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

I thank the Chair. I also thank the Minister for his engagement. I have three points in response. First, I welcome the commitment to specify in regulations what will constitute commencement. All of us are aware there are already issues about what constitutes effective commencement. The commitment in this regard, therefore, was very good to hear.

Second, one of the Minister's critiques of our proposed amendments is that we referred to housing specifically but that the amendments would relate to planning for all forms of development. I absolutely stand over that, however, because while I think all of us focus on housing, as that is where the biggest need is, namely, the need to see the delivery of homes, the reality is that having an overly long duration facility for planning also has a knock-on effect where that relates to non-residential sites. What we are seeing, therefore, is vacancy leading to dereliction. There are vacant and empty sites and people sitting on them. This affects communities and impacts them adversely. This occurs whether these sites are earmarked for housing or for other developments. I know the Minister accepts that point. Indeed, all of us here are aware that perhaps the most frustration for local communities arises from vacant and derelict retail sites or community amenities that have been left vacant. Reducing the duration of planning permission and the period someone can sit on land where planning permission has been granted will have a positive impact on vacancy and dereliction, whether the planning permission has been granted for residential use or not.

While I am speaking about this point, I was very disappointed this morning to hear that the publication of the revised housing targets is being delayed until the autumn, according to the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan. When we are looking for more urgency and ambition on the delivery of housing, it was unfortunate to hear that the revised targets we were promised this spring are now being knocked back to autumn. It is not positive.

My third point concerns what is perhaps the Minister's key objection to these amendments, which is on the point of funding. The Minister is saying that if we were to reduce the default planning duration from five years, as it is at present, to three years, as our proposal suggests, this would have a knock-on impact and cause difficulty for developers and anyone wishing to develop, including the State, in respect of securing funding. I must say that is at odds with what I hear from those who are actively looking to build and are telling me it is the delays in the process that put funding in jeopardy more than anything else. I think I am right in saying that for smaller-scale developments certainly, it is the case that funding has been secured in advance of or while the planning permission process is under way. What puts that funding in jeopardy are delays and uncertainty in the process. This is particularly the case where there are long delays due to appeals. As I said, I have spoken before about the issue of the abuse of appeals processes and so on. If the Minister is saying it is going to be more difficult for the State, or some larger developers, to secure funding over the shorter period, surely we can address that issue in other ways. I refer to making a distinction where the permission is for a much larger-scale scheme, for example, where there might be more difficulty in securing funding. I just do not, however, see the problem here. How is it going to jeopardise funding if applicants have three years to secure the funding as opposed to five years? Uncertainty and construction inflation is what causes funding to be at risk and projects to lose out, as is happening at present. Most people I speak to who want to build and are building generally want certainty and a more timely process. I do not, therefore, see the risk here.