Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State Deputy Dillon. I also extend a very special welcome to some guests in the Gallery. We always love to see the public coming in to see how Seanad Éireann works. It is a very important part of our democracy. I particularly welcome Liam Coyle, an old school pal of mine who had to put up with me terrorising him during our school days. There are also friends of Senator Maria Byrne in the Gallery, namely, Pauline Kennedy and Lee Ann Purcell from Limerick. They are all very welcome. Céad míle fáilte and have a lovely day.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to bring the Bill, which has been described as generational legislation that will impact almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives, before the House. The Bill is the culmination of three years of legal and policy review. In the first instance, the Planning and Development Act 2000 was reviewed by the Office of the Attorney General over a 15-month period. This legal review was subsequently informed from a policy perspective by listening to the input of a diverse range of voices from across the planning sphere.This included those involved in delivery of vital infrastructure such as transport, housing and renewable energy, those advocating on behalf of environmental and heritage matters, as well as those at the operational front face of planning at local government and regional level.

Planning is, by its essence, a complex process. It balances the wider needs of society and the common good with the concerns of individuals. It considers the environmental, social and economic merits of a proposed development, expertly weighing up the technical documentation, while also taking account of the critical input of citizens, stakeholders and environmental NGOs, among others.

This is reflective of the process that has brought us before Senators today. Not all voices agree with the specific vision for planning but all have been listened to. It balances views and, where constructive and practical proposals have been made, I have endeavoured to incorporate these changes into the Bill. I entered this process in the same spirit, eager to listen to any new ideas that improve this essential body of legislation.

Over the past quarter of a century, the planning landscape has radically changed and there is, therefore, no doubting the need for review of the Act of 2000. Over the years, numerous amendments have been made to meet the challenges that have arisen. Most importantly, aspects of the system have become misaligned, which creates uncertainty and undermines consistency. The Bill will enhance clarity, improve consistency and increase confidence in the planning system through the alignment of national, regional and local tiers of planning and by refocusing the public debate and participation towards the plan-making stage. It also refines many of the processes, parameters and timelines of the current planning system.

The national planning framework will continue to spearhead the planning agenda and, importantly, the Bill proposes a plan-led system and structure whereby all tiers of planning, from regional to local, align with the strategic objectives set out in the national planning framework. This is a key tenet of the Bill and ensures consistency for all users of the planning system. Put simply, lower order plans will be required to align with higher order plans, with development plans aligned to regional strategies and, in turn, to the national planning framework and the national planning statements, and with the area-based plans aligned to development plans.

National planning statements will replace ministerial guidelines. These statements will be approved by Government and will be subject to broad consultation. To ensure consistency in a timely manner, the Bill contains a process of reviewing development plans and regional spatial economic strategies when new planning statements are introduced to make sure the system remains in alignment. Development plans will have a ten-year lifespan rather than the current six-year lifespan and will be more strategic in nature. An interim review of the development plan will occur at year five in order to take account of the wider changes since the plan was prepared and to allow for update, if required. This will provide more up-to-date and strategic plans, providing greater certainty that there is sufficient zoned land available at all times to align with the needs of the housing and economic development and, again, providing greater certainty over a longer period for all stakeholders.

The ten-year cycle, with five-year reviews, will mean that every elected member will be involved, at a minimum, in either the making of the development plan or the interim review. More importantly, the extended plans allow for longer periods of implementation rather than the present situation where more than a third of the life cycle of a development plan is consumed by preparing the plan. Local area plans will be replaced by specific types of area-based plans, to better enable planning authority objectives to be prioritised, rather than simply being mandatory in nature and drawing resources where they are not always most needed.

There will be a clearer distinction between different categories of consents and more importantly, statutory time periods will be introduced for decision-making for all consent processes, including, for the first time, for an coimisiún pleanála. This will bring increased certainty to the planning consent process for both the public and stakeholders involved in the delivery of key infrastructure such as housing and renewable energy.

The headline periods for an coimisiún pleanála will range from 18 weeks for appeals of decisions of planning authorities to 48 weeks for large-scale strategic infrastructure development. The varying timelines reflect the differing complexities of applications dealt with by the commission. There will also be a system of proportionately escalating measures in place if the commission does not make decisions within the mandatory time limits.

There is a range of crucial reforms to the judicial review of planning cases. There is an important role for judicial review, and this role is maintained and protected in the Bill. However, the number of cases has grown significantly and in a manner that is delaying delivery of housing and critical infrastructure such as wind energy and housing delivery. By moving to a more truly plan-led system and ensuring a greater consistency of approach with regard to planning policy, it is intended that this will reduce the scope for material contravention of plans and policies in subsequent decision-making. It is envisaged that, in time, this Bill and the reforms contained therein will result in fewer instances where judicial review is necessitated.

The processes and parameters of judicial review such as sufficient interest - standing rights - and provisions relating to the grounds for such challenges have been reviewed. Applicants will no longer need to apply to the High Court for leave to take a case, saving time and cutting expense while improving access to justice. Unincorporated organisations, such as residents’ associations, will be able to take a judicial review. Environmental non-governmental organisations will still enjoy a privileged status, aligned to our commitments under the Aarhus Convention, subject to certain criteria. Importantly, the Bill also introduces provisions relating to the costs associated with judicial reviews to ensure they are not prohibitively expensive. Again, this is an improvement aligned to our commitments under the Aarhus Convention.

There will be a scale of fees for all planning-related judicial reviews as well as an environmental legal costs financial assistance mechanism. This will enable an unsuccessful judicial review applicant to apply to the mechanism for a contribution to their costs, depending on their circumstances. This will improve access to justice by removing a significant cost barrier in what is acknowledged to be a very high-cost legal environment.

There will be a new organisational structure for An Bord Pleanála, which will be renamed an coimisiún pleanála with three central pillars. First is the planning commissioners, who will be responsible for all decision-making regarding appeals and applications made to an coimisiún pleanála under the new Bill. Second is the separate corporate structure, which will be led by a CEO and a strengthened management team, and which will undertake all organisational and technical functions to support the core decision-making role. Third is the governing body, which will be responsible for the governance and performance of the organisation.

The Government is already backing these reforms with resources to match its ambition. Since October 2021, 117 new staffing posts for An Bord Pleanála have been agreed. When all the approved posts are filled, over 300 people will be employed by the board. This will represent an increase in the overall agreed staffing at An Bord Pleanála of in excess of 50% since 2021. A permanent chairperson was appointed by the Government in January and a recruitment process for board members recently concluded. It is expected that appointments will be made from this panel shortly.

I am also preparing a ministerial action plan to look at the resourcing of the wider sector. The plan will set out a series of actions to be delivered on by stakeholders. In addition to the need for increased resourcing of public sector planning services and matters relating to the recruitment and retention of staff, there is also a need to develop educational and training initiatives to increase the availability of personnel with the necessary skills and expertise in planning and related professions across the public and private sectors.

Finally, the new Bill provides for urban development zones, UDZs, to replace strategic development zones, SDZs. This will facilitate the identification of areas with potential for significant development, including housing, in order to ensure the opportunities can be maximised and development can take place in a timely manner. There will be fast-track planning in accordance with the approved scheme. The UDZ designation will be applicable to large-scale areas in single or multiple land ownership that could include public and-or private lands and transport-led development areas, and are intended to be a focus for State investment to ensure development, including housing delivery at scale, can be progressed. As I mentioned at the outset, we have listened intently to all quarters throughout this three-year process. For example, during the nine-week pre-legislative scrutiny process, a wide range of views and submissions on the draft Bill was heard from a variety of groups and bodies. This resulted in the production of the Oireachtas joint committee report on pre-legislative scrutiny, which included a list of over 150 recommendations. After in-depth and careful consideration, two thirds of these recommendations were fully or partially adopted with the remainder adjudged to be outside the scope of the Bill. Likewise, throughout Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil, wherever changes were merited, we took them away for consideration and inclusion.

I will not go through every change made on foot of these processes but I would like to take a moment to highlight some key changes made on foot of input from elected Members. All references to the national biodiversity action plan and the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 have been reviewed and adherence to these has been strengthened. The Bill defines and includes community gardens for the first time. A bespoke category of priority area plan for the Gaeltacht and the islands has been created and consultation with Irish language bodies has been reviewed and improved. There will be a pause on planning permissions that are subject to judicial review so that such permissions do not lose time while such cases take place. The Bill deals with spurious planning submissions and appeals. Submissions on planning applications, appeals of applications and judicial reviews must be accompanied by a statutory declaration stating that they are not being undertaken for the purposes of delaying a development or for receiving a payment. A declaration must also be made when withdrawing a submission, appeal or judicial review. There will also be a ban on requesting payment for not opposing a development. These are a sample of the refinements that been made on foot of the record level of debate that has taken place in scrutinising this Bill to date.

I intend to bring forward a number of technical and drafting amendments on Committee Stage. While the Bill is virtually complete from a policy perspective, I will also bring amendments on Report Stage, most of which will also be of a technical nature. In particular, I will be bringing forward amendments to make consequential amendments to other legislation that references the Planning and Development Act. These will include, for example, amendments to roads, railway and maritime area planning Acts. There are over 500 references to the current Act on the Statute Book and these must be updated. I also intend to introduce revised governance procedures for the Office of the Planning Regulator.

I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill. It consists of 23 Parts and six Schedules. In the interests of time, I will actually skip that phase. I am sure those Parts and Schedules will be discussed at length during the Bill's time before the House.

