Seanad debates
Wednesday, 25 September 2024
Planning and Development Bill 2023: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage
10:30 am
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Unless the Minister wishes to respond, is the Senator pressing the amendment?
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes. I regret that the Minister has not addressed those issues but I will press it.
Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have addressed them. I could actually-----
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is the Senator pressing the amendment?
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Unless the Minister wants to make a comment.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 71, to delete lines 23 to 25, and substitute the following:“(5) The Minister shall, within 10 days of publication under subsection (3), lay a copy of a National Planning Statement, amendment or revocation so published before each House of the Oireachtas and, if a resolution annulling the National Planning Statement, amendment or revocation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the National Planning Statement, amendment or revocation is laid before it, the National Planning Statement, amendment or revocation, as the case may be, shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.”.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 71, to delete line 30.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 71, line 35, to delete “not of itself”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 71, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:“(8) A National Planning Statement shall be consistent with the matters specified in section 21(2).”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 72, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “(i) provision of suitable Traveller accommodation;”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 72, line 32, to delete “and transportation strategies” and substitute “, development and transportation strategies”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 72, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following: “(n) integration of accessible and inclusive urban design and the provision of accessible and inclusive facilities;”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 73, to delete lines 5 to 9 and substitute the following: “(p) integration of the pursuit and achievement of the national climate objective and relevant climate action related policies and measures of the Government, including those prepared pursuant to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, into regional spatial and economic strategies, development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans and coordinated area plans;”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 73, between lines 13 and 14 to insert the following: “(2) Before issuing a National Planning Statement the Minister shall ensure that such Statement is consistent with the National Planning Framework and the National Marine Planning Framework.”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 73, between lines 15 and 16 to insert the following: “(b) both Houses of the Oireachtas,”.
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos 92 to 114, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 106 to 114, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 105. Amendments Nos. 109 to 114, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 108. Amendments Nos. 92 to 114, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 81, to delete line 29.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The amendments in my name and that of my colleague, Senator McDowell are amendments Nos. 92, 99, 102, 105 and 108. I will speak to amendments Nos. 92, 99 and 102. We have talked about deleting the reference to the regulator in this section. The Minister has briefed us on the Planning Regulator. I welcome the Government amendment No. 716 which deals with this somewhat. How he appoints the advisory board will be important. I do not want to open a bigger debate about his appointments to An Bord Pleanála. There was an expectation that the legislation would provide for representation for agriculture on the board. That did not happen. I have looked at the profiles of all the representatives on the board and there is no one with agricultural expertise and yet that is provided for. I wish to flag that as something that may be an issue.
Planning is, of course, about sustainable planning development but it is also about our economic development and how we map out land use, which is another important aspect as the Minister will be well aware, in terms of the residential zoned land tax. I welcome that because it is a genuine effort. The Minister has told us that this is as a result of engagement and listening in the Dáil and Seanad. I take him at his word for that and thank him for it.
Yesterday, I spoke about the periodic critical review, PCR, of the OPR and that is due to be undertaken as outlined in a briefing that was given to the Minister of State at the Department of housing when he took office. I suppose the objective of the review of this process is primarily to secure improvements in accountability, efficiency and effectiveness. It is also about the scrutiny and objectivity of and rationale for the Office of the Planning Regulator. Subject to everyone being in government and everything running smoothly, I ask the Minister to give his absolute commitment to the periodic critical review, which is a key objective in the corporate vision for his Department. It is not about individuals who hold the office because that changes and will change as the Minister well knows. There are serious concerns about that issue. I will not go on about any of the other amendments. It is important that this critical review takes place. I welcome the debate and I will contribute further if we get to the Government amendment - we probably will not get to that quite frankly. I acknowledge the importance and significance of that intervention.
Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Regarding the periodic critical review, as the OPR was established in 2019, the PCR is now due to be undertaken. Informal meetings have been held between my Department and the OPR regarding the periodic critical review process. Officials in both the Department of Housing and OPR are currently engaging in an information-gathering exercise in advance of the formal PCR commencing. As part of the process, a working group will be established consisting of nominees from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the Department of public expenditure and reform and also the Office of the Planning Regulator. A number of meetings will be held and engagement will also be had with other relevant stakeholders, in particular local authorities. It is important that that happens. Any recommendations arising from the process will be given full consideration by all parties.
I will deal with the amendments as tabled in this large grouping. Amendments Nos. 92, 99, 102, 103 and 105 have been tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell. Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 114 have been tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn.
Amendments Nos. 92, 99, 102, 103, 105 and 108 all seek to delete the role of the OPR in relation to the regional spatial and economic strategy. As mentioned in response to other amendments seeking to delete references to the OPR, I cannot accept these amendments. The OPR carries out significant functions which assist with the effective operation of the planning system as a whole. I know there has been some discussion. I welcome Senator Boyhan's intervention and other feedback. Some Members have been critical of the operation of the OPR. It is a perception that some would have from time to time. As Minister, I take the opportunity to commend the OPR and the work its staff are doing. We need to realise why the OPR is there. It carries out an incredibly important function and its staff carry out their duties extremely well. I commend the work they are doing. They have been very important partners in this whole process. The OPR is a very important part of our planning system. I know Senator Boyhan and others have welcomed the amendments to the OPR's governance I have made under amendment No. 716, which will further strengthen the operation of the OPR.
Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 114 relate to assessments by the Office of the Planning Regulator of a regional spatial and economic strategy, RSES, to ensure the regional tier of the planning system remains aligned with the national planning statement. This is to ensure consistency and coherence across the planning system.
Amendment No. 111 seeks to remove the requirement for an RSES to be consistent with a national planning statement. Obviously, I cannot accept that. In order to ensure a proper method of control exists to retain and readjust the alignment between national and regional planning tiers, it makes no sense to remove that requirement.
Amendment No. 112 makes reference to a “protective measure” in a regional spatial and economic strategy but without a corresponding definition of this term or further provision to elaborate or explain the meaning of such a measure. I do not think anyone would expect me to accept that. It was very loosely worded and ill-defined or not defined at all.
Amendment No. 114 would delete a reasonable and precautionary provision ensuring that in the context of a judicial review, where a direction relates to the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (8) of section 38, and only certain criteria are considered to have been met, once one or more of the other criteria listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) have been met, and the court finds that the Minister was entitled to form the opinion the subject of the direction, then the direction will not be quashed by the court. I believe this provision is sound and should be retained and for this reason I am unable to accept this amendment.
We have some Government amendments in this grouping that have not yet been moved. It might be helpful for the House if I discussed them now. They are mainly technical. Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 seek to amend section 31 of the Bill, which sets out the procedure for consultation for the preparation of a new or revised regional spatial and economic strategy. This amendment looks to add “the Minister” to the list of bodies to which the National Transport Authority must submit its report. That is just a language change there.
Amendments Nos. 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 104, 109 and 113 are all minor language amendments.Amendment No. 95 seeks to replace the word “recommendation” in section 32(15) for consistency, where the word “observations” had previously been used in this section. Amendment No. 96 inserts the word “received” for clarity. This does not change the context of the provision. Amendment No. 97 inserts the phrase “by the Minister or the Office of the Planning Regulator” for clarity and does not alter the meaning of the provision. Amendment No. 98 seeks to correct a citation error without altering the meaning of the provision. Amendment No. 100 seeks to replace for consistency the word “recommendation” in section 33(10) with the word “observations”, which had previously been used in this section. Amendment No. 101 seeks to correct a citation error without altering the meaning of the provision.
Section 35 replaces section 25A of the Act of 2000 and requires that a regional assembly keep the implementation of the regional spatial and economic strategy under review. Amendment No. 104 clarifies precisely the timescale allowed for the preparation of a progress report provided for under this section. Amendment No. 109 is a wording amendment that seeks to add certainty to the timescale surrounding the issuance of a notice to a regional assembly and the Minister by the OPR under section 38(4). Amendment No. 113 is a technical amendment and seeks to correct the current wording by deleting the word “draft” from the reference to “Before issuing a draft direction”. Under this and all provisions, the Minister issues the final direction and not a draft direction, which would be delivered by the Office of the Planning Regulator.
Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 110 all relate to directions. Section 36 provides that the Minister shall consider the recommendation, statement of reasons and proposed terms for the draft direction and shall make a decision as to whether to accept the recommendation of the office. Where the Minister decides that a draft direction should be issued under section 39, he shall direct the office to do so. Section 36(9) sets out the arrangements where the Minister decides that a draft direction should not be issued. Amendment No. 106 seeks to insert into this provision “and his or her reasons for deciding that a draft direction should not be issued” in order to provide the OPR with the rationale behind the Minister’s decision not to issue a draft direction. Amendments Nos. 107 and 110 insert similar provisions in sections 37 and 38.
These are a number of minor amendments in this grouping to clarify language. I have also provided for consultation with the Minister on the regional spatial and economic strategies, which is appropriate. I am not in a position to accept the Senator's proposed amendments for the reasons I have outlined.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister has already replied on the amendments but I will formally put them. The Minister said that amendment No. 114 relates to a situation where the Minister is entitled to form an opinion. To be clear, our amendment relates to a situation where the Minister is not entitled to form an opinion. It relates to where a court has said that the Minister was not entitled to form an opinion. Extraordinarily, the Bill states that, even where a court has found that the Minister is not entitled to form an opinion, the direction based on that opinion that the Minister was not entitled to form will effectively still stand.
