Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the officials from the Department and the institute. This is an important engagement this morning. We all acknowledge there is a housing crisis. From the outset, we need to ensure we keep intact the integrity of the planning process. I do not doubt but that the new legislation achieves that. The officials might clarify where the integrity is defined in terms of the new legislation. It is important for public representatives and the wider citizenry to have confidence in our planning system.

I acknowledge this is reactionary legislation due to the times we live in. The delegates might comment on some of the proactive planning envisaged. I acknowledge this is a matter for another day but they might comment on it in light of the new national development plan. Mr. Cussen stated the demand is essentially in Dublin and that he expects the large schemes to be rolled out mainly in Dublin. Fundamentally, that is the problem. Dublin is like a vortex for economic activity and, by extension, demand. We do not often see the term "balanced regional development". This term implies the spreading of economic activity across the country to areas that have capacity but which, unfortunately, do not have either the infrastructure or economic activity required to house many of the people we are currently trying to house. The officials might refer to that in their comments. There are many planners present. Until we have the wider holistic view, we will be revisiting this problem in another cycle. The officials might mention in their response that we need a more proactive planning vision for the country. That requires the necessary tools, not only for the policy makers but also for local authorities so they can provide capacity so housing and economic activity can happen in the regions. This would remove some of the considerable pressure in places such as Dublin.

I recognise this legislation is just one lever or tool in responding to the crisis we currently face. The Minister has no option but to examine all options for alleviating the pressure on housing. Planning is obviously one area he must examine. He must also account for viability, land use, etc.

The whole planning process must be taken into account. I take account of what Senator Boyhan said about the Dublin task force on assessing the existing planning applications. Could this be clarified? Some are quite old and may not be viable for one reason or another, be it due to levies, house design, house type or other factors. Could the witnesses respond on that? Is it likely that many will be reviewed under a new process? That is an important point to clarify.

Some people talk about the democratic deficit. For any councillor elected, it is when making a local area plan or county development plan or zoning land that democratic accountability should feature. Many of us were councillors. Could the delegates reaffirm that accountability still remains in the process? I believe they will confirm it but it needs to be reinforced in their response.

Could the delegates clarify that any large-scale housing project with over 100 units or any project for student accommodation will not be applied for in any place that is not accommodated under a local area plan or county development plan? Could they clarify that the local authority members will still have the final say on where future development will happen, and on its scale and density?

I am happy to see a defined timeline or sunset clause in the legislation. The final date is in December 2019. The Minister has flexibility to extend the period for two years. That is appropriate in the times we live in. Could the delegates confirm that when the time comes, be it December 2019 or two years later, at which time I hope the crisis will have passed, the legislation will dissolve and that we will then refer back to the existing position?

I wish to make some points on my experience of the planning process. The Irish Planning Institute has given views from the perspective of planners but there are sometimes conflicting views among planners. I have often noted frustrations emerge when local authority planners held one view and private planners held an opposite one. Ultimately, planners will decide in any case because An Bord Pleanála will hire them. The board will have the overall say in terms of recommending a decision.

The current frustration is over the delays in the local authority system, be it because of resources or other factors. One must be fair to local authorities because they were denuded of considerable expertise and staff over recent years. We need to recognise that as a committee. Many planners resigned or retired within the local authority system. Much experience has been lost. The consequence is that there are now many delays in having preplanning meetings. As I stated, there is frustration over a lack of consistency. The IPI made the good point that if a planner is appointed for a large-scale scheme, that planner should stay with it almost from the preplanning stage to the making of a decision. This is not currently the case. I and, I am sure, many members have seen cases in which the planner who deals with a proposal initially moves on in a couple of months, with his replacement possibly taking a completely different view. The new process might address that and result in more consistency in having dedicated personnel to deal with large-scale applications. The delegation might clarify whether this will be the case.

My other concern is on the appeals process. It is important that the officials clarify whether there is a concern. If An Bord Pleanála ultimately arrives at a decision, where is the right of appeal and who does it go to? Is it another body or somebody within the board? Where is the integrity within that process? It is important that this be addressed if it is not already addressed.

The flood relief measures in this legislation have not been spoken about. I have been working on this for a number of years. I refer to where lands have been damaged or flooded and the planning obligations regarding obtaining the consents, involving the officials from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, heritage officials, the local authorities and many others. It takes months for somebody who wants to repair a river bank to deal with waste permits and planning legislation and land is literally destroyed. We need a streamlined system whereby there can be an urgent response, not only to the OPW but, by extension, landowners, be it through the local authority or advice. Immediate consent should be given to them for the repair of land banks where flooding has occurred. I have seen land-holdings wiped out. Landowners are hamstrung. They cannot respond because they do not have the consents in place. Local authority officials are frustrated also. Could the officials clarify whether this legislation will address that problem?