Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 26 seeks to delete the new section 247 of the Bill, which inserts a new section 182AA in the Planning and Development Act 2000. It would provide that section 182A, which governs applications for consent relating to electricity transmission lines, would not apply to developments comprising electricity transmissions, or for the purposes of electricity transmissions, where such development is the subject of an application for permission made to the board under section 291. What was the rationale for this amendment? In what circumstances does the Minister of State envisage it being used?

Amendment No. 27 also amends the new section 247 of the Bill. It proposes to insert a new section 182AA into the Planning and Development Act 2000 by deleting the phrase "or comprising of" from the provision around the disapplication of section 182A. It is does not appear that developments which may include electricity transmission would be able to get this exemption. It is something which could lead to a circumvention of the proper planning process by including aspects of electricity transition transmission within a development.

Amendment No. 28 seeks to delete the proposed section 248, which inserts a new section 278A into the Planning and Development Act 2000 providing that Chapters 2 and 3 of the Act would not apply to strategic infrastructure development which is awaiting development permission. Chapters 2 and 3 include such important processes as obligations to obtain permission and consult the board. Let us be very clear. Strategic infrastructure investment includes data centres. Why is this being included in the Bill? What is the rationale for that? There is no good reason why we should disapply large sections of our planning law from so-called strategic infrastructure, especially when such infrastructure is often carbon intensive.

Amendment No. 29 is an alternative to amendment No. 28. It would nullify the intended effects of the section.

Amendment No. 30 is proposed for same rationale as amendment No. 23.

Amendment No. 31 seeks to amend the proposed amendment to section 280 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 by reducing the timespan for disapplication, as already discussed under amendments Nos. 23 and 30, from five years to one year. I have outlined my concerns with these provisions and want to reduce the timespan of their effect.

Amendment No. 32 is similar to previous amendments and seeks to remove the disapplication to licences.

Amendment No. 33 seeks to amend the proposed amendment to section 287 of the 2000 Act. It would provide that a prospective applicant for permission to carry out developments consisting of port infrastructure to facilitate the deployment, maintenance or operation of offshore renewable energy infrastructure may consult the board in accordance with subsection (1), notwithstanding that the prospective applicant is not the holder of a maritime area consent granted for the occupation of a maritime site for the purposes of such proposed developments. It would provide that a prospective applicant shall consult, rather than may consult, the board and, again, it places an obligation rather having something as an option. In the context of increasing our marine protected areas while also developing renewable energy, we should consider that the board will have an important role to play.

Amendment No. 34 inserts a new paragraph in the amendments to section 287 of the 2000 Act. It would provide that nothing in the subsection will be construed as enabling a prospective applicant for maritime area consent to apply without first meeting their obligation under subsection (1) to consult the board prior to seeking such consent. The amendment is an alternative to amendment No. 33 and is important because we need a provision that ensures the obligation to consult the board before attempting to get maritime area consent remains.

Are Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 in this group?