The other important point related to ensuring a prioritisation of the planning framework over the planning statement. It was put to us that the other amendment was very vague but it is actually very important. It ensures that there will not be a protective measure by a regional assembly where the impact of that action will be irreversible. Where a decision is pending, we should not see the effective pausing of a protective measure to protect against an action that may be irreversible. I wanted to add that for context. I appreciate that the Minister has already responded on the amendments.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister for his response to the amendments. I take on board his comments on the Office of the Planning Regulator. We are talking about the office rather than the personality. The Minister made those points well.
As regards timelines, the periodic critical review that is part of his vision will clearly happen first. It should feed into the Minister's proposals in amendment No. 716, which relates to the new advisory board. It would make sense to have a periodic review. The commitment is that it will be undertaken in the latter half of this year. Despite all of the constraints, the positions and where we will all be in time, the Civil Service does not stop. Things go on. The Minister is committed to this review. There are only three months until the end of the year. Does he see it starting before then? I believe it is important. We cannot judge the outcome. It is a proper independent process but it is important.
I will speak to part of the misunderstanding or suspicion about the OPR. Some of the Minister's party's councillors have written to me. I have seen Government Ministers, Government TDs and Opposition TDs raise concerns. I have seen various concerns about the OPR's directions in local authorities. I know it is a separate process. We do not always like the outcomes of the board's processes or other processes but they are the processes. There is an element of suspicion about it. It is a body that is settling down. This periodic critical review may identify weaknesses and it may not but I believe it is important. Will the Minister confirm that, with his instruction as Minister, he will push ahead for that in the Department? I suggest that this body of work needs to happen in advance of the process being completed to feed into the next part, the Minister's initiative, the advisory board, which I welcome.
Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To answer Senator Boyhan directly, I expect the review to commence this year. As he rightly said, regardless of electoral cycles or when the election happens, the preparatory work has commenced. My officials have been meeting with officials in the OPR already. The information gathering piece is there. It is important that it is done. The office has been in place for five years or thereabouts. It is important that is done. It will inform how we move forward. That will commence this side of the new year. The recommendations that flow from that will certainly be very informative.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 99:
In page 88, lines 31 and 32, to delete “and the Office of the Planning Regulator”.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 102:
In page 89, to delete lines 12 to 14.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 103:
In page 89, to delete line 23.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 105:
In page 90, to delete lines 31 to 41, to delete pages 91 to 103, and in page 104, to delete lines 1 to 5.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 108:
In page 94, to delete lines 24 to 39, to delete pages 95 to 103, and in page 104, to delete lines 1 to 5.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 111:
In page 97, after line 42, to insert the following: “(15) Where a regional assembly demonstrates that the regional spatial and economic strategy is consistent with the National Planning Framework and the National Maritime Planning Framework and to be brought into alignment with a National Planning Statement would lead to inconsistency with either the National Planning Framework or the National Maritime Planning Framework, a draft direction shall not be issued on any provisions of the regional spatial and economic strategy concerned.”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 112:
In page 98, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(4) Where a provision is subject to a draft direction in accordance with subsection (2) but that provision is considered a protective measure such provision shall continue to have effect pending the decision of the Minister under section 40(4).”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 114:
In page 103, line 36, to delete “shall not warrant the quashing of the direction where” and substitute with “shall warrant the quashing of the direction, including where”.
Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 115 to 150, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 126 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 125. Amendments Nos. 137 to 150, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 136. Amendments Nos. 115 to 150, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 115:
In page 104, to delete lines 33 to 38 and substitute the following: “(1) A planning authority shall make a development plan for its functional area every 6 years.
(2) Not later than 4 years after the making of each development plan for the functional area of a planning authority, the planning authority shall commence a review of the development plan in accordance with sections 53 and 54, with a view to making a new development plan in accordance with section 55.”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 speak to the serious concerns we have around the erosion of local democracy and the centralisation of power in the Bill. Amendment No. 115 seeks to ensure that development plans are made every six years, with the review beginning every four years. We spoke on Committee Stage about the move from a six-year local development plan to a ten-year plan. This will mean that many elected councillors whose powers are already excessively constrained may never have the opportunity to contribute to a development plan in their area. This is a key reserve power. Many people put themselves forward for local election and one of the reasons they do so is that they want to contribute to the discussion and facilitate those they represent to have a say in the decisions that affect and shape our shared spaces and how we live together. One of the crucial reserve powers in that regard is the local development plan. This has been undercut in a number of ways by extending the timeframe. This means that many of those who are elected to represent and support the views of the public on crucial issues of local development will not have the opportunity to do so or to reflect their democratic mandate.
It is also crucial to note that the requirement to align development plans with the national planning policy statement goes against the principle of subsidiarity and the idea that decisions should be made as close to the citizen as possible. If decisions are being made in terms of the national planning framework, there is a channel whereby the public can have an input. There is a level of consultation and people can feed up into the national planning framework, which then may feed down into the decisions made in local development plans. The Minister's planning statement, however, which will be given the same, if not greater, weighting than the national planning framework, does not have the same requirements in terms of public consultation and accountability. Therefore, the Minister may issue a direct edict from above without there being an appropriate channel to influence those policies. The Minister has been very clear that it will be expected that local development plans align themselves with whatever the Minister of the day has decided to put into the planning statement or an amendment of the planning statement. That is why it would be more appropriate to align our development plans with the national planning framework and not with a national planning statement, which, again, contravenes the principle of subsidiarity.
There are many sections of the Bill in which the UNCRPD should be referenced, and we have mentioned those throughout. Amendment No. 118 addresses yet another one, again highlighting the fact that our ratification of the UNCRPD must be followed up with meaningful action, including the idea that when we are planning for our future and for our local areas, we have to ensure that we plan for all within those areas and that we have accessible and inclusive spaces - we have gone beyond accessibility into inclusion - where all can participate fully. It is unfortunate that this kind of language around inclusive, accessible communities and the UNCRPD is not mentioned in this section.
We have also raised the issue of Traveller accommodation. It is important in this section, particularly because there has been a failure at local authority level to deliver Traveller accommodation. Funding has been ring-fenced but not spent. It is interesting that we are hearing about the importance of national guidance on lots of different areas, but when it comes to the question of Traveller accommodation, we are not seeing, either in the planning framework or planning statement, proper provision being made to ensure delivery for an ethnic minority in the State, who have been poorly served right across the State. The living conditions and early death rate of Travellers in Ireland are an indictment of policy at all levels and should be addressed at all levels, including through the local development plans.
Amendment No. 120 seeks to ensure the development management statement will include objectives around the regulation and layout of areas among the items listed in section 51(2). It should not be optional to include objectives around the regulation of layout. That should be required.
Amendment No. 121 seeks to include objectives relating to the preservation and enhancement of public rights of way, which give access to seashores, mountains and other places of natural beauty, recreational and practical utility, and safety in terms of safe passage. Such public rights of way are often used by families, children and others. There seems to be a backwards step that weaken provisions. The requirement would be to have public rights of way included. The Bill now proposes that they "may include" reference to public rights of way.
This is an area in which the Government very nearly dropped the ball in the past. Three years ago, for example, I signalled that all unregistered rights of way in Ireland would expire within 15 months. We would have had a situation where every right of way that people have used up and down the country that was not registered, which most are not, would have expired, leading to absolute chaos in terms of how people go about their daily lives and the loss of long established - in some cases established for generations - public rights of way. The Government refused to engage on that issue for months. One day before the expiration, the Government finally listened and took action.
I worry that a short-sighted approach to these public rights of way will again create problems whereby if local development plans are not required to map the public rights of way, it will create difficulties and confusion around what the public rights of way are, where they are and how they are to be used. I note that there are other concerning amendments in respect of the question of compensation and fees related to the establishment of public rights of way. I have tabled amendments with regard to those matters as well. It is very important that we do not create a financial obstacle for local authorities or individuals in respect of the use of long established rights of way or the creation of necessary new public rights of way. In rural Ireland, these could provide a green network that allows pedestrians, cyclists and others to access our towns and villages in a safe manner, particularly given the road safety concerns of which we are all aware.
Amendment No. 126 seeks to clarify that where there is an "incompatibility between either the National Planning Framework or the National Marine Planning Framework and a National Planning Policies and Measures" priority should sit with the NPF and NMPF. What will happen where there is an inconsistency between a planning statement and the planning frameworks? There needs to be a prioritisation and detail in respect of that.
The Minister's amendment No. 131 seeks to limit the number of directions that could be issued by a planning authority to the chief executive.This is a limitation on recommendations arising from the open submission. We have talked up and down in this House, on all sides, about the imbalance of power between chief executives at local authority level and elected members. This again will weaken the power of local authority members to give directions to the chief executive and represents a further move towards undermining local democracy and limiting what can be done.
All these small nickel and dime cuts that we have had to the already-limited local authority powers and the powers of elected members do not just have an impact on the members, they have an impact on the public. For people who engage with democracy, the local authority and the election of their councillors is one of the first and most clear areas where we tell people their vote matters, they can make a difference and they can affect what happens in their local area. When we consistently undermine the powers of local councillors, whom people elect, we also undermine the faith of the public in democracy at a time democracy is under threat right across Europe and when the lack of faith in hard-won democratic processes is a crisis. This is a poor and short-sighted decision.
Amendment No. 143 removes the need for the Office of the Planning Regulator to make a recommendation if a development plan is found to be inconsistent with the national planning statement. I have been clear on my concerns on the national planning statement.
