The Bill would effectively take away the scope a planning authority has to apply its knowledge of the local factors and circumstances that might make a site especially suitable for wind energy. For example, a site might have such other factors as topography or the presence of other buildings mitigating noise impacts. By introducing mandatory minimum distances we would effectively prohibit a planning authority from considering these thereby ruling out development that may otherwise be acceptable or even desirable from a broader energy policy perspective.

While planning legislation, both primary and secondary, is highly detailed and process driven, the forward planning process must provide an enabling framework for planning authorities to take the right decisions locally. Generally speaking, matters of technical detail such as noise or electromagnetic interference are dealt with under planning guidelines or in the development management sections of development plans thereby allowing for these issues to be properly addressed in the local context. While the task of reviewing or producing planning guidelines is not a simple one, it is generally less complex and onerous than amending or preparing primary legislation. Guidelines therefore allow for the establishment of flexible parameters within which developments can take place taking account of changing circumstances and technical advances. One of the Senators made the point that technical advances are constantly being made in these areas.

I also have a concern over the degree to which the proposed approach could impact on our ability nationally to meet the targets we have set for renewable energy and on the capacity of the sector to create and sustain jobs. The imposition of the distance limits set out in the Bill would inevitably limit the number of sites where wind energy developments could be located.

I compliment Senator Kelly on bringing this very important issue to the House and on all the positive contributions made. The issue for me is whether primary legislation is appropriate. Residential amenity is a key consideration in the planning system regardless of development class. I welcome the Bill and the way in which Senator Kelly and other Senators have addressed some of the concerns being articulated on the impact of wind energy development on residential amenity and other factors such as health. I will consider all the points made here and I look forward to engaging with the Seanad further on these issues. I am not opposing the Bill.