate objectives, and the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change. I cannot accept the amendment. As I have already stated, I am committed to the language in the Bill, which reflects fully the Department's commitment to the Government's climate objectives while maintaining capacity of the planning system to effectively and appropriately evaluate a wide range of legitimate considerations that need to be balanced in pursuance of its function of facilitating proper planning and sustainable development. I intend to come back on Report Stage on this issue.
That would be welcome. I am not sure I agree with him that the term "have regard" has a similar strength to "be consistent with". Any basic reading of the wording would suggest that. The idea of the Bill is to make things better. In this case we are trying to maintain the status quo and stop disimproving the situation.
We can give consideration to it.
I ask the Minister of State to reflect on it. That would be useful. May I hear the Minister of State's response on amendments Nos. 760 and 761? It would be useful.
These amendments seek to provide that a planning authority may extend a permission where the permission is subject to judicial review and it is satisfied that the proposed development did not materially convene the development plan when permission was granted. I ask Deputy McAuliffe to withdraw the amendments as I am already bringing forward amendments to Part 4 to provide that a planning permission shall be paused when it is subject to judicial review.
Furthermore, I am also considering bringing forward an amendment on Report Stage to clarify that when a planning authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála is deciding an application or appeal, it shall have regard to the development plan that was in place at the date that the application was made. This is to give clarity on what development plan is to be considered when a decision is being made, particularly where there is a change to a development plan between the date of application and the date of the decision.
I am happy to withdraw all four of the amendments I have put forward on the basis that the Minister of State will come back to us on the first two and that he will be as good as his word in respect of the final two.
Absolutely. Thank you.
That concludes discussion of the grouping. I will now put the question on amendment No. 131 in the names of Deputies Duffy and O'Callaghan. Is the amendment being pressed?
I am happy to withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 132:
In page 60, lines 34 and 35, to delete “securing coordination the National Marine Planning Framework” and substitute the following:
“supporting coordination with a legally compliant approach to Maritime Spatial Planning and legally compliant Maritime Spatial Plans”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 133 not moved.
I move amendment No. 134:
In page 60, to delete lines 36 and 37 and substitute the following:
“(f) the pursuit and achievement of the national climate objective;
(g) integration of the national climate objective into a holistic and comprehensive approach to plan led development across the State;
(h) integration of an ambitious approach to the State’s international climate obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,the Paris Agreement and the State’s European Climate obligations;
(i) integration of an ambitious approach to the State’s obligations in relation to the reversal of biodiversity loss, and to facilitate a progressive and ambitious approach to restoration and conservation of biodiversity on land, and to the extent relevant for a terrestrial plan also in the marine area.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 135 not moved.
I move amendment No. 136:
In page 60, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:“(g)supporting the protection and enhancement of biodiversity.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 137:
In page 60, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“(g) (i) supporting the implementation of language plans in Limistéir Phleanála Teanga Ghaeltachta and in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(ii)supporting the implementation of language plans in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside of the Gaeltacht and in Líonraí Gaeilge, pursuant to Achtna Gaeltachta 2012.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 138:
In page 60, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“(g) protecting and promoting the use of Irish within Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas;
(h) outlining how the pursuit and achievement of the national objective of restoring Irish to use as a spoken language nationwide and as the community language of the Gaeltacht is to be integrated into plan-led development in the State.”
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 139:
In page 60, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“(g) supporting Ireland’s climate targets as per the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 140:
In page 61, line 4, after “requirements” to insert “including specific Gaeltacht strategic development requirements as relates the viability of Gaeltacht communities and the use of Irish within them”.
put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
declared lost.
As it is now 8.15 p.m. the committee will adjourn. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, and his officials for their attendance. I will see everyone tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select committee adjourned at 8.16 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 6 March 2024.