Amendment No. 145 seeks to ensure that where a development plan is consistent with the national planning framework and the national marine planning framework and to be brought into alignment with a national planning statement would lead to an inconsistency with the planning framework or the maritime planning framework, priority should be given to the planning frameworks and not simply to the edicts of the Minister. As a group, we have expressed concern about the powers of the Minister in terms of imposing their will on local government and local authorities but if they are to exist, they should at least be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. These decisions are important. They should not exclusively be heard behind closed doors in the Custom House or around the Cabinet table. That is why amendment No. 146 seeks to make the Minister’s power under section 63 subject to votes of the Dáil and Seanad.
Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
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.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. Given that the senior Minister has now gone, having responded to the amendments, I do not expect the Minister of State to change that. It gives me an opportunity to talk about two of the amendments out of this group before us that are very pertinent to the Minister of State as a member of the Green Party. The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, has dealt with them but I will just touch on two. Amendment No. 124 relates to the insertion between lines 16 and 17 of the words, "provisions, plans or existing rural housing”. This provision relates to section 52, "Settlement-specific objectives", which is within Chapter 5 on development plans, which in turn forms part of Part 3 of the Bill, which relates to "Plans, Policies and Related Matters".
The gist of it is about rural housing and we need to acknowledge it. The Minister of State himself has been in here before me to deal with Commencement matters. The Government has consistently promised that there would be regional housing guidelines. These are pertinent now because in a matter of weeks, people will be knocking on doors, including me, supporting candidates for election and they will talk about all the promises they made. One thing we can surely say from the record of both Houses of the Oireachtas, from replies to parliamentary questions and to Commencement matters is that the Government has consistently peddled the story that it is working on the draft guidelines. The Minister of State will be aware, of course, of the Flemish Decree and the responsibilities around that and yet the Government continues to write letters and answer questions that state it is working on rural housing planning guidelines.
The main parties of Government, namely, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael - not the Green Party - will peddle the story that this is just the Greens and we have to give them a little. There is not an inch of change in terms of rural housing. The Minister of State articulated yesterday his understanding regarding rural housing and that we cannot have, willy-nilly, one-off self-build houses all over the country but I believe in sustainable development. Sustainable development is more than just the environment, it is about sustainable agriculture, sustainable horticulture and sustainable rural communities, which many people in these Houses represent. They will be knocking on the doors within months telling them they did the divil and all. To be clear, I am a Member of the Agricultural Panel of Seanad Éireann and happen to be on the Oireachtas joint committee on housing, planning and local government and the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and Marine. I do a reasonably good job of articulating the views of constituents and people who contact my office on these issues.
We need clarity on rural housing. Will we allow people to build rural houses in the communities they belong to? Will we allow our people to live on agricultural and family-owned lands? Will we allow people to build homes in rural communities in order that the schools that many of the people went to themselves can continue. We now have GAA clubs and parish churches in rural Ireland closing down because of the lack of population in certain parts of Ireland. That is a fact. I support building houses in towns and villages, consolidating towns and villages and creating transport nodes and corridors. I go along with all of that but I believe we can do more and I believe we can allow people to live in rural areas.
The Minister of State represents an urban and rural constituency in equal measure so he knows what I am talking about. There are families that cannot afford to have a house. We have people on social housing lists who are members of a family that may own a farm of 100 ha but they cannot get a house. We have people who want to live in these communities in rural Ireland but they cannot get a house. They could possibly get a site from their family if they could build a house. They could get equity and finance to build or partially build a house. Self-build homes can take three, four, five years. The Minister of State will know from seeing self-build houses dotted around Kilkenny. They might not be built in 12 months. They might take four or five years as cash comes their way for people but we are closing up the option. Whatever the Government policy is, that is the Government policy. I am part of the Opposition and I want to highlight the issue. I have been asked to include this amendment in relation to the provisions, plans or existing rural housing.
Clearly, the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, has said he is not accepting the amendment but it does give me an opportunity yet again to articulate a consistent view that I have expressed in this House, that is, we must support families and individuals who wish to build, subject to proper planning applications and processes. There is a stalemate in government where Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil tell me outside these Houses they are frustrated by the Green Party in this regard. I would like to think the Minister of State will be re-elected because he is a man of integrity, commitment and I believe in many of the views he articulates. There is room here for this and while we might not see it in this Bill, what is the commitment on one-off rural housing? Will the people knocking on the doors know? It is not sustainable and it is not in any way acceptable that you can knock on doors five years later and say we are still working on the guidelines. The Minister of State is in government. These parties are in government. They are coming to the end of their term and they need to now show where they stand and be accountable for the promises and the commitments they have made in that regard. I will leave it at that but this is really just an opportunity to again raise that concern.
The other amendment relates to prescribed bodies. Amendment No. 129 proposes, in page 124, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following,“prescribed body”. The Minister of State will know what the prescribed bodies are. Many members of prescribed bodies are great supporters of the Green Party or in the past have been great supporters. I do not know if that will quite be the case next time but the Minister of State will be familiar with An Taisce and a whole load of bodies. I attached a number of prescribed bodies when I submitted this amendment and prescribed bodies have a main, major and meaningful role. Although a lot of people do not know this, particularly many politicians in here who complain about them, the irony is that many of these prescribed bodies are funded by the Government. If some people had their way around here, they would cut off their sources of funding. These prescribed bodies act in a very important role, such as An Taisce, Irish Water and a whole load of bodies. We have to acknowledge the significant role prescribed bodies have played in putting the brakes on the destruction of our built environment and heritage, which the Minister of State has special responsibility for and a keen interest in. We need to send out all the measures that we believe and support. We will continue to support prescribed bodies as they will be central to this legislation. While many of them have been critical of aspects of the Bill, it ultimately will become law at some point and they will have to work, as we all will, together to get the best of it.
There will be other opportunities at some other stage but I am only giving voice to those two issues. I realise the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, has already made a decision. I accept that and I do not expect the Minister of State to contradict that but I am glad to have the opportunity to articulate those two views.
Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Minister of State wish to reply now? Senator Flynn has indicated as well, so the Minister of State can take them all together if he wants.
Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If Senator Flynn wishes to speak that is okay.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will speak briefly on the amendment on Traveller accommodation that the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, has indicated his Department cannot accept. Yesterday, while the Minister of State was in this Chamber, he made a comment that Traveller accommodation falls under the traveller accommodation programme, TAP, which is handled at a local and national level as well. That is the problem. It has not worked in the past 25 years and the Minister of State should implement the amendments from the Civil Engagement Group, some of which came from the Oireachtas committee on the Traveller community and the traveller expert group from 2019. Some of those amendments also came from the Traveller committee and the Traveller expert group from 2019. How can we stand by this in the next ten years? This is a bit like the itinerant report that was made to make the Traveller community fake settled people and how it referred to us as a community. I can guarantee that in the next ten or 15 years, members of my community will look on this legislation and say they were failed by it. Even today, members of the Traveller community are being failed by this legislation. The response from the Minister of State here today and from the Minister and the junior Minister is that we have the national framework for Traveller accommodation programme, TAP. That has not worked for 25 years. If something is not working, we have to fix it and this Bill gives us that opportunity. This relates to these amendments, around disability rights and disabled people's accommodation being linked in this legislation. It may seem strong to the House, but this is blatant discrimination, once again, against disabled people and members of the Traveller community. I urge the Minister of State to think about that. In the next ten or 15 years, I am sure that people will feel so let down by him, the Minister and the junior Minister for housing. Now we have, "Drink the soup while it is hot". Now we have the opportunity to name Travellers and disabled people in this legislation. We need the political will to be able to do that.
Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senators Boyhan and Flynn for their contributions since I took over duty here. I want to reiterate the points around the rural housing guidelines. The Department is working on them. That is not to say that the existing rural housing guidelines are not in place at local authority level. All local authorities have to adhere to them and local needs. I take on board the points Senator Boyhan made about local families and maintaining the viability of family farms. Succession is one of the major issues affecting farming now. It is also true to say, and I think the Senator will agree, that the unchecked proliferation of rural housing has undermined the viability of many of our smaller towns and villages, where there are services such as water and wastewater infrastructure and many fine buildings that could be put back into use. From a planning and development perspective it is important that clustering occurs around urban growth centres to maintain the viability and vibrancy of our wonderful towns and villages. We have to strike a balance. The Government has introduced the vacant homes refurbishment grant, which has brought a lot of fantastic farmhouses and traditional buildings into use for families. Conservation advice and grants are also available to support that. The existing policies are in place and they may not have always served us well because there are significant challenges if we do not have regulation on rural housing that ensures that it is done in a sustainable way.
I mentioned the issue of contaminated well water last night. We are proposing that there should be free testing for that. There are many significant issues with people not even being aware that the well water they are drinking is contaminated. There is a myriad of issues, including transportation and isolation that have to be addressed in this legislation. That is why we need to have good guidance on it.
I also take on board the points made regarding prescribed bodies. An Taisce and other organisations do invaluable work in our system in ensuring there is a voice for NGOs around good, sustainable development and planning. That has to be recognised.
