Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No apologies have been received. Deputy Conor D. McGuinness is substituting for Deputy Gould.

The draft sustainable rural and Gaeltacht housing national planning statement proposes a clearer and more consistent national approach to rural housing, updating the 2005 guidelines. It aims to support sustainable rural communities, standardise the assessment of housing need, reduce inconsistencies between local authorities and strengthen planning measures to protect and promote the Irish language in Gaeltacht areas. I am pleased we have the opportunity to consider these regulations with the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy John Cummins, and his officials.

I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards reference witnesses may make to another person in their evidence. Evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. I remind witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The opening statement has been circulated to members. Is it agreed that we publish it on the committee website? Agreed. I now ask the Minister of State to read his opening statement.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the draft national planning statement on sustainable rural and Gaeltacht housing, which all of us will know the importance of.

The publication of a proposed policy direction on this subject in June marks an important step in implementing the Government's commitment under Delivering Homes, Building Communities to provide greater clarity, consistency and certainty in relation to where and how new housing in rural and Gaeltacht areas can be developed. The proposed policy direction and the drafting of the national planning statement, NPS, seek to provide an updated, shared and standardised national framework for applicants, planning authorities and communities alike.

The draft NPS is a significant much-needed overhaul of rural planning guidelines that have not been updated in over two decades. For too long people in rural Ireland have faced a planning system that can feel unnecessarily restrictive, complicated and above all inconsistent. That will change under the new national planning statement. If someone wants to build a home on a suitable site, in the community where they were raised, where their family lives and where they want to raise their own family, we should be asking how we can facilitate that and not looking for barriers to put in their way.

Of course planning rules matter, environmental protections matter and proper development matters, but your Eircode should not determine your prospects of getting planning permission. I want to move the planning system towards a culture of facilitation rather than restriction. Under these proposed changes, we will facilitate persons who are from a rural area to build their first home in that rural area in question, regardless of whether they owned a home in an urban area previously.

This is a particular problem for young people who go to college, get a job and buy a home. When they want to have a family and move back to where they are from, close to their family and support network, they have been prevented from doing so, but that will be possible under these changes.

We are addressing the use of blanket bans by local authorities on appropriate ribbon, infill and backland development, or those that place arbitrary caps on the number of homes that may be built on family farm holdings. We will facilitate people to right-size in close proximity to their existing home, acknowledging that in some circumstances, for medical reasons, people may need to adapt their housing needs.

We need local authorities to operate within a clear national framework, applying the same principles fairly and consistently, while allowing for proper consideration of local circumstances; because the Government recognises the vital importance of ensuring that rural and Gaeltacht communities remain vibrant, sustainable places in which people can live, work, raise families and contribute to local economic, social and cultural life.

The draft approach seeks to balance housing provision with wider objectives relating to environmental protection, climate action, infrastructure capacity, settlement planning and the protection and promotion of the Irish language in Gaeltacht areas.

The draft NPS is being prepared under the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2024 and is intended to replace the 2005 sustainable rural housing guidelines. It reflects significant changes in planning policy over the past two decades, including the revised national planning framework, the town centre first policy approach, climate and environmental obligations, and the introduction of the new statutory planning framework under the 2024 Act.

A key feature of the draft NPS is the distinction between rural areas under urban development pressures, where local housing need requirements generally apply, and wider rural areas, where proposals for single rural housing are generally assessed on the basis of normal planning and environmental considerations, with the exception of sensitive and Gaeltacht areas, where local housing need requirements also apply.

The draft approach seeks to support compact growth and the regeneration of rural towns and villages. Consistent with the town centre first policy, it supports new housing development in rural settlements, encourages the reuse of vacant and derelict properties and includes measures to facilitate housing development in smaller settlements where infrastructure deficits have constrained growth, including through developer-led infrastructure initiative.

An important element of the approach is its focus on creating greater consistency across planning authorities. The draft proposes national standardised local need criteria, establishes a clearer framework for assessing proposals in rural areas, and seeks to avoid arbitrary or overly prescriptive local policies that currently vary greatly from planning authority to planning authority. The objective is to ensure each application is assessed fairly on its merits. Crucially, this will end the current inconsistent approach where a house may be permitted in one part of the country while down the road in a neighbouring county, permission would be denied for the exact same type of development.

The statement reinforces the importance of protecting environmental quality, natural and built heritage, water resources, landscape character and climate resilience. Housing delivery and environmental stewardship must proceed together, and the draft approach provides guidance on how these considerations should be integrated into planning decisions.

In relation to Gaeltacht areas, the draft approach introduces, for the first time, specific national planning policy measures aimed at supporting and promoting Irish as a community language while facilitating sustainable housing development to meet local housing needs. It seeks to provide clarity and consistency within the planning system in relation to the protection and promotion of the Irish language in Gaeltacht areas. The concept of inter-Gaeltacht recognition for Irish speakers who live and work in one Gaeltacht to demonstrate compliance with local needs in any Gaeltacht nationally is intended to facilitate Irish speakers with local connections to a Gaeltacht area to remain resident within, return to or move between Gaeltacht communities.

The draft approach requires proposals for multi-unit schemes in Gaeltacht areas to be accompanied by a linguistic integration statement that would set out the proportion of dwellings in the development to be occupied by Irish speakers, based on the percentage of daily Irish speakers in the relevant language planning area. This is to ensure that the development of new housing estates strengthens, rather than dilutes, the linguistic character of the community.

The proposed policy direction in relation to housing in Gaeltacht areas was developed in collaboration with the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, as the Department with statutory responsibility for the language planning process under the Gaeltacht Act 2012, under which language plans are prepared for Gaeltacht language planning areas, Gaeltacht service towns and Irish language networks.

Overall, the draft NPS seeks to strike the right balance between facilitating housing delivery, supporting sustainable rural communities, encouraging vibrant rural towns and villages, protecting the distinctive character and sustainability of rural and Gaeltacht areas, and ensuring greater consistency within the planning system. These changes represent a fundamental shift away from overly rigid and inconsistent planning practices that some may argue have held rural communities back for too long. The draft NPS is now being assessed for the purposes of strategic environmental assessment and appropriate assessment under the relevant EU directives. The draft NPS and associated environmental documentation will be published for public consultation and submissions will be invited before the statement is finalised for Government approval.

I look forward to hearing the views of members of the committee. The publication of this draft is a significant development. We have been listening to the feedback we have received directly. I know members will articulate concerns they may have. As always, I look forward to interacting with the committee.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. This is a very welcome document and is long overdue. I had sight of a draft under the previous Government and thank God it never saw the light of day. That is all I will say in relation to that. This document, in the way it is presented and drafted and in the language it uses, is quite easy to read and understand. That is very important.

As I speak today, I am relating to my experience as a public representative for 22 years. During those 22 years, one-off rural housing has consumed the majority of my political life. I deal with it in probably one of the most difficult counties to get a one-off rural house - that is, Wicklow.

My comments are in no way politically motivated or aimed at the Minister of State or the officials; they purely relate to certain concerns I have with what is proposed in the draft. I have one major concern and that is the changing of the criteria for people who qualify to build a one-off rural house. Defining a rural area as an area with a population of 1,500 is fine in the sense that such a town or village might be in a rural setting but the form or structure of many towns and villages in Wicklow is in no way rural. In Wicklow at the moment, levels 10, 9 and 8 qualify for one-off rural housing. We are looking at open countryside, cluster developments in the rural hinterland and small villages which would not have a shop, church or school. These are exceptionally small villages, but now we are allowing levels 8, 7, 6 and 5 and are into what I would call built urban centres with populations of less than 1,500. I am frightened and worried about the impact that will have on the rural area itself.

I say this because I have a genuine fear. At present, people in rural Wicklow are having difficulty obtaining a site if they do not have their own land. Now, they are going to be competing for that very same site, which I am concerned about. However, we are also trying to promote the development of our small and large villages and to actively keep people within them as well as trying to bring other people into them so they can survive and sustain themselves into the future. Now, we are giving every one of them an opportunity to move out of that village and small town into the rural area. I genuinely have concerns about the implications this will have on the current people who are living in the rural area and have a social or economic need to live there, not because they were born in a town with a population of 1,500 and now, all of a sudden, because there are no sites available in Tinahely or in Dunlavin, are going to move out to the rural countryside. We need to focus on fixing how our villages are working before this is broadened out. That is an absolute, genuine fear I have.

