Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I did not interrupt Deputy McGrath. I listened to what he said. It is entertaining a lot of the time but it is factually incorrect. I reiterate my support for An Taisce and the fine work it does throughout the country. Much of the environmental protection we have in the country comes from EU directives. I do not think we would have introduced it ourselves. We should acknowledge the contribution of Europe.

I agree with some of the previous contributors that planning is complex. When we introduce changes to the planning system they can impact further down the road in a way we may not be aware of. This is why we should take considerable time when we seek to change aspects of the planning system. Much of the planning system is very good. The Act has been amended many times since it was introduced in 2000. It is difficult legislation to follow. I welcome the Attorney General's project to review the planning system and put some shape and form back on it so it does what it is meant to do, which is to provide for proper planning and sustainable development in the common good. We need to put these three principles back at the core of planning despite some Deputies who might think that because planning does not suit them it is wrong.

I will speak about the Bill before us. We had pre-legislative scrutiny on this in September 2021. At the time we were notified this was urgent legislation and we should expedite it. We did so and we produced a report in November 2021, conscious of the urgency because of the judgment in the Ballysax and McQuaid cases. It is disappointing to see the legislation not come before the House until one week before we finished. I am concerned about it. We have organised a briefing for members of the Oireachtas joint committee on Monday at 11.30 a.m. and I thank the officials and the Minister for assisting us with it. All members are invited to attend and if they contact the committee we can issue the link. I welcome anybody to attend.

The Bill seeks to regularise developments that should have required an environmental impact assessment at the time. There is nothing in EU law that precludes this. It does allow it. It is a positive move and will put us right with Europe. I have several concerns and I look forward to getting better detail and discussing them on Committee Stage. The substitute consent process is being streamlined to bring it from two stages to one stage. I now understand why one of the stages is surplus as public consultation on the exceptional circumstances has been brought into both stages. A two-stage process provides time for members of the public who may have an interest to be alerted to the fact a substitute consent process is happening or that somebody is seeking a substitute consent process. We will now have a single stage and I am concerned members of the public will not have much time to react to it.

I note the comments made by the Minister yesterday that he will extend the period from five to eight weeks. It needs to be longer than this. Normally the substitute consent process goes through the leave stage and then the substantive stage. There will be a longer period of time for this. I am open to correction on this. It is important that we allow every opportunity for public consultation in the planning system. Generally, the more people, the more stakeholder engagement, the more notification and the more information is available, the better the outcome. Everybody may not be satisfied with the outcome but at least they will have had an opportunity to participate and make their opinions known. We are used to hearing the word "objection". There is no such thing as an objection in planning. It is an objection that could be negative, positive, seeking a change in conditions or seeking conditions to be attached.

I ask the Minister to detail the planning process in lay language for ordinary understanding. Planning in is very complex. I have experience of it but I do not think any of us in here has huge expertise in it. It is difficult to make decisions on it. There is the whole area of exceptional circumstances. I would like the Minister to put into plain lay language the list of these. There is a provision that somebody could reasonably demonstrate they did not know they needed planning permission. It is hard to buy because everybody knows and everybody is aware of the planning system. People would know if they were in an area where a development would need an environmental impact assessment or if they were extending a development that might be unauthorised. They would be aware of it. It is a very weak exceptional circumstance.

Having a few minutes to discuss five or six significant areas of amendment the Minister has introduced is ironic. We have only a week to deal with this and I have only a few minutes to deal with six points. With regard to section 31 directives, we have a planning issue in local authorities whereby we have councillors who make decisions against the advice of senior planners, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, the National Transport Authority, the Department, An Taisce and many experienced professional planners. Councillors go ahead and make a decision anyway not because it is in the interests of planning but because they have the numbers to make those decisions. This decision is then kicked up the line to the planning regulator, who must then notify the Minister who must issue a directive. My concern is that there are small matters that do not comply with core strategies, national guidelines or regional planning guidelines and the Minister may not seek to issue a directive on the cumulative impact of all of these measures. They have a cumulative impact. When councillors make decisions, proposals or objectives they need to apply a strong rationale and logic that they can stand over. They need to be accountable for going against professional experience and recommendations.

I want to mention short-term lettings. In somewhere like County Clare rent pressure zones do not exist but there is tremendous pressure for rental units. My colleague, Senator Róisín Garvey, constantly raises this with me with regard to the pressures in seeking residential rental units in Clare. We need to extend rent pressure zones throughout the country because the pressure exists throughout the country.

The design envelope is a sensible approach to take, especially when we are dealing with highly-technical developments such as wind turbines. In two or three years they could be larger or smaller. The technology could have improved. The size of the wind farm may get bigger but the number of turbines may be smaller.

It is sensible to have that. I do have concerns that this seems to be extended to all aspects. We are told that for maximum flexibility it is intended that the amendment would apply to the main land-based applications under the Planning and Development Act. Is the design envelope not being applied to all planning and development? It is a pity that we do not have more time. I can take it up with the Minister on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context