Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Regarding the amendments in group 2, then, these relate to the provisions in the Planning and Development Acts and the idea of the ministerial directions regarding statutory plans. I will be brief. As part of a topic we will discuss in more detail later, namely, what has been an extraordinary, relentless and systematic removal and diminution of power at local level, one of the major starting points in that regard was when these ministerial directions were brought in by the former Minister, Eoghan Murphy. Those regulations concerned building density, about that aspect being trumped by interpretations that local authorities had to have regard to. We then moved to the point where the new local statutory plans had to comply and show consistency with those ministerial directions.

I am not going to dwell on the local development plans at great length here. I will highlight the relationship between central government, the local development plans and local plan-making in general. The role of ministerial directions in respect of local planning and decision-making has been a concerning one because it has involved matters of extreme concern in respect of the balance of powers and judicial freedom. I will not speak at length to those aspects but I reiterate that these are 48 pages of amendments. These are extensive amendments. This House should be concerned about them because they also relate to the relationship between local authorities, local development plans and ministerial directions. These amendments should have been afforded proper scrutiny and they should have been part of pre-legislative scrutiny. I will leave my comments on these amendments there. I will speak to my Report Stage amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the next grouping of amendments concerned with flexibility.