Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The proposed measure to temporarily disapply the Part 8 planning approval process to facilitate the accelerated delivery of housing supply is subject to the satisfaction of several conditions: the land is owned by the local authority or another State body; the land is zoned for residential development; the proposed development does not materially convene the development plan or local area plan for the area; the land is serviced or can be serviced with the necessary supporting infrastructure or facilities within the timeframe of the development; and the proposed development is not required to undergo an environmental impact assessment, EIA, under the EIA directive, or an appropriate assessment, AA, under the habitats directive.

Amendment No. 3, in the names of Senators Higgins and Black, proposes, in regard to the servicing of infrastructure and facilities for proposed developments coming within the scope of the new measure, wording referring to land that is serviced or can practically be serviced with the necessary supporting infrastructure and facilities. The insertion of the word "practically", as proposed by Senators, is unnecessary and superfluous, and, therefore, we cannot accept it.

Regarding amendment No. 4, the provisions regarding the proposed temporary exemption from the Part 8 approval process apply only to lands zoned for residential use, whether they are owned by the State authority or not, or whether they are on State authority land exclusively zoned as residential or not. Therefore, if land is zoned as residential, it would come under the measure. If not, it would be excluded from the measure. The zoning of the land for residential use under the local development plan is what determines which lands can be used for this measure and where accelerated delivery of social, affordable and cost-rental accommodation can be provided. If the Senators' amendment was accepted, it could exclude significant parcels of vacant and idle land from utilisation for the provision of much-needed social housing. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.

On amendments Nos. 5 and 6, as tabled by Senators Black and Higgins, I acknowledge that an EIA under the EIA directive and an AA under the habitats directive are core elements of our development consent process and are processes that must be taken into account as required by the EU directive and national legislation before a decision in respect of development consent is taken. The proposals I have outlined in Government amendment No. 43, as tabled for Dáil Committee Stage yesterday, expressly provide that developments can only be developments that do not require an EIA or AA, or both. They must also be carried out in areas zoned for housing development and, further, cannot be involved in the material contravention of the development plan. In effect, all proposed projects will be subject to preliminary EIA and AA screening by the relevant local authority prior to being published and notified to the public. Where it is determined that an EIA or AA, or both, are required in respect of the proposed development arising from the screening process, the project will not be able to avail of the Part 8 exemption and will, therefore, be required to undergo an EIA and AA, as required, as part of the normal Part 8 planning approval process. The EIA and AA screening of proposed projects will, as a matter of course, take into account all the environmental and nature aspects referred to in the amendments of Senators Higgins and Black, including the possible impacts of the proposed project on the environment generally, water and air quality, protected species and nature protection generally.I assure the Senators that full cognisance the EIA and habitats directive requirements will be taken into account by local authorities in their preliminary assessment and screening processes of those projects.

The preliminary EIA and AA screening terminations arrived at by local authorities in respect of proposed projects will be required to be published and made available to the public in the interests of full transparency of the process. In effect, local authorities would have to justify why they have screened out the undertaking of a full EIA and AA in their proposed project before they can proceed with and make a determination available to the public. Furthermore, on the EIA and AA aspects, it should be particularly noted that public consultation and participation are not a requirement of the EIA and habitats directive in respect of preliminary EIA and AA screening of proposed developments.

With regard to the public participation aspects referred to in the Senators' amendments, the proposed provision made in the Part 8 exemption will only apply to development on land that had been zoned for residential use in the local development plan. In addition to the development plan, the zoning of land would have been subject to SCA and AA screening as well as public consultation participation. On this basis, the public would have been afforded the opportunity to participate in the development plan adoption process, including the proposed residential zonings of land owned by local authorities or State agencies that might be available and used for housing developments under the new temporary Part 8 exemption arrangements. In effect, it will have been known beforehand the specific parcels of land owned by local authorities and State agencies that have been zoned for residential will likely be subject of housing developments arising from development plan adoption process. Furthermore, under the proposed arrangements, selected members representing their constituents and the public will also be informed by the chief executive of the housing departments that this is proposed to avail of the Part 8 exemption. As part of the process, they will also be provided with plans and particulars of the proposed development. In addition, the plans and particulars of the proposed projects will be made publicly available. These public notification arrangements will enable elected members to take account of any views their constituents might have to convey them to the chief executive, thereby providing democratic input regarding housing projects being proposed by the chief executive under this measure.

