Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will speak first in support of amendment No. 7. I understand a large number of my amendments are grouped together with it. It is appropriate that we listen to local authority members and what they ask. They are not requesting this lightly. They are keenly aware of the process. Local area plans and local development plans are a crucial part of democracy. These are the decisions that people in all parts of the country make about how they want to live together, what their priorities are and the kinds of standards, infrastructure and intersections they want in their communities. These are important plans that reflect the public and which are driven forward by public representatives.

I was shocked at a recent report that proposed rezonings were included in the Dublin city development plan without consultation or engagement with city councillors. This was caught by councillors and is now being addressed. Officials proposed new zonings of land and changes of zoning in a development plan without having engaged with councillors. There is slippage here. Local authority officials engaging with proposed LRDs is not the same as local authority members or plans being specifically represented.

Senator Boyhan and others have tabled later amendments which seek specifically to strengthen the active engagement and role of local authority members. On the local area plans and local development plans, it is fundamental that one of the pieces of information to be brought into a meeting relates to how the proposed development will intersect with and forward the goals in such a plan.

I will make one final point on the power of local authority members. Something happened before the summer that was really regrettable. Senators Black, Ruane and Flynn supported me at the time. When land was being transferred to the Land Development Agency, we had the idea that local authority members would be able to ensure they could set conditionalities in relation to the land and its use. That was an example of a poor decision being made in relation to local authority voice. I hope a better decision is made in this instance.

Amendments Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive, relate to the clause, "such further information as maybe prescribed" by the Minister. I will reserve the right to seek to insert these directly as requirements on every project. For now, however, I have included them in the space where the Minister may prescribe rather than making them be a hard requirement on every project. I may reserve the right to include them as a harder requirement.

Amendment No. 8 provides that the Minister may prescribe information in respect of how a plan will intersect with obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability and how it will have regard to the principles of universal design and Part M regulations, the relevant statutory instrument.

Amendment No. 9 is crucial in relation to our future development and the very ambitious climate targets we need to achieve. If we do not get this right on large-scale residential developments, we will not get it right anywhere and we will not achieve the carbon emission reduction targets we need in this sector. The amendment provides that the Minister pay prescribe information in respect of the estimation of the greenhouse gas emissions that are associated with the building, including the embodied energy released from potential demolition.In the UK, there is increasing pressure to have re-use, refurbishment, reimagining or building on of existing buildings. With the amount of front-loaded carbon emissions that come from demolition, even if a new building is inserted afterwards that is covered in solar panels, it will take 200 or 300 years to make up for the amount of emissions released through demolition. I mention embodied energy and the wider issue of greenhouse gases in that context.

Again, I reserve the right to bring these amendments forward on Report Stage. The Minister will be aware that new regulations on building and climate are coming through from the European Union. It would be unfortunate if we had a large number of residential developments that were given planning permission without due regard to carbon emissions and the tracking of same, and if we tied ourselves in to a lot of development which would not comply with the new directives when they come into place. Similarly, on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we know there needs to be a review of Part M and that it needs to be approved. We also know that the provision on universal design needs to be approved. Again it would be incredibly unfortunate if we carried out large-scale developments that tie us into the old model and that do not reflect new guidance in this area.

Amendment No. 10 is similar to Senator Boyhan's amendment in that it asks that information would be provided on how any proposal would intersect with, "the local development plan or county development plan of the local authority in which the site is located."

Amendment No. 11 inserts a new subsection such that, "in the prescription of information... [there would be] due regard to the public duty on equality and human rights." The public duty on equality and human rights applies to all functions of Government. It is not just about what the Government builds or does itself but it is also about how the Government approaches its engagement with others through procurement and in how it engages in the planning process or the guiding of development through planning and development policy. They also need to reflect the public duty on equality and human rights. One of the more practical ways in which it could be done is that where we have large-scale residential development it would reflect how it is furthering us in our positive and active duty to promote equality and human rights.