One-off rural housing planning applications are completely and utterly different from any other application. It is a very personal process for any family to go through. Honestly, this needs to be looked at differently. I hear what the Minister of State is saying in looking to facilitate and bring consistency because there is absolutely no consistency. I have seen families throw money after money at professionals and they have not been given the advice they should have been given. I have seen applications from people who do not qualify who have thrown good money after bad and nobody has them they do not qualify and that they should stop. I honestly believe we now need to have a pre-qualification process, where an applicant can go into the council and, within two weeks, identify if they qualify or not. We then do exactly what the Minister of State has said: we facilitate that applicant and discuss it with them.

We then have location, design and visual impact, which are all down to interpretation by different planners. I can give example after example in my county where it is completely and utterly inconsistent. With the best will in the world, this will go some way but it will not change people's perception. The problem is you have a planning authority and the applicants themselves, some of whom, and I would say we have all met them, want to locate the house on the most sensitive piece of land they have and you cannot talk to them and say they will not get planning permission there. Alternatively, you have Coillte, which annoys the hell out of me, selling land to individuals where they have no hope of getting planning permission.

There needs to be a process where a rural applicant can ask whether they qualify and, if so, can then move to phase 2 where, as the Minister of State has pointed out, the council, rather than seeing this as a negative, can see the person qualifies, can facilitate them and can look at where this house is being located and can look at the landscape and the design of the house. There are the environmental and traffic issues, but they are standard; you either meet them or you do not. They are not down to interpretation. You either have your 80 m sidelines or you do not. You either pass the percolation test or you do not. All the rest is down to interpretation and that is where everybody gets frustrated and annoyed because there is complete and utter lack of consistency.

The only concern I have in this whole document is widening the scope to 1,500 people as a rural definition. It goes way too far. Currently, the national development plan has the facility and clearly states social economic need. Then, in the metropolitan area or what was under urban shadowing in previous documents, which tighten it down, areas outside of that had allowed flexibility. However, we are now saying every community that has a population of 1,500 people can qualify for a one-off rural house. That is going to put huge demand on the rural area and it is going to put huge stress on the local authorities, which are going to have to deal with all this. It is a counterproductive policy for trying to strengthen our small and large towns.

Apologies, I went way over time. I will be hanging around, so if the Minister of State wants to come back in later on, he can.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will give the Minister of State one minute to reply, which he might try to keep to so we can move on to other members.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not have much time to respond to the Senator.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State can come back in the next time if he wants. I will be here.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Senator saying the language is easy to understand. That was the whole goal at the outset of this, that this was a document for the applicant who is going to interact with it rather than for the technical people who are going to do it. I think a relatively good job has been done in that space.

I take the Senator's points relating to the 1,500. I will say, the CSO definition of a rural area is 1,500 or less. I understand what he is saying regarding the tiering, but I would view it in a slightly different way. I would say it is not an either-or situation. We obviously need to continue the planned development of settlement areas, and some of those settlements below 1,500 will grow in time. We have zoning objectives that are attaching to them, and we have the likes of rural regeneration and development funding. We have town centre-first policy, town and village renewal and vacant property refurbishment grants, all to support the in-town living.

However, we all know there are many settlements in the country where the ability to get a site within that area does not exist, which does not give the opportunity for somebody to have their housing need met. Because they were arbitrarily born within a settlement line, they have no opportunity to build within the settlement. We are trying to balance that and allow them to go outside the settlement.

I appreciate the points the Senator has made, but I emphasise this is a very balanced and well thought through approach to this. The key piece is we want to see consistency across the overarching process. There will always be subjectivity when it comes to individual planning applications and views on house type, etc., but we want to set the national planning framework so that it is the same in Waterford, Limerick or Wicklow and there is consistency of approach.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and officials for being with us today. Given we have waited for such a long time for these new regulations, it is important we get them right. Whatever differences we might have on policy, those of us on this committee, particularly those of us who have been here a long time, believe it is crucial we get it right.

Deputy McGuinness and I, as well as Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Farrell, did a series of meetings in July and early August with a large number of representative bodies and organisations from rural and Gaeltacht communities and islands specifically on this. I reflect back to the Minister of State, not as a criticism but just so he gets a flavour, that many said they are not entirely clear on how the consistency is going to impact on them. Everybody understands, and I accept, we need that consistency. However, given we have some local authorities that are stricter or more liberal, and some where there is a mixed approach, consistency can also disadvantage some while advantaging others, which is obviously the nature of it.

When the document was launched, Government made significant claims that this could lead to a doubling of planning permission grants.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I never said that.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is on the record that in Government figures - I am not saying the Minister of State said it - the number of 10,000 was quoted by several of his colleagues.

I have three questions, and I will give the Minister of State all my time to answer them because I am very keen to clarify as much of this as possible. Beyond what he said in his opening statement, will the Minister of State use some of the answering time to set out other aspects of what he has proposed which he believes will introduce that fairness and potentially more accessibility to people having positive planning decisions, particularly in those areas that are under urban pressure or where there have been more challenges to date?

The Minister of State mentioned that there would be public consultation on the environmental impact assessment, EIA, and the appropriate assessment, AA. How long will that take? If members of the public or Members of the Oireachtas have observations, not specifically on the EIA or AA documents but on the draft itself, will those be considered?

My third question relates to facts. Assuming the Government meets its timeline of having this agreed by the Cabinet by the end of the year, there will presumably have to be some level of change to existing county development plans. Can the Minister of State confirm whether that is his understanding and outline what the procedure involved will look like? Will local authorities use the expedited procedures in the Planning and Development Act? Many people are asking when, even if there is a Cabinet decision in December, these provisions will come into effect in local authorities if material alterations or variations to development plans are required after the Cabinet decision.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not believe any Minister would expect this to result in a doubling. I do not know what comments the Deputy is referring to in that regard. What we have consistently said is that we want to set a policy approach that will allow for consistency of approach. We have not set a target for what that will result in. It will obviously be based on individual applications that come in from around the country. Putting expectations or predictions on that is very challenging. We know that approximately 6,000 one-off homes are built every year. Not all of those are built in rural areas. Approximately 4,500 to 5,000 are in rural areas and the rest are in urban areas. It would be reasonable to say there will probably be an increase in planning applications as a result, but you can never determine the outcome of an individual planning application.

I set out some of the key points in my opening statement. The provision in relation to settlements with a population below 1,500 is significant for the reasons I outlined to Senator Casey. It provides the ability for somebody to right-size in close proximity to his or her home. We will all have experienced situations where people in rural areas are living in houses that are no longer suitable for their needs or are not adaptable, but they want to remain within the community where they grew up and established friendships and patterns. It is reasonable that, on medical grounds, somebody could build a modest home to meet his or her needs as he or she grows older. That is provided for in this national planning statement.

There is also the removal of prescriptive standards, which differ from local authority to local authority, whether in relation to infill, backland or ribbon development. Some local authorities impose density requirements over and above that. Other local authorities have prescriptive standards in relation to farm holdings and so on. We tried to highlight as many of those as possible in the draft national planning statement, and we are continuing to work on that within the Department.

The first home construction provision I outlined is also significant. Somebody may go away, go to college or get a job. Later, when he or she has a family, he or she may want to move back to the rural area where he or she grew up to support the local GAA club and local school. That person should have a reasonable expectation of receiving planning permission. There is obviously a lot in it-----

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to cut across the Minister of State, but, in my final minute, could he briefly answer the two procedural questions?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will be a public consultation. It is a case of a strategic environmental assessment, SEA, as opposed to an EIA. There will be a four-week consultation, which will be open to anyone, including Members of the Oireachtas and members of the public.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If Members of the Oireachtas or members of the public make submissions that deal with the substance of the document rather than the content of the EIA or AA, will those be considered?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The views of anybody who makes a submission in relation to a public consultation are always taken into consideration.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about development plans?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under the Planning and Development Act, which both the Deputy and I spent many hours going through at this committee and in the Dáil, local authorities will have to set out, within two months of the national planning statement being finalised by the Cabinet, whether their development plans are consistent or inconsistent with the national planning statement. That assessment will be reviewed by the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, and a plan will have to be put in place to vary the development plan. Importantly, the national planning statement has standing in its own right, even during the intervening period when local authorities are varying their development plans.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is helpful. Does the Minister of State have an expected timeframe for how long it will take local authorities, subject to their being willing to do so, to become compliant with this? Some local authorities may be nervous, notwithstanding the fact that the national planning statement has effect, while there is still content in a development plan that may be conflictive. Are we looking at the middle of next year or when does the Minister of State expect this process to be completed?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would expect local authorities to ensure consistency with the national planning statement as speedily as possible. The important thing for applicants and those interacting with the planning process is that the national planning statement stands in its own right. I expect local authorities to base their decisions on what is confirmed in the national planning statement, as opposed to what may currently be in their development plans.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is helpful. Where local authorities may have to make variations, will they use the expedited procedures set out in the new Act or the procedures under the 2000 Act?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Everything will shortly be under the 2024 Act. Whether the expedited procedure or another procedure is used will depend on how significant the variation is.