I can give Senator Flynn the same assurances that I have given to her here on previous occasions, and as I did last night, about the real significance of the strength of the local Traveller accommodation consultative committees, LTACCs, in developing the TAP. The Government has provided significant funding. The two former Ministers of State who have had responsibility, Deputy Peter Burke and Deputy Kieran O'Donnell, and the current Minister of State, Deputy Alan Dillon, have kept pressure on local authorities to ensure that they are spending their budgets, because it is really important that they do so. In the past, we have had issues of local authorities not meeting their allocation of spending for Traveller accommodation under the TAP. This was more than regrettable, because it left a lot of families in awful situations of overcrowding on temporary halting sites and in inadequate housing. That has to change and we are very conscious of it.
There is also the wider issue of Traveller nomadism, where some families like to travel and go on the road for the summer. These are issues that have probably not been grappled with in respect of the provision of temporary halting bays. It is part of Traveller culture. I gave the figures last night. There is a very significant spend on the TAP. The Ministers have kept that pressure on to ensure that every local authority meets its obligations under their TAP.
Added to that, which I mentioned yesterday evening as well, the needs of Traveller families are changing. Many families are opting not to go for Traveller-specific housing. They are renting in the private market under HAP tenancies or other accommodation types. It is important that those changing needs are met. In particular, the issues of overcrowding and homelessness among Travellers need to be dealt with. I will point back to the local solution. The Government is providing the funding and the policies to ensure that the TAP programmes are successful. However, it is really down to the local authorities, particularly the elected members, to ensure that there is a strong delivery of housing for Traveller families.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What the Minister of State is presenting as the solution has been clearly identified as the problem by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Key Issues Affecting the Traveller Community, the Traveller Oireachtas group and other organisations. To talk about funding and the levels of funding when the funding has been consistently unused or under used is entirely hypothetical. To suggest that the Travellers will be in this separate framework where we can think about how we can accommodate them denotes the lack of actual thinking about each person needing appropriate shelter. It is reflected in many things. I will not go into housing for all. This scheme failed to plan in any way for the fact and reality that we knew at the time migrants and asylum seekers would be coming to Ireland from Ukraine and other places. This effectively said that we would plan for a small subsection of the population. What we see here is that we will have a national planning framework and local development plans. Then on the side, with whatever bits or scraps of land that might be left over, when we have planned out how we will use our shared space on this island, we will think about accommodating some Travellers and let every battle happen at local level and every individual council come up with excuse after excuse for not spending its money. That is what has been continuing to happen. To say there is any victory or positive news; there really is not. There was a chance to say that this national ethnic minority is part of our national planning framework and part of the Minister's statements, which are an essential part of local development planning. That has been declined. This is not directed at the Minister of State personally but we need to be really clear that this is what has happened.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is the case with accessibility and all of these other issues. The fact is that we are sliding backwards on public rights of way. I spoke to the Minister of State two years and a half years ago about the vision for what public rights of way could be, even from a green perspective. Our amendments refer to access to spaces of natural beauty. It is not just about that; it is about access to schools, children being able to travel on their own down cow-roads or public rights of way and people being able to access water or our rivers or nature. Our amendments mention access to cemeteries. There is a consistent failure to try to strengthen the legislation. What we are seeing is a weakening. The Minister of State has just said that there are lots of reasons we might not want to list rights of way.
Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Allow me to interrupt the Senator for a moment. I welcome Councillor Enda McGloin and his guests to the Public Gallery. Enda works with Deputy Frankie Feighan. You are all very welcome.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
These are essential things, heritage sites and all of the rest, but there is nothing in there around that. What we are seeing is a backward step whereby it might become harder. We know that under this Government's watch a very stupid mistake was nearly made whereby all of the rights of way by use would have expired. Now we are seeing a kind of chipping away whereby some of the public rights of way that do exist might disappear and it becomes harder to have them. These are small but significant issues. We do not have time to go into the rest of them in this regard but in all of this, there is an underlying failure of democracy. We are seeing the erosion of local government's say in terms of local development plans. Let us be really clear, and it should be really clear when people leave this House and go to councillors around the country that the decision has been made to give more power to the chief executive and less accountability for the chief executive to local authority members. All of these are things that, bit by bit, damage not just the powers of local authority members but also damage local democracy. Crucially, they damage the faith of the public in local democracy when they see that they will have less say. They also damage, of course, the faith of those minority communities, including persons with disabilities and Travellers, who look to the national planning framework and the local development plans and do not see themselves named or identified.
Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will make a quick reply. Over the course of the debates on this Bill I am hearing contradictory remarks about the loss of local democracy and the handing over of powers to the OPC. What I spoke to Senator Flynn about was that local, democratic accountability around the delivery of Traveller accommodation, which is absolutely crucial. We cannot underestimate that. I also said that the Government's job is to ensure funding is in place for Traveller accommodation programmes. It is hugely important that when the LTACC does its work and presents its Traveller accommodation programme to the elected members, the elected members then have a responsibility to vote that Traveller accommodation in. That is absolutely local, democratic and accountable. If they do not do it, and there have been failures in the past, then that is absolutely right down to the local representatives. We have the LCDCs, and other new local government structures. I was not entirely a fan of some of the new structures that were brought in and it is fair to say that I would not have been a huge fan of the local government reforms that were introduced in 2014 either but there are elements that have worked well. They are about local, democratic accountability and it is really important to say that. I am hearing contradictory arguments saying that we are handing all of the power back to central government. I spent 16 years in local government and agree that it needs strengthening. There is no doubt about that but the elected members already have existing powers, responsibilities and functions and it is important that they carry those out. I say that specifically in relation to Traveller accommodation.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I know I cannot come in again but I would just say that I was clear in supporting the national planning framework but not the national planning statement.
Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator knows the rules better than anyone else.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 116:
In page 105, to delete lines 10 to 16 and substitute the following:
“(5) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a development plan shall have effect for a period of 6 years beginning on the date on which it comes into effect under subsection (17) of section 55. (b) Where the Minister, at the request of the elected council of a planning authority, certifies in writing that exceptional circumstances exist warranting the extension of the period referred to in paragraph (a), the Minister may extend that period by such further period of no more than 2 years as may be specified by the Minister.”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 118:
In page 110, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(b) supports implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons,”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 119:
In page 112, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
“(e) a specific strategy for Traveller accommodation prepared in direct consultation with Travellers;”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 120:
In page 117, line 24, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 121:
In page 118, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(3) A development management statement shall include objectives for the preservation and enhancement of public rights of way which give access to seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank, cemetery, monument or other places of natural beauty or recreational utility, which public rights of way shall be identified both by marking them on at least one of the maps forming part of the development management statement and by indicating their location on a list appended to the development management statement.”
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 122:
In page 118, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(3) A development management statement shall include objectives for the preservation of public rights of way which give access to seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank, cemetery, monument or other places of natural beauty or recreational utility, which public rights of way shall be identified both by marking them on at least one of the maps forming part of the development management statement and by indicating their location on a list appended to the development management statement.”.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 123:
In page 118, to delete lines 14 to 16 and substitute the following: “(3) A development management statement shall include objectives for the preservation of public rights of way which give access to seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank, monument or other places of natural beauty or recreational utility, which public rights of way shall be identified both by marking them on at least one of the maps forming part of the development management statement and by indicating their location on a list appended to the development management statement.”.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 124:
In page 119, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“(x) provisions, plans or existing rural housing,”.
Tá
Frances Black, Victor Boyhan, Eileen Flynn, Paul Gavan, Alice-Mary Higgins, Annie Hoey, Marie Sherlock, Mark Wall, Fintan Warfield.
Níl
Garret Ahearn, Niall Blaney, Nikki Bradley, Malcolm Byrne, Micheál Carrigy, Pat Casey, Shane Cassells, Martin Conway, Ollie Crowe, Emer Currie, Paul Daly, Mary Fitzpatrick, Robbie Gallagher, Gerry Horkan, Seán Kyne, Tim Lombard, Vincent P Martin, John McGahon, Erin McGreehan, Eugene Murphy, Fiona O'Loughlin, Joe O'Reilly, Pauline O'Reilly, Barry Ward, Diarmuid Wilson.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 125:
In page 121, to delete lines 1 to 39, and in page 122, to delete lines 1 to 19.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 126:
In page 121, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “(3) In the process of consultation under subsection (1), where an incompatibility between either the National Planning Framework or the National Marine Planning Framework and a National Planning Policies and Measures is identified, consistency of a development plan with the National Planning Framework and the National Marine Planning Framework shall be prioritised.”.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 127:
In page 122, to delete lines 36 to 38.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 128:
In page 123, to delete line 21.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 129:
In page 124, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(x) prescribed body,”.
Tá
Frances Black, Victor Boyhan, Tom Clonan, Paul Gavan, Alice-Mary Higgins, Annie Hoey, Marie Sherlock, Mark Wall, Fintan Warfield.
Níl
Garret Ahearn, Niall Blaney, Nikki Bradley, Malcolm Byrne, Maria Byrne, Micheál Carrigy, Pat Casey, Martin Conway, Ollie Crowe, Emer Currie, Paul Daly, Mary Fitzpatrick, Robbie Gallagher, Gerry Horkan, Seán Kyne, Tim Lombard, Vincent P Martin, John McGahon, Erin McGreehan, Eugene Murphy, Fiona O'Loughlin, Joe O'Reilly, Barry Ward, Diarmuid Wilson.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 131:
In paragraph (e), to delete all words from “, but” down to and including “strategy”.
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I second the amendment to the amendment.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 131:
In paragraph (e), after “particular strategy” to insert “, except in circumstances where a majority of the members of a planning authority agree by resolution that a particular strategy requires more than one direction as a matter of public interest”.
