Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Let us remember that SHDs exist because the Oireachtas voted for them, although I voted against them. I say that only in deference to our guests.

To return to what Mr. Corr said earlier, I believe we do need cheerleaders for local authorities, which were wrongly blamed for the delays in the planning process even though they were due to the design of the planning process, which is a central government matter. Industry, too, had a responsibility in respect of its engagement with the process.

Not all of us who object to SHDs are opposed to increased densities. I am a strong advocate of increased densities in urban centres. I live in the suburbs and believe there is a role for increased densities in the urban cores of suburbs, a position I will defend even if I lose votes over it. Nevertheless, it concerns me sometimes that any politician who wishes to engage in the planning process through third party submissions and appeals is automatically branded as nimbyistic. While I do not mean that anyone at the meeting has suggested that, it is part of the public debate. Many of us, in advocating for increased density, also want to ensure there is adequate infrastructure, public transport and so on. The difficulty is that while the board or planning authority can make a decision on the plan, it cannot control whether adequate investment in public transport, amenities and so on will follow. I wish to defend the rights of members of the public and politicians to engage in the process because that is important.

I challenge Mr. Spain on one point. He is correct that the SHDs and the new apartment design guidelines have increased the level of investment in the sector, but they have also reduced standards. The new apartment design standards will significantly reduce the size of apartments, including for families. I am not against build-to-rent in principle but there is increased flexibility for more studio apartments, for example, and there will be increased numbers of smaller apartments in areas where they are not needed. In the urban centre of Dublin, for instance, what are needed are more two and three-bedroom apartments to allow families live there for life, rather than small apartments.

I return to the legal difference between the planning authority and the board in respect of county development plans. It is important we understand the matter. Am I correct that the board has to have regard for the development plan only when a planning authority has to comply with it? For example, in the controversial case of St. Anne's Park, a city manager can oppose the proposition but the board can approve it because there is a legal difference in respect of the approach. Will Ms Kenny confirm that?

I asked Mr. Corr a question and it may have slipped his mind. If SHDs are to continue, although I would prefer if they did not, are there mechanisms we could put in place to monitor them independently, in order that the kinds of abuses about which some of us are concerned could be identified and teased out?

Finally, I turn to Dr. Duffy. If fast-tracking applications is the only measure that concerns him in respect of this issue, rather than undermining the city and county development plans - I will take him at his word in that regard - I presume he would have no difficulty with local authorities being given the primary responsibility to make such decisions if the same period, namely, the all-in 22 to 24 weeks that is currently dealt with under SHDs, was dealt with by local authorities. I presume that the problem is with the 22 or 24-week period rather than whether it is the local authority or An Bord Pleanála that makes the primary decision.