Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. Our planning system is a cornerstone of our democracy and should, at its core, be about how we build, maintain and enrich sustainable communities across the country. Our planning system should be democratic, accountable and participative and needs to be equipped to deal with the most pressing challenges of our time, including the climate and biodiversity crisis and the housing crisis.

Unfortunately, the Bill before us will not equip us to deal with these crucial challenges but instead seeks to centralise power and disempower communities and democratic structures. I will not have that much time today to outline every issue my group has with the Bill but I will outline some of the key areas which are most troubling.

I am concerned that in Part 3 of the Bill we are seeing a deeper erosion of local democracy and a further centralisation, and the move from a six-year local development plan to a ten-year local development plan means that elected councillors, who already do not have enough powers, may never get an opportunity to work on the development plan for their local area. This is a key reserve power and by diluting it, this Bill will further undermine local democracy at a time when it is widely accepted that local government needs more power to deliver for its communities, not less. The AILG and LAMA have been outspoken in their opposition to this proposed change and I am concerned that the Government is not taking on board the experience and expertise of the councillors, who understand their communities' needs and have a democratic mandate to represent them. The requirement to align development plans with the national planning policy statement goes completely against the principles of subsidiarity and the idea that decisions should be made as close to the citizen as possible.

The provisions carried over from the 2000 Act around the power of a Minister to give a direction on a local development plan remain deeply problematic and these are augmented by an extraordinary array of additional powers to force the planning system into alignment without adequate oversight and compromised mechanisms to hold the Government, Ministers and the Office of the Planning Regulator to account. These will only serve to undermine public confidence and trust in local democracy and the wider planning system. For example, in the case of South Dublin County Council's most recent development plan, the decision of democratically elected councillors regarding data centres was overturned. South Dublin county councillors made a prudent decision on behalf of the community that elected them. It was made with reference to the massive environmental and energy impacts of data centre concentration. They were overruled. We should be using the opportunity of such a wide-ranging Bill to address some of the deep democratic deficits in the planning and local government system but instead it seems that the same mistakes are being made alongside an even bigger power grab.

There is a fundamental need for a democratic and community-led planning system. It is the only way to foster public confidence in the system. This Bill removes some of the key opportunities for members of the public to effectively input into the planning process and the stripping of any member of the public's right to challenge unauthorised development by seeking a declaration from a planning authority on whether such development is exempt from planning control is a regressive step.The Minister claimed in the Dáil that the Bill is "unquestionably" compliant with the Aarhus Convention, to use his own word. However, it emerged that more than 24 hours earlier the Aarhus Convention compliance committee provided a report to Ireland where it stated it is of the view a section of the Bill, which the Government presented as a correction to ensure Aarhus compliance, fails to be compliant with our international obligations. I consider that embarrassing, but the implications are profound. The assertions the Bill is fully compliant with Aarhus are simply not credible in that context and in light of concerns from a broad range of external stakeholders about the Aarhus compliance of a whole range of its provisions. It is just unacceptable the Bill comes before us in this state and there should be a thorough, independent review of Aarhus compliance.

Another deeply problematic aspect of this Bill is the proposed sweeping changes to people’s constitutional right of access to the courts. The volume of judicial reviews has slowed since the abolition of the deeply-problematic strategic housing development regime where direct applications were made to An Bord Pleanála. That system clearly did not work, yet now we have the same Department coming back and saying while it got SHDs completely wrong, we should trust it on this. The restrictions this Bill will introduce on individuals and communities are unacceptable. For example, the onerous requirements that will apply to most residents’ associations and local groups should they wish to pursue judicial review will have a chilling effect on engagement in the planning process. This will lead to poorer planning and environmental decisions and undermine public confidence and trust in the planning system. We need to be really clear the Government’s attempts to seek to restrict the public’s right to seek judicial review of planning and environmental decisions has not been justified. It is not only not going to fix anything, but it will also create bigger problems and delays as the legality of these restrictions is challenged in the courts. An Taisce has stated Aarhus compliance is absolutely essential if the Bill is to truly guarantee public participation and access to justice. The Government has responded that it and the Attorney General feel it is compliant but has never published any analysis, detail or reports supporting that assertion. An Taisce said all the issues with the JR provisions will lead to significant legal uncertainty and satellite litigation delays and costs. Instead of trying to stop the public challenging unlawful decisions, as the Bill clearly intends to do, the focus should be on ensuring lawful decision-making at all levels in the planning process. The potential for flawed decisions increases exponentially with this Bill and it is just being rushed. Decision-makers will be operating it in parallel with the current 2000 Act together with two parallel sets of regulations. The potential for confusion and flawed decisions is inevitable, especially when considering the deficiency of resources in the planning authorities. We will need the courts as a critical support mechanism and to be able to get in and out of the courts quickly. Instead, this Bill will further burden the courts with a flood of complex and contradictory litigation about access to the courts and it is an entirely dysfunctional approach.

