Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 31 of 38.
“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. 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. 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 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 before going looking for an extension on another development. These are all attempts to ensure these measures do not reward speculation, as I am concerned they will.”
“As I said, our amendments are simply an attempt at damage control. These are the kinds of measures which lower standards that were tried before. They did not deliver housing. They did deliver greater immiseration for the people of Ireland, for those who were forced to live in lesser standard developments and housing situations. I hope the Minister of State will address these amendments. We will see sad consequences from the provisions the Government has made.”
“It has been permanently put into legislation as if it is an immutable fact of nature, rather than a situation that has arisen from policies and so forth. Given the science, gravity, and the existence of various factors it has been described as a permanent factor, along with the acute shortage of rental accommodation. If the Government is serious about addressing these issues, it should not be putting them into legislation for the long haul as provisions and situations which the legislation, as it is written now, assumes will continue indefinitely. There should be a sunset clause. If it is an emergency, then frame it as an emergency and put a sunset clause on those provisions that use that language rather than framing it as an ongoing provision. I want to be clear that we will be opposing the rest of the Government amendments to this Bill.”
“Notwithstanding anything else in this Act, the section would expire by 1 January 2027. It is a sunset clause. The Government amendment states: “the section is motivated by the acute shortage of residential accommodation in the State and the rise in homelessness, as well as the rise in cost.” It is one of the most remarkable admissions of failure to put in the language "rise in homeless" in the Bill, as a fact.. That is floating there. We have had the same Government parties for a large number of years. It is almost putting in a marker to put that criterion in that they are admitting these failures in the Bill. The key issue is that it should not be implied that these are conditions that somehow suggest the poor are always with us. The rise in homelessness is a permanent thing.”
“This is an attempt to prevent developers from using the modification secured under section 17 to gain financially from such modifications. Planning permission goes on the developer's list of assets, and he or she can trade it as an object or product. It is an investment artefact, rather than something that actually gets built. If substantial works have not begun within six months on a proposed development - and bear in mind, these are proposed developments where all planning issues have previously been resolved - the delay will have been caused by the changes being justified here, which means this legislation is creating an additional new six-month delay or more, or if it is not going to create such a delay, then it should be reasonable to require them to have commenced within six months of getting these modifications.”
“There are no restrictions in section 17, yet the financial incentive to provide substandard arrangements for apartments means the we could end up with the same kind of apartment throughout. There is no space in these apartments to form a relationship, bring a child into it, or have a friend or family member visit. The figures we have for these apartments are 24 sq. m or 36 sq. m. They are tiny potential rooms. There should be a mix. When we spoke about wanting to have social housing built, we were told we needed that mix in order not to create ghettos. We need to have a mix of the kinds of apartments that are going into these buildings. We need to have facilities, for example, for family apartments. Amendments Nos. 5 to amendment No. 47 seeks to put a time limit on any modifications granted if substantial works are not commenced.”
“47 provides that any permitted ratification would need fire safety certificates, health safety certificates and other appropriate certification. That has been very clear. It is standard, but this is as a reminder that these elements will need to be provided. We know the dangers in terms of fire safety that are created when more people are packed into higher buildings. Amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 47 provides that any permitted modifications to the mixture of apartments in different classes in the proposed development should require a varied mix of different classes of apartment. This is crucial in order that the modifications would not result in entire apartment buildings consisting of one-bedroom or studio apartments.”
“The infrastructure of the Tivoli provided cultural facilities for Dubliners in Dublin city centre for 80 years. As part of the planning permission for redevelopment of the Tivoli as an aparthotel, again, not addressing the housing crisis, developers were required to provide performance and exhibition spaces. The space was provided and then used as storage space. It has never been used and never been delivered. This would formalise getting rid of those obligations and not delivering on them. A prominent example is artists Eve Woods and Aoife Ward. They hosted an exhibition space to highlight how unfit it was for its purpose, for example, containing no toilet facilities. Amendment No. 3 to amendment No.”
“These are places where people exist and live their lives. It is crucial that this dreadful modification does not create atomised living quarters that provide no opportunity for people to develop social relations with the people around them, or their surrounding community. The Dublin city development plan obliges developers of sites that are 10,000 sq. m or more to include a minimum of 5% community or cultural space. The mechanisms in section 17 of this Bill will gut these provisions. Yes, we need housing, but we also need facilities to serve that housing. We need playgrounds, open spaces, community centres and facilities such as crèches. Our artists need work and performance spaces. Developers have always tried to get around these obligations, with the redevelopment of the Tivoli theatre being a prime example.”
