Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 9, to delete lines 19 to 27.

This amendment seeks to delete page 9, lines 19 to 27. Those lines provide:

[...] the planning authority concerned shall, notwithstanding section 34(2)(a), be restricted in its determination of the application, other than in respect of any assessment of the effects of the proposed development on the environment, to considering the modifications proposed by the applicant to the previously permitted development and for the purposes of determining such an application [...]

Amendment No. 30 relates to existing planning permissions that are still in the process.It suggests the planning authority would be restricted in its determination to consider modifications proposed to a previously permitted development except in regard to the effect of the proposed development on the environment, which, in fairness, is because there is a lot of EU law on this. If planning permission for a development is resubmitted to be renewed, it is not appropriate that in determining the application the planning authority is constrained in being able to consider only the impact on the environment or the modifications in the renewed application. Other requirements may have emerged, such as major demographic change in the area or major changes in areas such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is unduly restrictive on planning authorities. It means they cannot give proper, holistic or fully thoughtful consideration to their determination of renewed applications.

Amendment No. 31 seeks to insert criteria in the determination of an application by a planning authority. I am coming back to the issue of disability again and again. It is like with just transition. A massive change has occurred that affects 14% of the population who have a disability. They have rights under new law. We will have the optional protocol soon which will, I hope, in the next six months allow them to vindicate these rights and demand that they be reflected. Obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities should be taken very seriously. Other issues may have arisen as part of an area development planning process. For example, the original planning permission may have been granted before the new local area development plan was produced. If there is a revision or a modified planning application, it should be reflected. The modifications proposed to a previously permitted development should reflect such factors as may have emerged during a new planning development process that happened in the interim.

Amendment No. 36 proposes a new subsection (7). I suggest that subsection (7) in section 247 of the principal Act be deleted. It provides that no consultation would be required where a planning authority receives a request under the section in respect of a proposed development where permission has already been granted and further development is proposed that is substantially the same as the permitted development, and the nature, scale and effect of any alterations are not such that require a consultation process to be repeated. I am concerned that planning permission having been given once to a project should not mean bypassing the consultation process. I am concerned at anything that bypasses the consultation process. It may be more of the same but more of the same can make a difference. The considerations and factors that may be at play may have changed in the interim period. I am concerned about the bypassing of consultation. What people agree to for 100 units may be different from what consultation is required for 150 or 200 units.

Amendment No. 37 seeks to delete the proposed subsection (8) in section 247 of the principal Act. This subsection I propose to delete provides that a determination under subsection (7) would not prejudice the performance of the planning authority in its function and may not be used in the formal planning process or legal proceedings. It is a little bit ambiguous to say it cannot be used in legal proceedings. I am not sure what is intended by this. Could a decision that has a real impact be constrained from being used in the planning process? It is not clear whether it reflects judicial review or judicial challenge. Perhaps the Minister will clarify. I am asking for clarification about what is happening with subsection (8). It is not clear to me. I am concerned that we may have a bit of a backdoor in subsections (7) and (8) whereby planning permission may be sought for one thing and a lot of add-ons might happen that might not be subject to proper consultation, a proper formal planning process or legal proceedings. Is it the case they cannot be used as precedent? Is this what is intended? Is it the case they cannot be challenged? It is not clear. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the policy intent of subsection (8).