John Cummins (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not know where to start after listening to that tirade from Senator McDowell. Perhaps when I am making my contribution, the Senator might go beyond page 108 of the Bill, go to page 137, and actually read section 58, which refers to variations of the development plan. He will see some of the recommendations that we as members of the joint committee, including a number of us present, fed in as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process, where we made similar points to those made by Senator Burke about local authority members having a role in the variation of a development plan. If the Senator reads section 58, he will see that has been inserted in the Bill, so much of his commentary for the past ten minutes is irrelevant based on the section, which I and members of the joint committee will welcome, because it was one of our recommendations as part of pre-legislative scrutiny.

It is true that during that pre-legislative scrutiny on the matter of the length of time for making a development plan, there were various discussions where different opinions were given from different sections on the merits and demerits of extending the plan from five to seven years to five to ten years. Much of that debate surrounded the local authority members and their ability to have ownership over the Bill. I agree with the premise of that. Part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process was that a significant and robust interim review of that development plan would be built into the process. When we look at strategic infrastructure within our cities, towns and villages, those of us who have been members of local authorities all know that many of the recommendations that are written into a development plan in a five-year cycle are not achieved. We know that probably in reality, they will be achieved in the cycle of the next development plan, but they are included in the five-year development plan because it is aspirational and we do not want to impede what could happen. There is merit to extending to ten years. Where I may disagree with some officials in the Minister of State's Department is about what that will necessitate. I believe that will necessitate further zoned land for residential development, which is an important point to make, because if we are looking at a ten-year rather than a five-year horizon, additional land will require to be zoned.

It is important to note that this Bill is inserting the ability of local authority members to have that variation process. As Senator Moynihan correctly said, that is an integral part if we lengthen the time in which a development plan would be in force. Far from the perception that has been painted here that local authority members elected in 2024 would have no ability to be able to vary the plan that has been put in place, it is actually not the case when taken in the context of the overall Bill.