“47 states: “a relevant authority should not grant a certificate if the modification relates to the removal or reduction of communal space or cultural space within the proposed development.” Among the reporting on these new proposed mechanisms for alterations, something that has been mentioned is that this new section will allow for the removal of any obligations on developers to provide communal or cultural space within a proposed development. The developer may have been granted permission by promising a mixed-use facility and amenities attached to the development but the Government is getting rid of that requirement for amenities fulfillment. The amendment to the amendment seeks to address that concern. Housing is not just a place for people to return to after a day's work so they can eat, sleep and return to work the following day.”
“If the Department makes it the more attractive financially to create more, smaller apartments with lower standards, it is actively disincentivising the delivery of the kind of apartments a family wants to live in. I am part of a family that lives in an apartment. That will become a less attractive investment component and when we consider the figures relating to the crisis of families facing homelessness in Ireland, the Department is directly doing something that might actually lead to less planning and fewer apartments being built for families because it has incentivised the mass production of studio apartments, which are identical. I will very quickly address the amendments but it is crucial to make these points because the amendments, I have to emphasise, are damage control. We will oppose this section. Amendment No. 2 to amendment No.”
“The Irish Planning Institute issued a press release expressing considerable disquiet among its members and referring to more legal unpredictability that is going to flow from this. Its members understand the motivation to make housing projects deliverable, but they are deeply concerned about the potential unintended consequences. I am concerned about the message it sends to the public, because if a person can get a little bit more money by taking that planning permission he or she had for apartments that maybe families could live in, and turning it into a set of studio apartments to gouge a little bit more money, that is what he or she will do. It is not these people’s fault. Many of them are answering to investors. They are looking for maximisation of profit. That is their obligation. That is their job.”
“Leaving aside the underlying point that as well as all the potential delays from judicial reviews that may arise solely because of this badly provided for set of modifications, and leaving aside the practical delays that when substantial changes are made inside a building, that has serious implications for health and safety, fire safety and all the associated certification processes, it is also a discouragement to building things because the message it sends, yet again, is that if a person sits on his or her planning permission and does not use it, we will reward him or her. We will give him or her another sweetener. We will condemn a generation to live in shoe boxes.”
“The fact is that if we change the numbers and the layout and everything about the inside of a building, that has implications for fire safety and health and safety. Therefore, a whole new certification process has to start. This is recipe for delaying planning and delaying the delivery of housing.”
“We will have situations again where the planning permission is there, and nothing is holding back building except the will of the developer. They will now be in a situation where they will apply for modifications, which will leave them potentially open to judicial review because of the multiple serious legal flaws with the proposals. We have a situation whereby there is existing permission and people are ready to build. We are going to replace this with modifications being introduced in a way that unpacks multiple legal issues and may well be subject to judicial reviews in a way the original planning permissions were not. Of course, at a very minimal point, it is going to have delays in terms of issues like fire safety.”
“It is, therefore, a completely different and very significant thing to say that someone can change a planning permission application after the fact for residential developments. Again, we have amendments, but they do not actually resolve how terrible the amendment is. What we simply have are some amendments to try to do damage limitation to what is effectively an appalling provision brought forward in an appalling manner. The developments that will be built as a result of this are already being referred to as brown foxes. They not only potentially affect the quality of housing to be delivered but they risk compromising existing valid planning permissions for people who are going to be applying for them.”
“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 the Seanad, is outrageous. These are provisions in terms of modifications and are completely different. The rest of the Bill is around extensions. This is around modifications to planning permissions.”
“The Government has been doing this since I entered this House back when we had strategic housing developments brought through, which did not work. It has been constantly diluting standards and the requirements for any kind of accountability. This would then wait two more years to dilute them further, rather than any form of stick or pressure on people to at least be able to show why they have delayed. I would like to ask all those developers who have been sitting on active planning permissions with no obstacles relating to connections to infrastructure or anything else, with no judicial reviews hanging over them, why they have not been acting and building. That is the kind of thing the Government should be asking them when giving these extensions.”