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I second the amendment to the amendment.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 136:
In page 148, to delete lines 16 to 40, to delete pages 149 to 162, and in page 163, to delete lines 1 to 31.
Mark WallVictor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 137:
In page 148, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(1) Nothing in this section shall be commenced without consultation, approval and explicit permission listed in the National Planning Statement.”.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 141:
In page 150, to delete lines 6 and 7 and substitute the following: “(11) A direction under paragraph (b) of subsection (9) shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas by the Minister before it is put to a vote either as a motion or a Bill.”.
Tá
Frances Black, Victor Boyhan, Eileen Flynn, Paul Gavan, Alice-Mary Higgins, Marie Sherlock, Mark Wall, Fintan Warfield.
Níl
Garret Ahearn, Niall Blaney, Nikki Bradley, Malcolm Byrne, Maria Byrne, Micheál Carrigy, Shane Cassells, Martin Conway, Ollie Crowe, Emer Currie, Mary Fitzpatrick, Robbie Gallagher, Róisín Garvey, Gerry Horkan, Seán Kyne, Vincent P Martin, John McGahon, Erin McGreehan, Mal O'Hara, Joe O'Reilly, Barry Ward, Diarmuid Wilson.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 143:
In page 154, to delete lines 20 to 25 and substitute the following: “(b) is materially inconsistent with—(i) the National Planning Framework;
(ii) where the planning authority is a coastal planning authority, the National Marine Planning Framework, or
(iii) the relevant regional spatial and economic strategy.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 145:
In page 155, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(16) Where a planning authority demonstrates that the development plan or proposed variation to such development plan is consistent with the National Planning Framework and the National Maritime Planning Framework and to be brought into alignment with a National Planning Statement would lead to inconsistency with either the National Planning Framework or the National Maritime Planning Framework, a draft direction shall not be issued on any provisions of the development plan or variation thereof concerned.”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No.146:
In page 159, line 18, to delete “The Minister may, subject to this section,” and substitute “The Minister may, subject to this section and the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas,”
John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 151 to 156, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 153 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 152. Amendments Nos. 151 to 156, inclusive may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendment No. 151 seeks to remove the erroneous referral to “development plan” in subsection (4) of section 77. Regional, spatial and economic strategies take account of regional development, while development plans deal solely with the development within each local authority area. Following the completion of the assessment by the Office of the Planning Regulator, it shall make a recommendation and a statement of reasons to the Minister as to whether a draft direction under section 79 should be issued. The Minister shall consider the recommendation, statement of reasons and proposed terms for the draft direction and shall make a decision as to whether to accept the recommendation of the office. Where the Minister decides that a draft direction should be issued under section 79, he or she shall direct the office to do so. Subsection (13) sets out the arrangements where the Minister decides that a draft direction should not be issued.
Amendment No. 153 seeks to insert into this provision “and his or her reasons for deciding that a draft direction should not be issued” in order to provide the OPR with the rationale behind the Minister’s decision not to issue a draft direction.
Amendment No. 155 is a technical amendment and seeks to correct the current wording “Before issuing a draft direction”. Under this and all provisions, the Minister issues the final direction, not a draft direction, which would be delivered by the Office of the Planning Regulator.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendment No. 188 in this grouping is a technical misplacement on my part, so I will be withdrawing that.
Crucially, all of our amendments in this section, including amendments Nos. 163 and 164, are attempts to remove liquid natural gas, LNG, infrastructure from the definition of strategic gas infrastructure development that is in the Bill.
John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Sorry Senator, but we are dealing with amendments Nos. 151 to 156, inclusive.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Apologies. I will come back in on the next grouping.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendment No. 152 forms part of Chapter 5, entitled Development Plans. It includes Part 3 of the Bill, entitled Plans, Policy and Related Matters. Amendment No. 152 seeks to delete lines 18 to 40 on page 183 of the Bill, to delete pages 184 to 186, and on page 187, to delete lines 1 to 31. This was proposed by Senator McDowell and I support it. The rationale behind the amendment is to delete section 78 which provides for the assessment of urban area plans, priority area plans and coordinated area plans by Office of Planning Regulator and recommendation to Minister. I will not go into it in any great length because it speaks for itself. I have no doubt that somewhere in the Minister of State's lovely, neat, clean pink sheets of paper is the word "No". In the interests of time, let us just move on. Let us not cod ourselves and try to get through as many amendments as possible. I await the Minister of State's response.
Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 152 and 154 propose to delete certain provisions within the Bill relating to the functions of the OPR in relation to development plans and other statutory plans and insert the requirement to have regard to certain plans and obligations in the performance of their functions. I am opposing any proposal to remove functions of the OPR as this would not be appropriate as these have been statutory functions of the OPR since its establishment and it is the body with the powers to carry out such functions. These functions play a significant role in the operation of the planning system as a whole and are, therefore, appropriately vested in the OPR. The OPR exists to ensure the quality of Ireland’s planning process is founded upon the implementation of agreed policies and that the delivery of planning functions is efficient, effective, outcome-focused and participative.The Senator is correct that I cannot accept these amendments.
I am unable to accept amendment No. 156. It seeks to delete section 81, which provides for the continuation in force of pre-commencement local area plans. This is an important transitional arrangement. It provides that any local area plan in force immediately before the commencement of Chapter 6 of Part 3 shall continue in force for the remainder of the period stated in the plan or until a new development plan has been made in respect of the functional area to which the local area plan relates, whichever occurs first. The members of a planning authority have the power to extend the period for which a local area plan is to remain in force provided that a new development plan has not been made in respect of the functional area to which the local area plan relates. Where a new development plan has been made, any extended local area plan will cease to have effect once the new development plan comes into effect. Transitional arrangements are necessary to allow for a smooth transition between the old and new planning processes, which I am sure Members can appreciate.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not think the Minister of State was in the House when I referred earlier to the Green Party's planning policy document of 2023. I acknowledge the significant recommendation by his party in regard to the Planning Regulator. He is the lead man in his party on this area given his brief in the Department. The proposal is for a national planning information agency. This Green Party initiative is a really good one, which I commend. The agency, it is proposed, would come within the remit of the OPR. It should be mandated - these are not my words but what is set out in the Green Party proposal - to respond to requests from the public to provide information in respect of the national local plans. This would improve the standards of public observation on developments and engagement with the planning processes, to the benefit of both the public and developers. The Green Party policy document goes on to refer to enhancing the role of citizens and councillors in planning, models of public engagement, the reduction of fees and the costs of the resistance to any attempt to materially restrict the preparation of the plans. It refers to properly resourced planning at An Bord Pleanála. This is not going to sort out the thousands of planning permissions for houses that are still sitting with the board but it is a positive proposal. The document also refers to functions across the planning system and development management enforcement. We need proper skills and we need care for the integrity of the process. It was an interesting document.
However, much of that is not reflected in the Bill. I do not know how the shortfall happened and why the Minister of State drew the shorter straw. It is a pity, given this is the Green Party's stated policy and the Minister of State is the lead on this area in the Department, that some of what is in that document is not in the Bill. The Minister has confirmed there will be a periodic critical review of the Office of the Planning Regulator. That is satisfactory to me. I did not know about it until yesterday. I pressed the Minister on the matter just before he came into the Chamber and he has now committed to initiating that process before the end of the year, which is positive. We need to examine issues relating to the governance structures of the OPR. We need to talk about scrutiny, accountability, efficiency, effectiveness and security, and we need to secure improvements. That is part of the learning curve.
As I said to the Minister earlier, I welcome the Government's amendment No. 176, which proposes to establish an office of advisory board to the OPR. It is an important measure. It is a follow-on, as the Minister said, to the engagement that has happened. This amendment deals with the OPR. It is somewhat a pity that more is not being done. In the quietness of the night, the Minister of State might take out his party's policy document and ask why so much of it, which was published only a few months ago, is not embedded in this Bill. However, that is for another day.
Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is one for the manifesto.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister of State's party needs to get it ready.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 152:
In page 183, to delete lines 18 to 40, to delete pages 184 to 186, and in page 187, to delete lines 1 to 31.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 154:
In page 187, to delete lines 32 to 40, to delete pages 188 to 190, and in page 191, to delete lines 1 to 26.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 156:
In page 194, to delete lines 25 to 41, and in page 195, to delete lines 1 to 23.
John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 157 to 169, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Over the past year or two, I have had engagement with environmental NGOs, activists, Green Party members and others on the importance of banning liquefied natural gas, LNG. Throughout this Oireachtas term, there has been discussion about how we can ensure LNG, which is inclusive of fracked gas, is banned. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has always been vague and equivocal in his language on this topic. We need to be very clear about what is happening. Even as people are discussing how we ban LNG, the Government has made the decision in this legislation not simply not to put any limits on LNG but to prioritise it. It has chosen to prioritise one of the filthiest forms of fuel that exists at a time we are in what is beyond a climate emergency.
The past decade was a time for potential action to keep our planet at a liveable temperature. However, the decision has been made to prioritise liquefied natural gas at this time. That is reflected throughout the Bill. To be clear, LNG includes fracked gas. A former Fine Gael backbencher, Tony McLoughlin, took a stand against this in the past. In fact, in the previous Oireachtas term, when the Green Party was not in government, we managed to ban fracking. In this Oireachtas term, however, the legacy will the decision to import fracked gas from right across the rest of the world, including the United States. The legacy will be Ireland becoming the gateway for fracked gas into Europe.
