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

I will try to be brief so we can get through some of these amendments. I will make a general point in reply to the comments made by Senator McDowell. I have tremendous respect for him but I fundamentally disagree. He is consistently putting down the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR. He has talked about draft directions that are precooked by the OPR. That is disingenuous. He suggested we are being house-trained. He also put down local government consistently in his contributions. I ask him to look at the force for good that local government is in Ireland. We have had this debate in the Chamber. I sat in on one of the sessions relating to the future of local government. I ask him to look at the good and positive work that is going on.

The Senator mentioned Mountjoy Square and many of the plans in that area have been led by the local community and by councillors. Budgets have been voted through and supported by councillors. There is a considerable amount of good and positive work going on within local government and it was disappointing to hear the Senator's contribution. He is not the only one who has been putting down the OPR during the debate, but it is disappointing. The office is there for a valid reason. I will remind Senators of the three functions of the OPR, which are to independently assess all statutory forward planning of all local authorities, including development plans and local area plans; to carry out organisational reviews of the systems and procedures used by any planning authority, including An Bord Pleanála, in the performance of its functions; and to drive national research, training, education and public information programmes. The issues around the role of the OPR are being misrepresented by the Senator. He has his view of the Bill, and it is clear he is not a supporter of it, as is his democratic right. However, the OPR does not precook plans and the Minister is not required to obey the regulator. In fact, he has, on quite a number of occasions, disagreed with the OPR. In a way, the Senator appears to be deflecting all the woes of our planning system onto the OPR to account for past failures. I ask the Senator to reflect on that. I have tremendous respect for him but some of what he has said this evening has been out of order.

Terms such as "dysfunctional" have been mentioned. It is not dysfunctional. There certainly have been issues and challenges in our planning system which it is hoped the Bill will address. I ask Senator McDowell to reflect on this. The bigger challenge regarding the democratic role of elected representatives, particularly the making of development plans and the reserved function, is very important. There are wider issues which the Government has addressed regarding the role of local government and local authority members. The mechanism for directly elected mayors in every urban area or county is important.

To make a general point, moving to ten-year plans will release local authority members from the repetition of the six-year development plan cycle, two years of which is spent in process, as Senator Fitzpatrick has said, to engage in real local plans for local development. Specific land area plans will be done by people who would otherwise be engaged in the six-year cycle. They have a very important role in climate plans, biodiversity plans, arts policies, housing strategies, and local economic and community plans. There is so much planning work in which local authority members are involved outside of the actual development plan and we cannot discount this.

I will now speak specifically to the amendments. I do not think there is anything else I need to address. I have to say the constant putting down of the Office of the Planning Regulator and the important role it has is disappointing.

I will now address amendments Nos. 134, 144 and 145 tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell, Nos. 135, 137 to 143, inclusive and 150 tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn, Nos. 136 and 154 tabled by Senators Moynihan, Hoey, Sherlock and Wall, and Nos. 146 to 149, inclusive and 151 to 153, inclusive, tabled by Senators Warfield, Boylan and Gavan.

Amendments Nos. 134, 135 and 140 relate to the lifespan of a development plan and amendments Nos. 136 and 137 refer to the period of time after which a planning authority must review an existing development plan. The key purpose behind the change in development plan duration is to align the cycle of development plans with the cycle of census data availability. This will provide for more informed plans with greater certainty regarding the availability of adequate zoned land to align with the needs of housing development strategies and economic development strategies. In short, this change will provide greater certainty over a longer period for all stakeholders. The point has been made on the ability of elected members to vary development plans at any point in the lifetime of that plan.

As set out under section 56(4), elected members of local authorities will review the performance of their development plans after five years and may propose amendments to plans to take account of wider changes that may have occurred since the plan's inception. A point was raised with regard to changes in the lifespan of a plan. The timelines set out in subsections (1) and (2) of section 42 have been carefully considered and are intended to ensure adequate time is provided to prepare and finalise development plans and, most importantly, that sufficient time is now available to planning authorities for the implementation of their development plans. I thank the Senators for their proposals but I am not in a position to accept them.

Amendment No. 138 relates to discretionary consultation by elected members of local authorities with independent legal or technical advisers. I have not been able to determine why legislation may be required on this. If there are other provisions in law that for some reason prohibit elected members from carrying out non-compulsory consultation, then I can consider the matter in greater detail, but on the face of it I am unable to see the need for this provision and for this reason I am not in a position to accept it.

