Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Before I read my note on the amendments, I accept the points raised by all Senators. It is something about which we all have concerns and about which our constituents bring us their concerns, for example, issues around the visual impacts and perceived health implications.

Senator Fitzpatrick mentioned that such infrastructure was largely planned by engineers. The element of public participation is important.

Senator Boyhan discussed strategic mapping. There are open source systems like OpenStreetMap where people can layer this infrastructure onto maps. It is not relevant to this Bill, but it is an important point and something that could be given consideration.

The genuine concerns raised by members of the public and raised with Senators in their offices are important. I accept Senator Currie's point about how due diligence in terms of using the development plan and engaging in proper planning and sustainable development is very much at the core of what local authorities do.

This group of amendments relates to section 13 of the Bill and the licensing of appliances on public roads, and broadly restates section 254 of the 2000 Act, with some modifications. Section 13 will not apply if an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment is required and planning permission is not required where a licence is granted under the section.

A person applying for a licence must provide the planning authority with such plans and other information concerning the position, design and capacity of the appliance, apparatus or structure as the authority may require. A licence may be granted by the planning authority for such a period and upon such conditions as may be specified. These may include conditions regarding location, design and the space taken up by the appliance.

Amendment No. 49 is proposed by Senator Currie and intends to replace the existing section 13(5), which gives a planning authority the powers to grant or refuse to grant a section 13 licence. I am unable to accept the amendment as proposed as it would actually delete the provision that enables the granting of a licence under section 13. Furthermore, Article 7 of the EU Directive 2014/61/EU on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communication networks requires, among other things, that applications for statutory permits required prior to undertaking works to install high-speed broadband electronic communications network infrastructure be decided within four months of submission of a complete application. Given the consultation arrangements proposed in amendment No. 49 alongside the decision-making timelines, the four-month period required under EU law may become unattainable. I also draw the Senator’s attention to section 39(b), under which any person may appeal the grant of a licence or continuation of a licence. This provides a suitable avenue for a person wishing to contest the granting of a licence. I ask the Senator to withdraw her amendment at this time as I have asked my officials to re-examine this provision in conjunction with the OPC to see if a consultation provision could be provided, something Senators have looked for, particularly for certain classes of applications for licences, while still complying with the EU directive. If appropriate, I may bring forward an amendment on Report Stage.

The remaining amendments in this grouping are proposed by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 53 and 54 relate to the specified timeframes within section 13 and seek to amend section 13(8)(a), which provides that a planning authority has eight weeks to make a decision on a request for a licence or four weeks following an applicant’s response to an additional information request. The amendments would also amend section 13(8)(b), which provides that, where a planning authority fails to make a decision on an application for a licence in respect of electronic communications infrastructure, it shall be deemed granted if the later of eight weeks since the application was received or four weeks after an applicant’s response to an additional information request has passed. The proposed amendments would change the periods to 12 weeks from receipt of application and six weeks from receipt of response to an additional information request respectively. I am not in favour of extending the timeframes as already set out in the Bill and I believe the eight-week and four-week periods currently provided for are fair and reasonable. For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 52 intends to delete 13(8)(b). Section 254 of the Act of 2000 provides for the current licensing process in respect of an application for a licence to erect, construct, place or maintain overground electronic communication infrastructure and any associated physical infrastructure, including telecommunication poles. Where a planning authority fails to make a decision within a period of four months commencing on the date of receipt of an application, a decision of the planning authority to grant a licence shall be deemed to have been made on the day following the expiration of that period. A deemed decision to grant a licence is subject to the condition that the network operator concerned shall inform the planning authority concerned and the National Roads Authority or road authority, where applicable, in advance of commencement of the works. The provisions relating to a deemed decision to grant a licence have been carried over for the purposes of the Bill and with respect to the timelines set out under section 13(8)(b)(ii). I believe this provision is fair and reasonable and should be retained in the new legislative framework. For this reason, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 55 seeks to insert a provision that, notwithstanding the ability for deemed decisions to be made in relation to electronic communications infrastructure, no such decision shall be deemed to be granted where the licence involves an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment. As mentioned previously in Dáil Éireann, this provision is not considered necessary as section 13(13) already provides that a licence cannot be applied for where an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment is required. In such circumstances, planning permission must be sought so that the development can be appropriately assessed. For this reason, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 56 proposes to replace section 13(9), which relates to licence appeals, and provides that there would be no fee for third-party appeals, that appeals should be entered on the register and that observations may be made in respect of appeals. The fees for making appeals are set at levels intended to prevent frivolous or vexatious appeals while not acting to deter persons with a genuine concern or interest in proposed developments from making an appeal. Section 13(15) already permits the Minister to prescribe requirements in respect of the entry of information on databases in relation to applications or appeals made under section 13. I do not believe there is a need for this amendment, which is why I am unfortunately not in a position to accept it.