Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 13 December 2016

Select Committee on Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government

Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Bill 2016: Committee Stage (Resumed)

2:10 pm

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

Amendment No. 70, if adopted, would make the system unworkable on the basis of submissions from prescribed bodies had to be made publicly available, and if I have interpreted it correctly, this information would then have to be subject to a further round of public consultation.

It would lead to numerous cycles of public consultations which would have serious impact on the timeframes for decision making on development proposals as provided for in the Bill. That is if we have read the amendment correctly. If we have not, the Deputy can let us know and we can revert to him. Clarity would help.

It is important to note that the board's power and mandate are to make decisions on the applications before it. It cannot increase or augment an application by recommending an increase in the number of houses in a development. Conversely, in its final decision it may restrict the scale or scope of a proposed development. Even if an applicant is granted full planning permission, the decision cannot go beyond the parameters of the development originally proposed, full details of which would have been made available for public inspection and consultation. Therefore, we oppose the amendment.

Amendment No. 71 proposes to amend the two core considerations of the board in any proposed development - the likely consequence for proper planning and sustainable development of the area of the proposed development and the likely effects on the environment or a European site of the proposed development – by including a reference to an assessment of housing needs of disabled persons. This would not be an appropriate reference in this instance. We are not sure of the intention behind the amendment or what it aims to ensure. Such an assessment is for the housing authority to conduct or consider, with reference to those on its housing lists who may have a disability and need to be accommodated accordingly. In addition, any social housing, including the specific needs of those with a disability, would more appropriately be addressed by a housing authority through the Part V processes and agreements reached with developers. Perhaps there is an issue with the wording of the amendment that we need to discuss.

Amendment No. 73 is unnecessary. It states the board "shall be bound by the EIA and AA requirements of the 2000 Act, as set out in Parts X and XAB, respectively, of that Act". That is already the case.

Amendment No. 76 proposes to delete, in part or in full, section 9(13) which provides for the application of a penalty clause where the board fails to make a decision on a proposed strategic housing development within the statutory period of 16 weeks. In doing so, the amendment would remove the provision in subsection (13)(a) which provides that, even though the 16-week period may have expired, the board can still proceed to make a decision on the application. Accordingly, I cannot accept the inclusion of the amendment, as it would prevent the making of decisions on planning applications beyond the 16-week period.

By way of an alternative approach, amendment No. 77 proposes only to delete the penalty clause. However, I must oppose the amendment. The inclusion of this clause sends a clear message to developers of our absolute determination and that of the board to ensure housing is delivered within specified timeframes and, where decisions are not made within the timeframes proposed, penalty clause provisions may be applied. Therefore, I oppose this amendment also.

I accept the principle of amendment No. 75 which proposes that the Minister may, by way of regulations, only extend the statutory 16-week period set down for the board to make a decision on application and, consequently, that he may not reduce that period below 16 weeks. Therefore, in accordance with established practice, I will ask the Deputy to withdraw amendment No. 75 on the basis that we will examine the legal and drafting aspects of the proposed amendments with a view to tabling amendments to the same effect on Report Stage.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.