Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Section 5 of the Bill provides that a developer shall - before submitting a planning application in respect of a strategic housing development to the board – make a request to the board to enter into pre-application consultations in respect of a proposed development. It further provides that before making a request to the board to enter into pre-application consultations in relation to a proposed development, the developer shall have held initial consultations with the relevant local authority regarding the proposed development in accordance with section 247 of the Planning and Development Act.

Amendment No. 22 in the name of Deputy Ó Broin would have the effect of requiring a developer to submit specified detailed documentation to a planning authority when seeking an initial consultation on a proposed development when the plans for the development may only be at an early stage. The amendment would also require the planning authority to notify the public of the proposed development and to make the documentation submitted with the request for an initial consultation available for inspection on the Internet. The amendment further proposes that the Minister may make regulations on further specifying the requirements to be met regarding such initial consultations.

As I have indicated, the primary purpose of the initial consultation meeting between the developer and the planning authority is to assist and advise the developer with regard to the further development of his or her proposals when they are an early stage. It is only when the developer has further progressed his or her plans for a proposed housing development on foot of the initial consultation with the planning authority that he or she will be in a position to submit the detailed documentation required for the purpose of the pre-application consultations with the board. In effect, the requirements that would be imposed by amendment No. 22 go beyond the intention of the initial consultations between a developer and the local planning authority and consequently I must oppose it.

Amendment No. 24 is in the name of Deputy Ó Broin. Section 5(4) of the Bill outlines the documentation that a developer must submit to the board when making a request for a pre-application consultation on a proposed development – the name and address of applicant, a site location map, a brief description of the nature and purpose of the development, a draft layout plan of the proposal including house types, density, vehicular access etc., as well as details of the initial consultations on the proposed development with the local planning authority. Deputy Ó Broin’s amendment proposes to require the submission of additional detailed documentation to the board with a request for pre-application consultations on a proposed development, that is, details on the availability of public transport to service the proposed development, as well as details on a range of other infrastructure and services including crèches, hospitals, shopping and other services to support the development.

In this regard, a developer - at the stage when devising his or her proposals for a proposed development - will not have details of many of the services to support the development when it is eventually completed. Some of these services - for instance bus transport services, crèches, shopping etc. - may only start to be planned simultaneously to the granting of permission for, and construction of, a development. It is considered premature and overly prescriptive to require details of many of the services to support a proposed development as are outlined in amendment No. 24 and accordingly I must oppose it on grounds of practicality. However I am open to certain aspects of the amendment, specifically the introduction of some requirement for the consideration of public transport provision in the decision-making process on applications for strategic housing developments. The provision of public transport, particularly rail links, at the early stages of the Adamstown strategic development zone was particularly successful and I would like to see more of this forward planning in respect of the provision of public transport links in the future.

Again, the local authorities will raise it at their planning discussions with An Bord Pleanála as well.

Accordingly, we will give a commitment to Deputy Ó Broin that this matter will be further examined by my officials and if we are unable to bring forward an amendment in this regard in the current Bill due to the time constraints, we will make every effort to include provision along these lines in the other planning Bill before the Oireachtas at present. The Government agrees with some, but not all of what the Deputy has proposed, if that is all right in terms of process.

The aforementioned other planning Bill, namely, the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 contains enabling provision for the introduction of arrangements relating to e-planning or electronic planning, the online submission of planning applications and appeals.

The wording of the provisions that are the subject of amendments Nos.25 to 28, inclusive, as tabled by Deputy Ó Broin have been framed in this context. Once the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 is enacted - which we hope will happen in early 2017 - the detailed provisions concerning all matters relating to the submission of electronic copies of documents to planning authorities , including An Bord Pleanála, will be provided for in regulations made under that Act.

Accordingly, we must oppose amendments Nos. 25 to 28, inclusive, as they are premature. The substance of the amendments will in any event be addressed and clarified in regulations to be made subsequently to the other planning Bill which is now on Second Stage in the Dáil. We will consult the Deputy to ensure he is satisfied with the proposed wording.

I am also opposing Amendment No. 32as the additional wording proposed to be inserted in Section 5(7)(h) making specific reference to protected species is already broadly covered by the existing provisions referring to “any aspect of the proposed development likely to have significant effects on the environment” and therefore it is an unnecessary amendment.

At this stage I wish to discuss Government amendments Nos. 29 to 31, inclusive. These amendments relate to the provisions of section 5 of the Bill, which set out the requirements for a prospective applicant for a strategic housing development to undertake in consulting with An Bord Pleanála to ensure that as complete an application as possible can be submitted to the board.

Section 5(7) of the Bill provides for regulations to be made which would set out matters to be included in a submission to the board by a prospective applicant for a consultation. Amendment No. 29 is required because all the matters listed in section 5(7) of the Bill as ones that may be the subject of regulations under legislation relate to housing developments and there is no reference to student accommodation, which is also defined under section 3 of the Bill to come within the definition of “strategic housing development”.

Similarly amendment No. 30 is required because not all of the housing-related aspects of matters referred to in paragraph (b) of section 5(7) may be relevant in all cases to student accommodation, for example, play facilities and parking provision.

Amendment No. 31 is required because Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which relates to housing supply, does not relate to the provision of student accommodation units and in this context, the insertion of “where relevant” clarifies the proposed position in respect of student accommodation units.