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

I will address amendments Nos. 57 to 69, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 71, 72 and 74, as tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn; and amendment No. 70, tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell. This group of amendments relate to Chapter 2 of Part 3 and the national planning framework. As the Senators will be aware, the Bill provides that the NPF will continue to spearhead the planning agenda in Ireland and sets out a plan-led system where all tiers of planning from a regional level to a local level align with the strategic objectives set out in the NPF.

Amendment No. 57 relates to the United Nations sustainable development goals. Senators Flynn and Higgins both spoke to this. I do not favour the insertion of an explicit reference to the SDGs in the NPF as suggested. Importantly, a national implementation plan for the sustainable development goals is already in effect and a corresponding policy map is available to track Ireland’s implementation of each specific goal. It is a whole-of-government approach to the SDGs and all Departments report back on their relevant areas of implementation. A secondary factor to consider is that not every matter covered by the sustainable development goals may be entirely proper to the NPF, for example, matters such as a reduction of inequality or the achievement of gender equality. To create a legislative basis for the implementation of the sustainable development goals under the NPF could give rise to unforeseen legal challenges and would expand the scope of the NPF beyond the areas for which it is intended to apply.

For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 58 seeks to insert a specific reference to marine protected areas. The NPF is to align with the national marine planning framework, in which marine protected areas are referenced. Appropriate regard must be given to national marine planning framework and there is no need for an additional reference to individual aspects of that framework. In addition, in respect of marine protected areas, this Government has moved from 2.4% to 9.6% of strict protection in a marine area, which is close to the 10% objective we set out for 2030. That is special protected areas for birds, marine birds, the east coast and the seas off Wexford, which is the biggest SPA in the history of the Irish State. A significant amount of sea sensitivity analysis work is already under way. On the point raised by Senator Higgins that it is planning before marine protection and marine biodiversity, that is not the case. The two go hand in hand and it is important to state that. I am conscious that absolutely we need a marine protected area Bill. It ran into difficulties but we hope to progress it. It is not either-or with marine planning and offshore renewables and marine protected areas. I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 58.

Amendment No. 59 seeks to exclude “data centres” from the provision of communication networks under the NPF. With respect to data centres, the 2022 Government Statement on the Role of Data Centres in Ireland’s Enterprise Strategy recognises that data centres are central to Ireland’s economic and digital future and is supportive of sustainable data centre development. The statement outlines principles for sustainable data centre development, which includes economic impact, renewables additionality, collocation or proximity with future-proof energy supply, and SME access and community benefits. These established principles provide clear guidance to decision-makers in the planning process, encouraging the data centre sector to implement decarbonised and efficient energy solutions. The exclusion of data centres, as proposed, therefore cannot be accepted.

Amendments Nos. 60 to 69 all propose some form of additional content to the NPF. Amendment No. 60 proposes that educational, healthcare, retail, cultural and recreational facilities should be intergenerational. I do not believe there is a need to make specific reference to such facilities being intergenerational. Amendment No. 61 seeks to add nightlife to the list of facilities and amendments Nos. 62 and 63 relate to accessible and inclusive urban design, again, all well catered for in planning guidelines and so on for local authorities. While I recognise the importance of the night-time economy and the promotion of accessibility and inclusion for persons with a disability, I do not consider the NPF to be the correct vehicle for the progression of such matters that predominantly fall under the remit of another Department and within other legislative codes. The establishment of a night-time economy task force was undertaken by the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, and a number of initiatives have been announced recently in respect of supports for the night-time economy. Some really good work has been done across this Government. I attended some of the early meetings of it.

The Irish Human Rights Equality Commission has statutory responsibility to promote and monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and Minister of State with special responsibility for disability has already submitted reports to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Ireland’s efforts to protect and enhance the rights of people with disabilities. Again, I note the points that Senator Flynn made. As well as that, there are access groups at local level that have input into local planning, strategic policy committees, LCDCs and the development plan process. They are hugely important. As Senator McDowell has been speaking about local autonomy and local democracy, it is very important that, at local level, access groups where there is representation from disability advocates have a say in a bottom-up approach.

Amendment No. 64 seeks to provide that the NPF shall make provision for suitable Traveller accommodation and community facilities. Again, this matter is captured under the development plan process and it is more appropriate to be dealt with at local authority level. We discussed this before the recess. It goes back to the Traveller accommodation programme, TAP, and the local Traveller accommodation consultative committees, LTACCs, where there is representation from elected members, Traveller representative groups and council officials. That is the appropriate place. The Government provides the funding and, in fact, has provided record funding for the Traveller accommodation programme at €80 million over the four-year period to 2023. I refer to an expenditure of more than €36 million by local authorities for Traveller-specific accommodation, which was achieved in 2023. I am conscious that the needs of Traveller families are changing dramatically, and not all families seek to have Traveller-specific accommodation. I absolutely agree that there are still significant challenges. It is critically important in the housing strategy and Traveller accommodation programme that local authorities work to address those issues and are proactive. The Government is providing the funding that underpins good policies at a local level. I return to the point that it is at the local level. Local authorities are best placed to deliver Traveller accommodation.