The Bill is the third largest piece of legislation in the history of the State. It marks the biggest overhaul of our planning laws in almost a quarter of a century and will make our system fit for purpose for the foreseeable future. At its core, the Bill is centred on achieving clarity, certainty and consistency in our planning system. The Bill’s scale and complexity have been matched by the levels of stakeholder, pre-legislative and Dáil scrutiny undertaken to date. This is in addition to the work undertaken by the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, a wide range of Government Departments and my own officials over the past three years, each of which shares the common goal of delivering the best possible planning system for our country. As demonstrated time and again throughout this process, I will listen intently to the debate here in the Seanad and to the proposals of the House and will seek to respond to any specific questions and engage further on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State will have at least 15 minutes to sum up at the end. If he wishes to go back to some of his statement, he may do so. He is after making an opening statement in what is probably one of the most important debates that has taken place in this House in a long time. The whole area of planning and the Planning and Development Bill 2023, which is now on Second Stage, are important.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State, the departmental officials and everybody who has worked on the enormous task of bringing this Bill before the House. I acknowledge my colleagues and the secretariat of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, who worked very diligently to complete pre-legislative scrutiny on earlier drafts of the Bill.

As we enter this debate, we all need to remind ourselves that it has been more than two decades since the Planning and Development Act was first introduced. In seeking to overhaul our planning system and processes, we all have the common objective of increasing clarity, certainty and confidence in our planning system so that developments can take place in a consistent manner that is conducive to sustainable development, not just for ourselves in the here and now but for generations to come.

There are a few areas I would like to touch on in the opening few minutes. With the agreement of the House, I will share my time with Senator Malcolm Byrne.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed. Some of the Members are looking for a copy of the Minister of State's speech. Is it possible to arrange that?

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Shall I proceed or wait until the speech has been distributed?

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator may proceed.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a number of elements of the Bill I want to talk about. If we can achieve it, the objective of greater clarity, certainty and consistency will go a long way towards making our country and all of the developments that take place within it more sustainable into the future. We will all agree that the restructuring of An Bord Pleanála into a new organisation, an coimisiún pleanála, and increased resourcing for that new body is to be welcomed and supported. It is an issue we teased out at some length in the Oireachtas joint committee.

Most important in that restructuring and in the provision of additional resources to the commission is that the role of the local authorities is protected. This Government made a very significant intervention in respect of planning when it did away with the strategic housing development legislation and introduced legislation on large-scale residential developments. That large-scale residential planning framework has served us well. The local authorities have embraced and supported it and it has resulted in greater clarity, greater public participation in the planning applications brought forward, greater engagement with them and greater support for them. That is because the local authorities are closest to the communities. Communities identify with them. The public can also see planning applications progressing in a more transparent way. That is all to be welcomed.

The new area plans and the provision to have each of the 31 local authorities draw up ten-year development plans will give local authorities a great opportunity to put a lot more emphasis on the implementation of those development plans rather than just the process of making development plans. I served as a local authority member on Dublin City Council from 2004. Making a development plan is an enormous undertaking for the elected representatives and for the executive functions that support them. Unfortunately, they do not get to spend enough time implementing those plans. The ten-year plans with an option to review will give local authority members much greater scope to focus on implementation.

I welcome the urban development zones. These will provide a great opportunity for urban communities to define how they want to see their areas develop and to ensure that those developments in our urban centres take place in a sustainable way. The judicial changes being made to deal with spurious objections are important. The legislation needs to get the balance right between dealing with spurious objections and protecting public participation, thereby ensuring that the public feel like they are part of the process and have a say, their rights under the Aarhus Convention are preserved and their access to fairness and planning justice is not restricted. The provision on controlling costs will go a long way towards enabling and supporting public participation. I am thinking of residents' associations and other community organisations that give of their time outside their daily lives to engage with statutory authorities and those who seek to develop in their areas. Getting the balance right in the legislation will be critical to its success and to ensuring that the consistency, clarity and certainty we all want to see in our planning system is delivered.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleague, Senator Fitzpatrick, for sharing her time and the Minister of State for attending the House. I applaud him, the Minister, Darragh O’Brien, and the departmental officials for this comprehensive consolidating legislation. We always ask why we need something like this. The main challenge our country is facing domestically is the building of homes. Insofar as possible, our planning system should facilitate their building. Therefore, it is critical for home building, business and industry that the planning system does not become an obstacle to that. We must also have regard to climate, biodiversity and community infrastructure considerations, all of which are essential. This is about getting the balance right.

In particular, I welcome the greater certainty that the Bill should give to timeframes for planning and its addressing of the problem of spurious claims. My one difficulty with this is the implication for local authorities and an coimisiún pleanála if they do not reach the targets set out. The evidence to date is that An Bord Pleanála continues to fail to meet particular targets. This causes problems for many people. Someone dealing with a planning application wants an answer, yes or no, rather than the uncertainty of the process dragging on. I know of a case in Wexford where what was essentially a spurious claim was brought. The local authority had granted planning permission, which was appealed to An Bord Pleanála spuriously. The board upheld the decision to grant planning permission, but the whole process took more than two years. The project was to be a critical source of employment in County Wexford. What was unfair on those behind the project was the time the process took. The Bill’s measures will be welcome, but it is important that they be enforceable. This speaks to the need for us to have many more experienced planners at local authority and commission level.

I wish to focus on an area of concern, namely, development plans and local area plans. Like others, I am speaking as a former local authority member. This continues to be the greatest area of power and influence that local elected representatives have in our communities. We have an incredibly centralised system of government and the officials in the Minister of State’s Department love taking whatever power they can away from elected local representatives and putting it into the hands of the Custom House, the Office of the Planning Regulator and others. The difficulty I am raising is based on a personal experience. Do not get me wrong, as I believe that local plans should act in concert with regional and national plans and we cannot have wide variations, particularly where we have to have regard to important issues such as climate change and the biodiversity challenge and we have to ensure we can match services to the distribution of the population. Where extending the development plan from six to ten years is concerned, though, that is almost what is happening anyway. Few local authorities revise their plans every six years, mostly because they do not have the planners. I wonder whether a ten-year period is too long. If a local area or county development plan has to have regard to the regional strategy and the national planning framework, the Office of the Planning Regulator will effectively be able to make the ultimate decision on it. The experience to date is that the regulator will micromanage many of the local area plans. I recall being involved in the Gorey local area plan a number of years ago when we acted very responsibly on zoning, acting on the evidence of the census and the information that was provided. However, when we sent in our plans, the Custom House asked us why we had not zoned this or that area. It was down to local knowledge. We knew that if we zoned a particular area, there was not a hope in hell that the farmer would ever allow for development on that land whereas development would take place if we zoned other lands. Having that local knowledge informing the building of homes and so forth is critical. Within this legislation, we need to address the overreach of the OPR. If we followed some of the national planning guidelines and the OPR enforced them in towns like Gorey and Wexford, we should be pulling down homes because too many have been built to fit into the guidelines.

I am concerned by section 21’s requirement for a review of the national planning framework every ten years, with regard to be had of the census. The framework should be far more dynamic. I speak from experience based on my local area and the restrictions placed thereon. In the inter-census period of 2011 to 2016, the population of the Gorey local electoral area grew by 7.3% while national growth was 3.7%. In the inter-census period of 2016 and 2022, the growth in my area was 14% compared to 8% nationally. If this legislative requirement were in place, our area would have been stuck with – indeed, it already has been – a national planning framework that dated back a decade. It has no regard of the rapidly growing population or the demands and needs within that specific area.

I question what I perceive to be a strengthening of the powers of the Office of the Planning Regulator. I agree that there is a need for a co-ordinated approach and that plans need to operate in concert with one another, but the national transport strategy often shows no regard for fitting into local settlement patterns, for example.

On Committee Stage, I hope we can interrogate further the question of how to ensure there will be flexibility to meet specific local challenges, including areas of rapid growth. We have to be human about this. The OPR can say it wants 1,000 extra people to live in a certain town or village, but those 1,000 people may not want to live there and instead have a greater desire to live in the town or village down the road for particular reasons. We have to balance the obligation to have appropriate levels of service with allowing people the right to choose to live where they want for whatever reason.

I commend the Minister of State and the officials. I know how much work has gone into the Bill. I appreciate that he will accept amendments on Committee Stage. I look forward to that debate.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon. I acknowledge the significant work on the Planning and Development Bill. It has been a long time coming. The outline of the Bill was published and approved by the Government in December 2022. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage examined the proposed Bill extensively. I acknowledge the importance of all of that. There was extensive pre-legislative scrutiny and many witnesses, NGOs, members of the various planning institutes, developers and all sorts of individuals. It was a broad, representative group and was meaningful, which is important to acknowledge.

The joint committee published its pre-legislative scrutiny report in April 2023. I thank the Chairperson of the committee, Deputy Matthews, and members of the committee, some of whom are here, for their enormous work. Generally, there was great collegiality and support. It was a listening engagement and a respectful one, which is an important point - we are not all mad, wild political animals. We teased out a lot. There was a learning curve for officials and everybody else as they navigated this evolving process. It is very technical by nature.

I acknowledge the Library and Research Service. It is an amazing team in the Oireachtas which supported the committee and individuals in their work. I also acknowledge the Minister and Ministers of State, Deputies Noonan and Dillon, and the latter's predecessors as Minister of State, Deputies Peter Burke and O'Donnell, who still hold ministerial responsibilities in other areas. They were involved in aspects of preparing the Bill.

The Bill and explanatory memorandum were published in November 2023. According to the Government, the stated purpose of the Bill is to revise, extend and consolidate the Planning and Development Act in order to provide for proper planning and sustainable development for urban and rural areas.

At this point, I also thank Ms Jones and her team from the Department because they have had to put up with us for a long time. There has been a lot of questions and toing and froing. It has been a learning curve and journey for us all.