Amendment No. 12 is important. We do not want large-scale build-to-rent to necessarily be the approach we get from these large-scale residential developments. It is important that the need to prioritise the delivery of social housing in the State would be reflected. I read about a recent development where the developer said it was happy to engage with local authorities if they wanted to lease or buy units in a manner that was almost after the fact. That vision needs to be there from the beginning, not just in the percentage of social or affordable housing to be built but in the kind of social and affordable housing to be provided. This amendment is specifically on the need to prioritise social housing. For example, it may be that a development that is supported by a local authority and that will provide a large portion of social housing will be given precedence over another.

Amendment No. 13 relates to the clause in subsection (4). Under the new section 32B(4), "The planning authority may, prior to the LRD meeting taking place, consult with any person who may, in the opinion of the planning authority, have information that is relevant for the purposes of the LRD meeting in relation to a proposed development." This amendment is appropriate for the purposes of transparency. Provisions are made for taking notes at the LRD meeting but it would also be appropriate that there would be clarity and notes taken on any pre-consultation that is taking place. Where, prior to an LRD meeting taking place, a planning authority consults with a person who has information relevant to the purposes of the LRD meeting, a written record of that consultation should be taken. That written record should be kept by the planning authority and a copy of same should be placed and kept alongside the other documents related to the application.

It is hard to know who might be consulted with but one of the concerns the public have had is where we have pre-planning meetings where there are two, three or four different developers who have different projects. They have a lengthy meeting and they know about each other's projects as they sometimes cross-reference them in their planning applications. However, the public are given a narrow window in which to engage. This was particularly true during Covid, when meetings were still taking place between three or four different developers who were all having meetings, facilitated by planning authorities in this case, to discuss what they would like to do, to plan it out and to cross-reference and support each other, sometimes in a radical reimagining of an entire urban area. At the same time the public had that small window, which will be even smaller if it is facilitated through An Bord Pleanála rather than through the normal multi-stage planning process, to which to fit their concerns. It may be that under that section the public or local residents groups will be consulted and that is fine. We need to be clear on who is being consulted in advance of the LRD meeting and that if a judicial review is needed at a later stage, this would be one of the documents that sits alongside the minutes of the LRD meeting itself. I may bring an amendment to the effect that we should not have multiple projects discussed at the same LRD meeting because that can sometimes create a groupthink dynamic. I may bring amendments on the LRD meetings themselves.

My last amendment in this large grouping is amendment No. 17. This is an amendment to subsection (3) of the new section 32D. Section 32D allows the Minister to, "Make regulations to provide for such matters of procedure and administration as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the planning authority providing an LRD opinion." I am a little concerned about that. If the LRD opinion is to be meaningful then it cannot be forced and local authorities should not feel under pressure to provide it. I am also concerned that this section will allow the Minister to prescribe the form of the LRD opinion. We do not want local authorities to get squeezed. This is not even the local authority members we are talking about, it is the local authority itself, which is a problem anyway.

My amendment is small but it makes it clear that the Minister shall make "appropriate" regulations. If there are appropriate regulations on good planning then so be it but the regulations made by the Minister cannot simply have, for example, expediency, speed or the fact that the Minister would like an LRD opinion to emerge as the priority. They must be appropriate and reflect the balance of different considerations that are there, including appropriate respect for the planning processes, environmental considerations and so forth. It comes down to what is "necessary or expedient". Under this section the Minister might be making regulations that are not even necessary and that are only expedient. It is concerning that this could become something which can be used to put pressure on planning authorities to deliver an LRD opinion in the form, and perhaps in the timescale, that the Minister requires and wants. We need to be careful about that and that needs to be balanced. That is why my amendment states that the Minister may make "appropriate" regulations.I reserve the right to bring forth an amendment on Report Stage to the effect that "necessary" should be sufficient because if it is necessary for reasons of time, so be it, but "expedient" in itself could create concerns. We know that in many cases, it has been more haste and less speed in regard to some of the provisions that have come forward in planning. We should not replicate mistakes that have led to some of the decisions that were made, in particular in regard to SHDs, not being of the quality that they should be. We should certainly seek to avoid that in this new process.