An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Ó Broin wishes to ask for a small clarification on section 50. We will wait for the Department officials to come back in. Which part of section 50 does he wish to ask about?

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I wish to establish what, if anything, is new in this section.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

For the sake of clarity, can the Minister of State outline whether section 50 is a direct transposition from the existing Act or whether any new elements are introduced here?

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 430:

In page 112, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

“(v) (I) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,

(II) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 431:

In page 112, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

“(v) any language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 relevant to a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network within the functional area to which the development plan relates,”.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, for his attendance this morning and welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Malcolm Noonan, to the meeting.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 433:

In page 112, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

“(v) (I) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,

(II) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 434:

In page 112, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Malcolm Noonan)

I move amendment No. 438:

In page 113, lines 19 and 20, to delete “which shall take due account of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1)”.

These amendments are of a minor technical and drafting nature. As mentioned earlier, there has been a process of continual refinement applied to the Bill by officials at my Department working intensively with the Bills Office and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, both of which I commend on their sterling efforts over recent months. Due to the highly technical nature of the planning processes, more than 500 sections of the Bill are densely cross-referenced, with many sections having multiple cross-references to either other subsections in the section or to other sections and Parts of the Bill. The amendments identify instances where these references can be improved to bring the user more directly to the relevant counterpoint within the Bill's text, by removing a duplicate reference or bringing the reader to a more specific area of the text. None of these changes the policy intent of the process. They are focused merely on optimising user experience.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

I move amendment No. 439:

In page 113, line 30, to delete “paragraph (a)” and substitute “paragraph (b)”.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 440:

In page 114, to delete lines 35 and 36, and substitute the following:

“(f) (i) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Údarás na Gaeltachta,

(ii) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 441:

In page 114, line 36, after “Gaeltachta,” to insert “Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht, Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga, and any relevant Language Planning Officer,”.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 442:

“(vi) (I) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Údarás na Gaeltachta,

(II) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 452:

In page 119, line 17, after “Gaeltachta,” to insert “Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga, and any relevant Language Planning Officer,”.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 453 is in my name. I will withdraw it.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 454 and 455 are ruled out of order.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 456:

In page 120, line 9, after “Regulator” to insert “and the relevant Regional Assembly”.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 457 is in the name of the Minister and is grouped with amendments Nos. 980, 982, 984, 985, 987 to 997, inclusive, and 1004. There is a total of 17 amendments in this group in various Deputy's names.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

I move amendment No. 457:

In page 120, to delete lines 21 to 23 and substitute the following:

“the planning authority shall—

(I) serve a notice on each person who is the owner or occupier of, and any person appearing to the authority to have an interest in, the proposed protected structure or the protected structure, as the case may be, of the proposed addition, deletion or amendment, including the particulars of the proposed addition, deletion or amendment,

(II) send particulars of the proposed addition, deletion or amendment to the Minister and to any prescribed body, and

(III) cause notice of the proposed addition, deletion or amendment, including the particulars of the proposed addition, deletion or amendment, to be published in at least one newspaper circulating in its functional area.”.

This amendment relates to section 53 regarding the making of development plans, specifically regarding the notification of the addition to, or deletion from, the record of protected structures as part of the process for making a development plan. Currently, section 53(4)(a) provides that where such an addition or deletion is proposed, the planning authority shall notify the owner or occupier of the protected structure. This differs from procedures in section 279 relating to additions or deletions from the record of protected structure outside of the development plan process, whereby the proposal, in addition to being notified to the owner or occupier, shall also be notified to the Minister and subject to public newspaper publication. This amendment proposes to amend section 53(4) to ensure that if the record is amended as part of the development plan process, the Minister and the public are also notified.

This ensures that there is consistency in the notification arrangements where changes are made to the record of protected structures when it is done as part of the making of a development plan or outside of that process.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Just to be clear, provisions that exist elsewhere with respect to protected structures are being added. This is to ensure consistency and to have a better formulation. It informs the Minister and the public.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

I suggest that we take amendment No. 980 in the names of Deputies Cian O'Callaghan, Ó Broin and Ó Snodaigh now. If they think there is a logical grouping of any of those amendments, I ask them to cover them all.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I am happy to talk to amendments Nos. 980, 987, 992, 994, 995 and 997 together because they are related. Amendment No. 980 proposes the insertion of the following into section 275:

“other relevant person for the purposes of notice of endangerment for the property” shall include the following:

(a) legal representative, professional, or management firms or individuals managing or responsible for the property registered in an offshore company;

(b) a financial institution or fund which has taken title to the property as a result of a loan;

(c) administrators, liquidators or receivers responsible for the property after a loan, default or repossession; and

(d) parties responsible for the maintenance of a building site or structure which is causing endangerment to an adjoining Protected Structure.

Amendment Nos. 987, 992, 994, 995 and 997 also contain the term "other relevant person" because this would effectively be defined to in the Bill if amendment No. 980 is accepted. This is to address significant issues that have arisen regarding protected structures and their endangerment over the years. The 2000 Act has not been effective regarding a significant number of important protected structures and buildings, including in architectural conservation areas. I am aware of particular issues in Cork, Fingal, Longford, Mayo, Tipperary and Waterford. There have been issues in respect of rural vernacular buildings, grain stores, industrial buildings and vacant religious institutional buildings such as convents where significant issues have arisen, particularly in Cork city and county. Many of these issues arise because the persons, entities or agencies that have a legal interest in or responsibility for the maintenance and management of protected structure are not properly listed in the existing legislation. There have been some significant issues, with legal disputes where the deeds of a property may default to a financial institution, where liquidation arises or where a building or land is part of a distressed asset portfolio that might be traded individually or in a bundle between financial institutions. Issues have also arisen with an offshore entity holding legal ownership and not being contactable. Issues have also arisen in the context of incapacity whereby the owner of a property could be unwell, in a nursing home or resident overseas.

There are also issues in urban areas, including Dublin, with protected structures impacted and left exposed. If these structures are left empty, they can be exposed to arson attacks. This can happen when banks hold deeds and claim that while they do hold them, they have no responsibility for the protection or maintenance of the structure in question and do not take action. The narrow definition relating to the occupier of a structure in the existing legislation and in the Bill is problematic. It needs to be changed.

There are also issues around neglect of adjoining buildings and how that can lead to dry rot or structural issues in protected structures. These amendments - amendment No. 980 is the foundational one - seek to address this issue and put in comprehensive wording in order that there are no situations in the future in which entities or people with direct responsibility evade that responsibility by being offshore, a bank holding the deeds or whatever.

I urge the Minister of State to accept these amendments.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I concur with what Deputy O'Callaghan has outlined. We know from our this city and elsewhere the history of protected structures. In some cases, the State has intervened and addressed protected structures that were demolished and had to be rebuilt. Archer's Garage, which is close to Leinster House, is a classic example. While it was rebuilt, it is not the original structure. There are also hotels in this vicinity that were protected structures and fire damaged them to such an extent that they had to be stripped of their original features. In some cases, all that was left was the facade. There has to be an onus on those who have possession or control of a protected structure to protect them. That is the intention, which nobody can deny. That is why we seek to ensure that nobody, through not being named within the legislation, can evade their responsibilities towards those protected structures. We seek to ensure the entire legal profession and all financial institutions clearly understand they have a duty, so they do not end up in situations where a protected structure on a site is left go to wrack and ruin because it does not suit the agenda of that company. There are planning permissions for extensions of facilities, and the protected structure is to the side. It is in the way of the company's intention and it is allowed fall into such a state of disrepair that it becomes an dangerous building and has to be pulled down. There is a duty on those who have protected structures to protect them.

I received a response from the Minister of State in the past about Moatville in Charleville or Ráth Luirc, County Cork. I think Kerry Ingredients has it. I am not asking him to comment on it because he has given me the answer in the Dáil. However, it is derelict. The company has to take some action before it get its planning permission intact. It can wait until the last minute and another five years of damage could be done to that structure in that instance. That may not be the intention, but that is the way it is looked at. That is often what we perceive when we see protected structures going into dereliction. We know the case of the Iveagh Markets in Dublin. That is another one. If it is left derelict by a financial institution or whatever, it is convenient that more damage be done to that structure, because they can fix it up with a modern approach or building. A protected structure can often be a hindrance and the same could be said of the approach to Moore Street over the years. It was allowed go to wrack and ruin. Those with protected structures in their care, whether they own them or received them as liquidators, still have a duty. That is the message from this part. It does not matter who has it, they have to protect it.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

I will address amendments Nos. 980, 987, 992, 994, 995 and 997 as jointly tabled by Deputies Cian O'Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Bríd Smith and Gino Kenny.

These amendments seek to amend sections 281 to 283, inclusive, to provide that other relevant persons, as well as owners and occupiers, shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that a protected structure is not endangered and that notices to require works to be carried out relating to the endangerment of protected structures and proposed protected structures can be served on relevant persons as well as owners and occupiers.