This Bill is significant, as we all know. It runs to 766 pages and consists of 22 Parts, six Schedules and contains 541 sections. It is mammoth legislation. I understand from staff in the Bills Office that this is possibly the third largest Bill in the history of the Oireachtas, so that is a challenge in itself. I thank the Bills Office, which had the enormous task of co-ordinating many of the amendments.

It is with great regret that I must note that the Government decided to guillotine the Bill. What does that say about parliamentary democracy? The problem is that when there is a massive majority in either House of this Parliament, parliamentary democracy suffers. That is a stain on the Government, quite frankly, which should not have happened. I hope the Minister of State will not contribute in any way or be supportive of any attempt to guillotine this legislation through Seanad Éireann. As former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said, we are a revising Chamber. We are tasked with advising and improving or proposing to improve legislation.

Before I finish my thanks, I acknowledge an important and significant letter the Ceann Comhairle delivered to each of the leaders yesterday in which he set out a number of concerns. I will make this available for the record of the House because it is important. He dealt with the issue of arrangements required from the outset for these Bills and noted that the burden cannot be placed on our staff and the Bills Office regarding the process. They are here, willing, able, capable and more than supportive in the parliamentary process. It is important correspondence. Every Member of this House should have a copy of it, at least. It deals with a number of issues such as editing and grouping amendments and their admissibility, as well as a number of other issues. It is signed by Seán Ó Fearghaíl, the Ceann Comhairle and head of the committee. That letter from the Ceann Comhairle's office is dated 25 June 2024. It is important to put it on the record.

On the restructuring and resourcing of An Bord Pleanála, the board is expected to be renamed an coimisiún pleanála, despite the opposition of Fórsa, which asked me to raise this point, and the opposition of the workers of An Bord Pleanála. One can argue there will be commissioners, so it should be called an coimisiún pleanála, but let us listen to the workers in An Bord Pleanála. They had a lot of other things to say about An Bord Pleanála before, all of which came out in the wash eventually. I wish the ongoing inquiries in relation to An Bord Pleanála success. Given the various things that happened in An Bord Pleanála that should not have happened, my message to the Minister of State is that the inquiries into what happened should be expedited. We must hold people to account. If individuals are found to have breached in any way, they must be sanctioned because that is what the public expects.

I welcome the introduction of mandatory timelines on decision-making for the first time in An Bord Pleanála but there are no sanctions. What sanctions will there be? In front of me is a copy of a spreadsheet of plans for more than 20,000 houses that are stuck in An Bord Pleanála. I raised this with the Minister of State earlier. This is the so-called fast-track planning scheme that the wonderful officials in the Department down in the Custom House engineered. Without naming them, we know where some of them went. One went to An Bord Pleanála, one is in the Office of the Planning Regulator and there were many others. Were any of them held to account? Why, when we are in a housing crisis, are applications for 20,000 houses sitting in boxes in An Bord Pleanála and all it says is it does not have the resources? It is not good enough. I acknowledge, however, that in the legislation we will attempt to do something together about it.

Turning to the ten-year development plan, I have been involved in three county development plans for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. In that time, I gleaned a certain amount of knowledge. We are always learning and things are always changing. Planning guidelines have changed. I do not support a ten-year development plan. We elected 949 city and county councillors in this State only two or three weeks ago. In the Bill, the Government proposes to push development plans out to ten years, with a possible extension to 12. Let us not fool ourselves; that option is provided for in the Bill.

Any review has to be robust but there is talk of a review within five years. The five years are already ticking for the elected members. The councillors are elected for five years. When does the mid-term review start? That is an important point. The Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, asked that this be reduced to five years. It mandated us to do it - we do not have to. I am committed to that. The Association of Irish Local Government has made an ask, which I believe is right, and I will support it. I will seek to support that objective through amendments to the development plan.

I am particularly concerned about changes to the current judicial review process and the new fees regime. That may be the most controversial aspect of this legislation. This is all dealt with in Part 9. I will reserve my views on that but I intend to table some amendments, as do my colleagues. There will be extensive amendments proposed to that Part.

We cannot curtail citizen and community participation in the planning process. Aspects of this Bill will effectively curtail elements of proactive responses from our citizens. They have concerns. A resounding message I have picked up from city and county councillors, general stakeholders and citizens in community groups and NGOs is that more certainty, consistency and coherence are needed in the development plan. I know it is the objective to do that in this proposal but it needs to be looked at again. It also needs to be more concise.

I want to support a planning regime that will contribute to economic prosperity. I want to be clear about what I am for. It is not all standing up here to say what I am against. I support economic prosperity, quality of life, social cohesion and high environmental standards for the benefit of all. I have always advocated a planning system that is robust and makes quality planning decisions in a timely and professional manner following meaningful consultation and participation. I support proper planning and sustainable development in urban and rural areas.I have long sought to ask the Government to be honest and upfront and to publish the rural housing guidelines. I could paper the walls in my office with letters I have received over the Past eight years about these rural housing planning guidelines. Many will be aware of the Flemish Decree - the Minister of State’s official’s certainly will be - and its requirement to do something about planning guidelines.

The Minister of State ably represents our citizens, and I refer here in particular to those in the rural parts of our country. He will know from his own constituency office that they, within reason, want to be able to build proper, sustainable homes for themselves and their families. These are people who have worked and toiled on the land over generations and generations. They want to build there, and they want to live there. That is a very reasonable request and one that should in some way be reflected in this legislation. I do not think the Minister of State can go back out to the communities and talk about proper planning and sustainable development without addressing the issue of rural housing and the need to revitalise our rural towns and villages. Ideally, more people should be living in our villages. There are people who need support out of economic necessity and there are issues of land connection and ties, inheritance and greater family supports. I want to see that being reflected in this legislation because it is important. I support securing national and regional development strategies, maximising regional development, providing land, the interaction with the sea and the maritime planning legislation, etc. I have no difficulty with any of that.

What has been said about this Bill is important. The former Chief Justice of Ireland, Frank Clarke, was at a conference in the King's Inns, at which I was present. He has been quoted extensively. He stated that:

...government’s push to amend the planning laws will likely lead to a large number of legal cases being referred to European courts... the amendments will slow down the planning process...[i]f the theory is to make quick decisions to allow proper development go ahead, creating a system where there will be references to the Court of Justice of the European Union and the inevitable delay before there's clarity.

These are his concerns and he suggests this is counterproductive to the purpose for which this Bill is intended. That is a damning commentary on this Bill by our former Chief Justice. What does the Irish Planning Institute say about this Bill? It put on the record that the Planning and Development Bill is “not fit for purpose”.

At this point, I want to advocate strongly, too. I said this earlier today when we met with the Minister of State on the issue of local government. I raised the need for a statutory chief city and county planner that does not come under the chief executive but is parallel to the chief executive, and is free from the dominance of any chief executive to direct him or her on how to make proper planning decisions. Planning is a science and a skill and it also has a substantial common sense element to it.

In Scotland, there are chief planners. We heard this at the housing committee. This is not wisdom coming from me, it was shared with us by planners from Scotland. Scotland has a chief planner, which is a statutory function. In this country, on this very day, there are directors in the area of planning who have no clue about planning. They have never studied planning. They are well intentioned - and I am not casting any aspersions on them - but through their career path, they were appointed directors of service. The chief executive decides that. I am told this is outside the remit of this Bill, but I want the Minister of State to take that on board. Is there any other mechanism through which we can bring this in? There are law agents and architects. We do not ask inexperienced people to head up the area of finance. We tie that area in with accountants, economists, etc. Critical skills must be attached to areas of critical importance. That is a really important point to make.

I support proper planning and sustainable development, securing regional development strategies and regional and local development, which are important, as is the national planning framework. I will finish on one point, namely, the Aarhus Convention. We understand that the Aarhus compliance committee has some concerns and is going to go into their detail. We need to look at them, and that is something we can reflect in the legislation.

Finally, on 26 May 2024, the newspapers reported that the Supreme Court is examining the constitutionality of the Minister's powers to issue planning directions. The Government is considering these matters. It is an interesting read, and I will certainly circulate it to the Minister of State. Those are my overarching views, and I will finish up by saying that I am conscious there has been a respectful, robust engagement. Ultimately, how we deal with our amendments is a matter for this House, but I appeal to the Minister of State, given all the powers associated with this Bill, not to guillotine it.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Senator Boyhan on being able to speak for longer than 15 minutes. I will be sharing time with Senator Seery Kearney.

As has been mentioned, this is a colossal Bill. It is 747 pages, has 22 Parts, six Schedules and 590 sections. It is the biggest overhaul of our planning legislation in a quarter of a century. Why are we doing it? We are doing it to bring clarity, consistency and certainty to our planning system for the next quarter of a century and beyond. It would therefore be remiss of me at the outset not to acknowledge all the people who have worked on this Bill to date. I refer to the officials in the Department, particularly in the joint Oireachtas committee, of which I am fortunate to be a member. I refer also to the secretariat, all the members of the committee and all the stakeholders who fed information throughout the pre-legislative scrutiny process. It was collaborative and collegial. We worked together to prepare a pre-legislative scrutiny report that had 150 recommendations in it, many of which have been factored in by officials and fed into the Bill. It has evolved from the general scheme that was published right up to the Bill that we have before us today, which was passed by Dáil Éireann last week.

The Bill is obviously too big for me to go through all its sections, so I will just touch on a few areas. One of the issues I have been consistently raising is one with which we are all in lockstep, namely, the issue of certainty regarding timelines for decision-making. We have an excellent local authority system that is streamlined and that provides decisions to people in relation to planning within an eight-week period. We are now allowing for a 12-week period for complex issues. I know amendments will be tabled from all quarters in relation to various sections that are available. One of the areas I have highlighted is in relation to section 113 of the Bill, which deals with an coimisiún pleanála and the statutory timelines that have been set down. I want to say at the outset that I welcome the fact that there will now be statutory decision-making timelines for An Bord Pleanála but, to be perfectly frank, I think we need to go further.

