Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I mentioned those specifically. The rural housing guidelines are currently subject to a legal review by the Attorney General. As things stand, the position remains as set out in the revised NPF. The intention is to support rural communities and provide rural housing based on local need, be it social or economic.

The challenge is that over the past 20 or 30 years, we have seen an awful lot of urban-generated rural housing. People are building houses in the countryside and not contributing to the local schools but instead ferrying their children into schools in the urban areas. They are not contributing to local GAA clubs or communities. It is critical to get the rural housing guidelines right. The points about local need, particularly in farming communities, have been well made. I acknowledge the point that was made about a perceived inconsistency in decision making. We want to ensure that is addressed.

I will specifically address the amendments that have been tabled. Amendment No. 86 was tabled by Senators Warfield, Boylan, Gavan, Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. Amendments Nos. 87, 89, 91 to 93, inclusive, 97 to 99, inclusive, 101, 102, 105, 108, 109, 111 and 113 were tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. Amendments Nos. 88, 95, 100, 104 and 112 were tabled by Senators Moynihan, Hoey, Sherlock and Wall. Amendments Nos. 90, 94, 103, 107 and 110 were tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell. Amendment No. 96 was tabled by Senators Boyhan, McDowell, Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. Amendment No. 106 was tabled by Senators Warfield, Boylan and Gavan. This group of amendments relates to the Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Bill, which relates to national planning statements. Under this Chapter, the Minister will issue, with the approval of the Government, a national planning statement for the purpose of setting out policy and providing guidance in respect of planning matters, and to support proper planning and sustainable development. National planning statements will eventually replace section 28 guidelines and section 29 ministerial policy objectives made under the Act of 2000. National planning statements will contain two separate parts, the first part being a high-level statement of national planning policies and measures to be integrated into regional and local plan making and the second part consisting of practical guidance that will afford flexibility to planning authorities as to how to implement the principles of national planning policy.

Amendments Nos. 86 to 90, inclusive, seek to replace references to "the Government" in section 25 with a reference to "the Oireachtas", or to insert additional approval requirements with respect to approving, amending or revoking national planning statements. This matter was debated at length at pre-legislative scrutiny and in Dáil Éireann. These amendments all deal with the same substantive issue, that is, whether the policies of the planning system should be agreed by the Government or passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. As I have already stated in response to previous similar amendments relating to the national planning framework, it is appropriate and right that the Government has responsibility for setting and agreeing Government policy, whether it relates to planning or other matters. It is widely acknowledged that planning is a discipline that affects almost every facet of daily life and is critical to the well-being of our citizens, as well as to the success of the wider economy and our response to the climate and biodiversity crisis. National planning statements will be a key mechanism introduced under the Bill to improve consistency within the tiers of the planning system. National planning statements will be subject to comprehensive consultation processes and once issued, the Bill provides that other tiers of the planning system, be they local or regional, will be obliged to review their own plans to ensure alignment with national policy.

The process as currently set out in the Bill improves alignment throughout the planning system while also allowing it the inherent flexibility for regional and local plan-led approaches to continue. This addresses the points made by Senator McDowell. The proposed amendments wish to add a further level of Oireachtas approval but are unclear as to how this can be reconciled with extensive assessments and consultation already provided for within the Bill or for the wider programme for Government. It is for these reasons that I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

I oppose amendment No. 91, which seeks to remove a provision stating that a failure to comply with post-publication requirements within a specified time period shall not invalidate a national planning statement. Given the extensive work, resources and consultation that will be required to produce a national planning statement, I consider the existing provision to be reasonable and practical, and, in any event, included as a precaution only. I, therefore, cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 92 is not required as not only must the NPF and national planning statements relate to planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development, the items listed under section 20(2) are provided for, albeit at a more granular level, under section 26(1), with the exception of guidance in relation to the national marine planning framework. For this reason, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 93 relates to a transitional provision for the architectural heritage protection guidelines issued under section 52 of the Act of 2000. My intention is for the first issuing of a relevant national planning statement to result in such guidelines ceasing to have effect. An entirely new regime will exist in its own right and not as a replacement for those guidelines. The continuing in force of the guidelines pending the issuing of the national planning statement is purely a stopgap to ensure there is no regulatory vacuum. In saying that, I will ask my officials to further review this matter to ensure no further clarification is required in respect of the construct of section 25(8). If it is determined necessary, I will bring an amendment on Report Stage.

However, as things stand, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 94 is not required as guidelines issued under section 28 of the Act of 2000 will ultimately be replaced by national planning policy guidance issued under the enacted Bill. Section 27 of the Bill provides a transitional provision that will keep section 28 guidelines in force following the repeal of the Act of 2000, but this will only be until those guidelines are revoked by the Minister or replaced by a national planning statement issued under Part 3 of the Bill. For this reason, along with its problematic drafting, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendments Nos. 95 to 106,inclusive,all relate to section 26 of the Bill and the considerations for the Minister in the issuance of a national planning statement. Amendment No. 95 seeks to amend section 26(1) in order to change the matters the Minister must have regard to when preparing or issuing a national planning statement. I do not agree with the approach proposed under this amendment. As currently drafted, section 26(1) obliges the Minister of the day to have regard to “the desirability of setting out policy and providing guidance in relation to planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development”. The amendment proposed would alter this so that the Minister must have regard to “the performance of functions” under Part 3 of the Bill relating to planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development. As things stand, I see no reason to limit the scope of matters to be considered in the manner proposed by way of this amendment, and to do so would needlessly restrict the scope of national planning statements.

Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 seek to delete all or part of section 26(1)(a). This paragraph is essential as it requires the Minister, when formulating or issuing a national planning statement, to provide guidance in support of proper planning and sustainable development in the preparation of regional spatial and economic strategies, development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans, co-ordinated area plans and development schemes. As this issuing of guidance as set out here is a primary purpose of national planning statements and a key element of the new regime, I must oppose the deletion of paragraph (a) as proposed.

Amendment No. 98is already provided for under the Bill as drafted. In the chapeau to section 26(1), the Bill provides that when considering what policy and guidance is to be provided under a national planning statement, the matters set out under paragraphs (a) to (q) must be considered. This includes the promotion of sustainable development patterns in urban and rural areas relating to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and the support of the circular economy and climate change mitigation. In addition to this, section 26(1)(p) also provides for the integration of relevant climate action-related policies and measures, including those prepared pursuant to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, into regional spatial and economic strategies, development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans and co-ordinated area plans.

Amendment No. 99 seeks to include a specific reference for the provision of Traveller accommodation. The matter is already captured under section 26(1)(d) in relation to types of development or particular uses of land, including housing and housing supply. It is important to note that the matters under section 26(1) will apply equally to the needs of groups or stakeholders. We will give a commitment to look at this, specifically in respect of development plans but not under the planning statements. As I said, the needs of Traveller families are changing. It is important, under housing strategies at local level, that those are included in the plans, in addition to the Traveller accommodation programme. The roles will tack at a local level. We will look at this issue but not specifically as it relates to planning statements.

Amendment No. 100relates to the Gaeltacht and Irish language matters. As I previously stated with regard to the national planning framework, amendments have already been made to the Bill that provide for a distinct category of priority area plan specific to Gaeltacht areas and the islands. That is the most appropriate approach to take on this issue.

Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 are similar to amendment No. 98 as they also relate to sustainable development. I will reiterate that the matters set out under paragraphs (a) to (q) are to be taken into consideration when determining what policy and guidance to support sustainable development are contained in a national planning statement. Sustainable development itself should not be a matter for consideration, rather, the matters to be considered are the provision of policy and guidance on sustainable development.

Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 propose to delete all or part of section 26(1)(n), which relates to integration of appropriate architectural urban design and quality standards into development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans, co-ordinated area plans, the preparation of development schemes and the assessment of any application for development consent under Part 4 of the Bill. Architectural urban design and standards are important matters for proper planning and sustainable development. I see no good reason they should not be a matter for consideration with respect to national planning statements.

Amendment No. 105relates to a matter already discussed in the context of the NPF. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has statutory responsibility to promote and monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Minister of State with special responsibility for disability and the matters listed under section 26(1) already provides for the form and layout of development or amenity space, and the promotion or restriction of development or particular uses of land, including housing.

Amendment No. 106also relates to a matter already discussed in the context of the NPF in that it relates to night venues. It is important to note that the list of matters under section 26(1) is not exhaustive. The matters already provided for, be they housing or infrastructure, will apply equally to the needs of groups or stakeholders proposed by Senators.

I thank Senators for their proposals regarding section 26(1) but for the reasons I outlined, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Amendments Nos. 107, 108, and 110 relate to additional consultation requirements for national planning statements. I have already addressed this matter in some detail. Accordingly, I will not be accepting any further amendments to the already comprehensive consultation and participation requirements currently set out in the Bill.

Amendments No. 109 and 111 remove reasonable flexibility from sections 26(4) and 26(5) as regards determining whether national planning statements fall within the scope of the SEA Directive. As I expressed in respect of the NPF, it is not appropriate to carry out an assessment where there is no requirement to carry out such an assessment. I cannot accept these amendments.

On Amendment No. 112, all guidelines issued under section 28 of the Act of 2000 will continue to be in effect following the repeal of that Act, but only until they are revoked by the Minister or replaced by a national planning statement issued under Part 3 of the Bill. This is purely a stopgap to ensure that there is no regulatory vacuum. For this reason, I cannot accept the amendment. This addresses the concerns raised by IBEC.

On Amendment No. 113, the additional wording as proposed may not be necessary, given that the chapeau to section 27(1) does not refer to the replacement of all guidelines issued under section 28 of the Act of 2000. In saying that, I will ask officials to review this matter again in order to determine whether additional clarity should be provided in section 27(1)(b). If an amendment is required, I will bring forward a corresponding proposal on Report Stage.

Senator Gavan raised the issue of the Government not accepting amendments. However, the Government has consistently accepted the spirit of amendments that have put forward by the Opposition, if not the wording of them. That has been the tenet of our work to date on the Bill.