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

I move amendment No. 83:

In page 25, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:“Construction of section 125 (appeals, referrals and applications with which the Board is concerned) of Act of 2000 during specified period

17. Section 125 of the Act of 2000 has effect during the specified period as if the following were substituted for paragraph (b):

“(b) (i) to the extent provided, to applications made to the Board under section 37E or section 37L,

(ii) except where otherwise provided for by the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016, to applications made to the Board under section 4 of that Act, and

(iii) to any other matter with which the Board may be concerned,”.”.

Amendment No. 83 is required to apply the appeal procedures in Chapter 3 of Part VI of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to strategic housing development applications in the same way as they have been applied to strategic infrastructure developments generally.

Amendment No. 88 is required to include strategic housing developments in the definition of “proposed development” for EIA purposes in section 172 of the 2000 Act for the specified period.

Amendment No. 89 is required to include strategic housing developments in the definition of “proposed development” for appropriate assessment purposes in section 177R of the 2000 Act for the specified period.

I am proposing amendment No. 90 to permit the payment of compensation under section 190 of the 2000 Act where the value of a person’s interest in land is reduced by the refusal of the board to grant permission for a strategic housing development on that land. The present right to compensation is limited to refusals of planning applications on appeal. Thus, there is no right to compensation in the case of strategic infrastructure developments. However, strategic housing developments are different in that they are on land zoned for that purpose and fundamentally different in nature from major once-off SID projects that often are not on land specifically zoned for that purpose. I can see no reason a refusal of permission for a strategic housing development could not qualify for compensation when refusal of permission for the same development by way of an appeal against refusal of a planning application could qualify for compensation.

Amendment No. 91 provides that the inadequacy or incompleteness of an environmental impact statement or a Natura impact statement submitted with an application for permission for a strategic housing development is a non-compensatable reason for refusing permission for the project. This issue does not arise in the case of appeals to the board. Where the environmental impact statement or Natura impact statement is inadequate or incomplete, the board requests further information and, if it is not supplied, it either determines the appeal or dismisses it under section 133 of the 2000 Act, as amended. Therefore, in order to speed up the approval process for strategic housing developments, I am not giving the board the power to request further information on planning applications for such developments. However, it must be enabled to refuse an application on the grounds that the environmental impact statement or Natura impact statement is inadequate or incomplete, without opening up the possibility of compensation being paid in respect of that refusal.