The Bill provides that if a decision is not made on an appeal for a regular planning application within an 18-week period, an coimisiún pleanála will have a further four weeks to make a decision. If it does not make a decision within a four-week period, it will have a further six-week period. If it does not make a decision within a six-week period, it will then have a further one-week period. I would like to consolidate that process in cases where it has not made a decision within an 18-week period. Rather than having an initial four-week period, we should look at having six weeks. If a decision is not made within six weeks, we should be say it needs to be made within a one-week period. We should shorten that period to a maximum of seven weeks, in addition to the 18-week period. This proposal is opposed to the 11-week period, which is provided for in the Bill as it as it currently stands. We can debate the pros and cons of that on Committee Stage. However, having certainty with timelines is so important.

I want to flag another issue that is also in that section.Also in that section, while I know the Minister of State will probably not respond to it today, I want to flag for Committee Stage the ability for an coimisiún pleanála to request of the applicant an extension of time for a decision on a planning application. Frankly, I am uncomfortable with it. I think there is a power imbalance between an coimisiún pleanála and the applicant, where the applicant may feel that he or she has to agree to an extension of the timeline or else he or she might not get a favourable decision. I ask, after Second Stage is completed, for that to be considered by the Department before it comes into us on Committee Stage.

I welcome the move towards urban development zones, UDZs, and the transition period from strategic development zones. We have a critical strategic development zone in Waterford city in the North Quays, which is being developed extensively as we speak. There are cranes and hundreds of workers are developing a transportation hub, a new bridge over the River Suir and new road infrastructure onto the site, which will pave the way for a private sector development of over €250 million in the first phase. That is a strategic development zone that is working. The whole purpose of the legislation is to take key regional areas and ask how we can simplify the planning process. The ability for other local authorities to extend that with urban development zones, in collaboration with our councillors, which is so important, and with the Department, is important and will enable a strategic view to be taken on land banks. One thing that was discussed during pre-legislative scrutiny at the committee and in discussions on other legislation is about when land banks are owned by several different parties, and having one overarching plan for that, regardless of who owns the site. The UDZ provisions in the Bill are welcome.

There was a good discussion about section 5 declarations. It is formerly section 5, because it will be section 9 in the current Bill. It is the ability to declare that this is an exempted development. It provides for regulations. The Minister of State might comment on whether it is the intention, particularly in the transition period and beyond, that those regulations that are currently in place for exempted development would be continued. As he knows, we have successfully introduced exemptions from planning for former public houses that are to be converted into up to ten residential units. It is an excellent measure that has been implemented. I want to make sure that consistency will remain in the regulations and secondary legislation that will follow this Bill.

Those are just a couple of the main points that I have been focusing on in this legislation. We will obviously debate them more on Committee Stage. I compliment the Minister of State, his officials and his teams on working with all of us in this Chamber and the other Chamber, as well as the joint committee, on this legislation. It is critical that we have a planning system that is fit for purpose in this country and which brings certainty and clarity to timelines for decisions. That will be the litmus test for this legislation. If we can achieve that and bring certainty about all elements of our planning system, from our local authorities to an coimisiún pleanála to judicial reviews, we will have succeeded, because it will address the frustration from all parties with regard to a lag in timelines and an indefinite period around decision-making that is not fit for purpose any more. That is what we are trying to rectify in this Bill. I commend it to the House.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend the Minister of State and officials for the amazing work. The engagement with the Oireachtas committee has been fantastic. I commend my colleague, Senator Cummins, on his leadership within our party in this area. He has been insightful in his contributions and a great advocate and colleague. I welcome this Bill. It is critical, exactly as described. We need an coimisiún pleanála to be efficient in how it operates and fully resourced to make sure that we meet the timelines set down in the Bill, that we have an efficient planning process, and that anybody who invests in the supply of housing is supported on that route as much as possible in order that we can get decisions and get housing delivered.

I have looked, aghast, at the scandal of go-away money and housing being held up by people looking for payouts. I have been appalled at that. I have found myself in meetings on occasion or with people looking for meetings with me who have absolutely no skin in the game and yet who are objecting to housing. They may not live anywhere near it but have a philosophical or ideological view that is not conducive, particularly in the city or a constituency like Dublin South-Central, where we have to look at density and support a more densely populated area, to having housing that is convenient to the city, usable and developed. We have developments there and in Dolphin's Barn that started years ago but which will not be completed until 2035. There are elements in my home constituency that are shocking in their delays. I know that Deputy Leo Varadkar, as Taoiseach, intervened in Dolphin's Barn and got the residents there to have a meeting with the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and the Minister of State's predecessor to try to get some clarity and to roll out housing in a quicker way. The Land Development Agency will start delivering on the housing and commence building on Donore Avenue before the end of this year. That is to be highly commended.

I like that we have a balance in the legislation to stop spurious judicial reviews and to stop spurious objectors, while also safeguarding those who have skin in the game and need to have a say. I get the balance. We have a dense residential unit that has reduced parking spaces because it is maybe near a Luas line and convenient to the city, but those reduced parking spaces can be an issue since there are still jobs where people have to have vehicles, such as a man with a van. It might well be their actual office. There is still a need for parking. There are fears from local residents' associations that such parking, because of the inadequacy of parking spaces, will spill over into the local community and stop access and egress from houses nearby. There are valid things that residents need to raise that are not objections to housing, per se, but are comments on the development and its design. It is important that they have opportunities to give input in that.

One thing that I want to press home is that we need parity of housing supply and infrastructure. We are looking at Merrion Square here, where tea rooms are being built for €1 million. That is being built from development levies by Dublin City Council, while in Drimnagh and Dublin 8, we do not have playing pitches, civic centres, community spaces or any of those things, but we will have a €1 million tea room in Merrion Square. That is an absolute disgrace. Money should be spent locally. There should be a plan that makes sure that that is delivered. That might be a deficiency of the advocacy of the councillors from those local electoral areas in not advocating strongly and not co-operating with the other councillors to make sure that they deliver for their home.The population of Drimnagh is similar to the population of Killarney. They do not have a civic centre. They have a park that is underutilised because there is not lighting or public spaces on it. It is a disgrace. We need libraries, swimming pools and sports in public spaces. We have drug addiction and children being preyed upon when they do not have sporting facilities in the community and in Dublin 8. Sporting Liberties and Dynamic Drimnagh are strong advocates on this. That is a disgrace. I refer to having control of planning and making sure that infrastructure goes in.

Similarly, with childcare, there is idea that we have a provision for childcare to be built within development, yet builders are allowed to discount the number of one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes and get themselves out of the requirement to build childcare.

All of that is not putting the infrastructure that is needed to live in a community ahead and on par with a need for housing. We do not just need shelter; we need communities that are viable and living. I hope this Bill will contribute to that.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is an amazing day. I think it is the biggest Bill ever brought to the House at more than 800 pages. These things do not happen overnight. Despite what people say about rushing legislation through, this is probably the most unrushed Bill we have ever had in the House. It is three years in the making. There was more than 30 pre-legislative scrutiny meetings. The housing committee has to be commended. No matter what wages you are on, I refer to the number of meetings they had – morning, noon and night. The Chair was Deputy Steven Matthews, my colleague in the Green Party, and we did not see him at all for ages. We thought he had left the country. All the committee members have to be commended for the hours they put into this. They invited many stakeholders in. This is a real piece of democracy. Politicians, experts on housings, NGOs and all kinds of people came in and had input into this, as well as the great civil servants who worked very hard on this and supported the politicians in their great work. It is important we acknowledge that. I will not debate for a second any nonsense around it being a rushed Bill.

It is amazing we got to this Stage of the Bill. It is great also there was ample opportunity on Committee Stage for any and every TD to attend the committee whenever they wanted to speak to the Bill. That is something to bear in mind if we have speakers in the House today saying it has been rushed through, guillotined and we had no chance. Just explain to people that all the Oireachtas committees are open for Members to come in and speak to any Bill they like. It is important they know that.

Participation in the planning process is vital. It is not set out clearly in this Bill how the public can make submissions to the planning system, so that needs to be clarified. Even though there are spurious judicial reviews, as Senator Seery Kearney said, there are some legitimate reviews as well, and that is why there is a balancing act. Many people object to things that have absolutely nothing to do with them whatsoever but there are legitimate ones as well. We need clarity around participation in the planning process for this Bill.

I also commend my colleague, Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh, who got community gardens included in the Bill. People kind of pooh-pooh community gardens but they are vital for social and mental health. It is good we recognised them. Many people do not have access to land but would like to have access to land. Community gardens are hugely important for communities to come together.

I will probably table an amendment to section 84, requiring the Minister to clearly set out information on where, how and within what timeframes a member of the public can make an observation.

During the Report Stage in the Dáil, the Minister removed reference in section 86 to the climate Act. I understand this may have been due to the section requiring only “have regard to”. It is critically important to decision-making in the planning system that decisions are consistent with our obligations under the climate Act. I hope the Minister will table an amendment to section 86 to remind planning authorities of their obligations under the Act. For far too long, local authorities have been building housing on floodplains. They kind of got away with it in some instances in the past. However, with ten months of rain, it has never been more abundantly clear that we have to take the effects of climate change seriously in our planning. It has to be embedded in the planning, and that has to be outlined. I will table an amendment in that regard.

Public rights of way are also important. They are of vital importance and must be maintained within the development plan. A parliamentary question to the Minister stated that there would be no substantive changes to the inclusion of public rights of way in the development plan. However, it would appear that there has been some weakening of this process. I will work with those concerned with maintaining public rights of way and will submit a Committee Stage amendment.

