Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This is a short Bill to correct an error in a much larger legislative measure that was rushed through the Oireachtas before Christmas. We cannot leave it at that, however, and we have to start by saying it was inevitable that there were going to be errors because of the manner in which the previous legislation was pushed through. During the Report Stage debate on the previous legislation prior to Christmas, Deputy Ó Broin pointed out a number of technical drafting errors. Here we are again, on the eve of another recess, and history is repeating itself. That just is not good enough. This will inevitably lead to the same type of mistakes being replicated. We have to return to the original Bill that we are attempting to amend because that Bill was a repeat of the disastrous housing policies that have been pursued with the same results. We said at the time that the rent predictability measures brought in with the previous legislation Bill would not work and that has proven to be the case because rents have continued to rise. The Government's response to the evictions which followed that continuing massive hike in rents has been to convert warehouses. Its policy in that regard is ridiculous.

We have to get back to basics and examine housing policy in this State. If what has existed in recent years can be called a policy, then it can at best be described as a method of giving developers whatever they desire in the hope that, in return, we will get some houses back for local authorities. The consequence of doing that has been unregulated development. We are loosening some checks and balances that were important in the context of encouraging sustainable development in order to facilitate that process. It is the very process that was not sufficiently regulated in the first instance that has given rise to shoddily-built, overpriced houses in areas with no amenities, not to mention to the issues - such as those relating to fire safety, etc. - highlighted by Deputy Boyd Barrett. If we say that the legislation we are amending was an ill-thought-out developer's charter which has done nothing to address the housing crisis, we can also say that it did take a hatchet to some planning regulations. We have to spell that out. For the vested interests in the Irish property sector it was happy days, but for people trying to put a roof over their heads it made no difference. Houses have become less affordable to either rent or to buy.

It is an incredible irony that a housing co-operative in Dublin could recently manage to build an entire estate of houses and sell them for €140,000 per unit at the same time that developers in NAMA tell us they can only build houses at a cost of €330,000 per unit. Somebody is not telling the truth and I do not think it is the co-operative because it has delivered the goods at the price to which I refer.

The emphasis has been the wrong way around. Since the coming into place of the Urban Renewal Act 1986, the public has been asked to subsidise developers through a long series of tax incentive schemes for development. Where has that got us? We have poured billions into this situation, with incentives for hotels that cost us approximately €500 million between 2011 and 2014, nursing homes that cost over €100 million in incentives, student accommodation that cost over €123 million in the same period and section 23 tax relief that cost almost €1 billion. Despite all these reliefs and incentives, the current dysfunction continues and we still have a major crisis. That means we are doing everything wrong and that we have the whole thing the wrong way around.

The Bill is intended to correct errors in the legislation that was pushed through prior to Christmas. However, it also provides the possibility - specifically in terms of the amendment that Deputy Wallace and I have tabled for Committee Stage - of correcting one of the most irresponsible sections in the principal Act, namely, section 28, which provides for an extension of planning permission on projects containing 20 units or more.

The original Act provided for the establishment of, obviously, a fast-track planning permission system, in which decisions about certain large planning applications would be taken away from the planning officials in the local authorities who had all the local knowledge, and given to a handful of people in An Bord Pleanála to deal with. On top of that the appeals process was undermined and possibly in contravention of the Aarhus Convention due to the input of the consultation with communities being undermined.

The implications of the Bill before us are not very clear. It raises very serious questions in terms of the kinds of developments that would benefit from the proposed legislation. The question has been asked, but I shall ask it again. Where are the 75 developments and landholdings that have been mentioned by the Minister or spoken of in the public arena that are going to benefit from the change that is currently before the House? How many are sites with active planning permissions due to expire this year? How far back do the original planning permissions go that would be covered by this Bill? Are fast-track planning permissions from An Bord Pleanála, for example, now permitted to avail of the five year extension? If so, why would fast-track planning in 2017 need a five year extension to a five year permission? What is the urgency in providing it now?

The Minister's official is looking aghast but I think I have a fairly moderate level of intelligence, as do the staff who work in my office. If we are making the points that this legislation is unclear then it is spelling out that the legislation is unclear if we do not know the answers. Once again, it is a salutary lesson in the bad practice of pushing through planning with serious consequences in this way.

I ask the valid question, namely for how long is it possible to extend a permission under these new rulings. From looking at it, it would appear that a 2007 planning permission can be extended up to 2021. Is that the case? If it is can the Minister explain if this is not encouraging land hoarding and land speculation as well as, critically, ignoring the 2014 revisions to the environmental impact statements directives, which Ireland has yet to transpose into law? The due date for that, incidentally, expired on 16 May this year.

Putting aside for a moment the abomination of waiving the need for reassessment or the need for an environmental impact assessment in what could amount to a 14 year planning permission, we feel it is vital that an amendment is made to ensure that any planning permissions that qualify for this gift of an extension are completely compliant and in accordance with the planning and development Acts, its regulations and any other requirements, including up to date versions of the building regulations.

If a development was originally started it has to apply the standards of today. We need buildings that are up to the standards of best practice in Europe. We should not be letting developers off the hook on issues such as less stringent building regulations that may have been in place in the past or their obligations to reduce emissions and so on.

It is not clear what is in the Bill or how broad are its provisions. We are right to be worried because the promises that were made at Christmas were not delivered upon. In fact, the situation has become worse. Given the tactics and strategies the Minister is following he seems willing just to repeat it over and over again. It begs the question. The reality on the ground proves that the Minister's housing policy is captured by the big players in the industry such as Cairn Homes, Hines, Kennedy Wilson etc. Despite all the legislation that has been rushed through the House the situation is not changing.

It was absolutely galling to listen to Frank Daly of NAMA at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Reform, and Taoiseach this morning. He told the committee that only in recent years has it become commercially viable to build houses again. Why did Frank Daly and NAMA give away assets belonging to the State at precisely the time it was not viable to build houses? The same gentleman spent the meeting telling Members of his concerns about land hoarding. This is when NAMA and its tactics have been the biggest contributors to land hoarding in the State, not to mention the facilitation of vulture funds in NAMA selling off the assets for a song. Yet, we do nothing to curtail their activity. We let them carry on regardless.

I would be grateful to the Minister if he could answer the questions we posed around the effects of this legislation, especially regarding the requirements for an environmental impact assessment. We believe this should be carried out in all developments to honour our environmental concerns and responsibilities in this era when the climate change catastrophe is coming down around us.

See this speech in context