Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will respond first to Deputy Boyd Barrett because his amendment was put forward, then to Deputy Bacik and other Deputies. In regard to multiple applications clogging up the system, Deputy Boyd Barrett's amendment does not restrict the duration. For example, if the planning permission was for two years and could be extended by another two years, it does not preclude further extensions. This means the same person could go back every two years, adding to the strain on resources within the council. We look closely at the conversion rates on permissions. In the past 12 to 14 months, we saw a surge in conversions because we have been able to bring in cost measures that have helped, as I mentioned, the waiver of the development levy charge and the Uisce Éireann connection charge as well. We have seen commencements increase year on year. Last month, commencements were up by 85% on the comparable month in the previous year. There are cost implications as well. That is actually working. I am not sure how many members agreed with the provision that I brought in on that but it is actually working. I intend to extend it for the rest of this year too, subject to Government approval. We all want to see permissions on housing. I will talk about that in a moment. We have mainly been referring to housing developments. I want to see them built out. Deputy Bacik is absolutely right, what we are talking about here is a balance regarding the length of time. If planning permission is granted, the scheme needs to be funded, whether through the State or with the State in a public private partnership or through private finance. It is very difficult to get finance on large developments if they are going to be restricted to a two- or three-year permission. That is a genuine issue on which I ask members to reflect. I am not sure whether Deputy Bacik was here when I initially responded to Deputy Boyd Barrett but I am bringing forward specific changes whereby one cannot seek an extension to a planning permission unless it is commenced.

I will deal with Deputy Ó Snodaigh's question in a minute about what the commencement looks like, and one can only seek that once.

Let us say we have a housing development. So from what I understand is being framed here, why would one want a longer duration? If one takes Intel, MetroLink, large strategic infrastructure or large residential developments that would be at scale, there will be appropriate times. These amendments do not just say for housing either and will actually restrict permissions for anything such as a large school, college, campus or greenway. I could go on but I will discuss the bigger projects. It is appropriate for certain planning permissions and it happens right now, Deputy O'Callaghan, where permissions can be granted for ten years or more. So that is not a new departure and it recognises the scale of that development and how long it will take to deliver that out or to get to that substantially complete piece. One does need to have that. All of us want permissions to be converted into developments but I will respectfully say that if one goes to three or even two years, then people will find it really difficult to fund anything. What we really need to look at is how we ensure that activation happens.

We have just come through the Covid-19 period. To compare conversion rates against permissions, we had to give extensions for a period to which all parties agreed, and rightly so. Things do happen, such as economic downturns and things like this. To fund development that all of us want, be that the State funding like we are doing in housing this year, with over €5 billion this year, and other developments such as infrastructure, education or whatever the case may be, one needs to give a permission that allows those developments to be developed. If the timeframe is seen as being far too short and too restrictive, then one will not get funding for it which will be a big problem. Then the Deputy would come back to me, and rightly so, asking why can this housing development not be built out or why has it not started.

There are other measures we are bringing forward around the residential zoned land tax, the land value sharing and the State getting the uplift on the rezoning value, which is also very important. There are also restrictions that I am going to bring in here about how an applicant can seek an extension. An applicant can only seek an extension if the original permission has been commenced and that is very strongly within here. That is there in a Government amendment in this exact section, so that is why I am referring to them.

On the very important question about what looks like a commencement, that has differed from place to place. I intend to detail that in regulations as to what constitutes a commencement. Some local authorities are very strict on this, and rightly so. I have seen what constitutes a commencement. Certainly in most, and Deputy Ó Snodaigh knows this, it is not just erecting hoardings because substantial groundworks, foundations and those types of things are what is needed. We have seen sites change ownership, unquestionably. I am not going to speak about who owns them or whatever. What we have been seeing in the past 14 months in particular is a highly significant surge in commencements and activations of permissions for a number of reasons and not just the waiver. We have spoken in here at committee and debated in the Dáil as well with, I think, most of the members who are present on the issue of activating planning permissions, particularly permissions for apartments that have not been built out in our cities. As the State is getting involved in co-funding or fully funding them for large cost-rental schemes, one is seeing those permissions actually being activated and work commencing, and work being completed on many of them, through things like the Croí Cónaithe cities scheme, the apartment activation fund and the cost rental equity loan model. We are seeing substantial apartment developments now being built for cost rental and, indeed, for sale through the Croí Cónaithe cities scheme because of Government measures. I believe we struck the right balance here. It is not a case of getting your permission and hanging on to it. People will not be able to seek an extension unless the permission has been commenced.

Most of us, if not all of us, want to see MetroLink delivered and I certainly do. If I brought in the amendment tabled by the Labour Party or by People Before Profit, and I understand the motivation behind them, then those developments would be restricted to a two or three-year planning permission. Frankly, that would not work and that is why I cannot accept these amendments.