I move amendment No. 24: In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “Insertion of section 32N into Principal Act 32N. In the rendering of decisions in respect of applications under section 32A(1), the planning authority shall act in a manner consistent with the local development plan and county development plan of the local\authority area in which permission is being sought.”. I will not speak much about these amendments because they relate quite closely to issues we have discussed. Amendment No. …

An Bord Pleanála as well.

I propose to withdraw amendment No. 24. Amendment No. 28 involves a longer conversation but a question does arise. These are big-ticket items, of 500, 800 or 1,000 units. They can change an entire town or area, often very much for the better, but it is a matter of having the arrangement I describe. It is a little different when talking about very large moving pieces or an LRD, potentially with attached developments that make up 30% of the overall project, because such developments can absolutely change the tenor of…

I move amendment No. 25: In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: "Insertion of section 32O into Principal Act 32O. Where an applicant has received LRD planning permission and wishes to sell the site, the applicant shall not do so with the LRD planning permission attached to it. Thus, the LRD planning permission is granted exclusively to the applicant, on the basis that they are seeking permission with intent to develop the site.". In a way, this is another use-it-or-lose-it clause. It is somewh…

As regards the example of the farmer, let us be clear that the amendment would not apply to all planning permission. This is about large-scale residential development. It is planning permission for 500 units or 400 units.

More than 100 units. That is substantial. With respect, if a person is applying for planning permission and asking that the planning process to trust them-----

-----then that person should know what they are doing with it. If you are looking for planning permission to build more than 100 housing units and asking the apparatus of the State to support you in a streamlined process to get planning permission to build 100 units, you should mean it. You should be planning to build 100 units.

I am trying to say that they need to deliver. If we talk about the law of unintended consequences, let us be clear-----

I am not taking land off anybody. They are free to sell or not to sell. I am not taking land from anybody. What I am saying is that if you apply for planning permission for a large-scale residential development, you should be doing so with the intention of building. As the Senator pointed out, this is not one, two or five houses; it is more than 100 units. This is not my preferred option, by the way. My preferred option is to have a time clause such that after planning permission is granted, building must start wit…

I will be clear on this. The issue is that we have not learned from the SHDs. The Minister stated that this is a completely different process and that there are various incentives. We hear a lot about the incentives and the many carrots for developers but there needs to be a stick somewhere. That stick needs to be a use-it-or-lose-it clause. It is simply not enough to say we have done all these things to get applicants to the point where they have planning permission. I am not conflating the issue with SHDs but we …

I move amendment No. 28: In page 9, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following: “(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1A): “(1C) Where a planning authority receives an application for permission to which section 32A(1) applies, observations shall be sought and recorded from individuals and groups and the planning authority shall have due regard to such observations in the rendering of its decision.”.”.

I move amendment No. 29: In page 9, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following: “(c) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1A): “(1D) Where a planning authority receives an application for permission to which section 32A(1) applies it shall publish such an application on its website.”.”.

I move amendment No. 30: In page 9, to delete lines 19 to 27. This amendment seeks to delete page 9, lines 19 to 27. Those lines provide: [...] the planning authority concerned shall, notwithstanding section 34(2)(a), be restricted in its determination of the application, other than in respect of any assessment of the effects of the proposed development on the environment, to considering the modifications proposed by the applicant to the previously permitted development and for the purposes of determining such an a…

While it is good that the application will go back to the planning authority, the authority is then constrained in what it can do with it. I noted the exception to environmental factors and I imagine it is due to the Aarhus Convention and the rights in respect of environmental planning and the rights of the public to consultation, which is a core issue. This is a second pass. It is a pass in terms of whether there has been a strengthening. We cannot be retrospective but if people are coming back again looking for p…

I move amendment No. 31: In page 9, line 22, after “environment” to insert the following: “, changes in building and planning guidelines, obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability or other such issues that may have arisen as part of an area development planning process”.

I have a lot of concerns about section 6, and it is important for the Minister to clarify them. These are significant changes that do not relate solely to large-scale residential developments. They are changes in respect of the principal Act and its functioning. They are changes in respect of our planning system and, indeed, our legal system and its operation. It is, therefore, quite a significant proposal. It would be useful and, in fact, necessary to provide clarification as to what the intentions are here. I und…

Do I speak to the amendments to the section now? I can come back in. The Minister can reply to the amendment and then I will speak to the section.

That is fine.

I move amendment No. 34: In page 10, to delete lines 24 to 27. This amendment cuts to one of the problems with this section. The concern of amendment No. 34 is the deletion of the new subsection (15) which it is proposed to insert into section 50A of the principal Act. I am concerned that the language in this section is inappropriate. I will speak to subsection 15 and then outline my overall problems with the section. The new subsection (15) proposed in this Bill states, "The Supreme Court shall act as expeditiousl…

Is the intention to create a dynamic whereby it becomes prohibitively expensive for applicants? If they lose in the High Court, they may be told that they cannot go to the Court of Appeal, but they must go because the other party, against whom a judicial review is being sought, may say that it wants to take it to the Supreme Court. Taking it to the Supreme Court, of course, comes with considerable extra costs and expense. It is also a question of the appropriateness of moving it directly to the Supreme Court. Comin…