As I said, the important thing for those interacting with the planning process is that the national planning statement has standing. I expect local authorities, in making their decisions, to base them on what is in the national planning statement. The likes of blanket bans and other provisions that may currently be used as reasons for refusal will not be a basis for refusal once the national planning statement is confirmed following the environmental assessment.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is good to see the rural planning guidelines being reviewed. There is a need change, and we are well aware of that. I have been involved in planning with the local authority in my county, Clare, for many years. At times, it is difficult for some people to get planning permission in rural areas. I am aware of a couple of situations where sons and daughters of landowners had to go and buy sites to get planning permission. That is not good enough. Hopefully, the draft statement before us can help in these circumstances. I look forward to seeing how we can support people.

There are pre-planning meetings with local authorities for cases in which there are serious concerns about getting planning permission on sites in rural areas. Local authorities are willing to provide those meetings for local people and make it easier for them to get planning permission without additional costs applying, particularly given what it currently costs to get a planning application over the line.

I have a couple of quick questions. In the context of backland development, infill sites and ribbon development, what will these new draft guidelines mean?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Cooney for facilitating a meeting earlier in the summer on this topic. That meeting was very well attended.

I am acutely conscious of some of the points the Deputy highlighted. In relation to backland, infill and ribbon development, national planning policies and measures, NPPM, No. 5 sets out the position. The green boxes are the mandatory elements we are setting out. What is set out ensures that local authorities do not use those prescriptive reasons as the basis for decisions on planning applications.

There are a couple of caveats to this, obviously. If an infill site in or around town or village is the only site that allows access to the land behind, where that land behind is the natural expansion of that town or village, it would not be appropriate to fill that particular site because it would landlock the site behind it. In general, reasonable applications will not be refused on the basis of the three items which Deputy Cooney has just set out.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If these drafts come into place, will there be a need for local authorities to do variations to their county development plans?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Similar to what I said to Deputy Ó Broin, I would expect that most, if not all, local authorities will have to vary their development plans to ensure they are consistently aligned with this NPS. Obviously, it is a significant change to rural planning policy. It is the first time it has been updated in more than 20 years. There will be inconsistencies from local authority to local authority. Some will be more aligned with what is proposed and others will have a wider variance, and this speaks to the expedited process versus the more lengthy process. It is the intention that we will ensure local authorities can reflect what is in this, and there will be work on the mapping that local authorities will have to do which may take them some time.

It should be very clear in relation to the way the national planning statement has been set out that the overarching principles and the fairness we are trying to introduce in the system will be in place once the national planning statement is confirmed by Cabinet following the environmental assessment process. People will be able to make applications on the basis of this NPS, and we expect local authorities to base their decisions on the national planning statement because it has the hierarchy of ordering in the context of our national policy in line with the new Planning and Development Act 2024.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Minister of State is well aware, a number of planning applications have been refused as regards road access. This is something that needs to be reviewed and looked at. Is this part of these drafts? One of the big issues is where a son or daughter of a landowner wants to build a house on the landholding but they are not allowed to use the existing entrance. Can we review this and look at it to see how it could be made easier for these people to get planning?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a lot in this.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a straightforward question that Deputy Cooney has outlined. There are different categories of roads. In terms of national roads, I cannot override national transport policy in this rural national planning statement. What we have specifically called out in relation to local and regional roads is that we will generally support or be more favourably disposed towards shared entrances where they exist but we will not exclude new entrances. In relation to national secondary roads, we can cater for development on lightly trafficked sections, which is in line with national transport policy. In relation to the national primary roads, it is a far more complex situation which cannot be overridden by this national planning statement. Obviously it is fraught with difficulties from a traffic safety perspective as well. We have been very clear on pages 42 and 43 of the document on local and regional roads in particular.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister of State in favour of shared entrances that already exist?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise; I said pages 42 and 43 but I meant to say pages 46 and 47 of the document. It specifically calls out that new access arrangements are not precluded but it states the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the vehicular access can satisfy road safety requirements. When proposing a new access onto regional roads or local roads, the applicant will need to demonstrate all of these points. We want to be able to facilitate people, particularly on local and regional roads. Shared entrances are preferable to new entrances but national primary roads are a different kettle of fish altogether.

Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the Minister of State.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for coming before the committee and I thank the officials. I have a couple of questions that relate to the specific aspect of Gaeltacht planning and housing. As the Minister of State knows, tá an ghéarchéim tithíochta sa Ghaeltacht uafásach ar fad. The housing crisis in the Gaeltacht is devastating communities and, indeed, threatens the Irish language. Tá gá le tacaíocht i bhfad níos mó do thithíocht i gceantair Ghaeltachta and there is a need to give much greater support for housing in Gaeltacht areas. There are concerns that the new planning statement for rural and Gaeltacht areas could worsen things in relation to the Irish language and housing in Gaeltacht areas. Tacaímid le neartú na Gaeilge i gceantair Ghaeltachta, ach ní hé sin atá á dhéanamh leis seo.

In particular I want to raise a couple of specific questions. The proposal for multi-housing units in Gaeltacht areas will not protect the Irish language but, if enforced, will potentially weaken considerably existing protections in a number of local authority areas. I will give the example of the planning area of Cois Fharraige in Connemara, where under existing planning rules as operated by Galway County Council, multi-using housing developments are required to reserve 80% of units for Irish speakers for 15 years, but under the new national planning statement, this would be reduced to 58% of houses for only ten years. In the Minister of State's county of Waterford in Na Déise, which he is probably familiar with, it looks like the requirement to reserve 80% of units for Irish speakers for 15 years will fall to just 37% of housing for only ten years. Perhaps the Minister of State could address this issue and concern. Where exactly did this proposal on the percentage of units come from? Which Department did it come from?

Other issues of concern were raised by organisations such as BÁNÚ. There is a restriction that suitable sites need to be within a range of 3 km and there might not be suitable sites within that 3 km. Another issue is that inurement clauses have been reduced from 15 years to ten years. This essentially weakens the protection. The provision to grant planning permission to Irish speakers moving from one Gaeltacht area to another is welcome but it disadvantages fluent Irish speakers not living in an official Gaeltacht area who may wish to move to such an area.

Section 5.1 states that in order to protect the rural and cultural linguistic heritage of rural Gaeltacht areas, local or social economic needs shall apply. Is there a gap in terms of linguistic need? Could linguistic needs be applied in relation to this? The question of the croí cónaithe scheme has been raised by local organisations. There is the question of the ready to build scheme in Gaeltacht areas and Údarás na Gaeltachta playing a greater role in developing serviced sites. Where could they fit in terms of the planning guidelines? Were they considered? Will the Minister of State to address these questions?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a lot in there and Deputy Hearne will have to remind me of some of them.

I was frantically jotting down notes as Deputy Hearne was speaking. I will try to take the questions in order. We want to support Gaeltacht areas. As the Deputy rightly been pointed out, I have a Gaeltacht in my own constituency, in An Rinn, which Deputy Conor D. McGuinness knows very well. It is certainly not the intention to undermine or dilute Gaeltacht areas. They are really important. In fact, we are trying to strengthen them in the national planning statement to give a favourable outlook to those who are living in a Gaeltacht area. It is about the ability to move from one Gaeltacht to another and to set down roots and build a home. If somebody from the Gaeltacht in Connemara, which was referenced, gets a job in Nemeton TV in An Rinn, for example, they should be able to take their social need, bank it and move it to a different Gaeltacht.

It is important to point out that the 3 km piece is only applicable to encroachment on the Gaeltacht area and for those who are not Irish speakers. If you are from a Gaeltacht area and you speak Irish, you can seek planning permission anywhere within that Gaeltacht or another Gaeltacht area. That is very important. It is set out on page 28 of the national planning statement. However, if you are an English speaker, then the 3 km rule will apply. Also, if you are on the edge of a Gaeltacht area and you are looking to build within the Gaeltacht area, the 3 km rule applies. The intention is to protect the Gaeltacht area so we do not see further encroachment on it that might not necessarily be for Irish speakers. There is a 3 km radius for people who are outside the Gaeltacht area. In that context, we do not want everybody jumping in. It is a protection mechanism. An Irish speaker in a Gaeltacht area will have the ability to seek it in their own Gaeltacht area or they can move to another Gaeltacht area.