The amendments also include a definition of "other relevant person for the purposes of notice of endangerment for the property" in the interpretation of section 275 of Part 10, which deals with architectural heritage. The proposed definition of "other relevant person" is very broad and includes representatives managing or responsible for the property, a financial institution that has taken title to a property as a result of a loan and administrators responsible for a property after a loan, as well as those responsible for building sites or structures adjacent to a protected structure where the building site is causing endangerment. The definitions of "owner" and "occupier" in the Bill are suitably broad to cover most of the proposed definition and, as such, there is no need to define "other relevant person" or include such a reference in sections 281 or 283. "Owner" includes a person who in his or her own right, or as an agent, is entitled to receive a rack rent for the land. "Occupier" includes a person who is in occupation of the land or is entitled to use or control the land. In addition, to define "other relevant person" in a non-exhaustive manner may indeed form a hindrance to the process. The proposal to include those responsible for building sites or structures adjacent to a protected structure where the building site is causing endangerment is not required as there is already a provision that any person who endangers a protected structure or proposed protected structure shall be guilty of an offence. This would cover anyone undertaking works adjacent to a protected structure who does not take measures to ensure they are not endangering the protected structure.

I point members to the definitions in section 2, which contains a definition of "occupier". That definition is:

(a) in relation to land, a person who—

(i) is in occupation of the land,

(ii) is entitled to the immediate use, enjoyment or control of the land, or

(iii) is in control of the land,"

The Deputy made a point about the costs and the ability to carry out works. There are a couple of points and I will come back to the Deputy. The legal owner has a duty to protect the structure, even where there is a dispute over occupation. Section 287 states that it is an offence not to protect a protected structure. Section 283(2) states:

Where the planning authority cannot identify the owner or occupier of a protected structure or proposed protected structure, and the planning authority is satisfied that urgent works are required to address an immediate danger to the structure or to a structure’s special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest or value, the planning authority may take such steps as it considers reasonable and necessary to address the immediate danger, including—

(a) entry on land by authorised persons in accordance with section 361, and

(b) carrying out, or arranging for the carrying out, of the works that it considers to be reasonable and necessary to address the immediate danger.

There are strong provisions in the Bill to ensure that local authorities have an important role where there are issues in identifying the owner or occupier of a protected structure. The local authority can step in to stop the rot, literally, and try to carry out works to protect the integrity of the building.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

The Minister of State said in his opening response that what is proposed in these amendments is too broad. However, I specifically raised the issue of offshore owners who cannot be contacted. The wording is:

...shall include the following:

(a) legal representative, professional, or management firms or individuals managing or responsible for the property registered in an offshore company;

This often arises for land, buildings and protected structures. It is simply that an offshore entity owns the property, often it is based in one of the tax haven islands, and it can be hard to trace an owner. However, if any planning applications have been lodged or work done on behalf of the owner, there are legal representatives or professional or management firms or individuals who can be contacted. This wording would mean that where an owner is hiding in some kind of offshore entity, often based on a tax haven island, that enforcement notices could be served, at least where they relate to protected structures, on the professionals working on behalf of that offshore entity. The Minister of State says the amendment is not required. However, it is required because there are times when these offshore entities cannot be contacted and nothing happens. The only option would be for the local authority to step in itself but, as the Minister of State is aware, it often will not do so because of the cost. As it will only do so in the more extreme situations, surely that wording the Minster of State said is not required, absolutely is required. If the offshore entity can be contacted, there is no need to go to the legal and other professional representatives, but if it cannot be traced or contacted, it gives the local authority and enforcement authority other options. What is the downside of the wording I am proposing? The Minister of State said it is too broad and not required. I say it absolutely is required and is not broad but, rather, on the button.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Ó Snodaigh also has a question.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

I might reply on that point before Deputy Ó Snodaigh comes back in.

Going back to the definition of "owner", the Bill provides:

“owner” means—

(a) in relation to land, a person, other than a mortgagee not in possession, who,

Yes.

Deputy Steven Matthews

-----so I know he has a keen interest in the matter. He has done some good work in this area.

My amendments would improve the process and protect our structures further. In amendment No. 982 to section 276, I suggest that the record of protected structures be a separate document on a local authority website. If one wants to find a protected structure now, one needs to access the county development plan, find the section related to architectural heritage and trawl through it to find the structure. Due to it being in the CDP, there is not a great deal of information on the protected structure. It may stipulate a feature like the curtilage, the façade or so on. If we had a separate document, it would be more easily searchable and beneficial and could include greater detail. County development plans get thicker every time people do them and there is always an effort to streamline the information they contain.

Does the Minister of State wish to discuss my amendments one at a time or will I speak to them all?

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

If the Deputy wishes to speak to them all, he may.

Deputy Steven Matthews

Amendment No. 984 relates to section 279(2)(c) and putting public notices on a website. This section is on the procedure for making additions, deletions and amendments to the record of protected structures, and paragraph (c) reads: "cause notice of the proposed addition, deletion or amendment, including the particulars of the proposed addition, deletion or amendment, to be published in at least one newspaper circulating in its functional area." I suggest that it be published on the local authority website as well. Many people look online now instead of in circulating newspapers.

Amendment No. 985 is to page 470 and relates to section 280(6), which reads:

Where the planning authority decides, under subsection (3), that it has sufficient information to make a declaration under this section and the proposed works to which the declaration relate—

(a) are reasonably necessary for,

...

(b) do not—

(i) materially affect the character of the exterior of the structure, or

(ii) divide the structure into more than one dwelling,

it shall make a declaration to [that] effect ...

I suggest that we replace "it" in the final line with "the planning authority conservation officer or suitably qualified person". As much as I like engineers, and we could not live without them, they are not always the best people to make a decision on a protected structure whereas a heritage officer or suitably qualified individual - I would leave it to the Minister to decide who is suitably qualified - would be.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Cian O'Callaghan)

The Deputy's amendments Nos. 988 to 991, inclusive, are also grouped.

Deputy Steven Matthews

Amendment No. 988 relates to section 281 on page 472. The original wording in the January Bill was much more comprehensive in describing a protected structure and the merits and attributes attached to it. In amendment No. 988, I suggest that we reinsert the wording from the Bill's first iteration in January.

The title of the section is "Duty of owners and occupiers to protect structures from endangerment". After "structure" I propose that we add the other elements of it which were listed in the January edition. The amendment proposes:

In page 472, line 3, after "structure" where it secondly occurs, to insert "or any element of it which contributes to its special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest, is not removed, altered and".

I think that is the wording from the 2000 Act. I think it is also the wording from the January Bill. I do not know why it has been removed from section 281 in this case and I would like to see it reinstated.

Amendment No. 989 proposes to add to section 281(4), which relates to an offence. The current wording is: "Any person who, without lawful authority, endangers a protected structure". I want to expand this so that in addition to "endangers", we include "alters, degrades or removes" in describing someone who "shall be guilty of an offence". The Minister of State might tell me that "endangers" covers endangering the actual protection of that building. It is no harm to include "alters, degrades or removes" or wording to that effect which might be more comprehensive.

Amendment No. 990 proposes:

In page 472, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

"(6) The endangerment, alteration, degradation or removal of the protected structure or proposed protected structure which relies on subsection (5) as a defence, shall be rectified in agreement with the planning authority within 12 months of the carrying out of works.".

Section 56(5) is somewhat bizarre. Nowhere else does the legislation offer a defence for infringements of the planning Act but it does under protected structures. The Bill states:

...it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the endangerment of the protected structure or proposed protected structure resulted from works which were—

(a) urgently required...

(b) undertaken in good faith... and

(c) unlikely to permanently alter the structure.

That might be all well and good but we still have a damaged protected structure. Where somebody relies on subsection (5) as a defence for works that they have carried out, the degradation or damage to the protected structure "shall be rectified in agreement with the planning authority within 12 months". If it was urgently required to prevent damage, 12 months is an appropriate period of time for somebody to come back and rectify that. It should not be left to sit in abeyance like that.

Amendment No. 991 is similar. Where works have been done to a protected structure that have damaged the characteristics of it, someone relying on this subsection as a defence cannot use those works that rely on the subsection as a reason to then support a deletion or removal from the list of protected structures covered in sections 278 and 279. Someone cannot carry out works because they thought they were necessary or did not know they could not do them and then depend on those works when they go to the planning authorities responsible for making additions and deletions and say, "Ah sure, the building has been degraded."

Are those all my amendments?

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Cian O'Callaghan)

There are some more, but Deputy Matthews has spoken to many of them. We might get the Minister of State to respond to the ones he has spoken to and then return to the remaining ones.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I agree with the amendments.

I would go further. The protected structures lists should be much more accessible. All of the county ones should be interlinked. There should be a website and a photograph. In many cases, we are looking for public vigilance to ensure that these protected structures are protected. If we asked the vast majority of citizens where to look for the list of protected structures, they would not have a clue. In addition, the format they are currently in is just a continuous list and that is not ideal, whereas a photograph, in particular if there is a specific part of a building that is listed, would be more useful. It would allow that extra vigilance that we cannot bring if we are totally dependent on voluntary groups, the city council or the owners to do it. It might be something that would help as well as being a separate list, as Deputy Matthews suggests, to the current development plan. Have it in the development plan but they should be extracted out on perhaps a national website on which they are all connected from whichever county. That might be a useful exercise.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

Deputy Steven Matthews

Amendment No. 990 seeks to put a timescale on this. If somebody has carried out temporary works to safeguard a building's structural integrity or some other aspect of it, where is the obligation to return, undo that work and make good the structure or building? If this is used as a defence for such work, how will the work be undone and the structure or building made good again?

