Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

To bring some clarity to the situation, this Bill started off as the substitute consent Bill, which was how we referred to it. It came to the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage back in 2021. There was a request to waive pre-legislative scrutiny on it because of an urgent matter to deal with. The committee refused, but we acted speedily and availed of a briefing with the Department officials. We have had many briefings with the Department officials on some of the very complex planning amendment legislation and planning Acts we had to pass over the past two years. I acknowledge the Department and officials are always available to us to brief the committee members.

The main parts of the substitute consent Bill are to streamline and tidy it up. There is nothing wrong with streamlining or tidying up planning processes. We have a planning system that has been amended multiple times over the past ten years and it is difficult to follow. We have a massive amount of EU law, European law and environmental directives transposed into Irish law. It is a difficult area, which is why I welcome the review of the planning system.

Prior to this Bill being brought to us in committee, as committee members may remember, we had just passed another Bill, the Planning and Development, and Residential Tenancies, Act. That was done speedily and quickly in response to the Ballysax court case on the two-stage leave process for substitute consent. An exceptionality was looked at in the leave to apply stage and then public participation in the second stage. We had a barrier between public participation, a very important part of substitute consent, which is the judgment of exceptionality. What Government did was move to remove that barrier to provide for public consultation at the exceptionality stage. That was a good move.

The members of the committee moved speedily. I think the court case was in June 2020 and by December 2020, we had passed that Bill. Within six months, we had addressed a barrier to public participation in the planning system in very complex, difficult environmental law. That is to our credit. I am glad the committee supported that. It just goes to show that not everything the Government is trying to do in planning is somehow underhanded, rushed or not in the public interest, as it is being presented here tonight. The core principles of our Planning and Development Act are sustainability and proper planning underlined by the principle of the common good. Many of the amendments to this Bill are for the common good and I am happy support many of them.

I will not spend much time on this because there are a number of amendments and we want to get to them. I noticed the Opposition voted not even to proceed and against Second Stage, in other words, not even to allow us to proceed to Committee Stage to scrutinise these amendments. In a way, that is shutting down the debate. I am happy to see the amendments discussed and debated and explained by the Minister of State, with and opportunity provided for him to take amendments or modify some that have been tabled. We do that on Committee Stage and we have seen that regularly on Committee Stage in the Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage at any rate. I do not expect tonight to be any different, but we will see how that goes.

The measure on short-term lettings is a very positive move because it was practically impossible for local authorities to enforce the changes that were brought previously. That included chasing down advertising on various platforms and keeping track of houses where planning permission had been sought. It makes sense to penalise people who seek to have short-term lettings, thereby removing the house from use as long-term housing, which we all know is so badly needed in this country. In addition, it makes sense to impose substantial fines on somebody who is not willing to comply with the law in that regard and make it easier for planning authorities to enact that law. They are under enough pressure as it is without imposing on them legislation that was difficult and stressful to apply.

I suggest that where a short-term let property is advertised and the owner has availed of planning permission, the planning file number should be available or easily found on the advertisement. This is to prove that the property has planning permission and to ensure the would-be occupier of the property - the person who may wish to rent it - can be certain of compliance with planning. People want to be sensible and rent something that is compliant with the law.

On the ministerial directives under section 31, I note the wide criticism of the Planning Regulator. To be honest, if we had a strong planning regulator 20 years ago, we would not have had the Mahon tribunal, for a start, and we probably would not have had many of the very poor planning decisions we have seen across this country. Planning decisions made in local authorities by county councillors are often taken against the professional advice of their senior planners, the chief executive, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, the National Transport Authority, NTA, or expert groups such as An Taisce. We often see decisions to zone land or include other planning objectives into a plan. The Planning Regulator, which was an outcome of the Mahon tribunal, is tasked with ensuring that those plans are compliant with national or regional planning frameworks. I would support more powers for the Planning Regulator. I am not suggesting that we withdraw powers from local authorities.