We have to talk about consistency among local authorities. Talking to some of my urban colleagues, on some local authorities, councillors, TDs and Senators can be representatives for planning applications and there is a procedure within the council for that. Some urban Senators might find that quite shocking. It is completely unheard of on other local authorities. I know planners who have left local authorities because of the political pressure they have been put under to push through planning on applications that were not appropriate and not fitting with the laws of the land. We need to make sure we have consistency across every local authority. No matter how many councillors are pushing through planning applications because the applicants are a cousin, brother, sister-in-law or daughter, we have to have standards for housing. For too long we have seen houses that are absolute monstrosities put in most inappropriate places, and then somebody else getting shot down because they put up a lean-to. We need consistency. No politician should be involved in planning. The Minister has been completely removed from that, thanks be to God, over the years. However, at local level, councillors, TDs and Senators should not be involved in the planning process in any way. They are not planners. The planners need to be left to do their job. This is a huge issue. I speak first-hand to planners. We have lost many good planners who would not bend to political will, leaving our system because of it. The ones who are willing to bend to it stay. That is a huge issue. They do not want to stay either, but they have to support their families. We need to look at that and stop this nonsense about political representations for individual planning permissions or big companies' planning permissions or whoever.

The rent pressure zones issue is a huge one for me. We did not have any in Clare. We finally got them in Ennis and Shannon following hard work by me, Deputy Matthews and others in changing the algorithm. My son was renting a house in Ennistymon and the rent quadrupled overnight. That was it. The landlord asked, “Could you bring the rent?” He got away completely scot-free because there are no rent pressure zones in other areas. However, there is huge pressure on rents everywhere now because of the housing crisis. It is not fit for purpose anymore that the rent pressure zones are only in urban areas. We need them in every town and village. Tourist areas are fleecing local people for rent because there are so many holidaymakers. That is an issue as well.

I welcome the Minister’s comments and clarification on the matters outlined above, perhaps not today but through this process. I look forward to coming back to it on Committee Stage and tabling some amendments. I commend again the Ministers, the civil servants, the stakeholders, all the outside parties who came in, and Deputy Steven Matthews and all committee members for the tireless work that has gone into bringing us this 800-page document that is vital for the future of the country.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all got the memo to go through how large a Bill this is. It is more than 700 pages. I wish to draw attention to the 1,200 amendments that were tabled at the select committee, which was only Dáil TDs. Not everyone was allowed in; only 12 TDs were allowed in. They put in a huge workload scrutinising this legislation. Members of that committee told me as they were going through it that they realised the Department, Minister and Government side were working collaboratively and recognised some of the flaws in the Bill.

It is disappointing that when it comes to this House, we have a very short timeframe and turnaround. In fact, we have a letter, as referenced by Senator Boyhan, which states that the Bills Office will not have the time to go through the amendments properly to ensure they are compliant. That is an important point in terms of making bad law if we amend it in this House at that stage and send it on.

That all said, it is extremely important that we have a functioning planning system, and we have not had one over the past number of years. We have a permission system. That does not work for anybody. It does not work for local communities, people who are currently unhoused and need housing built, developers or builders.It does not work to reach our climate targets and it does not work to reach our housing targets.

The Planning and Development Bill 2023 is being heralded as the solution to housing and the chaos in the planning system and, to a certain extent, part of that is true but there are other parts that are not necessarily true. We must be careful in what we adopt. We must listen to outside bodies and interests who are professionals in this area who say that in some areas it will bring more confusion to the planning system and practice that has built up over the past 24 years since the Planning and Development Act, in particular in regard to LAPs. For example, in the Bill, there is no mechanism to amend LAPs whereas there is a mechanism to have a variation in a development plan, which is used quite often by local authorities. Maybe we need to do that in local area plans as well. LAPs can be onerous documents. The same amount of work goes into an LAP as goes into a development plan and there is a need to be more dynamic when it comes to that. Other issues, such as defining non-material alternations, need to be in the Bill.

I am disappointed to see that there has been no reform of the CPO system, particularly with policies such as Town Centre First and money the Government has made available to it. We still have the difficult system of CPO.

I am worried about the approach of ramming through the Bill and guillotining the debate, and giving us only three days to consider hundreds of amendments and relying on unspecified legal advice where legitimate concerns are being raised. In particular, the latter has been raised in the context of the Aarhus Convention, which, the Government has said, this legislation is compliant with. Other outside bodies and interests are saying that the Bill is not compliant with the Aarhus Convention.

I would highlight that the Minister has yet to give any clarity on what the regulations, following the passing of this Bill, will look like. That has been raised by outside bodies, such as IBEC. Many in the construction industry say that they are staring into a black hole with very little understanding of what the regulatory situation will be post the passing of this Bill.

IBEC has stated that the Bill does not contain any exemptions for exempted development. That will be put into regulations but that is problematic. This Bill simply allows the Minister to lay them out in secondary legislation. Many of those exemptions in the previous Bill are crucial to some of the basic maintenance, structure and functioning of a planning system, not the big developments but the everyday developments people are doing. I would ask the Minister to look at that again. I am concerned that the exemptions are no longer underpinned by primary legislation.

I raise some concerns about the ability of the public to make submissions on ministerial guidelines, which can overrule development plans. We are moving to a system of having a plan-led approach. While that is welcome, when it comes to the national planning framework, ministerial guidelines will be issued by the Department and we must have a mechanism for public consultation on such issues as ministerial guidelines because they have a big impact on what we are building. For example, ministerial guidelines around standards have a big impact on the built environment but they have not had to go through any level of public consultation the way development plans, the national planning framework or the regional planning frameworks do. We must have a look at there being statutory public consultation, ideally approved by local authority members, to ensure proper democratic oversight of the changes provided in ministerial guidelines if and when they are issued.

I raise the issue of the OPR, which has been raised on a couple of occasions in this House. Senator Malcolm Byrne said the OPR was telling some local authorities to dezone land on transport corridors in urban areas. It is normally standard practice that public bodies and regulators operate within a board structure. However, this does not happen with the Office of the Planning Regulator and there are no proposals in this legislation to have a board overseeing the OPR. At the departmental briefing the other day, the Department said it was looking at that and it has gone to the Attorney General. That would be very welcome but that needs to be included in the primary legislation because we cannot have a regulator telling people not to build or telling local authorities in the middle of a housing crisis, when we have 4,000 children who are homeless, that they have to dezone land on transport corridors in urban areas. I intend to put forward amendments to provide for a board for the regulator.

As my party leader made clear in the Dáil, we want to see action, we want to see the delivery of homes our communities need to be built and we need to see climate action and large infrastructural projects that deliver the emissions reductions we need. While I welcome the plan-led approach of this legislation, it is extremely complex. We are all working our way around this. I would like more consultation at this Stage, so that we can iron out those difficulties otherwise we will be back here in a couple of years. We do not want to make bad law as we did when we rushed through the strategic housing developments legislation, which has clogged up the system and essentially made judicial review a stage in the planning process as opposed to an absolute exception to the rule.

This legislation far from facilitates more house building and infrastructural building. It risks taking a planning system and damaging it even more. We need to be careful about that. With that, I hope the Minister of State will be willing to accept some of my party's amendments on Committee Stage.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. Our planning system is a cornerstone of our democracy and should, at its core, be about how we build, maintain and enrich sustainable communities across the country. Our planning system should be democratic, accountable and participative and needs to be equipped to deal with the most pressing challenges of our time, including the climate and biodiversity crisis and the housing crisis.

Unfortunately, the Bill before us will not equip us to deal with these crucial challenges but instead seeks to centralise power and disempower communities and democratic structures. I will not have that much time today to outline every issue my group has with the Bill but I will outline some of the key areas which are most troubling.

I am concerned that in Part 3 of the Bill we are seeing a deeper erosion of local democracy and a further centralisation, and the move from a six-year local development plan to a ten-year local development plan means that elected councillors, who already do not have enough powers, may never get an opportunity to work on the development plan for their local area. This is a key reserve power and by diluting it, this Bill will further undermine local democracy at a time when it is widely accepted that local government needs more power to deliver for its communities, not less. The AILG and LAMA have been outspoken in their opposition to this proposed change and I am concerned that the Government is not taking on board the experience and expertise of the councillors, who understand their communities' needs and have a democratic mandate to represent them. The requirement to align development plans with the national planning policy statement goes completely against the principles of subsidiarity and the idea that decisions should be made as close to the citizen as possible.

The provisions carried over from the 2000 Act around the power of a Minister to give a direction on a local development plan remain deeply problematic and these are augmented by an extraordinary array of additional powers to force the planning system into alignment without adequate oversight and compromised mechanisms to hold the Government, Ministers and the Office of the Planning Regulator to account. These will only serve to undermine public confidence and trust in local democracy and the wider planning system. For example, in the case of South Dublin County Council's most recent development plan, the decision of democratically elected councillors regarding data centres was overturned. South Dublin county councillors made a prudent decision on behalf of the community that elected them. It was made with reference to the massive environmental and energy impacts of data centre concentration. They were overruled. We should be using the opportunity of such a wide-ranging Bill to address some of the deep democratic deficits in the planning and local government system but instead it seems that the same mistakes are being made alongside an even bigger power grab.

There is a fundamental need for a democratic and community-led planning system. It is the only way to foster public confidence in the system. This Bill removes some of the key opportunities for members of the public to effectively input into the planning process and the stripping of any member of the public's right to challenge unauthorised development by seeking a declaration from a planning authority on whether such development is exempt from planning control is a regressive step.The Minister claimed in the Dáil that the Bill is "unquestionably" compliant with the Aarhus Convention, to use his own word. However, it emerged that more than 24 hours earlier the Aarhus Convention compliance committee provided a report to Ireland where it stated it is of the view a section of the Bill, which the Government presented as a correction to ensure Aarhus compliance, fails to be compliant with our international obligations. I consider that embarrassing, but the implications are profound. The assertions the Bill is fully compliant with Aarhus are simply not credible in that context and in light of concerns from a broad range of external stakeholders about the Aarhus compliance of a whole range of its provisions. It is just unacceptable the Bill comes before us in this state and there should be a thorough, independent review of Aarhus compliance.

