Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 112:

In page 62, line 28, to delete “identified and”.

The majority of these amendments are minor and grammatical in nature, resultant of the ongoing process of quality assurance that has been proceeding throughout the legislative process. This Bill, one of the largest in the history of the State, has over 500 sections and, therefore, it is natural to identify improvements to syntax which do not alter in any way the legal meaning of the sentences but give improved legibility for the reader.

To this end, amendments No. 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121 122, 396, 417, 435, 449 and 464 relate to commas or capital letters or improve clarity by directing more precisely to a definition or section or clarifying language. By way of example, amendments No. 112, 119, 120 delete “identified and” from definitions relating to associate planning authority, principal planning authority and regional growth centres as it is unnecessary.

Amendment Nos. 116, 396, 417, 435, 449 and 464 add capital letters to the term Local Community Development Committee, LCDC, whereas amendment No. 117 signposts that the meaning of "metropolitan area strategic plan" is further detailed in section 29(2).

Of greater significance are the amendments relating to biodiversity. A number of amendments were tabled on Committee Stage with regard to biodiversity and climate change and reference to the appropriate action plans and Acts associated with each.

This Government has a demonstrated commitment to tackling the climate emergency. In light of that, I had no hesitation in committing my officials to systematically reviewing the relevant sections in consultation with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. It is in this context that I will move this amendment and later amendments in respect of Part 3, which I will explain in due course.

Amendment No. 118 clarifies that the definition of "national biodiversity action plan" is the same as that contained in section 59A of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. As I have often noted previously, a key benefit of this Bill is the clear alignment it brings between the tiers of planning, robustly linking national policy to local implementation coupled with the requirement for each tier in the planning hierarchy to be materially consistent with the tier above. Due to this new improved structure and alignment, it is only necessary to make a number of small impactful insertions at the highest level rather than repetitively throughout the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 relate to section 26, which deals with considerations for issuance of national planning statements. Deputy Matthews and Deputies Boyd Barrett, Ó Broin, Ó Snodaigh, Gould and O’Callaghan have tabled three amendments to change the wording of amendment No. 220 which I am not in a position to accept. The wording of this amendment was carefully agree between my Department, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and the OPC.

Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 add two new categories to the list of matters to which a national planning statement must give consideration as follows:

"(p) integration of relevant climate action related policies and measures of the Government, including those prepared pursuant to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, into regional spatial and economic strategies, development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans and coordinated area plans;

(q) integration of relevant policies and measures of the Government relating to biodiversity, including those in respect of the National Biodiversity Action Plan, into regional spatial and economic strategies, development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans and coordinated area plans.”

By making these key insertions at national planning framework and national planning statement level, these matters are given the appropriate importance to be reflected consistently through the tiers of planning that flow from it.

The Bill provides that the national planning framework, NPF, will continue to spearhead the planning agenda in Ireland and proposes a plan-led system and structure whereby all tiers of planning from regional to local align with the strategic objectives set out in the NPF. Simply put, lower order plans will be required to align with higher order plans, with development plans aligned to the regional strategies and, in turn, to the NPF and national planning statements, and with the area-based plans aligned to development plans.

Deputies Boyd Barrett, Ó Broin, Ó Snodaigh, Gould and O’Callaghan seek to amend amendment 234 by including references to obligations to public bodies under section 59B of the Wildlife Act 2023. I do not see a need to include these references as they are already specified under section 59B of the Wildlife Act 2023 and there is no need to duplicate it here. On this basis, I cannot accept their amendment. In section 29, content of regional spatial and economic strategy, amendment No. 234 amends section 29(1)(k) to include reference to the national biodiversity action plan at RSES level. As I have already mentioned, this is one of a number of amendments to improve and enhance references to biodiversity across all tiers of planning.

Amendment No. 364 corrects the title of the national biodiversity action plan in section 50, by including the word "Action".

Amendments Nos. 113 and 123 are in the name of Deputy Matthews. I ask the Deputy to withdraw amendment No. 113, which offers a definition of "community garden". I listened to the Deputy's proposals regarding the same matter on Committee Stage and, as promised, reviewed them within my Department. As a result of this, I have brought forward a series of amendments to section 48 - amendments Nos. 353 to 355, inclusive, and 357 - including a near identical definition to that is proposed by Deputy Matthews. I will speak to those amendments once we reach the relevant sections of the Bill on development plan-making. I trust that Deputy Matthews will be satisfied with the amendments the Government has tabled on the matter on foot of his previous input.

With regard to amendment No. 123, which seeks to insert a definition of "transport infrastructure", it should be noted that such a definition already exists within Schedule 1. To insert a further definition at this point may give rise to operational confusion and be counterproductive to what the Deputy is trying to achieve by the proposed amendment. The concept is well understood and operationalised within Part 3 by planning authorities. As a result, I must oppose amendment No.123.

I will now address amendment No. 124 in the names of Deputies O’Callaghan, O’Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh which seeks to insert a form of definition of "reasonable period" into section 18, which sets out the procedures required for public inspection. Section 18 currently provides that where something is required to be made available for public inspection under Part 3, it should be made available for as long as provided for in the relevant section or where no such timeframes are set out for as long as the OPR, regional assembly or planning authority, as appropriate, considers reasonable. Amendment No. 124 seeks to provide that in considering what constitutes a reasonable period. It proposes that the period should be consistent with affording the public an opportunity to effectively participate, bearing in mind the volume and technical complexity of the materials involved, and that traditional holiday periods are not conducive to public participation and, therefore, the periods need to be extended accordingly. The majority of time periods are already set out in the Bill, so this is just a catch-all provision for anything which may have been omitted. This is not appropriate language or instruction for primary legislation and would be more appropriate to address via circular letter or guidance. As such, I cannot accept amendment No. 124.

See this speech in context