I second the amendment.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 3, after line 28, to insert the following: “(c) Paragraph (a) shall be interpreted as including any application made in advance of the relevant date, even where a final determination has not yet been made by the authority.”.

This is a simple amendment. I raised this issue on Committee Stage. I believe the current wording covers my concern but I am looking for an assurance. Perhaps the Minister of State might provide one. Many people were extremely worried about this deadline. People have been trying to pull together the paperwork for a large number of applications fearing the cut-off date of 30 November. A large number of people have made applications under the 2009 rules. However, their applications may not yet have reached determinat…

I thank the Minister of State for that clarification. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

I second the amendment.

I apologise for speaking to this amendment earlier. I have the same concerns about foreshore. It is a pity this was not acted on earlier as it would have allowed us to produce legislation that is fit for purpose and works. Instead, we have legislation that has us return to the least bad option, pending a review of rights of way. I hope we can do a good review that does not only protect rights of way and easements but imagines them in a constructive way. It should address historic issues of foreshore access, which S…

I move amendment No. 7: In page 4, line 7, to delete “60 years” and substitute “40 years”.

I second the amendment.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 4, line 22, to delete “70 per cent” and substitute “80 per cent”. I note that the scheduling of the business, the times allocated, adjournments, continuations and so forth are all outside of my control, as a member of the Opposition, and are within the scope of the Houses of the Oireachtas as proposed by the Government. Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, deal with a similar issue, which is the concern in regard to these strategic housing developments, SHDs, or strategic large-scale r…

I am a little concerned. It is one thing to have the idea that there are certain ancillary facilities, and I know that is recognised around childcare and other supports that are needed in regard to the residential developments. However, I am concerned that, in the Minister's reply, he focused very heavily on what developers want. What developers want, I have heard, is the commercial piece and the financial viability. We know we have an over-inflated market in which large profits are to be made. The Minister referen…

I will say a last sentence on this. I totally want to see planning brought back to local authorities. We are lauding this as a move on from the SHDs but we raised concerns about the fast-tracking of SHDs. I was in the Seanad when we highlighted concerns we had about how it might be abused and fail to deliver. Many of those concerns proved to be correct. When we are flagging concerns or questions, it is important that we be clear on them. We talk about commercial and, if it is about having shops, of course we want s…

I withdraw it, reserving the right to reintroduce.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 4, line 22, after “other” to insert “higher”. I withdraw the amendment, reserving the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 4, line 24, after “development” to insert the following: “and where the remaining 30 per cent is comprised of public open spaces, landscaping, play facilities, pedestrian permeability or ancillary services, where required, including child care facilities”.

I move amendment No. 4: In page 4, line 35, to delete “academic term times” and substitute “the academic year”. I withdraw the amendment, reserving the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

I support these amendments. I note the discussion on my previous comments regarding the importance of planning, the independence of our planning structures and the Oireachtas not being overly prescriptive. By the same token, whatever about the Oireachtas being overly prescriptive, it would certainly not be appropriate for the Minister to be able to override, through these guidelines, hard planning decisions. We have seen the ministerial guidelines on height being used to make decisions that go against the collectiv…

I will speak first in support of amendment No. 7. I understand a large number of my amendments are grouped together with it. It is appropriate that we listen to local authority members and what they ask. They are not requesting this lightly. They are keenly aware of the process. Local area plans and local development plans are a crucial part of democracy. These are the decisions that people in all parts of the country make about how they want to live together, what their priorities are and the kinds of standards, i…

I thank the Minister for his willingness to engage with me, Senator Boyhan and others in relation to amendments Nos. 7 and 10 on the local development plans. I look forward to a positive outcome on those coming through on Report Stage. I also thank him for accepting amendment No. 13. It is important in terms of the transparency of the process. I urge the Minister to consider amendments Nos. 7 and 8 between now and Report Stage because, while some of the other issues might relate to general planning policy, not all …

Exactly, but even in that regard it was-----

Absolutely, but it was important the members identified there should not be draft proposals on rezonings coming through directly from officials without engagement with members.