Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I actually did listen to the Senator. I respect the points she has raised and I will endeavour to address them.

I cannot, however, leave a charge she has made unanswered. I think it is appropriate that I give my opinion whether the Senator agrees with it or not. It is not just my opinion; there are the facts here too. We have had nearly 200 hours of debate in the Oireachtas on this legislation. We did extensive pre-legislative scrutiny before that in the Oireachtas joint committee. Many Members here participated in that committee. It was open to every Member of the Oireachtas to participate in that pre-legislative scrutiny. We engaged through the planning forum as well, where we engaged with stakeholders from all across the board, from environmental groups to planning consultants to local authorities to disability groups and right the way through. This has certainly been the most extensive reform of planning legislation since 1999 and 2000 and since the enactment of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Some would argue it goes further.

Why are we doing this? It is because we need to bring about clarity, consistency and certainty in our planning system. Many Senators here will rightly from time to time raise matters on the floor of the House relating to delays in strategic infrastructure, schools, roads and houses. I have listened here during debates on housing too and heard the Senators opposite criticising the Government, which is their right to do, with regard to housing delivery and that we need to do more. One of the main barriers to housing delivery can be inefficiencies in our planning system. Let us be straight about it as well, though, there are spurious objections in some instances. These need to be dealt with. Strategic objections must also be dealt with. I respect the rights of third parties and I always have. It is central to our planning system for people to have their say. This is central to this legislation. The Bill is absolutely compliant with the Aarhus Convention. Access to justice is unquestionable within this legislation too. There is no rush whatsoever with this legislation and I think most Members will know it. We have had detailed debates on the Bill and I appreciate the amendments that have been tabled.

To deal with these amendments, I will address the group but leave out the Government amendments, which I will address afterwards. I will address the amendments that were tabled by the Senators, namely, amendments Nos. 77 to 81, inclusive, and 83 to 88, inclusive. Amendment no. 79 that was just spoken about was tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell and I will address it in relation to OPR reform. This group of amendments relates to Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Bill.

I will now address Amendment No. 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 and 88 and amendment No. 79 as tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell. This group of amendments relates to Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Bill. 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 relation to planning matters and to support proper planning and sustainable development. National planning statements will eventually replace section 28 guidelines and section 29 ministerial policy directives made under the Act of 2000.

The national planning statements will contain two separate parts. The first part will be a high-level statement of national planning policies and measures to be integrated into regional and local plan making, and the second part will consist of practical guidance that will afford flexibility to planning authorities as to how to implement the principles of the national planning policy. It is right and proper and appropriate that a Government would set national planning policy and the national planning statements would flow out from the Government to ensure those very policies are implemented on the ground. One would think that is something no one could object to or have a difficulty with if we are talking about consistency of approach, clarity and certainty of delivery.

Amendment Nos. 77, 78 and 88 seek to replace references to “the Government” in section 25 by replacing it 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 during pre-legislative scrutiny and in Dáil Éireann. These amendments all deal with the same substantive issue, namely, whether policies of the planning system should be agreed by Government, which is elected by its people, or passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is appropriate and right that the Government has responsibility for setting and agreeing Government policy, whether it relates to planning or to other matters.

It is widely acknowledged that planning is a discipline that affects almost every facet of daily life. I agree with the Senator on this point unquestionably. Planning is critical to the well-being of our citizens, to the success of our wider economy and specifically regarding our response to the climate challenge. National planning statements will be a key mechanism introduced under the Bill to improve the consistency I spoke about within the tiers of our 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, at regional or local level, will be obliged to review their own plans to ensure alignment with national policy.

