Emer Currie (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister of State on bringing this colossal Bill to the House today. I thank all of the spokespeople for housing and planning for their work on getting it this far, particularly my colleagues, Senators Cummins and Seery Kearney. I will leave the topline issues to them. I am here to speak on more tactical elements of the legislation.

It is very important that An Bord Pleanála works to timelines. In Dublin West, we currently have two major transport infrastructure projects before An Bord Pleanála, namely, the BusConnects priority bus corridors and the DART+ West project. These are projects which have been worked on for years. People desperately want to see them implemented and for the consideration of An Bord Pleanála to be shared with them. There are various aspects in respect of public consultation and people are waiting to hear back.

I want to raise a couple of things. The first thing will be no surprise to the Minister of State because I have raised it with him already. It is the prevalence of telecommunications masts appearing in communities. Over the past three to four years in Dublin 15, we have seen approximately 30 of the section 254 licences being submitted to Fingal County Council. Fingal County Council put as much consideration and scrutiny into whether or not it felt that such a development was appropriate as it does for other planning applications but it comes through a different vehicle, as an application for a licence. Licensing of applications on public roads through the installation of telecommunications above ground is exempted from public consultation. Basically, one can apply for a licence for a telecommunications mast and it could be from 12 m up to 40 m and it can go through this process, whereas if such an application is on private land and it is over 12 m, it is not seen as exempted development and has to go through the proper planning process, including the site notification and an opportunity for the communities to have their say. What is missing here is the ability for the public to participate in a process whereby a telecommunications mast, which could be 18 m or 20 m in height, could be located in their area.That is not happening at the moment. I am speaking on behalf of quite a few residents of Dublin 15 and we think that is not a fair representation of our planning code. I accept that telecommunications masts and broadband are essential infrastructure. It is important I say that, but at the same time, we should not be taking away the opportunity for communities to have their say. At the moment, when they are approved by Fingal County Council, they are appearing along public roads without any notification whatsoever. I will submit an amendment that allows for public consultation. It does not take away from the fact that it is essential and important infrastructure or change the scrutiny that takes place or the need for it. It simply allows for, in accordance with the Aarhus Convention, the public to have a say. That is important because trust in our planning process is important.

I will touch on another issue that has been mentioned, which is the pay-offs. Under no circumstances can there be room for pay-offs to be used as a tool in our planning process. At the moment they are being used strategically.They are also being used by developers. It was on the front page of The Irish Timesa few weeks ago that Bartra allegedly offered €100,000 to a resident in Dublin 15 to drop the judicial review of the coliving project on the Old Navan Road. That is not acceptable nor is it acceptable that the public can use it as a tool to benefit themselves. That system has to be stopped.

The third issue I will raise is public rights of way. Section 10 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 states that the development plan shall include objectives for the preservation of public rights of way. Commitments have been made by the Minister that there will be no change to that, but it has been watered down. The Bill states:

a development management statement may include objectives for any of the following:

[...]

(g) preserving a specific public right of way....

We are already behind other European countries when it comes to public rights of way. Our green spaces and heritage sites are all incredibly important in our communities and will grow in importance as housing densities increase. We need to make sure we protect access to those areas for those communities. I therefore appeal to the Minister of State to make sure those commitments are honoured and that public rights of way are given the same stature they have had previously. In fact, there is room for more access to them in the future.