Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The amendment would have the effect of inserting a requirement in the planning code that planning applications be refused where the development proposed would be contrary to the water framework directive because it might cause a deterioration of water quality or the status of a water body and thereby jeopardise attainment of good chemical status of water, as required under the directive. While the amendment is genuinely well-intentioned, I oppose it because the water framework directive 2000/60/EC is already given general effect in section 1A of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. More specifically, the directive is also given effect in the context of the forward planning functions of planning authorities by way of section 10(2)(cb) of the principal Act, as amended, relating to the content of development plans.

I draw the Senator's attention to the commitment given by the Department in the publication, Public Consultation on the River Basin Management Plan for Ireland, 2018 to 2021, to prepare a high-level guidance document for planning authorities on the relationship between physical planning and river basin management planning for the purpose of the development of river basin management plans under the water framework directive. I will publish the river basin management plan for Ireland later this year.

Given the integration of the requirements of the water framework directive at a more fundamental level in the planning Act, it is unnecessary at this time to make this amendment. It would also be premature to do so pending the completion of my Department's work on the river basin management planning guidance document to which I referred. As well as receipt of feedback and guidance on this area from the European Commission, the recent judgment in case C-461/13 is still being closely examined by the Commission and member states as to its implications and the Department and Government are engaging in this process. The discussions are not yet complete.

While I understand the objective the Senator is trying to achieve, the amendment is slightly premature and unnecessary given that negotiations following the recent judgment have not yet concluded. I ask the Senator to hold off on the amendment. Other planning legislation will be introduced in the Houses later in this year and the Senator may wish to reintroduce an amendment at that point. In our view, the Department will be able to address the matter the Senator raises in a different manner.