Another deeply problematic aspect of this Bill is the proposed sweeping changes to people’s constitutional right of access to the courts. The volume of judicial reviews has slowed since the abolition of the deeply-problematic strategic housing development regime where direct applications were made to An Bord Pleanála. That system clearly did not work, yet now we have the same Department coming back and saying while it got SHDs completely wrong, we should trust it on this. The restrictions this Bill will introduce on individuals and communities are unacceptable. For example, the onerous requirements that will apply to most residents’ associations and local groups should they wish to pursue judicial review will have a chilling effect on engagement in the planning process. This will lead to poorer planning and environmental decisions and undermine public confidence and trust in the planning system. We need to be really clear the Government’s attempts to seek to restrict the public’s right to seek judicial review of planning and environmental decisions has not been justified. It is not only not going to fix anything, but it will also create bigger problems and delays as the legality of these restrictions is challenged in the courts. An Taisce has stated Aarhus compliance is absolutely essential if the Bill is to truly guarantee public participation and access to justice. The Government has responded that it and the Attorney General feel it is compliant but has never published any analysis, detail or reports supporting that assertion. An Taisce said all the issues with the JR provisions will lead to significant legal uncertainty and satellite litigation delays and costs. Instead of trying to stop the public challenging unlawful decisions, as the Bill clearly intends to do, the focus should be on ensuring lawful decision-making at all levels in the planning process. The potential for flawed decisions increases exponentially with this Bill and it is just being rushed. Decision-makers will be operating it in parallel with the current 2000 Act together with two parallel sets of regulations. The potential for confusion and flawed decisions is inevitable, especially when considering the deficiency of resources in the planning authorities. We will need the courts as a critical support mechanism and to be able to get in and out of the courts quickly. Instead, this Bill will further burden the courts with a flood of complex and contradictory litigation about access to the courts and it is an entirely dysfunctional approach.

I also wish to signal to our total opposition to the so-called “Cairn Homes amendment” in section 86. Introduced in the Dáil, it stipulates the housing growth target included in the housing development strategy in respect of the settlement being reached is not valid grounds to refuse permission. This provision is quite frankly bizarre, wrongheaded and hugely worrying. This will lead to more communities being underserved and a further deterioration of social cohesion in the country. It is worryingly indicative of a lobbyist-led approach to policy-making which, in the context of the centralisation of power provided for in this Bill, as well as the lack of oversight, is alarming. Crucially, it seems within this legislation there is not any sort of tangible framework for delivery of sustainable communities in the future. The climate and nature provisions are far too weak and the Government went so far as to delete from the Bill the obligation for the planning authority and commission to have regard to the Climate Act. On the material conditions that can be attached to a development consent, where is the provision for the protection of biodiversity in the context of a biodiversity crisis? Where is the provision for disability as required under the UNCRPD? Where is the provision of safe cycling and pedestrian infrastructure? Where is the requirement for public arts and culture space? Mention is made of the provision of Traveller accommodation being an objective of housing development strategies, but there is no provision for consultation with Travellers on what they need for appropriate housing. The Government rejected a proposal to include this as a matter appropriate for national planning statements.

There are so many missed opportunities here. It is deeply disappointing the Bill that purports to modernise the planning system fails to reflect the diverse communities we now live in and the people of many different backgrounds and language groups who need to be able to engage in our planning system. There is so much missing from this Bill that is crucial to how we develop communities that are inclusive, accessible and sustainable. Is mian liom an Teachta Ó Snodaigh a mholadh as a chuid oibre suntasaí ar cheisteanna éagsúla maidir leis an mBille seo. Aithním go bhfuil roinnt dul chun cinn déanta ach tá go leor eile le déanamh.

My contribution has only dealt with some of the most problematic elements of the Bill. I hope we will deal with others on Committee Stage. It is important to put this legislation in a wider context. Almost four fifths of members of the IPI, which is the main professional body for planners in Ireland, said they do not have confidence in the Bill. IPI president Gavin Lawlor said the Bill is not fit for purpose. Environmental groups, members of the public and, crucially, planners themselves are telling us what is before us will not solve the issues with our planning system but make them much worse. I cannot understand why they are going unheeded.

As a legislator I am very disappointed in the way we are all being asked to do our jobs on this Bill in a manner that is rushed and goes against the principle of proper parliamentary scrutiny. The guillotining of the Bill in the Dáil and the proposed schedule imposed not just on Senators, but on our staff and the staff of the Bills Office, is deeply unfair. I ask the Minister of State to commit that he will not seek to guillotine Committee Stage in this House and will instead allow the Bill to adjourn. There are significant issues with the Bill that still must be addressed. Public confidence in our planning system is of paramount importance and a shortened and insufficient period of parliamentary scrutiny where we are not given ample opportunity to fulfil our constitutional role will undermine public confidence in the planning system. Though this Bill is dense and technical, it fundamentally is about the system we have in place to decide what kind of communities we want and how we should live together. The debate, which should be broad, informed and imaginative about the future of our people, new communities, places and our planet has instead been reduced to a narrow legislative process that seeks to exclude the diverse and broad experience and perspectives of our citizens. A better and more sustainable future is possible if we move away from the highly-centralised, developer-led approach the Bill represents to an inclusive, community-driven process that will ensure better decisions for us all.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. Sinn Féin wants to get planning right. We want a planning system that makes good-quality decisions in a timely manner following meaningful public participation. We want a planning system that allows the public, semi-State and private sectors to meet the social and economic needs of our country, that ensures the delivery of good-quality and affordable homes, renewable energy projects, improved public transport and critical infrastructure and that ensures the development of all this at scale but, crucially, in a manner consistent with our climate targets and the need to protect and restore our natural environment.

Unfortunately, that is not the planning system we have. For decades, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have underresourced our planning system at both local authority and An Bord Pleanála level. That underresourcing has been compounded by disastrous planning legislation that has often been rushed through the Oireachtas by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Governments.

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

I congratulate the Minister of State on bringing this colossal Bill to the House today. I thank all of the spokespeople for housing and planning for their work on getting it this far, particularly my colleagues, Senators Cummins and Seery Kearney. I will leave the topline issues to them. I am here to speak on more tactical elements of the legislation.

It is very important that An Bord Pleanála works to timelines. In Dublin West, we currently have two major transport infrastructure projects before An Bord Pleanála, namely, the BusConnects priority bus corridors and the DART+ West project. These are projects which have been worked on for years. People desperately want to see them implemented and for the consideration of An Bord Pleanála to be shared with them. There are various aspects in respect of public consultation and people are waiting to hear back.

I want to raise a couple of things. The first thing will be no surprise to the Minister of State because I have raised it with him already. It is the prevalence of telecommunications masts appearing in communities. Over the past three to four years in Dublin 15, we have seen approximately 30 of the section 254 licences being submitted to Fingal County Council. Fingal County Council put as much consideration and scrutiny into whether or not it felt that such a development was appropriate as it does for other planning applications but it comes through a different vehicle, as an application for a licence. Licensing of applications on public roads through the installation of telecommunications above ground is exempted from public consultation. Basically, one can apply for a licence for a telecommunications mast and it could be from 12 m up to 40 m and it can go through this process, whereas if such an application is on private land and it is over 12 m, it is not seen as exempted development and has to go through the proper planning process, including the site notification and an opportunity for the communities to have their say. What is missing here is the ability for the public to participate in a process whereby a telecommunications mast, which could be 18 m or 20 m in height, could be located in their area.That is not happening at the moment. I am speaking on behalf of quite a few residents of Dublin 15 and we think that is not a fair representation of our planning code. I accept that telecommunications masts and broadband are essential infrastructure. It is important I say that, but at the same time, we should not be taking away the opportunity for communities to have their say. At the moment, when they are approved by Fingal County Council, they are appearing along public roads without any notification whatsoever. I will submit an amendment that allows for public consultation. It does not take away from the fact that it is essential and important infrastructure or change the scrutiny that takes place or the need for it. It simply allows for, in accordance with the Aarhus Convention, the public to have a say. That is important because trust in our planning process is important.

I will touch on another issue that has been mentioned, which is the pay-offs. Under no circumstances can there be room for pay-offs to be used as a tool in our planning process. At the moment they are being used strategically.They are also being used by developers. It was on the front page of The Irish Timesa few weeks ago that Bartra allegedly offered €100,000 to a resident in Dublin 15 to drop the judicial review of the coliving project on the Old Navan Road. That is not acceptable nor is it acceptable that the public can use it as a tool to benefit themselves. That system has to be stopped.

The third issue I will raise is public rights of way. Section 10 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 states that the development plan shall include objectives for the preservation of public rights of way. Commitments have been made by the Minister that there will be no change to that, but it has been watered down. The Bill states:

a development management statement may include objectives for any of the following:

[...]

(g) preserving a specific public right of way....

We are already behind other European countries when it comes to public rights of way. Our green spaces and heritage sites are all incredibly important in our communities and will grow in importance as housing densities increase. We need to make sure we protect access to those areas for those communities. I therefore appeal to the Minister of State to make sure those commitments are honoured and that public rights of way are given the same stature they have had previously. In fact, there is room for more access to them in the future.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I acknowledge his work and that of the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, the Ministers of State, Deputies O'Donnell and Burke and all the officials in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage over many years on this comprehensive legislation. I acknowledge the work of the members of the Oireachtas joint committee, including Senator Cummins and Deputy Emer Higgins who worked on this legislation for a number of years.

