Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to speak to my amendments Nos. 781 to 783, inclusive within this grouping. They relate to the same point that we have been describing as use it or lose it, namely, the issue of duration of planning permissions. I raised this issue in my Second Stage speech at the end of November on this Bill. I believe all of us thought that one of the key potential improvements this new planning Bill could introduce would be a tighter regime around durations of planning, really use it or lose it, rather than use it or abuse it, which apparently may instead be the Minister's proposal. We are looking to reduce the normal duration of a planning permission from five years to three years. I have listened closely to the Minister's responses on amendment No. 779 and Deputy Boyd Barrett's points. Five years is too long. If the Minister is saying that two years is too short a time, then three years seems a reasonable period. The purpose would be to incentivise the commencement of active planning permissions to reduce the likelihood of speculation or abuse on sites that have active planning permission. Listening to the other Deputies, such as Deputy O'Callaghan, I am aware of many sites in my own constituency where we see this happening. The Poolbeg site in Dublin Bay South is renowned for having had a contentious and difficult planning history. It is good to see that construction of much-needed housing is well under way on that site at last. The point is that across Dublin city and throughout the country, there is a serious issue with uncommenced planning permissions. As of quarter 4 of 2022, there were 42,000 uncommenced planning permissions for apartments in the Dublin area alone. A year ago, many Dublin-based Deputies had a meeting with the head of housing in Dublin City Council at which he said that were the planning permissions granted for relatively small developments in the Dublin City Council area to be commenced, it would resolve housing waiting lists in Dublin. It is extraordinary to see this level of uncommenced planning permissions. There are multiple reasons for delays. When engaging with stakeholders, we hear about costs of construction and labour shortages. However, land speculation remains a key issue.

Certainly in the Dáil Chamber, I have pointed out concerns around abuse of the planning system but where we continue to perpetuate this system of lengthy periods within which developers can hoard land, then we are feeding into a culture of abuse. We are also unnecessarily clogging an already overburdened planning system. We are making it more difficult for planners to assess accurately and predict what developments can occur in an area. In Poolbeg and in other areas in my constituency, there are real concerns about lack of infrastructure provision where we see big new developments. That is because there has not been an opportunity for planners to engage in sustainable development plans around projected development.

We in the Labour Party believe that planning permission should not be used as a means to increase the value of land for sale. We have other amendments in as well looking at implementing some key aspects of the Kenny report. We believe it is essential for the health of our planning and housing systems generally that speculative planning permissions should be reduced and that land should not simply be left sitting idle where planning has been granted for housing. We hope to encourage developers to begin construction on land more swiftly. That is the impetus behind these three amendments. They are in the same spirit as the other amendments in this group.