Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations, which I have read. I apologise for my absence but I had to attend another meeting for a short time.

Some colleagues mentioned the work done by Killian Woods for The Sunday Business Postand also the academic report, De-democratising the Irish Planning System. Is it fair to say that PII and the builders it represents had unprecedented access to the then Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney? According to one newspaper article:

One PII member told the academics that then housing minister Simon Coveney heard one PII member discuss the fast-track concept in an interview on national radio, and rang him up. The pair met four times over a six or seven-week period, locked in meetings from 8pm to midnight.

The PII member went through what his vision was for the Irish planning property system. PII, as a group, had a vision for planning in Ireland and for changing the planning process. Were the meetings with the then Minister, Deputy Coveney, arranged in a very short space of time? Do the witnesses agree that this access to the Minister, where the PII met him six or seven times in six or seven weeks from 8 p.m. until midnight, was unprecedented for a specific group? Were all of the meetings held in the Department? Were other meetings held in other places in Dublin? Were all of the meetings logged in the lobbying register?

We supported this Act initially because we were told by stakeholders that the planning process was one of the main blocks to delivering housing. I was interested to hear Mr. Corr say that planning is not a roadblock for housing delivery.

Mr. Corr also called for adequately resourced local authorities, and I agree with him on that. I will talk to him about how those development teams work.

An Bord Pleanála is charged, first, with dealing with the applications. Last year, approximately 18,000 homes were constructed. This might not be a question for the board, but how many homes do Mr. Corr, Dr. Norton, Mr. Spain and Dr. Duffy believe will be delivered this year? What increase will there be on last year and do they believe any increase is attributable to the new planning process that has been put in place? My understanding from representatives of the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, and others who have appeared before this committee is that the original target of 25,000 for this year will not be met and that it will be closer to 20,000 or 21,000. It is a major concern that in a situation where there is a new process that is supposed to be delivering housing - I agree with Mr. Hyde on that - we are not seeing that delivery.

What have we given up instead? We have given up an input from communities into the planning process. That is what I hear on the ground when communities have applications foisted upon them. This week, coincidentally, I was in Rush to listen to members of a community on a SHD application that has been made. It is an increase on the original one and they feel that aside from making a submission to the board, with all due respect to the board, they do not have a process that enables them to discuss it with their councillors. When this was introduced, the then new Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, sent a circular to all local authorities stating that members were not allowed to call planning files to public meetings at the county council. Not only did we have a situation where there was a roadmap for going over the local authorities and allowing An Bord Pleanála under the legislation to disregard a development plan, a master plan or a local area plan, we were also taking away any type of consultative power the local authority members had in each local authority to call planning files to meetings and to raise points on behalf of communities.

I say that as somebody who rarely objects to things. However, when one sees some of the applications that are going to the board, one can understand the concerns of communities. Even the councillors they elect do not have a say at a formal public council meeting and can only make submissions to the plan. Has this increased housing delivery in real terms? Can it be attributed to SHD? I do not believe so. We need properly resourced local authorities that have the know-how to make those decisions at local authority level. It is reverting to what we had previously, because I do not see the evidence when there are 15,000 permissions granted and approximately 5,000 of the permissions granted have been started, but 10,000 have not.

I also have a question on reapplications. These are applications that come to the board that already have planning permission for lands, such as the Chivers site in Coolock and the like, where there is a change from housing developments or homes to intensifying and increasing the density on particular sites. Does the board keep an eye on applications that go to it for lands that already have a live planning application? If that is tracked, one will potentially see where sites are being flipped and where new applications are going to the board just to increase the value of a site but not to deliver homes on the ground. A number of examples have been outlined. I see it in my area of Dublin Fingal, which is a very active county where over 82 sites are open. My concern is that through this process we are allowing people to flip sites and increase value.

Does Mr. Corr see this legislation as having brought about a substantial increase in the build-to-rent developments that we see in urban areas, in particular? I look at certain applications and where people are looking to get their foot on the ladder the permissions being sought and granted for swathes of our towns and cities are for build-to-rent only. We need to have more regard for housing mix.