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

To follow on from Deputy Catherine Murphy's point, one of the issues that may come back to bite is the separate ways we are treating section 28(1) and section 28(2) of the 2016 Act. This is one of the real concerns the Green Party has in terms of the process we are engaging here. Why are we treating the original provision not to provide extensions for those developments that would require an environmental impact assessment, EIA, or other appropriate assessment differently to those for which that might not be required but have more than 20 homes? We do not understand it. I have a certain number of questions because many of our amendments relate to concerns on that issue.

To delve into it, the Minister has given some detail. We are all reacting here because the Bill is last-minute and complex and is amending recent legislation. However, the Minister said section 28(1) was being amended because we found out that it was not in compliance with EU requirements. When did we find that out? How did we realise it? We know that some of the other amendments under discussion today were on the back of Fianna Fáil Deputies realising some of the difficulties in the 2016 Act. When did we discover there was this issue in terms of the implementation of that amendment, namely, section 28(1)?

Even having found about it, what we cannot understand is why we do not commence that section of the Act straight away. The current situation is not in compliance with EU law. I think it was Deputy Boyd Barrett who said that the latest version of the EIA directive was meant to be in force by May this year. If we are not in compliance, surely the Minister would be saying we have to get in compliance with EU law straight away. Why do we not just fix it and proceed with the implementation of section 28(1)? Is there not real vulnerability that we might be back here again? That is, there will be certain decisions which will be allowed to go through, for instance, planning decisions that may be given extensions but then we may find ourselves retrospectively recognising that it was a mistake because they were not in compliance with EU law.

The Minister said there were perhaps 75 or so applications - it is somewhere between 50 and 100 - where we may want to get the housing built. Those applications might have more than 20 homes. Is the Minister able to tell us how many applications there are where that section 28(1) would apply? I refer to developments which would now require an EIA. In a sense, who is involved in this decision?

Which developments or how many developments require the Minister to take this dual approach in terms of not commencing that section until later this year? We do not understand the logic of that or of what he said in speech. He said:

Developers need time to consider and comply with the new EU law requirements, and, as the case may be, apply for an extension of duration or a new planning permission. That is the reason I am not commencing this provision immediately but expect to do so by the end of this year.

Surely the only approach one would recommend here is that any developer in this situation would do what has to be done, which is to apply the latest EIA requirements. Why are we not pursuing European law in this approach? I do not understand it. Every Member is anxious to get housing built, but I am concerned that in some ways it is our lack of rigour in planning that is causing some of the uncertainty and the problem of hoarding, which we heard about from Frank Daly at the Oireachtas committee meeting today.

This is one element of it, but I have been concerned for many years, given the amount of zoned land we have, about how we have bent over backwards for developers. In some instances, we did so for financial gain. The real winner in recent years has been Tom Parlon, as I have seen since returning to the Dáil. He has been probably the most powerful operator here. We have given everything we can to the construction industry in terms of tax breaks, lowering building standards and doing whatever we can to get housing built. However, the constant effort to do whatever the construction industry thinks it needs to get housing going is not working. As much as everyone wishes to see finished housing developments that have already commenced, there is a concern that we are constantly ceding planning control. In this instance we are effectively giving a second extension where there is a 15-year timeline. This is as well as all the zoned land, the changes we are making to standards, tax breaks and removing the charge on rezoned land. It appears that this approach to trying to coax the construction industry to build is not working. At some point one might say, "let us be clear and firm so that if we say the planning permission is for X period, it is for that period", rather than create the expectation, which we are in danger of doing, that even though we state the permission is for that period, the developer knows he or she will get the nod in the end so he or she does not necessarily have to go ahead. That is a valid and real concern.

Our primary worry is whether we are creating further legal difficulties for ourselves by not implementing section 28(1). I agree with some of the other questions relating to what substantial completion means and why it must be a five-year extension. Is there a risk that this allows for some hoarding? Are there some other developments that we should exclude? Are we going to include the fast-tracked developments that are going straight to An Bord Pleanála and why would we possibly include them? I assume we are not, and I see that the official is nodding. We are raising these questions to avoid us having to return to this again should certain developments occur and a legal challenge is made because someone says they are not in compliance with EU law. Why would we take that risk? That is what I do not understand with this legislation.

See this speech in context