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

I will address amendments Nos. 147, 148, 149 and 150 and then I will return to the points that have been raised by colleagues. These amendments are technical in nature and provide for the inclusion of a subsidiary designated activity company, DAC, in an number of places in section 50. We had a series of these earlier in the Bill and this followed feedback I received from both Government and Opposition Members on Second Stage. The section deals with reports to the Government relating to certain lands and provides that the LDA must report on relevant public land and land owned by the agency. It was always the intention of this legislation when it was being drafted that the reference to the LDA would also refer to subsidiary DACs but to avoid any doubt at all and taking on board the input and feedback from members, I am moving these amendments to clarify that the LDA must also report on any land owned by a subsidiary DAC. These amendments are being inserted to provide that particular clarity.

I want to make a couple of point on amendments Nos. 145 and 151 on development plans. I take the point that is being raised. The LDA will seek planning permission for its proposed developments via the appropriate procedures under planning and development Acts in a similar way to any other planning applicant. In making decisions on proposed LDA developments, the planning authority or the board is required to determine that these planning applications are in accordance with the provisions of relevant development plans, local area plans, or strategic development zones, SDZs, that are in force. I know there have been some issues around SHD, which expires this year as members will know.

A number of LDA developments have been through the planning system to date. As members may know, Shanganagh Castle in Dublin and St. Kevin's Hospital site in Cork had to take into account the provisions of the county development plans. All planning authorities provide access to pre-application consultations under this. Having said that, I understand the point that is being made that it might not be any harm if we were a bit more prescriptive in fully stating that it is subject to the development plans themselves and to other plans. If Deputies are agreeable, I will endeavour to come back on this on Report Stage. I want to check those two amendments out in particular. I will do that and I will come back to Deputies.

I take the point that Deputy Paul Donnelly is making and I have been a councillor myself as well. Councillors are important. They have a reserved function to vote on and put together their own county development and local area plans. That is something I have always been a firm supporter of. If there is something we can insert to make it abundantly clear that this is the case, I am happy to look at it. I want to check that there are no unintended consequences. I do not believe there will be any but if it is acceptable I will take those two amendments away and come back on them specifically on Report Stage. The Deputy will reserve the right to reintroduce them if he is not happy with what we are coming back with.

Is amendment No. 152 in this grouping as well?