“Basically, the Government will reward you with an extension. It is effectively saying the normal planning permission lines do not have any basis because everyone can get an extension for planning permission and they do not have to show a valid reason why they did not act to date. By doing so, the Government is effectively massively extending the duration of planning permissions which again, brings us into all those other issues around proper accountability and the potential need for a new public consultation and so forth. This is yet again another giveaway and reward for those who have actively watched a housing crisis develop, have sat on planning permissions, have chosen not to use them and waited it out in order to extract further concessions from the Government.”
“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 planning permission to actually deliver on housing. What the Minister of State is telling us is it does not matter why someone did not build and nor does it matter if the reasons someone may not have built were speculative and solely profit-based. Again, the idea is these are beyond the control of the applicant.”
“It is what we had in a previous version of the legislation, which stated the planning authority should be satisfied there were substantial and valid reasons which prevented the commencement of the development to date. Is that not a very basic bar?”
“They then look for an extension on that planning permission, which they may have only been using as an asset for selling or buying all of this land with potential money attached to it. If they are getting an extension on such planning permission, rather than asking for this justification the Government is saying that is fine; it will reward them. We will come to some of the other rewards that come later, namely, the dilution of standards for those who may have planning permission for apartments and have not built them. Yet another reward is the potential to gouge a little bit more money out and to lower the bar and the standards still further. In this regard, I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.”
“The longer people do not use them, the more they can squeeze out of the Government because they have it waiting desperately for them to use their planning permissions. We are not even asking if they have a valid reason. You hear a lot of reasoning like there was a judicial review, they were waiting for electricity supply or water but we are not looking for any reason like that. Is it not a fair and basic thing that we ask people who have been sitting on planning permissions to justify why they have not acted? We heard previously from Senator Boyhan how so few of those planning permissions are because of judicial reviews and instead, the majority of them are being sat on for other reasons. They could have been using their planning permissions, which they have during a housing crisis.”
“35 would require that the planning authority would be satisfied that there were substantial and valid reasons that prevented the commencement of development, which is crucial These are the developers who have their planning permission. They are sitting on their sites. The checks and balances, which were provided in a previous NAMA version of section 42 that has since been repealed, was that the developer would have to give a substantial and valid reason for not building. We do not require that at all. To be clear, we are saying that people have got a planning permission they have not used and we do not care why they have not used it. We do not care if, for example, they have not used such permissions precisely because there are opportunistic benefits to not using them.”
“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 permissions. These are developers with planning permissions who have been sitting on them for no good reason, allowing them to squeeze supply and drive up prices, facilitating them to extract more concessions and derogations and watering down of good planning from the Government, which is only too happy to do so. Amendment No.”
“If the Minister of State says that it is compliant with the Aarhus Convention, can he provide anything from the compliance committee confirming this, besides just stating it? The only evidence we have had from them is that it is not compliant. We have not had any opinion from them to indicate that the problems have been fixed.”
“The Minister of State talked about the assessment directive and asked whether it required an assessment, but he did not talk the about birds directive, the habitats directive or the water framework directive. We have not talked about whether public participation is needed when there is a potential substantial environmental impact. He just went to where there is a particular type of assessment deemed to be required. That is covered in Chapter 5, Part 4 of the original Act. This is the exact proposed fix the Government put to the compliance committee. It was told that it would not. It is still the fix being used. The Government can push it through, but it is not compliant.”
“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 substantial environmental effect, including all of those other pieces around compliance such as the directives the Minister of State referred to. That is why in our amendments we list some of those in a non-exhaustive way.”
“When the previous planning and development Bill was going through, we were told not to worry, the Attorney General was on it and the Government was going to come up with some fixes that would be produced at the last minute when the Bill was going through in September. They were not fixed. They were not addressed. There is now a cavalier attitude with the Government saying it will do two more kinds of the same thing without fixing or addressing the fundament concerns of the compliance committee. What is the Government's plan to work on compliance?”
“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 adequate to meet the obligations on public participation as made clear by Aarhus Convention compliance committee. Could the Minister of State indicate when and how the Government intends to address this fundamental issue?”
“The Government has been found to be in breach of the Aarhus Convention and it has failed not only to address the concerns both in the original finding and by the compliance committee, but in this Bill it is making the same mistake in two different ways, which if anything, shows a wild disregard for that convention, which is law, and crucially, a wild regard for the fundamental point in it, which is the principle that the public will be consulted on matters that have substantial impact on them, including on environmental grounds.”
