Seanad debates

Monday, 28 June 2021

Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2021: Committee and Remaining Stages

 

10:30 am

Photo of Alice-Mary HigginsAlice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I strongly agree with the importance of local authorities and their members and the fact that they should have more power and more reserved functions. I also very much agree that they should be supported to get independent legal and planning advice. In that sense, I am very happy to support amendment No. 6, which clarifies that it is the members of the local authority making a key decision. However, I strongly oppose amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of lowering the threshold. This is not the normal run of affairs. This is not a matter of being consistent with how we do everything else. All of our planning takes place within a wider framework, much of which has been chipped away. It is in the context of Covid, in an emergency context, where there is a particular health concern and delays that there is a request that there would be extensions. I refer to cases that are not new development plans, variations on development plans or the normal run of events. That is why it requires primary legislation.

I slightly disagree with the statement that it begins and ends with councillors. While they are key, it begins and ends with the people who live in a place. Already, 752 of them in Dublin have given submissions on what they want in the place they live. To delay a development plan is a very significant decision and there will be circumstances where it may be needed, but it is an extremely significant decision because it is not simply a decision of convenience for the elected members or the officials within a local authority, it has an impact on the people.

A lot has changed since the previous development plans were agreed. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities needs to be realised. We have the sustainable development goals which need to be realised. We have a very different environmental context than we had when the previous plan was drawn up, so it is a significant step to delay it. What we have seen in this House and across the country is that people have been very willing to work on a cross-party basis where there is a genuine emergency and public health concerns. It would be the case that one would be able to get a three-quarters majority in respect of a delay in a plan where the health case is made, but a case must be made and it should not be something that can be done simply because of there being a simple majority on a council. It should be a decision that is recognised as exceptional and is made according to a higher bar. In that context, I must oppose the lowering of that bar from a three-quarters majority to a simple majority.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.