Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for the amendments. We discussed this issue at some length on Second Stage. There was a great level of discussion on it in the Seanad as well.

Amendments Nos. 3, 9 and 37 relate to the issue of material contraventions of a local development plan. Again, the purpose of this legislation is to bring planning back to have regard to the development plans. The making of development plans - Deputies Ó Broin, Duffy and other Deputies know this as well as I do because some of us have served as councillors - is a statutory process undertaken by the local authority, which is a reserve function of the local councillors. The development plan is made with the advice of the executive and must have regard to proper planning and sustainable developments in the area. Most of our local authorities are currently engaged in the process of the next round of their development plans. However, certain circumstances may arise in the making of a planning application for lands, including land banks of strategic importance, where particular considerations may arise either in documentation lodged with the planning authority in the submissions received from elected representatives, members of the public or other committees, that require determination and may require planning permission to be considered, which would result in a material contravention of a development plan. This would be to ensure a sustainable or other appropriate form of development on lands the development plan or a local area plan may not have considered. This is not like SHDs in that sense either, which brings me to Deputy Ó Broin's point.

He is right. The reason many of these judicial reviews were taken is that there was no process at local level to identify where those issues were. They were going straight to the board. There were some quite infamous cases in which the board granted decisions having no regard whatsoever to development plans or local area plans. There is a process set out in this Bill through which planning authorities must go if they are to undertake material contraventions of the development plan. This may include the development of large-scale residential developments, as proposed in this Bill. While the need for material contraventions has arisen recently in response to inconsistencies between adopted development plans, local area plans and, indeed, national policy including ministerial guidelines, the current programme of review of draft development plans being undertaken by councils, with the oversight of the Office of the Planning Regulator, which is important, will ensure that statutory local plans will comply with national and regional plans, in addition to relevant ministerial guidelines, some of which I will be reviewing, as I said earlier on. This should reduce the need for material contraventions of development plans in future in the case of specific planning applications, and I believe it will.

Let us remember what the process is now. Contraventions of the development plans, where required, are still a reserved function. A very high threshold must be met. No less than three quarters of the elected members must vote in favour of any such resolution. This is considered a safeguard that provides for input into the process through the public consultation in addition to oversight by the elected members of the local authority. The Planning and Development Act provides for appropriate consideration of all planning applications, including proposals for large-scale developments, as outlined in this legislation, with oversight and direction from elected members. I do not consider it appropriate to remove the provision on material contraventions within the planning legislation. Perhaps that was not the intent of the amendments but this would reduce the options for consideration of proposals which may be in the interests of proper planning and the sustainable development of a given area, on very rare occasions. These proposals would obviously be subject to scrutiny and, rightly, the approval of the elected members.

Furthermore, clear direction is given to the board in section 37(2)(b) of the 2000 Act, as amended, on the circumstances in which the refusal of a planning application by a local authority for reasons of material contravention can be considered. Such circumstances include situations where a proposal is of strategic or national importance, where there are conflicting objectives in the development plan, where ministerial planning guidelines, strategies or policy directives are required to be taken into account or where the pattern of development in the area is to be considered. The board is therefore restricted to considering particular parameters in this matter. Outright restriction of the board's ability to consider material contravention of a development plan for a large-scale residential development would potentially be counterproductive for significant housing developments, in particular where such proposals would be in the interest of overall proper planning or sustainable development in a given area. For the reasons I have outlined, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 3, 9 and 37.