Mr. Gavin Lawlor:

That is more of a planning practice type of question than it is a legal one in respect of the planning Bill. The Bill cannot properly legislate for those types of situations because the requirement is for the planning authority to determine the zoning and to be clear about what is permissible or not in that zoning. As often as not, in the issues referred to by the Senator where something is zoned for open space and has a specific exemption as to when that open space can be used for other purposes, it is not very clear within the development plan what those nuances and tests are.

That is more to do with a planning practice issue rather than the actual Bill. If the Bill tries to get itself involved in planning judgment and in trying to ensure that all zoning is as explicit and defined as we might want it to be, then it is going to be a little bit more difficult to actually implement it. The ambition in the Bill is to move towards a more plan-led approach. We have a plan-led approach but this would be more specific in our plans in respect of what we want. That is the challenge in those circumstances. The ambition in the Bill is there already to do what the Senator wants, which is to give a tighter description of what should and could happen in certain areas. That brings more certainty then for communities where, if they engage with the development plan process, they can see what they can expect to happen and there are, as we say, no surprises like there are, or are perceived to be, at the moment.