Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 12 is about measures to allow flexibility for emerging technologies to be extended to large-scale residential developments. I have a real difficulty understanding the rationale behind the amendment in the context of large-scale residential developments. They are not like wind farms which can have a delay between the granting of planning permission and the commencement of the development. We all hope when a large number of houses are granted planning permission that the developer goes ahead with building as per the planning permission. What is the need for flexibility to allow for emerging technologies if delays are not envisaged? Could granting them this level of flexibility potentially create an incentive for developers to delay works?

Who asked for this? Who thinks they will benefit from it? How do they think they will benefit from it? Has this been lobbied for by those who are more interested in speculation and increasing the value of sites, in saying the planning permission they got comes with added flexibility along with other measures? People who are interested in getting on with the building of homes would not necessarily lobby for this. It appears to have come from speculative quarters.

Amendment No. 13 is about pre-approval and what goes into applications. There are significant problems with regulations being left to the Minister and how wide open that is. There are no parameter constraints on that. I have serious concerns about that and the lack of public participation at the design envelope stage. There would be no notices or submissions. The decision from that would not be published until later in the process. This presumably runs contrary to the EIA directive. If you do not know what you have allowed, how can you assess it? That is the legal problem that will, if it is not addressed, give rise to significant delays and challenges.

Amendment No. 14 is about the implementation stage. It provides no obligation in terms of consent. There is only an obligation to notify. No consent is required. Surely that is contrary to the EIA and habitats directives.

The Minister of State is bringing forward amendments that are not legally sound, do not comply with directives, and will ultimately fail and lead to delays, and then the Government will have to come back to the Chamber to make more change, which it will probably do on the last day of a term and rush amendments through again. Why not progress this legislation properly so that we can cut out delays and litigation, and get on with a sound planning framework to help to deliver the needed infrastructure and housing?

See this speech in context