Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We are familiar with them. They are unfairly criticised on some occasions in public discourse. There is a view that they represent big industry, which is the case, but that they also represent big bucks. In simple terms, that is just the perception. I recognise it is somewhat different from that.

I want to focus on three groups on this first round, namely, the CIF, the PII and the IIP. Anyone who read The Irish Timesonline this morning or later in the day would have seen a headline by Harry McGee about planning applications for 70,000 homes awaiting decisions from An Bord Pleanála or the High Court. That is the reality of it. We had An Bord Pleanála before the committee last week. We all recognise it needs more staff, funding and resources. I raised the suggestion with An Bord Pleanála last week about fees. I asked if we are talking about the applicants or the citizens engaging. There was a strong hint that the construction industry and developers collectively should pony up substantially more money to run An Bord Pleanála. That is something I would like to hear about because there has been talk about sustainability and that they must be financially viable. "Property" and "business" are not bad words in my vocabulary. Everyone outside here too realises that, but I would welcome the comments of witnesses on it.

I will go to the CIF first. It was stated there are a lot of planning applications but most of them are for apartments. People want to know what is happening. Mr. Farrell spoke earlier about the figures and gave us a bit of a reality check. That is important. I wish to touch on two or three issues. He said it is sometimes said in response to delays in the planning system that there are adequate permissions in place. It is not an exaggeration that many householders trying to deliver housing units are concerned. He also states that, given the high demand, permissions will run out by 2023. It is a concern that permissions are about to run out. What are the statistics in that regard? What does he think should be done in regard to that concern?

I commend the PII on the way it set out its paper. Specific annexes, observations and asks are set out clearly at the back. I always think the bottom line is what is the ask. We are used to having a lot of meetings with the witnesses and everybody else. We go away and scratch our head and say what was the ask. I will try to summarise them.

It was stated that many of the provisions in the Bill refer to regulations. It was also stated it is difficult to interpret how the provisions of the Bill will operate in practice without also seeing the regulations that will apply to them. The PIA asked that the revised planning and development regulations would be published in draft form with the Bill. I fully concur with that. It makes sense. We talk about certainty and confidence in the planning process. How can we have certainty and confidence if we do not know what is inside the tin? The Department clearly knows what it has in mind, and we must have transparency on both sides of the fence. I do not wish to ask a question, I just want to be affirmative and say I think the PII is spot on and dead right.

It was also stated that An Bord Pleanála should retain the powers to grant permission for developments which may materially contravene a development plan policy objective by setting out appropriate terms. Will the witnesses explain the rationale for that? I would have some concerns in that regard. We talk about subsidiarity, decisions being made in communities and local plans, but I accept we also have regional plans and national plans. Will the witnesses from PII touch on that issue because it is an important one?

I now turn to Mr. Farrell from the IIP. He raised a particular concern that is of interest to me, namely, protected structures. That is why it jumped off the page. He refers to section 153 of the draft Bill. He says that, notwithstanding any of the other issues in the Bill, the word "demolition" may need to be replaced by "substantial demolition" or alternative wording. I would have concerns with that. He also referenced the High Court case of Sherwin v. An Bord Pleanála in 2021, which touched on these very important issues. Protected structures are clearly protected by statutory regulation and legislation. Mr. Farrell might not have time now, but I ask him to send a little note to the committee about it. I believe we would have many concerns about that. I ask the three groups to address those issues.