Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Section 21 repeals a number of really important provisions in the principal Act and the original measures we had for substitute consent.I will not go through all of them but I signal I may bring forward amendments on Report Stage on the specific different provisions being repealed in this section.

While I will oppose the section which relates to the repeal of a group of provisions of the principal Act, I am conscious some colleagues may agree with me on some of the areas and not on others. This section repeals sections 177k(1B) to (1l) of the principal Act, which are related to criteria for the decision of the board on an application of substitute consent. This section repeals sections 177K(1A)(b) and (c) of the principal Act, which provides that when deciding whether to grant such a consent the board shall not be bound by, take account or otherwise have regard to any decision of the board under section 177D.

A number of areas are covered but one that is relevant to this House is section 177D of the principal Act providing for a decision of the board not to grant substitute consent. Section 177B of the principal Act is the provision covering an application to apply for substitute consent where a notice has been served by a planning authority. That section is important because it provides for a power local authorities had in respect of a development that was in breach and had not met the core environmental and other standards that were needed. That was a crucial power local authorities had to require a developer to seek substitute consent to regularise the position. This measure, along with a long series of decisions made in this House during the past two years, signifies yet another power of local authorities that is being eroded.

Many of us are sick of hearing things local authorities cannot do with respect to vacant properties and dereliction. Where a project has been found not to have met proper development standards or where the developer has not done the right thing in securing proper planning permission or proper consent, the local authority will no longer be in a position to require the developer to seek that consent. There is no start button any more for the local authority to address that.

Bearing in mind some of the projects that would be relevant in this respect, it is not simply related to buildings or developments, it is related to projects such as quarries, which have massive environmental impacts in local areas. A local authority will no longer be given the power to request, seek, suggest or serve a notice requiring a developer to seek consent. That is leaving aside the other powers of local authorities which are also being eroded by this Bill, that is, local authorities are being cut out of the planning process in the meaningful way and role they have with respect to additional developments attached not to the same sites but adjoining sites that get attached to an application for substitute consent. A quarry development is one such example. If subsequent consent is sought for a quarry, an application for a new quarry or a new project can go in beside that application and local authorities will not be, as they usually would be, the key first tier in the planning process. They are losing that power but specifically, under this section, they are losing the power to serve a notice requiring an application for substitute consent to take place. That is why I fundamentally oppose this section.

I reserve the right to bring forward amendments on Report Stage specifically on that aspect. I urge Members to think in the interim period between now and Report Stage and to get answers, which I have still not got, as to why exactly the powers of local authorities to serve a notice requiring an application for substitute consent are being removed. I have not heard why that is being done or even an attempt to explain why it is being done.