Where those powers and that responsibility lie with councillors, however, they must employ and use those powers reasonably rather than trying to insert objectives that do not comply with national planning guidance. That is why we have sprawl as well as transport emissions arising from people living two-hour commutes from the city and being stuck in traffic all day, with the associated high costs. It is why we have dormitory towns that people leave at 6 a.m. or 7 a.m. and to which they do not return until late in the evening. They are not able to participate in their communities. That is the result of poor planning. It is what bad planning is about. Inserting in a development plan an objective that does not comply with national planning is not doing a favour for somebody. It might be doing a favour for one or two individuals but it deprives the public of the common good that should be enshrined in planning. I welcome the amendments to section 31 that we will discuss later.

I have not read the amendments to the Valuation Act in detail. I briefly read through them. They do not cause me any concern.

The changes to the Maritime Area Planning Act are sensible. They do not strike me as particularly controversial but I look forward to discussing them in greater detail if and when we get to them further on in the Bill.

As regards the issue on flexibility in design, I support that. I support that we need flexibility in certain types of planning applications, primarily in the context of the highly technical and quickly evolving machines that are being put in place offshore. Those turbines are in development all the time to achieve greater efficiencies, such as greater internal efficiencies that might result in a turbine needing wider blades but a lower hub or, in some cases, a higher hub. All those design criteria have to be taken into account. There is a long time lag between submitting a detailed plan at planning application stage and then purchase and construction and putting the machines in the sea. Significant changes can happen in that time and we need to provide that flexibility. We know we need to develop offshore wind. We know the potential it has. That has been highlighted by the war in Ukraine and the difficulties with where much of Europe currently sources its fossil fuels. We need to get off those fuels. Doing so is eminently sensible. We need a planning system that is flexible enough to allow that but confined enough to allow planners to make a decision. We do not want planners to be put in a position where the flexibility is so wide, it leaves decisions wide open to judicial review or another review or appeal, but in addition, we do not want them to be unable to make a decision on the facts in front of them. There needs to be good guidance for planners in this regard so there is no subjectivity when it comes to what is acceptable in the context of flexibility and what is not. I have spoken to people who are knowledgeable in this area and they have expressed concerns about the method that is being used to do it. I support the concept of it but there are questions in respect of the method we are applying here today.

As regards judicial review, I am glad amendment No. 25 has been removed or deferred. It was a leap too far. It was sensible to withdraw the amendment at this stage. As the Minister of State is aware, the programme for Government contains an agreement to review and reform judicial review. That is needed for all sides that wish to take a judicial review. It is often a neighbourhood group or non-professionals who come together and take a real risk in taking on the very onerous task of seeking judicial review. They do so because they are seeking justice in the planning system and access to justice. We could never deny that access to justice. Access to justice is one of the tenets of a free democracy. If needed, I will stand up every day and fight for people's right of access to justice. I am glad amendment No. 25 to section 50 has been removed.

Amendment No. 26 - it was amendment No. 11 in the Minister's list of amendments - relates to the exhaustion of the appeals process. To my knowledge and understanding, it is generally at the end of the appeals process when all avenues have been exhausted and a decision has been made that leave for judicial review is granted. That is common practice at the moment. There are a very low number of cases. I know the case brought by the North East Pylon Pressure Campaign is referred to quite often. There are probably a few more cases in which a judicial review was granted before it was exhausted. To put into law what is commonly being done provides a little more surety in the system. It is not especially controversial. We will have to streamline judicial review, and decisions along the lines of this will have to be taken at some stage.

The second part of amendment No. 26 relates to remitting to the planning authority by the courts. That, too, is something that is generally happening. There have been cases, however, in which a judge has remitted it right back to square one when that may not have been necessary. That has caused delay in cases where the development or application, if rectified, may have been compliant. The applications were sent back a stage too far. I do not see how an applicant for development having the opportunity to ask a judge to remit the application back to the planning authority stage is a barrier to access to judicial review. The judicial review is complete at that stage. The decision has been made and the applicant for development is requesting the judge to remit it back to a certain stage. I do not see that as a barrier.

I will leave it at that. I look forward to speaking on further amendments.

See this speech in context