Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have tabled an amendment to this section of the Bill because I have issues with it. The Minister of State has spoken about, and made a play of, the proposal to insert the words "prior to the lodgement of a commencement notice within the meaning of Part II of the Building Control Regulations 1997" after the words "to which the application relates". In the past, there was a problem in this regard because one was allowed to start building and commence development after getting planning permission even if one had not settled one's Part V arrangement with the planning authority. The Government is planning to introduce a system whereby one will not be allowed to start building until that is sorted. That is actually good, to a degree, but my argument relates to why there should there be any debate about it.

If the Government had ring-fenced the Part V arrangement, as I recommended, there would be no need for a debate because every site for which planning permission is granted would have a proportion of social and affordable housing laid down for it as a condition of planning. This would do away with the practice of strong lobby groups and big developers going into planners to exercise their muscle. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to know that guys who can build 500 units at a time go into the planning process to challenge planners about how Part V arrangements should be dealt with and what sort of deal should be done. I assure the House that the guys developing 100 or 500 units have much more power than those developing five or ten units. It is not a level playing field. We are not getting a consistent result in how it is being dealt with.

The process that the Government is facilitating will allow the great, good and powerful to continue to exercise a level of influence in this area that is not good for the system. I recommend that the Government should put in place a system that requires a decision to be made in advance of the issuing of planning permission on whether the development will consist of social housing, affordable housing or a mixture of both. If this is clearly stated as a condition of planning permission, it will have to be accepted by developers and builders. When a builder or developer gets planning permission, of course he looks at the conditions. The conditions are significant to him because some of them will impose a cost on him. If a cost does not materialise because a condition has been left out, it is a case of "happy days". I assure the House that getting planning permission with conditions is much better than not getting planning permission at all. I looked for planning permission on many occasions. I did not always like the conditions that attached to planning, but I was always glad to get it. Regardless of the conditions that may have been attached to a site, I did not leave it there. I went ahead and built on it. I put up with the conditions because that is business life. The Government has the potential to sort out Part V in advance of the giving of planning permission. I suggest that if this is included in the conditions, there will be no argument afterwards.

See this speech in context