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

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, after line 26, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 4 of Act of 2000

3. Section 4(1) of the Act of 2000 is amended by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (f): “(fa) development to which section 179A applies;”.”.

I propose to address Government amendments Nos. 3, 42, 43 and 49 together, starting with amendment No. 42. This amendment proposes to amend section 179 of the 2000 Act relating to the Part 8 planning approval process for local authority-owned development proposals to provide that the Part 8 process shall not apply to development covered in this new proposed section 179A.

Further to amendment No. 42, amendment No. 43 proposes the insertion of a new section 179A into the 2000 Act to temporarily disapply the section 179 Part 8 planning approval process in respect of housing developments by local authorities on local authority or State-owned land in very strictly defined circumstances. I went through some of this in my Second Stage contribution.

The conditions and the defined circumstances are that the land is owned by the local authority or another State body; the land is zoned for residential development; the proposed development does not materially contravene the development plan or the local area plan for that area; the proposed development is in accordance with the relevant local authority's housing strategy; the land is serviced or will be serviced with the necessary supporting infrastructure within the timeframe of the development; and the proposed development is not required to undergo an environmental impact assessment under the EIA directive or an appropriate assessment under the habitats directive. There is no question of those requirements being set aside. Another condition is that the chief executive of the local authority shall provide plans and particulars of the proposed development to the elected members of the local authority to enable consultation on those proposals, and must give public notice and enable public inspection of the proposals. The development works must be commenced no later than 31 December 2024. As I said on Second Stage, I expect works on some of the sites to start well in advance of that, but we have set that strict timeframe. The measure will be time-bound and is justifiably required, having regard to the current housing supply situation, particularly in relation to social, affordable and cost-rental housing, and the need to use all levers in order to accelerate delivery of such housing developments as speedily as possible.

At this juncture, I wish to state that the focus of this will be about additionality. Some Deputies have specifically referred to the encumbered sites, for example. Local authorities have sites that are heavily encumbered with debt and have not been able to develop them because of that debt. I got approval from Government a number of weeks ago to introduce a land fund that will effectively take on that debt and write down the debt for the local authorities on the proviso that they develop the land, and do so within the time period specified. A number of weeks ago we began an assessment of the local authority lands. Indeed, Deputy Gould raised the issue of the €300 million debt earlier when I was responding the Deputy's colleague. I know some Deputies were not in the Chamber, so that is just for their own information. We have been able to split that €300 million into thirds. The first third of that land is very developable, and is serviced or serviceable land that can be built on quite swiftly. The middle third is a bit more problematic. However, having said that, there may be land within that third that we could develop further along in the process. We will assess whether the initiative to write down the debt works, and if so, we will move on to the second and third pieces of land. In respect of the third part, frankly, some of the land may not ever be suitable for housing. Why some of it was bought fadó fadó in some instances is beyond me. However, it may be put to other good use.

We see this particular measure, which is effectively an exemption from the Part 8 process, as enabling us to expedite additional delivery. I have met with the chief executives and directors of services of all local authorities, who I meet with regularly, to discuss these specific proposals and amendments, and the proposals around this also. I would expect that where Part 8 applications have been prepared and are moving through the process, they will continue, in the main. We are looking at it to get a picture of the additional piece that we can deliver, with a very clear focus on modern methods of construction, MMC, and building up the off-site construction capacity that is available.

One question that I did not get to respond to on Second Stage was on how we can bring about the additionality. While we have provided for an additional 350 staff across the 31 local authorities in the area of social housing and 69 additional staff in affordable housing to manage this process, we will also be looking at external supports for local authorities, particularly in the area of the MMC delivery. There is a real opportunity here for us to get an efficient process in place around procurement, design and all those various different things. I am acutely aware of how much local authorities have to do anyway. We will provide that additional resource. We are working with the local authorities on that.

A suggestion was made on Second Stage, which I am happy to agree to. Just to reconfirm, when we are in a position to be able to share the lands involved, we will do so. I think we can work with the Deputies on the level of detail to be provided. Certainly, we will keep the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage informed through the process of its progression. This is a new measure and it is work that has not been done before. I refer, in particular, to the incentivisation for local authorities to move on with land that is encumbered, and also the focus on modern methods of construction within it, and how we can bring about additionality to that.

As colleagues will know, there are already planning exemptions in place to facilitate accommodation solutions for beneficiaries of temporary protection from Ukraine, as well as international protection applicants from other non-EU countries, in line with our international obligations. That is working. There are sites currently under construction for modular home delivery for our friends from Ukraine. The new planning exemptions now proposed will enable us to make quicker progress on providing much-needed housing, including for the most vulnerable on our housing waiting list.

I will not rehash yesterday's debate; I will stick specifically to what we are looking at here today. The Deputies are aware of what I have been saying on delivery this year. I believe the delivery projections into next year are good, but we still need to do more. We are looking at how we can improve the process. Earlier, colleagues mentioned timeframes. Is Part 8 the problem? I am not saying Part 8 is the problem. We will save time with this process - probably about three to four months in each case.

We will also be looking at the approval process within the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, whether it is the one-stage approval process that is being used by a lot more local authorities now for developments of €6 million and under, or the four-stage process which is now effectively a three-stage process on the basis that local authorities use the design guide that is there, with a view to fast-tracking the mechanism. That is why I am talking about the external expertise around design. Some of these sites have already been designed in respect of layout, etc. We will certainly be looking at additional efficiencies. We have changed the four-stage process already. The new process is in place. Thankfully, the single-stage process is being used by more local authorities, and we are continuing to encourage them to do so.

With regard to EIAs and appropriate assessments, AAs, as I have said, it should be noted, in particular, that public consultation and participation are not a requirement of the EIA and habitats directives in relation to the initial to the EIA and AA pre-screening of proposed developments under this measure.

I will also comment on amendments Nos. 3 and 49. Amendment No. 3 is essentially a supplementary amendment to the amendments Nos. 42 and 43 in relation to the temporary disapplication of the Part 8 planning approval process for local authorities' own developments. The amendment to section 4(1) of the 2000 Act proposes the insertion of a new paragraph in section 4(1) to confirm that local authority own housing development proposals, as provided for in the new section 179A of the proposed Government amendment No. 43, shall also be exempt to development from the normal planning permission requirements under the provisions of the 2000 Act. Amendment No. 49 is merely an amendment to the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the revised content of the Bill, taking into account the preceding amendments I have just discussed, namely, amendments Nos. 3, 42 and 43.

See this speech in context