Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Like Deputy Pringle, I also rushed over - so much so that I forgot my jacket - and I am glad that the House has agreed to take the amendment at this point. Something very fundamental is happening in this Bill. We are restoring to the local authority level the first opportunity for decisions on planning applications and that is really crucial. There have been lots of issues with developments in my community and in many other communities. Often when one breaks it down, there are multiple reasons for that. There are people who are opposed to high-rise developments. Many communities have rejected the model that the market has brought forward, the buy-to-let-only developments which mean that people will never be able to purchase a home. There are also people who are deeply annoyed that their community did not get what they would see as the first say on a planning application, with their local councillors and their established community activists. I recognise what this Bill does, which is to restore to local communities and their local authorities, the first opportunity to assess a planning application. That is really important. This is something that the Minister has been working on for some time. There are legal difficulties and transition arrangements but I, along with others like Deputy Lahart, will be very pleased to see this Bill pass because we know it will end SHDs and will restore that community voice.

What did we learn during the SHD process? We learned that by consulting with communities, we iron out many of the issues that need to be resolved in a planning application and that by not giving communities a say, the problem gets pushed further down the process. People's only option, in many cases, was to take judicial reviews. That was done very successfully in my community in relation to the Glenhill development where residents felt there was a contravention of the development plan without any adequate reason and they were supported. In Santry, residents opposed a particular development but unfortunately, because of the huge burden of responsibility of putting together a case, they failed to meet the required timeline and felt they were stymied at both ends. We learned that giving communities a say actually helps the planning process, helps applications to get through and helps to improve the final outcome.

Therefore, I think Deputy Pringle's amendment has great merit, not least because it is very similar to an amendment I put forward on Committee Stage. There was one slight difference between our two amendments. We are both saying that at pre-planning levels, communities should have a say. I agree that the level and significance of that needs to be teased out and perhaps legislation is a hard place to do that. However, there is nothing wrong with giving communities access to information that applications are coming down the tracks and that councils are actively engaging with developers. If we follow the principle that by giving communities more involvement, it will help the overall process, the logical conclusion is that we notify communities when pre-planning happens.

A lot of pre-planning goes nowhere. That is fine. We have to make sure that we do not swamp communities which are excluded because they cannot keep up with the flow of information coming at them. The Minister told me on Committee Stage that he would consider the principle of my amendment and that of Deputy Pringle and that he might come back on Report Stage. The fundamental difference between the two was that my amendment would use the public participation network, PPN, which is the local authority-approved structure and the secretariat which is paid to provide secretarial services to the PPN. It would effectively allow residents' associations to register with their PPN as they do already and by using that statutory structure, it would allow them to be notified of pre-planning applications that are coming in.

As I examined the proposal, I realised there is a lot of work yet to do on this. My amendment, which I hoped would facilitate it, still needs more work so I can appreciate why the Minister might not be in a position to accept Deputy Pringle's amendment. However, I urge the Minister to consider a scheme that would use regulations along the lines that Deputy Pringle and I are proposing so that local communities would be alerted at pre-planning stage of applications that are coming down the tracks and on which local authority officials are engaging with developers. We say "developers" but that often refers to approved housing bodies and others. We have put a lot of work into ensuring that there is public housing on public land. Sometimes that is done through the Part 8 system and sometimes through the regular planning system.

See this speech in context