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

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 12, to delete lines 39 and 40, and in page 13, to delete line 1 and substitute the following:“(I) where the development is of a class standing specified in Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (S.I. No. 600 of 2001) that does not exceed the relevant quantity, area or other limit standing specified in that Part, whether it is likely to have significant effects on the environment;”.

Section 7(1)(a)(i)(I) of the Bill refers to a request for a determination as to whether a strategic housing development “of a class specified in regulations made under section 176 of the Act of 2000” is likely to have significant effects on the environment and, thus, require an environmental impact assessment, EIA. However, environmental impact assessment is mandatory in respect of development prescribed under Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 to 2015 so an environmental impact assessment screening is not required for them. In order to make this provision of the Bill more focussed and consistent, amendment No. 45 substitutes in clause (I) text that section 20 of the Bill proposes to include in a new section 176A(2)(a) of the 2000 Act, which deals with EIA screening in a different context.

Amendment No. 46 is required to bring the wording of section 7(1)(a)(i)(II) in respect of appropriate assessment into line with Article 6.3 of the 1992 Habitats Directive and also the wording of section 177U of the 2000 Act, which deals with appropriate assessment screening in a different context.

Amendment No. 48 requires a person making a request to An Bord Pleanála under section 7(1) of the Bill to pay the appropriate fee for the request, which relates to a screening for environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment of a proposed strategic housing development or a scoping request as to what should be contained in an environmental impact statement or Natura impact statement, depending on whether an environmental impact statement or appropriate assessment, or both, is required.

Section 18 of the Bill makes provision for the board to charge a fee for providing an opinion on what information should be included in an environmental impact statement and, under section 144 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, the fee for an environmental impact statement screening in respect of a proposed strategic housing development will be determined by the board, subject to the Minister’s approval.

I also intend to move amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 48. Opposition amendments Nos. 47, 49 to 51, inclusive, and 53 relate to section 7, which sets out the provisions and timelines whereby a prospective applicant may, following a consultation meeting, request the board to determine within eight weeks if the proposed strategic housing development will require an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment or both and, if so, the prospective applicant may also request the board to give an opinion, within 16 weeks, as to what should be contained in the environmental impact statement, EIS, or the Natura impact statement, NIS, or both.

I thank Deputy Eoin Ó Broin for tabling amendment No. 47. This proposes the insertion of a new subsection (2) in section 7 to provide that where a screening request is made to the board under this section, an applicant does not need to submit the request to the planning authority under the new section 176A(2) proposed under section 20. I accept the principle behind the amendment, which is to bring clarity to this process in respect of screening requests. Therefore, in accordance with established practice, I ask the Deputy to withdraw amendment No. 47 on the basis that I will examine the legal and drafting aspects of the proposed amendment and table an amendment to the same effect on Report Stage.

However, I must oppose amendments Nos. 49 to 51, inclusive, and 53. Amendment No. 49 proposes to make the board’s determination and opinion subject to public consultation. The process under section 7 is essentially a screening process, in other words, the board, on request, confirms if an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment is required for the proposed development and, if so, what the environmental impact statement or Natura impact statement or both should contain. It is not a consent process in itself. Under the EIA directive, there is no requirement for public participation in such a screening process. It is not necessary. Public participation is provided, however, at a later stage when the application for a proposed strategic housing development is made, to be accompanied by an EIS or NIS or both, if required.

Amendment No. 50 proposes to increase the time period, from eight weeks to ten weeks, within which the board is required to make a determination on a request under section 7. I consider that eight weeks is sufficient time to allow the board to make that determination. In addition, the increase in time would have a negative impact by serving to delay the process unduly.

Amendment No. 51 proposes that once the board makes a determination or gives an opinion under this section, it should be published on the board’s website within three days. The Bill already requires that such determinations or opinions should be maintained by the board and associated with the relevant planning application, which application will be available to the public during the public consultation. I consider this is sufficient provision in this regard.

Amendment No. 53 proposes the insertion of a new subsection (3) in section 7 to provide that a decision or opinion given by the board under this section shall not prejudice the board in its consideration of any EIS or NIS or both submitted as a result, or its ability to revisit the matter at a later date or to seek further information during the planning process. The principle in the first part of the proposal regarding not prejudicing the board is inherent in the planning process and such a specific provision is unnecessary. Separately, regarding the latter part of the proposal, it should be noted that under these new streamlined planning procedures, there is no provision for seeking further information on an application. Therefore, in these cases the onus is squarely on the applicant to ensure he or she has provided the full information required by the board to enable it to make a decision on the proposed application.

For these reasons, I must oppose amendment Nos. 49 to 51, inclusive, and 53.