Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025: Committee Stage
Seanad Éireann — 2025-07-15
============================================================

Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland

I move amendment No. 17:
In page 9, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“(a) the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (7):
“(7A) Notwithstanding subsection (6), paragraph (e) and anything elsewhere in this section, the planning authority or the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, as the case may be, shall not amend the date the duration of the permission expires except where—
(a) the effect of this section in extending the duration of the permission consequent on this section will result in an alteration of a minimal period only, or
(b) in circumstances where the development the subject of the permission, is—
(i) a project or activity which falls within the scope of Article 6(1) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998, that—
(I) the public have been consulted,
(II) the requirements of the Transboundary Convention have been observed in respect of any such consultation, and
(III) in an effective decision on whether to amend and thus extend the duration of the permission or not under subsection (6), that due consideration has been taken
account of the comments and outcome received during the consultation,
and that—
(ii) all further screening determinations and assessments required to comply with the State’s obligations as a member of the European Union, have been conducted and complied with given that any consideration of altering the duration of the permission under subsection (6), is effectively a revisiting of the authorising decision for the activity or development in question, including under—
(I) Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment,
(II) the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive,
(III) the Birds Directive,
(IV) the Habitats Directive, and
(V) the Water Framework Directive, in particular Article 4 thereof,
and
(iii) that consultation and assessment obligations under the Transboundary Convention have been fully complied with in the context of and decision to amend the duration of the permission under subsection (6) is effectively a revisiting of the authorisation for the activity or development in question.
(7B) The Minister shall prescribe regulations for the purposes of the public consultation requirements necessitated under subsection (7A), and to identify and provide for the screening, assessment and other determinations necessary under subsection (7A).”,”.
Amendment No. 17 is an amendment to section 13, which effectively extends section 180 of the Planning and Development Act 2024 to the area of judicial reviews. The key issue is that section 180 amounts to the giving of a de facto extension. In this case, it extends the application of that to matters that were subject to judicial review. The key issue is that while one might have some sympathy where there has been a delay relating to a judicial review - we should remember that 40% of all judicial reviews are taken by developers - it is an extension and runs into the same issues and problems we have highlighted previously. We have made it abundantly clear to the Government that section 42 of the 2000 planning Act is clearly in breach of the Aarhus Convention in not making proper provision for public participation in relation to an extension.
The Aarhus compliance committee has been completely clear that the fixes as proposed and as transpired in the 2024 Act did nothing to address that non-compliance. It has been explicitly clear that there is non-compliance. We have an area which is non-compliant as regards extensions and ensuring there are proper public participation provisions, we have been found in breach and we have been told the Government has not fixed it and is in fact doubling down. I am going to go into this more on amendment No. 44, which I believe is to this section, because I do not want to repeat the same points.
The key point is that the amendments are attempts to add nuance to what is almost a de facto blanket extension provision and to give even a small example of the kind of nuance we would have to attach when giving an extension, be that in relation to judicial review, as in section 13, or wider extensions, which are the subject of amendment No. 44.
Amendment No. 44 highlights the issues in section 42 of the original 2000 Act and the proposed new section 16 in this Bill. It points to the fact that extensions of the duration of permission need to be granted in a way that is compliant with our obligations under two international conventions and EU law . We have been clear that the Aarhus Convention is not an aspirational piece of work; it is binding law we have signed up to. If the development falls within the scope of Article 61 of the Aarhus Convention, the public has to be consulted and the requirements of the transboundary convention have to be observed in relation to such and in any effective decision on whether to amend or extend the duration of permission, due consideration has been made to input from the consultations. My amendments provides that if there are extensions, they should be for a minimal period. That is what the Aarhus Convention makes clear. If it is not for a minimal period, there is a danger of the surrounding circumstances having substantially changed, both in terms of environment and local development plans. Where there is a matter into which key provisions such as the strategic environmental assessment directive, the birds directive, the habitats directive, the water framework directive and other matters that require screening and determination apply, an automatic extension cannot be given. There is a requirement that the extension of a development would only happen where it is for minimal periods and where the public has been consulted – again this is where the development falls within Article 61 of the Aarhus Convention - the requirements of the transboundary convention have been observed, and there is compliance with other EU law requirements. For example, I mentioned the birds directive, the habitats directive and the strategic environmental assessment directive. My amendment also provides in subsection (7C) for the Minister to prescribe regulations to facilitate the consultation, screening and assessments that need to be specified and delivered. These are the boxes we need to tick in relation to an extension. We cannot simply bring automatic extensions into law and scrap all of the duties and obligations relating to them.
The Government has been found to be in breach of the Aarhus Convention and it has failed not only to address the concerns both in the original finding and by the compliance committee, but in this Bill it is making the same mistake in two different ways, which if anything, shows a wild disregard for that convention, which is law, and crucially, a wild regard for the fundamental point in it, which is the principle that the public will be consulted on matters that have substantial impact on them, including on environmental grounds.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2025-07-15/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:03+00:00
Sitting date: 2025-07-15