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

Under this section it is the duty of the owners to protect structures from endangerment. Section 281 (4) provides that "Any person who, without lawful authority, endangers a protected structure or a proposed protected structure shall be guilty of an offence.".

Section 281(5) states:

In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (4), it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the endangerment of the protected structure or proposed protected structure resulted from works which were—

(a) urgently required in order to avoid further or other endangerment...

This relates to temporary works that need to be carried out to protect a structure from falling down or, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned, to prevent water ingress into a roof. They are works undertaken to protect the structure. This provision does not remove the obligation and opportunity for the owner of a premises to bring that structure back to a good conservation standard.

Deputy Steven Matthews

I am worried there could be sliding degradation of a building as somebody carries out temporary works because of water ingress, vandalism or people getting into the building. Such a building could be going into dereliction before our eyes over ten, 15, 20 years or longer. Subsection 281(5) allows a person to carry out such works, notwithstanding their other obligations under the Act. My concern is that this may enable an owner to keep relying on the defence that the works are for the temporary safeguarding of the structure. If I had a protected structure I did not want to do anything with, I would be looking to subsection (5) as my get-out card for doing nothing with the structure other than another bit of temporary work.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

The wording refers to the balance of probabilities in any proceedings for an offence under subsection (4). There have been cases in the courts where a judge has ordered a structure to be put back in full or for elements of the structure to be reinstated. Section 284, which relates to notices to require restoration of character of protected structures and structures in architectural conservation areas, ACAs, states in subsection (1):

A planning authority may serve a notice on each person who is the owner or occupier of a structure situated within its functional area, if—

(a) the structure is a protected structure and, in the opinion of the planning authority, it is necessary, in order to preserve the character of the structure or of any of its elements, that specified works be carried out in relation to it, or

(b) the structure is in an architectural conservation area and, in the opinion of the planning authority, it is necessary, in order to preserve the character of the architectural conservation area, that specified works be carried out in relation to the structure.

Subsection 284(2)(d) states that a notice under subsection 284(1) shall:

specify a period of not less than 8 weeks from the end of the period specified under paragraph (c) within which, unless otherwise agreed in the discussions under that paragraph, the works shall be carried out,

No. Regarding the integrity of a protected structure, consideration is given to whether the main fabric of such a structure is still in place, regardless of alterations to it that have taken place over time. We have seen it happen throughout the country that alterations have been made to protected structures that may be inappropriate or not in keeping with the integrity of the structure, but the basic fabric of that structure is still intact underneath whatever alterations have taken place.

There are some good examples across the country where responsible property owners are working with local authorities to bring those buildings back to their original form.

Deputy Steven Matthews

That is very true. Our eyes are always drawn to the ones that look run down, rather than noticing the ones that are protected and looked after. That is a fair point.

Amendment No. 1004 is the last one in this group. It amends section 300, which concerns recommendations to planning authorities concerning architectural conservation areas, ACAs. Section 300(7) states the decision on whether to commence variations in respect of the recommendations shall be a reserved function. I suggest it should be a reserved function of the relevant municipal district, also known as an area committee. We subscribe to decision-making at the lowest effective level and municipal district members are best placed to make decisions on ACAs.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

I cannot accept amendment No. 1004 to section 300(7), as section 300(3) already clarifies this is a function of the planning authority. The municipal districts are not the planning authorities; they are effectively committees of council. It is a reserved function of the main plenary of local authority.

I move amendment No. 458:

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 469:

In page 126, to delete lines 6 and 7 and substitute the following:

“(vi) (I) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht,

Roinn na Gaeltachta and Údarás na Gaeltachta,

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Ó Broin has requested some clarifications on the section. Deputy O'Callaghan already raised a question on it as well. Is he satisfied?

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Yes, I am satisfied.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Some of these are technical clarifications and others might require a brief discussion. I will rattle through them all and we will deal with them one by one. In section 53(3)(b) there is a period for the OPR to make additional submissions, which is an additional two weeks. Why is the OPR being given more time than others?

There is a reference to 22 weeks in section 53(6). One of the issues I am trying to get my head around is at various stages of the Bill there are different time periods for different submission dates or decision dates. What is the logic of the 22 weeks in section 53(6)(a)?

There is a reference to 12 weeks in section 53(7)(b). Could the rationale for that time period be explained?

There is a reference to eight weeks in section 53(12)(a). Could that rationale could be explained?

It is broadly the same.

This question relates to section 54(4). An issue came up with the elected representatives during pre-legislative scrutiny around why only the chief executive could propose a variation during the mid-term review. That is obviously the standard procedure at present but the Department and the Minister were being asked to consider those members who were not involved in the original development plan and may want to have a more formalised role.

I am asking that question with respect to section 54(4). Is my reading correct? It is only the chief executive who can propose a variation. If so, why was consideration not given to the request of elected councillors' representative bodies to broaden that?

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Higgins has a question on this.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I thank the Chair. We had quite a lot of discussion about this in this committee, in particular in respect of the mid-year review. As we know, the chief executive can instigate change. I know some changes can be made to the development plan based on a two-thirds majority. I would be interested in finding out what, if any, of our feedback was taken on board on that. We know if these plans go to ten years in duration, which they will do, there will be a new tranche of councillors. It is important for local democracy that we hear their voice in this. I am interested in hearing the response of the Minister of State.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

We are trying to balance the desire for longer-term planning with the ability of, in particular, new councillors who might be elected in the second half of a development plan to have an input. There is also the question of the very necessary change in how a community might develop. I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that a councillor, rather than just the chief executive, might be able to bring forward a motion. I do not think it undoes that balance. We are already making progress, which is one way of putting it, and providing a longer-term view by removing or extending the term of a development plan. This would help to add a check or balance to the process and give local councillors stronger powers. We should try to incorporate this, if not at this stage then in an amendment on Report Stage which reflects the discussion across parties on the committee.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

The critical and overarching point is that the balance is given to not reopening the plan in its entirety. On Deputy Ó Broin's question on the interim report and section 54(4), that refers to the recommendations of the review for consideration by members. The Bill states that not later than five years after the making of a development plan, members of a planning authority shall consider the interim implementation report of the chief executive and, by resolution, propose to make or not make any such variation or recommendation by the chief executive. Separately, in terms of the variation of a development plan under section 56(3)(a), the members of the planning authority may at any time, by resolution, request the chief executive of the planning authority to prepare a report on a proposal by them to initiate a process to consider the variation of the development plan for the time being in force. It is for the members to-----

Deputy Emer Higgins

Is a majority required for that?

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Darragh O'Brien)

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 485:

In page 130, to delete lines 14 and 15 and substitute the following:

“(vi) (I) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Údarás na Gaeltachta,

(II) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 486:

In page 130, line 15, after “Gaeltachta,” to insert “Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht, Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga, and any relevant Language Planning Officer,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 495:

In page 135, line 35, after "inspection" to insert "in both official languages".

I am surprised this amendment was not ruled out of order along with some of the preceding amendments. I will press it.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 496:

In page 136, to delete lines 5 and 6 and substitute the following:

"(vi) (I) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Údarás na Gaeltachta,

(II) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge,".

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 497:

I refer members to page 27 of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Regarding section 58, it states:

This section restates section 14 of the Act of 2000 with modifications [which I understand are technical in nature]. This section addresses the procedure in respect of the inclusion of a provision in the development plan relating to the preservation of a specific public right of way. The section also addresses the status of a provision in the development plan relating to the right of way pending the outcome of any appeal and following the outcome of any appeal to the Circuit Court.

I do not think there are any significant differences between the provisions in section 58 and those in the existing legislation. If anything, the provisions on pages 137 and 138 of the Bill are more descriptive and prescriptive than what is set out on page 99 of the 2000 Act. Section 58 goes into more detail and outlines the procedure in a clearer way.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

My query is about what appears to be a weakening of the current provisions, notwithstanding the broader point the Minister makes. My understanding of the current procedure is that there is an obligation that there has to be a published list of rights of way in the development plan. This makes the publication or the inclusion of that list and individual rights within that list more discretionary. I have been speaking to some of the organisations which are involved in rights of way such as Keep Ireland Open, etc., and they have expressed some concern at what they perceive as – I will stand corrected if I am reading this wrong – a less clear instruction to local authorities to provide that list because obviously it is very important to do so.

An Cathaoirleach

I will bring Deputy O'Callaghan in as he also has a question on this matter.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

The key issue here is that under the current legislation local authorities are obliged to provide as part of the development plan process a list of public rights of way, whereas under this Bill they are no longer obliged to list public rights of way. I am not sure if it is section 58 where the change or the weakening of the provisions occurs or if it is elsewhere in the Bill. Could the Minister respond on that?

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I genuinely do not see a weakening. If we look at section 58(10), it states:

Any provision relating to the preservation of a public right of way contained in a development plan continued in force under section 66 may be included in a subsequent development plan made under this Act without the necessity to comply with this section.

Section 58(11) states: "Nothing in this section shall affect the existence or validity of any public right of way which is not included in a development plan." So if one were missed, for argument's sake, the validity of the right of way is not affected. I will check the point about the listing of rights of way because section 58(12) states: "The inclusion of a public right of way in a development plan shall be evidence of the existence of such a right unless the contrary is shown." The word “shall” is used, and that is very clear. If I can get a moment to do so, I will just check about the listing of rights of way.

