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

On the Deputy's first question, we will look to clarify the language. It is an important intervention. We have had a case where a planning authority refused permission on zoned land that has been provided for housing on the basis of population targets of a previous NPF - the 2016 targets. The NPF is being revised, and the population has grown. While I do not want that to be a barrier, we want the planning authority to be able to have that effective headroom for land that has already been identified and zoned. I have given a couple of instances where this would be the case. It is to support the plan-led approach. We have all come across cases where a certain number of permissions were granted to deliver X thousand dwellings and the conversion rate of that can be much lower than the permissions granted. If another application comes in for zoned serviced land, it could potentially be refused because of permissions granted even though they are not activated. It could be deemed that that population target has been met already. I do not want to see that happen. It would stunt growth.

This is to support a plan-led approach, particularly when we get to discuss the length of development plans later in the Bill. We have an NPF review here as well. I do not want a planning authority to feel that that is the absolute ceiling and the cut-off.

We are looking at the terminology within it as members have brought it to my attention. It may be that we will look to slightly change the language within it to clarify the position. We are not trying to give carte blanche, but I do not want an arbitrary ceiling. There could be a situation where developments happening in tandem with the permissions are granted, but a portion of them are not actually activated - it could be phased zoning or phased developments. Another planning permission application might be refused purely on the basis that the target has been reached.

We are still working through the wording and whether we want to clarify that wording further. This is a matter I have discussed with members of the committee as well. I think it is an important intervention. All of us rightly talk about the need for supply to meet the demand and to catch up on a lack of housing supply. If we have false ceilings on certain planning administrative areas whereby permissions will be refused because other permissions have been granted but have not yet been realised, that would be a serious problem. That is the reason for this amendment and why this section is being inserted. We are looking at the language around it.