Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 7, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “(ia) include observations made by the Office of the Planning Regulator,”.

Amendment No. 26 suggests that the chief executive's report that is given to local authority members before they determine whether to provide an extension to the period of a development plan would include observations made by the Office of the Planning Regulator. There is an obligation in that regard. There is a mention in the Bill of the observations being invited from the Office of the Planning Regulator. I have tabled amendments later in the Bill that specify and clarify that the duties of the Planning Regulator should apply to these extensions, as they do to normal development plans and to variations of them. The key point is that the Office of the Planning Regulator goes back to the environmental factors again, in particular in terms of the climate provisions, where there is a specific responsibility envisaged regarding the Office of the Planning Regulator having a key assessment of matters under section 10(n), some of which we have discussed.

I acknowledge that there are positive things happening. I include the Bill being introduced later this evening by Senator O'Reilly and others, the Planning and Development (Solar Panels for Public Buildings, Schools, Homes and Other Premises) (Amendment) Bill 2021. Those are examples of the point I was making about this not being simply preventative; it is also to ensure that opportunities are seized. If the Office of the Planning Regulator is setting out that vision and is contributing to ensuring that, collectively, we are making the most of each planning opportunity in respect of our climate obligations, it would be appropriate that such observations would be included in the chief executive's report that is given to local authority members.

Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 relate to amendment No. 28. I am very concerned at what may be an inadvertent flaw or drafting error in the Bill, which is that at the moment on page 7 we have a process that is set out whereby four weeks is provided for public observations and the chief executive is to prepare a report. I have made a number of suggestions on elements I think should be in the report. My concern is that in section 11D(6) on page 7: "In considering whether to extend the duration of the existing development plan, the members of the planning authority shall be restricted to considering— (a) the reasons referred to in subsection (1) or (2)". They are restricted to only the reasons set out that a further extension might be wanted, rather than a positive statement that they need more time for this or that, and the very baseline measure of whether it will have "significant effects on the environment or a significant effect on a European site, or both, or adverse effects on the integrity of a European site." Those are the Natura 2000, the highest level sites. That is a very narrow window. Inadvertently, it does not allow the members of a local authority to consider what the public told them. It does not allow for them to consider the observations and submissions that the public may have made under subsection (4) if, for example, there is a strong public concern or urgency on a certain aspect or a strong public opinion on if and for how long an extension should be allowed. Also, it does not allow for them to consider any other matters that might be in the report of the chief executive.

The Minister is literally narrowing the items on the agenda for consideration by the local authority to those two items. That is putting us into a slight danger zone in respect of the public consultation because if we have public observations and public submissions being made, it is a reasonable expectation for people that those observations and submissions would be considered when a decision is being made. The reason I asked about the grouping was that I tried to address this through amendment No. 28, which states "shall consider" which would allow for more discussion rather than stating "shall be restricted to considering—" two things and it does not limit the discussion in terms of anything else being considered.

Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 as a combination specifically include "observations and submissions made" and "the report of the chief executive". I am concerned that the wording would create problems in terms of access to input on decision-making. Perhaps the Minister of State would indicate if he might be able to accept any of those amendments.