Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Warfield and colleagues for tabling the amendment. It gives us an opportunity to explain this in a little more detail. There is no question but that this is about striking a balance.

I would like to clarify what amendments we are proposing regarding further information requests. The ability to request further information regarding an LRD application and appeal were not provided for under the SHD legislation. There was no ability to do that, so we are bringing that back in.

I propose to publish regulations clarifying when it is appropriate to request further information, as well as limiting the number of times that can be done. That is important and I will explain why, in respect of when further information requests can be sought. The pre-application consultation period is important. It is more formal. It is taking one of the very good things from SHD and perhaps shrinking it a bit.

The time involved is four weeks. If people know what information they have and request a pre-planning meeting with the local authority, it will accede to that request within four weeks. That meeting is held and there is then a detailed response to what was brought forward in the pre-planning process four weeks after that. The total time involved for the application and anything else is eight weeks, allowing for public submissions. It is a much tighter process with very strict timelines around it.

We will have a much better pre-application stage. We should reduce the number of local authority requests for further information. I have seen, as I am sure have the Senators, instances where further information or clarifications of further information have been sought eight, nine or ten times. That has been documented. That delays the streamlined delivery of good developments. We will make sure they are good because planners in local authorities will be involved at the very start of a robust pre-planning stage.

I want to give Senators an idea of the limitations I am considering. The limitations on further information would purely relate to matters that would reasonably have been expected to have been included in applications generally or as a result of issues raised or discussed as part of the pre-application consultation stage. It is not my intention to limit further information altogether.It will be possible to address matters raised by third parties during the five-week public consultation stage of a planning application, material issues which legitimately could not have been foreseen or raised at a pre-application stage, material errors in documentation or faults or deficiencies in environmental impact assessments or Natura impact statements, or other relevant environmental documentation, among other things, by way of further information, as deemed appropriate. That is right. The further information requirements seek to strike a balance between clarifying issues, where necessary, without reverting to a process whereby further information was, effectively, used by applicants as almost a second stage of the planning application process or sometimes by the local authorities, as Senator Casey mentioned, to simply buy more time to move it through the system. I believe the conditions should be used more extensively and we can deal with many things that fall under "further information" through the planning conditions.

We are bringing in these new arrangements to provide for better and more streamlined planning to provide homes for our people. I do not want us to revert to the situation that pertained in the case of previous strategic housing developments, where planning authorities overly used the further information process, resulting in significant delays. This is trying to address that issue. I am, therefore, proposing in the Bill that while some flexibility should be given to planning authorities on further information requests, and I will do that, it should be limited to specific scenarios in order to provide greater certainty around planning timelines under these new arrangements. These planning timelines must be met. I am comfortable with the further information provisions in the Bill. It is balanced and reasonable. We will also publish the regulations. Senator Boyhan asked why we do this by way of regulation. We do that because should there be some changes required in the future, it is a much more flexible and efficient way of making those changes. I believe in a proper and detailed pre-application stage that details what is needed through engagement with the planning authority at an early stage. If issues arise where further information is genuinely required, it will be permitted. I am not in a position to accept the amendment. I hope I have explained the thrust of my thinking on the issue.