Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will read out a technical response to the amendments first and then I will comment on a few of the issues that were raised. I genuinely appreciate the engagement of the House and Senators' connection with this Bill. I know many of the issues raised are genuine and Senators are well-meaning. I fully understand that.

I will address amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, as they have been grouped together by the Bills Office. These amendments each seek, by various means, to instigate the holding by the planning authority of a mandatory public meeting at this stage of the development plan preparation process. More specifically, amendments Nos. 1 and 3 propose that the provisions only apply during limited circumstances, such as the emergency period. Amendment No. 5 proposes that written submissions from the public shall be online submissions.While I understand the intention behind the proposed changes, I must reject these amendments. Section 11(3) of the Act relates to the initial stage of the development plan preparation process. It is conducted before a pre-draft or draft plan has been prepared and can be described as the stage when the initial relevant issues and topics are identified for further, more detailed consideration in the subsequent planning process. For this initial strategic stage, planning authorities therefore spend substantial effort preparing and publishing written issues, documents, paper, reports, exhibition and information material, videos and questionnaires and so on in order to assist the public in preparing their submissions on the strategic planning issues of concern.

In the traditional public meeting format, not everyone wishes to speak and often those who do may seek to dominate the meeting with specific interest issues only, despite the fact that section 11(3) of the Act is intended to focus on the strategic, not the specific. It is also the case that there is no mechanism or obligation for what is said at a public meeting to be taken on board, as submissions need to be made in writing, through completing a questionnaire or some form of feedback. Increasingly, local authorities are moving to an online platform for public display of information, with presentations that may be pre-recorded, as well as the capacity for online receipt of written submissions. This has facilitated citizens to participate in processes from their own homes and at a time of their choosing. It also serves to generate written submissions that can be properly recorded and reviewed by the planning authority. This facilitates those who may be otherwise excluded from attending a public meeting or for whom it may be inconvenient as a result of disability, caring responsibilities, employment or some other commitment. While every effort is made to hold multiple meetings at different times of the day, evening and week in accessible venues to ensure as many people as possible have the opportunity to attend, this can dilute what already tends to be a limited audience to consider the pre-draft plan issues at this stage of the development plan process.

Experience has been that people are more willing to engage remotely with online processes, and such experience has accelerated as a result of Covid-19 considerations. Throughout the Covid-19 period, my officials have been engaging directly with senior planning staff of the planning authorities on keeping the planning system open and operational, in particular through an ongoing dialogue with the sub-committee of the County and City Managers Association. Through this forum, local authorities highlighted the difficulties in conducting a public meeting as required by section 11(3)(b) of the Planning and Development Act during the public health restrictions of the pandemic. In addition, they provided their experience of the limited attendance and value of the traditional public meeting, especially at the early strategic issue stage of the development plan preparation process, as is the case with section 11(3)(b). Greater levels of valuable public engagement were considered to be derived from written and digital submissions, where citizens can examine prepared material and information in their own time and submit issues and concerns in detail accordingly. It is, therefore, considered appropriate that it should be an option for some or all of the early public consultation stage of the development plan process to be facilitated to take place either online or in person and to extend this beyond the current Covid-19 pandemic, with such decisions to be made locally. This does not rule out holding a public meeting in person or a combination of a meeting and an online engagement. Rather, it allows for greater focus, efficiency and flexibility to encourage increased public participation in the development plan process.

Amendment No. 5, tabled by Senator Higgins, proposes to insert a wording which would have the effect that submissions in writing from members of the public would be treated distinctly from online submissions from same, with respect to the proposed development plan. As it stands, the provision simply invites submissions in writing from the public and this could include either online written submissions or physical written submissions, submitted by post or in person. I cannot accept the amendment, as it is unnecessary and may also introduce doubt elsewhere in the Planning and Development Act that online submissions may not be possible wherever submissions in writing from the public are invited regarding development planning and where the term "online" is currently not present.

I have had the privilege to lead my own local authority as cathaoirleach in 2013 and 2014, when we finalised the county development plan process. Preceding that, I was chair of our area committee in a time before the current reforms. The cornerstone and bedrock of my local authority and in my experience and interaction with the executive was public consultation, including meetings throughout each stage of the development plan. I remember going out to small towns and villages, engaging with people on local area plans and the planners going there one to one, explaining in detail all the provisions of the county development plan. It may come as a surprise to Members who have raised the public engagement issues in terms of the meetings that take place at each stage throughout the current development plan process that none of these are specifically required in regulations. They happen because the local authorities want to engage with their communities and because the executive and local authority members want the best for their communities. They want to hear people's views, take them into consideration and chart a way forward which will make our local areas better. Central to that is public engagement and that has always been the place, in my experience, of local democracy.

I will mention briefly a few points Senators have raised. I take each one of them as a genuine point. A pre-draft process is very general and strategic. Senator Keogan mentioned the field that generated the public meeting and the matrix or zoning that was specifically required and we are precluded from discussing micro-items like that at a pre-draft stage. Why? I go back to Senator Boyhan and the report he mentioned in terms of the issues contained in it. One of the words he read was "manipulation". What happened decades ago at these meetings was that suggestions were made for fields or areas to be zoned which were not appropriate, and that is why legislation was passed in 2010 that no one is allowed to influence the micromanagement of our area at these meetings. That is why significant safeguards had to be introduced at that time. This meeting is about high-level issues. Is the area, community or county in question going to grow over the next seven years? What path should it take? It is not about micro-issues. In terms of micro-issues when we get the plan together, public engagement is central every step of the way, from our executive down to our councillors, working together to ensure the public is brought on board.

I see what councillors do in terms of Cór na nÓg and such issues, trying to get young people engaged in the development planning process, which is key. They reach out to schools and youth centres. Councillors do that well and I compliment them on that. I have reached out to the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, to have a quarterly meeting with it during my term as Minister of State to ensure that, if our councillors have any issues regarding this, they are pointed out to me earlier so I can respond to them.

While I accept and understand thebona fidesof some of the points that are made, I point out that the requirement is there. There will be a public meeting, be it online or in person. We need to be careful here. There is an absolute willingness by the local authority system and the executive to engage with the public at all stages of the plan. That is not required in legislation or regulation. It happens because they want to do it.In my experience, I have never seen any reluctance on the part of the local authority sector to engage with that.

We are trying to make it easier for people. Other Senators articulated in the previous debate how participation can increase when it is online. For a local community, it is about whether the local field will be zoned open space, recreational, educational or suitable for residential. That is where communities get into the minutiae of trying to assess what is best for their communities. Local authorities engage in this at that point.

Senator Moynihan and others referred to maps and zoning matrices. None of this is at the pre-draft stage because there is no plan. It is at the very start. It is the inception and the authorisation to begin the process of drafting the plan. We need to be clear on that.

In my term as Minister of State, I do not want to take power away from local government. I want to give it more power. That is why we are progressing with the mayoral election in Limerick. That is why I signed a submission recently to start off the process of engagement to reform our local councils and provide the supports councillors require. Going from local authority to local authority, I know the deficits in some areas. I want to give councillors back power to address this.

I have heard the views expressed. I do not believe the provisions in question water down democracy or public participation. If anything, they assist them.