Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This group of amendments relates to section 13 and licensing of appliances on public roads. I have three amendments in the group, which I will move in due course. I will address amendment No. 99, tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, and amendments Nos. 103 to 110, inclusive, jointly tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh outlined, amendment No. 99 seeks to add specific condition requirements to licences. It provides that they may not be granted for advertisements or town or landscape maps unless they are included trí Ghaeilge agus trí Bhéarla, and it provides that a planning authority may issue guidance to provide that Irish text is no less prominent. I cannot accept this, as the attachment of conditions to licences is a matter for each individual planning authority and should be assessed case by case, having regard to matters set out in section 13(7) of this Bill. The Official Languages Act already rightly provides for certain obligations regarding the use of Irish advertising in other notices.

Amendments Nos. 103 to 106, inclusive, relate to the timeframes in section 13 and seek to amend section 13(8)(a), which provides that a planning authority has eight weeks to make a decision on a request for a licence, or four weeks after an applicant's response to an additional information request. The amendments also seek to amend the section, which provides that where a planning authority fails to make a decision on an application for a licence in respect of electronic communication infrastructure, it should be deemed granted if the later of eight weeks has passed since the application was received or four weeks after an applicant's response to an additional information request. The proposed amendments would change the period to 12 weeks from receipt of application and six weeks from receipt of response to an additional information request. Although the proposed amendments would be within the required timeframe of Directive 2014/61/EU, on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communication equipment, it is not in keeping with the decision timeframe for licences set out in section 13 and could cause confusion. Therefore, I cannot accept that amendment.

Amendment No. 107 seeks to add a provision, notwithstanding the ability for a deemed decision relating to electronic communication infrastructure, that no such decision shall be deemed to be granted where the licence involves EIA or AA. As mentioned on Committee Stage, this provision is unnecessary, as section 13(3) already provides that you cannot apply for a licence if an EIA or AA is required. In these circumstances, planning permission must be sought where the development can be appropriately assessed for EIA and AA. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 108 proposes to replace section 13(9), on appeals on licences, and has the effect of providing that there is no fee for third party appeals, appeals should be entered on the register and observations may be made in respect of appeals. The fees for making appeals are set at levels intended to prevent frivolous or vexatious appeals. They certainly do not act as a deterrent to persons with genuine concerns or interest in proposed developments from making appeals. The provisions of section 13(15) already allow the Minister to provide for databases of information in respect of licences. I am satisfied that this provision should remain as it is and therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 109 also proposes to replace section 13(9) with more condensed wording to a similar effect. In this case, it is important to explain all scenarios where an appeal can be made in respect of a licence. On that basis, I oppose amendment No. 109.

Amendment No. 110 seeks to add an option for the commission to revoke the licence. The reference to the commission affirming the decision of the planning authority under this section covered this, so if a planning authority revokes a licence and the commission affirms this, the licence will stand revoked. I do not accept that amendment either.

I will speak on amendments Nos. 100, 101 and 102. Amendment No. 102 relates to an amendment proposed by Deputy Matthews on Committee Stage. It seeks to add the opportunity to share existing appliances, apparatuses or structures as a matter for planning authorities to consider in assessing licence requests. At the time, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, noted that he saw the merit in the proposal but would like to consider it further. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has drafted wording which has the same effect and provides that the planning authority should consider "the possibility that the purpose for which the application concerned is made may be served by an appliance, apparatus or structure that is already subject to" a licence as a matter to be considered in assessing a licence request. Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 are consequential to that amendment. The amendments I propose in this group address a proposal from Deputy Matthews, as I said. At that stage, we saw merit in the proposals to include the opportunity to share appliances, apparatuses and structures as a matter for planning authorities to consider. I thank the Chairperson of the committee, Deputy Matthews, for raising this matter and allowing me the opportunity to discuss the proposal with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to allow appropriate wording to be prepared.

I am not in a position to accept the amendments Deputies have proposed in this group. We have reflected on them, but unfortunately they are not aligned to the policy intention of the Bill.

See this speech in context