That is exactly the same as the wording used in the 2000 Act. It is the exact same wording as in section 14 of the existing Act, on page 98. To respond to the Chair’s point about section 49(2)(g), we did say we would look at the wording, and we will do so.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Various reporting requirements are included in the process set out in section 59.

Has there been engagement with the OPR on the workload that will be required or the staffing requirements necessary to meet the additional reporting requirements of this section?

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

This relates to additional resources for the OPR, which is regularly discussed with the regulator, what will be an coimisiún pleanála and our planning authorities. There will be additional responsibilities for each of the arms of our planning system. In many instances, that will require additional resources and that absolutely has been discussed. The Deputy will have seen over the course of the two most recent budgets the increase in the provision for staffing in our planning authorities - the local authorities, An Bord Pleanála and the OPR.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I accept that, although interestingly there was some recent public commentary about the difficulty the board has in retaining staff. While additional sanction has been provided, the board has not filled all of those positions. My question, however, is slightly different. Section 59(1) states: "Where the Minister issues or amends a National Planning Statement, each planning authority shall, within 2 months of the publication of National Planning Statement, submit a report to the Office of the Planning Regulator..." All local authorities, on foot of each of those national planning statements, of which there might only be one or two per year, now have an additional set of reporting requirements. We already know they are significantly understaffed. In the framing of these specific sets of requirements, has there been an assessment to determine if the local authorities currently have the capacity to do this? One obviously assumes that following the enactment of the Bill, national planning statements are going to come in one form or another. The County and City Management Association, CCMA, indicated previously that it is significantly under-resourced in its planning sections, notwithstanding the sanction for an additional 100 staff members. Its representatives spoke of a need for an additional 500 staff members to meet existing needs. These are significant additional requirements. The same applies to the OPR and elsewhere throughout the section. I am raising a concern that there are onerous reporting requirements. What happens if the resources are not made available or if they are, the staff cannot be recruited within the timelines set out?

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

To put the situation in context, we have the ministerial action plan, which is providing additional resources across all our planning authorities, including the OPR, local authorities and what will be an coimisiún pleanála. The Deputy is correct that many of these roles are specialised and we have a job to do to ensure we increase the pool of talent through third-level education and for people who are selecting jobs or who are looking to work within planning sections.

I will first deal with the example of the board. An Bord Pleanála has approval for approximately 50% more resources than it had two years ago. It is filling those roles but in some areas, for example in respect of the specialised marine planner, it takes time to find the right person with the required expertise and experience. I imagine there will always be some challenges in that regard.

The national planning statements are the new national guidelines. What were the guidelines are now planning statements. One is being replaced with another. It is right to set that timeframe because we want co-ordination across the board. We have had a good debate at the committee about national planning statements and why we believe they are crucial to the provision of the clarity we want across all future Government policy on planning.

We discuss the matter regularly with the CCMA and others. We have approved additional posts. We can get out the figure but I think we have shared with the committee the number of resources that have been approved and are in place across our planning authorities. There may well be requirements for more and the ministerial action plan is in place to consider what additional resources are needed. They have been sanctioned heretofore. There will in the coming years, particularly in specialised areas, be challenges, as there always are in an economy that has full employment. We see people moving between the local authority planning system, the board and the OPR and that type of thing. It is about ensuring that we provide those additional resources, which we are doing, and that we increase the pool of available talent.

There is also unquestionably a need to develop education and training initiatives to increase the availability of personnel.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Section 61(2)(a) states: "The Minister may, at any time, request the Office of the Planning Regulator to carry out an assessment of a development plan." If we look at the overall architecture of the new relationship between the regulator and the development plan process, we can see that the regulator will be brought in at the very beginning before the elected members. The regulator has a role all the way through. The formal development plan process involves a series of mechanisms to issue draft directions and expedited revisions. Given all of that is proposed, what does section 61(2) mean? It seems to suggest that the Minister may require this at any other time. The entire process is unduly onerous but this seems to add another layer to it. I cannot think of another point where the OPR is not already being given a formal role. What is envisaged here? I presume there is some logic to it.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

It is a kind of saver provision; a catch-all just in case it would be required. It is not just the Minister. Section 61(2)(d) states: "The Office of the Planning Regulator may, at any time, of its own initiative and for stated reasons, carry out an assessment of a development plan in accordance with subsections (3) and (4)." That is a good thing. The independent Planning Regulator may decide it is appropriate to carry out an assessment of a development plan, but they must state their reasons, which can be done. It is not just the Minister at any time. It is not a catch-all provision; it is an in-case provision if something was to come up outside what is already stated to provide the legal ability for that to happen. It could be a controversy or whatever. It could be a new development, a big FDI investment in a county or a local authority looking to vary a plan, but the OPR may want to look at that or a Minister may want to instruct the OPR to assess it. It is a saver provision. It works for both and either the Minister requesting the OPR to do it or the OPR doing it of its own volition.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Correct me if I wrong, but if there was a variation of the plan, surely the OPR would already be involved in the process because that is already set out? I said this at a session at which the Minister may not have been present. The work the OPR has done in respect of the current round of development plans has been very positive. It has an even more involved role. However, I am not so sure any of it is necessary, given that the first round of development plans in which it has been involved has proven quite successful. There is no aspect of a development of which the OPR will not already have had detailed, intimate knowledge and involvement in up to and after the final approval, subject to whether there is a draft direction, a ministerial order, etc. The OPR already has a role in any material alteration. Someone, somewhere must have thought something might require this. Will the Minister provide clarity on that?

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

In the context of all the things the Deputy, other members and I can think of, we have outlined in the Bill what the process will be in either allowing the Minister or the OPR, as I said, to initiate an assessment.

It could be for an unforeseen circumstance, and it is better that the saver provision is there. I would not expect it to be widely used, but it could be for an unforeseen reason that the OPR deems it necessary to assess a development plan. The Deputy is correct in saying that if there is a variation or material contravention, it would go u to the office. However, it is just using it on the basis of a saver provision if there is an unforeseen circumstance that all of us present cannot identify at this stage. It is for the future. This is generational legislation, and the aim is to provide the ability for that to happen. I do not envisage these additional ones to be overly onerous on the OPR, but it provides the ability for that to happen should there be an event that requires it.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

There is a level of overreach in the provisions relating to the OPR. This subsection is part of that. First, it is entirely unnecessary but it will also cause problems further down the line. I hear the Minister's argument very clearly, but I certainly do not accept it. I will still be opposing this section.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

That is fine. You or I might not be able to foresee a circumstance here today, but we must at lease make provision. I do not see what the difficulty would be in the OPR, which is independent, being given the option of initiating an assessment a development plan. I do not envisage the OPR doing it that often, or maybe at all, but if I were to remove that option - I know it is not in the current system - I might be accused in some way of trying to reduce the office's ability to look into development plans. While the Deputy is correct in stating that it has done this through all of the various development plan cycles, and the office has done its work very well heretofore, provision is being made just in case something were to come up in order that a future Minister would not have to come before the Oireachtas to seek an amendment to the legislation to provide for an assessment to be done outside of a variation, a material contravention or a development plan.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments No. 513, 527 and 573 are related and may be discussed together. Amendments Nos. 513 and 573 in this grouping are in my name. I will move amendment No. 513 in order that we can speak to the grouping. Deputy O'Callaghan may then speak to amendment No. 527.

Deputy Steven Matthews

I move amendment No. 513:

In page 147, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“(5) Where a planning authority or the Board is temporarily precluded from determining an application, subject to subsection (4), the statutory timeline for decision making shall be suspended for that period.”.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Amendment No. 527 relates to section 65, which deals with an urgent direction requiring a chief executive to vary development plans. I have two issues with this. The first is the level of discretion afforded to the Minister and the Government in deciding what sort of event or situation would justify giving the Minister the power to issue an urgent direction. The wording is not well defined. It refers to the Minister being satisfied that "an event or situation with significant national, regional or strategic implications has occurred or is likely to occur". It is quite broad and sweeping in terms of how a Minister might decide to exercise that or not. That is why I am seeking for the Bill to provide that the Minister would issue a "draft urgent direction", rather than an "urgent direction".

The second issue is that section 65(4) seems to empower the chief executive to vary the development plan without recourse to, or oversight or input from, the elected members. Will the Minister address that point? Is there any provision in this for a role for the elected members or is it simply that the Minister can issue an urgent direction, the chief executive replies and that is the end of the process, without input from democratic structures? It is laid before each House of the Oireachtas by the Minister within three working days of the direction being issued but that seems to be it in terms of oversight. I am concerned about that aspect of it.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

On the interaction with elected members, I take the Deputy's point and have some sympathy. As Deputies can see, we have detailed what the Minister shall do before issuing an urgent direction. Section 65(4), in paragraphs (a) to (d), lists what the Minister shall do and that includes consulting the OPR and so on. I understand the point about elected members of a local authority. We have to make sure that is sufficient. Having said that, I do not envision this being used in a widespread way. One would have thought it would be a rare enough occasion. As I said, an urgent direction would apply to "an event or situation with significant national, regional or strategic implications has occurred or is likely to occur". One would expect that would be in extremis but, having said that, I am content to look at what role the local authority would have within that. The Minister would still issue the urgent direction but before doing so, there would be consultation with the relevant local authority. I will look at that in advance of Report Stage.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

These sections of the Bill are really problematic. We have gone from a situation where, prior to the establishment of the Office of the Planning Regulator and the SPPRs, local authorities had a wide berth - one could argue it was too broad - with regard to development plans. We then had the SPPRs, the Office of the Planning Regulator and the process by which the planning regulator tries to achieve consistency through previous legislation, as the Minister has outlined. We then have layer upon layer of what can only be described as draconian procedures to remove any discretion or scope for democratically elected members to have some variance, within the principles of subsidiarity as they would be properly applied. Enforcement would be a polite way to describe all of these draconian mechanisms, which are to enforce significant changes to the plans of local authorities. These would often be plans that have already been under significant scrutiny.

