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

By way of explanation, this amendment relates to a number of sections. I want to make a general comment on the sections first and will then speak specifically to the amendment. It relates to a request for an alteration or extension of a permission. In particular, it relates to sections 134 and 135. My amendment is specifically to section 136 but it also pertains to section 137.

This was brought to our attention by the Irish Planning Institute in some of its correspondence to the committee following the publication of the Bill in full. This correspondence was given to all committee members and circulated in committee correspondence. Its description of this cluster of sections was that they were new provisions introduced to streamline alterations to permission which are non-material. It stated that there is no discretion to refuse and no right to appeal. It seemed to indicate that is positive, although I would not mind the Minister confirming whether, in fact, its interpretation that there is no discretion to refuse or right to appeal is correct.

It went on to state that there is a need for clarity in terms of what constitutes a non-material application. It stated in its correspondence to the committee that a non-material alteration is not defined and leaves room for inconsistent assessments across different jurisdictions. Obviously, consistency across planning authorities is one of the key objectives of the Bill. The IPI states that without a clear definition, the risk of dispute is much higher.

It has suggested - this speaks specifically to my amendment - a remedy could be to follow and build on the criteria set out in section 170A of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, whereby a change that is consistent with a stated suite of criteria would qualify it as non-material. It pointed out that these changes were not flagged in previous submissions.

One way of fixing or improving the non-material alterations is to provide that, between the publication of the decision on non-material alterations and its enforcement, there would be a period of consultation. This is what my amendment seeks to do. I am less concerned about the specificity of the amendment. Given that this is quite a new area, there is a need for clarification, such as the Minister usefully provided on other areas of the Bill, in order that we are completely clear on what is new and, in particular, on how the definition of non-material can be clarified to ensure consistency of decision-making.