Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 2(d) states "to enable the sustainable development of new and regenerated communities well-served by schools, public transport and public amenities". You want to have a broad definition as opposed to just focusing on certain specifics like amendment No. 12 that seeks to insert a reference to "road, cycling and other active mobility infrastructure”. We hope to see that in all of them because it is good design. Amendment No. 87 seek to insert this reference into section 13(g). The inclusion of references to the development of communities well served by public transport and public amenities highlights the importance the Government places on the delivery of vibrant, well-connected communities. That is in the definition under the purposes of the Act. Road, cycling and other active mobility infrastructure fall under the broad categories of public transport and public amenities. Active public transport links will provide roads and wider transport-related infrastructure while public amenities will include cycling lanes and other related infrastructure.

The amendment strays into the planning piece for the specific developments. I understand the intent of these amendments. I am not accepting them as I believe the sections, as currently drafted, cover the proposed provisions and further amendments are not necessary. I genuinely think the broad definitions we have given fully encompass road cycling and other active mobility infrastructures. If you were to get into defining all of them, what are you leaving out? That is why it is better to have the broad definition we have already in the Bill. Certainly there is no question we want well-connected and well-served communities with public transport, good amenities, cycling, walking and everything else. The amendments simply say, "road, cycling and other active mobility infrastructure”. I understand the intent but the amendments are too prescriptive.