With respect to Deputy O'Callaghan's question, I am not sure if there is any role for the elected members in this procedure. There is also no role for the Oireachtas or the Government. It is really the role of the Minister, on foot of recommendations from the planning regulator. Apart from the gaping democratic deficit that runs through all of these amendments, it also raises the question of why councillors and a development plan are needed when there is this level of centralisation. How robust will it stand against legal challenge if, for example, this procedure is used and elected members have no say whatsoever in the final change to the development plan? I said this when we dealt with amendments to other stages in the process so I will not labour the point, but we are going down a very dangerous route. A balance has to be struck between allowing local authorities a level of subsidiarity and allowing elected members a level of democratic responsiveness to the people who elect them, while at the same time operating in the context of national planning policy and planning law set by the Oireachtas. I think we have gone so far to the other side that it is antithetical to good plan-making. It will also end up in real difficulty.

This amendment is just one small attempt to undo some of that damage. I think fundamentally that these sections of the Bill should not proceed and do not belong in a modern, 21st century plan-led code. If I were an elected member or a director of planning looking at this, I would be thinking about what my role now is. As it is, when I was engaging with directors of service in a number of local authorities during the last development plan review, they said it was the most restrictive development plan review they had ever experienced. That was before all of this is in place. I want to sound the alarm about all of these procedures.

The amendment is, in a small way, trying to redress the balance, albeit in the one section, that is, section 65, to which it pertains.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Paul McAuliffe)

Does Deputy O'Callaghan wish to speak on this point or on his amendment?

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

We are both talking to the same amendment.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Paul McAuliffe)

Do you want to come it at this point in advance of the Minister?

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I have one question on this. I share the concerns about these sections of the Bill. The Bill places a huge amount of power in the hands of the Minister and creates, in terms of the Office of the Planning Regulator, a range of additional inputs. From national planning statements being issued to the role of the Office of the Planning Regulator, the role of elected members is being massively reduced while the role and powers of the Minister and the Office of the Planning Regulator are being massively increased. My question on that and subsidiarity is whether any analysis of that has been done. Is there any evidence base behind doing this? My overall concern is that when we concentrate a lot of power in the hands of a small number of individuals, whether it is the planning process or anything else, sooner or later that tends to go wrong. Is there any evidence base informing the changes in section 65? Where is it coming from?

Deputy Steven Matthews

Have we completed the debate on amendment No. 527?

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Paul McAuliffe)

Let us speak to the group and the Minister can reply.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I have not responded to Deputy Matthews. Deputy Gould has indicated on this point. I might come in on the points raised by colleagues, and we can then deal with Deputy-----

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Paul McAuliffe)

Deputy Gould on this point, and we will take Deputy Matthews separately.

Deputy Thomas Gould

I will not go over what my colleagues have said. Last week I expressed my concerns about local democracy and taking away powers from councillors. There have been huge changes in local authorities from when I became a councillor in 2009 to now. I am concerned about any reduction in the power or ability of councillors to have a say. In his response, the Minister might explain the reason for the change. I am concerned that representatives, such as councillors, are elected locally and we want a democratic voice to be heard in the planning process. I ask the Minister to take this on board. It is to be hoped he will enlighten us on this point. I do not think the Minister wants to remove democracy from local government in this Bill. Unfortunately, that appears to be what will happen as a result of section 65.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I thank members for their contributions. This is balanced. I assure the Deputy that the Bill is not draconian. In no way or shape is there an intention to take councillors out of the process. I point him to section 65(1)(a) and (b) which contain the specific criteria which will be used. Paragraph (b) refers to where "it is necessary for the Government to take action as a matter of urgency for the purposes of dealing with the implications or likely implications of the event or situation concerned". What could that possibly be? It could be a national emergency or another pandemic. It could be giving that power to a future Minister, following consultation, before issuing a direction.

As I said, this refers to a situation in extremis. It certainly does not reach into the development plan process or in any way try to diminish the role of councillors. As I said in response to Deputy O'Callaghan, regarding the consultation piece under subsection (4), it is stated "Before issuing an urgent direction, the Minister shall". I am more than content to be clear as to where the elected members would be.

In early 2020 or 2019, pre-pandemic, there were certain things that this country had to do that we never thought we would have to do because of unforeseen events and a national emergency. There could be a national emergency regarding flooding or whatever else. This section refers to where it may necessary for the Government to take action. I am not being facetious, but this would not be a provision that would be used by a Government stating we need to put a rural cluster in an area in west Cork.

We are talking about where "an event or situation with significant national, regional or strategic implications has occurred". Let us consider what the State had to do post Brexit, for argument's sake, regarding the provision there. This is a measure that I believe is required and is appropriate to be there, allowing a Minister and a government to issue urgent direction, which would only happen in extremis. For clarity, I reiterate that regarding consultation with elected members, unless it is a national plan, if it is specific to a local authority area, before issuing the direction listed there from (4)(a) to (d)-----

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Which section?

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I refer to section 65(4). It states:

Before issuing an urgent direction, the Minister shall—

(a) consult the Office of the Planning Regulator,

In response to Deputy O'Callaghan's point and maybe Deputy Ó Broin's also, this is not initiated by the OPR. This is not an extra thing we are asking the OPR to do. Regarding section 65(4), requiring the Minister to consult, I will certainly come back on Report Stage regarding the local elected members. That would be appropriate.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

My colleague Deputy Gould has been too generous. The precise function of these sections of the Bill is to further weaken and undermine the role of local government - not just the elected members but also the executive. As Deputy O'Callaghan has said, there is no way of reading these sections other than interpreting them as taking a system which is already heavily centralised - one of the most centralised systems if not the most centralised system of governance in Europe - and further centralising it. There is increasingly less scope for local authorities, their executives and their elected members to really shape these development plans.

Why is that important? It is important because the electorate could decide to choose a different complexion of elected members in a certain area and they would like to see that reflected in the development plan. I have always considered that in the interrelationship between local government and central government, particularly in these matters, local government should set the floor, the minimum standards which should be very high in various ways, but there needs to be scope for the local authorities to raise the bar, raise the standards or have variations that reflect the democratically expressed wishes of their populations. All of this is designed to limit that.

There are real world examples. For example, when SHD was introduced, there were two driving factors. There was concern that the good people of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown had a tendency to elect folks who had a more green and environmental complexion in their politics and that filtered its way through the development plan. There were particular elements of the development plan that developers did not like and they wanted to challenge them. Dublin City Council, because it was trying to ensure proper planning and mixed family sizes in its urban core, wanted different standards of apartment size, one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments, to accommodate different family sizes.

All of this is the latest element of trying to squeeze that ability out of our local government system to make those kinds of variations. It is the latest in a series of iterations of that. Each iteration fails. The section 28 guidelines failed; the SHDs failed and we have come back with this.

I wish to respond specifically to what the Minister said. The section states:

(1) This section applies where the Minister is satisfied that—

(a) an event or situation with significant national, regional or strategic implications has occurred or is likely to occur ...".

While I accept that, the Minister gets to decide. That is very wide and broad. The two examples he gave, of Covid and Brexit, do not need this. He is absolutely right that the Covid pandemic meant we needed to do things we would not have otherwise done in a very timely fashion. Changes to exempted development requirements were put through the House with co-operation from this side as well as from the Government. Within the existing legislative planning framework, we can deal with those things but changing a development plan is not responding to an immediate emergency.

It is making a more fundamental change to the planning code in a particular area. I do not see how the Minister could say that is anything but draconian, centralising, and antithetical to local democracy and the principles of subsidiarity. None of that is an argument against consistency. It is just a question of where is the line. Where does the role and responsibility of central government begin and end, and where does the role of local government begin and end? Increasingly, all local government does is it takes policy direction and instruction and, ultimately, if it is not willing to take it, it gets enforced.

I reiterate that the amendment is very simple and straightforward - I will not repeat it - but these really are very damaging structural changes to our planning system and they will not work. We will be back here at some point in the future if they are passed and enacted, having to undo this latest round of damage, like we had to do with SHDs, mandatory ministerial guidelines and specific planning policy requirements, SPPRs, etc. That means we are not learning from the failures of the previous attempts to do these kinds of things.

