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

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the context of amendment No. 715, we have a situation where the only hard-and-fast statutory timelines in our planning process, outside of LRD, are those that local authorities have to apply. We are introducing - and we will get into the detail of the timelines when we get to the relevant sections - statutory timelines for all different phases of the process. At the same time that we are looking to tighten up decision-making timelines by having statutory timelines, however, what appears to be happening here is that we are also potentially removing the one very clear and fixed statutory timeline, which is the local authority decision-making timeline. When I saw this, I was somewhat surprised because it seems to run contrary to the spirit of the Bill. From memory, it had not been discussed or raised during pre-legislative scrutiny, either by the Department or anybody in the development communities, local authorities or the Irish Planning Institute.

I am a very strong advocate of statutory timelines. I have been arguing for them since 2016 in the context of pre-planning, decisions of planning authorities, FI and appeals. In fact, I would like to have statutory timelines for the courts. All of that is obviously subject to proper resourcing of our planning authorities and the sub-panel of the High Court with respect to planning and environmental decisions. Are we at risk of tightening up the timelines at board level but softening up those at local authority level? This is a time when local authorities are losing planning staff to the board. Approximately half of the employees that the board have recently taken on with the new sanction have come from local authorities. Are we running the risk in certain instances - and I do not mean across the board - where particular decisions are the subject of shortened timelines at board level but potentially timelines at local authority level? The net result would be that we would not make the process more efficient.

I am interested to know where this originated, who has asked for it, why it is here and, crucially, what the import of it is. This is with particular regard to amendment No. 666 but it also applies for the other three, amendments Nos. 715, 747 and 753.