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

The origin of this amendment is the Irish Planning Institute, in one of its written submissions to the committee as part of its general concern over the role of the national planning policy statements, much of which we discussed when we dealt with those sections of the Bill, specifically making a case for the removal of section 96(2)(b). The logic of this is to try to keep a clear distinction between forward planning, which is the role of national policy and legislation, and development management, which is decisions on individual cases. It is a view I support. The argument made by the Irish Planning Institute is that these are mandatory requirements set down in legislation that essentially impose on a planning authority a certain sequence of decisions, which is highly problematic. In many of the successful challenges to decisions of the board, whether by Dublin City Council, for example, or by third parties, the courts took the view that the material contravention was not a legitimate ground for the decision. It is really just to be consistent with the arguments I made in respect of the national planning policy statements. I would like to hear a better justification for section 96(2)(b) than the plan-led approach. It is interfering in that division between development management, which should ultimately be the function and at the discretion of the planning authorities, and national policy and legislation, which is really about forward planning.