I have heard that feedback about the multi-unit development. The entire section on the Gaeltacht was drafted in co-operation with our colleagues in the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, who, as I said in my opening statement, set policy on Gaeltacht areas. We are continuing to engage on that. In the context of the national planning statement, the data we had was from the 2016 census, which referred to daily Irish speakers. I understand that in the 2022 census the question from the CSO changed from asking about the frequency of speaking Irish daily to the ability to speak Irish. We are examining all of those items. The principal, overriding criterion here is that we want to support our Gaeltacht areas.

The Deputy's last question was about croí cónaithe, the ready-to-build piece and the role of údarás. I have seen good examples of where údarás has worked in close co-operation with local authorities. Equally, I have seen bad examples. I want there to be a far more integrated dialogue that happens all the time to ensure that we get developments such as those on serviced sites and in multi-unit developments or the ability of somebody to build a one-off rural house.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How are we going to ensure that the new plan will not lead to a reduction in percentages?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is set out currently in the draft plan is 10% over and above the number of daily Irish speakers. We are looking at all of these matters in terms of potential tweaks that we might have to make in the context of the NPS. That may be one area, but there are other things we may need to touch on. The whole point of this was to get a draft out so that we can start our environmental assessment. The Government and I, as Minister of State, want to ensure we have an updated document. As I said, it has not been updated in over 20 years. It is very significant but if we did not push to get a draft out in June, we could still be talking about it in December without having produced a draft. As Minister of State, I was not going to stand over that.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know we examined Gaeltacht housing back in March and this committee issued 11 recommendations in May. We now have the draft national planning statement on sustainable rural and Gaeltacht housing. I would like to focus on what will change and how many additional homes we can expect to be delivered. When does the Minister of State expect the final national planning statement to be issued? Will the new policy apply immediately to planning applications or will applicants have to wait for the local authorities to amend their own development laws?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. This draft was published towards the end of June. It is undergoing an environmental assessment. That is something we have to do to ensure the national planning statement stands up to scrutiny. That will be done as quickly as possible. We have to ensure it is done correctly. We will bring the draft back to Cabinet when it is finalised. As I said in response to a couple of other members, the important thing is that when the national planning statement is finalised and published, it stands in its own right, even before local authorities vary their development plans, to ensure it applies immediately.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So, it will apply immediately.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is correct.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maybe I read this wrong but the policy section of the draft, on page 28, sets out the Gaeltacht language occupancy requirement of a minimum of ten years, which is the same as that for ordinary rural housing, whereas the Department's sample planning condition, on page 54, refers to 15 years. Is there an inconsistency there, or am I reading that wrong?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There very well may be. There should not be an inconsistency such as the Senator has pointed out. That is one such tweak, as I pointed out in response to Deputy Hearne. I will note what was said about page 54. The intention is that there will be a consistent ten-year occupancy clause across the board.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we take it that what is on page 54 is possibly a mistake?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Potentially, yes. I will have to review that with my officials.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Department estimated how many additional homes the new policy will deliver over the next five years?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said in response to other members, we have not put a target on it. What we want to do in updating the national planning statement is create the overarching framework for development to ensure a consistency of approach from local authority to local authority. We cannot predict how many applications may come in from members of the public. Approximately 6,000 one-off homes are built every year. Not all of those are in rural areas. We have not set a target. What we want to do is ensure we create the framework to allow people to apply and have a fair crack of the whip when seeking planning in their area. In general, the rule is that if somebody is from a rural area or has an economic need to live in that rural area, they have a reasonable expectation of obtaining planning permission, subject to all of the reasonable considerations for rural planning such as setback distance and appropriate house type.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I live in a rural area in Kildare. It is not a Gaeltacht, but I know how difficult it is to get planning in such an area.

We had witnesses here in March about the local GAA teams not having enough players, etc.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They were really good witnesses and testimonies. Then the committee made 11 recommendations on Gaeltacht housing in May. How many of these have been accepted, how are they reflected in the new statement and what is the timetable for implementing them?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of those 11 recommendations, I will ask my officials to do a piece of work to cross-check the document versus the 11 and perhaps we can get a note back to the committee on that.

In relation to Gaeltacht housing, policy rests with the Minister, Deputy Calleary, in the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht. We will continue to work with them, as we have done in the formulation of this document, in ensuring that we strike the right balance here to ensure that we protect and promote those communities in Gaeltacht areas but also to ensure that we can facilitate development in those areas.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it possible for the Department to commit to providing this committee with a progress report in 12 months, after the statement is finally released and takes effect, that will set out the number of planning permissions granted? Then we can see how many homes have been delivered under the new policy. Is that a possibility?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I see no issue with that in principle. Obviously, in terms of the numbers of homes completed, you would probably have to wait a little longer. Certainly, in terms of planning permissions, however, I think we can isolate that data and get it to the committee.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My last question is, how can we make sure that the Department ensures that applicants in similar circumstances across the nation are treated consistently across different counties because there are certain areas that are louder than others?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the biggest challenge. As Senator Casey outlined in his contribution, there will always be subjective criteria from planner to planner but the overarching principle where we are not allowing prescriptive items to be the reasons for refusals will be same from county to county and local authorities will not be able to have such restrictive items in their development plans and will have to base their decisions on the national planning statement.

We have a planning excellence framework within the Department that we are working with the local authorities to implement. My officials have been doing a lot of workshops with directors of service and planners right across the country over the past 12 months in the context of implementing the remaining parts of the Planning and Development Act 2024. That work is ongoing in terms of ensuring that we have that clarity and consistency in respect of both planning applications and right across the planning system. It should be the case that regardless of whether you are interacting with the planning system in Kildare, Donegal, Clare or Waterford, you should have a reasonable expectation of the same house type in the same setting receiving planning permission. That is what I want to ensure, as Minister.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is appreciated because what was said before by witnesses is it depends on the individual in the local authorities and the decisions are inconsistent. I appreciate that.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for being with us today.

I welcome this proposed national planning statement in terms of updating the policy on rural housing in the Gaeltacht. As the Minister of State noted, it has been 20 years since these measures were looked at and it was due an update. It was time to take account of changes in society, etc. Bringing greater clarity and consistency to the policies is also important, as is taking away some of the subjectivity that we have seen across the local authorities.

I will turn to the most important question, although it has been asked already, as to when people can expect this to be to in place. I understand it is out for appropriate assessment, AA and strategic environmental assessment, SEA, at present and there will be a period of public consultation but can the Minister of State give a little more detail on the roadmap ahead in terms of the timeline?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish I could give the Deputy an exact answer to that. It will be done as quickly as it can be done. We obviously have to ensure that the environmental considerations are done correctly in terms of the SEA and that is ongoing at present. We are somewhat bound by that. It will be done as quickly as it can. The important point, as I have said to other Deputies and Senators, is that when it is finalised, it will stand in its own right even though I expect local authorities to have to vary their development plans to be consistent with it.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go a little further there. Is the environmental assessment quite open-ended at present? Is there a report stage at which we should hear something back from that process?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The AA determination is essentially complete. It requires SEA. We have consultants in place that will be working on that. That is a statutory process that must be gone through and there is a four-week consultation as part of that.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We want to ensure we get this right because everyone will be relying on this document to achieve planning permission. We want to ensure that it is done correctly.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a public representative himself, the Minister of State will appreciate that many individuals and families are waiting for some indication of when it will be in force. Does the Minister of State still think it is feasible for that to be before the year is out?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is asking me and I wish I could give him an exact answer in relation to that.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is not in a position to do so, okay.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has to be a report done that goes with the SEA in terms of the final national planning statement before it goes back to be confirmed by Cabinet. I assure the Deputy that everyone is working as hard as they possibly can on this. Between the Department and the consultants, we want to ensure that we get it right.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the process is complex and it is not easily pinned down in terms of timeline.

I will home in on the issue of backland development, if that is okay.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is on page 39 of the draft national planning statement. I have a concern that this is linked to the provision of existing services. For me, that is not rural housing. Am I reading that wrong? It refers to "The careful management of single housing ... linear development extending along radial roads from towns and cities that can strain infrastructure and services such as water, drainage ...". Then it states, "Where such infrastructure and services are in place however, appropriate infill or backland development should be supported". That does not-----

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To what page is the Deputy referring?

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Pages 39 and 40. While the Minister of State is getting a chance to look at it, certainly I understood the spirit of this was about rural housing backland development. If it is tied to the provision of services, we know full well that services do not exist in rural Ireland in terms of wastewater, etc. I do not know. I am putting this on the Minister of State.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, I cannot see the exact reference. Is it in the national planning policy measure, NPPM, 5, or is in relation to-----

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is 6.2.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is in 6.2. Is it in the first, second or third paragraph?

