Seanad debates

Tuesday, 16 November 2021

Planning and Development (Amendment) (Large-scale Residential Development) Bill 2021: Committee Stage

 

2:30 pm

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

I will deal with amendment No. 34, after which I will deal with the questions asked on section 50A, which is an important part of the legislation. I assure Senator Higgins that the language in subsection (15) is appropriate. It has come through the Office of the Attorney General. The legislation was drafted in consultation with that office and has gone through the parliamentary draftspersons. It is, therefore, completely appropriate. That is an opinion the Senator may not agree with but the language does not in any way infer or raise any type of issue with regard to the Department and the Supreme Court or anything like that.

Amendment No. 34 relates to section 6, which amends section 50A of the Planning and Development Act 2000. There is a good reason for this in that it provides that any party to a planning appeal may apply to have a High Court judicial review judgment referred directly to the Supreme Court, thereby bypassing the Court of Appeal. I explained the reason for that in the context of this Bill.

We are talking about bringing about the streamlining of significant planning applications. At present, if a planning authority, including An Bord Pleanála, or, where relevant, the State, succeeds in defending a judicial review challenge and the High Court certifies that it might be appealed, the appeal goes to the Court of Appeal. If the planning authority and the State succeed again in the Court of Appeal, the applicant or objector can then apply to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, creating another stage in the process. Given that the criteria for allowing an appeal from the High Court in the first place are very similar to the criteria that must be met for an appeal to the Supreme Court, leave to appeal is normally granted by the Supreme Court in these cases and would only be refused in very exceptional circumstances. This means that, notwithstanding having succeeded at the High Court level in defeating a judicial review application, the ultimate resolution of the case may take another two or three years. This is happening in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and this has obvious adverse delay consequences for the proposed development in question.

The amendment to section 50A makes provision for the planning authority and-or the State or any party to the appeal to apply directly to the Supreme Court in the event that the High Court gives an applicant leave for a leapfrog appeal. This would mean that the Supreme Court would then hear the appeal directly, bypassing the Court of Appeal. The introduction of this change, as I have proposed in the Bill, will have the effect of significantly reducing the time for ultimate disposal of litigation if the judicial review is refused. This would enable projects to proceed more expeditiously than would otherwise be the case. The proposal deals with delay and an area where we could see significant delays in the planning process. We will also come back to this matter in the judicial reform review. This is an appropriate Bill in which to put this provision. That is the rationale for this section. I oppose the amendment.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.