Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This amendment is effectively around trying to copper-fasten the climate aspects. We have interlocking sets of environmental protections in our planning piece, some of which are less robust than previously because they involve an intersection between the Departments responsible for planning and heritage, a check and balance that is now gone. We are looking at that set of environmental protections, many of which tend to be looked at in strategic environmental assessment or appropriate assessment. It should be borne in mind that appropriate assessment includes Natura 2000 sites, which are sites of particularly high sensitivity.

My concern relates to the climate aspects, specifically those in section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. Of course, that will now become, we hope, strengthened in the climate Bill in the future. I am simply trying to make sure that there would be an assessment as to the impact the extension might have on fulfilling obligations to reduce emissions under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act.

The Minister of State mentioned publishing things. When we publish this on the local authority's website prior to a consultation, hopefully in a timely manner, there should be clear information as to how duties under section 15 have been considered. I am effectively adding climate obligations alongside some of our heritage obligations regarding Natura 2000 sites and stating this is another one of the pieces around environmental considerations we need to apply at that point.

Amendment No. 17 partially addresses my concern about culminative extensions. To some extent, culminative extensions are addressed in amendments Nos. 13 and 15, which is the idea that where there are extensions, they have to be combined and considered. However, my amendment No. 17 goes a little further in that I suggest that where the development plan has been culminatively extended for a period of more than six months, a strategic environmental assessment should be considered as required. Again, I am quite open to the Minister of State, perhaps in the Dáil, considering whether it is six or eight months. While six months might not seem like a long period of time, it is more than 5% of the time we have remaining to reach our climate targets, for example. If we look to what we have to achieve in emissions reductions by 2030, every six-month period is quite a considerable amount of the time remaining.A six-month period will be 10% of any climate budget, for example. In that context, and given the galloping rate of biodiversity loss we have and that we are at a threshold in many areas, a strategic environmental assessment should be done, whenever a period of more than six months is concerned. That is what is happening with amendment No. 17.

Amendment No. 21 stipulates that the report the chief executive would make to members to inform their decision should include an assessment of the potential impact of an extension under section 15 of the climate action Act. It is reasonable that it be reflected in the chief executive's report.

Amendment No. 40 relates to 2(a) and 2(b). Where a specific concern is identified, the Minister outlined 2(a) and 2(b). The former is the screening provision while the latter is the assessment provision. This is the missing piece. If a strategic environmental assessment is considered to be required, is done on an extension period and tells us something, what happens next? What happens if there is an extension for one year, a strategic environmental assessment is done and it identifies a key issue of environmental concern that could be effected by the 12-month period? This attempts to clarify how that might intersect with the process for making a variation.

The making of a variation is a lengthy process which could create its own delays so I have made a suggestion. The Minister of State and his drafters may consider this issue in the Dáil but I suggest something approximating a preventative variation, whereby it may be decided not to do a full variation on the county development plan but to press pause on a certain form of development or in a certain geographic area that has been identified as a matter of concern by the strategic environmental assessment. It looks to a precautionary principle. It states "shall continue with a variation prohibiting such development in the area where such concerns have been identified." Another of my upcoming amendments, amendment No. 38, also addresses that. That suggests a more detailed version of a variation. Will the Minister of State indicate what happens if the strategic environmental assessment associated with an extension identifies a concern? What do we do? I say this not to cause trouble. I am trying to identify that we might not want to go back to the drawing board on everything but a specific issue may be flagged. What are the steps taken next during the extension period in respect of that concern?