Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

These are some of the most controversial sections in the Bill and I am strongly opposed to all three amendments. I have some questions regarding them. I can see no set of reasons whereby a developer seeking permission for an LRD would need a design envelope. If my memory about the strategic housing development, SHD, process is correct, I understand there was a provision under that fast-track planning procedure, section 146B, that allowed for alterations to a plan, but that involved public participation.

This is not the same as with the wind technology example that I and Deputy Matthews spoke about. Residential developments are straightforward and the technology is well established. The planning permissions do not stipulate whether certain types of building methodologies are used. They all must be fully compliant with building and fire safety regulations. Therefore, I do not believe there should be a design envelope facility and there should definitely not be one without any public participation. I will discuss this point further when we come to amendment No. 13. I wish to know who asked for this change, because this is here because somebody lobbied for it. I do not know whether it was the Attorney General, officials or private developers. This provision is here, however, because some people said they thought it should be here. It was not in the LRD legislation. It is important that we get an answer to this question.

Turning then to amendment No. 13, I respectfully disagree with Deputy Matthews on this element of the design envelope. As I said at the start, I am open to the concept of the design envelope, but there is no public participation in this context at the application, decision or implementation stages. This is genuinely problematic. I am not against the idea of a design envelope, particularly for offshore wind, so long as it is done right. From the start of these debates, however, I have argued that if we do not get the public participation facet right at the very start, then it will end up leading to protracted judicial reviews and delayed wind farm and renewable energy projects.

I am also genuinely concerned that this lack of public participation, especially at the implementation stage, is potentially in breach of the environmental impact assessment, EIA, directive, the habitats directive and the water framework directive. Regarding the circumstances relating to the proposed development, as set out in paragraph 2(e)(ii) of the amendment, the scope of this is left to the regulations. From reading this legislation, we simply have no idea how wide, broad or deep a latitude or flexibility within design envelopes will be provided for. The Minister is correct that he did state at an early stage that some of these amendments were technical and some were urgent. These amendments, however, are neither technical nor urgent. They are deeply problematic and this objective would be much better achieved by way of amending legislation in the autumn, rather than rushing this through this evening.

See this speech in context