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

There are quite a lot of amendments in this group and there are Government amendments as well. I will address amendments Nos. 115, 116, 118 to 122, inclusive, 126, 143, 145 and 146 as tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn, and amendments Nos. 123, 124, 125, 127 to 130, inclusive, 132, 133, 136, 137 and 141 as tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell.

We were talking about the duration of development plans. Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 relate to the lifespan of a development plan and the period after which a planning authority must review an existing development plan. The key purpose behind the change that I brought in this legislation in changing the development plan duration is to align the cycles of development plans with the cycle of census data availability. It makes absolute sense for us to do that. 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 as well as economic development strategies. In short, this change will provide greater certainty over a longer time for all stakeholders.

As we also set out under section 56 (4), elected members of local authorities will review the performance of their development plans after five years. The reserved function to create, vote, accept and amend development plans remains firmly with the local elected members. That is not changing one bit. It makes more sense that we plan for a longer time, align it with the census and allow for a proper review. There is currently a review of development plans, as Senators will be aware, that effectively is nearly a box-ticking exercise. We want a proper review carried out by our local authority members.

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 will be 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.

Amendments Nos. 118 to 120, inclusive, and 124 relate to matters the different development plan strategies shall take account of. Amendment No. 118 seeks to provide that the housing development strategy shall support the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. This is provided for by way of the requirement under section 46(2) that a housing development strategy must be materially consistent with the housing strategy prepared under section 238, including the need to ensure that a mixture of house types and sizes is developed to reasonably match the requirements of different categories of households, including the special requirements of elderly persons, seniors, persons with special needs and persons with disabilities. This matter will be a factor for planning authorities when developing a housing development strategy. For this reason, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 119 provides that the housing development strategy shall have a specific strategy for Traveller accommodation prepared in direct consultation with Travellers. There is already specific provision made in this regard under section 47(3)(i), which refers to, “objectives regarding the provision of accommodation for members of the traveller community and the use of particular areas for that purpose”. On this basis, I am unable to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 120 seeks to make the objectives in section 51(2) for the management of areas mandatory. I cannot accept this amendment as not all the objectives listed will be relevant to every local authority.

Amendment No. 124 seeks to provide that the statement on specific objectives shall include a map identifying provisions, plans or existing rural housing. I cannot accept this amendment as it does not appear that all the matters contained in this amendment can be placed on a map.

Regarding rights of way, amendments Nos. 121 to 123, inclusive, relate to objectives for preserving rights of way. It is important to note that the creation of public right of way, either by agreement or by compulsion, are matters provided for under sections 263 and 264. In respect of the marking of public rights of way on a development plan map or a map forming part of the development management statement, as proposed, there may be valid legal or practical reasons this may not be feasible. I cannot accept those amendments.

Amendments Nos. 125, 127, 128, 130, 132, 133 and 136 all seek to delete the OPR’s role in development plans. I am opposing any proposals to remove function of the OPR, and we have discussed this previously.

Amendments Nos. 126, 143 and 145 seek to provide that where there is an inconsistency between national planning policies and measures and the national planning framework, the NPF takes priority; that a direction should not be issued on an inconsistency with a national planning statement; and that the requirement for development plans to be materially consistent with national planning policies and measures should be removed. I cannot accept these amendments as consistency with planning statements is important, and as both the NPF and NPS are prepared by the Minister, such consistency can be achieved. We discussed that at some length earlier.

Amendment No. 137 seeks to include a new subsection in section 60 providing that, “Nothing in the section shall be commenced without consultation, approval and explicit permission listed in the National Planning Statement.” I cannot accept this amendment as I am unclear as to the intended effect of this provision, which person or persons it applies to and what the commencement refers to.

Amendment No. 129 seeks to amend section 54 concerning notices of a planning authority’s intention to review a development plan and preparation of a draft plan. I cannot accept this amendment as it is not necessary here. Section 54(5) includes a broad list of sectors of infrastructure and service providers but also includes the phrase “any other services”, which gives the planning authority flexibility to consult any other services that are not listed.Amendment No. 141 relates to the situation where if a Minister decides that a draft direction should not be issued under section 64 and has directed the Office of the Planning Regulator not to issue the draft direction then this direction must be laid before the House. This amendment seeks to provide that the direction must also be laid before it is put to a vote, either as a motion or a Bill and I cannot accept this amendment as it is unclear what the purpose of the resulting motion or Bill would be.

Amendment No. 146 relates to section 65 and the Minister's power to issue a direction to vary a plan. This amendment seeks to provide the Minister with power to use such direction, subject to the approval of both Houses. We have debated the principle of this and I cannot accept this amendment. The process for issuing draft directions is clearly set out it in the Bill already.

The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, will move the Government amendments. I have dealt with all the Opposition amendments and the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan. will take over the remainder of proceedings until 4 p. m.