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

The section has been amended by means of amendment No. 605. It includes a provision that many of us felt was very controversial when we discussed it. The section states:

Neither a planning authority nor the Commission shall refuse permission for proposed development for reasons that the housing growth target included in the housing development strategy in respect of the settlement (within the meaning of Part 3) concerned has already been reached.

During the lengthy discussion we had on the amendment on 21 February, one of the questions I asked the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, was whether there had been a prevalence of these decisions and if he was aware of them. The Minister was quite definitive. At one point, he stated that his understanding was that there had been no decision made solely on the basis of those grounds. He referred to how he was trying to future-proof our planning legislation.

I have a full copy of the letter that the Attorney General sent not only to the Minister but also to other figures in government on 3 February. It has been reported in The Ditch and other newspapers. The concern I have is materially relevant to this section, which is why I asked to raise it. The Attorney General stated, after quoting amendment No. 605:

It is understood that this proposed amendment has been prompted by a refusal of planning permission for a strategic housing development of some 98 units in Greystones in County Wicklow in May 2023.

He also stated:

In its decision, the planning authority refused the planning application on the basis that, notwithstanding that the site was zoned, the housing growth target for the area had already been achieved.

The Attorney General went on to express some concern about the wording of the amendment because the phrase "housing growth target" was specific to the decision of Wicklow County Council and its housing strategy and is not necessarily commonly used. He went on to argue that the wording of the amendment may need to be changed.

The concern I have is that we were given the impression by the Minister that this amendment was not based on existing examples of such a refusal. The letter that the Attorney General sent to the Minister says the opposite. It flatly contradicts the Minister's testimony in front of this committee. I am concerned because the case in question related to a single development. We have had submissions from many industry organisations suggesting proposed amendments. That is entirely legitimate and appropriate. The Construction Industry Federation and Irish Home Builders Association made a long list of proposed amendments and gave them to all members of the committee. This was not one of the issues that the industry representatives raised. We know from the story in The Ditch that the Minister's adviser has met representatives from Cairn Homes on four occasions since the refusal by the planning authority. There is a genuine concern that this amendment has resulted from one specific planning decision, and possibly on foot of lobbying by the applicant in that case.

For accountability and transparency, it is important that this committee has truthful, accurate information about the origins of the amendment. To be clear, I have no issue with any member of this committee or the Government being lobbied by organisations. That is a function of democracy. I have no issue with organisations requesting that amendments be tabled. Many of us have tabled amendments that have been brought to us by organisations, but we declare that. We talked about Wind Energy Ireland, Conradh na Gaeilge and others. I do not believe the information we were given on 21 February was accurate. I do not understand why we were not given accurate information. I appreciate that I am putting the Minister of State in a slightly difficult position. I would have much preferred if the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, had been here for this exchange, but we have to work within the rules of the committee.

The provisions in amendment No. 605 are now part of this section. I would like the committee to be told the truth about whether this amendment solely arose from that planning decision of Wicklow County Council with respect to the Cairn case. Did Cairn lobby anybody connected to Government or the Minister in respect of the text of the amendment? I would also like to know why there is such variance between the content of the Attorney General's letter and the information the Minister gave to this committee on 21 February.