Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I submitted amendments Nos. 933 to 939, inclusive. They reflect a Private Members' Bill I have submitted that I think is on Second Stage at the moment. Essentially, this is an environmental protection measure in acknowledgement of sites in our local areas that are environmentally sensitive or of value. They might not meet the threshold to be designated as a Natura site or a natural heritage area, but in the local context they are important. I am setting out to try to create a designation for these sites, which I have deemed locally important for ecology. The amendments also refer to tree preservation orders, I think, under section 242.

Amendment No. 933 sets out a method to identify and propose these sites, the rationale for such sites and the types of sites and habitats that might be applicable. It sets out the objectives for protecting these sites. It is important to state that these sites would not prevent or stymie development. What they propose to do is focus or sharpen the mind of a developer, an applicant or a local authority that these sites are important. They could comprise something quite small, such as a small patch of wetland or trees or other natural sites. The voting process for elected members to agree or to propose such a site and the process to amend or to revoke a designation are set out. It is critical that when we designate tree preservation orders, TPOs, for these sites, there is always an opportunity to amend or to revoke them. One of the issues that has prevented some TPOs is that there is no exit strategy from a TPO at all. I have spoken to people who are very familiar with TPOs and trees in general and they are of the view that if there were an opportunity to amend or revoke such an order, it would be very likely that there would be less resistance to entering into one of these protections. I set out the requirement for the Minister to provide by regulation how this would be done and set out offences for contravening such a designation.

Amendment No. 934 expands on what is set out in amendment No. 933, that is, that the Minister issue guidelines to local authorities on how to implement, identify and designate sites and how to include them in development plan objectives.

Amendment No. 935 sets out a requirement for a register of these sites, quite similar to how we have a register for TPOs or a register of protected structures.

If I am right, amendments Nos. 936 to 938, inclusive, refer to TPOs. I think they set out how a TPO is actually started. For a TPO, the relevant section currently reads, "If it appears to a planning authority that it is expedient, in the interests of amenity". I want to include "or by resolution of members". One of the things I have found in my experience at local authority level is that TPOs often come very far down the list. Often we do not have the money to do them. They are generally done during the development plan process. They can be done outside of that but, generally, they try to do it as part of the development plan process. I think it would be beneficial for the process if local authorities had some type of funding stream that they could apply for to create TPOs. I have spoken to the Minister of State previously about this. If we were to include a resolution of the members to put forward TPOs, I think it would be beneficial.

Amendment No. 937 is one of these shall-or-may-type amendments. It relates to section 243. As it stands, the local authority "may" for that purpose make an order. Again, I suggest "shall" because if it is a resolution by the members, they should carry out that resolution if the trees being proposed meet that bar of "in the interests of amenity or the environment".

Amendment No. 938 sets out a process for a landowner to apply for a revocation or an amendment to a TPO.

Amendment No. 939 relates to the protection of trees. It is a new subsection relating to public bodies managing and protecting trees on their lands. It sets out steps that this should stop trees becoming hazardous by proper management and provides that where trees are removed, they must provide the Minister with evidence of why they were removed.

I do not think for one instant that a district engineer wakes up in the morning and decides to cut down trees. Obviously they are constrained by budgets and there is often good reasons that trees have to be removed. It is just that we do not often get to see the evidence of why those trees had to be removed. I do not think it is something that is done lightly although I have seen trees being removed and when I asked for the reason, I was told it was because residents requested it. I have never really understood that.

I have set out that we need to have a clearer TPO register so that it is clearly set out what trees are protected. In my own local development plan we have a map and you have to try to use your judgement with the little tree icon on the map whether a particular tree is the one that is to be protected. It is not often accompanied by a very clear written statement to help identify it by location settings. Essentially, this is about environmental protection, in the context of TPOs. It is about giving a little more power to local members who know their area as well as anybody – better than anybody – to be able to invoke these locally important for ecology, LIFE, sites and improve the process around TPOs.

I expect the provision with regard to LIFE sites is probably a step too far at this stage. I have a Private Members' Bill on it. I would like the Minister and the officials to consider it, especially in relation to the nature restoration law that will be introduced. One of the tenets of the nature restoration law is a concentration on the urban environment too. It is not just about rewetting bogs, which has been the focus of much of the discussion we have seen on it. It is important for urban centres that we maintain and protect ecological and natural sites.