Planning is fundamental to development and people like, expect and deserve to have confidence in the planning system. It is the least people can expect that they know and understand the process and that it is transparent and fair. The balance between development and any proposed plan depends on the area. Whether a city centre development, one on the urban fringe or in a rural area, it is important there are guidelines and confidence in the system.

One of the issues with planning is that there are no hard and fast rules. The county development plan lays out the wishes of councillors. The Bill proposes to extend the duration of county and city development plans to ten years and, therefore, councillors who were elected in recent weeks will have no say if their county development plan was done recently until after the next election. assuming they are re-elected, when a new bunch of councillors will come in to start the process again. It is an important process. It is complex, onerous and time-consuming but it is the foundation stone for development in an area. I am slightly worried that ten years is too long because changes come from the Government that have to be reflected in the county development plans. It is possible to go through amendment processes and again that can be quite onerous. The right approach to that is open to debate. When I first joined a council there were a number of local area plans for individual towns, which in a lot of cases have been subsumed into the county development plan. That makes the workload of the local authority somewhat easier and that is also important.

Timelines for the delivery of decisions are hugely important and I welcome the requirements laid out. However, whether they are too long for some of the major developments remains to be seen.

Section 278 talks about having sufficient interest in a development-----

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I interrupt the Senator to welcome the members of Castlepollard social services who are in Leinster House today with our esteemed colleague and friend, former Leader, Deputy and Senator and extraordinary friend to us all, Donie Cassidy. I welcome Mr. Cassidy back and welcome his family, friends and relations who are with him. Céad míle fáilte.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 278 refers to having sufficient interest in a matter, whether directly or indirectly materially affected by the matter, and also provides that certain parties are deemed to satisfy the requirement where certain circumstances or criteria apply. That is important for judicial reviews. I am going through the Bill. It is comprehensive.

I am not sure whether this is outlined, but I will scrutinise it further, that is whether objections to planning applications are open to everyone. Unfortunately in some cases, people objecting might be from a different part of the country. Is that addressed? I have to go through it all, but I welcome the provisions on sufficient interest for judicial reviews.

The timelines for JRs seem to be important. The courts are independent. The issue that arose in the Apple case in Galway, while the planning process took time, was the appeals, that is the judicial side of things. Planning permission had been granted, but it took many years for the court cases to be completed and finalised, which led to the development not going ahead. That had an impact on the perception of the county and the attractiveness of the beautiful area of Athenry, which is part of the Athenry-Oranmore economic corridor. It is good to see that other projects have gone ahead since, including the Dexcom facility, which is being built on the old Teagasc grounds on IDA Ireland lands. It is important that there is certainty and clarity in respect of appeals and JRs because we unfortunately have a situation where one or two individuals can hold up major projects in rural and urban Ireland. That is an issue.

On the decisions, I am reminded of a housing project that was refused planning permission by a local authority for 16 reasons, which is quite comprehensive. The decision was appealed and the project was granted permission by An Bord Pleanála.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Either the local authority was overzealous in the reasons for which it refused permission for the project or An Bord Pleanála was very casual in its decision.Which is it?

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a bit of both.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Most applications may be refused for three or four reasons. If something is refused for 16 reasons, however, we must question who was at fault in respect of the project. That does not create confidence. People look to An Bord Pleanála as the supreme authority. Now, its members are human beings, not gods, and mistakes can be made, etc. This is important.

I ask the Minister of State if consideration can be given to the aspect of the Bill concerning cases where An Bord Pleanála, or an coimisiún pleanála, is going to grant permission for a proposal that has previously been refused by the local authority. Should the coimisiún be given the opportunity, and I think it should, to liaise with the local authority, tell it what permission is going to be granted and ask what conditions the local authority concerned would like to see being attached? It would not be a debate about whether permission would be granted. I think this type of process would add somewhat, at least, to a decision being made in terms of taking account of the local issues people may have. I look forward to addressing other points on Committee Stage.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said to the Cathaoirleach privately, I am not going to make a major contribution on this subject today but I do intend to involve myself in the debate in the coming weeks. There will be lots of time for discussion.

I welcome the Minister of State and compliment him and his staff, as well as the staff of the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and all the other staff who have put together a massive document. For those in the Public Gallery, I point out this Bill has 700 pages on planning and development. People might be forgiven sometimes, when listening to media reports, for thinking this legislation is hot off the presses, but the process has been going on for three years and much work has gone into the preparation of this Bill. I ask people to be careful of those who might say this Bill is hot off the presses because it is not.

A great deal of debating remains to be done on this legislation. There are many issues in the context of planning, as we all know. Even after we decide what we want to do with this Bill, and I hope it will go through because, in general, I think there is much that is good in it, planning will always be complex. There will also be difficulties and people objecting. Looking back to the housing crisis, I was on a local authority when the crash came. So many people came to me angry and pleading to have housing estates that had been built knocked to the ground. Now, we do not have the houses in place that we need. Thankfully, these estates were not knocked, in most cases, but let us imagine the crisis we would have now if they had been knocked to the ground.

The Minister of State will know Roscommon very well. Many housing estates there were unoccupied. Nobody was in them. Now, however, every single housing estate is full of people. I think we should bear this in mind. Hence the point I am making is that planning is always going to be a very complex issue. Many improvements, though, can emerge from what is being proposed here. There is a definite need to re-establish belief in the planning process. Many people in rural areas have lost all confidence in our planning system and they must be included in all this as well.

Senator Kyne mentioned objections from outside an area with regard to certain issues in planning. That will be dealt with in the Bill.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State can talk about that when he is summing up. This issue, however, must be dealt with. The situation we have where people from way outside of an area, from the east or south of the country, for example, can object to something going on in Roscommon, and they have no interest in any property there or anything else, is something that must just be done away with. End of story.

The subject of judicial reviews is also going to be addressed widely in this Bill and this does need to be done. When we go through the amendments and the various Stages of this legislation, we will see the importance of dealing with the whole area of judicial review.

I must focus on An Bord Pleanála. I welcome that more staff have been approved and posts are being filled. If I am correct, more than 300 people will be working there when all these posts have been filled. This increase is badly needed. I think it was Senator Boyhan, as well as others, who said earlier that it is heartbreaking to watch people who have been granted planning permission and are trying to put their family home in place waiting to start. I have young people in this situation in my county of Roscommon. They are waiting and waiting, they are calling me and I am making calls to An Bord Pleanála. The process is going on month after month. It is simply not good enough. This situation is deeply frustrating and very insulting to these hard-working people who go out to earn a living and try to rear their families and then they cannot go ahead with the building of their homes. They have gone through such scrutiny at the local level. As the Minister of State will know, getting planning permission at local level in any county now is not plain sailing. It is necessary to go through many hoops to secure it. Any application for planning permission is considered in depth. There should not be this hold-up for people seeking planning permission. Up to 20,000 applications are waiting to be processed by An Bord Pleanála and are not being adequately dealt with. I hope that as a result of what the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and others are doing in beefing up An Bord Pleanála, we will have a swift moving on of these applications and the big blockage there will be removed. It is deeply unfair that this situation exists for people all around the country who have legally granted planning permission locally, only for it to go to An Bord Pleanála and be held up. I will have more to say about this matter when we deal with the Bill further down the line.

This legislation is badly needed. It is a major step forward. We will have our agreements and disagreements over the coming weeks. Amendments may be agreed to or defeated, but, all in all, there is a lot of good stuff in this Bill and it is badly needed in our system. I hope we can move it forward as quickly as possible.

Aisling Dolan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, to the House in his new role at the Department of housing. It is great that he is overlooking and reviewing the third-largest Bill to come before the Houses. I very much take on board what the Minister of State referred to in his opening statement concerning the engagement with so many groups across the board. I refer to the amendments proposed as well. The officials in the Department have looked at this aspect and taken on board nearly two-thirds of these amendments. It looks like nearly 100 of the 150 amendments proposed were taken account of and made a part of this Bill. The legislation is intended to improve development projects in terms of infrastructure across the regions.

As someone from the Roscommon-Galway area of the west, what is proposed is a plan-led system of planning and development. It looks at the national planning framework and includes the three regional assembly regional spatial and economic strategies. For us, of course, this is the Northern and Western Regional Assembly. This is important. I do not know if the Minister of State will have time to comment, but I refer to the input into those plans and the people in institutions like the Northern and Western Regional Assembly who worked on them. Each of these regional assemblies probably has a slightly different focus.

For us, obviously, we are a more rural area. We have fewer concentrated large-scale urban centres. We have Galway city and some very substantial large towns. In County Roscommon, Athlone was designated a regional growth centre. Ballinasloe is one of the towns listed for growth. These regional growth centres are important, as is the focus under the regional spatial and economic strategies. The fact that these towns, like Athlone, are between the west and the east and that work will be undertaken between bodies like Roscommon County Council and Westmeath County Council is important in terms of the streamlining of those plans and the overarching plan for development.

Also taken into account are regional considerations. We have specific regional considerations in the rural areas that have a low concentration of large-scale city centres. The legislation is also concerned with the county development plans. I appreciate the extension, and this is one of the major changes being proposed here, from six years to ten years and that there will be a review process. We will have an opportunity when we go further into the detail of this Bill to consider the elements of this review process. It is an aspect I will be looking at. From what I understand, the time period in question is every five years.In addition, area plans are mandated.

