Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is easily goaded. In the traditional meeting format, not everyone wishes to speak, unlike in here, and often those who do speak may seek to dominate the meeting with specific-interest issues only. Despite the intention of section 11(3)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 being to focus on the strategic and not the specific - the Deputy pointed that out and he is correct - it is also the case that there is no mechanism or obligation for what is said at a public meeting to be taken on board, as submissions need to be made in writing through completing a questionnaire or some other form of feedback. Increasingly, and rightly so, local authorities are moving to efficient online platforms for public display of information, with presentations that may be pre-recorded as well as capacity for online receipt of written submissions. This approach has facilitated citizens to participate in consultation processes from their own homes and at a time of their choosing.

There seems to have been some type of trend within some of the comments this evening to the effect that, depending on where people live or what age they are, they may have less knowledge or ability to access information electronically. I completely reject that. The approach I outlined has facilitated citizens, as I said, to participate in the consultation process at a time of their choosing. It also serves to generate written submissions that can be properly recorded and reviewed by the planning authority. That approach also particularly facilitates those members of the public who may be otherwise excluded from attending a public meeting or for whom it may be inconvenient to attend as a result of a disability, caring responsibilities, employment or any other commitment. While every effort is made to hold multiple meetings at different times of the day, evening and week, as we have all experienced, and in accessible venues, in order to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to attend, this can then serve to dilute what already tends to be a very limited audience for consideration of pre-draft plan issues. Members will agree that the audience for most of these meetings is extremely limited at the pre-draft plan issue stage.

In fact, at that stage of a development plan process, the experience has been that people are more willing to engage remotely. We have experience of that now with online processes, and that has accelerated as a result of the Covid-19 crisis. Throughout the Covid-19 period, my officials have been engaging directly with senior planning staff in the planning authorities in seeking to keep the planning system open and operational, in particular through an ongoing dialogue with a subcommittee of the County and City Management Association. It was through this forum that local authorities highlighted the difficulties in conducting a public meeting, as required by section 11(3)(b) of the 2000 Act, during the period of the pandemic public health restrictions. They also conveyed their experience of the very limited attendance at, and value of, the traditional public meeting at the early strategic issue stage of the development plan preparation process. As this is the case with the specific change to section 11(3)(b), which relates to the pre-draft stage and the non-zoning or submission stage, greater levels of valuable public engagement were considered to be derived from written and digital submissions where citizens can examine prepared material and information in their own time and, accordingly, submit issues and matters of concern in detail.

It is, therefore, considered appropriate that it should be an option for some, or all, of the early-stage public consultation stage of a development plan process to be facilitated to take place either online or in person and to extend this beyond the current Covid-19 restrictions, with such decisions to be made locally. We are not giving a directive in this regard. We will probably find that many of those meetings will be a hybrid version, with an online streaming element plus a public attendance, but that cannot happen right now due to the pandemic. To be fair, Members on all sides of the House have recognised that. However, I reject any idea that this provision, in some very strange way, is a way of trying to alienate people. It does not rule out holding public meetings or a combination of a meeting and an online engagement. Rather, it allows for a much greater focus, greater efficiency, which we should be looking for in our system, and greater flexibility, in order to encourage, as some Members have sought, increased public participation in the development plan process. That is certainly what I, as Minister, want to see. It is for these reasons that I will, and must, oppose amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive.

See this speech in context