Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the representatives of the Department and the IPI for their attendance. I had considered the IPI's correspondence and report to us in advance and am highly impressed with it. It is very important to ask what are the real issues. The report of the housing supply co-ordination task force for Dublin stated there was the potential for 46,000 homes on land zoned, with essential services including roads and supply already in place. More than 33,000 units have permission and 7,000 are in the planning process. The planning system therefore cannot be solely blamed for the shortage of residential properties. These are facts from a report which I received from the Department. I did not make them up.

This week, I wrote to the Minister about a mapping exercise in a small part of south County Dublin, namely, Kiltiernan-Glenamuck. I was supplied with a map identifying the permissions and grants for 2,434 housing units. Some of them have subsequently withered. It is a section 49 catchment area and there are three levies, namely, the B1 Luas levy, the standard section 48 levy and the section 49 levy. The planning levy for a one-bedroom unit is €70,000. I had this confirmed this morning. To produce a five-bedroom unit in the same area the levy is the same: €70,000. Where is the logic? This levy scheme has been in place for eight years. A local authority has not carried out a review of the section 48 levy.

That is an impediment to development and bringing houses on-stream on land that is zoned residential. I dropped that letter into the Minister and I asked him to raise it with the chief executive. I also attached the maps, the folio numbers, the planning reference and everything else. They are facts that need to be investigated by someone in the Department.

I want to touch on a few areas. In 1999, special provision was inserted in Article 28A of the Constitution about democracy and engagement with local authorities. For the first time ever in our Constitution, we provided special status for communication with regard to local councils. In terms of my concern, it is about this appeals process. We operate a very successful third party appeals process. This is a democracy. Yes, there is a crisis. Everyone in this room wants more houses to be built, and we want them delivered quickly and on track. There is no dispute about that, but we cannot compromise the engagement of local elected members who are elected to represented people in communities to articulate their concerns about a whole range of matters. This is one of them. Have the witnesses touched on, or got any legal advice on, that? Do they consider that their proposals water down that in way? I consider that to be the case. I would like to hear what they have to say about that.

With regard to the appeals process, what exactly is the fee? There will be no appeals process, so we are telling citizens they will not be able to appeal. The witnesses should tell that to the county councillors when people come in to complain about a development with which they are unhappy. They say that the parties in Leinster House voted it out and there is no appeals process. That is most unsatisfactory. The question of the fees needs to be addressed.

What resources is the Department giving to An Bord Pleanála for this new imaginative scheme? Have the witnesses considered seconding planners to or taking planners from local authorities into the board or giving them specific roles within the board for a two or three year period? That is the sunset clause they spoke about. What engagement is going on with planners? What do the 31 local authorities think of the watering down of their functions? They are demoralised. I have spoken to a number of planners in local authorities in the past few weeks. That is an important point.

What about resourcing local authorities? They have local knowledge and local expertise, and they develop relationships on a range of issues. That is important.

On the strategic infrastructure development, SID, we know there are projects going on but on one major project in Dún Laoghaire, An Bord Pleanála missed its 18 week schedules on three occasions. It does not seem to have any idea of it. When I rang An Bord Pleanála recently, I was told me it had not even completed its report of an oral hearing that took place last October. It is now October 2016. A month ago the inspector had not been in a position to finalise her report for the board, so there are weaknesses in that process.

I am definitely against this proposal. There has been correspondence from the Minister today on the fast-tracking or waiving the pre-scrutiny legislation. I am against waiving anything if it waters down the participation of the citizens of this country in the planning process. I am all on for fast-tracking projects. I am all on for the plan and for delivering the houses, but I am against any undermining of planners and the citizens in the process. The witnesses are weak on that.

I will make two points to Mr. Walsh. He stated that this was a suite of measures. The Irish Planning Institute witnesses talked about the need for the consolidation of the planning Acts. Mr. Walsh might outline his plans for that. There is real role for the planning regulator, and I would like to hear Mr. Walsh's plans for that.