Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 9, to delete line 5.

This amendment seeks to delete subsection 9(b), which proposes to delete subsections (1A) to (1D), inclusive, of section 108 of the 2000 Act. I give notice that I may withdraw this amendment in favour of my amendments Nos. 47 and 48, which are more tightly framed and address the same fundamental concern around local government autonomy. One welcome aspect of the Bill is its proposal to repeal of some of the very poor quorum provisions in section 108 of the 2000 Act that led to poor decision-making due to the lax requirements for scrutiny. I refer to the provision allowing for a quorum of two, which has been associated with poor decision-making and a number of decisions that have been challenged.

I also intend to withdraw my amendment No. 42 in favour of amendments Nos. 47 and 48. The latter try to address the issue that while it is good to withdraw the possibility of a quorum of two in favour of a quorum of three, the Government proposal also removes an important safeguard that was previously in the legislation providing for a higher quorum where a decision that is before the board materially contravenes a relevant development plan. A higher standard was applied in such cases because local development plans are a fundamentally important part of our democracy. Amendment No. 48 deals solely with that issue. It seeks to maintain the spirit of the original legislation, which required that in circumstances in which a proposal or development materially contravenes a relevant development plan, there must be a quorum of five. As I said, I welcome the general improvement whereby the quorum will increase from two to three. I am further proposing that the provisions in section 108(1C) of the 2000 Act be retained, which recognised the need for an especially high level of scrutiny and protection where there is a contravention of a development plan. Amendment No. 48 proposes to transfer that principle from the previous legislation into this Bill.

Amendment No. 47 is broader in that it proposes that the higher quorum of five, which should be achievable given we are now talking about a board of 14 members rather than nine, will apply when the decision before the board concerns not just a proposal that would contravene a local development plan but also in respect of large-scale residential developments, strategic infrastructure developments and developments or classes of developments referred to in regulations made under section 176 of the 2000 Act. These are decisions that potentially have greater consequences.We know that some of these kinds of decisions are likely to lead to the need for a judicial review if they are not made correctly. Therefore, I am trying to ensure we have a greater and higher level of scrutiny with regard to these deeply consequential and substantial decisions. That should be possible within the heightened number of the board.

I hope the Minister of State might consider amendments Nos. 47 and 48. I may put forward amendment No. 42. It is a little bit trickier but, effectively, it is trying to ensure subsection (1C) of the original Act that recognises official protection would not be thrown out with subsections (1A), (1B) and (1D), which should be appropriately removed. Amendment No. 42 is simply trying to preserve subsection (1C) whereas amendment No. 48 is trying to translate the spirit of subsection (1C) into the new provisions of the Act. Amendment No. 47 slightly extends that to ensure we address some of the major significant pieces.

I will say one last thing on this area, which is one of the last large groupings I have. It is quite improper, really, that we are not going to get to discuss on Committee and Report Stages the planned amendments in respect of local development plans, zoning and any of those areas that are of huge interest to everybody. I also believe this is of huge interest to many Members of this House, many of whom were elected by local authority members. It is very regrettable that such large and substantial, I would not even say amendments but rather additions, to this Bill are going to be added in the Dáil at the last minute and come back to this House, not for proper Committee Stage and Report Stage scrutiny but solely for Committee Stage scrutiny at the very end of the process. The decision and choice to bypass half of the legislative scrutiny process in terms of this House when bringing these new proposals forward, which will be very significant for local development plans and for local authorities, is very regrettable. My amendment is addressing the only part of local authority policy that comes under the remit of other sections. It is trying to ensure we at least have a high bar on decision-making when we go against a local development plan that has been agreed and democratically decided upon by the population and which is their collective mandate for how they want to live together in their area.