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

We have discussed at length this proposal to delete section 28(1C) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. I listened to the Deputy and others speak about it on Committee Stage and set out their reasons for supporting it. It would have a wide-ranging effect insofar as it would remove the legislative provision introduced to empower a Minister to ensure we have a nationally consistent approach to planning in all 31 local authorities. The amendment would simply remove that. I think what the Deputy is trying to get at are the particular mandatory guidelines that were set. However, if we are saying to any Minister that he or she cannot issue national guidelines or effect a change in the practices of the 31 local planning authorities, the three regional assemblies and An Bord Pleanála, which would be the case if the amendment were passed, then it would make it harder to effect change in respect of many of the provisions Opposition Deputies and others, but particularly the Deputies opposite, have been railing against, because it would remove the power of the Minister to do so by way of a nationally consistent approach. Removing such a legislative provision is something I just cannot accept.

Most people will agree that we need to have consistency when implementing national planning policy, particularly in the performance of the local authorities and planning authorities with regard to their planning functions, including the determination of planning applications. As I outlined at length on Committee Stage when we discussed this, such an approach is necessary because it provides clarity for both public and private investment and enables the progression of construction and development projects through the planning system in a consistent manner. I understand the perspective some Deputies are coming from on the issue of setting aside, in effect, provisions within development plans through some decisions that have been made by the board. That is a different issue. The application of specific planning policy requirements under section 28(1C) enables the system to facilitate the delivery of outcomes with greater certainty and viability than would otherwise be the case. Right now, fortunately, we are seeing an increase in construction commencements and in the effecting of planning permissions that are in place. However, where we may in the future see a certain type of development, such as apartments, in respect of which the previous guidelines have not worked as they were intended and may have to be looked at again, we would not have the ability to do that if this amendment was accepted. That in itself would be a retrograde step.

It is important to look again at what we are doing. I will not repeat myself because we want to get to other issues but this point is important. It is about restoring the two-stage planning process, giving the planning function back to local authorities and having a transparent pre-planning system that is time-bound, as well as a time-bound planning application stage, within both local authorities and An Bord Pleanála. It is about providing that transparency and providing strict timelines to ensure efficient delivery. If we were then to remove the ability to have consistency in national planning and a national planning approach, it would be totally contradictory.

The other matter the Deputy and others raised can certainly be examined, and we will do so, through the planning review. However, if we were to accept this amendment and remove the relevant subsection, it would have an extremely detrimental effect, particularly when we are trying to do, or the Government certainly is trying to do, is to enable good developments in which people can live at an affordable rate, whether for purchase or rent, that are built to a good standard and of high quality and that offer people a high quality of life. In many cases, that will mean high-density developments. There is nothing to be feared in that; high density does not mean bad development. It can be very good development and we need to get on and do it. That is why ceasing SHDs and bringing in a much better, more efficient and transparent process is the way forward. For these reasons, I cannot accept amendment No. 5.

See this speech in context