In developing these proposals, we have tried to take into account all the obligations that need to be met under the EU and national legislation. As I have outlined, we are faced with a significant housing supply shortage, particularly in relation to social, affordable and cost rental, and we constantly need to be able to use all possible levers to help address this situation but also in respect of international and EU obligations in this regard. In light of what I have just outlined, I cannot accept these amendments.

With regard to amendments Nos. 7, subsection 3 of the new section 179A provides that the Minister may make regulations in relation to the giving of public notice by the local authority in respect of the forward development, the publication by the local authority of a notice in the local newspaper in respect of the proposed development, and the notification of proposed developments to prescribed bodies. The purpose of this exemption from the Part 8 approval process in respect of the relevant developments is to streamline and to accelerate the delivery of much-needed social, affordable and cost-rental housing on already zoned residential land. Elected members representing their constituents and the general public will be notified of the proposed developments by the chief executive and will be able to comment on the proposals. The provision of a five-week notice period, as proposed by Senators Higgins and Black would undermine and run counter to the streamlining objectives of the proposed measure an extend and delay the period of such developments could be progressed and commenced. Accordingly, I cannot accept these amendments.

In amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, Senators Higgins and Black propose that any procedures that the Minister may regulate by regulations shall be consistent with the procedure set out in Parts X and XAB of the Planning and Development Act relating to EIA and AA under the EIA and habitats directive respectively. These provisions apply generally in respect of all forms of development under the planning Act and will also apply in respect of projects coming under the proposed new measure. There is no need to insert references to Parts X and XAB. If that approach were to be adopted, we would have to insert cross references to Parts X and XAB throughout the Planning and Development Act for every reference to environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment. Accordingly, I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 12 is unnecessary as the proposed Part 8 exemption provisions in respect of social, affordable and cost rental housing cannot come into effect until supplementary regulations providing the detail operation aspects of the new measure are made. These regulations are being advanced by my Department and should be finalised in a matter of weeks. There is no question that supplementary regulations will be made in this connection. Accordingly, I cannot accept this amendment.

With regard to amendment No. 13, the new section 179A(4) proposed by the Government provides that sections 138 to 140, inclusive, of the Local Government Act 2001 shall not apply in respect of development that is intended will be exempt from the Part 8 approval process. In this regard, section 138 requires a chief executive to inform elected members prior to commencing any works of the local authority. Section 139 enables elected members by resolution to instruct the chief executive to not proceed with the works informed under section 138. Section 140 enables the elected members by resolution to instruct the chief executive to undertake any particular act or function it feels is required to undertake the functions of the local authority. These provisions are disapplied in the proposed new section 179A providing for the exemption from the Part 8 planning approval process for qualifying housing developments. If the amendment was accepted, it would completely undermine and negate the new section 179A provisions, such that they would have no effect with the party 8 process effectively remaining in place for the purpose of approving housing developments proposed by the chief executive. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.

In amendment No. 14, the definition of "housing development" that applies to development works and supporting infrastructure and facilities that will come within the scope of the scheme and that can be undertaken for the purposes of providing the necessary housing under the scheme is intended to cover development and infrastructure that is necessary and ancillary to houses being constructed under the provision. The establishment of the construction of primary and secondary roads as referred to in the amendment goes beyond the scope of the housing and development that is covered by this measure. The provision of such roads as a subject of separate process involving the local authority, the National Transport Authority and other key stakeholders. Therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.

Finally, on amendment No. 15, the provision of appropriate cycling and pedestrian infrastructure are among the key considerations taken into account in development of housing schemes. Pedestrian footpaths are standard in all developments and while appropriate cycling infrastructure, including cycle lanes and stands for bicycles, are increasingly being taken into account by local authorities in the assessment of schemes and the determination of planning applications generally, it may not be possible to provide cycle lanes in all housing schemes due to space restrictions and, accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.