Amendment No. 20 relates to the updating of LRD requirements in light of new planning regulations. The Senator said that she might explore the wording further for Report Stage, but as it stands, this amendment is not necessary as under section 34(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 the planning authority may only grant permissions where all the requirements of existing regulations have been complied with. Regarding the idea that An Bord Pleanála would review regulations, that body must comply with regulatio…

I cannot accept the amendments, but it is open to the Senator to table amendments on Report Stage and we will look at each amendment on its merit.

All of us want to ensure that where good permissions are granted they are activated. There are 80,000 planning permissions across the country that are yet to be activated. All have various different timeframes, but they have been granted permission. One of the jobs we have to do is to ensure they are activated where we can, particularly in the cities. In Dublin there are about 40,000 planning permissions that have yet to be effected and moved on. A serious objective in Housing for All is the introduction of a new t…

It would make a significant difference if it were in respect of an application as opposed to an applicant. If an applicant had had seven different successful judicial reviews taken against them, that would suggest an issue with the planning system rather than the applicant, unless it was an applicant who wantonly cast aside the normal practices there. Changing the wording from "applicant" to "application" makes a fundamental difference to the amendment the Senator tabled. As the Senator knows, judicial reviews are …

There are a couple of points to be made. On the subject of publication, within five days of an application being lodged it has to be on the planning authority's website. We should not forget-----

We are bringing this back to a two-stage process. Regarding the LRD, it is going to the council. If someone objects to the original decision because he or she is not happy with it - it would be an objection at that stage - it then goes to the board. Every LRD application does not go to the board. An application goes to the board only if somebody decides to take it there. What we are doing is giving the public an opportunity to make an observation at the right stage. My view, which was the Seanad's view on Second St…

We all want permissions activated. We have said that. We can have that discussion again. Everything we are doing aims to do that. That is the way the funding is provided under Housing for All. That is why we are bringing about planning changes. This is probably getting conflated with strategic housing development, SHD. The SHD process, in the context of the conversion of permissions to development, was not as intended and it was not as successful as was intended. However, we are moving away from that now. This is n…

We will publish it.

I thank Senator Warfield and colleagues for tabling the amendment. It gives us an opportunity to explain this in a little more detail. There is no question but that this is about striking a balance. I would like to clarify what amendments we are proposing regarding further information requests. The ability to request further information regarding an LRD application and appeal were not provided for under the SHD legislation. There was no ability to do that, so we are bringing that back in. I propose to publish regul…

I thank the Senator for these amendments that relate to the process surrounding applications for modification of permission. I hope this will clarify matters for the Senator. The inclusion of provisions for the modification of previously permitted developments under the large-scale residential development legislation seeks to provide legal clarity in respect of such applications. I will explain further. Under the strategic housing development process, which, with the passing of the Bill, is to cease, applications f…

Is the Senator speaking to the amendment or the section?

Yes, and then we can deal with that afterwards.

I thank the Labour Party Senators for their amendments. This amendment, in effect, proposes that an LRD permission should be granted for a period of one year and removes the right for this period to be varied under section 41 of the Act of 2000. I strongly oppose this amendment. I understand we are all trying to get to that place where we make sure viable applications are effected promptly. This amendment seeks to provide that a large-scale residential development permission should be carried out within a year of g…

For the moment.

I will deal with amendment No. 34, after which I will deal with the questions asked on section 50A, which is an important part of the legislation. I assure Senator Higgins that the language in subsection (15) is appropriate. It has come through the Office of the Attorney General. The legislation was drafted in consultation with that office and has gone through the parliamentary draftspersons. It is, therefore, completely appropriate. That is an opinion the Senator may not agree with but the language does not in any…

I do listen.

I have been here for hours listening to Senators.

I am not complaining.

I assure Senators I have listened to them throughout the debate and have taken on board a couple of their amendments, as I have done in the case of previous legislation.

Tá mé ag éisteacht, bí cinnte. As I have said, there are two issues. There is the amendment, moved by the Opposition, which I will oppose, and I have explained the rationale for the amendment to section 50A of the principal Act. We are conducting a detailed review of judicial reviews and we will publish the legislation shortly. There was legislation in the previous Oireachtas. It could take a year, with the best will in the world, to get that legislation through, but I am not willing to wait a year while there is a…