John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)

Let me address the Senators’ proposed amendments. Senators Higgins and Stephenson have tabled a proposed amendment to amendment No. 13, which seeks to provide that the variation of a development plan on foot of a national planning statement or the fact that the provision of the NPF or the RSES takes precedence over a provision of the development plan continued in force from the Act of 2000 “shall not operate to remove, limit, reduce or otherwise compromise the use of enjoyment of a public right of way contained in a development plan in existence or in a draft development plan process underway, prior to the commencement of any section under Part 3". I cannot accept this proposed amendment as it is unnecessary. The Act of 2024 has several provisions relating to public rights of way. Section 51(2) provides that a development management statement may include objectives for a range of matters, including “preserving a specific public right of way, including a public right of way which gives access to any seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank, monument or other place of natural beauty or recreational utility”. Section 51(4) provides that nothing in section 51 shall affect the existence or validity of any public right of way. Section 60(10) of the Act of 2024, which I am amending in amendment No. 13, already provides that any provision relating to the preservation of a public right of way contained in a development plan continued in force until section 68 may be included in a subsequent development plan made under this Act without the necessity to comply with this section. Section 60(11) provides that nothing in section 60 shall affect the existence or validity of any public right of way not included in a development plan. It is important to note that the creation of public rights of way either by agreement or compulsorily is a matter already provided for under sections 268 and 269 of the Act of 2024. Furthermore, section 270 provides for a right of way to be maintained by the planning authority. I am satisfied that there are adequate provisions in the Act of 2024 to provide for the preservation and maintenance of rights of way and therefore cannot accept the amendment to amendment No. 13.

Senators Higgins and Stephenson have also tabled a proposed amendment to amendment No. 16, which seeks to delete subsection (7) of section 81 of the Act of 2024. I cannot accept this proposed amendment to my amendment as the subsection provides that where a local area plan that is continued in force conflicts with a provision of the NPF, RSES, a national planning statement or a development plan, the higher-order plan or strategy takes precedence. This is an important provision that gives clarity to the hierarchy of plans in our country. The overriding policy behind the Act of 2024 is that the national planning framework will continue to spearhead the planning agenda. The Act sets out a plan-led system and structure whereby all tiers of planning, from regional to local, align with the strategic objectives set out in the NPF, which was adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Put simply, lower-order plans are required to align with higher-order plans, with development plans aligned to the regional strategies and in turn to the NPF and national planning statements, and with the area-based plans aligned to development plans. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment to amendment No. 16.

Senators Higgins and Stephenson have also tabled a proposed amendment to amendment No. 25, which seeks to provide that the variation of a development plan on foot of a national planning statement or the fact that the provision of the NPF or RSES takes precedence over a provision of the development plan continued in force from the Act of 2000 “shall not operate to remove, limit, reduce or otherwise compromise the record of protected structures included in a development plan in existence or in a draft development plan process underway, prior to the commencement of any section under Part 3”. I cannot accept this proposed amendment as it is unnecessary. The Act of 2024 has several provisions relating to the record of protected structures and specifically section 307(2) of the Act of 2024 provides that the “making of an addition to, deletion from or amendment to a record of protected structures under subsection (1) shall be a reserved function”.

Government amendments Nos. 3, 13, 16 and 25 all provide that a reference in various plans throughout the Act of 2024 to a development plan continued in force under section 68 of the Act of 2024 should also include a reference to a development plan prepared or varied in accordance with section 69. Section 68 of the 2024 Act provides that the development plan in place under the Act of 2000 continues in force when the Act of 2024 is commenced. Section 69 allows the making of a development plan or a development plan variation commenced under the Act 2000 prior to the commencement of Part 3 of the Act of 2024 to continue under the Act of 2000 notwithstanding its repeal. As sections 68 and 69 both carry over development plans from the Act of 2000 to the Act of 2024, it is necessary to update any references to section 68 and also include a reference to section 69, where appropriate.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 apply to procedures in subsections 68(3), 68(4) and 68(5) of the Act of 2024 in respect of a development plan prepared or varied in accordance with section 69. This is reasonable as both sections 68 and 69 carry over development plans from the Act of 2000 to the Act of 2024.

Amendment No. 14 just edits the punctuation of the Bill to allow the text of amendment No. 15 to be correctly inserted.