The process as currently set out in the Bill improves this alignment throughout the planning system while also allowing the inherent flexibility for regional and local plan-led approaches to continue. It in no way impinges on this ability. The proposed amendments wish to add a further level of Oireachtas approval but are unclear as to how this can be reconciled with the extensive assessments and consultations already provided for within the Bill or the wider programme for Government. It is for these reasons that I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Moving to amendment No. 79 dealing with the issue of governance, this involves the deletion of the requirement to give a copy of an NPS to the OPR, again removing the OPR’s role from the Bill. I cannot accept this amendment but I use this opportunity to flag with the Senator where the governance amendments I did say I would bring forward in relation to the OPR stand. It is in amendment No. 716.The governance structure of the OPR has been under consideration as part of the overall update of the planning Act. I discussed this at some length during the session in the summer, prior to the recess. Due to the important work of the OPR, which it has been successfully carrying out since its creation in 2019 on foot of a recommendation from the Mahon tribunal, it is now considered appropriate for a new advisory board to be appointed to oversee strategy of the office and to provide guidance and advices to the planning regulator as requested. The advisory board will be a non-executive board of the Office of the Planning Regulator, consisting of between five and seven members, including a chairperson, all of whom will be appointed by the Minister following a standard State boards recruitment process facilitated by the Public Appointments Service. The advisory board will not have any decision-making functions, rather it will act in an advisory capacity to the Planning Regulator and will provide guidance or advice where the Planning Regulator so requests. The Planning Regulator will also be required to request such advice in the course of the preparation of a strategy statement. In the case of other functions of the office, the Planning Regulator can choose to consult as he or she sees fit.

The regulator shall have regard to any advices or guidance applied by the advisory board where so requested. The advisory board will also monitor the implementation of the strategy statements and advise or make recommendations to the Minister in relation to policies of Government or a Minister of Government affecting the functions of the office. To that end, the advisory board is a very welcome move and one which will enhance and complement the existing and future functions and governance of the structure of the OPR. These changes evolved from the debates we had in both Houses and from listening to Members, both Government and Opposition, in respect of the operations and governance structure of the OPR. That will be amendment No. 716 and will be an important part of the Bill.

In respect of amendment No. 80 seeks to remove a provision stating that a failure to comply with post publication requirements within a specified time period shall not invalidate a planning statement. Given the extensive work, resources and consultation required to produce a national planning statement, I consider the existing provision to be reasonable, practical and in any event included as a precaution only. I, therefore, cannot accept amendment No. 80.

Amendments Nos. 81 and 87 are not required as not only must the NPF and the national planning statements relate to planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development, the items listed in section 21(2) are provided for, albeit at a more granular level under section 26(1) with the exception of guidance regarding the national marine planning framework. For this reason, I am again not in a position to accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 83 seeks to provide that a national planning statement shall make provision for suitable Traveller accommodation and community facilities. This matter is captured under the development plan process. Amendment No. 84 seeks to provide that the NPS shall promote development strategies. These matters are already covered by the existing text of sustainable settlement patterns.

Amendment No. 85 relates to accessible and inclusive urban design and while I absolutely recognise and support the importance of the promotion of accessibility and inclusion for persons with a disability, I do not consider the NPS to be the correct vehicle for the progression of such matters. That will predominantly fall under the remit of another Department within other legislative codes.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has a statutory responsibility to promote and monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability and the 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 respect of Ireland's efforts to protect and enhance the rights of people with disabilities.

Amendment No. 86 would confuse the purposes and names of the NPS with the national climate action plan. I have Government amendments to this section that have to be moved but I can speak to them now if that suits. There are four amendments.

Amendment No. 82 restates the existing section 25(8) to make it clear that guidance issued under section 52 of the 2000 Act, which relates to protected structures and structures with special interests such as architectural, historic, scientific or cultural interest, will remain in effect following the repeal of the Act until they are either revoked by the Minister or replaced by a national planning statement relating to the same matter.

Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are wording amendments relating to section 26 of the Bill. These amendments insert the word "received" for clarity. This does not change the context of the provision. Amendment No. 91 clarifies the wording in section 27 and is a transitional provision relating to the current section 28 ministerial guidelines contained in the 2000 Act. It restates the existing section 27(1) to make it clear the guidelines issued under section 28 of the 2000 Act that relate to the functions of planning authorities will remain in effect following the repeal of that Act until they are either revoked by the Minister or replaced by a national planning statement relating to the same subject.

In respect of this section, the Bill empowers the Minister, with the approval of Government, to issue a national planning statement for the purpose of setting out policy and providing related guidance regarding planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development. I outlined the purpose of this in my opening remarks before I addressed the amendments put forward. I am very satisfied that the procedure for the NPS and the matters in respect of which the Minister may issue national planning statements set out in the Bill are sufficient. Not only are they sufficient, they are absolutely necessary to ensure that Government policy on planning and sustainable development is implemented on the ground. It must be very clear that is done. The national planning statements will give greater strength to that than the current guideline approach that operates under the existing Act.