Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I thank the House for taking this matter today. The adoption of the motion by both Houses of the Oireachtas will pave the way for the planning and development regulations to be amended in three different ways. It will be a requirement for shops that wish to change into an off-licence or to sell alcohol as the predominant business to obtain planning permission. It will facilitate consideration of the need for an environmental impact assessment of peat extraction projects that are currently exempted developments, by reference to criteria set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. It will reflect in the Irish planning regulations a technical change to annexe I and annexe II of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, which list project categories that require environmental impact assessments. The change is needed because the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive has been amended by the Aarhus Directive 2003/35/EC.

These are highly technical issues and it would have been better if they had been discussed in an Oireachtas committee. As a Minister I am unusual in my belief that non-contentious technical issues should be dealt with in committees as the exchanges are far better. When it was suggested at the Whip's meeting the Green Party took exception to the idea that we should work through an Oireachtas committee. I do not know why it did so, but it was supported by Deputy Stagg. Ironically, there was criticism yesterday that the discussion was not going through Oireachtas committees but there is a lesson to be learned. It is foolhardy to score political points on issues that are not politically contentious but which require a considerable amount of explanation.

The positive approval of this House is needed for any change to the exemptions under the planning code, whether the change adds an exemption or limits exemptions, as these changes do. Senators will know that these kinds of regulations are normally discussed in the Oireachtas committee.

The first amendment will require shop owners who wish to change the use of their shop to an off-licence to obtain planning permission. This makes practical, good sense. I have always been amazed by the fact that, under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, planning permission is required to change a shop into a chipper but one does not require planning permission to change the same shop into an off-licence, selling all forms of beer, wines and spirits. While chips can be inimical to the figure, alcohol can do a lot more damage.

The number of shops changing use to off-licence or expanding into the sale of alcohol has increased significantly in recent years. The increase in off-licences has arisen from changes to the restrictions on the transfer of intoxicating liquor licences and from changes in the way in which people socialise and drink. We accept this as part of the evolution of our society. These changes have had an impact on our streets and some communities. This is a land-use issue that must be tackled through the planning code.

The interim report on off-licensing by Commission on Liquor Licensing, published in May 2001, shared my long-held view on this. It recommended that permission should be needed for a change of use of a shop to an off-licence, while recommending that wine sales continue to be excluded. I have therefore decided to amend the definition of a shop in the 2001 regulations, in line with the recommendation in the interim report, so that a shop changing use to that of an off­licence, or expanding what it sells to include alcohol, would in future require planning permission. The change will not effect the sale of wine as a subsidiary to the main use of the premises as a shop. The sale of wine from a comer fridge, which is a minor element of the overall trade of the shop, will not be affected by this change.

I see the change as a very positive step. By bringing the matter into the planning code I am giving local communities a say in the development and establishment of off-licences in their areas. I am giving them the right to make an intervention for the very first time. I am also giving councils and councillors the right to have a say in this area.

This has been an area of genuine concern for communities in recent years as more and more outlets for the sale of beer, spirits and wine have sprung up. We all know the consequences of excessive use of alcohol in our societies. It is leading to a yob culture, it is degrading our communities and causing major problems. We must be very careful in how we handle this in planning. I do not want to interfere with people's enjoyment but to give local communities a say where previously they had none. The changes will bring off-licences into line with the current provision for the sale of hot food, also changed under the 2001 regulations. Under those regulations, if people want to change their shop into a chipper, they must get permission, but shops with a hot food counter as a small part of their business do not need permission. This arrangement has worked well in practice since it was introduced in 2002. I am happy that planning authorities will be able to apply the same rules to the sale of alcohol.

It is not my intention that this proposed regulation should prevent consumer choice or in any way inhibit competition. Rather, the intention is to give communities and councils the right to determine what can and cannot happen in their areas.

The second amendment is more complex. It arises in part from the difficulties we have had with the European Union and particular issues relating to judgments against us in the European Court. The amendment will facilitate consideration of the need for an environmental impact assessment, EIA, for peat extraction projects below ten hectares, that is 24.71 acres. These are exempted developments under the 2001 regulations.

The EU Commission has raised concerns that these smaller, but still significant, peat extractions could have significant effects on the environment, having regard to the criteria set out in the environmental impact assessment directive. These criteria include the characteristics of the proposed development, its size, use of natural resources and so on. The environmental sensitivity of the areas affected and the risk of significant environmental effects are also considerations.

I therefore propose to amend the present exemption in the 2001 planning regulations, which is for peat extraction in a new or extended area of less than ten hectares, or peat extraction in a new or extended area of ten hectares or more, where the drainage of the bogland commenced prior to the coming into effect of the existing regulations. These changes are being made to provide that the exemption would not apply where peat extraction is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

This would allow the planning authority to assess whether a peat extraction would have significant impact. Where it would, the authority can step in and require a planning application and environmental impact statement to be prepared, provided there are cogent reasons for doing so. We have been advised that this change will answer the Commission's concerns about the transposition of the EIA directive with regard to peat extraction.

This change only relates to bogs outside of designated areas, namely, SACs and NHAs, which are under a separate consent system. Therefore, we are talking about medium-sized peat extractions in non-designated bogs, where consideration must be given to the possible environmental impacts. This meets a requirement under EU law and does not mean, as some Members in the Dáil suggested, the end to family turf cutting. That would not be the result.

I would like to point out that if we had wanted to use Oireachtas time well, we should have discussed these regulations in committee. That we are debating them by way of statements is not my fault.

The final amendment deals with the Aarhus directive. This is a technical amendment to Schedule 5 of the 2001 regulations, reflecting a relatively minor change to annexes I and II of the environmental impact assessment directive. Part I of the Schedule lists the project categories for which environmental impact assessments are mandatory and Part II lists the project categories for which mandatory thresholds have been set.

The amendment is designed to ensure that any changes to, or extension of, a project in Part I will in themselves require environmental impact assessments where such a change or extension meets any relevant threshold in Part I. As currently drafted, such an assessment is mandatory only where a development increases by 25%, or an amount equal to 50% of the appropriate threshold, whichever is the greater. Members can be forgiven if I have lost them here, because the issue is quite complex. I will explain by way of example. In the case of an airport runway, a length of 2,010 m. is set as a threshold figure. A situation could arise where, in order to avoid some of the onerous responsibilities involved, some smart person says the runway will only be 2,000 m. long and, therefore, there is no need to go through the process of an EIA. Then, three-quarters of the way through the planning an extra 5 m. or 6 m. will be added. This is done so that a change can be made and a threshold breached without the inconvenience of the EIA.

The change to the lists of project categories transposes a small part of directive 2003/35/EC, commonly known as the Aarhus directive. This directive provides for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and giving development consent to projects.

Transposition of the Aarhus directive will for the most part be achieved through regulations under the European Communities Act 1972 and further amendments to the planning and development regulations. Work is in progress on these regulations. I intend that the remaining implementation measures will be adopted this summer. I commend the amendments to the House.

As they are technical amendments I believe they should have been debated in an Oireachtas committee where we could have had more toing and froing on them. However, despite the Government desire to deal with it that way, people took a different, perhaps suspicious, view. Therefore, as we did not have unanimity, it is appropriate for them to come before both Houses.