Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

That is perfect. I would like more information from the Minister on what could be the maximum extension. This would be helpful.

On the extension of planning permission, I do not think there is a Deputy in the House who wants disadvantage in any way building sites, particularly those involving residential construction, that have been forced to close because of public health guidelines. I am concerned, however, about the two-year extension and a blanket extension. I thought it would have been much more effective for potentially affected developers to make the case for how much time they needed and to try to justify this, either in terms of the length of time they were closed because of public health restrictions or, for example, difficulties getting materials and workforce in between public health restrictions.

What none of us wants, and I know this is not the Minister's intention, is anybody using this extension to hoard planning permission and slow down the development or release of units. We raised this with the officials and I am raising it with the Minister. During the course of the debate, I would like to hear what the Minister will do and what he expects the planning authorities to do to ensure nobody does this and that the only people who avail of this are those who legitimately need it. I am concerned, however, as with all of the previous extensions of planning permission, that there can be no new consideration of requirements for environmental impact assessments or appropriate assessments where they had not been required when the very first planning permission grant was issued.

We need to keep in mind that this could add two years onto what could now become a 17-year planning process involving an initial planning application, an extension under the 2010 Act, a further extension under the 2018 Act and now these two additional years. While that may not have been required 15 years ago for an environmental impact or other appropriate assessment, things could have changed in terms of the quantum of development in an area or the nature of the natural environment surrounding it. Therefore, it is a mistake that could not only cause some poor planning outcomes but could potentially be in breach of our obligations under EU law as well as the Aarhus Convention.

I made it clear that I was concerned when the Minister's predecessor, Eoghan Murphy, introduced the second five-year extension to planning permissions with no facility for public consultation. That was a mistake. I can think of a number of developments in my constituency where, given the length of time between the original grant and the extension application, there is a strong case for the planning authority to be able to consider third-party opinions. They may not be objections. Rather, they may be considered opinions to try to improve or address concerns within local communities. That is not in the Bill. It is a weakness that the Minister should consider.

With respect to the changes to section 181, I would like more information. I presume the Department and Minister have very particular projects in mind. Could the Minister share them with us on the floor of the Dáil? We got some of that information in the private briefings, but it would be valuable to have that. The Minister stated that they may be subject to environmental impact assessments. Why is the word "may" used rather than "shall"? What would be the determining factor in distinguishing between the two?

One of my concerns with recent changes to the Planning and Development Acts and the planning process in general has been an increasing conflict with our international obligations under the Aarhus Convention and the specific provisions that the previous Government introduced and that, unfortunately, I fear this Government is introducing. We already know that section 42 of the Planning and Development Act, introduced by way of amending legislation a number of years ago, is in direct contravention of the Aarhus Convention and our obligations under it. That is yet to be rectified and causes a problem throughout our entire planning system, including some aspects that the Minister is changing today.

I want to express a broader concern. I read regularly in newspapers about concerns that third-party opinions and interactions, appeals and judicial reviews are delaying the delivery of housing. I do not believe that is the case. In fact, the significant increase in judicial reviews of housing matters is a direct consequence of the flawed strategic housing development, SHD, planning process. The Minister and I share a desire to see the SHD process withdrawn from our planning system as quickly as possible, but I do not accept that the dramatic increase in judicial reviews was caused by a flawed fast-track planning system. It has not, of course, fast-tracked the delivery of homes at all because many of the people who availed of it have sat on those permissions rather than build developments. The view that somehow the denial of communities and organisations the right to appeal through a two-stage process, which is what we had before, can somehow be blamed for the delay in the delivery of housing is fundamentally flawed. I am a firm believer in a two-stage process.

Under our planning process, our local authorities should be the first stage. I would like to see statutory timelines for preplanning and additional information and a very strict statutory timeline for the board. People have a right to an appeal mechanism through the board. The sooner we return to that kind of mechanism, the sooner there will be a dramatic reduction with respect to judicial reviews of residential housing developments.

The greater the involvement of communities at the earliest possible stage, whether that is for housing, offshore wind or other strategic infrastructural developments, the greater the scope to ensure that the final shape of that development meets all of the legitimate needs within our community. The constant attempt to present reasonable third-party opinions and interactions with our planning system as automatically not-in-my-backyard kinds of objections is unfair.

Very good organisations like the Dublin Democratic Planning Alliance, comprising people who want increased density in residential developments in our city and good quality urban planning in place-making, are concerned about some of the poor quality decisions emerging from the board, and I agree with them, in particular through the SHD process. Such organisations have a right to be involved in the process, and the sooner we bring them in, along with the communities they represent as well as elected members and others, the better.

I hope the Minister brings forward his amendments to the Planning and Development Acts to replace the SHD process. It would be great if we do not wait until February for that to be implemented and could do it before the end of this year. He will certainly have the support of many of us in opposition. Let us increase participation in planning and community involvement, and move towards high-quality place-making as the underpinning of good urban and rural development so that we do get just good quality homes but the infrastructure, amenities and economic opportunities that everybody deserves. Notwithstanding the significant concerns I have with parts of the Bill, we will not oppose it but will continue to work with the Minister to try to improve it in the time ahead.

See this speech in context