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

Senator Grace O'Sullivan's amendment relates to section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which currently provides that planning authorities shall have regard to guidelines issued by the Minister in the performance of all their planning functions such as determining planning applications, enforcement and forward planning. The amendment proposes to insert a new section 28(1D) which states: "Where the Minister is considering issuing or amending guidelines which contain specific planning policy requirements [SPVRs, pursuant to section 28(1C)] they shall be put to public consultation and subsequently, a draft of the guidelines shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas". The amendment further provides "the guidelines shall not be issued or amended as the case may be, until a resolution approving the issuing or amending of the guidelines has been passed by each House".

Section 28(1C) enables the Minister in preparing statutory planning guidelines to distinguish between advisory or general commentary, on the one hand, and specific planning policy requirements to be applied by planning authorities in the performance of their planning functions, which requirements generally flow from wider settled policy, regulatory and operational requirements. I am opposing this amendment because it is impractical and unworkable in a manner that would defeat the purpose of preparing planning guidelines in the first place, which is to give guidance to planning authorities on the many varied and constantly changing types of issues that have to be grappled with on a day to day basis in the performance of their planning functions.

Senator Grace O'Sullivan's amendment would subject all cases of guidelines with SPVR-type content to an elaborate process of political scrutiny as well as public consultation, which would very significantly delay or even frustrate the rapid development and dissemination of advice that local authorities themselves frequently request. Senator Humphreys made the point that people would wait. Likewise, if one were to go through a big long process with this provision, one could have the same delays and they might also result in the putting off of proposed developments. There are pluses and minuses in terms of that space.

The need for such mandatory type guidance arises in many contexts, some being of a highly operational and time-bound nature, as in the frequent guidance produced by my Department in dealing with illegal quarries, under the provisions of section 261A, some years ago, and for which members of Senator's Grace O'Sullivan's party had pressed hard. If the Senator's provisions were enforced at that time, then the rapid development and deployment of guidance with SPVR-type content would have been delayed for months, to the detriment of citizens expecting effective enforcement of illegal quarries. In other cases where SPVR-type provisions were involved, as in the recently updated Department guidelines or where strategic environmental assessment type issues may arise, the Department engages in public consultation before the final guidelines are issued.

Therefore, the approach to developing guidelines and the need for engagement and public consultation on them is, in our view, best determined on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the individual circumstances in question, rather than being bound by a rigid requirement to submit them to an excessively elaborate vetting process before they are issued. It is for this reason that I oppose the amendment.