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

To continue on, we would also be amenable to accepting, subject to further consideration and some redrafting, the second part of amendment No. 35 requiring a planning authority to submit to the board details of housing on which permission has already been granted, details on the quantum under development and the quantums not yet commenced. This type of information is likely to be of assistance to the board in its consideration of any new proposed strategic housing developments and determining whether a proposed development will assist in meeting local housing demand or give rise to excess supply in the area concerned. Accordingly, as I have indicated, there are certain aspects of these amendments which we are open to accepting but which are probably most appropriately provided for in regulations made subsequent to the enactment of the Bill.

I also must oppose amendment No. 38 which proposed to increase the time period from three weeks to six weeks, within which the board would give its opinion on the proposed development following consultation meeting under section 6. I consider that eight weeks is sufficient time to allow the board to make that determination. In addition, the increase in time would also have a negative impact by serving to delay the process unduly.

I am opposed to amendment No. 39, which provides for public participation at the stage of pre-application consultations with the board. Public participation is provided for in respect of the substantive application for permission for a proposed strategic housing development and the board is required to have regard to all submissions duly received relating to the effects of the development on the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and on the environment. In light of this, I do not see the point of having a separate public participation process for a stage in the planning process that precedes the planning application process.

Amendments Nos. 40 and 42 require the board to publish on its website its post-consultation opinion on the proposed development and a record of its pre-application consultations with the developer. I agree with the intent of these amendments but they are not necessary as I intend to make regulations under section 12 of the Bill requiring that relevant documents relating to the complete consent process for a proposed strategic housing development be accessible to all to view on a website. I would ask the Deputy, therefore, to withdraw these two amendments.

I oppose amendment No. 43 which requires the Minister to prescribe certain matters relating to judicial review under section 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. As regards specific elements of the amendment, a general time limit of eight weeks after the decision or act concerned for applying for leave to apply for judicial review is already set down in section 50 of the Act. The question of the point at which a person may question the validity of a relevant decision or acts by judicial review is currently before the courts and I do not propose to amend the law in this regard until we consider whatever ruling is made in this matter in due course. Finally, planning law currently requires all relevant decisions or acts to be publicised in an appropriate fashion and the current Bill proposes to do the same for strategic housing developments and EIA screenings also.

Amendment No. 37 relates to the consultation meeting held between the board and the prospective applicant. The amendment will enable the prospective applicant and one or more persons nominated by him or her to attend the pre-application consultation meeting with the board and the planning authority. This is an expansion on the previously drafted provision whereby the meeting could be attended by one or more persons on behalf of the prospective applicant, as opposed to with the applicant.

Amendment No. 41 is a technical amendment replacing the correct word “of” for the incorrect word “or”.