Dr. Mary Kelly:

No; it is for major infrastructure. Many of the sub-threshold SIDs to which the Deputy alluded would be included. Our filtering system prioritises that type of case, namely, anything that could create employment. There are a number of other criteria. I cannot comment on any particular case.

The Deputy claimed that the board moved goalposts and redesigned schemes. There are two ways to view this. Frequently, the board believes that a scheme is unacceptable as presented. The easy solution would be to refuse it permission. A more complicated solution is to write to the applicant and explain that we might look more favourably on the application if the development is redesigned along certain lines. We will not say that permission will be granted. Asking for a redesign is the better approach, which is the feedback we have received from the development community. I am unsure as to what the Deputy is referring to. If a scheme is changed, we generally require the developer to readvertise its terms and circulate the redesign to third parties. We hear from third parties concerning their opinions of new schemes. As far as I am aware, we do not usually redesign a scheme without giving someone a chance to have a say on it.

I do not have much to say about zoning. The Deputy's suggestion would be a different way of operating. The board has no role to play in that regard. As I have not given consideration to the suggestion, I will need to examine it.