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

I thank the Deputy for introducing the amendment. I will speak to amendments Nos. 648 and 649 together. I understand the rationale for them but we want to make sure, as the Deputy mentioned, there is also access for applicants. I will explain the rationale as to why I will not accept either of these amendments. The Deputy explained what he wishes to do with regard to when an application is made, which is "the applicant shall upload the application, and the accompanying documentation, on a website maintained by or on behalf of the planning authority". I get that but it is a responsibility of the planning authority to ensure all planning applications are published online irrespective of whether they are received in paper or electronic form. This ensures the documentation is available for inspection by the public through multiple methods. As the Deputy will know, someone can come into the planning counter, request the paper file of the application and look through it. It is right and proper that this happens. Where an application is made in electronic form, the planning authority is still required to process the application for validity prior to publishing online. Therefore it is not appropriate for applicants to upload documents directly to a local authority website. The planning authority needs to make sure the valid applications are the ones that are published. Eplanning will help in this. We expect the eplanning roll-out to be complete this year, in 2024. That will enable an applicant to submit planning applications online in all 31 local authorities. In addition, and this is where I will speak about access, the planning system must remain open to everyone and there should be no restriction on an applicant lodging a paper application as it may disadvantage certain sectors of the community. That is obviously not something the Deputy wants to do, nor do I. The move is towards eplanning, absolutely. It is more efficient. However, if an applicant is not tech savvy or has issues with connection, the ability for them to lodge an application in physical form through paper should remain.

We expect eplanning to be available in all 31 local authorities by the end of this year. While I get the Deputy's point completely with regard to access, there would potentially be an unintended consequence of his amendment for some sectors of the community. I am not being ageist in this regard but some people will be tech savvy at any age and others will not be. It would give the ability to lodge a planning application in paper format and, really importantly, that paper file would be there for inspection. Anyone who walks up to a planning counter can call for a paper file and that should remain. The move for efficiency purposes into the future is towards eplanning. The eplanning roll-out should be concluded this year.

With regard to the time period stated in amendment No. 649, this is related because if amendment No. 648 was accepted and then amendment No. 649 provides for the clock not to start until everything is uploaded, effectively, the period starts when the application is made. For people who are making a paper application or lodging one, the time period should be the same as if it was an online application. With online planning rolling out across the country, the speed at which files are available online is improving. Certainty is needed in the application of timelines to allow for the efficient and clear administration of the development management system. This amendment would potentially introduce a significant amount of ambiguity into what is a time bound system with substantial capability for third-party participation, including site and newspaper notices, that are required to be in place prior to making of the application. Weekly lists and other application alert systems are also run by local authorities. For those reasons I cannot accept amendments Nos. 648 or 649.