I have been hearing from people that they are not clear on what is being proposed in this regard. Even though it is written in the Bill in black and white, people cannot believe the Government is prioritising liquefied natural gas. Let us be clear that this is what it is doing. The Government has included LNG in the strategic infrastructure that will be prioritised. It is mentioned explicitly at the very end of the Bill. The plan seems to be that we would only get to the amendments relating to the first third of the Bill before the debate is guillotined. Perhaps the hope was that we would never get to discuss the relevant section. It is set out in Schedule 2, which details the kinds of developments that get to skip the local authorities and go straight to the commission. They get fast-track planning permission, whereby local authorities and local public representatives will have zero say on, or input to, the decision-making process. The Schedule refers to "a terminal, building or installation ancillary to a terminal that is used for the liquefaction of natural gas or the importation, offloading and re-gasification of liquefied natural gas, and ancillary services". It is dead clear. This is not just about the importation and storage of LNG; it relates to the processes around its liquefaction and regasification.
That raises huge issues, as others have long highlighted. I commend the work of Not Here, Not Anywhere and Friends of the Earth on this issue. Not Here, Not Anywhere has summed up the problem with LNG. Such projects, as the organisation has pointed out, may delay the energy transition, diverting resources from cleaner sustainable alternatives. LNG's social and environmental impacts on communities, including safety risks, pollution and economic drawbacks, far outweigh any potential or proposed benefits. Ireland should practise and prioritise environmental justice rather than LNG.
We really are in a climate emergency. These are the last few years for action.The climate committee heard about this in the previous Oireachtas; the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, was there. To be clear, methane, the primary component in liquid natural gas, LNG, has 86 times more global warming potential over a 20-year period than CO2. LNG has particularly high emissions in comparison with conventional gas and it has no climate benefit over coal or oil. This is the core issue. If we are not willing to challenge fossil fuels, but are in fact agreeing to prioritise one of the worst fossil fuels and if a party in government in a wealthy country is unwilling to say "boo" to the inclusion of a filthy fossil fuel - one of the filthiest - as a priority, what chance do we have globally? We have people in power who understand how dangerous this is. If somehow the people in power here are too afraid to take action, how can we expect to see the shift and change we need internationally? Will we leave it all to the children?
Moving to a few of the specific issues, any more gas infrastructure will make transition harder. We need a reduction in gas demand of 40% by 2030, which means complete decommissioning. The LNG terminal construction time is at least five or six years so effectively, we would see these terminals come on stream at the exact time we need to be exiting completely from gas. To be clear, there are no caveats in this. I have heard it suggested that a public terminal could be there on a temporary basis. No. The language in the Bill is explicit. It allows for any party to apply for fast-tracked planning permission for any terminal employed for LNG. Of course, once those permissions are applied for, we will not be able to interfere in the planning permission process and An Bord Pleanála or the commission will be expected - because these are also listed as strategic infrastructure - to say "Yes" to them. There will be no after the fact coming in. We will not have people writing letters saying they do not like it personally. That is meaningless, when the Government has agreed to it being strategic infrastructure that gets a fast-track process.
I have excessively lengthy materials which, because of the constrained time due to the shameful guillotine on this legislation, we do not have time to go into. The damage from LNG not only relates to our climate targets. It has appalling environmental impacts on a local level and catastrophic public safety risks, to the extent that vapour clouds from terminals may catch fire resulting in expanding pools of fire which can burn off the fuel and start secondary fires, flash freezing human flesh, causing asphyxiation and secondary burns up to two miles away. There is a reason that other jurisdictions, including New York, have refused permission for LNG terminals on safety grounds and that risk assessments on the impacts are being demanded elsewhere. There is no reference to risk assessments here.
Some of the other amendments the Minister of State has tabled on this worsen the issue. On Committee Stage, there was an amendment to allow for these terminals offshore or onshore - both. Let us have LNG terminals everywhere, right across the country, on land and on water. The Committee Stage amendment also allows for strategic gas infrastructure to include installations used for the injection of natural gas by methane, hydrogen or other renewable gases directly into the transmission systems. I have tabled amendments to try to address this.
The Minister of State's amendment No. 165 on Report Stage expands the criteria even further, saying that among the strategic infrastructure should be included offshore gas storage, LNG terminals and storage facilities for oil and coal - oil and coal storage will be included in the definition of strategic gas infrastructure. This Bill is effectively a gift to the fossil fuel industry and its lobbyists. The legacy of this Government on climate - the thing people will talk about - will be LNG and the failure on the Shell to Sea campaign, the failure to stand up to one of the greatest polluters in the world, the Shell corporation, in previous times. Similarly, we have seen a decision to turn a blind eye to fracked gas and LNG and it is not just a blind eye, the Government is giving it the gift of Government prioritisation. That will be the legacy. I am simply saying that a weak line or two half-referencing the environment somewhere in the planning framework, which will get railroaded over by the planning statement by the Minister, will do nothing. In the next section, we will come to the fact that the reference to actual legislation, the climate Bill, has been taken out of the list of things the commission and local authorities are asked to refer to. In planning applications for the priority strategic infrastructure that get fast-tracked and go straight to the commission, the commission is no longer being obliged to think about the climate Act when it makes decisions. Let us put those pieces together.
Amendment No. 166 seeks to provide that only biomethane or green hydrogen could be injected into the system.
Amendment No. 169, which is the Minister of State's amendment, lists ineligibility exceptions for making an application for permission for maritime development. Our amendment would delete the phrase "whether or not any preconditions to the exercise of that power have been satisfied". That phrase means that there are preconditions that should apply, but it does not matter whether they are met. People can go ahead and make an application for maritime development. That is just another of the small cuts to undermine accountability.
I would appreciate hearing the Minister of State’s answers on LNG. I am very concerned that this is sliding through. It should be stopped in the Seanad. My amendments should be accepted, but if not, the Bill deserves to fall completely on this and on its non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention. It is an environmental disaster.
Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Before I go to the Minister of State, I note that an error was made by the Acting Chair. We should have asked the Minister of State to speak before the Senator, so that was the only engagement on this grouping allowed by the Senator.
Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendment No. 157 updates the definition of "Chapter 4 development” in section 82. As currently written, Chapter 4 development relates to development outside an urban development zone, UDZ, only. This has the effect that large scale infrastructure projects located in a UDZ would go to the planning authority for approval. This amendment removes the limitation on Chapter 4 development to development outside a UDZ, therefore ensuring that strategic infrastructure development in a UDZ goes to the commission for direct decision, which is appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 reword the definition of “Chapter 4 Maritime Development” in section 82 without changing its context.
Amendment No. 161 expands the definition of “inspector” in section 82 to include that an inspector may also be a person assigned to report on a referral on behalf of the commission. A reference to referral was omitted from matters, such as applications, requests and appeals, on which a person may be assigned to report. As the commission deals with referrals for points of detail, it is appropriate that this is included.
Amendment No. 162 amends the definition of “large –scale residential development", LRD. Currently an LRD is residential development of a certain scale that is located outside a strategic development zone. As this Bill introduces UDZs, the definition of LRD has been updated to clarify that it also must be a development outside a UDZ.
Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn have proposed two amendments to amendment No. 165, namely, to delete part of the amendment and substitute references to “natural gas” with “green hydrogen”.Amendment No. 165 adds three new paragraphs into the definition of “strategic gas infrastructure development” which reflect the types of gas infrastructure already listed in paragraphs 15 and 16 of Schedule 2 to the Bill. I cannot accept these amendments as the Government has adopted a policy-based approach to the matters raised in the amendments rather than legislating for them. This allows the Government to carefully consider the implications of any measures that could interfere with either our energy or economic security. As I said, the Government has adopted a policy-based approach in respect of LNG and this amendment is not introducing anything new. It is merely aligning the definition of "strategic gas infrastructure development" with the types of strategic infrastructure development already listed and included in a Schedule to the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Any application for strategic gas infrastructure will be made to An Coimisiún Pleanála and there is significant public participation in this process. Again, I refute-----
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The policy is to prioritise it-----
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry but the Minister of State used the phrase "policy-based". What does that mean?
Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister of State did not interrupt-----
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Government is literally prioritising it in legislation.
Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator, the Minister of State did not interfere with you.
Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Allow me to explain.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister of State is interfering with me through this Bill.
Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Stop, please. He is entitled to speak. He has the floor now. You had the floor.
Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As I said, the Government has adopted a policy-based approach in respect of LNG which allows it to carefully consider the implications of any measures that could interfere with either our energy or economic security. The Taoiseach announced in September 2019 that future exploration licences would be awarded for natural gas only. The energy security review published in April 2023 recommended policy measures to strengthen the security of Ireland's gas supplies in the medium to long term. The review sets out the assessment regarding the security of gas supplies, which is that the existing policy on natural gas is not adequate to address the range of risks and ensure security of our gas supplies in the medium term. In addition, Ireland urgently needs to meet the EU N-1 standard. This EU regulation aims to safeguard an uninterrupted gas supply throughout the EU, especially for protected customers during difficult climatic conditions or supply disruptions. The energy security review states that Ireland's energy security will be significantly improved and risks will be greatly reduced if Ireland implements measures to implement the EU N-1 standard and it will enable the implementation of a strategic gas emergency reserve on a transitional basis for use in the event of a disruption to gas supplies.