“For example, I mentioned the birds directive, the habitats directive and the strategic environmental assessment directive. My amendment also provides in subsection (7C) for the Minister to prescribe regulations to facilitate the consultation, screening and assessments that need to be specified and delivered. These are the boxes we need to tick in relation to an extension. We cannot simply bring automatic extensions into law and scrap all of the duties and obligations relating to them.”
“If it is not for a minimal period, there is a danger of the surrounding circumstances having substantially changed, both in terms of environment and local development plans. Where there is a matter into which key provisions such as the strategic environmental assessment directive, the birds directive, the habitats directive, the water framework directive and other matters that require screening and determination apply, an automatic extension cannot be given. There is a requirement that the extension of a development would only happen where it is for minimal periods and where the public has been consulted – again this is where the development falls within Article 61 of the Aarhus Convention - the requirements of the transboundary convention have been observed, and there is compliance with other EU law requirements.”
“It points to the fact that extensions of the duration of permission need to be granted in a way that is compliant with our obligations under two international conventions and EU law . We have been clear that the Aarhus Convention is not an aspirational piece of work; it is binding law we have signed up to. If the development falls within the scope of Article 61 of the Aarhus Convention, the public has to be consulted and the requirements of the transboundary convention have to be observed in relation to such and in any effective decision on whether to amend or extend the duration of permission, due consideration has been made to input from the consultations. My amendments provides that if there are extensions, they should be for a minimal period. That is what the Aarhus Convention makes clear.”
“We have an area which is non-compliant as regards extensions and ensuring there are proper public participation provisions, we have been found in breach and we have been told the Government has not fixed it and is in fact doubling down. I am going to go into this more on amendment No. 44, which I believe is to this section, because I do not want to repeat the same points. The key point is that the amendments are attempts to add nuance to what is almost a de facto blanket extension provision and to give even a small example of the kind of nuance we would have to attach when giving an extension, be that in relation to judicial review, as in section 13, or wider extensions, which are the subject of amendment No. 44. Amendment No. 44 highlights the issues in section 42 of the original 2000 Act and the proposed new section 16 in this Bill.”
“The key issue is that while one might have some sympathy where there has been a delay relating to a judicial review - we should remember that 40% of all judicial reviews are taken by developers - it is an extension and runs into the same issues and problems we have highlighted previously. We have made it abundantly clear to the Government that section 42 of the 2000 planning Act is clearly in breach of the Aarhus Convention in not making proper provision for public participation in relation to an extension. The Aarhus compliance committee has been completely clear that the fixes as proposed and as transpired in the 2024 Act did nothing to address that non-compliance. It has been explicitly clear that there is non-compliance.”
“(7B) The Minister shall prescribe regulations for the purposes of the public consultation requirements necessitated under subsection (7A), and to identify and provide for the screening, assessment and other determinations necessary under subsection (7A).”,”. Amendment No. 17 is an amendment to section 13, which effectively extends section 180 of the Planning and Development Act 2024 to the area of judicial reviews. The key issue is that section 180 amounts to the giving of a de facto extension. In this case, it extends the application of that to matters that were subject to judicial review.”
“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 result in an alteration of a minimal period only, or (b) in circumstances where the development the subject of the permission, is— (i) a project or activity which falls within the scope of Article 6(1) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998, that— (I) the public have been consulted, (II) the requirements of the Transboundary Convention have been observed in respect of any such consultation, and (III) in an effective decision on whether to amend and thus extend the duration of the permission or not under subsection (6), that due consideration has been taken account of the comments and outcome received during the consultation, and that— (ii) all further screening determinations and assessments required to comply with the State’s obligations as a member of the European Union, have been conducted and complied with given that any consideration of altering the duration of the permission under subsection (6), is effectively a revisiting of the authorising decision for the activity or development in question, including under— (I) Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, (II) the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, (III) the Birds Directive, (IV) the Habitats Directive, and (V) the Water Framework Directive, in particular Article 4 thereof, and (iii) that consultation and assessment obligations under the Transboundary Convention have been fully complied with in the context of and decision to amend the duration of the permission under subsection (6) is effectively a revisiting of the authorisation for the activity or development in question.”
“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.”
