Mr. John Sheahan:

On behalf of the Local Authority Members Association, LAMA, I thank the joint committee for the invitation to address members on the general scheme of the planning and development (No.1) Bill 2014. I am PRO of LAMA and joined by my colleagues Councillor Bobby O'Connell, general secretary, and Councillor Sean McGowan, assistant secretary. The Local Authority Members Association was founded in 1980 and is a prescribed organisation working on behalf of local authority members. Our membership is made up of members from all 31 local authorities, while our executive is made up of a representative from each authority to give us an inclusive and holistic representation of councillors on the front line of local government.

LAMA welcomes the general scheme of the planning and development legislation and support efforts to kick-start growth and jobs in the construction industry. To date, planning in Ireland has been retrospective and policy has been changed or adapted to react to the needs of a changing society. We zoned massive tracts of lands in boom times in the belief demand would continue at unrealistic levels. Proper planning can only be achieved when the proper infrastructure is put in place, including water supply, waste water treatment facilities and connectivity with the services a modern society like Ireland requires.

The general scheme proposes to retain Part V but reduce the percentage of social housing required from 20% to 10%. It is also proposed that the 10% be provided in actual social housing units, rather than as land or money, as was previously the case. This is positive and LAMA supports it. We also welcome the closing of loopholes, whereby money in lieu of social houses was acceptable. The last policy failed in this respect, with less than 2% of social housing having been provided nationally since Part V was introduced. A Part V style provision needs constant monitoring. Provision should be properly dispersed throughout developments and thought given to flexibility within the relevant percentage so as to accommodate future demand. What works in large cities may not work in rural areas and vice versa.

A vacant site levy is to be applied to vacant sites in towns with populations over 3,000. The vacant site levy should be tied with development plans and local area plans. Currently, local area plans are for towns with populations of 5,000 or more. This should be the starting point for the levy, as lands in towns without plans have no structure outside the core strategy policy. A provision should be inserted into the Bill to cover force majeurecases in relation to sites where an owner has fallen on hard times or is suffering from ill health. No site should be developed just to avoid a levy and each site's case should stack up in the interests of proper and sustainable planning. Levies collected should be ring-fenced for the regeneration of the centre of the town in which they are collected.

We welcome the changes to have reduced development contributions in the interests of supporting the kick-starting of developments with existing planning permission. With this change, more favourable contributions under new development contribution schemes could be applied to developments with current live permission.

We also ask that support be given to developments that lead to manufacturing jobs in local communities and that these be exempt from any development contribution.

I now turn to the modification of the duration of planning permissions. The "use it or lose it" principle will allow local authorities to remove planning permission from a developer if he or she does not use it. Permissions granted prior to 1976 were for life, but post-1976 the five-year permission rule applied. Permissions should still last for five years, but in the case of large developments a planning schedule from the developer containing commencement dates, phasing proposals for building and proposed finishing dates should be agreed with the local authority. If these are not adhered to, planning permission could be removed. We recommend this schedule be put in place two years into the life of the permission and work similarly to seeking permission consequent for developments with outline planning permissions. As local area plans are reviewed every six years, five-year planning permissions should still suffice.

We thank the committee for its time and hope our concerns will be taken into account in framing the Bill. We also request feedback on our presentation and welcome questions from members of the committee. Part 2 of the Bill deals with the introduction of a planning regulator. We have views and concerns in this respect and would welcome an opportunity to relate them to the committee at some stage in the future.