The Senator will be aware that the Minister, Deputy Ryan, has been more committed than any Member of the House to the transition away from fossil fuels. Last year, thanks to the climate action plan, we saw a 6.8% reduction in emissions, bringing us to the lowest level in 30 years. We are making that transition and that is hugely important. The Senator's comments to the effect that we are giving a gift to the fossil fuel industry are completely unfounded. This 6.8% reduction was driven by a staggering 22% reduction in electricity emissions. This happened despite significant levels of population growth and economic growth in this country. Having said all that, the Minister with responsibility for energy has a responsibility to keep the lights on in the country and for that reason the Department published the energy security package in November last year. That package recommended that the Government consider the development of a State-owned LNG floating storage and regasification unit as a temporary security-of-supply measure. This is primarily intended to ensure against risks to the existing pipelines to Great Britain. The amendment to the Planning and Development Bill is being inserted to facilitate this kind of investment should we, as a Government, make a final decision to pursue it.
I want to be clear that this is a very different proposal to a commercial LNG facility. Previous proposals for LNG infrastructure in the Shannon region would risk significantly increasing gas demand in Ireland rather than simply acting as a back-up. In the Oireachtas climate committee last week, the Minister, Deputy Ryan, suggested that, given the relatively long lead-in time for the construction of such a State-owned facility and the anticipated timeline for phasing out gas in the Irish economy, it may not be a cost-effective option after all. It may, instead, be possible to deliver the required security of supply by ramping up our efforts on renewable generation and electricity interconnection with our neighbours. That is something to which the Minister and the Government have been deeply committed and have made significant progress on over the past four and a half years. This is not a concrete decision. The Minister has just asked for more research to be carried out to ensure we have an evidence-based policy. It is prudent to keep our options open by passing the amendment to the Planning and Development Bill.
It is also important to note that this Bill is providing for a planning process. The principle here is that decisions on an application are made by going through this process, which is far from anti-democratic, on the basis of Government policy and relevant assessments. As far as I know, the only type of development that is banned at application stage in this country is nuclear power because the country has declared itself a nuclear-free zone. I am not aware of Ireland having been declared an LNG-storage facility-free zone or an energy security-free zone. It is a really responsible amendment from the Minister, Deputy Ryan's, Department and it is critically important that it is supported.
Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn have proposed an amendment to amendment No. 169 in relation to a person being eligible to make an application for maritime development if he or she has power conferred by statute to compulsorily acquire a maritime site. I cannot accept this proposal which would delete the phrase "!whether or not any preconditions to the exercise of that power have been satisfied" from this provision. This wording replicates the existing position in relation to land development and is appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 update the eligibility requirements for someone to make an application for maritime development under section 85(2) to include eligibility for someone who has a power conferred by statute to compulsorily acquire a maritime site. This mirrors the eligibility requirements for land and is provided as Part 14 of the Bill relating to compulsory acquisition has now been expanded to include the maritime area.
Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Government will have to withdraw these amendments. It is proposing significant new amendments here relating to fossil fuel infrastructure. We strongly oppose the rushed introduction of amendments relating to LNG and they should be removed. The Government amendments provide for an LNG terminal to be designated as strategic infrastructure, potentially allowing for the normal planning process to be circumvented. If approved and applied, the provisions may also allow for LNG development to be fast-tracked and for normal environmental assessment rules to be dropped. The amendments run roughshod over the Government's own climate commitments in its November 2023 energy security package.
As Senator Higgins said, the Government is giving priority to liquified natural gas and fracked gas as strategic infrastructure. Friends of the Earth has called on the Government to immediately withdraw the proposed group of amendments relating to polluting LNG. It has said that the Government is seeking now to legislate for fast-track planning of LNG while failing to legislate for key climate conditions and gas infrastructure outlined in its own energy security review. This goes against what the Minister, Deputy Ryan, said at the environment committee last Thursday. I call on the Government to withdraw these amendments. As Senator Higgins said, it is a gift to the fossil fuel industry and its lobbyists.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Government is saying that it has a policy-based approach but it has produced almost 800 pages of legislation. The Minister of State said the policy is separate and we keep it within our hearts or something, but let us be clear, the policy is reflected in the legislation and the legislation prioritises liquified natural gas as strategic infrastructure and fast-tracks planning permission for LNG infrastructure, with applications bypassing local authorities and going straight to the commission. That is not a neutral position. That is not a standing back. That is active policy in action, in legislation, to say that we give priority and speed in relation to these applications. It is misleading, in terms of reflecting comments by the Minister, Deputy Ryan, and others, to say that somehow these are public facilities or there is a narrow idea of what they are.
To be really clear on the language used in the Bill, it does not say "public", "temporary", "constrained" or "in special circumstances" if we need to do this for energy security reasons. It says any "terminal, building or installation ancillary to a terminal that is used for the liquefaction of natural gas or the importation, offloading and re-gasification of liquified natural gas, and ancillary services". Anybody, including any commercial actor - and we know that commercial actors have been lobbying very heavily in this State - can put in an application the day this Bill commences.They do not care what the policy is or how people might secretly feel about it and whether they need to do it. They will do it because it involves money, at the cost of burning our planet, damage to local communities and the people being affected by climate change across the world. They will take those actions and the Government will not just have facilitated and failed to ban this, but prioritised and gifted them prioritisation and strategic infrastructure along with a shorter planning process during which local government and representatives will be cut out of the process.
I want to be clear. This is commercial activity and as soon as the planning permission process starts, of course we will all have to stand back and be told it is a pity planning permission has been applied for. Once they get that permission, which the Bill almost guarantees they will, they will be able to have protection under the Energy Charter Treaty. There is no asking them to leave in five, ten or 15 years because they will be able to sue the State under that treaty. This is a hostage to fortune and an irresponsible action, and any attempt to wash our hands of this, or suggest this is a policy-based approach or that the Government will come back later with an opinion on the matter when the opinion is here in black and white in the text of the Bill the Government is asking us to pass, is incorrect.
Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To reiterate what I said earlier, the amendment does not introduce anything new. It is aligning the definition of-----
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am not speaking to the amendment; I am speaking to Schedule 2 on page 737.
Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will let the Senator back in a second time.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It was just factual, in terms of the line reference.
Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I referenced the energy security package the Minister, Deputy Ryan, spoke to last week. This concerns the consideration of the development of a State-owned LNG facility. It is not a very different proposal from a commercial LNG facility. Any such process will still have to go through public engagement through An Coimisiún Pleanála. There is a timeline for decision making, full public participation and environmental assessment.
I have outlined to the Senator the incredible achievements we have made. At the outset of the Government, we were told 7% was not going to be achievable. We have got to 6.8%, something we were told was too ambitious. That is not just down to Government policy; that is down to the people of Ireland because they want this to happen. We are reducing our energy demand and reliance on fossil fuels. The objective of Government under the climate action plan is to phase out reliance on gas. These achievements have been made, but it is important that in acting responsibly, we acknowledge the issue of security of supply. That is what is being addressed in this amendment.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 163:
In page 200, line 19, after “seabed),” to insert “which for the avoidance of doubt shall not be a terminal, building or installation used for the liquefication of natural gas or the importation, offloading, storage or regasification of liquified natural gas,”.
Tá
Frances Black, Paul Gavan, Alice-Mary Higgins, Annie Hoey, Sharon Keogan, Marie Sherlock, Mark Wall, Fintan Warfield.
Níl
Garret Ahearn, Niall Blaney, Nikki Bradley, Malcolm Byrne, Maria Byrne, Micheál Carrigy, Pat Casey, Shane Cassells, Lisa Chambers, Martin Conway, Emer Currie, Paul Daly, Mary Fitzpatrick, Robbie Gallagher, Seán Kyne, Tim Lombard, Vincent P Martin, John McGahon, Erin McGreehan, Fiona O'Loughlin, Joe O'Reilly, Pauline O'Reilly, Ned O'Sullivan, Barry Ward, Diarmuid Wilson.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 164:
In page 200, to delete lines 20 to 25.
Tá
Frances Black, Victor Boyhan, Paul Gavan, Alice-Mary Higgins, Sharon Keogan, Marie Sherlock, Mark Wall, Fintan Warfield.
Níl
Garret Ahearn, Niall Blaney, Nikki Bradley, Malcolm Byrne, Maria Byrne, Micheál Carrigy, Pat Casey, Shane Cassells, Lisa Chambers, Martin Conway, Ollie Crowe, Emer Currie, Paul Daly, Mary Fitzpatrick, Robbie Gallagher, Seán Kyne, Tim Lombard, Vincent P Martin, John McGahon, Erin McGreehan, Fiona O'Loughlin, Joe O'Reilly, Pauline O'Reilly, Ned O'Sullivan, Barry Ward, Diarmuid Wilson.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 165:
To delete paragraph (h).
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 165:
In subparagraph (i) of paragraph (i), to delete “natural gas” and substitute “green hydrogen”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 166:
In page 200, line 28, to delete “natural gas, biomethane, hydrogen” and substitute “biomethane, green hydrogen”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 167:
In page 200, line 28, after “renewable gas” to insert “, which shall not include gas produced by means of hydraulic fracturing”.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 169:
In paragraph (e), to delete “whether or not any preconditions to the exercise of that power have been satisfied”.
Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 170 to 187, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 170:
In page 204, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(a) perform its functions in a manner consistent with the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 and the duties and obligations imposed by that Act.”.
This amendment adds to the amendments on LNG that have just been voted through, including the choice not to accept our amendment explicitly excluding fracked gas. As such, the vote was to say that fracked gas should be allowed to be included in the forms of liquefied natural gas.
