I thank most Members for their support for the amendment. Senator Higgins is incorrect in that it is consistent with the Planning and Development Act. Sections 9 and 11 deal with the extension of development plans currently. They have been extended by a number of local authorities by agreement of a majority of the members. We are not conflating it with variations or other such types of vote. We are being consistent. The Attorney General is in agreement with that and backed up this request as well, so there is no is…

I will address Opposition amendment No. 7. While I understand the intention behind the proposed changes, I must oppose this amendment. Proposed new sections, section 9A(1) and section 9A(2), to be inserted into the 2000 Act, set out two alternative means of initiating the process set out in the Bill, in respect of taking an additional period of time to prepare a new development plan. Section 9A(1) provides that a planning authority, in practical terms, the executive of the authority, can initiate the process. Under…

While I understand the intention behind the proposed changes, I must oppose the amendment. Proposed new sections 11D(13) and 9A(4) already provide that a planning authority may make more than one decision to extend the duration of the existing development plan and take additional time to prepare a new development plan, but the cumulative period of any such periods shall not exceed one year. It would not be reasonable to restrict the planning authority to make only two decisions under these provisions as the period …

Amendments Nos. 9, 41, 47, 50 and 63 are jointly tabled by Senators Warfield, Boyhan, Gavan and Ó Donnghaile and amendments Nos. 10, 11, 42, 43, 48 and 49 are tabled by Senator Higgins. While I understand the intention behind these proposed changes, I must oppose them. The proposed amendments seek to amend the date on which provisions set out under sections 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 will cease to apply by shortening the application of the provisions for varying lengths of time. The relevant provisions in the Bill, as propos…

I will address amendment No. 12, which I must oppose. The proposed new section 11D(2)(a) already provides that screening for strategic environmental assessment and appropriate assessment is undertaken as a minimum in order for the planning authority to be satisfied that "the effect of the proposed extension of duration of the existing development plan for the area ... is not likely to have significant effects on the environment or to have a significant effect on a European site, or both". It should be noted that it…

The determinations will be published in the normal way on the website of the relevant local authority. Again, I stress there is no diminution of the thresholds for SEAs, AAs or any environmental impact or climate change measures, on the work we are doing today.

I thank Members for their contribution. I will address Opposition amendments Nos. 16, 17, 21 and 40. While I understand the intention behind each of them, the Government must reject them. Amendments Nos. 16 and 21 both seek to require an assessment of the potential impact of an extension on the local authority's achievement of obligations as a relevant body under section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 to be undertaken before a decision is made as to whether or not the duration of an ex…

It is for each local authority to assess what it wants to do regarding housing and zoning. Obviously, any change in zoning requires a variation. The Department's remit on that is with the OPR. The OPR assesses every variation that is made in the State to see if it meets best practice that is currently underpinned in the planning and development Acts. If it does, there is good reason for it. If not, the OPR will raise questions with the members. They have a defined opportunity under the planning and development Acts…

No, I think I was clear enough in what I said.

While I understand the intention behind the proposed changes, I must oppose these amendments. The provision of a period of not less than four weeks for the making of submissions and observations following notification of the proposed extension of duration of the existing development plan, as set out under proposed new section 11D(4)(c), with the same period required for display of any relevant environmental assessment, is consistent with the periods provided for under sections 12 and 13 of the Planning and Developm…

Unfortunately, I must oppose these amendments, which propose that a planning authority must, before making a decision as to whether to extend the duration of the existing development plan, undertake various assessments. Amendment No. 22 seeks an assessment of the potential impact of an extension on the local authority's achievement of obligations as a relevant body in respect of the public duty regarding equality and human rights and the UNCRPD. There is no obligation under the provisions relating to the preparatio…

I will address together amendments Nos. 26, 30 and 31, as grouped by the Bills Office. The amendments have been tabled by Senator Higgins and, unfortunately, I must oppose them. As regards amendment No. 26, the proposed new section 11D already requires, at subsection (5)(c), that the report of the chief executive shall list the persons or bodies who made submissions or observations under that section. This may include the Office of the Planning Regulator as the planning authority is required under subsection 11D(3)…

I will further address that under amendment No. 28 in the next grouping.

Amendments Nos. 27 and 29 are Government amendments. Amendment No. 27 should clarify that the provision relates to a planning authority as opposed to the Planning Authority. Amendment No. 29 is also a technical drafting amendment recommended by the Office of the Attorney General to ensure that where a planning authority is considering the effects of the proposed extension of duration of an existing development plan on the environment and on the integrity of a European site, it must also, as appropriate, consider th…

Section 6 was deliberately drafted this way to ensure that time is the issue in terms of the extension and the adjudication, and the Office of the Attorney General has been over this quite solidly, so we are very happy about the way this aspect of the Bill is absolutely on purpose directed this way.

I will address amendments Nos. 32 to 34, inclusive, together, in the manner in which they have been grouped by the Bills Office. Amendments Nos. 32 and 34 are tabled jointly by a number of Senators while amendment No. 33 is a Government amendment. With regard to amendments Nos. 32 and 34, the proposed new section 11D(7) relates to the carrying out of a screening for appropriate assessment and requires that this be carried out in accordance with section 177U of the Planning and Development Act 2000. In accordance wi…

Yes, all relevant plans are taken into consideration. Obviously, one cannot predict the future with regard to applications for infrastructure development or marine protection areas, but such applications have their own requirements for environmental studies, as appropriate. As I have said, due regard must also be had to other plans under this Bill.

Unfortunately, we oppose amendment No. 35, tabled jointly by Senators Warfield, Boylan, Gavan and Ó Donnghaile, and amendment No. 36, tabled by Senator Higgins. Amendment No. 35 appears to require that an existing development plan, as extended, should be subject to appropriate assessment. In preparing a development plan under the current provisions set out in the 2000 Act, the planning authority is required to carry out an appropriate assessment. This will form the basis for assessing the potential effects of the t…

The proposed new section 11D(9)(b), which amendment No. 38 seeks to delete and replace, provides for the decision by the planning authority to extend the duration of the existing development plan in connection with the need to take additional time to prepare a new development plan. If this provision were deleted, it would not be possible to extend the duration of the existing plan and thereby take the additional time necessary to prepare a new plan. The proposed replacement provision, as set out in amendment No. 38…

The rental accommodation scheme has been an important contributor to social housing supply since its introduction on a pilot basis in 2005. Expenditure under the scheme covers recoupment made to local authorities for contracted rents due to private landlords and approved housing bodies, administration costs and a damages contingency fund for newly acquired accommodation. Exchequer funding of €6.9 million was provided to Tipperary in 2020 to support 1,071 tenancies. Funding for leasing projects is provided under the…