The impact of all of this will probably require a certain amount of training for many of the groups involved. A great deal has already been happening in this regard over the number of years it has taken to put together the legislation. When the plans are in place and up and running, which we hope will happen in the next while, how does the Minister of State see engagement happening across all the different groups? We have talked about the NPF, the regional assemblies, the county development plans and so on. Does he have any comment on how he sees this working in practice across each of the organisations involved? The process is mandated from the Department but, at a practical level, how do we support those groups to ensure we maximise the benefits coming out of this legislation?

I welcome the points the Minister of State mentioned regarding An Bord Pleanála, which will now be called an coimisiún pleanála, and the taking on of new staff. Having 300 people available to support decisions in a timely way is having a huge impact. I see at local level, in the smaller towns, that development needs to happen. Issues around housing can be really challenging. There is a challenge in getting developers in small towns to consider large-scale housing developments. These provisions will assist in ensuring regional areas of lower population are able to compete and that developers may consider smaller towns for development. The impact I want to see from the legislation in the time to come is that smaller towns benefit from the clarity and confidence that will be given over a ten-year period.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all Senators for their engagement on Second Stage. A wide range of topics were raised. The past 25 years have seen a rapid and exponential change in our country. Our thriving economy and successful education system present challenges in terms of housing and transport demand and the significant infrastructure requirements associated with it, as do the new sports and healthcare facilities needed to meet our growing population.

There is a balance required of our planning system. We have talked about the importance of public participation in the planning system. The Bill provides key provisions in that regard. Details of how submissions and appeals are processed will be set out in the regulations. We must ensure we have a more robust system. It is about weighing up complex information and assessing whether a decision that may benefit one goal might adversely affect another. Striking that balance is really important. It is also about arriving at decisions in a clear, informed and timely manner. Development must take place, whether in housing, healthcare, schools or roads. We must factor environmental concerns into the decision-making process and considerations. We have both a legal and moral imperative to do so. The answer is not to take no decision at all or to take such a long time arriving at a decision as to render the process defunct. We must make sufficient changes.

As noted by speakers on all sides of the House, this is the third largest Bill in the history of the State. It is more than two decades since our planning and development legislation has been significantly reformed. In this Bill, we are trying to deliver more clarity, consistency and confidence in the system through a planning system that is more transparent as well as more effective. We want to deliver a system in which, regardless of the final outcome, the processes that lead to the decision-making are considered fair, inclusive and timely.

The introduction of statutory timelines across all consenting processes will mark a step change in planning certainty. This ambition has been matched by unprecedented investment of resources in An Bord Pleanála, accompanied by the most comprehensive governance restructure since its inception almost half a century ago. Concerns have been expressed regarding the statutory timelines. The reform of the board's organisational structure includes the appointment of planning commissioners, which is completely new. We will have a separate corporate structure and a governing body. These three pillars - planning commissioners, a separate corporate structure and a governing body - are really important to ensure we have the right reform within the An Bord Pleanála system. Every tier of the planning system, from the national planning framework to development plans and more specialised plans for local areas, has been reviewed and refined to ensure consistent alignment throughout.

Senator Boyhan referred to comments by a former Chief Justice. It is important to note that those comments related to the draft Bill. The legislation has been subject to hundreds of hours of committee scrutiny. We have tabled a huge number of amendments. We now have a more adaptable and agile Bill than the one in respect of which those comments were made. The final Bill that is before us today is fit for purpose.

The section 28 guidelines will be replaced over time by national planning statements, which will be approved by the Government following consultation with the relevant stakeholders. Development plans have a ten-year lifespan and will be more strategic in nature, with a five-year implementation review by local councillors. It is really important that they be informed by accurate and reliable data from the census. The processes and parameters of judicial review, an important process in its own right, have been clarified and refined to expedite the process, while maintaining and, indeed, improving access to justice through the introduction of the environmental legal cost financial assistance mechanism. That mechanism will be available to contribute to the costs of such cases and will include the introduction of a scale of fees to regulate overall costs.

I turn to some of the specific issues raised during the debate. A number of Senators argued that the Bill is being rushed through, with not enough time allocated for debate, whether on Committee Stage or otherwise. The Bill has in no way been rushed. As I said, it has gone through a lengthy pre-legislative scrutiny consultation process. It is the culmination of more than three years of work involving the Office of the Attorney General, a range of Departments and a wide range of stakeholders from across the planning sector. The stakeholders were involved in the planning advisory forum and gave careful consideration to the policies and reforms contained in the Bill. It is our intention to have a respectable and robust debate in this House on Committee Stage and to ensure any amendments that are brought forward are properly debated. That is only right with a Bill of this significance.

There has been discussion on the proposal to extend development plans to ten years. Concerns were expressed that the devolution of powers may undermine the role of elected local authority members. The ten-year lifespan for development plans will create a longer period for plan delivery than the current six-year cycle, of which almost half can be taken up with preparation and review. Elected members will actively engage in the interim review of a plan and will also be able to amend the plan if changes are identified as being required. Elected members can also propose variation at any stage in the life cycle of a plan.I must point out that that ten-year cycle with a five-year review will remain for every elected member who is involved at a minimum in the making of the development plan for the review and the possible amendment via the interim review. The interim review will commence between four years and four years and nine months after the plan is adopted.

There is a misconception out there that councillors who were elected in June will not get to do a development plan or review a plan because timelines for the plan are moving to ten years. That is not true. The current development plans are six years in duration. Once the Bill is commenced, these development plans will remain in place for the remaining six-year period, so they will not automatically be extended. The current plans that are live will still have the six-year duration and that means that serving councillors will be involved in the review process. That is important to state here today.

On the timelines for decision-making, and I know Senator Cummins has been very vocal on their robustness, in this Bill, for the first time we are setting out mandatory statutory timelines for decision-making. We are bringing them in line with the arrangements of planning authorities, which has been a gap for many developers and those who are seeking decisions and who do not get them in a sufficient manner. As I said earlier, the commission has a new corporate structure and will be legally obliged to make the decisions within the 18-week timeline. I understand the concerns with the consolidation around the mutual agreement that may be provided between the board and the applicant, but several measures will be introduced, such as regarding the publication, notification and reporting of missed timelines. Fines and penalties will also be implemented as a result of missed timelines and there is also the ministerial intervention. The Minister will be very much on top of this following the initial inception of this new Bill, and he has to be. We will take the Senator’s suggestions offline with the Department and thrash them through, but as this stands, it is a really important move forward in terms of the timelines, which range from 18 weeks to 48 weeks for more complex-type applications. We need to implement them with speed. As Senator Boyhan has said, there is an enormous backlog within An Bord Pleanála, but we are addressing the staffing shortfall to try to ensure that we have a steady level of decisions because it is just not acceptable to have more than 20,000 in the system at the minute.

Various Senators discussed or raised issues around compliance with the Aarhus Convention. On the matter of the draft compliance report and its comments on the provision in the Bill related to the extension of duration and public participation, we are liaising with the Attorney General on this matter. The report only refers to the provision relating to public participation in applications to alter the extension. The Bill was drafted to ensure compliance with that convention.

Can I be given some leverage?

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very interested in what the Minister of State has to say.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Carry on. There is no time limit.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for their patience. I will address the judicial review process, which was brought up a number of times. Senator Kyne and others brought up the issue of vexatious or spurious appeals. The amendment that was tabled on Committee Stage has been accepted and will deal with those who seek to induce money or gifts by appealing or withdrawing appeals, or any through other such abuse of the participation nature of the planning system. It is really important that that provision is within the Bill.

Senator Garvey discussed the provisions related to climate within the Bill and the fact that the hierarchy of plans and other plans must be consistent with high-order plans in other Departments. That will be included and amendments will ensure that both climate and biodiversity matters are appropriately included in the regional and spatial economic strategies, along with the development plan. It is important that we maintain our commitment to climate action and biodiversity in that regard.

Senator Boyhan raised the issue of having a chief county council planner. While I understand the merits of his suggestion, it is for the local authorities to decide how they deploy and allocate employment within local authorities. It is not a matter that should be included in this Bill. Staffing is a local authority remit, but we are focused on ensuring that we have a sustainable planning system and that graduates are coming out of college. There is a ministerial action plan in place to ensure we have the courses available, and that we have the resources to support not just local government, but the Office of Public Works, OPR, and An Bord Pleanála in that regard.

Senator Black commented that the Bill is pro-developer and that is certainly not the case. It is both a planning and a development Bill and the latter must be the product of the former. It is important that we have a consistent planning system at both national and local levels.

I will wrap up and I again thank the Cathaoirleach for his time. The Bill that was brought before the Seanad today is a product of a rigorous evaluation and assessment process. The scale of the review and the analysis of this Bill are possibly unmatched. I want to acknowledge all the Senators who are part of the joint Oireachtas committee on housing for their time and engagement. I acknowledge the Chair, Deputy Stephen Matthews, for his stellar chairmanship on what was a very difficult Committee Stage, considering the number of amendments, votes, and hours that went into the select committee. We must understand how important this Bill will be over the next number of decades in ensuring that it will be fit for purpose for the key challenges we will face in time. The Bill keeps the aspects of that legislation that work well and updates and refines those that need improvements to ensure our system is fit for purpose. It also meets any new challenges that will come over the decades and will ensure that Ireland can play confidently and consistently with future challenges. I look forward to engaging with all Senators in this House in considering and discussing any proposed amendments tabled by Senators on Committee Stage, as we have done over the last three years. We will be constructive and engaging in that regard, we will listen carefully and we will all put our arguments together in regard to any future proposals. Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh, and I thank all the Senators for being here today.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call on the Acting Leader to propose the adjournment, I thank all Members for participating in this afternoon’s debate. I want to welcome the Ballinakill Ladies’ Group, which is visiting us this afternoon. Céad míle fáilte and I hope you have a very pleasant visit to Leinster House.

When is it proposed to sit again?

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At 1 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 July.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.