The great thing is that when councillors from the Minister's party start to fully understand the implications of this change, when this becomes the law, they will be up in arms, just like they were when they fully understood the implications of SHDs, on which Fianna Fáil abstained when the party was in opposition. I urge Members to be mindful of that. We had good presentations from elected members and local authorities. We are not against the idea of consistency. I am not against the idea of national government setting national policy and law but subsidiarity just dissolves and disappears in all of this. It is deeply problematic. I do not understand why the Minister would want to be the one to implement these very damaging changes to our planning system. They are really inappropriate and will come back to cause significant damage in the future.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

We are speaking specifically about the amendment. I am conscious that Deputy Matthews is absent. We can go back and forth on this. A very high bar has been set here. It is certainly not a diminution of responsibilities for local authority members. I came from a local authority myself and I have a high regard for local authorities and the input local authority members have. That is why the development plan is their reserved function.

We must read paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 65(1) together and look at the bar that is set there. It is not the case that a Minister could just wake up one morning and decide to issue an urgent direction. This would be in extreme cases where it is seen as an absolute imperative for the Government of the day to respond and take action as a matter of urgency for the purpose of dealing with implications, for example, to protect certain elements of strategic importance to the State. It could also be for whatever other reason, but the bar is set very high here.

I respectfully disagree with Deputy Ó Broin's assessment that it is a centralised power grab. It is not that at all. What it is doing is providing for a legal basis, should a threat or an urgent situation develop, so that the Government of the day can respond in the timely and efficient way that would be needed in instances where there could be an urgent matter that would be likely to have serious implications for the State or a region.

Deputy Ó Broin used the example of SHDs. For the record, I abolished SHDs because I believe in a two-stage planning process. This whole Bill is about a plan-led approach. These are provisions that allow the State to respond in an urgent way should a situation arise that warrants it. All of us hope it would not, but it is important that the provision is there for that to happen, should it be required.

I will reflect as well on what Deputy O'Callaghan has said about section 65(4) regarding consultation before an urgent direction is issued. If that was on a local authority basis, in the sense that it just affected one local authority, we would provide for consultation in that regard.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I know. I will answer the Deputy's question. Let me give it a bit of context here. The reality is that one cannot put that question in isolation. Asked in isolation, it is not given the context of when this event would occur. When such a situation would occur is clearly outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b). This would be potentially an extreme event where the State has to respond and a government has to respond with the approval of the Government. The committee will get what we are talking about here. This could be a national emergency where a response is needed and required. All other elements of the development plan, like normal development plans, would absolutely proceed. The role of councillors would absolutely proceed. The Deputy will see that it is outlined there very clearly how that would work. This is a new provision.

It would allow a government to issue an urgent direction to vary a development plan. It is the correct and prudent provision to have. The Deputy is presenting this on the basis that he thinks it is something that I am going to use, or any future Minister is going to use, on an ongoing basis and go back to the government of the day and say this or that is urgent. A very high bar is set for this. We must plan for the future. We have rightly talked at length about the climate challenge we have as a State, a continent and a world. There may be elements of the climate crisis to which the State must adapt and that requires it to act very quickly to events or national emergencies. This provision is absolutely appropriate. It is correct to include it and it should be there. Including something such as this, a provision that would be used in very extreme cases where the State or a region of it has a specific emergency, is the right and proper thing to do.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

The issue is that we do have a climate emergency and biodiversity, housing and homelessness crises. We do not now, but at other times we have had economic and unemployment crises. All of those are important but any of them could fit in with section 65(1)(a) or 65(1)(b). The Government may feel the need to take action as a matter of urgency on any of those issues. The section covers an enormous amount of things and circumstances in which it could be used. The Minister could then vary the development plan and consult the OPR, and there would be no role for elected members.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I respectfully disagree with the Deputy's interpretation. The section clearly sets out that it applies where the Minister is satisfied in the case of "an event or situation". Section 65(1)(b) refers to circumstances in which "it is necessary for the Government to take action as a matter of urgency". For the sake of everyone else who is listening, so we are not just repeating ourselves, I have been abundantly clear as to what the section would be used for. Those are very specific criteria. For anyone who takes the leap to imagine that this provision would be used to direct how each development plan would be used to deliver housing, for argument's sake, or schools or something else, that is absolutely not the intention. I have also said that I will consider section 65(4) and come back on Report Stage in respect of the consultation with elected members in the very rare event this section is used.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Deputies Ó Broin and Gould have indicated. We are covering areas that we have already discussed at length. Perhaps these will be the last contributions from Deputies Gould and Ó Broin and we will then move on.

Deputy Thomas Gould

I will follow on from what Deputy O'Callaghan has said and the Minister's response. The Minister said the section will only be used in national emergencies and extreme cases but the worry is the wording. He also said that this would not be used on an ongoing basis but the problem is that the section has been included, which gives additional powers to Ministers and the Government. That could potentially ride roughshod over local authorities and local councillors without their having an input. The Minister made the point that this is a new provision. He is trying to bring in future-proofed legislation but the concern is that while it might future-proof the decisions of Ministers or a government, it might remove powers from local authorities, especially councillors. Deputies O'Callaghan and Ó Broin have made genuine points and outlined them clearly. I hear what the Minister is saying but I have seen the diminishment of power in local government over the past 20 years. This section looks like it might take another notch from local government and local democracy.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I will make a final comment because I appreciate what the Acting Chairman said, although these are important sections. I will make a final appeal to the Minister. I know he is not going to accept the amendment but I want him to consider the following argument after this meeting and during the final passage of the Bill. We are having a similar conversation to the one this committee had in 2017 when the strategic housing development, SHD, legislation was being passed. The Minister is correct that he introduced large-scale residential development, which abolished the SHDs, and we supported that legislation notwithstanding some of its deficiencies.

We made very similar points when the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Cowen, was the Fianna Fáil spokesperson for housing. He was on the committee at the time. We urged them to consider the points we were making. If the Minister’s predecessor and his own party had listened to us at that stage, they would not have had to abolish the SHD, because we tabled amendments that would have maintained a two-stage process and all the damage that was done to our planning system as a result of Fine Gael’s refusal to amend the SHD legislation, as well as Fianna Fáil’s abstentions on those amendments, could have been avoided. Most of us here experienced that.

There is a problem with the interrelationship between sections 62 and 65 because, as I read it, particularly with respect to regional strategic implications, it could include, for example, a ring road in Galway, a data centre in Athenry or a cheese processing plant in Kilkenny, based on the argument that those things are of regional or strategic importance. All three of those things, it could be argued, would have huge regional and strategic importance.

I know the Minister keeps using the word “extreme” but it is not in the Bill, and we have to deal with the text that is before us. We also have to deal with the possibility of other governments, parties and Ministers that might take a progressive view of these measures. By repeatedly suggesting this is only for extreme national emergencies such as Covid, the Minister is actually downplaying the range of other uses of these functions, which I think are very serious.

I agree with the Minister on one point. I know he is not talking about individual housing developments, schools, etc., but the regional and strategic implications. What would happen if there was a clash? The Galway ring road is a good case in point. I have no view on the matter. It is not my constituency and I will not weigh into a controversy, but there are clear strategic and regional tensions there between something that has environmental implications versus personal employment implications. There are arguments on both sides. This particular provision could be used to come down on the side of either one or the other, irrespective of the views of local communities, democratically elected representatives, etc.

This provision is far too broad and wide. It is not as narrow or as exceptional as the Minister presents it, and I think he is using that case to try to strengthen his argument. In reality, it has much broader applications and implications. I urge him to at least consider that at a later stage as he goes through this, because the consequences could be very significant if he proceeds with it as it is outlined.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I share these concerns. The Minister will be familiar with the idea of the shock doctrine, as outlined in Naomi Klein’s very good book. This is about how emergency and disaster situations are used to push through changes that undermine democracy. I have to be honest and say that I fear there is more than a bit of this here.

This is to vary a development plan based on an approval by the Government and the Minister but not the Oireachtas. It essentially cites a series of wide-ranging reasons the central Government, based on emergency considerations, could vary a development plan that is democratically made by elected representatives and communities. Looking through that section, the things that would trigger the right of the Minister or the Government to require a different variation in the development plan are very broad. I am seriously concerned about that. That seems to me to be an excessive centralisation of power.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I will address those points and then I will conclude. I will not come back in again because I think I have made the point. Members should look at section 65(3). Deputy O’Callaghan referred to housing, and I was not being facetious. It reads "The purpose referred to in subsection (2) is to make provision for or in connection with a class of infrastructure or other development of national or strategic importance specified in the urgent direction". Again, it would require Government approval to issue it.

The other really important point is that this relates to a potential variation of a development plan.

Should there be a type of infrastructure to be put in place on the back of that, it would constitute a change in the development plan and would require a planning application. To use Deputy Ó Broin's example of the Galway ring road, this would not involve doing what was done with SHDs, which was going over the local authorities at the planning level and straight to An Bord Pleanála. It would involve, in very extreme cases, making a designation on a development plan. I have given the context in which that would be done. Others may disagree with it but I have been very clear on what the context would be.

