Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will address amendment No. 136 as tabled by Deputy O'Callaghan; amendments Nos. 164, 244 and 1171 tabled by Deputy Matthews; amendment No. 199 tabled by Deputy Duffy; and amendment No. 201 tabled by Deputies Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Smith and Kenny.

Amendments Nos. 136 and 164 relate to the national planning framework and amendments No. 136 proposes to insert a new paragraph in section 19(2) to add biodiversity objectives to the policy objectives included in the framework. As the objectives and targets for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are already provided for in the national biodiversity action plan, I see a considerable overlap between Deputy O'Callaghan's proposal and the relevant provisions of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023, and for this reason I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 164 intends to amend section 21 by inserting a new paragraph in subsection (2). This subsection sets out the list of consultees when a review of the NPF is under way. Section 21 provides that the Minister of the day can consult with any "other persons or public bodies as the Minister considers appropriate", and as such, any State bodies responsible for the protection and conservation of nature and biodiversity is covered by the existing provision. On this basis, I do not consider that it is necessary to specifically provide for it but I will ask my officials to consider the matter further and if required, an amendment will be brought forward on Report Stage. I, therefore, ask the Deputy to withdraw this amendment pending the result of those considerations.

Amendments Nos. 199 and 201 relate to the national planning statements, specifically the addition of biodiversity-related provision to the matters listed under section 24(1).

Amendment No. 244 seeks to add a similar provision into the regional spatial and economic strategies. Again, I thank the Deputies for the proposals but as two different approaches have been suggested, I will ask officials to further review both proposed amendments with view to bringing a finalised position on Report Stage if appropriate.

I will now address amendments Nos. 397, 398, 400, 411, 424, 487, 498, 504, 535, 539, 543, 547, 620,1164, 1171, 1173 and 1175 tabled by Deputy Matthews; amendment No. 410 tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Smith and Kenny; and amendment No. 1176 tabled by Deputy Duffy.

Amendments Nos. 397, 398, 400, 410, 411, 424, 435, 487, 498 and 504 propose a range of amendments of development plan provisions. In general, these impact development plan strategies, objectives and consultations. Amendments Nos. 535, 539, 534 and 547 seek to introduce requirements that urban area priority area plans are consistent with biodiversity and nature restoration plans or strategies. Amendments Nos. 1164, 1171, 1173, 1175 and 1176 intend to establish requirements for urban development zones relating to biodiversity and nature restoration plans or strategies. Amendment No. 620 inserts several new paragraphs into section 84(3), which lists a range of conditions that can be attached by a planning authority or the commission to a granted planning permission. Additional consultation and analysis is required before a finalised position can be formed on this amendments. Issues related to undefined terms and the comprehensiveness of linking provisions to any relevant national biodiversity or nature restoration plans needs to be worked through fully to determine whether unforeseen avenues for legal challenges are being created here unintentionally. Again, we are in the process of the development of a national nature restoration plan. I ask Deputies to consider withdrawing these amendments and I will instruct officials to begin further work on these matters. Following consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel, I will table corresponding amendments on Report Stage where possible.