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Take a look at the second paragraph.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It seems clear to me that it is linked to the provision of services in relation to backland and ribboning, which, to my read of it, is not in accordance with what we are endeavouring to do here in terms of rural planning.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I would point the Deputy to is NPPM 5, which is the mandatory element in relation to this.

It says that the principle of infill or backland development shall be supported where existing services and access exist. By its nature, backland is to the rear of a dwelling that exists. Where there are existing services, by the nature of a house existing on the site, it means there is a service there.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not. It does not mean there is wastewater infrastructure. It does not necessarily mean there is water infrastructure. This is very vague and refers to services. This needs to be looked at because------

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reason we are here and engaging with the committee is to get that feedback. That is the purpose of being here. I will take the point the Deputy is making and review it with officials. If there are tweaks that have to be made to clarify any elements, it is the clear intention of both the Minister, Deputy Browne, and I that there shall be no prescriptive features in terms of ribbon, infill or backland that will prevent somebody from seeking planning permission, subject to normal considerations that are there.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that in a rural area?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we need to look at wording or other items in relation to that, we will absolutely take it away.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that and I thank the Minister of State. The way that is worded leaves it open to the wrong interpretation. I would appreciate if that could be looked at. Could I briefly clarify something on the mapping of the rural areas, such as the areas under urban influence, the metropolitan areas, which have the highest level of protection, and the wider rural area? Are we confident the mapping will align with local authority mapping? Is there not another job of work that needs to be done there? We have 31 local authorities. Will they align pretty straightforwardly?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a body of work to be done by local authorities in terms of identifying those areas of high amenity. Some of them will identify themselves. Special areas of conservation are designated and we know what they are, where they are and the lines that apply to that. There is a body of work for local authorities to do. Map 1 in appendix A is an indicative guideline of what is set out in terms of the CSO and various areas under urban influence, wider rural areas, Gaeltacht areas and the MASP areas. It is intended as such but there is a body of work for local authorities to do in the context of this.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would be concerned about what happens once we approve it as a Government. The Minister of State said earlier that he hopes the local authorities will take that on board immediately and not turn around to us saying that they have a whole job of work to do in terms of mapping and aligning the various areas. I ask the Minister of State to be acutely aware of that, and to be alert to that, so that there is not a further delay in the process after the NPS is actually approved.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure, I will take that on board. That is why the map is in the document. There are also those items around the 1,500 rule and the right-sizing. I take the Deputy's point about backlands and ribbon developments. The intention is that we will be as clear as possible to allow planning authorities to make decisions based on this while they are also doing an additional piece of work. That is absolutely the intention of both the Minister, Deputy Browne, and I. We have been very clear on this throughout the whole process.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very welcome. I thank the Minister of State.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the stated vision of the draft planning framework. In particular, I agree with the need to move from a restrictive to a facilitatory approach and the need for clarity, certainty and consistency. Red C Research today published figures that 68% of young people are planning on leaving the State. A total of 89% of respondents, who were the young people surveyed, said one of the critical things in their decision making is the housing crisis and the inability to find housing. Doubtless, a huge chunk of those people are living and looking to live in rural Ireland. Clarity, certainty and consistency are really important but we need delivery, delivery and delivery.

In the second decade of this housing crisis, with all of the hearings that have been held in this committee room and the research provided by the GAA fairly recently, I find it really hard to believe that the Department of housing has not done any research, number crunching, projections or analysis on how many new homes this is likely to facilitate. If the intention is to move from restriction to facilitation, why can we not even give a projection - no one is asking for a hard figure - of how many additional homes or what percentage increase we are likely to see in terms of planning applications coming out the other side? Has there been any research done? Perhaps it has been done but not published. Has there been some research done by the Department of housing on that?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I have said, the overarching intention of this document is to ensure that clarity and consistency of approach across local authority areas. We cannot make a prediction on how many applications will come in for this-----

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about going on the current number of applications?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but I can say that in quarter 2 of this year, there was a 60% increase in planning permissions and nearly 12,000 planning permissions were achieved in this country. A proportion of those relate to one-off homes, a proportion are in relation to multi-unit developments and the remainder are in the context of apartment developments. Everything we are seeking to try to do within the Department is to try to remove blockages that exist to planning. That applies for apartment complexes as much as it applies to rural, one-off homes. This NPS will play an important role in that.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can take it there has not been an analysis carried out in the Department to come up with a projection like that. I take it that the answer is that there has not been one.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will not make predictions in relation to that.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. One of the areas where there is the most consistency in the planning system across all 31 local authorities in the State is around the involvement of TII. There are barriers that are placed on applicants seeking planning permission because of access or ingress onto roads. I know of a situation just outside Dungarvan - the Minister of State might be familiar with it too - where somebody has been denied planning permission despite the fact that they are effectively farming on the site, there is already a residence there, and they are in and out to look after an elderly parent and tend to the farm several times a day. It would actually result in fewer car journeys on that particular stretch of road. What engagement has there been between the Minister of State, his officials, the Department of housing and the Department of Transport and TII with regard to looking at perhaps being more facilitatory rather than restrictive?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Deputy will appreciate, I cannot legally comment on individual planning cases-----

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the engagement between the Minister of State's Department, his officials and the Department of Transport and the TII?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would appreciate if the Deputy could allow me to finish. On the general point he is making about national roads, as I outlined to Deputy Cooney, the situation is complex. I cannot override national transport policy with a national planning statement on rural housing.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Minister of State engaged with TII and the Department of Transport?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is always constant engagement between all Departments in the context of this, both with our colleagues here in the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, the Department of Transport and all across government. I cannot override a national transport policy. What we have tried to do, to speak to the facilitation point, is call out what is within our control in the context of local and regional roads and not exclude new entrances, support shared entrances and call out what is contained in the national transport policy that speaks to lightly trafficked sections of national secondary roads. That is called out in the national planning statement. As I said to Deputy Cooney, national primary roads are a different kettle of fish. I appreciate the challenges it causes for people across the country but the Department of Transport has that policy on traffic safety grounds and that is not something I can override.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

During the Minister of State's engagement, what was the response from the Department of Transport when he raised that matter?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Deputy appreciates, I will not go into dialogue that happens between-----

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask members to keep the questions to the discussion topic.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is specifically about the formulation of this document. With respect, I am asking about engagement and process at Government.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not going to go into the dialogue that happens as a standard course between all Departments. However, in the context of national transport policy, it is a matter for the Department of Transport. We will be engaging-----

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have only a minute left. I apologise for cutting across the Minister of State.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is asking me questions and, with due respect, I am trying to answer them as much as I can.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have the answer that he is not going to get into the subject of engagement. The question was about the engagement.

Finally, mar gheall ar chúrsaí Gaeltachta, the Minister of State said in this meeting that he had to publish something when questioned by another member of the committee about potential inaccuracies or contradictions. He said that the Department had to get a draft out so that it could start the environmental aspect. Five years ago, the Government promised that there would be Gaeltacht planning guidelines. Gaeltacht communities have been waiting, lobbying, campaigning and protesting out on the streets for five years. It is simply not good enough to say the Department had to publish something. The dot, dot, dot was before the summer recess.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is taking me out of context in what he is saying.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The context is that he said the Department had to publish something. It had to get a draft out. He said that twice in response to two different questions.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is taking that out of context.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not out of context. He said the Department had to publish something to get it out.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is taking that out of context.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Here is the question because-----

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McGuinness will make his point and let the Minister of State reply without interruption.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is an opportunity for members of the committee, or those substituting for members, to put questions to the Minister of State on a document. On multi-unit development and inter-Gaeltacht recognition, it is quite clear that he did not listen to BÁNÚ or to any of the other campaign groups, to any of the submissions, to any discussion had in the Dáil Chamber on this issue or to the committee recommendations, given that they did not find their way into this document. The fact that the Minister of State can come here without even being able to speak to this committee about the recommendations it made earlier this year and what parts of them are or are not in the document shows that this is a rushed job. Homework has not been done and this was something that was published before the summer recess because, according to the Minister of State, the Department had to publish something and get a draft out so that the Department could start the environmental impact assessment. What about the Gaeltacht impact assessment?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is taking what I said out of context.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not taking it out of context, to be fair.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please allow the Minister of State to reply. He did not interrupt the Deputy while the Deputy made his point.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He did, multiple times.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He did not in the last minute when I asked him not to. I ask the Deputy to allow the Minister of State to reply without interruption.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair, but the context was clear.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A figure the Deputy may not be familiar with is that approximately 80% of applications in Gaeltacht areas are favourable in terms of rural planning. I think that is a positive story. It is nearly up to 90% in some Gaeltacht areas.

