Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

The Green Party also has serious concerns about the manner in which this Bill seeks to address the housing crisis. We need to address it but we believe the measures being taken by way of this legislation are deeply flawed and may lead to a worsening planning system and housing outcome. Our first concern is that the Bill seeks to address a problem that does not exist. I would dispute that it is the planning system that is holding back housing development across the country. The evidence is clear. The Irish Planning Institute has estimated that planning permission has already been granted for 33,000 units in the Dublin area, with a further 7,000 in the planning process. This indicates that the planning system has not failed in terms of delivering permission to build. It is the problems in our financing and development sectors that need to be addressed. The State also needs to start developing if we are to overcome the housing crisis.

There is further evidence that this Bill seeks to address a problem that does not exist. As I understand it, 88% of the planning applications made in the Dublin city area are approved within eight weeks. The national average is approximately 67%. In Dublin city, where the crisis is greatest, there is no evidence that the planning system is crucially holding up development. If one talks to people involved in the system they frequently say that the reason a delay occurs is often because a developer submits a permission to test the waters and then subsequently makes changes to it. It is not the local communities or local councillors who are holding things up but the developers who are submitting planning permissions which have not been fully thought through, in respect of which the communities have been consulted and are ready to go. We all know that the key issue here in terms of the shortage of housing is the number of vacant units.

It just goes back to the central argument we have been making in recent weeks on the housing issue, namely, that it is all carrot to the development and construction industry and no stick. We need a balanced approach. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government and its predecessor did not proceed with the site value tax proposals we had set up in our time in government. There was a problem with the immediate introduction of the tax in that the Land Registry did not have an accurate picture of who owned what. We asked the Department of Finance to fix the problem and start doing land registration work to find out who owns what. The process was started and I understand the work is now done. The Minister of State may correct me on this if I am wrong. The work would allow us to introduce a site value tax. It would put pressure on developers across the board to use existing property and development sites in an effective and efficient way. That would be the best planning tool. It would be a neutral signal to the whole market that it should be efficient in the use of land and quick in development, rather than just sitting on sites that are not being used although they may be zoned correctly.

With regard to targeting specifically sites that are left vacant, I cannot understand why we did not test the constitutionality of proceeding more quickly. I would love to see a Supreme Court decision assessing whether we always have to be so cautious in looking after the needs of property owners as opposed to accounting for the public good that would arise from development.

My broader concern is that this is a serious further undermining of the strength of local government. I had the privilege to be a councillor for the Rathmines-Rathgar ward in Dublin City Council. It was one of the most enjoyable and rewarding jobs I have done in politics. Even since I left, powers have been taken back in respect of waste and other areas. We are doing it here again. The small details and changes should be noted. The manager has to come back on any proposal related to public consultation within eight weeks. That is fine but councillors are given only six weeks. If the council meeting is at the wrong time, they may have no time in which to make any contribution to the process. This undermining of our local government system is not characteristic of a clever planning approach. We need to strengthen local government by giving councillors responsibilities and putting it up to local authorities to deliver the housing we all know is needed. By thinking we can put councils to the side, we will continue on the approach we have taken, which involves an overly centralised system that does not result in ownership of development, particularly of our cities, which is what we need to get right. If there is no ownership at local council level and councillors are not involved in the process from the start, even if one is giving permission for big developments, how can we get the other parts of the jigsaw right?

Senators Grace O'Sullivan, Alice-Mary Higgins and Victor Boyhan and other colleagues in the Seanad tabled a number of very valuable amendments to the legislation. We seek to make it better in the process. I hope the Minister of State will be open to accepting amendments and will listen to those with a real interest and experience in how local government and housing works. It is not opposition for the sake of it here; we are speaking out of the deep desire to get housing and planning right. I do not believe this Bill takes us in the right direction.

See this speech in context