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

It is very clear there are differences in timeframes to reflect both the stages of the development plan process and the different nature of the development plan as opposed to a process solely focused on the listing of protected structures. These difference do not mean, however, that there is a conflict between them. They simply mean that there are different contexts in which the important function is to be undertaken. When considering the draft development plan, there are multiple matters to be considered, reported on and determined. This requires 34 weeks. The timeframe narrows considerably at the material alterations stage, which requires 14 weeks. Clearly a separate listing process is a single focus exercise, and requires just 12 weeks. These differences are appropriate and justified. All of these processes integrate the protection and safeguarding of our built heritage.

The Senator is talking about the capacity of the elected members to bring forward amendments to the list as opposed to the conflict in the timeframes under the Act. I ask that he would send me on the advice. He might have done so already but I did not see it yet. We will definitely take a look at it. Having been a local authority member myself, I know there has been frustrations where some buildings were included in the protected structure list, and sometimes getting an assurance etc. has been difficult. Some amendments have been justified. There is potential concern about the capacity of members to bring forward additions, and to get it on the table so that a decision can be made. I can look at that aspect of it for the Senator.