James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)

I will address amendments Nos. 5, 15 and 19 together. These amendments relate to the Bill's compliance with the Aarhus Convention.

Amendment No. 5 seeks to provide for third-party observations as part of the suspension of duration of a permission while it is subject to a judicial review by amending section 13. Amendment No. 15 seeks to make similar provisions for third-party observations as part of the extension of duration provisions in section 16.

The criteria for the suspension of the duration of a permission while it is subject to judicial review proceedings and the extension of a duration of a permission are clearly set out in legislation and does not involve a decision of the planning authority beyond whether the specified criteria are met. If the criteria set out in legislation are met, the planning authority shall grant a suspension or extension. For example, under section 180 of the Act of 2024, a planning authority is notified in writing of the date of the commencement of judicial review proceedings by the person who is carrying out or proposes to carry out the relevant development. A second notice is subsequently issued when the judicial review proceedings are finally concluded and that notice must include the date that the proceedings concluded. The planning authority's role in the process set out under section 180 is primarily to enter the relevant details in the planning register. At no point in the process does the role of the planning authority involve consideration or the making of a determination other than to ensure the notices provided to the planning authority are in accordance with section 180 and any associated regulations. It is for this reason I am not in a position to accept the proposed amendments.

As a decision of a planning authority, beyond whether the criteria are met, does not form part of the process under section 180, public participation is neither necessary nor appropriate. It should be noted that the extensions of duration cannot be granted where the extension proposed would require an environmental impact assessment, EIA, or an appropriate assessment, AA. If an EIA or AA is required, under the Act of 2000 procedures, a new application for permission is required in respect of the development and thus any public notification or participation requirements are fulfilled. Under the Act of 2024, if an EIA or AA is required, there are procedures for a material extension of duration under Chapter 5 of Part 4 which include the public participation and notification procedures.

In relation to the publication of notices, section 42(5) of the Act of 2000 already provides that the details of any extension of duration is entered on the planning register. Similarly, section 180(6) of the Act of 2024 provides that the details of the suspension of duration of a permission due to judicial review shall also be entered on the planning register.

Amendment No. 19 seeks to provide that within three months of the passing of the enacted Bill, the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the compliance of all sections of this Act with the State's obligations under the Aarhus Convention and the environmental impact assessment directive. I am satisfied that the Bill is compliant with the Aarhus Convention and the EIA directive and, therefore, I cannot see the need to report on this matter in the manner suggested.

As I outlined, I am satisfied that these provisions are in compliance with all international obligations, including the Aarhus Convention, and, therefore, I cannot accept the proposed amendments.

See this speech in context