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

Yes. I also support Deputy O'Callaghan's amendments. On a number of occasions, the Minister has said that he wants to move towards a plan-led approach to planning. I completely agree with him on that. However, there is not a wild lot of plan-making in this Bill beyond what is already available. That is not a criticism of the Bill. It is just not what this Bill does and, therefore, there will be occasions when large-scale planning applications come in without a plan, bar the city or county development plan, and the community will have, especially at the pre-planning stage, no involvement whatsoever. I have not been in any way prescriptive in this amendment. It is trying to establish the principle that some form of public participation in the pre-planning process is required and that the Minister and his officials will, by way of regulation, set out how that would operate.

The key principle is that the earlier we involve third parties in the wider community in the process, the better the planning outcomes will be for everybody because people will have a sense of ownership. The Minister knows as well as I do that even in the best-case scenario, the two-stage planning process that is being reintroduced here, which I support, will still have an adversarial element to it. An applicant puts in a planning application and third parties put in opinions, sometimes to amend and sometimes to object, but it often becomes a zero-sum game. When planning becomes a zero-sum game everybody ultimately loses, whereas if there are occasions where communities are brought in before the formal application and statutory process, interesting things can happen. We have seen that, for example, in aspects of the strategic development zone process and Part 8. I urge the Minister not to say "No" to public participation during pre-planning.

I know he will not accept the amendment but I ask him to consider, between now and Report Stage, whether there are some mechanisms for involvement, particularly when a pre-planning process is clearly moving in the direction of a full plan. That might identify some issues or problems through third party observations from environmental NGOs, other interested groups, such as heritage groups, or residents, which could alert the applicant and local authority at the pre-planning stage of something that could be ironed out then, rather becoming a matter of dispute or contention in a formal planning process. There is merit in public participation at the pre-planning stage.

I have deliberately not been prescriptive. If the Minister does not accept this amendment, I urge him to at least consider the proposition and come back on Report Stage with some thoughts on it. This is not only about improving the process but removing the conflict and contention, and improving the level of dialogue and consensus, so we get better quality outcomes and less likelihood of appeals or judicial reviews because of potentially poor planning decisions that simply did not have full visibility of all the issues, which third-party participation might resolve.