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

I thank Members for their contribution. I will address Opposition amendments No. 16, 17, 21 and 40. While I understand the intention behind each of them, the Government must reject them.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 21 both seek to require an assessment of the potential impact of an extension on the local authority's achievement of obligations as a relevant body under section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 to be undertaken before a decision is made as to whether or not the duration of an existing development plan can be extended. Amendment No. 16 also seeks to require the planning authority to consider any relevant targets or plans which may be specified under that Act and its obligations in relation to the Act with the determinations and assessments made to be published and made available as part of the public consultation.

Section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 requires that a relevant body, meaning a prescribed or public body, shall in performance of its functions have regard to the most recent approved national mitigation plan, the most recent approved national adaptation framework and approved sectoral adaptation plans, the furtherance of the national transition objective and the objectives of mitigating greenhouse gas omissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State. A planning authority is required under section 11(1A) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to ensure the preparation of a development plan takes into account the statutory obligations of any local authority in the area and any relevant policies or objectives at that time of a Minister or Department, which may include policies and objectives relating to climate action. A planning authority is required under section 10(2)(n) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to include in the development plan an objective relating to the promotion of sustainable settlement and transportation strategies in urban and rural areas, including the promotion of measures to, first, reduce energy demand in response to the likelihood of increases in energy and other costs due to long-term decline in national renewable resources, second, reduce greenhouse gas omissions and, third, address the necessity of adaptation to climate change.These requirements are reinforced further by the commitment by all local authorities by way of the climate action charter to a significant scale up of efforts to deliver effective climate action across the extensive range of functions performed at local authority and regional authority levels, and the requirement for the local authorities to prepare adaptation strategies and climate change action plans. The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill proposes to amend section 10(2)(n) of the 2000 Act to include specific reference to a local authority climate change action plan within the development plan.

However, the provisions set out in this Bill relate to the extension of duration of the existing adopted development plan for a relatively minor period of up to one year, in order to facilitate the preparation of a new development plan for the area, having regard to the disruption to the process caused by Covid-19 restrictions. It would not be reasonable to require an assessment relating to the impact of the temporary extension of the existing plan on obligations under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 or to meet targets set out within the climate action plans. Under the provisions set out in this Bill, it would not be possible to amend or vary existing development plans accordingly. Such matters will be addressed in preparation of the new development plan for the area under the current provisions as set out in the 2000 Act. Therefore, those amendments are rejected.

Amendment No. 17 seeks to require that where an extension of a development plan cumulatively amounts to more than six months, a strategic environmental assessment shall be considered to be required. The process of strategic environmental assessment, SEA, is based on the assessment of the effects of a plan or programme on the environment and it is intrinsically linked to the particular circumstances of the plan or programme itself and the receiving environment. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to make a judgment on the length of time beyond which the extension of duration of an individual plan might require a strategic environmental assessment. The planning authority, as the competent authority for the purposes of the SEA directive, must make the requisite assessment based on the circumstances of the case, taking into account any previous extensions of that plan. The amendment is rejected on that basis.

Where issues arise to a strategic environmental assessment carried out under the provision set out in the Bill, amendment No. 40 seeks that the existing development plan is varied to prohibit such development in the area. With regard to the appropriate assessment and strategic environmental assessment which appeared to be the focus of the amendments, a planning authority may only extend the duration of the existing development plan under the provisions set out in the Bill where it can be satisfied as to the environmental implications. Where this is not possible, it may not extend the duration of the existing plan, and accordingly cannot take additional time to prepare a new development plan.

The provisions set out in the Bill on the development of plans do not relate to the variation of existing development plans which is provided for under section 13 of the 2000 Act. That section does not provide for additional time to be taken to prepare a new development plan, other than the extension of duration to existing plans. As such, the proposed amendment which seeks a variation of the plan is not necessary or appropriate and is rejected.

There was a question about what happens if issues arise with an SEA. The members and executive of a local authority must take those issues into account. That is a key component of public consultation. As a former member of a local authority, I fully appreciate that they do that well.

Senator Burke made a very interesting point about land zoned for other uses that may be suitable for housing. I will just make one point relating to the next six years. Mayo County Council is currently building approximately 355 residential units per annum. Over the next five years it is projected to build 538 per annum which means its current output is about 50% short, based on the lands already zoned. If there are zoned areas that are suitable for housing and have the infrastructure accompanying them, it should not be at a cost of dezoning other residential land. As with any local authority in the State, if we have appropriate land with the infrastructure and everything to support housing, we do not want to dezone other land that has potential, simply to accommodate it.

We do not want to be reinventing the wheel and asking the State to pick up a significant tab for greenfield sites. Some local authorities need to increase their housing output by 250% and some by 100%. Sometimes local authorities will claim they are precluded from zoning more land and they need to zone much more land when they are not close to meeting their current targets on the land already zoned. It is about having zoned land in the appropriate places with the infrastructure available. I accept we have major stress points regarding Irish Water and other bodies delivering the infrastructure needed for many of these developments. Some of them are held back and we are working in the national development plan to do that.

If the Senator is concerned about any particular cases, he should bring them to my attention. I have looked at the result of the Westmeath county development plan - obviously I am not involved because I am precluded, as Minister of State. The initial report back from the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, was a significant letter of concern. The local authority came back and showed concrete evidence in areas where it had to exceed its numbers. It gave strong reasons behind it because some villages had zoned land with good accompanying infrastructure to allow it to be developed. I do not see any issue in that case. It is important to engage with them. If there are any specific issues on it, we can look at it.