Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “Insertion of section 32M into Principal Act

32M. Where more than seven successful judicial reviews have been taken in respect of an applicant under section 32A(1), the applicant shall not be eligible to apply for permission under section 32A(1) for a period of 10 years subsequent to the final judicial review.”.

This amendment is about raising the standards in the process, getting better quality plans and better quality developments that actually come to fruition. The amendment provides that where more than seven successful judicial reviews have been taken in respect of an applicant, that applicant should not be eligible to apply for planning permission under this process of large-scale residential development for ten years subsequent to that final judicial review.

In the past people have applied for multiple strategic housing developments and, under the new legislation, may apply repeatedly for large-scale residential planning permission. I think the framing here should be the lost judicial reviews. The amendment refers to where successful reviews have been taken in respect of the applicant. I think the word should be "application" rather than "applicant" in that regard.

If bad quality proposals are being made, it should not only be those in wealthy areas, who can afford to take a judicial review, who get to overturn it. If cookie-cutter or similar developments are proposed in several areas, and have been overturned and found to be of a poor quality with insufficient regard, for example, to a local area development plan or to EU directives and laws, they should not be able to continue to avail of this planning process simply in the hope that not every community would be able to take a judicial review. Not every community will have the knowledge, the information or the finances to be able to challenge it. If it is a bad idea that does not stand up to legal scrutiny in one place, we should not have them trying to bring bad ideas in other places.

I accept the wording on this should be clarified because the second line of my amendment should probably state "in respect of an application under section 32A" rather than "applicant". I will table a revised version on Report Stage.