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

I have two comments and then a few more questions. Returning to an important point the Chairman made, it is much more difficult to evaluate the level of environmental damage that has been done by an unauthorised development when there is not an original baseline. Thus while one might have evidence, one does not have evidence about how much damage has been done from the period when the unauthorised development happened. I would be interested to hear how that can be adequately addressed in the assessments, as well as the requirements to remediate. Also, I am not so sure everybody would agree the wording of section 1770 has stood up to the level of legal scrutiny but I will not press the point as Mr. Kelly has answered it clearly.

I wish to return to head 4, section 37L. The officials may correct me if I am wrong about the following. Let us say I am, for example, the owner of a quarry. I have been fully compliant with planning law, namely, I applied for planning permission, did an appropriate EIA and am working away. If I then want to expand my activities, I apply to the local authority for planning permission. Somebody can then appeal it to the board. The person who has done everything right and has been fully legally compliant must go through a two-stage process when he or she wants to expand his or her operations. At the same time, the Department is proposing here that where somebody who has an unauthorised development - in other words, somebody who has broken the rules and now must regularise that and demonstrate whether there have been any negative environmental consequences - also wants to expand his or her business, he or she gets a fast-track one-stage planning application. It does not have to do with the substitute consent, which is dealt with, as Mr. Kelly said, by the technical expertise of the board. However, for any expansion of the business, if I was the person who had done everything right and complied fully, I would be saying that does not make any sense. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why, separate from the substitute consent application going through the board, which I understand, in parallel to regularising any environmental damage caused by the unauthorised development if such is required, that applicant should get access to a fast-track planning process for something that is entirely separate in terms of a new planning application. Perhaps the officials can enlighten me as to why we would reward the unauthorised development to the detriment of those who have obeyed the rules. I just do not understand it.

Will they also outline how all of this would affect any of the substitute consent applications currently in the pipleline? I presume it does not affect them as they operate under the rules that were in place when they entered into the process. Was any consideration given to transitional arrangements to try to address that?

I asked two questions in the last round which the officials were not able to answer. On the screening determinations and the detail in the regulations, will the officials provide the committee with a written note on that in advance of the full Bill? On the Natura 2000 designations, while I appreciate I can go to the NPWS, I am sure there is somebody in the Department who has expertise on that. Maybe they can provide us with a written note on that as well. The officials might reply to the first few questions and if I have time, I have a few more after that.