In relation to publishing something, I would like to clarify what I was referring to. There will always be tweaks to a document that will be required. If you continually review and review, you never get to the end point. The Deputy referenced and rightly criticised that it began five years ago. I am the Minister of State who brought the draft out that we are talking about at the committee. A significant amount of work has gone in over several years to ensure that we have something to discuss here today. There are items in here in relation to the Gaeltacht, which we will of course continue to keep under review with our colleagues because I want to ensure that we support Gaeltacht areas, and our own Gaeltachts in An Rinn and An Sean Phobal. I want to support Gaeltacht communities just as much as Deputy McGuinness does and we work with our colleagues in the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht in that regard. However, there comes a point in time where you have to progress something. What we have done here is publish a draft. This is not the finalised document. It has to go through environmental processes. Of course, we will take on board the public feedback in that regard. We will also work with our colleagues in other Departments. This is a significant body of work and it has been broadly welcomed but, of course, there are elements that we will always keep under consideration, none more so than ensuring we have the elements relating to the Gaeltacht correct.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important to point out that it is making progress in some respects, but it is regressive when it comes to protections for the Irish language in the Gaeltacht, and it has been roundly criticised on that basis.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, but I cannot leave that said unchecked.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a matter of public record.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not hear the Deputy refer to the ability of somebody to move from one Gaeltacht to another, which has been welcomed by Gaeltacht communities for the very reason I outlined. If somebody from one Gaeltacht area gets a job in another Gaeltacht area, such as with Nemeton TV in my and the Deputy's constituency, their ability to move from one Gaeltacht to another and have that social-need criteria is stitched into this document. It never existed before.

Paula Butterly (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for coming here. I have to compliment him on his proactivity in getting this draft together and these proposals out. It will be of huge use to my constituents in the rural areas of County Louth because they struggle. As with any of our constituencies, we have young people who are struggling to find locations close to their parents and communities in order to build their homes and be part of the fabric of those communities, so I really welcome these proposals.

There are specific areas I wish to highlight that come up frequently in my constituency with regard to ribbon development and back-land development but also in respect of housing for older persons. As referenced in this document, there will be the possibility of building up to 90 sq. m within the site of an existing house. I think that is important because we have people who want to be close to their parents but cannot get a site or, more often, cannot get planning for a home beside their parents in order to take care of them or a loved one, be it a sister or brother. This would be a fundamental change for people in rural Ireland because accessing carers in rural Ireland is a real challenge, so I welcome that.

I also welcome the fact that we are encouraging, as always, people to reuse vacant dwellings. We have plenty of bungalows and different buildings across the rural fabric of this country that are vacant. The Minister of State may correct me on this if I am wrong but, as things stand, as a house owner I am entitled to go out and buy a vacant or derelict property and avail of the grant available for either vacancy or dereliction. However, I would like the Minister of State to support my proposal that, when a young couple or young person as a first-time buyer wants to buy one of these vacant dwellings, they can avail of the help-to-buy scheme because my understanding is that they cannot at the moment. I think this would solve two issues. It would revitalise those vacant buildings in the countryside but would also give help to young people getting on the property ladder.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. As she knows, we launched this in her constituency prior to the summer recess, and it was a lovely day. The family we met that day are the epitome of what we want. We want strong rural communities where people can live and work in close proximity, be they farming or otherwise. Some homes are easily adapted such as single-level houses, but we also know that, as people age, there are people living in houses far beyond what they can manage themselves that are perhaps split level, and sometimes a stair lift is not the solution. Sometimes, the solution would be for an older person to be able to have an appropriately sized home in close proximity to their existing home, and perhaps their son or daughter may be able to take up occupation of the existing home with their family. That is a better use of housing stock. We want to ensure that the older person does not lose the connection with their rural area. I have heard that loud and clear over the years.

Somebody wants to be in a house more suited to their needs, but they do not want to lose their community. They could be there 50 or 60 years - all their lives - and they do not want to lose that. That is why there is the provision in here to allow for that in the case of medical grounds, but we need to carefully calibrate it as well. It is not a free-for-all that everyone can just suddenly build a second home in rural Ireland. That is not the policy intent of what we are seeking to achieve here.

The vacant property refurbishment grant is a hugely successful scheme that provides up to €70,000 in support to take a derelict property and turn it into your home or a home that you can rent out. The SEAI grants can be put on top of that, which is approximately €27,000. That is nearly €100,000 in State support in order to be able to bring back an existing property into productive use. That is the key piece there. It is an existing property that is being brought back into use.

The help to buy scheme that the Deputy referred to only applies in the case of new build properties. Any changes in that respect would be a matter for the Department to define.

Paula Butterly (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Minister of State support it? It is only going in one direction at the moment. This would be an additional help to bring back old buildings into reuse, but also to help young buyers build a forever home in rural area.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I point to the significant support that the State is providing in the context of the €70,000 for the derelict property and up to €27,000 or €28,000 for the SEAI grant. It is not insignificant. Any change to the help to buy scheme is a matter for the Department of Finance. We would have to be careful in any changes to the help to buy scheme in ensuring that we do not see inflationary pressures in the second home market. This is a specific area that is taking a property that is derelict or not in use and bringing it back into use. We want to support people in being able to do so whether they are in the town or in a rural setting. Regarding State intervention in this space, we always keep everything under review, but we would have to be careful in any changes that they would not be inflationary. It has to take account of the significant level of support that the State is already providing in the context of the grants.

Paula Butterly (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. That day when we launched the strategy in County Louth was indeed a beautiful day. The cherry on top would have been had Louth won that semi-final a couple of days later. I apologise to our Mayo colleagues.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think anyone would have beat Mayo this year.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá cúpla ceist agam. Cuirfidh mé as Béarla iad, ach táim ag aithint go bhfuilimid ag déileáil le ceist faoi cheantar an-leochaileach ó thaobh na timpeallachta, na tithíochta agus na teanga de agus an chosaint ar an tseoid sin. Cuirfidh mé an cheist as Béarla mar tá a fhios agam nach bhfuil Gaeilge ar a chaoithiúlacht ag an Aire Stáit.

Throughout the country, we are dealing with competing demands in terms of infrastructure, environment protection, demands for roads and that. In a Gaeltacht area, however, we are competing against something very specific and very fragile, namely, a language based in a community. Any decision that is taken which could further undermine the standing of the language in those communities and areas has to be resisted. They would be against Government policy. That is why there was the demand for the Gaeltacht housing guidelines for years to get them published and then looked at. Then there was a promise of consultation on it. We are now at a different stage and we are dealing with a different animal in some ways; we are dealing with the national planning statements. While I agree with limited consultation so that we do not have this dragged out forever, the plan thus far could severely damage Gaeltacht areas and undermine the cohesion of Gaeltacht areas.

If it goes from social housing at 80% in the Déise or Cois Fharraige for Irish speakers and that drops down to under 50% or under 60%, that has an implication for the spoken language of a community. That needs to be teased out in full, and I do not think that was done. I have listened to what the Minister of State said about the level of spoken Irish in some of those areas. Yes, it is weak and poor, but by introducing more English speakers into an area, which is what he would be doing if he reduced the percentage, that could further erode it and make that an area which is no longer a Gaeltacht area.

The question is, in every consultation on this, will the Minister of State encourage those groups who have raised concerns about this to raise the issue? In the committee I was chair of before, the Irish language committee, the issue had come up over the years about the local authorities such as the county councils - the city council in the case of Galway - not having a uniform approach toward housing developments. Hopefully this will force the councils to have that. It would get rid of the excuse that they had, which is that they did not know where they were coming from, but to do that we need to have a different approach rather than just having a consultation in terms of just the environmental impact. There is a linguistic impact as well.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his own personal commitment to the Irish language. I highly respect it. In relation to the multi-unit development that he is referring, on page 36 of the national planning statement, he will see that it refers to the language planning area in which development is to be situated as defined in the relevant most recent census. When I talk about tweaks, census 2016 is what was used. There was a census in 2022, so that is something that we are working at across Departments to ensure that we have the most accurate and up-to-date information in relation to the national planning statement, which may have an impact in terms of the figures that are in the current draft that he is looking at today.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that if we shift it, but the census will reflect the current state of play. If you have 100 houses and the census has decided it is 30% or 36%, well it is 10% above the number, you are still introducing more English speakers into that and compounding the damage of underinvestment in and underutilisation of Gaeltacht areas to protect the language. There is a potential outside of what the Minister of State saying - the extra 10% - that he will undermine the cohesion of the Gaeltacht, and, by virtue of that, he will end up redrawing the Gaeltacht boundaries. There have been questions for many years about the implementation of Gaeltacht rules and regulations in parts of Galway city, just because the language has dropped to such a degree in those areas. Rather than ensuring the full protection, especially where there is a demand where 100% of multi-unit developments could be held for those who are Irish speakers, the proposal the Minister of State has could severely undermine existing protections. Those protections are there with a reason.