I cannot accept amendment No. 139 as I am unable to determine the purpose, scope or process for producing a report as proposed. It is unclear what "viability" is supposed to refer to in the amendment. For example, does it mean the ability of elected members of a local authority to obtain independent services, or perhaps the cost-effectiveness of such a process, or even the availability of services that elected members can avail of? Not only am I unclear as to the purpose and the scope of this amendment, I am also unable to determine how the Department could be in a position to produce a report as proposed. For these reasons I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendments No. 141 proposes to delete section 42(5)(b). This paragraph enables the Minster, only at the request of a chief executive of a planning authority, to extend the period of a development plan, but only in situations where exceptional circumstances exist and only for a period of not more than two years. I would consider that recent events alone provide more than enough justification as to why such a power may be required. As a precaution, given the safeguards relating to exceptional circumstances and the limited time periods involved, it is entirely worthwhile retaining this provision and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

In relation to the Minister’s ability to extend a development plan in exceptional circumstances, amendments Nos. 142 and 143 seek to substitute the "elected council of a local authority" in place of the "chief executive of a planning authority" and to give elected members of a local authority the power to overturn the extension request. I see no reason to further amend section 42(5) in the manner proposed as I do not believe there is a necessity to provide for the additional powers as set out under this amendment. As I have mentioned, there are adequate safeguards built into the provision as currently drafted to ensure its proper operation. For these reasons I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 144 cannot be accepted as the period of 12 years as currently set out under section 42(6) is correct and to reduce this period to ten years would be inappropriate based on the extension to a development plan's duration that is permitted by way of paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of that section.

In relation to amendment No. 145, which links back to amendment No. 3 and the proposed definition of a chief planning officer, for the same reasons I already outlined in respect of amendment No. 3 concerning the purposes, scope and functions of planning roles and the recruitment of staff being a matter for local authorities themselves, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendments Nos. 146 to 153, inclusive, propose additions to the content of development plans relating to a range of matters such as cultural spaces, night venues and artistic creativity. As drafted, section 48 makes adequate provision for the improvement, extension and preservation of amenities, facilities and services to meet, among other things, the cultural requirements of the functional area to which a development plan relates. This is a requirement of the process to make the development plan. I point Members to section 48(2)(a) and 48(2)(b), which are very strong in this regard.

Section 45 makes provision for an economic strategy to identify the attributes of particular places that are essential to enhancing economic performance and the social, community and cultural facilities in a given functional area. I am of the view that the matters to which the Senators refer are already sufficiently and effectively catered for in the Bill. Again, I point Senators to the sections I have just mentioned. Furthermore, their provision is balanced with other necessary and appropriate objectives, which are necessary to develop a rounded framework for the development of an administrative area.

With respect to night venues, the Department did participate actively in the night-time economy task force set up by my colleague the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin. I participated on it myself. The support for, and future development of, the night-time economy is a matter for planning policy rather than being specifically referred to in legislation. This is due to the varying considerations that apply to the night-time economy depending on the location of a given functional area within the State. For these reasons, unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 154, proposed by Senator Moynihan, proposes that a development plan's written statement, as required under section 43(2), contains provision for the zoning of land for affordable housing within the meaning of the Affordable Housing Act 2021. While the sections of the Bill relating to the content of a development plan set out a series of strategies, they do not stand alone and, instead, form part of an interconnected series that consist of the core of a development plan, the essential function of which is to set out an integrated overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of an area. Section 46 provides for the obligation to prepare a housing development strategy, which must be materially consistent with the housing strategy prepared under Part 7 and which, in turn, must include an estimate of the amount of social, affordable and cost-rental housing and Traveller accommodation required during the lifetime of the development plan. Section 46(5) provides that any land zoned for residential use, or a mix of residential use, can be developed exclusively for social or affordable housing. The provisions relating to the housing strategy and the housing development strategy under the Bill are carefully balanced and take account of the various inputs that are factored into consideration when dealing with housing policy and its spatial implications within a functional area. I cannot accept this amendment.

Senator McDowell mentioned UK local authorities several times. UK Ministers have powers with regard to local planning decisions and they can intervene in a similar way.