I also wish to signal to our total opposition to the so-called “Cairn Homes amendment” in section 86. Introduced in the Dáil, it stipulates the housing growth target included in the housing development strategy in respect of the settlement being reached is not valid grounds to refuse permission. This provision is quite frankly bizarre, wrongheaded and hugely worrying. This will lead to more communities being underserved and a further deterioration of social cohesion in the country. It is worryingly indicative of a lobbyist-led approach to policy-making which, in the context of the centralisation of power provided for in this Bill, as well as the lack of oversight, is alarming. Crucially, it seems within this legislation there is not any sort of tangible framework for delivery of sustainable communities in the future. The climate and nature provisions are far too weak and the Government went so far as to delete from the Bill the obligation for the planning authority and commission to have regard to the Climate Act. On the material conditions that can be attached to a development consent, where is the provision for the protection of biodiversity in the context of a biodiversity crisis? Where is the provision for disability as required under the UNCRPD? Where is the provision of safe cycling and pedestrian infrastructure? Where is the requirement for public arts and culture space? Mention is made of the provision of Traveller accommodation being an objective of housing development strategies, but there is no provision for consultation with Travellers on what they need for appropriate housing. The Government rejected a proposal to include this as a matter appropriate for national planning statements.

There are so many missed opportunities here. It is deeply disappointing the Bill that purports to modernise the planning system fails to reflect the diverse communities we now live in and the people of many different backgrounds and language groups who need to be able to engage in our planning system. There is so much missing from this Bill that is crucial to how we develop communities that are inclusive, accessible and sustainable. Is mian liom an Teachta Ó Snodaigh a mholadh as a chuid oibre suntasaí ar cheisteanna éagsúla maidir leis an mBille seo. Aithním go bhfuil roinnt dul chun cinn déanta ach tá go leor eile le déanamh.

My contribution has only dealt with some of the most problematic elements of the Bill. I hope we will deal with others on Committee Stage. It is important to put this legislation in a wider context. Almost four fifths of members of the IPI, which is the main professional body for planners in Ireland, said they do not have confidence in the Bill. IPI president Gavin Lawlor said the Bill is not fit for purpose. Environmental groups, members of the public and, crucially, planners themselves are telling us what is before us will not solve the issues with our planning system but make them much worse. I cannot understand why they are going unheeded.

As a legislator I am very disappointed in the way we are all being asked to do our jobs on this Bill in a manner that is rushed and goes against the principle of proper parliamentary scrutiny. The guillotining of the Bill in the Dáil and the proposed schedule imposed not just on Senators, but on our staff and the staff of the Bills Office, is deeply unfair. I ask the Minister of State to commit that he will not seek to guillotine Committee Stage in this House and will instead allow the Bill to adjourn. There are significant issues with the Bill that still must be addressed. Public confidence in our planning system is of paramount importance and a shortened and insufficient period of parliamentary scrutiny where we are not given ample opportunity to fulfil our constitutional role will undermine public confidence in the planning system. Though this Bill is dense and technical, it fundamentally is about the system we have in place to decide what kind of communities we want and how we should live together. The debate, which should be broad, informed and imaginative about the future of our people, new communities, places and our planet has instead been reduced to a narrow legislative process that seeks to exclude the diverse and broad experience and perspectives of our citizens. A better and more sustainable future is possible if we move away from the highly-centralised, developer-led approach the Bill represents to an inclusive, community-driven process that will ensure better decisions for us all.