Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 7, to delete lines 15 to 17 and substitute the following:"(iii) be so made only where the applicant for permission has fulfilled the requirements set out in section 8,

(iv) be in such form and contain such information as is prescribed, and

(v) be accompanied by the appropriate fee,".

This amendment provides for payment to the board of a fee for a strategic housing application as part of the making of the actual application to the board under section 4 of the Bill. There already exists a provision under section 144(1A)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, for the board to determine fees for an application for any strategic infrastructure development, and this amendment extends that provision to strategic housing development applications. Of course, it should be remembered this is not a money-making exercise on behalf of An Bord Pleanála, rather it is a concerted effort to ameliorate the current housing emergency throughout the country. Therefore, any fees charges under this provision will be subject, as is currently the case, to ministerial approval, and in this context I would expect the fees charges by the board to be commensurate with the work undertaken in progressing applications strategic housing developments.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are similar to amendments previously tabled in the Seanad. These amendments effectively propose that a developer who has not commenced building on foot of a planning permission for more than 100 housing units on one site, be it in the same local authority area or in an adjoining local authority area, should be prevented from seeking planning permission for a strategic housing development on another site. As we indicated in the Seanad deliberations, there may be a number of valid reasons and circumstances why a developer may not have commenced work on a housing scheme for which planning permission has previously been granted. Such reasons could include poor market conditions, changing demand for housing in the area concerned, changed demand for particular house types or delays in the provision of infrastructure. It is also often the case that large-scale developers will have a number of projects in the pipeline at various stages of development. In addition, a developer may have a number of projects for which planning permission has been secured but that may be scheduled for development at sequential times. In effect, the planning system should be sufficiently flexible to take account of these different types of scenarios while still ensuring that necessary large-scale housing developments can be brought forward in the right locations where people most urgently need them having regard to market conditions.

In this regard, following the Seanad discussions I tabled an amendment which is now incorporated in the latest text, which provides that an extension of duration of permission in respect of strategic housing developments will only be possible where substantial works on a development have been carried out during the original planning permission period. This type of approach is much more effective in my view and will have the positive effect of incentivising developers to act on planning permissions and not to sit on, and hoard, the sites in question. This approach provides a better overall balance, contrary to the approach in these particular amendments which, as I have indicated, are aimed at preventing planning applications from being made in the first instance. Consequently, for all of these reasons, I must oppose amendments Nos. 11 and 12.