Emer Currie (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Since January 2020 there have been 23 section 254 licence applications for telecommunications masts in Dublin 15. These are not phone masts or telecommunication masts the size of lamp-posts; they are 15 m to 18 m or potentially up to 60 m in village and residential locations. I am not mad about The Spire, although I know other people are, but I certainly would not be okay with it turning up outside my kitchen window or towering over my local green. Community groups and Tidy Towns groups are doing a huge amount of work in the public realm with clean-ups. Are we really supposed to be okay with 18 m eyesores popping up without any public consultation whatsoever, and that they are treated as the equivalent of street furniture and vending machines? Something is wrong in our local planning process.

This is my recap of the legislation as I see it. I know I will probably get an answer based on it. Class 31 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 allows for specified telecommunications infrastructure without having to go through the planning process, but not if a telecoms mast is greater than 12 m. Then full planning permission is needed, section 34 applies and a five-week public consultation period. However, the process can be bypassed if an application is made under section 254 to put a mast on public land. The planning authority must be provided with details such as the position, the design and the capacity of the infrastructure, and it must abide by proper planning and sustainable development of the area and take account of the county development plan but even when it is refused by the planning authority it can be overturned by An Bord Pleanála on the basis that "some masts will remain quite noticeable despite best precautions." They can even go up to 60 m, but most are between 20 m and 40 m. One of the masts in Castleknock is only 15 m and that is supposed to be the reason it is acceptable.

I totally understand that we need broadband coverage and mobile phone coverage. It fits in with all our ambitions in terms of where the country is going but that does not mean public land should be the Wild West for telecommunications masts. This must be managed properly. The community must have a say. For example, there are 23 applications in the Dublin 15 area. In the same period, there were 52 applications in Fingal. How is that supposed to be resourced in an already overstretched planning department? How do the planners go out and make sure that every single application is appropriate? The applicant only has to pay €125 to go through this process, which does not wash its face.

The other side of the matter is how the planners check the validity of the coverage maps. It is all based on coverage maps they receive from Eir, Vodafone and Three. Potentially, there is also a mast for each operator, so we are potentially talking about three masts for three areas. The Aarhus Convention is supposed to give people a say in public planning and their environment. Is this good enough for local planning?

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Currie for raising this important issue on the process under section 254 of the Planning and Development Act for telecommunications infrastructure. Senator Currie was a leading proponent of remote working and the need for broadband in that regard.Long before the onset of Covid and long before the Senator was elected to this House, she led the charge for remote working and highlighted the benefits that could be brought to society at large by introducing remote working in a broad way. Of course Covid expedited that and we now have a very different cultural situation. I am aware that Senator Currie, the other Senators here today and I, as a constituency Deputy, have been inundated with requests for better broadband at particular pinch points. There is simply no question but that the delivery of broadband coverage is a strategic imperative for communities and the State.

That said, the Senator is right that we need an appropriate planning process where broadband is concerned. I have some of these masts and some broadband challenges in my own constituency so I understand the issue very well. On behalf of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage I want to say that the use of the section 254 licensing process is restricted solely to public roads. As I think the Senator is aware, section 254 of the Act provides for a licensing system for appliances and structures placed on, above, under or along a public road, including footpaths. The Act provides that a "public road" has the same meaning as the Roads Act 1993, as amended, which defines it as "a road over which a public right of way exists and the responsibility for the maintenance of which lies on a road authority", which is a local authority.

A person applying for a licence, under section 254, must provide the planning authority with such plans and other information concerning the position, design and capacity of the appliance, apparatus or structure as the authority may require. The Senator is quite right to highlight the relative resourcing of local authorities. I believe that the provision of broadband is an absolute priority from the State's perspective and these things must be attended to as quickly as possible.

A licence may be granted by the planning authority for such a period and upon such conditions, including conditions in relation to location, design, space taken up and the need to protect protected structures. Again, I also have had situations where somebody looks out their kitchen window and sees a large mast, much to their surprise. A mast can be erected very quickly so consultation is the least that communities might expect.

I recognise that there are difficult competing challenges, which are: to deliver broadband quickly; to deliver the masts quickly; to engage in public consultation; and to have a planning process that enables the quick delivery of this strategic imperative. It is very difficult to manage all of those things both from the perspectives of local authorities and of local representatives.

Section 254(5A) of the Act outlines the licensing process in respect of an application for a licence to erect, construct or place the electronic communication infrastructure and any associated physical infrastructure. If a planning authority fails to make a decision within a period of four months commencing on the date of receipt of an application, a decision of the authority is deemed to have been made on the day following the expiration of that period of four months, which as the Senator said speaks even more to the need to engage in this and engage in it quickly in order that local authorities have the best information, and decision-making, available to them.

Where a planning authority requests additional information from the applicant and has not made a decision within a period of four months of receiving the applicant's response to the request, a deemed decision to grant a licence shall be deemed to have been made. So the Senator can see from what I have said that the impetus is in favour of the granting of a licence. However, because of the need for broadband consultation, it is very difficult to argue that that should be slower, given the imperatives that we have. I think it is also possible to judicially review such things, although I am well aware that this is not an easy thing to do.

Where an appeal has been lodged with An Bord Pleanála to judicially review same, the reality is that the communities want to be consulted on changes to their streetscape. It is also a reality that communities want broadband. On a different day the Senator might come in here looking for an increased roll-out of broadband and these are the competing challenges of running or managing a State.

Emer Currie (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As usual, the Minister of State has gone right to the nub of the issue, which is striking the right balance and making sure that people have access to modern digital services in order that they can lead modern lives. For me, the issue is how this is managed. It does seem like the Wild West as telecommunication masts have been erected on public roads, footpaths and greens. It costs €125 to purchase a licence fee and I wonder if the process can be verified by an overstretched planning department that we want to see busy tackling other issues like housing. Does every operator need one? Can this issue be managed? Can people be made part of this process like we do with all other planning applications in local areas? I ask that because people feel disempowered and that is never a good position to be in. If coverage is needed, and it can be proved that it is needed and is in the best area, then people will accept it but at the moment they have no voice.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I totally understand that, Senator. We must strike a balance between providing consultation but ensure there is no capacity to block or delay it because these things do need to be delivered.

On the questions about whether they are all needed and juxtaposed on the same street or whether they need to be spread out, and what coverage is being provided and by what provider, those are normal transparent pieces of information that people should be able to expect.

I agree with what the Senator said about the fee. It seems unduly low from a commercial perspective, given the benefits that will accrue to a commercial provider. I would always look at fees in the context, particularly on the commercial space and there are such long-standing benefits from the erection of telecommunication infrastructure. More broadly, the roll-out of the broadband plan would benefit from greater consultation between the different providers regarding putting down fresh ducts every time something is opened but I appreciate that I am out of time.