I move amendment No. 8: In page 6, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “(i) obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability, with due regard to the principle of universal design and regulations under Statutory Instrument Number 513 of 2010;”.

I move amendment No. 9: In page 6, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “(j) an estimation of greenhouse gas emissions associated with building, including embodied energy as may be released by demolition in the course of the development;”.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 6, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “(k) the local development plan or county development plan of the local authority in which the site is located.”. In light of the Minister's commitment to engage on this area on Report Stage, I withdraw amendment No. 10 on local area plans.

I move amendment No. 11: In page 6, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “(3A) The Minister shall, in the prescription of information under subsection (3), have due regard to the public duty on equality and human rights.”

I move amendment No. 12: In page 6, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “(3B) The Minister shall, in the prescription of information under subsection (3), have due regard to the need to prioritise the delivery of social housing in the State.”.

I move amendment No. 13: In page 6, after line 41, to insert the following: “(5) Where a planning authority consults with a person under subsection (4), a written record shall be taken of such a consultation and kept by the planning authority and a copy of such record shall be placed and kept with the documents to which any application in respect of that proposed development relates.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 6, after line 41, to insert the following: (6) With respect to information provided under subsection (3)(a) with regard to student accommodation, the Minister shall provide for consultation with educational institutions, representative student bodies and local residents set out conditions in respect of student accommodation, which the planning authority must have due regard to in rendering an opinion under section 32D.”. Amendments Nos. 14 and 19 come back to the issue of student ac…

I do not think it is a consent process. There may be an argument in that regard to amendment No. 19. Amendment No. 14 relates to the powers the Minister is giving himself in the Bill. In section 32B(3)(a), the Minister already allows that he might prescribe information around, for example, "the proposed types of houses and student accommodation units and their design, including proposed internal floor areas, housing density" and so forth. Amendment No. 14 states that in relation to section 32B, given that the Minis…

I strongly support these amendments. In particular, the meeting as described will add immensely to the quality of the decisions being made and, crucially, to the outcome in terms of the quality of the residential developments that emerge from the process. It is not sufficient that individual representative members of the authority might be able to put in submissions. It is crucial that there would be, as Senator Boyhan has eloquently described, that kind of constructive discussion in public which allows things to b…

We need to stop trying to make a virtue of past mistakes. There were mistakes on the strategic housing developments. We highlighted exactly what would go wrong and it went wrong. There is the headline item here that we are bringing back planning. However, let us be clear: the Minister is partially bringing back planning but what happened with the strategic housing developments created many problems. The Minister says we need to look at judicial review. Let us be clear about the elephant in the room: it is not judic…

This relates directly to this question. Many strategic housing developments were badly planned which led to judicial reviews because they were badly designed because they did not go through the proper scrutiny at local authority level. Many projects that did get planning permission were not commenced. Over half were not commenced. Councillors were not holding them up. They had planning permission but the developers were not starting to build. If we are in such a rush, there are many other elements to look at. I wil…

I move amendment No. 17: In page 8, line 11, after “make” to insert “appropriate”.

I move amendment No. 19: In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: " Insertion of section 32I into Principal Act 32I . In respect of student accommodation which receives LRD planning permission, the local authority in which the proposed development is located shall in consultation with educational institutions, representative student bodies and local residents set out conditions in respect of student accommodation, which the planning authority must be consistent with in the rendering of their dec…

I move amendment No. 20: In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: "Insertion of Section 32J into Principal Act 32J. Within 18 months of the commencement of sections 32A to 32G inclusive, a review shall be conducted by An Bord Pleanála and where new regulations with regard to planning, including regulation in respect of the environment and disability, supplementary documentation must be submitted to the planning authority by applications not yet granted permission which demonstrate incorporation …

I accept the Minister's point regarding the wording of amendment No. 20. I share that concern. There is a point that is in between, however, that is not necessarily retrospective. I am referring to the point in between the granting of planning permission and the commencement of a project. That is the point that I want to get at in the context of amendment No. 21. I again appreciate that I could word this more tightly. In that context, however, I do not know if what is being suggested is retrospective. It is a matte…

I move amendment No. 21: In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “Insertion of section 32K into Principal Act 32K. (1) Where new European Union Directives are issued in respect of building standards or planning, applicants who have received LRD permission must provide supplementary documentation to the planning authority demonstrating how the applicant has incorporated the new Directives into their development. (2) Where a new LRD application must be made in respect of subsection (1) the State…

I move amendment No. 22: In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “Insertion of section 32L into Principal Act 32L. Where an application for planning permission to which section 32A(1) applies has been granted but construction has not commenced on that site within a period of 48 months following the decision of the planning authority, such planning permission shall be revoked.”. Both of these amendments are, effectively, "use it or lose it" clauses. I had sought stronger use it or lose it provi…

I ask the Minister to comment on amendment No. 22, which relates to these proposals in terms of where an application has been granted but construction has not commenced in a period of 48 months. That is these large-scale residential developments. We sought a use-it-or-lose-it clause for strategic housing developments but we did not get an effective clause. That is one of the reasons we have a lot of these. They did use it, but it was used as a commodity. That is the difference; it is between housing as something on…

I move amendment No. 23: In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “Insertion of section 32M into Principal Act 32M. Where more than seven successful judicial reviews have been taken in respect of an applicant under section 32A(1), the applicant shall not be eligible to apply for permission under section 32A(1) for a period of 10 years subsequent to the final judicial review.”. This amendment is about raising the standards in the process, getting better quality plans and better quality developmen…

I will withdraw the amendment because I want to reword it. It is not simply with judicial reviews. The core issue is partly with An Bord Pleanála. A proposed development may get planning permission from An Bord Pleanála and get built. A very similar proposal may be challenged in a judicial review and be rightly overturned as not being compliant with the laws. There is an issue of inequity here. I was trying to deal with the question of precedent. I will look to find other ways to address that point.