They are a recognition of the linguistic effects of this type of policy. I urge the Minister of State to open up the consultation to see what additional protections or measures can be taken to protect the language over and above what he has already suggested, which is 10% above those within the census who have said they are daily speakers of Irish.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will obviously be a public consultation as part of this process. It will be a four-week consultation. I encourage anyone with an interest in this to make a submission. I hear the points the Deputy is making. There is a reference to the most recent census on page 36. The data contained in the appendix relates to the not-so-recent census, because it is the 2016 data as opposed to the 2022 data. We are looking at that across both Departments and where tweaks are required, they will be made.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make the submission.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. I look forward to it.

PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for coming. I compliment him on his proactive and pro-development approach to planning. As a rural representative who entered politics at an age when a lot of my friends and colleagues were starting to look for planning permission, the majority of representations I have made during my seven years in politics have related to rural planning in one form or another. I warmly welcome the element of consistency in this document. One of the things that has frustrated me over the years is the lack of consistency between and within local authorities and from planner to planner, so consistency is key.

Deputy McGrath mentioned backland developments and the existing services for unserviced settlements. As the Minister of State knows, there are a huge number of them in my area of east Galway. Unfortunately, in the limestone areas of east Galway where the villages do not have overground rivers and drains, we are excluded from the developer-led infrastructure, DLI, guidelines. The one hope we have for these unserviced villages is that backland development on single wastewater treatment plants can be allowed because of the exclusion from the DLI guidelines. However, by the inclusion of the wording "where existing services are present", we are also excluding backland development, as Deputy McGrath mentioned, from these unserviced settlements. If DLI were potentially available, that would be well and good. However, as I have mentioned before, in the karst landscape across east Galway where all the rivers run underground, DLI cannot be considered under the current guidelines. It is critical that we look further into that and exclude the requirement for the presence of existing services for backland development, for the sake of those settlements I have mentioned, particularly in south Galway and mid Galway and into north Galway and south Mayo on the karst landscape.

Another concern I have is on the widening of the scope to towns of up to 1,500 people. Across the country, what might be considered a village or a town varies greatly. Certainly, where I am from in south County Galway, a village of 1,500 people would be considered a sizeable urban settlement. In my LEA, there is only one settlement with a population of over 1,500 people. As Senator Casey mentioned, by opening the scope to people who originally come from towns of up to that size, we are massively increasing the competition base for the occasional site that becomes available. That is something we need to look at. It opens the market for what is a rare resource in many parts of our land to people from larger settlements in the area who might be more able to outbid those who are more in need of that site than those from the grosser rural hinterland. I would draw an exception where the village of source is unserviced and cannot grow. An exception could and must be made there. That is a statement rather than a question.

Will the Minister of State explain how the changes proposed in this statement will affect areas under urban development pressures differently from rural areas that do not fall within that pressure zone? I ask him to explain that clearly because I find it hard to see it in the document. I understand he cannot give exact timelines as to when it will be published but I welcome his clarity that it will take immediate effect after publication.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. I note his comments about the settlement size of 1,500, which Senator Casey also raised. I reiterate that we are seeking a balance here. Senator Murphy and I both know that there are many settlements of below 1,500 where the ability to get a site, regardless of whether it is unserviced, does not exist. I want people to have the opportunity to build a house and remain within the rural area in question to support the local school and GAA club. A balance has to be struck there. Simply saying whether it is unserviced does not address the question. The reality on the ground, which we know to be true, is that in many of these desirable areas the ability to build a house is challenged. Of course, we need to support our towns and villages and to ensure we promote development through the grants we have in place with the Minister, Deputy Calleary's, Department, such as town and village renewal, rural regeneration and development funding and all of those items. We also need to be able to facilitate people where that opportunity does not exist. When you are creating an overarching national document, you cannot get into the granular individual details. You have to keep it in an overarching national planning policy context. That is the challenge when you are setting out a national document of this nature.

PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that a number that should be set out in this document, or should that be laid out within a county development plan?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That figure for what defines a rural settlement is stipulated by the CSO. That is where it comes from.

PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Understood.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the rural areas under urban influence versus wider rural areas in general, the difference between the two is that social and local economic criteria apply in the case of areas under urban influence. In the case of the wider rural areas, in general, it does not. That is the principle. The duration and the radius differ there.

PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That remains unchanged from the current situation.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a difference in terms of the high-amenity areas, which generally will be within the wider rural areas - not solely, but to be defined by local authorities. That is where the local authority piece comes in. Local authorities know their areas best. As I would have said to Deputy Séamus McGrath, some of them identify themselves in terms of special areas of conservation and so on.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The problem with planning is that it is a bit like statistics. It is subjective. What one person interprets is different from what another interprets. Is developer-provided infrastructure set in stone or can a planner still turn around and say "I'm not happy with the proposal" within the guidelines that have been outlined? If a planner has a moral or personal objection to particular developer-provided infrastructure, can he or she still say "No"?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Moral or individual personal circumstances-----

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, that is planning. It is very subjective.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----in terms of planning should never come into it. Any application should be based on its individual merits or demerits. The way the developer-led initiative operates in practice is that a developer who is seeking planning permission for a site will do so in a standard way with a pre-connection inquiry to Uisce Éireann to seek a connection. We know that in the case of developer-led infrastructure in these areas that this connection is not possible so the developer will identify it at that pre-connection inquiry point that it is seeking to avail of the developer-led infrastructure initiative. We have those set standards and criteria that have been agreed with the EPA and Uisce Éireann. The overarching principle is that when the development is completed, it will be taken in charge and managed in perpetuity by Uisce Éireann so it does have to be done to the correct specification and standard. We do call out developer-led infrastructure in NPPM 4 on page 39 of the national planning statement.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What if I was an older county manager who lived through the last crash and had to deal with much more inferior developer-led systems that were put in place? That whole sector has moved on significantly. I see nothing in the guidelines that expressly states that if that system is provided, the application has to get planning permission.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

NPPM 4 says that development plans shall facilitate the provision of developer-led infrastructure for wastewater services as appropriate through the development management process as long as the individual proposal meets the requirement of the developer-led infrastructure initiative. Essentially, it is Uisce Éireann that will determine whether a proposal is appropriate.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Uisce Éireann will give every developer a letter to say that it is happy with a developer-led infrastructure proposal because it lets it off the hook. There is no question that a developer will not get a letter from Uisce Éireann to tell it that it can put in a developer-led infrastructure system. The problem is-----

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not necessarily agree with the Senator.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have not heard of one being turned down by Uisce Éireann yet. It is quite happy to approve them.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A number of them have been turned down.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I stand corrected on that but my point is that there is still nothing for us to give to a developer - a degree of comfort - to say that the developer-led system will be accepted by a county council because we are still open to the vagaries of the subjectivity of planning and no two planners think the exact same.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I have said consistently here this afternoon, there are always subjective calls but what we are setting out in the national planning statement are the national criteria by which planning authorities will or will not be able to take factors into consideration. Notwithstanding the points that Senator P. J. Murphy and Deputy Séamus McGrath raised about the backland issue, which we will take away and examine with officials, the express intention here is that in terms of those prescriptive items relating to ribbon, backland, infill, below 500 settlement, generating rural housing need and first home construction in the rural area in question, we are setting out in plain English the overarching principles so people can follow. When it comes to the individual planning application level, of course items such as setback distance, the sitting of the house and the height have to be considered as well as environmental issues relating to that property. We can set out so much in a national planning statement but decisions are a matter for each individual local planning authority. In the event of a decision going one way or another, there is always the ability to appeal a decision to An Coimisiún Pleanála.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Cummins. Tréaslaím leis an obair atá á déanamh aige maidir lena lán ábhair, ina measc tithíocht agus pleanáil faoin tuath, an tascfhórsa don daonlathas áitiúil, na díolúintí don tithíocht modular agus an córas pleanála d’fheirmeoirí freisin. Anois, teastaíonn córas d’fheirmeacha gaoithe agus gréine. We need guidelines on planning for wind farms and solar farms as a priority. The Minister of State has done a lot in a lot of areas for which I commend him.

