Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We cannot do everything at once. We are bringing that back to our councils, where it should be. In a compliment to Deputy Boyd Barrett, Deputy Healy-Rae said no one would know the housing needs in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown better than him. I put it to him that maybe the only people who would are the planners in that area and that is the purpose of this. We cannot be, nor should we be, overly prescriptive in allowing certain discretions to happen at local authority level.

There has been good engagement on this and broadly positive acceptance of most of the measures within this legislation. That has not happened with all of the measures and that is fine. That is the way we can frame legislation better and we have made some changes on the way through this Bill. The reality of it is that any local authority will need to have the ability to respond to circumstances that may arise in the future. Where do we see large-scale residential developments, LRDs, and this 30% coming in? It is not an attack on the residential element of it. If anything it is the opposite. It is doing exactly what the Deputy has been asking for and it is making sure that, in the larger developments, we have the complementary and other services that are required to make that development viable, livable and good quality.

I have been a critic of SHDs and they have failed to deliver what they were intended to deliver because we have not seen the throughput of effective planning permissions that have been granted. It was a restriction to 15%. In the research we did on that we found it was making it more difficult to develop out and provide good developments that had coffee shops, crèches and all of those things, especially in brownfield site developments. That is where I see a lot of the LRDs, although not all of them, focusing - on the brownfield sites that we have not been able to develop heretofore at any decent scale in any of our cities or major regional towns. I am sure in Tralee, Killarney, Dublin, Dún Laoghaire, Buncrana or wherever we will all know brownfield sites that have not been developed. We need to let our local authorities get back to doing that properly. Why are we doing LRDs and why am I bringing in this legislation? First, I am doing it to end the SHD process from 17 December. Second, I am doing it to make sure we can streamline and provide the many thousands of homes we need. We will not deliver them with a planning process like the SHD process, which does not lead to planning permissions being effected and homes being delivered.

Understanding the motive behind the Deputy’s amendments, I think they would have the reverse effect. He would be tying the hands of local planners to decide on specific applications that come in. I put it to the Deputy that the best people to decide on planning are not politicians but planners. They are the ones who are charged with doing that job in each of the local authorities. By getting rid of SHDs, the LRD process allows the publicly elected councillors to know about the applications and it allows the residents to make observations in a two-stage planning process at the early stage. I know we will get to the question of pre-application soon. The LRD process is also time-bound and efficient. It has strict time constraints and turnaround times for requests for pre-application, holding those meetings, the planning application going in, and everything else that is required for it.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 relate to the other uses allowed in LRDs and we need that to make viable and livable developments. Amendment No. 2 seeks to remove the ability to vary the percentage of residential use that must be provided in the LRD development by way of a regulation. I consider that the proposed amendment would limit the ability to respond to future circumstances. We have set the threshold at 70 but we will allow that to be varied. The amendment would limit flexibility that might be required to address the operation of the scheme in practice over time, which may also effect the viability of those sites being developed out and the quality of those developments. That would mean we would continue to have brownfield sites, that we all know of, not developed and not providing good and high-density developments for our people. High-density developments can be good when planned properly and at a local area. This is particularly with regard to urban areas and brownfield sites.

The ability to vary by regulation the percentage of LRD "other use" floor space that makes up a development will allow the planning system to respond to changing market conditions also. It would allow it to see what the circumstances are in any given area and determine if there is an over supply of a certain type of commercial activity in a given area or if there is too little residential development in another. There is nothing to be feared from this provision. If anything, it will make things better. Restricting the ability of our planners to make that decision would be a mistake which is why I cannot accept amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 3 proposes that a public consultation shall take place with individuals and community groups in relation to "other use" floor space. The planning authority will have to have due regard to any observations received in connection with determining the granting of permission for "other use" floor spaces. We are bringing the process back so that people will actually be able to make submissions at planning stage. We will get to the pre-application stage shortly as we move through and there will be other mechanisms there whereby there will be proper transparency around pre-planning, which is needed. The decision on whether or not to grant permission, with or without conditions, is a matter for the local authority concerned. In making its decision on a planning application, the local authority is required to have regard to, among other things, any submissions or observations received in respect of planning applications. Why is that important? It is important because up to now, as we discussed on Committee Stage, when there was an SHD application, the first time an individual, apart from the local authority, could make a submission was directly to An Bord Pleanála. That is why we have seen an increase in judicial reviews in that space. If people were not happy with a decision, they had to go further and go to court. That will not be the case in this instance. Observations are back at the right stage, where they should be, which is at the start of the planning process when a planning application is lodged. All of the details of the development are made public and people will be able to make their observations. Furthermore, as I mentioned on Committee Stage, every elected member within that local authority area must be advised, and not at the discretion of the council, of any application under LRD that is lodged in the council area.

As I mentioned in relation to other proposed amendments on Committee Stage last week, the submission of observations on planning applications is the correct and long-established way for members of the public, be they individuals, community groups or any other interested parties, to have their say and to provide their input on such planning applications, including on the "other use" component. We varied that component on the basis of research which showed that the 15% limit ensured that a lot of developments did not happen and would not have been of the quality needed. For those reasons, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 2 or 3.

See this speech in context