Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:“4.The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the Government’s compliance with the European Union’s Environmental Impact Assessment Directives and the Aarhus Convention.".

Without in any way disparaging the good junior Minister, it is a shame the Minister, Deputy Coveney, is not here this evening. This is a Bill of major significance, as I know the Minister of State, Deputy English, and his officials know. At its heart is putting into effect one of the central recommendations of the Mahon tribunal into planning and zoning corruption. I would have thought, given the significance of the final reading of the Bill tonight, we should have had the principal Minister in front of us, given some of the issues we will raise.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 85 are essentially related to the same matter, which I have referred to at length on Second and Committee Stages. I have a very real concern that parts of this legislation and the other amendment we made to the principal Act in last December's planning and development Bill are not in line with either the Aarhus Convention or the 2014 environmental impact assessment directive. My understanding is yesterday was the deadline for the transposition of the 2014 directive and we have missed the deadline as we have not transposed the directive. If the Minister of State has new information on that, I would be happy to hear it. I also understand the Department is considering transposing the directive by way of regulations. One of the problems with that is whereas it might mean this will not be delayed further than it has already, we will have less opportunity to scrutinise the regulations as they would only be laid before the House rather than passed as primary legislation. Given the importance of the directive and the length of time - three years - we have been waiting for it to be transposed, it is a real shame.

I know the Minister of State will not support amendment No. 1, which is really an opportunity to say that notwithstanding the fact the officials and the Minister believe the Act is in compliance with the directives and convention, we would like further scrutiny. The purpose of the amendment is to oblige the Minister to lay before the House a report at a set date to outline compliance. Amendment No. 85 is very clearly an attempt to insert into the environmental impact assessment, EIA, screening process a much more rigorous requirement for public scrutiny at the pre-screening stage rather than once an EIA has been required. My clear view is this is required under Article 6.4 of the Aarhus Convention and I will press amendment No. 85.

I will put up my hand and admit amendment No. 78 is not very well drafted and I will not press it today. The purpose of putting it on the table is to raise an issue of concern. I will ask the Minister and his officials to go away, whether it is in the context of this legislation or subsequent regulations, and examine the concern. Specifically, this relates to unauthorised developments, particularly in areas where an EIA or an appropriate assessment, AA, is required, and in cases where the EIA or AA was not secured at the outset, retention planning permission could not be applied for. In principle, that is the correct approach, particularly to ensure that people who have deliberately and wilfully breached EIA or AA requirements are not able to get a second chance. There are some anomalies in the system and I have met officials to outline some of those. I hope I will hear from the Minister of State a commitment arising from recognition of the issue, and that whatever is the most appropriate way can be followed in a particular timescale. That could be through regulation or primary legislation as I am open to all of that.

Amendment No. 82 deals with the relationship between the EIA screening process and planning permission extensions. I am trying to achieve two goals. The first is to give the planning authorities the opportunity to refuse an application for extension. I am also seeking to ensure that if the material, developmental and environmental circumstances differ between an original planning permission and an extension, an EIA could be required at that time. It makes no sense to give somebody planning permission without an EIA and then automatically assume, ten years on, for example, there are no changes in the environment that may require an EIA in the view of the planning authority.

In this sense it is to give the planning authority the options which are not available in the current legislation.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 85 relate to the Aarhus Convention and the transposition of EIA Directive 2014/52/EU; while amendment No. 78 relates to the planning anomalies in the retention of unauthorised developments in respect of EIA or AA requirements. Amendment No. 82 involves a requirement to consider in a more rounded way the need for EIAs where planning permission extensions are being secured.

See this speech in context