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 re…

With respect, the fundamental issues highlighted by the compliance committee when it found that Ireland had breached the Aarhus Convention and had not been addressed adequately still stand. Can the Minister of State recognise the concern? He referenced the practices in place but they have been found to be non-compliant. This was also highlighted clearly during the debate on the 2024 Act. The Minister is now taking them and applying them in two new contexts. The measures the Minister of State just referenced are not…

It is important to be clear that simply saying that it does not require an AA or EIA, which bear in mind decides if a development impacts on a strategic area of particular natural value, is not enough. The key point was that the compliance committee informed the Government that this was not sufficient because the test is: does it have a potential substantial environmental impact or effect? It is not simply a matter of whether it requires an EIA or AA. A number of other factors influence whether a development has a …

Yes.

I will speak to amendment No. 35. Section 16 proposes a new subsection (1A) in section 42 of the 2000 Act, which is the section was found to be non-compliant by the Aarhus Convention's compliance committee. The affect of this new subsection is to allow for the extension of durations for uncommenced developments of one or more houses. The compliance committee has been very clear why there is a problem with it, but there is also a shift in policy in it that directly rewards developers for sitting on development permi…

All those requirements the Minister of State has set out are just information on what the Government plans to do with the extension. There is not anything there which asks why the person is looking for this extension or why the planning permission has not been used to date. There is nothing there which acts as a discouragement in any way to future land hoarding, hoarding of planning permission or engagement in speculation around the exchange or trading of land with planning permission on it, rather than the use of …

I will move to pressing the amendment but I will say we will not know what the myriad of reasons are if we do not ask them.

I seek clarification on something because I have a different grouping from the one here. As I understand it, amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 were not part of the previous grouping. Is that correct?

I am sorry. I had a wrong grouping in my own notes. Thanks for the clarification.

In bringing forward our amendments to these amendments, it is really important to begin by saying that we will be opposing this whole section. Leaving aside the way this was brought forward, not that we can really leave it aside, the substantial nature of what has been put forward here and the failure to properly disclose or address these issues during the pre-legislative scrutiny stage but rather produce them at the last possible effective Stage, which is a Committee and Remaining Stages guillotined debate here in…

I will be brief because I am keen to move to later in the Bill and be able to get to vote. Amendments Nos. 38 to 40, inclusive, deal with the use-it-or-lose-it principle. If people are granted these extensions, they should be required to act upon them. If people are getting extensions for one or two developments and have not commenced, they should not be given permission for delays on all their developments unless they follow through. Someone who gets an extension on one development should start building that befor…

I move amendment No. 35: In page 12, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “(c) the authority is satisfied that there were considerations of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the applicant which substantially militated against the commencement of development.”,”.

I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 47: After subsection (15), to insert the following: “(16) A relevant authority shall not grant a certificate under this section if the modification relates to the removal or reduction of communal space or cultural space within the proposed development.”.

I move amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 47: After subsection (15), to insert the following: “(16) Any permitted modifications to the mixture of apartments of different classes in the proposed development shall require a varied mix of different classes of apartments.”.

I move amendment No. 5 to amendment No. 47: After subsection (15), to insert the following: “(16) Any certificate granted under this section shall expire within 6 months if substantial works have not commenced on the proposed development.”.

To add a comment to the other topics, in relation to the electricity connections, we need to talk a little bit about data centres given the rolling cuts we all saw yesterday and the fact we have had a massive escalation in energy and electricity demand from it, over 200% of an increase. It is an elephant in the room and it needs to be addressed. Even in Portlaoise, where there is apparently a difficulty in connecting houses, there are new data centres going in there. We have to be honest, that if we bring in someth…

I have a number of key concerns on the Bill and the context in which they sit. I feel there is also an element of us having been here before in the shocking announcement that was just made of the intention to add last-minute major and substantial amendments, changes in our planning laws put in at the very last minute just before a recess, and to ram it through without proper democratic oversight. This is a pattern that was exhibited by the previous Government, particularly in the area of planning. I will go through…

Speculation is rewarded by this Government and that is not what delivers houses. This is the same mistakes again and again from the same false principle. It is a disservice to the public.

I have gone on but I will say we are being denied time to properly address this, with this poor democratic practice of bringing in this bad proposal at the last minute. By the way, it will require fire safety and health certificates and will delay planning permission that is ready to go. All of those processes around fire and health certificates will have to be done. We are actually delaying and rewarding those who seek to delay for profit.

A Chathaoirligh, I was misquoted. I said that was the case in some instances. For clarity.