Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 90:

In page 48, after line 37, to insert the following:

“PART 5

FURTHER MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

Amendments to Part 1 of Act of 2000

16. The Act of 2000 is amended by inserting the following into the Table to section 1A—

“DIRECTIVE 2011/92/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (codification)

DIRECTIVE 2014/52/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment”.”.

I am going to speak to the amendments in groups 11 and 12 on the list. They comprise seven amendments and they all relate to the environmental impact assessment screening that was agreed by the Oireachtas before Christmas. The Minister will recall when we had that discussion we were dealing with a major Bill and I had a series of quite technical amendments around the environmental impact assessment screening sections of it. I withdrew those but said I would return to the issue at this stage. Before I speak to each amendment, my general concern is that the more I have looked at this since December, the more I have become concerned that what we agreed in the Oireachtas in December is not compliant with key aspects of the Aarhus Convention or, crucially, the 2014 environmental impact assessment directive. When we discussed some of these issues previously the Minister rejected some of the proposals I made because he said they ran counter to the intention of the Bill, which was to try to make sure that these decisions could be taken as quickly as possible. The difficulty, however, is that if we have agreed legislation and it is not compliant - my considered view is that it is not compliant with the most recent directive - we could end up getting bogged down in legal challenges to planning related or environmental impact assessment related decisions that could end up being counter to the intention of the original legislation that the Minister proposed. I am more convinced than I was in December that there are significant issues here. I am also concerned that the environmental impact assessment directive 2014 has not been transposed yet and I assume the deadline for that will not be met. That creates some ambiguities in the legislation.

I will deal briefly with each of the seven amendments. Amendment No. 90 proposes to insert the 2014 environmental impact assessment directive into that section of the legislation to make it clear that it is one of the reference points for the implementation of the legislation. Amendment No. 91 has four paragraphs. Paragraph (a) relates to new information arising from the 2014 directive which needs to be taken into account in environmental impact assessment screenings. Paragraph (b) deals with a typographical error. I seek to substitute the words "the authority may do either or both" in the section I seek to amend with the words "the authority shall". Paragraph (c) deals with an issue I raised previously concerning the need for greater opportunities for public engagement and public consultation with the screening process not only by ordinary members of the public but also by organisations that may not be on the proscribed list such as environmental non-governmental organisations etc. Paragraph (d) deals with an issue we discussed previously relating to the returning of the fee to the applicant. It does not make sense to return the fee because if an application is rejected on the basis that it was of poor quality, the fee should not be returned.

Amendment No. 92 would broaden the eligibility of individual members of the public or environmental NGOs to bring decisions to the board for review. Paragraph (b) of the amendment concerns the right to conduct a judicial review, if required.

Amendment No. 93 addresses an issue in requiring the board to publish decisions, first, and also, crucially, the reasons by which it came to them. That is very important. If somebody is going to seek a judicial review of a decision, he or she has eight weeks in which to do so. If the reasons for the decision are not published, the only recourse for individuals or organisations is to make an access to information on the environment request which can take up to four weeks. That cuts down on the time available to consider what are very technical sets of issues.

Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 pertain to the requirement for screenings in seeking extensions of planning permission. I had a big problem the last time and I am more concerned about the issue now. If somebody is applying for an extension of planning permission, there could have been significant contextual, environmental changes in the immediate area or other developments since the period in which planning permission was originally granted. There would, therefore, be a requirement for rescreening to take the new circumstances into account.

Amendment No. 95 is in respect of public participation, the need for submissions, facilities to appeal to the board and, crucially, giving local authorities discretion to take some decisions on whether an extension of planning permission should be granted. This is provided for in subsection (1) of the amendment. Rather than stating they "shall" grant, the amendment proposes to use the word "may", depending, for example, on proper planning or whether they are unacceptable environmental impacts.