“(v) where the planning authority is a coastal planning authority, the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority,

(vi) the Commission,

(vii) the National Transport Authority, and

(viii) any other body, as the Office of the Planning Regulator considers appropriate.”.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 515:

In page 148, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(viii) (I) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Údarás na Gaeltachta,

(II) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 516:

In page 148, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(viii) the board members of Údarás na Gaeltachta, Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht, Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga, and any relevant Language Planning Officer.”.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 517:

In page 148, line 37, after “and” to insert the following:

“in the summary of submissions submitted to the Minister under subsection (12), which will be considered”.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 518:

I move amendment No. 524:

In page 152, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“(17) The Minister may prescribe a period or periods that shall be disregarded for the purposes of reckoning any period referenced in this section.”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 525:

In page 153, line 9, to delete “Government” and substitute “Oireachtas”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 526:

In page 153, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“(3) The Minister shall lay a proposed direction in respect of subsection (1) before both Houses of the Oireachtas, together with any screening determinations and assessments made in respect of a Strategic Environmental Assessment and Appropriate Assessment, and the proposed direction shall not be issued until a resolution approving the issuing of the proposed direction is made by each such House, following a debate of no less than 2 hours in each House.”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 527:

In page 153, line 20, to delete “issuing an urgent direction” and substitute “proposing a draft urgent direction”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 528:

In page 154, to delete lines 11 to 13.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 529:

Amendment No. 632 proposes to amend section 84 which relates to the conditions that may be attached to a grant of permission. I am opposing this amendment as it may be appropriate to attach conditions to a grant of permission similar to the operational lifespan of a new wind energy development and enable the planning authority or an coimisiún pleanála to reassess the operation of the development at a later stage, as stated previously, in light of, among other things, any planned or emerging land use or infrastructure requirements. While I understand the sentiment behind this amendment, this is a policy matter more appropriately dealt with through guidance which the relevant planning authority or an coimisiún pleanála would have regard to in determining on a case-by-case basis whether to attach such a condition to a grant of permission. For that reason, I cannot accept amendment No. 632.

Amendment No. 695 seeks to add a new subsection to section 114 to provide that a prospective applicant for port infrastructure to facilitate offshore renewable energy may enter consultations under section 114 notwithstanding that they do not hold a maritime area consent at the time. I cannot accept this amendment because, as just mentioned, this may potentially lead to a speculative pre-application consultation which would not be constructive use of the commission's resources. With the marine area consents, MACs, there is a pre-consent process in place particularly relating to port infrastructure. That is happening right now with the establishment of MARA.

Amendment No. 718 proposes to amend section 125 which relates to additional provisions relevant to electricity transmission infrastructure development. I am opposing this amendment as section 114 provides a process whereby a prospective applicant may actually request a pre-application consultation with the commission in respect of a proposed application for what is called a Chapter 4 development. Where the commission receives such a request and forms the opinion that the proposed development is not a Chapter 4 development, it must notify the prospective applicant that an application for permission for the proposed development may not be made to it under this Chapter.

While I cannot accept the amendment, I will consider bringing a similar amendment on Report Stage to provide a streamlined process for the commission to confirm if an application for permission for a proposed electricity transmission infrastructure development, which is not a Chapter 4 development but which forms an integral part of an overall project, is required to be submitted to it. I will look at amendment No. 718 to see if we can bring forward a similar amendment. However, I need a little bit more time to look at the wording to clarify the process. I fully accept the point that if something is deemed not to be a Chapter 4 development, what happens next. We might be able to incorporate that into a process or the process. I give a commitment to come back on Report Stage on amendment No. 718.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

On the two amendments, it probably reflects how our perspective has changed on onshore wind farms. Granting significant pieces of infrastructure planning permission on a time basis would be like in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s us considering motorways on a time basis. I think we now realise how important onshore infrastructure is. There is a significant strategic risk for Ireland in that, based on information from Wind Energy Ireland, I understand between 75 and 80 wind farms will reach that time cliff edge. We need to be careful that what could amount to 20% of the entire installed wind capacity on the island would be subject to review. I am not suggesting there will be no process for extension. We need to look at our competitors in other European countries. Scotland, for example, has moved away from this type of time-based system.

The idea that a key piece of strategic infrastructure would be bound by time alone is just not consistent with the idea of us respecting a climate crisis and the investment that happens on these sites. We talked about key changes to the development plan in respect of the previous sections. There is a very strong argument for us to move away from the idea of it being time based, and a specific application having a specific time, towards us having the ability to be much more flexible, without diluting the obligations we might have under Aarhus, the habitats directive or any other directive. I ask the Minister to reflect on it to see what we can do specifically to try to protect and retain the infrastructure that is being invested in.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I will make a general comment and then ask a question on this. When Wind Energy Ireland and other industry representatives were before the committee, and in subsequent correspondence, they raised this issue. Their argument was the existing 25-year time limitation was fine when the technology was at a less advanced stage but, increasingly, the technology is 30 years plus. They strongly urged the committee to consider this. There are challenges with what they asked for. If you talk to environmental organisations, for example, they will highlight that an unlimited, or longer, time period has potential environmental and biodiversity consequences. In addition, "lifetime" could mean after a wind farm is no longer operational, when there are issue around decommissioning, etc. I am interested in hearing, and it is helpful that Deputy McAuliffe tabled the amendment, the Minister's thoughts more generally, as the technology advances, on how we ensure that our planning system is making appropriate grants of permission that balance the need to provide onshore and offshore renewable wind technology, and do not create unintended consequences, for example, of an environmental or decommissioning nature. I am halfway between the two sets of arguments.

Given that the existing section 40 of the Act has that 25-year limitation, it might be helpful to state for the public record what the current provisions of this Act are. Is it a simple transposition of the existing Act? Is it something slightly different? If the Minister is not accepting Deputy McAuliffe's amendment as outlined, where is the Minister and the Department's thinking on this? This issue will not go away, irrespective of what way the relevant sections of the Bill land.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I thank Deputy McAuliffe for the amendments. I engaged with Wind Energy Ireland and spoke at its conference previously. Unquestionably, a great resource is already in place. If we go back to the 2006 wind energy guidelines, which set 20-year timelines, and I will come back to the Deputy's specific amendment on that, we can certainly do more. That is why it is not just about onshore but offshore. That is why we worked hard for the creation of MARA, the single consenting process that is there, and the establishment of an expert section within An Bord Pleanála. Undoubtedly, there are many offshore renewables we can harness. In the context of energy stability and energy security in particular, and the climate challenges the State faces, it is absolutely appropriate that we do everything we can to continue to unlock this potential.

I will speak to Deputy McAuliffe's amendment first and will then deal with Deputy Ó Broin's questions on the broader point of where Government thinking is. This amendment deals with existing wind farms in place that already have a condition with regard to the lifespan of those wind farms. To speak to Deputy Ó Broin's point, when these wind farms were granted permission, people had engaged in a process that was very clear with regard to the lifetime of this. What I said in my response to the Deputy was that in recognising that many of these wind farms are in place, will continue to be in place and may be upgraded as part of it, there is a process they can go through, by way of a new application, to extend that particular lifespan. On balance, that is the appropriate thing to do for existing infrastructure where a timeframe condition was given.

That was the condition that was granted. It is a legal condition of the planning permission and it is important for people in the locality and others who engaged with the process. It is not simply about extending it through primary legislation. While I fully understand the points behind it and what is being proposed, it would effectively mean that granted permissions would be extended and that would be potentially open to challenge. Having said that, a process is in place for people to seek an extension through the planning process.

There is a process and standard procedure for decommissioning. Some cases are more problematic than others. One case was the subject of infringements with the EU Commission and even the decommissioning of that site would require the seeking of permission regarding how it would be decommissioned because of the issues with what happened on that site, the topography of the site and how it could be affected in the future. There are complexities around it.

Turning to the main point, the new wind energy guidelines that are due to be published are crucial. With the advancement of technology that Deputy Ó Broin correctly spoke about and in the area of noise, it is important we get the guidelines published. Some work is being done in relation to noise in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. That will form the approach of the Department's publication and further consultation with it. I urge that work be concluded as expeditiously as possible because, with the new technologies that exist, the guidelines that are in place need to be updated. That is recognised and a lot of work has been done in that space in my Department and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. Some further work is being done with respect to noise that I believe will conclude soon. It is not in my Department. That will address the Deputies' points about what the future will look like, especially in respect of onshore wind and the lifespan of granted permissions. I do not have an exact timeframe for those guidelines yet. I will endeavour during our meetings to get an update from colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications on when they expect them to be published because they are important. Is it appropriate with newer technology to set a lifespan for what is a significant investment and an important part of our energy infrastructure? We are improving the percentage of power generated through renewable sources all the time and that is important. Lifespan is important and we will be guided in that area by the wind energy guidelines. I will get an update for the committee that we can discuss, as there is a full section on this. I have asked officials to do so.

To be helpful, I might digress for a moment. I will take this opportunity to speak about additional resources on the planning side, which was mentioned earlier. I have the figures from 2023 onwards. I will get them for the period 2020 to 2023. Since 2023, 93 additional posts have been approved in An Bord Pleanála, of which 78 have been filled and 15 have not. There are some specialist roles within that. At the end of February, there were 261 staff in An Bord Pleanála, which is the highest number we have had, which is good. I had the pleasure of meeting many of them recently when I spoke to staff a number of weeks ago.

My question is on the planning elements. Whether we are talking about an extension or repowering of an existing plant or a new plant, in order to give guidance to the planning authorities, is it the intention to provide regulations or national planning policy statements? This will be an evolving situation because of the nature of the technology. How does the Minister plan to give that guidance after the Bill is enacted?

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

A national planning policy will be introduced. That will be give the absolute clarity that is needed on Deputy Ó Broin's question.

