Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have already highlighted many of the issues of concern.

On section 13, many of the amendments regarding section 177E of principal Act are matters of concern, including the mechanism that allows for pre-application consultations with the board on proposed substitute constitute applications. There is also a measure, which is a key change, where there would no longer be a need to apply for leave to seek substitute consent before entering the process. Again, we go from a situation whereby one has the courts as a filter in terms of whether applications met extraordinary criteria and so forth in terms of being allowed to apply for substitute consent. Instead, one now has a situation whereby developers can meet the board before having to take a risk. When the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage spoke to us he mentioned this huge risk that developers take in seeking substitute consent. In fact, developers do not have to take that risk because before doing so they get to have a pre-application consultation with the board, although that is at the discretion of the board, on the proposed application. Developers get a sense of what might happen before taking the step to seek substitute consent. This is all in the context of another mechanism whereby local authorities could require an application for substitute consent. Again, the option whereby the substitute consent process could be initiated by a local authority has been removed. The initiation for the substitute consent process now sits with the developer but the developer can have a pre-meeting to get a sense of how things might be before taking a risk. I am unclear about the following. If we have situations where there are improper developments whereby a developer does not seek substitute consent, for example, if there is a pre-meeting with the board following which a developer chooses not to seek substitute consent, then it is not clear what mechanisms kick into place. What is the process in those situations? Do we move towards removal or demolition at that point if we are not trying to find a way forward in terms of substitute consent?

I am concerned about the amendments to section 177E in section 13. I am also concerned about the gaps in the process in terms of a lack of public mechanisms to initiate requirements for substitute consent. I do not know whether the Minister of State can inform me about what will be addressed or whether this will be addressed elsewhere. It is in that context that I oppose section 13.