Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for raising these matters. These amendments relate to provisions we have put into the Bill to give an underpinning to the BusConnects projects.

Section 44 provides for the insertion of a new section 51AA into the Roads Act 1993. This new provision in the Roads Act provides for an extension of An Bord Pleanála’s existing powers. The board currently has the power to materially contravene a development plan under sections 37(2)(a) and 37G(6) of the Planning and Development Act. The Bill aims to strengthen existing legislation in order to ensure the BusConnects core bus corridors are captured.

Section 44 provides the board can only approve a scheme or proposed road development that contravenes materially a development or local area plan in very specific and limited circumstances, including where the scheme or road development is of strategic, regional or national importance and where the scheme or road development should be approved having regard to the transport strategy made under the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008.

On the Deputy’s proposed rewording of section 51AA(a), 51AA(b) and 51AA(d), it should be noted the development of the core bus corridors comprises a road development within section 51 of the Roads Act. While I appreciate the intention of the proposed rewording, it is not appropriate for inclusion in primary legislation. Amendment Nos. 3 and 5 in particular propose tests which are close to impossible to prove to a legal standard. Inserting them would provide an opening for plenty of legal challenges to any decision of An Bord Pleanála that relies on this section. An Bord Pleanála and presumably the applicant would have to prove there would be no increase in private car travel or induced demand in any way before this clause could be used. By contrast, the standard terminology under environmental legislation is an obligation to set out likely environmental impacts and not to guarantee a set of impacts, which is what the amendment seeks. On a practical level, if an overall transport scheme removes traffic from one corridor and reduces traffic overall but causes some minor increase on a small number of streets through diversions, that scheme would still be likely to fail this test. Similarly, the test to confirm the scheme will not contribute to carbon emissions from the transport sector will be failed the minute a single non-electric vehicle travels along the scheme.

There are similar difficulties in respect of amendment No. 8, which sets standards many valuable schemes, including BusConnects projects, could not meet. It should be noted local authorities cannot propose a development that is in contravention of a development plan under section 178 of the Planning and Development Act. Accordingly, the application of section 44 is very limited and does not alter the position for most road development as it is generally carried out by a local authority. These must be in accordance with the relevant development plan. The delivery arrangements for BusConnects are different as the NTA has temporarily stepped into the role of a road authority to implement the BusConnects projects.

Section 44 is being brought forward to reduce the potential for legal challenges and delay in these circumstances. It is important to ensure the programme’s progress through the planning system is not unnecessarily impeded due to potential deficiencies that may exist with current legislative provisions and the existing provision will ensure Government ambition in the area of megaproject delivery is complemented by a robust and appropriate legislative framework.

I thank Deputy Leddin for bringing forward these amendments. While I appreciate the intent I cannot support them and invite him to withdraw them.

See this speech in context