Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

When the Seanad discussed the Bill, it provided that a relevant planning authority would be informed of the board's decision only where it decided that a proposed development does not constitute strategic infrastructure and would, therefore, be subject to the normal planning process.

Amendment No. 3 ensures that the board shall serve a copy of its decision concerning whether the development was classed as strategic infrastructure to the relevant planning authority. Members were concerned about whether this would focus on negative rather than positive aspects. As they made their case well, I tabled this amendment because it would be more practical for the planning authority to be informed of the fact that consultations between the board and an applicant in respect of an application on strategic infrastructure had taken place and that an application to the board is likely to be forthcoming in the planning authority's functional area. This is fair notice to the authority and, more important, the councillors, who are the voice of the people, that this is a rising issue on which they should clarify their views.

Amendment No. 4 clarifies that the projects listed in the Seventh Schedule must enter the new strategic consent procedure and the initial screening. Project promoters cannot decide to apply for a normal planning application, which was an ambiguity highlighted by Members during the debate. We do not want to give a private developer a choice of A or B. If one argues that one has a strategic infrastructure development, one must engage in the process of going straight to the board instead of being able to make a choice. In effect, the amendment is that no normal planning application can be made for a Seventh Schedule project, which makes sense.

Amendment No. 5 is a textual amendment to correct an error. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 will put into law the spirit of the debates held in both Houses.