I will just finish speaking, if that is okay.

Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 seek to provide that the NPF shall promote emissions reduction strategies and development strategies. These matters are already covered by the climate action plan and the existing text relating to sustainable development patterns.

With respect to the inclusion of biodiversity as proposed under amendment No. 67, this is a matter already provided for under subparagraph (d)(iii) of subsection (3) and I believe this is the correct location for this provision given that paragraph (d) relates to the conservation of the environment and its amenities. I reiterate that we have local biodiversity plans; we have put in biodiversity officers across all of our local authorities; and the national biodiversity action plan is now on a statutory footing. Therefore, it has really been strengthened in recent years. What we have included in this Bill has come out of recommendations on biodiversity that have come from committee as well. We believe that it is sufficient.

I am also of the view that the removal of the wording “take account of the need to” from subsection (3)(c)(ii), as proposed by amendment No. 68, is incorrect as it would confuse the purpose and aim of the NPF with the national climate action plan.

For these reasons, I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 69 relates to the addition of marine environment. Land-sea interactions and the promotion of co-ordination of development between the terrestrial and marine sectors is already provided for under section 21(3)(e) and regard must be had to the national marine planning framework, which has brought together marine-based human activities and marine spatial planning for the first time.

Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 relate to consultation on the NPF. Amendment No. 70, as proposed by Senators McDowell and Boyhan, seeks to delete the requirement to consult with the OPR, again removing the OPR’s role from the Bill. I cannot accept this amendment. I will spend a bit of time on this. I reiterate the role of the OPR. It is not a policy-making body. It is there to ensure the implementation of planning policy and legislation by local authorities and An Bord Pleanála supports Government policy and statutory requirements. The effective programme of research, training and public awareness in planning are in place to strengthen the planning process and the wider public is effectively engaged in the planning process through, again, local public consultation, through development plans and so on. Furthermore, the OPR will provide a fair and independent mechanism for the public in which to raise concerns about the system and procedures used by planning authorities in the delivery of planning services to them on their behalf. Through these processes of evaluation, review, examination, research and dissemination, the OPR will assist the planning process as a whole and develop and strengthen over time. The Senator referenced the planning corruption in the 1990s and early-2000s. One of the lessons we learned is that we need robust policies in place. The OPR is there to support and guide. I think the Senator mentioned the issue of one-off housing, for instance, in County Galway. We need that guidance and effective policies in place. We cannot allow rampant one-off housing to take place all over the country. We would have a problem with contamination of wells and issues around transport and isolation, for example. It is a much broader issue. Going to section 25 on the national planning statement and then the considerations for issuance on a planning statement, it is around the integration of appropriate architectural urban design and quality standards in development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans, co-ordinated area plans, the preparation of development schemes and the assessment of application for development consent.There is also the integration of relevant climate action-related policies, integration of relevant policies and measures of the Government relating to biodiversity, including the biodiversity action plan. All such plans are subject to local public participation. It is far from removing this element from local authorities and local government; it is actually quite the opposite. It is ensuring the OPR's role is important in the overall planning ecosystem. It is important to say this.

Amendment Nos. 71 and 72 seek to add consultation with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Heritage Council. The list under section 23(2) will provide for extensive public consultation on the NPF, which attracts a very high volume of submissions from members of the public, special interest groups and a wide range of State bodies. For these reasons I see no reason to alter the list further.

I cannot accept amendment No. 74. Most certainly, the NPF should be subject to a strategic environmental assessment or an appropriate assessment, or both, where such an assessment is required. Section 23(3) states that a new or revised NPF shall be subject to a screening assessment, and, if necessary, an SEA or AA or both, in accordance with the SEA directive, the habitats directive and Part 6 of the Bill. It is not appropriate to delete "if necessary", as the first step in any environmental assessment is to undertake a screening assessment and then, if it is determined that a SEA or AA is required, that is also undertaken.

I do not believe it is appropriate to carry out an assessment where no such assessment is required, and to underpin this in legislation is certainly not something I can agree with. However, the recently published draft revised NPF has undergone environmental assessment relating to SEA, AA and strategic flood risk assessment. These assessments were placed on display accompanying the draft revised NPF for public consultation.