John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will answer that. One of the amendments - I cannot remember which one - refers to the contiguous areas beside these urban areas. It will be a matter for each group to decide whether rural areas should be included. We are giving them the freedom to make that choice. It may be the case that a one-size-fits-all approach would not work. It might apply in Bray and it might not apply in Waterford, or vice versa. We are not prescriptive. The existing statutory provisions for the drawing up of local area plans are being retained. We are not changing a word of the consultation questions that are asked, or of the engagement with the public.

That all has to be done the same. I do not accept the argument about staff. The staff in the local authorities are doing these local area plans anyway. In this instance we are talking about staff being effectively seconded. They are not going to be body corporate. They will not have separate budgets. The staff that currently do the local area plans in both local authorities will do it together for the whole town. That is the thinking behind the proposal. There will not be that cost as it is being borne by the local authorities anyway. Rather than having two plans, we just want to have one area plan that will make sense of both areas together.

Deputy Cullinane referred to budget implications in planning for funding, but this is already the case. If a road is proposed in one of these areas that crosses the boundary from Meath, for example, into Louth, there are a number of mechanisms they can use. Both local authorities can apply separately or there can be a lead authority if they agree this is a measure they want to do. Those mechanisms will remain in place.