The Planning and Reform Bill proposed by the government has sparked controversy, with its large scale likened to an enormous ship trying to berth in a tiny harbour. Critics of the bill have argued that the majority of its 560 sectors weren’t properly scrutinised in the Seanad due to the application of a guillotine motion.
On the second day of debates in the Upper House, Independent senator Michael McDowell voiced his opinion that the vast, 747-page legislation, dubbed by him as “telephone directory-sized”, should have been separated, highlighting the necessity to distinguish between new and existing legislation and the underlying philosophy. He further argued that the “gobbledegook” of the bill is not the urgent solution needed for the ongoing housing crisis.
The INTENDED purpose of the bill is to unify existing planning laws, create a more efficient planning procedure, and introduce national planning statements ratified by the government. The current national development plans are set to be extended from six to ten years with a reformation of An Bord Pleanála, which includes a name change to An Coimisiún Pleanála (Planning Commission).
Despite this, Mr McDowell alleged a lack of transparency in the national planning framework mechanism and decried the idea of a single minister developing the framework and seeking approval from government colleagues as nonsensical.
“What we have is akin to the commandments on the tablet descending from Mount Sinai, and suddenly this becomes the sole pillar of all developmental plans in the nation” said the senator, disregarding this as far from reality and liable to causing stagnation.
An amendment to the bill, suggested by Sinn Féin senator Paul Gavan, entails subjecting planning statements to compulsory scrutiny and agreement by the Oireachtas. Another Independent senator, Alice Mary Higgins, echoed this sentiment arguing that the current proposal for a national planning statement is an unusual and strong overstep of ministerial power.
She took issue with the bill’s pervasive ministerial overreach and weakening of local democracy and public participation, claiming that the proposed planning statement hands the minister an unchecked influence over the planning system.
Malcolm Noonan, the Minister of State, staunchly defended a much-debated Bill, expressing his disagreement with those who claim it’s not needed and maintaining its absolute necessity. Commenting on the ideal system, he emphasised the importance of inclusivity, community support, and balanced growth.
Meanwhile, an amendment initially proposed by Emer Currie, a Senator from Fine Gael, seeking comprehensive “transparency and public scrutiny” for telecommunication masts applications, initiated a widespread dialogue. Ever since their exemption from planning permission, a steep surge has been observed in the installation of such masts in residential spaces, leading to greater public anxiety. Currie highlighted the emerging trend by sharing statistics about 30 new masts installed around West Dublin since 2020 without public consultation or notice.
People are also questioning the integrity of the planning system while watching these tall telecommunication structures, sometimes up to 18 metres in height, appearing right on their doorstep or along public roads without warning.
Independent Victor Boyhan voiced his concerns about ongoing legal disputes related to the removal of such equipment from parish churches, including those with protected status. He also called for a comprehensive national mapping exercise to monitor the situation.
Mary Fitzpatrick from Fianna Fáil recognised the essential role of telecoms infrastructure but criticised its planning as being overly technical and failing to consider day-to-day realities, being instead designed on abstract engineering principles for the best performance of the technology.
Malcolm Noonan, empathizing with the worries raised by the senators, stated he wouldn’t approve the amendment immediately, but would instruct official associates to revisit the issue, leaving the door open for possible modifications in the future.