Some parts of this have been made somewhat redundant, by the previous amendments that were passed. The concern is that this three-quarter threshold, which is an appropriately high threshold for these decisions, might not be applied to all of the extensions that might be made consequentially in this Act. Now that the threshold has been lowered, the bar has dipped backwards. This was a concern around ensuring the consistency of an exceptionally high standard. That exceptionally high standard no longer applies, unfort…

One part of the amendment has been partially addressed by amendment No. 6, which I supported. It clarifies that it is the members of a planning authority. That was one part. The concern about the two points of initiation is to be clear where the decision would sit. There is still a concern. The Minister of State mentioned some parts, like section 11D(10), not being a concern. However, the concerns are things like the consideration of the effects and the impact the plan or the extension might have, in respect of a E…

I can speak to this amendment. I have a similar amendment which I do not think was grouped. Can I check that my amendment was not grouped?

I will come to a similar amendment, amendment No. 17, shortly. Because of the safeguard provisions in section 11D, that is, the effect of the extension on the development plan, the environment, European sites and the need for a strategic environmental assessment or an appropriate assessment, the concern is that screening as to whether these assessments are needed and any related period of extension could have a significant impact. The concern is that there could be a two-month extension, a five-month extension or a…

The periods here are just too long. We have suggested a range of different dates in the amendments. Senator Warfield's amendment suggests 1 January 2022 and I have given a slightly lengthier period and suggested 1 October 2022, which sees us through another winter, spring, summer and autumn. I have also suggested, in a few different places, the date of 1 January 2023. The date of 1 January 2024 is too long. It is an extremely long extension and it provides for a delay potentially in county development plans right a…

Consultation of the best quality is consultation in which you get heard and that has an impact. I understand people are making submissions. In fact, they have been extremely active in doing so. There is urgency. It is not simply about the environment. We will come to that later. Although there are the matters of the strategic environmental assessment and other environmental issues, there is also a section 15 obligation, regarding which the planning regulator would normally be involved and giving an assessment in re…

I move amendment No. 10: In page 5, line 28, to delete "1 January 2024" and substitute "1 October 2022".

I move amendment No. 11: In page 5, line 28, to delete "1 January 2024" and substitute "1 January 2023".

Can I confirm that we are discussing amendments Nos. 12 to 15, inclusive?

That includes a number of Government amendments. These amendments seek to ensure that the two aspects of the screening determination, one in respect of the screening as to whether there is a need for a strategic environmental assessment or appropriate assessment, as well as the actual assessments. The concern is that in screening, only the extension period will be looked at, rather than, for example, asking if an existing development plan requires an strategic environmental assessment and whether there are dangers …

I have one small question and I will then raise a technical matter. On amendment No. 12 specifically, I accept the wording is probably stronger than amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 12 states: "such determination is published and made available as part of the consultation notified on the proposed extension". The Minister of State mentioned publication. Can he again clarify that when a determination is made, for example, when it is not believed that a strategic environmental assessment or appropriate assessment is ne…

That is fine.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 6, line 4, to delete “or” where it secondly occurs and substitute “and”.

This amendment is effectively around trying to copper-fasten the climate aspects. We have interlocking sets of environmental protections in our planning piece, some of which are less robust than previously because they involve an intersection between the Departments responsible for planning and heritage, a check and balance that is now gone. We are looking at that set of environmental protections, many of which tend to be looked at in strategic environmental assessment or appropriate assessment. It should be borne …

We may have already touched on this point when we discussed housing. I am concerned about amendment No. 40 on the variations. The answer seemed to be that if issues were identified under the SEA, there would be no extension. I understand there may be circumstances where it is a very specific issue and I do not want to create a dynamic in which one very specific issue will interfere with this period. It may be as localised as one particular site, for example. I was trying to tease out how the variation tools might b…

I move amendment No. 17: In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “(2A) Where an extension of a development plan amounts cumulatively to a period of more than six months a strategic environmental assessment shall be considered to be required.”. In recognition of amendments Nos. 13 and 15, which address at least half of my concern in amendment No. 17, I will withdraw it.

These amendments seek to mirror the period of time that would be available for public consultation. Quite a strong argument was made earlier that a vote on the extension would mirror similar votes on other development plans or variants of development plans. I discussed with others the question of a three quarters majority vote or a simple majority vote during the interval in voting. I accept there is a strong case for a simple majority. I like the idea of a three quarters majority but I could see a strong case for …

I move amendment No. 21: In page 7, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “(ia) include an assessment of the potential impact of an extension on the local authorities achievement of obligations as a relevant body under section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015,”.

Amendment No. 25 is slightly different and might be taken separately but I am happy to speak to them together.

That is fine.