The complementary amendments Nos. 170 and 172 seek to address the fact that a decision was inexplicably made to remove from section 86 in an earlier version of the Bill the obligation on planning authorities and the commission to perform their functions in a manner consistent with the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act when doing their job and making decisions on planning applications, potentially including applications for LNG infrastructure. Why would this obligation be removed from the matters for consideration? Surely it is a backwards step.
Government amendment No. 176 is on late submissions to planning authorities. Councillors should be similarly able to make late submissions. They have already lost so much power in important matters and, in many cases, may have limited opportunities to give their input into important decisions.
Amendments Nos. 177 and 178 concern the need to respect area plans in the granting of permissions and, where there is no area plan, to create one.
Related to that is amendment No. 180, which is meant to ensure proper infrastructure is in place where there are developments, including large-scale residential or commercial developments. There needs to be the appropriate infrastructural capacity so that people can live proper lives in their areas.
Amendment No. 179 seeks to delete section 86(7). Known more infamously as the Cairn Homes subsection, it was introduced by the Minister in the Dáil to say that neither “a planning authority nor the Commission shall refuse permission for proposed development for the reason only that the housing growth target [for an area] ... has already been reached.” Under the subsection, permission can be given for developments beyond the housing growth target, but there is no requirement for infrastructure to be in place that matches the exceeding levels.
Amendment No. 184 refers to the UNCRPD. I will not go into it, but there is a deep disappointment among people with disabilities about many of these amendments. This is our last attempt to address that.
Amendment No. 185 seeks to insert a new paragraph into section 87(3), recognising that, “where the operations of an existing business, cultural or community facility may have a significant adverse effect” on a new development that has been granted permission, that new development should not necessarily be allowed to be built only to then start complaining about and seeking to curtail that cultural, community or business activity. There should not be a further constraining of such activity, in particular cultural activity, by new developments. The agent of change provision, which has been operational in UK planning law, would put an obligation on the new development to take appropriate measures itself to ensure it was not adversely affected by existing activity.
Government amendment No. 186 seeks to limit the power of planning authorities and the commission to attach conditions “controlling, preventing or limiting emissions” to a permission for an industrial emissions licence. Our amendments to this amendment would remove industrial emissions licenceholders and integrated pollution control licenceholders from this condition exemption. It would also remove the limitation on planning authorities and the commission by replacing “it shall not” with “it shall”. These are appropriate areas for there to be conditions and limitations.
Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will start with Opposition amendments Nos. 170 to 172, inclusive, 177 to 179, inclusive, 184, 185 and 187.
Amendments No. 170 and 172 seek to include reference to obligations under the climate Act into section 86, which sets out the matters to which the planning authority or commission shall have regard in considering an application. I cannot accept these amendments, as I have tabled my own amendment No. 175 in this regard, which I will get to presently.
Amendment No. 171 seeks to provide that a planning authority or the commission shall have regard to “the consequences or likely consequences of the development or proposed development on communities resident in the relevant functional area, with particular respect to gentrification, displacement and intergenerational social cohesion”. I cannot accept this amendment, as it is unnecessary, given the objectives of the housing strategy.The purpose of the housing strategy is to ensure that there is adequate provision for the existing and future population in the functional area of the local authority in question. The housing strategy requires local authorities to take into account the need for social housing and affordable housing, including cost rental, and the need to ensure that housing is available for people with different income levels. The housing strategy also takes into account the need to counteract and prevent undue segregation between persons of different social backgrounds and enables the local authority to ensure there are adequate allowances made for all.
Amendment No. 117 seeks to amend section 86(6) to provide that the planning authority can refuse planning permission if an urban area plan, priority area plan or co-ordinated area plan in respect of the area in which in the development is proposed to be carried out has not been made, if these are specified in the development plan as matters for consideration. The current wording provides that permission can only be refused if the lack of such plans is listed as a reason for refusal in the development plan. As the proposed text weakens this provision, I cannot accept it. The refusal of permission due to a lack of an area plan should only be allowed where the development plan specifies that this makes it a reason for refusal. The lack of area plan would not warrant a refusal in every place and the current wording reflects this.
Similarly, amendment No. 178 seeks to insert a new provision which says that appropriate conditions shall be attached to the permission granted where an area plan has not been made. This is not necessary because section 87 already provides that conditions may be attached to a permission.
Amendment No. 179 seeks to delete section 86(7). There was significant debate on this provision in the Dáil on Committee Stage, and in response to the issues raised I committed to reviewing the wording of it to clarify that a planning authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála cannot refuse permission solely on the basis of the housing growth target for an area has been reached. On the basis of that review, the text was amended on Dáil Report Stage to clarify this point by replacing “for reasons” with “for the reasons only”. In view of issues raised, this provision was further reviewed and I have proposed amendment No. 180 to address any concerns. In light of this I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 179.
Amendment No. 184 seeks to provide conditions relating to compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons, in particular requirements for accessibility and universal design. I cannot accept this amendment as this matter is more appropriate to building control and building standards legislation than to planning legislation. It is, therefore, not appropriate or necessary to include provision for the matters specified in this Bill as appropriate provisions related to accessibility have already been provided for under both the Disability Act 2005 and the Building Regulations 1997-2022.
Amendment No. 185 seeks to provide conditions for mitigation measures where an existing development will have adverse impact on the development in its vicinity. I cannot accept this amendment as it is not clear what is meant by it. Impacts of an existing development cannot be mitigated by a new development. The planning authority or the commission can consider whether the location of the development is appropriate given the existing developments in the area.
Amendment No. 187 seeks to amend language of section 87(11) which provides for points of details to be deemed not to be agreed after an eight week period has passed and the planning authority has not responded or referred the matter to the commission. The language proposed in this amendment seeks to include that “where a point of detail as submitted under subsection (10)(a) is not compliant with its parent condition”, it is also deemed to be not agreed. I cannot accept this addition because non-compliance will not always be clear and it is better for this matter to be addressed by the planning authority in dealing with the point of detail. The planning authority may inform a person where agreement cannot be reached.
I intend to move amendments Nos. 173 to 176, inclusive, 180 to 183, inclusive, and 186. Amendments Nos. 173 to 175, inclusive, insert the term “the local authority climate action plan” in section 86 as a new matter for planning authorities and the commission to have regard to in assessing an application. Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn have tabled an amendment to amendment No. 176. I cannot accept their proposal to allow elected members an additional week to make submissions under Part 4 as this may impact timeframes for decision-making given the number of elected members which could avail of this.
Amendment No. 176 provides that in addition to a prescribed body being allowed an extra week for submissions under Part 4, the Minister also is allowed an extra week in this regard. Amendment No. 181 rewords section 87(2) for clarity without changing its context. Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn have tabled six amendments to amendment No. 186. I cannot accept these amendments which would have the effect of removing the limitation on planning authorities and the commission from attaching conditions controlling emissions for an activity that is an EPA licence and in fact mandate that such conditions should be attached. The purpose of this limitation is to distinguish the roles between the EPA and the planning authority when it comes to EPA licensed activities. These amendments would interfere in the role of the EPA in issuing licences in relation to certain development.
Amendment No. 186 rewords section 87(7) for clarity and adds a missing reference to “an integrated pollution control licence” in addition to the other licences mentioned already. Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn have tabled two amendments to amendment No. 180. I cannot accept these amendments which provide that where a development exceeds the housing growth target, it may only be granted permission if the development plan provides for increased infrastructural capacity to accommodate the exceedance. This is unnecessary as the provision already provides that development cannot be granted if it is inappropriate.
Amendment No.180 is on foot of the discussion on both Seanad Committee Stage and the Dáil Stages. It adds a further provision in relation to approving developments which are in excess of the housing growth target. It clarifies that a planning authority or the commission may grant permission in excess of the housing growth target where they are satisfied that such a grant does not undermine the underlying purpose of the housing growth target and would not otherwise be inappropriate.
Amendment No. 182 provides that in addition to conditions being set for emissions during the construction of the development, conditions may be set for emissions during the operation of the development. This will allow conditions on the operation of the development to be applied to a permission but it is subject to the limitations in sections 87(7) and 87(8) which state that the planning authority cannot condition emissions from an activity subject to an EPA licence.
Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Can I intervene at this stage? Regrettably, as it is now-----
Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am nearly there.
Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As it is now 5.45 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Seanad of this day: "That amendment 170 is hereby negated; that the Government amendments undisposed of, including those in respect of which the Bill has been recommitted, are hereby made to the Bill; Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill, as amended, is hereby received for final consideration; and the Bill is hereby passed”. Is that agreed?
Tá
Garret Ahearn, Niall Blaney, Nikki Bradley, Malcolm Byrne, Maria Byrne, Pat Casey, Shane Cassells, Lisa Chambers, Martin Conway, Ollie Crowe, John Cummins, Emer Currie, Paul Daly, Mary Fitzpatrick, Robbie Gallagher, Tim Lombard, Vincent P Martin, John McGahon, Fiona O'Loughlin, Joe O'Reilly, Pauline O'Reilly, Ned O'Sullivan, Barry Ward, Diarmuid Wilson.
Níl
Frances Black, Victor Boyhan, Eileen Flynn, Paul Gavan, Alice-Mary Higgins, Sharon Keogan, Marie Sherlock, Mark Wall, Fintan Warfield.
Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I propose a suspension until 7 p.m.