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

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.