Mr. Philip Jones:

I can answer the Deputy's last question and Mr. Lawlor can cover the first one. In our view, which we included in our submission to the Planning Advisory Forum, the OPR will need to be able to look at development plans and make recommendations as to whether they are consistent with higher levels of the hierarchy and with national guidance. When he was before the committee, I think Mr. Cussen mentioned as an example how the flood risk guidelines, which are highly important, are only guidance, but some of the stuff about the height of buildings is mandatory guidance. There is a mismatch there. He will need that and he will need clear national policy statements so he can look at development plans and say an element is not consistent with the NPF or the regional ones, and so on.

We were talking earlier about how the plans should not be totally prescriptive but should allow for local variation and so on, with respect, for example, to density and high rise. When you are dealing with a planning application, the problem is that if a local authority or the board has a mandatory requirement to grant something that is nationally required, it has no discretion. We saw a great deal of that with the SHDs. Our view as an institute, which we relayed to the PAF, was that they should be retained for forward planning, but there is no reason to retain them once we have good plans for development management that are clear. The problem is this Bill still seems to have section 105(2)(c), allowing a material contravention by the commission where something is not in accordance with the national planning statements. If we believe it should only be in forward planning and as a result we get plans that are clear, why allow material contravention? The opening statement from the Department officials to the committee stated material contraventions "will be limited". Based on section 105(2)(c), it does not appear the Department will try to limit them. Accordingly, one recommendation is, as I mentioned earlier, to put a time limit on section 22(1) and the other is to delete section 105(2)(c).