Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 225:

In page 145, to delete lines 37 and 38 and substitute the following:

“285. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Chapter applies to— (a) development situated—

(i) wholly in the outer maritime area,

(ii) partly in the outer maritime area and partly in—

(I) the nearshore area of a coastal planning authority, or

(II) the nearshore areas of more than one coastal planning authority,

(iii) partly in the outer maritime area, partly in—

(I) the nearshore area of a coastal planning authority, or

(II) the nearshore areas of more than one coastal planning authority, and partly on land, or

(iv) partly in the outer maritime area and partly on land,”.

The purpose of this amendment is to confirm that this chapter applies where part of the proposed development is on land. The initiated text had the same effect but in order to ensure there is no risk of misinterpreting the jurisdiction of the board in respect of applications that start in the maritime area and end up on the land, the wording has been explicit in the replacement of paragraph (a) of the initiated text at section 285. In plain English, it does not change the intention, rather it spells out that if an application for development starts in the outer maritime area and finishes either on land or in the nearshore, the board will have jurisdiction.

Amendment No. 226 is a technical drafting amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the comma after the word "land" to improve grammar.

Amendment No. 228 is the same as that is proposed under amendment No. 218 but relating to applications made to An Bord Pleanála. The form of words used ties the applicant to the development referred to in the lease. Any deviation from this will trigger the MAC requirement. Legacy leaseholders will not be eligible to apply for planning permission for different types of categories of development without a new MAC, thus ensuring that they will come under the new system as proposed in this Bill.

Ultimately, however, this is a new category of applicants which is required as a result of the remaining foreshore functions under the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and it is for this reason that provision has been made. In short, what is being put forward here is that once the regime is up and running there may be developments related to aquaculture that are not exempted development and the provision will allow those leaseholders to apply for planning permission, as is already the case. As stated, this is not designed to remove or avoid the requirement of a MAC.