On Deputy's McAuliffe's point, where there is a condition of a grant of permission, it is a legal condition. The only way to alter it is with another application. I take his point but the guidelines in this regard, one would imagine, will become national planning policy statements. I will seek clarification on it. That is the direction in which we are going.

An Cathaoirleach

I am seeking clarification on two of the Minister's amendments, namely, amendments Nos. 656 and 706. They are more or less the same and relate to energy production developments. Both amendments propose that "a condition shall be attached to the permission requiring that no works shall be carried out in respect of the development" until the offer of a group connection is made and the permission for the distribution or transmission line for that development is granted. I am seeking clarification in respect of amendments Nos. 656 and 706 that this provision refers to a pre-grid situation. Is it the case that before the grid is reached at all, if EirGrid or networks have to do an energy upgrade to their grid, that will not be part of the provisions under these amendments?

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

The Cathaoirleach's understanding is absolutely correct. I intend to withdraw amendments Nos. 656 and 706 in order to further review their wording and resubmit them on Report Stage. However, the Cathaoirleach's understanding of what the process will be is precisely what is intended. As I said, I am withdrawing these amendments and will come back to them on Report Stage.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister. I want to clarify something regarding amendment No. 718. Where a project is strategic, it is a Chapter 4 application and will go to the commission. However, local authorities are well capable of granting permissions for development of transmission infrastructure. I am wondering whether the definition of a strategic proposal refers to developments of 110 kV or more. There may be smaller networks of 110 kV in respect of which permission could be granted by the local authority. That is what I am trying to clarify in amendment No. 718. Could an applicant go the commission and say that although the proposal is for a 110 kV system, it is small and located within the county, and ask whether it can be presented to the local authority? I think the Minister said he will come back on Report Stage on this matter.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

Yes, I will. I made the point in my initial response to this grouping about how we will deal with developments that are deemed not to be Chapter 4 developments.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 532:

In page 155, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

“(v) (I) where the settlement or part of the settlement to which the proposed plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,

(II) where the settlement or part of the settlement to which the proposed plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,”

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 533:

In page 155, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

“(v) any language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 relevant to a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network within the functional area to which the development plan relates,”

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I have some questions on that.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Ó Broin would like to seek clarification on section 68. He may go ahead.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

It is a bit more than clarification. At this stage, I will indicate that there are a couple of sections coming up next on which a small amount of discussion would be useful. I say that because we are now getting into Chapter 6, which deals with the urban area plans, priority area plans and co-ordinated area plans. These are very important innovations of the Bill. They got far less scrutiny during pre-legislative scrutiny. I do think there is a value, without extending the conversation for too long, in providing the Minister of State with an opportunity to answer some questions on these and talk through how they will work.

Specifically with respect to section 68, while it is not the same as a local area plan, it replaces a local area plan, LAP, in some sense. Local area plans have been the previous mechanism for plan-making. I would like the Minister of State, in summary form, to first give us a sense of what is new, additional or innovative in the urban area plan versus the old LAP. Somebody, such as a member of the public, might have been involved in an LAP. What are they getting that they did not have before? This is one of the sections of the Bill the Government would say shows a renewed focus on plan-making, making it more forward planning-led, etc. I invite the Minister of State to justify that a little bit and to give us a sense, specifically with respect to urban area plans, of how this gives us something of added value to what is already available under the existing Act.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I ask the Minister of State to clarify a point about urban area plans and priority area plans. Is it the case that priority area plans are basically area plans that do not occur in urban areas. What is the difference?

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

“(v) (I) where the settlement or part of the settlement to which the proposed plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,

(II) where the settlement or part of the settlement to which the proposed plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 537:

In page 156, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

I move amendment No. 540:

In page 157, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

“(vi) (I) where the settlement or part of the settlement to which the proposed plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,

I move amendment No. 544:

In page 158 between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

“(v) (I) where the settlement or part of the settlement to which the proposed plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,

(II) where the settlement or part of the settlement to which the proposed plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 545:

In page 158, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

“(v) any language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 relevant to a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network within the functional area to which the development plan relates,”.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 548:

In page 159, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(V) (A) where the settlement or part of the settlement to which the proposed plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,

(B) where the settlement or part of the settlement to which the proposed plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 549:

In page 159, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(V) any language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 relevant to a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network within the functional area to which the development plan relates,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I have two technical questions on the section. Section 71(7) states:

A planning authority may at any time amend or revoke an urban area plan or a priority area plan made by the authority and this Chapter shall apply to the amendment or revocation of any such plan as it applies to the [plan] making.

When I read that initially, I thought about the process, how this will be done and what consultation will take place with respect to co-ordinated area plans. What if there is no agreement between the local authorities?

I move amendment No. 550:

I move amendment No. 553:

In page 165, line 28, to delete “within one year of making a development plan for its functional area” and substitute the following:

“prior to the preparation by the principal planning authority of an interim report under subsection (2) of section 54 on the progress achieved towards securing the implementation of the development plan for the functional area.”.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 554:

In page 166, to delete lines 16 and 17 and substitute the following:

“(vii) (I) where the settlement or part of the settlement to which the proposed plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Údarás na Gaeltachta, (II) where the settlement or part of the settlement to which the proposed plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 555:

In page 166, line 17, after “area,” to insert “or Gaeltacht Service Town within a Gaeltacht area”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 556:

In page 166, line 17, after “Gaeltachta,” to insert “Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga, and any relevant Language Planning Officer,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 557:

In page 166, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

“(viii) where the settlement or part of the settlement to which the proposed plan relates includes a Gaeltacht Service Town outside the Gaeltacht or an Irish Language Network, Foras na Gaeilge, Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga, and any relevant Language Planning Officer,”.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

I move amendment No. 558:

In page 172, to delete lines 15 to 17 and substitute the following:

“(33) A failure to comply with subsections (1), (7), (9), (14), (19), (24), (26) and (29) within the time period specified therein shall of itself not invalidate a coordinated area plan.”.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 559:

In page 174, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“(VI) any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012 which applies to the settlement or the part of a settlement concerned,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 560:

In page 174, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“(VI) any language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 relevant to a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network which applies to the settlement or the

part of a settlement concerned,”.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

I move amendment No. 561:

In page 174, line 27, to delete “assembly or the National Transport Authority” and substitute “assembly, the National Transport Authority or any other body as may be prescribed”.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 562:

In page 175, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“(h) any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012 which applies to the settlement or the part of a settlement concerned,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 563:

In page 175, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“(h) any language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 relevant to a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network which applies to the settlement or the part of a settlement concerned,”.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

I move amendment No. 564:

In page 175, line 23, to delete “simultaneously” and substitute “on the same day”.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 565:

In page 176, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“(vi) any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012 which applies to the settlement or the part of a settlement concerned,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 566:

In page 176, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“(vi) any language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 relevant to a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network which applies to the settlement or the part of a settlement concerned,”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Section 75(4) states:

Where the Office of the Planning Regulator, as part of an assessment under subsection (1) or (2), forms a preliminary view that the urban area plan, priority area plan or coordinated area plan concerned or any part or provision thereof should be suspended because it may be materially inconsistent with one or more of the items referred to in subparagraphs (i) to (v) of paragraph (a) of subsection (8), it may issue a notice to the planning authority or, in the case of a coordinated area plan, the principal planning authority and the associate planning authority, which shall take effect immediately upon issuance and shall—

(a) suspend the effect of the plan or part or provision thereof.

The section talks about the planning regulator forming a preliminary view - not a detailed assessment or consideration. If its view is that a plan may be materially inconsistent, not that it is materially inconsistent, it is immediately suspended. They are low thresholds. Is there a time limit on how long? It seems a very low bar for some dramatic interventions by the regulator. I am not arguing that the plans in question should be allowed to be materially inconsistent with other areas of the legislation. However, with a preliminary view that it may be materially inconsistent and on issuance of the notice, the plan or section of the plan is suspended immediately.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

Any such suspension shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the office of a notice of suspension. Any such suspension shall furthermore remain in effect pending the making of a recommendation by the office to the Minister, to issue the draft direction or not, and consideration of the recommendation and making of the decision by the Minister. It is precautionary, and I think the objective is to suspend it immediately where there are concerns, while a recommendation is being made.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I have a couple of observations. Part of the problem is that it is based on a preliminary view that something may be inconsistent, and not that it is inconsistent. The regulator could, on further reflection, take a different view and lift the suspension. It seems too easy a trigger for suspension. Should there not at least be some check or threshold that would have to be met? Second, the direction can obviously involve some level of consultation with other bodies and organisations. This means the section or plan could be suspended for some time before a draft direction is issued to the Minister for consideration by the regulator.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

It would not be the case that it would be done on a whim. That temporary suspension derives from an assessment.

Let me get this process right. The OPR makes a recommendation to the Minister that a draft direction under section 76 is issued. The Minister permits the issuance of a draft direction. That direction is then considered by the Minister before a decision is taken by him or her whether to give effect to that and make it a direction.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

That is correct.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

I move amendment No. 567:

In page 179, to delete lines 9 and 10 and substitute the following:

“(v) where the planning authority (and where the subject matter of the draft direction is a coordinated area plan, the principal planning authority or the associate planning authority) is a coastal planning authority, the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority,

(vi) the Commission,

(vii) the National Transport Authority, and

(viii) any other body, as the Office of the Planning Regulator considers appropriate.”.