As a former councillor, I know the processes relating to county development plans and alterations to these plans. Will they be required before these guidelines come into being? Galway County Council has a long-standing and strong policy on planning and the Gaeltacht in terms of multi-use developments and rural planning. A policy that is trying to be consistent for the whole country means that what may be suitable sa Rinn, i bPort Láirge, may not be suitable in Connemara. There is some concern about the 3 km provision versus the existing policy of 7 km. Regarding multi-use developments, some parts of Connemara might have a figure of 65% or 80% of Irish speakers, which, in general, there is not much objection to, but this may now be reduced. I do not think it was the intention to reduce the standards for Irish in those areas. If the guidelines were viewed as a minimum, a county development plan and the councillors could put in more stringent guidelines. Allowing the local role of councillors through the county development plan or the Gaeltacht plans to deviate from the national would be a way around those sorts of issues. I accept that there may be particular issues because there may be issues in a smaller Gaeltacht like An Rinn in terms of protecting the Irish language that would differ from those in Cois Fharraige.

I know there is some concern among my colleagues about the 1,500 rule. I can point to a town like An Cheathrú Rua, which has less than 1,500 people. It is not serviced at the moment because of issues in finding a suitable site. One finds people with long-standing local connections who have been precluded under the existing policy. The changes the Minister of State is initiating would be helpful in those cases. If there is a concern about opening the floodgates, the Minister of State could put in a proviso that people would have long-standing local connections to that community notwithstanding the 1,500 rule.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What the Deputy has just outlined is what we are trying to capture.

We want people to be able to have a fair crack of the whip and to have an opportunity to remain within the areas in which they have grown up.

On Gaeltacht areas, officials at the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht have had a number of engagements with organisations. Some clarity has been provided. I am happy to provide further clarity now. I am not sure exactly what way it is reflected in the Galway County Council development plan, but, certainly, in the context of the draft national planning statement, the intention is that anyone from a Gaeltacht area who is an Irish speaker will be able to seek planning permission, subject to meeting general planning considerations, within that or any other Gaeltacht area. They will have the ability to be able to move from Connemara to the Gaeltacht in Waterford, for example, for employment or to go even beyond the 7 km within their own area. The 3 km aspect applies to English speakers within the Gaeltacht, but there is also the encroachment from the outside. If we picture somewhere just 500 m inside a Gaeltacht area and somebody is living 2 km outside that area, they will be within the radius to be able to build within that area. The higher radius encourages even more encroachment into Gaeltacht areas. It is tight for a reason, which is to protect the Gaeltacht. It is important to point out, however, that Irish speakers within a Gaeltacht area will be able to seek planning permission within that or any other Gaeltacht area. Therefore, it is a far more favourable scenario than perhaps might have been understood.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that clarification, but the position is not clear. It is clear that people could move from Gaeltacht area to Gaeltacht area. It is clear, from my reading of it, that people can move within a Gaeltacht area.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate what the Deputy says. We will take his feedback, as we are doing in relation to a number of matters. If we need to tweak things to make even more clear, we will do that. In the context of Gaeltacht areas, it is stated on page 28 of the draft national planning statement that "‘local area’ incorporates any designated Gaeltacht area nationally and/or 3km from the proposed site". That is what I have outlined. It incorporates anywhere within a Gaeltacht area in the case of Irish speakers. The 3 km stipulation relates to the encroachment piece. Then there is the more favourable piece in terms of Irish versus English speakers. I take on board what the Deputy is saying. If we need to make tweaks to make it even clearer, we will do so. That is the express intention behind the national planning statement, however.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the position regarding multi-use units?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I have said to others is that the national planning statement refers to the most recent census, but it also refers to the 2016 census in the appendix. Obviously, we had the census in 2022. We are examining all of that between both Departments to see if tweaks will be required.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the context of Connemara, Galway County Council has a rather strong policy in relation to protecting Irish in multi-use developments. If it has a stronger policy than the national guidelines, does the Minister of State think that policy could be maintained or supported?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that the figures vary within the area. It is a very sizeable Gaeltacht area, and the figures do vary from area to area. What I have said to other people today is that we will keep it under review. Obviously, the 2016 data is not the most recent. I appreciate that those figures may be different, particularly when we sub in the 2022 data. We are considering that at the moment between the two Departments.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important in circumstances where there are local authorities that have not had guidelines. Galway has had them. I have not seen a huge level of complaints about those policies that are currently in place. If they can be maintained at a higher standard than the national guidelines, that would be positive for Galway, Connemara agus an Ghaeltacht.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that. I am happy to continue to engage with the Deputy on the matter.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are only starting.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are close to the wire. We have a private session to get to as well. There are probably about five minutes left.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Chapter 6, which deals with infill and backland development, relates to housing delivery in rural towns and villages. It actually references villages and towns; it does not reference the rural area. I do not like the term "backland development". It could be called a cluster development at the rear of houses. However, it should be permissible in rural areas and, equally, within towns. It should not be tied to existing services. We should be saying that we will look at it positively if it is tied to local infrastructure. Does the Minister of State follow what I am saying? I refer here to private-led wastewater infrastructure. We should present it in a positive manner. At the moment, it is presented in a way such that towns and villages must have it. Rather than saying that there is a developer-led initiative, it should be tied into a developer-led wastewater treatment plant if it is being done and if one does not exist in the relevant area. We have to promote living within our villages and towns. We have to crack that, and we have not done so. If we can crack that, it will take the heat off rural areas.

In the context of distances in circumstances where they are urban pressure - I never understood this in Wicklow either - and the fact that people can only live within a certain number of kilometres of a place. I changed it in the Wicklow county development plan such that you can only live within the same landscape category or a lesser landscape category rather than you can only live within a particular distance. The latter would not allow you to move to a higher landscape category, but you could move anywhere within the county once it was a similar or lesser landscape.

On places with populations of 1,500, I have a genuine fear that there will unintended consequences to what is proposed. We should take an honest look at this and at the implications it will have. As Senator Kyne mentioned, maybe people should have a connection with a rural area. Making it carte blanche, however, and stating that in a town of 1,500 people, the children of all the families within town can all now qualify for rural houses is not acceptable. This is being proposed in circumstances where those people would have absolutely no ties to particular rural areas. That will create unsustainable pressure with regard to rural housing and the availability of sites. We all need to look at that specific one and at the long-term implications it could have in an honest way. I am of the view that it will have adverse negative implications. I will leave it at that.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will take away the feedback on backlands and clusters. It does highlight the developer-led piece.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State should look at tying it into it.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has to be sustainable as well. If there is a developer-led initiative, it must be sustainable for Uisce Éireann to be able to take it in charge in line with the proper criteria that are set down.

That is a slight segue away from the general point the Senator made. We will take that away.

I heard the Senator's point in relation to the 1,500. My final word on that is we all know that the hinterland supports the town and the village as well. If you are in any rural community, small town or village, it is not just the village or town that supports the local bakery, GAA club, shop or school; it is the hinterland that supports it as well. It is not at the expense of supporting our towns and villages, and I have been very clear in relation to that, as the national planning statement is, but we need to be able to support people where there is no opportunity. There are many settlements below 1,500 that will develop in a planned way through zoning matrixes. There will be opportunities for people to be able to live in those towns and villages. However, where there are not, we have to be fair and balanced and support people to be able to live in those rural communities because the alternative is they are lost to a larger town or city where they do not want to be. That is promoting, in the inverse, car journeys between the city and out to a rural area for grandparents to mind the kids and back in several times a day. There is a balance to be had here, but I appreciate the points the Senator made.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I ask one other thing?

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have 30 seconds.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have now included highly sensitive scenic areas where development of new rural housing is generally not permissible, apart from in exceptional circumstances. The four zoning areas in County Wicklow are all areas of outstanding natural beauty or high amenity and that is not within the national planning framework. Are we introducing this, given the option of planners to refuse people who are living in a high-amenity area, and opening up something that we do not need to?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the interests of time I will not go into it in great detail, but pages 15 and 16, in terms of land-use zoning in the context of high-amenity, talks about ensuring housing is open for consideration, but obviously we have to ensure that we protect those areas in so far as possible. Local authorities will have a role to play in the mapping of those areas. We have rural areas under urban pressure and the wider rural areas in the context of the map at appendix 1, but local authorities will have a role in this. We do not want to see local authorities being overzealous in this space in applying this land-use zoning. Equally, to talk to the points that everybody has made here, we have to allow a level of flexibility for local authorities, which know their areas best with the members. This is ultimately a development plan level where local authority members, the councillors, will determine in the context of their variation. We talk on page 18 about the approach we would like local authorities to use in the context of designating high-amenity areas. Specifically, we have called out areas like national parks, world heritage sites and so on because we want to try to guide them on that basis to ensure the very thing the Senator has highlighted does not occur.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will watch it with interest.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the members and the Minister and his officials for helping the committee and discussing this today. We look forward to seeing further discussions on these guidelines. I propose that we continue our other business in private session. Is that agreed? Agreed.