Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will start off where I had to finish last Thursday evening. Amendments Nos. 710 and 712 are related to amendment No. 661, which we have already discussed. The amendments deal with reasons for material contravention of a development plan. Amendment No. 661 sought to include a reason for a material contravention of a development plan in a decision by a local authority for the furtherance of national climate objectives.

I have spoken at length, as have others, about the challenge we have to meet our climate target objectives. These amendments are around applications for renewable energy projects, not just solely limited to wind projects but also including the fantastic advances we have made in solar, at both utility and mini-generation scale, for example, anaerobic digesters and battery electric storage systems. All of these are going to become more prevalent, I hope, over the coming years.

Amendments Nos. 710 and 712 are very closely related. Amendment No. 710 relates to page 250 and amendment No. 712 to page 251. I seek to add to wording on page 250. It refers to section 122: "Decision on application for permission for development in material contravention of certain plans". Amendment No. 710 relates to material contraventions for land development, while amendment No. 712 relates to material contraventions for marine planning. I suspect that the Minister of State will probably respond by saying that there is scope for the commission to grant applications that do materially contravene a development plan. We have often seen the commission make those decisions but my understanding is that a local authority is more firmly bound by the objectives within their development plan. In some regards, that is perfectly right and good with regard to planning. We have seen circumstances where development plans have changed objectives regarding the placement of suitable sites for wind development. Those development plans have changed their objectives in midstream of a planning application for onshore wind energy, and we have a huge challenge in onshore wind energy. It has been one of the successes of energy production in this country for many years, and we are hitting targets in around 40% of our electricity being generated from wind power. That is an incredible statistic, and we have got to move further than that. We have got to move a hell of a lot further and a lot quicker.

Where the objectives change in a development plan, it can be quite unfair on an applicant. These applications take a long time to prepare, all of the studies have to be done, and then they end up with a development plan changing objective midstream. That can come as a result of pressure on local councillors. We have all sat around council chambers crafting development plans, and we have had lobbying from people or letters and correspondence from constituents. There can be pressure on them to change where the zoning is or the areas that are most suitable for wind farms. That does not help our national climate target causes.

In my two amendments, the wording is quite simple, and they are to allow them to make that material contravention where the development or proposed development is consistent with the most recent approved climate action plan - I refer to the national climate action plan, not the local one - the most recent approved national adaptation framework and approved sectoral adaptation plans, the furtherance of the national climate objective and the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State.

The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach's amendment No. 607 is probably related to this as well.