Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will speak to my amendments Nos. 1 and 2. The Minister of State used the word "flexibility". His own speech gives an example of how ambiguous that can be. He has described how he told us he was going to do something and that we should not be surprised by what is being done when it is being done very suddenly and quickly. However, he did not tell us what he was going to do, just that he would be making changes. I want to be clear for the record that all 48 pages of these amendments were published last Friday. It is an example of the flexibility we are now being asked to give to developers in the planning process. They will have a discussion about how they are going to mix things up a little. It is a flexible planning application for flexible planning permission and we will see how it turns out. They will explain further down the line why they decided to make the choices they made. In what we have seen in the legislative process and what is happening in the planning process, we are seeing a mirroring of a disregard for democracy and transparency.

I will come to each of my amendments, but they come to the same pieces, which are that the Government is consistently seeking to tweak and change the planning process so it gives favourability and flexibility to developers and protects them in every way. We already know about the financial de-risking for developers that is happening now. Here we have the planning process itself being made a little blurry and easier for the developers so they can apply for and have special meetings about these flexible planning permissions. Meanwhile, we are going to come to another section in which we are trying to tie the hands of the public behind their backs in their participation in the planning process. It appears to be a constant process of trying to put a finger on the balance of the scales of justice against the public and giving a little boost to those seeking development. Let us be clear on some of the amendments and on what it is proposed they can do. There is the large-scale residential developments theme, subsequent to the strategic housing developments where we were told that local authorities were the big problem and we needed to fast-track things. They failed to deliver proper housing and were acknowledged as a failure. When they were brought forward in 2017, we said they would not work because we said the wrong problems were being identified.

The developers can request meetings with the planners. What are referred to as design envelope changes in planning are being brought forward not just in areas where, for example, there is technology that is changing very substantially over a speedy period of time, and that case has been made previously such as in some of the debate that occurred on maritime area technologies and those changes, but the Bill is also bringing forward this flexibility in the planning application process to ordinary planning applications, large-scale residential developments, strategic infrastructure and marine development. It is bringing it into the entire planning process. There has been no adequate explanation of exactly why we need this flexibility in ordinary planning applications or planning applications for large-scale residential development.

Apart from the legal issues, the issues that have been identified in the Derryadd and Bord na Móna Powergen cases could have been addressed differently because those are issues that are specific where there are questions regarding technologies. There is a case that can be made there for doing something differently, but there are more effective ways to do it. Serious legal concerns have been raised on assessment and participation rights and on the EU and Aarhus obligations. The measures are regressive in terms of the participation rights in the planning system, which is a very serious matter because now the public are only getting to give their opinion when they do not know what they are giving their opinion on. They are giving their opinion on a flexible planning application, which may change and has a series of variables in place, so it is not clear what the public are commenting on. The changes will also have a profound effect on the planning system by compromising clarity on what is going to be developed and when, at a time when we need more clarity on the delivery of homes for people. There is a danger they will incentivise developers to delay until they can maximise profits and reduce costs, while continuing to lobby for further changes in planning legislation and building regulations to their advantage.

Another set of measures we were told would somehow shift the logjam but, in fact, incentivised speculation was when we were told to lower standards in different areas, that we needed to be more flexible about the standards of apartments and so forth and that this would get things built. It meant many planning applications that secured planning permission did not get built.People saw they could speculate a little further, could possibly squeeze a few more concessions from the Government and, therefore, squeeze a little more from the value of their investment. The Minister of State indicated last night that his officials have been working on this for some time. If that is the case, why has there not been a briefing on it? Why have these proposals not been presented in detail? Why are we not seeing the case being made for this flexibility in ordinary planning permissions for large-scale residential development? I note the briefing provided to the Oireachtas joint committee is not the same as pre-legislative scrutiny of measures. That deals with amendments Nos. 1 and 2.

I will move to amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive. Amendment No. 3 seeks the deletion of the section inserting sections 37CC and 37CE into the planning Act. These sections set out details regarding the pre-application process for persons who want to submit a flexible application. I could detail what the measures do in respect of a person who intends to apply for planning permission, but I will point to some of the wider issues. Section 37CC is around detailing the request for a meeting to get an opinion. I will note that the pre-meeting, where matters can be sorted out a little in advance, is again part of the head start we give to developers, while increasing the costs and narrowing the window for those who wish to object. I also note it mirrors one of the problems in the Bill as a whole because, to be clear, this was a bad Bill before the Government added 48 pages of amendments. That Bill had a provision for a special pre-meeting for those who have a development that does not have proper environmental scrutiny and so forth to see if they want to apply for substitute consent or not. It fits a dynamic of very cosy meetings in advance, which means the public are presented with a short window to engage and, once these measures go in, an unclear development planning application on which they will comment.

Amendment No. 11 outlines the details of the pre-application process. It seeks the deletion of section 37 of the Bill, which inserts new sections 182F to 182H into the principal Act. These new sections set out the details regarding the pre-application process for persons who want to have a flexible planning application. A person who intends to apply for approval under section 182B may also request a meeting - I will not go through section 182G again - in respect of the board issuing an opinion or notification as to whether "it is appropriate that the proposed application be made and decided before the prospective applicant has confirmed ... [certain] details".

Amendment No. 12 seeks the deletion of section 38 of the Bill, which amends section 246 of the principal Act, providing the Minister with the power to prescribe fees by way of regulations. Amendment No. 13 relates to section 39 of the Act, which is the Fifth Schedule to the Bill, and the conditions that require the developer to supply actual details prior to commencement. To be clear, the flexible planning application comes in when we say these are the areas where we are not sure exactly how we will do it yet. The board then states this is a set of conditions about how applicants might think about that, and applicants then notify the board about what they have actually decided in the end. It is a conversation that makes the participation of the public much more difficult.

Is amendment No. 6 in this group?