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

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 14, to delete line 5 and substitute the following:“(II) the period of 5 weeks from the receipt by the Board of the application,”.

Amendments Nos. 54, 59 and 61 to 68, inclusive, are primarily technical in nature. Section 8(1)(a) relates to requirements relating to the application for permission for strategic housing development and, inter alia, provides that the applicant for permission shall, in the public notice of the application specify "the period, not being less than 5 weeks" during which a copy of the application and any EIS or NIS or both may be inspected. This period is specified in section 8(1)(a)(vii) to be the period during which submissions or observations may be made to the board on the application. This approach is in line with the standard provision for strategic infrastructure developments in the 2000 Act.

I am aware, nonetheless, that as previously drafted under section 8(1)(a)(iii)(II) of the Bill, the developer could specify an inspection period of, say, eight weeks, which would cause difficulties for the overall process as the planning authority is required, within eight weeks of the receipt by the board of the application, to submit its report on the application to the board, including a summary of the submissions or observations received by the board with respect to the application. As it was always the intention that the approach in Part 2 of the Bill generally was to set specific time limits for particular activities and to remove the decision as to the duration of the inspections period from the developer, amendment No. 54 provides that five weeks is the period specified in section 8(1)(a)(iii)(II), during which submissions or observations may be made to the board with respect to the planning application.

Amendment No. 59 is a technical amendment in respect of section 8 and corrects text in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) to refer to the "applicant" rather than the "prospective applicant", to the actual application made and documents that accompanied the application and in respect of a decision by the board to refuse to consider the "application" rather than the "request".

Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 are technical amendments and correct errors of terminology within the existing text of section 8(3)(c).

Amendment No. 63 is required to make it clear that it is the members of the area committee or committees for the area or areas in which the proposed strategic housing development is located who should be notified of the making of an application under chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill and subsequently informed of the details of the application, etc.

Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 are technical and are required to correct the references in the existing text of section 8(4) to the elected members of the municipal district or districts in which the proposed strategic housing development is located.

Amendments Nos. 66 to 68, inclusive, are tosection 8(5) of the Bill and are required in order to ensure that, when formulating its views on the effects of a proposed strategic housing development on the proper planning and sustainable development of its area and on the environment, the local planning authority has sight of, and regard to, all submissions and observations duly received by An Bord Pleanála in regard to an application for permission for a proposed strategic housing development.

Under the Bill as it stands, the planning authority has sight of, and regard to, submissions and observations duly received by An Bord Pleanála in response to the developer’s public notice of the application. However, under these amendments, I am providing that the authority will also have sight of, and regard to, submission or observations from prescribed authorities and stemming from transboundary consultations, when formulating its views on the application for conveying to An Bord Pleanála.

The Opposition amendments Nos. 55 to 57, inclusive, and 60 relate to the provisions of section 8 which sets out the requirements relating to the making of an application for a strategic housing development.

I will address amendment Nos. 55 and 57 first. Amendment No. 55 proposes that an application for strategic housing development and related environmental impact statement, EIS and the Natura impact statement, NIS, as required, be available for inspection by the public from a website. I accept the principle behind the amendment proposed and it is my intention to deal with this by way of regulations. Section 12 of the Bill provides for a regulation making power under this Part to deal with procedural and administrative matters, and specifically to provide for making applications available for inspection in electronic form. Therefore, I request the Deputy to withdraw the amendment on the basis that this will be provided for by way of regulations.

In regard to amendment No. 57, again I wish to indicate that I am in full agreement with what is proposed and, indeed, I have publicly indicated on a number of occasions, as has the Minister, Deputy Coveney, that we will ensure that the fee for a member of the public to make a submission or observation to An Bord Pleanála in regard to an application for strategic housing development will be no greater than if he or she were making such a submission or observation to their local planning authority.

Under section 144 of the 2000 Act, the fee for a submission or an observation on a proposed strategic housing development will be determined by An Bord Pleanála, subject to my approval. Therefore, I again request the Deputy to withdraw the amendment on the basis that this is dealt with under the section 144 provisions.

I cannot accept amendment No. 56, which proposes to increase the public consultation period from five weeks to eight weeks where an application is accompanied by an EIS or a NIS. I consider that five weeks is sufficient time to allow members of the public to make their submissions or observations and is consistent with the time period provided for submissions or observations in respect of an planning application to a local planning authority. In addition, increasing the time period will also impact on the overall period of time of 16 weeks for the completion of the application process. This runs contrary to the purpose of the provisions, which is to reach a final decision in a shorter period of time.

I cannot accept amendment No. 60 as it proposes that should An Bord Pleanála refuse to deal with an application, on the basis that it considers it inadequate or incomplete, it should retain the application fee paid by the applicant on the lodgement of the application. While I accepted this principle in an earlier amendment, regarding the retention of the fee paid for the consultation process, that is associated to a relatively minor cost for the applicant, however, at this stage more significant costs are involved and I think it would be overly punitive not to refund the fee paid in this particular case.