Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to establish a new designation for the protection of nature sites, the Sites Locally Important for Ecology Order, to improve protection for trees under the existing Tree Preservation Order, including prioritising preservation, lopping, and trimming; to provide for local authorities to maintain a public register of Sites Locally Important for Ecology and Tree Preservation Orders; to provide for an appeals process for when the decision regarding a Tree Preservation Order or a Site Locally Important for Ecology Order has been made; and to provide for the replacement of trees that have been cut down.

This would be a simple but effective Bill. I acknowledge the huge amount of work done by one of our team, Councillor Kate Ruddock, on this legislation. With this Bill, we seek to empower our councillors and local authorities to protect trees in urban settings, within our towns and villages, and also to introduce a new form of protection, namely, to identify sites in those areas, which we all know of, that are locally important for biodiversity. These sites will be called "locally important for ecology", LIFE, sites.

This Bill has three parts. Dealing with tree preservation orders, we seek to amend section 205 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The first way is to compel local authorities to implement tree preservation orders. Under the Act now, local authorities may do so but they are not obliged to, so we seek to make this change. We have introduced biodiversity officers into most local authorities and, quite soon, all local authorities will have them, thanks to the work of my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Malcolm Noonan. They will be there to support local authorities to identify, carry out and assess these trees. It is a strategic measure. We will allow appeals on tree preservation orders. One of the impediments seen previously has been that this is an all-or-nothing process. Once an order is in place, there is no way out of it and this may put people off implementing tree preservation orders. We are therefore introducing an opportunity to appeal.

We are also creating an online register so that it is not necessary to go searching through a county development plan to see tree preservation orders for an area. The information will be up and displayed online and quite easily searched. We are also amending the definition of "amenity". This is not defined in the Act but it is a criterion that must be applied to implement a tree preservation order. We extend this to include all the measures we know trees are good for, aside from nature, biodiversity and what they do for climate and carbon sequestration. Trees are also very important for our well-being in our towns and villages. They offer the opportunity to provide some cooling in our urban centres, especially during our very hot summers, which we are going to experience more of with climate change, and also have positive impacts on air quality.

This Bill also seeks to amend section 70 of the Roads Act 1993. We changed the hierarchy of how we manage roadside trees. Currently, there is no instruction to manage, lop or trim trees. It is possible just to go straight to cutting them down. In this legislation, we are asking that the cutting down of trees would be undertaken as a last resort. Provided it is possible, the aim is to manage them in a safe manner rather than just cutting them down.

The third part of this Bill is to identify sites in our towns and villages. During Covid-19, as we were limited to 2 km and 5 km in our towns and villages, we came to discover and enjoy, perhaps for the first time, biodiversity and natural sites in our towns and villages.

There is no way to designate such sites as locally important. There are national designations and natural heritage areas under the Wildlife Act. There are special areas of conservation or special protection areas under the Natura 2000 directive, but there is nothing in place which can identify sites that we know are locally important for biodiversity.

The Bill sets out a process very similar to how we enact a tree preservation order. A site would be assessed, there would be public consultation and members of the local authority who we trust to do such good work would enact such orders and designate sites. They would then have some level of importance. It would not in any way stymie development in an area, but rather sharpen the mind of somebody who is considering a development. They would be advised that a site is locally important for biodiversity and, therefore, they will incorporate into a development some protection, retention, preservation and improvement of it, in some cases.

I bring the Bill before the House having listened to experts. I want to highlight the work of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. It recently issued an important report and we are trying to incorporate some of its recommendations into the new planning Bill. We also need to take account of the Children and Young People's Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, and the critical work it has done and its report on biodiversity. I introduce the Bill as the attempt to change the nature of legislation in order to protect trees and sites for biodiversity and improve how we manage and look after our trees for all and for future generations.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Bill opposed?

Hildegarde Naughton (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Since this is a Private Members' Bill, Second Stage must, under Standing Orders, be taken in Private Members' time.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be taken in Private Members' time."