Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, to delete lines 3 to 9.

This amendment would delete section 3(b) of this Bill, which would amend section 34(12A) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The Government proposes in subsection (12A) the substitution of “an application in respect of the following development shall be deemed not to have required, and not to require, a determination as to whether an environmental impact assessment is required” for the current wording, which is that “if an application for permission had been made in respect of the following development before it was commenced, the application shall be deemed not to have required a determination referred to at subsection (12)(b)”.

My concern is that, at the moment, there is within the principal Act a specification that a planning authority should be refusing to consider an application to retain unauthorised development of land, where the authority decides that if an application for permission had been made in respect of the development concerned before it was commenced, that application would have required that either an environmental impact assessment or a determination as to whether an environmental impact assessment was required, or that an appropriate assessment or a determination as to whether an appropriate assessment was required. Effectively, at the moment, one cannot give this kind of retrospective permission in situations where there would have been a requirement for a determination on an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment, or, indeed, an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment.

The concern is that the proposed changes would mean one was implying they were deemed not to have required an assessment. My amendment would effectively remove the change. However, the Government could also bring a more moderate change, for example, that one should not be giving retrospective consent where, if a determination had been conducted, it would have been found to require an environmental impact assessment. Effectively, my amendment would remove the provision. I put it to the Minister that we certainly should not have a situation where, if a determination had been carried out, it would have been found to have an environmental impact assessment as a requirement. There certainly should not be a situation where such a project would be getting substitute consent or be eligible for substitute consent.

This goes to the core of what we will be discussing today, which is that there are reasons we have these processes in terms of the process and in terms of determining whether or not an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment is required and then, not in many cases but in some cases, in situations where it will be determined that they are required. What we certainly should not have is a situation where the mechanisms outlined in this Bill effectively provide a way around that process. That is the concern at the core of my amendment. Effectively, I am opposing the proposed language being inserted in this section 3(b) by the Government.