Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, lines 9 to 23, to delete all words from and including “(1) Notwithstanding” in line 9 down to and including line 23.

Rushing through this legislation and using the guillotine has consequences. This has been done previously with planning legislation and has resulted in a Bill being rushed through before Christmas with changes to substitute consent which resulted in fines for Ireland for failure to comply with EU environmental impact assessment requirements at the Derrybrien wind farm. Ireland has paid fines of more than €14 million. The Government facilitating just 30 minutes for scrutiny is a mistake and it is a completely unacceptable practice. Those mistakes should not be repeated. This is happening consistently with planning legislation being rushed through.

I refer to the Aarhus Convention. The provisions being introduced in this Bill relating to extending the duration of planning permissions will compound the issues of non-compliance of section 42 with the Aarhus Convention. Ireland was found to be in breach of Article 6.10 of the Aarhus Convention in August 2019. The State issued a commitment on 1 October 2020 to fix this breach within a few weeks by statutory instrument in correspondence to the Aarhus Convention compliance committee. It was not implemented. The same commitment was given on 10 June 2021 but it still has not been addressed. Worse still, if an adequate fix is finally implemented by statutory instrument, section 7 of this Bill will puncture that fix by providing an alternative path for planning extensions. This is totally non-compliant with both EU law and Aarhus Convention requirements. When will the planning fixes, although inadequate, with respect to the Aarhus Convention be implemented? Why are these fixes not being done by primary legislation as part of this Bill, as they should be? Does the approach taken not leave any extension granted under this Bill exposed to potential legal challenge? Has the Minister engaged with the Aarhus section of the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications and the Attorney General about this?

Can the Minister clarify what is encompassed by section 42B(a)(1B)(b)(iii) of the Bill, which states that the authority: "is satisfied that the application is in accordance with such regulations under the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2021 as apply to the application"? Will the Minister clarify that? Why does this not reflect wider obligations for permissions, for example, in respect of the birds and habitats regulations, SI 477/2011, or water and waste regulations? Is it sufficiently specific and precise even in respect of the planning Acts?

Specifically on amendments Nos. 1 to 3, the problem they seek to address is that section 9A(1) allows the planning authority to do something with respect to the county development plan where that plan is a reserved function for members. Given how significant this is, a three-quarter vote of members should be required. The normal procedure for variation requires a three-quarter vote. This extension of time is, in effect, a variation of the county development plan process. That is what amendments Nos. 1 to 3 are about.

With respect to amendment No. 4, sections 9A(3) and 9A(4) effectively allow for other extensions on top of any original extension. My concern is that there is nothing about how these are decided. That is why I am putting forward the requirement for a three-quarter vote in that regard.

On amendment No. 5, I am seeking to eliminate residual ambiguity in the Bill on the overall time limit to extensions. Section 9A(4) mentions a cumulative limit but it could be argued, given the reference in section 9A(3), that this only applies to any further extensions granted under the latter and not to the total set of variations.

Amendment No. 7 ensures there are not many tiny incremental extensions, which facilitates negative screening for strategic environmental assessment, SEA, and appropriate assessment, AA. It is to limit the number of extensions that can be applied for. If the cumulative period for an extension is one year, we need to make sure we do not end up with 12 piecemeal extensions, for example, of one month each. It also makes clear the overall ceiling is one year.

See this speech in context