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

We are taking feedback from the Local Government Management Agency, LGMA, and other bodies, on this matter. One of the big challenges we have concerns brownfield urban development sites. It has been said to us clearly that the 15% limitation in this regard was restrictive. We are looking at some larger developments which we want to have that desired mix of crèches, shops, launderettes and whatever else. To achieve that outcome, 15% was far too restrictive. Therefore, we are saying that we should go to 30% and allow that to be varied, as is deemed appropriate.

This is a positive move which speaks to the experience we have had of a lack of development on brownfield sites in our cities, in particular. It is genuinely considered that this proposed amendment would limit our ability to respond to possible future external factors, which could affect the viability of sites with which we already have issues. The ability to vary by regulation the percentage of the LRD floor space that comprises a development would allow the planning system to respond to changing conditions and circumstances in certain communities, depending, for example, on what facilities are required. I genuinely do not foresee a situation where we are going to see what the Deputy suggested. We need more people living in redeveloped brownfield sites in our cities, but we must have liveable communities with facilities.

The Deputy referred to cases where the amount of floor space would be varied to below 50%. That is not going to happen. The 30% maximum other use threshold in the Bill, and that is where it is set, will allow the relevant local authority, and it is the local authority concerned and not the board, to decide, based on the local development plans, what is appropriate in a relevant area on a case-by-case basis. It is important to remember that context as well. We must allow that ability, and it would be far too prescriptive to do otherwise. This process is about returning planning to those who should know best, namely, local planners and local authority members.

The whole purpose of this legislation is to bring the planning process back to the local area and to the planning officials who know the prevailing local conditions and circumstances best. It is better for qualified planners to do that, and to be able to make that distinction as applications come in, rather than for us to be far too prescriptive and restrictive at a general level. If we are to restore planning for these large-scale developments to a local level, as I am going to do, and involve planners who know the area and who must have regard to and will be following the local development plan into which local councillors will have input, as they should, there must be a level of flexibility to allow for those conditions.

Housing developments of this scale need local supporting amenities. I realise the Deputy is aware of that point. Such developments require services and other facilities, and planning authorities must be able to ensure that they are provided for in LRD proposals. Therefore, this change I am bringing forward is a positive one, and I cannot accept the Deputy's amendments. They are far too restrictive and on a one-size-fits-all basis. Allowance must be made for a local ability to vary specifications and to make decisions on a local level. I think it is appropriate to do that, but I thank Deputy Paul Murphy for the amendment.