Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Senators for their engagement on Second Stage. A wide range of topics were raised. The past 25 years have seen a rapid and exponential change in our country. Our thriving economy and successful education system present challenges in terms of housing and transport demand and the significant infrastructure requirements associated with it, as do the new sports and healthcare facilities needed to meet our growing population.

There is a balance required of our planning system. We have talked about the importance of public participation in the planning system. The Bill provides key provisions in that regard. Details of how submissions and appeals are processed will be set out in the regulations. We must ensure we have a more robust system. It is about weighing up complex information and assessing whether a decision that may benefit one goal might adversely affect another. Striking that balance is really important. It is also about arriving at decisions in a clear, informed and timely manner. Development must take place, whether in housing, healthcare, schools or roads. We must factor environmental concerns into the decision-making process and considerations. We have both a legal and moral imperative to do so. The answer is not to take no decision at all or to take such a long time arriving at a decision as to render the process defunct. We must make sufficient changes.

As noted by speakers on all sides of the House, this is the third largest Bill in the history of the State. It is more than two decades since our planning and development legislation has been significantly reformed. In this Bill, we are trying to deliver more clarity, consistency and confidence in the system through a planning system that is more transparent as well as more effective. We want to deliver a system in which, regardless of the final outcome, the processes that lead to the decision-making are considered fair, inclusive and timely.

The introduction of statutory timelines across all consenting processes will mark a step change in planning certainty. This ambition has been matched by unprecedented investment of resources in An Bord Pleanála, accompanied by the most comprehensive governance restructure since its inception almost half a century ago. Concerns have been expressed regarding the statutory timelines. The reform of the board's organisational structure includes the appointment of planning commissioners, which is completely new. We will have a separate corporate structure and a governing body. These three pillars - planning commissioners, a separate corporate structure and a governing body - are really important to ensure we have the right reform within the An Bord Pleanála system. Every tier of the planning system, from the national planning framework to development plans and more specialised plans for local areas, has been reviewed and refined to ensure consistent alignment throughout.

Senator Boyhan referred to comments by a former Chief Justice. It is important to note that those comments related to the draft Bill. The legislation has been subject to hundreds of hours of committee scrutiny. We have tabled a huge number of amendments. We now have a more adaptable and agile Bill than the one in respect of which those comments were made. The final Bill that is before us today is fit for purpose.

The section 28 guidelines will be replaced over time by national planning statements, which will be approved by the Government following consultation with the relevant stakeholders. Development plans have a ten-year lifespan and will be more strategic in nature, with a five-year implementation review by local councillors. It is really important that they be informed by accurate and reliable data from the census. The processes and parameters of judicial review, an important process in its own right, have been clarified and refined to expedite the process, while maintaining and, indeed, improving access to justice through the introduction of the environmental legal cost financial assistance mechanism. That mechanism will be available to contribute to the costs of such cases and will include the introduction of a scale of fees to regulate overall costs.

I turn to some of the specific issues raised during the debate. A number of Senators argued that the Bill is being rushed through, with not enough time allocated for debate, whether on Committee Stage or otherwise. The Bill has in no way been rushed. As I said, it has gone through a lengthy pre-legislative scrutiny consultation process. It is the culmination of more than three years of work involving the Office of the Attorney General, a range of Departments and a wide range of stakeholders from across the planning sector. The stakeholders were involved in the planning advisory forum and gave careful consideration to the policies and reforms contained in the Bill. It is our intention to have a respectable and robust debate in this House on Committee Stage and to ensure any amendments that are brought forward are properly debated. That is only right with a Bill of this significance.

There has been discussion on the proposal to extend development plans to ten years. Concerns were expressed that the devolution of powers may undermine the role of elected local authority members. The ten-year lifespan for development plans will create a longer period for plan delivery than the current six-year cycle, of which almost half can be taken up with preparation and review. Elected members will actively engage in the interim review of a plan and will also be able to amend the plan if changes are identified as being required. Elected members can also propose variation at any stage in the life cycle of a plan.I must point out that that ten-year cycle with a five-year review will remain for every elected member who is involved at a minimum in the making of the development plan for the review and the possible amendment via the interim review. The interim review will commence between four years and four years and nine months after the plan is adopted.

There is a misconception out there that councillors who were elected in June will not get to do a development plan or review a plan because timelines for the plan are moving to ten years. That is not true. The current development plans are six years in duration. Once the Bill is commenced, these development plans will remain in place for the remaining six-year period, so they will not automatically be extended. The current plans that are live will still have the six-year duration and that means that serving councillors will be involved in the review process. That is important to state here today.

On the timelines for decision-making, and I know Senator Cummins has been very vocal on their robustness, in this Bill, for the first time we are setting out mandatory statutory timelines for decision-making. We are bringing them in line with the arrangements of planning authorities, which has been a gap for many developers and those who are seeking decisions and who do not get them in a sufficient manner. As I said earlier, the commission has a new corporate structure and will be legally obliged to make the decisions within the 18-week timeline. I understand the concerns with the consolidation around the mutual agreement that may be provided between the board and the applicant, but several measures will be introduced, such as regarding the publication, notification and reporting of missed timelines. Fines and penalties will also be implemented as a result of missed timelines and there is also the ministerial intervention. The Minister will be very much on top of this following the initial inception of this new Bill, and he has to be. We will take the Senator’s suggestions offline with the Department and thrash them through, but as this stands, it is a really important move forward in terms of the timelines, which range from 18 weeks to 48 weeks for more complex-type applications. We need to implement them with speed. As Senator Boyhan has said, there is an enormous backlog within An Bord Pleanála, but we are addressing the staffing shortfall to try to ensure that we have a steady level of decisions because it is just not acceptable to have more than 20,000 in the system at the minute.

Various Senators discussed or raised issues around compliance with the Aarhus Convention. On the matter of the draft compliance report and its comments on the provision in the Bill related to the extension of duration and public participation, we are liaising with the Attorney General on this matter. The report only refers to the provision relating to public participation in applications to alter the extension. The Bill was drafted to ensure compliance with that convention.

Can I be given some leverage?