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

I am saying this in defence of the use of the language, so the Minister of State might bear with me. I do not read that as the Government trying to plan population growth. Population growth projections are provided but what the national planning framework does is try to say where that should go because we do not want over-concentration of population growth in Dublin and the GDA and it has identified regional centres. After I raise my other point, if the Minister of State could confirm that is what this is, it would be helpful.

The second point goes back to a comment the Minister of State made and a secondary comment in regard to the relationship between section 44 and section 219. There is a problem with this. Theoretically, the Minister of State is right that elected members have the reserve function to insert certain conditions into their development plans. However, if we look at the most recent attempt by Dublin City Council to insert a percentage requirement in multi-unit developments of owner-occupation units, that was struck down following a recommendation from the planning regulator. That was probably for good reason in that the intention behind what Dublin City Council was trying to do was correct but it was too blunt an instrument. We need to get to a point beyond just having that higher-level, local authority-wide strategic overview, which is generally what is in section 219 - sometimes there is a bit more detail but not always. When a planning authority is making a decision on an individual planning application, rather than attempting to put in the blunt instrument of a percentage of right-sizing units, which the Minister of State referenced, the local authority is empowered to make a decision on the application based on the actual granular data available not just in terms of population growth but, within that, the requirements around tenure, topology and life-cycle. That is not available at present.

The first thing is to say that the alternative option that the Minister of State proposed does not work because, generally, as the Dublin City Council case proves, it is too blunt. Proper planning should say that as you have all of this granular data - we do not currently have it but it would be great if we did - and the data is not just at local authority level or LEA level but at DED level or small area level, therefore, you can make much more informed decisions as to what is the most appropriate type of development. That is tangentially in support of the amendment but it is more to highlight a general problem.

The other issue is that section 219 and section 44 are obviously not the same, and the Minister of State is right that the content of the development plan has to be materially consistent with section 219. However, when a planning decision is being made, the things that are really important are the planning policy objectives or policy objectives, which are often in bold in our development plans. While the housing strategy and the remainder of the text in the housing development strategy and the development plan are the general guidance, it is those policy objectives that are key. At the moment, those policy objectives are too high-level, even within the development plan, from my own experience, to allow much more nuanced and, ultimately, better quality planning decisions on individual developments. I say that particularly with respect to high-density developments.

I would like to see us have much more high-density developments, particularly in our urban cores. I live in an urban village. All of the recent grants of planning permission for residential units have been for high density. I welcome that. There was some consternation locally, because it is generally a two and three-storey village. If everything is four storeys plus, you are trebling or quadrupling the density and in most cases, it is being done in an appropriate manner. However, when you start to move to other areas, you get into these conflicts around not only the number of units but the topology, the tenure and the life cycle. I am only emphasising that point because this Bill was an opportunity to address that. I do not think it has and there will be nothing in the ESRI report that will assist us in doing that.

I would much prefer section 219(5) and the various sub-categories in section 44 and to have a much more explicit requirement for the development plan to set that out, not only at a high-level local authority which is what would currently be the case but at sub-level. I use the example of where I am. If you take Palmerstown, for example, as an urban centre or if you take Clondalkin village and surrounds as an urban centre, I would like to see the development plan make specific reference to how in those core urban centres sections 219(5)(a) through to (l) are stipulated explicitly in the development. Currently, that is not required. I am not saying it cannot be done, but it is not required. In my own development plan, it is not done.