“The idea of bringing in lower standards for apartments at the last minute is an insult to the public, not just in terms of democracy but in terms of basic decency with respect to how we expect people to live. These are situations where there is already planning permission. It is not addressing any actual problem. It is addressing a situation where investors say they would like more. It is rewarding those who have sought to profiteer more and have delayed using the planning permissions they have. It tells them if they hang around long enough, the Government will get desperate enough to give them whatever they want, as they have done on strategic housing development, as they did when they lowered standards previously, when they tied the hands of those who would object to developers' proposals, as they have done again and again.”
“The lacuna has been addressed around which section will commence at which point in terms of costs. I highlighted that gap when the 2024 legislation was coming through. It should have been fixed then rather than now. What is really unacceptable, and it tags onto that, are these proposals for a €35,000 limit, a ceiling in terms of what environmental objectors and others will be able to do. This is not in the Bill but it is what is proposed and it is cap so that developers, with their bottomless pockets, can take any judicial review they want and those who are bringing concerns as a citizen will effectively be capped in what they can get.”
“We heard from Senator Boyhan that they account for a tiny portion of the 50,000 planning permissions that exist. There are very few cases where delays are caused by planning. In most cases it is developers sitting on planning permission and not using it. Crucially, on those judicial reviews, 40% of them are taken by developers, so 40% of those terrible judicial reviews are being taken by developers who literally are saying "we have put in something, the Planning Authority has found it violates the planning laws and not given us permission, but we are going to push on." I think of all the ire that was directed at every local residents association in terms of judicial review, yet it is often the developers who are delaying things because they are greedy and want more in some instances. There is a lacuna.”
“Now we have "completed within a reasonable time" and there is no requirement to justify why it is reasonable or what has to happen and so forth. Developers are being rewarded for sitting on development permissions, for no good reason in many cases, allowing them to squeeze supply and drive up prices. Section 13 also has concerns that are similar in relation to this. It suspends consents that are subject to judicial review. This allows for a de facto extension of duration of permission. Again the problem is that such a time period can be very long. The issues there are not related to individuals taking judicial reviews but to the huge delays we have in the courts system. We also still have a narrative, which it is important to puncture, that it is terrible what all these judicial reviews and objectors have stopped.”
“Maybe it needs to be considered as well by the councillors and what they have put in and signed off on needs to be included. A lot can have happened and the idea of public participation was meant to ensure that it would be reflected. This is the issue with section 16 of the Bill. At the moment the threshold being granted is provided as "the development will be completed within a reasonable time". This is the language for the proposed provision. It is incredibly vague and is likely to cause issues. There is no requirement to justify the delay. Even the original section 42 of the 2000 Act had what were called the NAMA clauses with the requirement to say why development was not done and what happened.”
“We have even more decisions that are happening in a way that is not going to be compliant with the Aarhus Convention. This is wrong. It is wrong in the context of the law and our legal obligations but it is also really wrong given the simple things that were asked for, which were appropriate mechanisms for public participation and some engagement with the public, in recognition that if five or ten years have passed, sometimes an environmental context has changed - sadly environmental contexts are changing quite rapidly at the moment - and that the public may have concerns and should have the right to be concerned about something that is going ahead. Maybe a new local development plan has happened during that period of time.”
“During that time and prior to that Bill going through these Houses, the compliance committee had already looked at these draft proposals and said this would not fix it and that we would will still be non-compliant if we brought forward the legislation in this form. I raised this at the time and made it very clear. I read those concerns during the course of that 2024 debate. I was told that the Attorney General was working hard on it and would come up something to address the concerns of the compliance committee. Instead of addressing the concerns of the compliance committee the Government is now looking to lean even more on that original flawed element of the original Bill, which, as we have been told, was not fixed by the 2024 Bill, and have even more things happen under it.”
“The Government claimed that the changes it would make in Chapter 5, Part 4 of the 2024 Bill would address those concerns in relation to compliance. Then the compliance committee of the Aarhus Convention, the people whose job it is to determine this, literally published a report in which they said, "In the light of the above considerations, the Committee does not consider that, if enacted in their current form, proposed sections 133 and 135(2)(b) and (d) of the Planning and Development Bill 2023 would fulfil the requirements of paragraph 4 (a)(i) of decision VII/8i." Basically it was found to be non-compliant and found to be in breach of the Aarhus Convention. Then a couple of measures were produced in the planning Bill last year which the Government claimed would address it.”