Mr. Eamonn Kelly:

Absolutely. It is basically about the same considerations. Effectively, as it currently stands, one must apply for substitute consent to regularise the environmental impact assessment issues that have gone before. It is relevant if the party wants to continue doing something else on the site. For example, if the unauthorised development on a quarry site is to be solved, a planning application would be required to go forward. A substitute consent is not the same as a planning application. There is a concentration of expertise in An Bord Pleanála that would assess it. We can assume the development has been regularised, as the point is moot otherwise. If the party wanted to continue with the same activity, a related activity or something else on the same site, it would have to go to the local authority. This relates to the loss of expertise that the board would have. This provision allows both processes to take place at the same time. It would be up to An Bord Pleanála but as it does in some cases, the board could apply the same inspectors to the same application. The board could hold oral hearings at the same time.

Effectively, this is an efficiency and it would allow members of the public to engage at a single point in time. This is instead of a party having to apply to the board first and then at some future point having to apply to the local authority, which would effectively have to do the process all over again, relying on the same baseline data. This is not a SHD issue but it relates to very technical environmental matters. If I could summarise with one word, it is about efficiencies.