Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Over the period from 2002 until 2006, the number of house completions rose each year to a peak of 88,200 in 2006. In 2007, Ireland had the highest rate of house completions at 18 per 1,000 of population when compared with other European Union member states. This was done with a planning system that allowed direct

public input. The planning system did not put a brake on volumes and was obviously not an impediment to the development of housing.

If planning permissions exist, there is no guarantee that they will deliver housing. I can point to locations where that is the case, including in areas of high demand. What is holding back some of those developments is the shortage of money to commence or complete them.

The planning system can be slow, particularly when the applicant does not properly pay attention to the kind of detail needed to make a decision. I have seen many planning applications improved by public input and the submission by the applicant of additional information at the request of the council.

Members of the public have a vested interest in planning. Most objections or observations are generated by those who live close to a proposed development. They have, therefore, a vested interest by virtue of living in the locality. This interest is generally maintained in their area long after the developer has dismantled the builder's compound and left. Despite this, it is the members of the public who are being punished by the Bill. They are being blamed for causing delays and more than 80% of the Bill is designed to cut them out of, or greatly limit their role in, the planning process. The name of the Bill should be changed to the Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Bill 2016 because it has nothing to do with planning.

If we want citizens to be active, as they should be in a republic, we cannot cut them out of such a vital process. This Bill is fundamentally undemocratic and also conflicts badly

with the Aarhus Convention, to which we signed up and which gives the public the right to be consulted in a meaningful way on environmental matters that affect them.

There were things that could have been done to speed up the planning process, such as ensuring a sufficient number of planners, improvements to the quality of preplanning meetings, conditioning of planning decisions instead of seeking clarifications to further information, the extension of vacant sites levies and so on. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, will know if has looked at the requests for additional information that many of the issues that are highlighted therein with which the applicant has to deal often require expert input. This will be absent because of the rush to make decisions. Mistakes will cost communities and the Exchequer into the future. If we do not learn from history it tends to repeat itself. We have so much history in respect of this particular area.

I live in a county where the population has quadrupled over four decades and so we have a lot of experience of development. Many of the housing estates in the area were constructed with the benefit of what were known as "Tully permissions", a fast-track approach to planning permission with inadequate oversight, which resulted in short cuts being taken, the price for which was paid for not by the developers but those who live in the estates and the local authorities that ended up taking on problems that were expensive to resolve. What we have now in terms of this Bill is "Coveney permissions", which will remove the local authorities from having a direct role in the planning process for the bulk of new housing estates and will sideline the public as though a disinterested nuisance seeking only to cause delays. This will also sideline local knowledge and soft information in respect of developers who have a history of taking short cuts.

The definition of what constitutes environment in respect of the Aarhus Convention is completely narrowed and, I believe, open to challenge. The first section of the Bill deals with fast-tracking, which will fundamentally change the planning system. The Minister is providing for guidelines to be written by himself or the Department. He appears to be making this up as he goes along. This Bill provides for An Bord Pleanála to pay a substantial fine to a developer from the public purse in respect of decisions not given within the specified timeframe. The appeal process is provided for by way of judicial review, which, in effect, means there is no appeals process. It appears also that the site notice is being dispensed with or will only be included in a guideline. It is not clear how local authorities will deal with compliance. Up to now the conditions set by the local authorities are included in permissions granted under appeal by An Bord Pleanála. The board must now decide on the substance of those conditions. It is being asked to do so without the kind of considered expert background input that is available to local authorities in regard to roads, sanitary services, fire services, etc., from those who know the area best. The public certainty that has been created over decades in this process is now being dispensed with. The positive changes that have been evident in the development plan process, in particular, is being undermined as these plans can be materially contravened. The planning process was publically understood and that brought with it a degree of public trust. That will go. It appears that the public will be able to make a submission to the relevant local authority but the CEO of the local authority may or not include their concerns in a summary of issues raised. The CEO can also suggest that permission be refused but must also explain, if granted, the suggested conditions that should be imposed.

Section 180 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 provides for the taking-in-charge of estates. This process was lengthened in subsequent legislation. Section 180 now provides that seven years after a five-year planning permission has elapsed residents can petition to have an estate taken-in-charge. This extension was further increased by another five years, such that this process currently takes 17 years. Under this legislation, it is proposed to allow yet another extension of duration. As I have often said, a person has more consumer protection when he or she buys a bag of crisps than he or she has when they buy a house. There is nothing in this Bill that limits a developer who is dragging out this process, such that some people are confined to living on construction sites almost permanently.

There are positive changes in Part 3 of the Bill in respect of residential tenancies but the Government could have gone further and sought to meet the call by Focus Ireland to legislate to ensure families in buy-to-let houses that are repossessed are not evicted. Part 4 deals with student accommodation. While such accommodation is definitely required the place where it is located is important, as is the relationship with the neighbouring community. We must get this right otherwise there will be conflict. The involvement of the Housing Finance Agency in lending for this purpose to local authorities and tier three housing associations is welcome. The availability of finance for these sectors is likely to deliver housing units on the ground. If the Government provided local authorities with funding to deliver local authority houses we would see more house delivery on the ground.

I object to Part 5, as I have done each time I have seen in a Bill a provision to provide for the transfer of funds from the local government fund to the Minister for Finance. This fund is made up from motor taxation and property tax. In previous years we saw changes to the Local Government Act 1998 to allow for the transfer of up to €540 million from the local government fund to the Exchequer for Irish Water. In a previous year, approximately €600 million was legislated for in the Local Government Reform Act for the same purpose. Is it intended that the €420 million that will be stripped from the local government fund will to go to the Minister for Finance or to Irish Water? Why is this money being stripped from the local government fund?

As I read this Bill, I got angrier and angrier. It is all about planning permissions and has nothing to do with planning. It is not about anticipating problems. The old cliché comes to mind that if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. I believe that this is deplorable legislation. There is so much more that could be done to get houses built. This legislation will result in greater lobbying of Deputies in respect of planning applications to An Bord Pleanála. People will be livid, and rightly so, when they discover that they have been cut out of a process into which they have a right of input. As I said, planning permissions have been hugely improved by virtue of the input of local communities. It is a disgrace that the public is being cut out of this process. I do not believe that this will necessarily assist in the delivery of houses because the real impediment is the lack of funds. Essentially what we need to do is deliver local authority houses. That is the only thing that will help to rebalance the situation.

See this speech in context