Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I join others in commending the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, on bringing forward this significant Bill. While I and others might argue it has taken too long to get to this point, it is better late than never. I do not underestimate the work the Minister and his officials have done on this mammoth Bill. I commend them and the parliamentary draftspeople in the Office of the Attorney General on their work on the detail. There is more work to be done on it so it can become even more important for the future of the country.

I will focus on a number of issues I have taken up before. I look forward to the Minister of State's responses when he wraps up so that I can adjudicate on whether further amendments are needed. The first issue I raise is my contention that councillors should be afforded external professional advice when engaging in the process of making a development plan. As it stands, the council executive develops a draft plan, which can be amended by councillors after a consultative process. However, if councillors wish to alter the plan or offer an alternative policy in a plan, they are personally culpable in the event that any such policy leads to an action against the council. For example, I am conscious that, in circumstances where it is the prerogative of a development plan to provide a fire service plan, if the members disagreed with and altered that plan and an action were to take place thereafter, they would be culpable because they do not have alternative professional advice available to them. That needs to be identified. I urge the Minister of State to bring that message back to the Department.

Making a development is a consultative process, as we know. For example, in zoning land for residential purposes, the development plan must have regard to such matters as the national and regional spatial strategies; set density guidelines; demand design standards; the need to ensure there is infrastructural capacity, whether that is water, sewerage, roads or pedestrian access; and the need to respect building, construction and engineering standards, rules and regulations. Another issue, as was mentioned by Deputy Lahart, relates to height being determined for a zoning area. That is published in draft form and put on public display, inviting observations and so forth. Thereafter, it may be altered by county managers based on consideration of submissions and reports. Many people participate, but those who do not and actively do not, in essence acquiesce to the development plan. Later, however, when an application is made on the same lands, their rights stretch to the potential to delay a development by up to four or five years.

There has to be some link between those who participate in the consultation process on and setting of a development plan and the planning applications made thereafter. For example, it may be that when a permission is granted, it should point to an application being in compliance with the development plan, specifically in respect of various aspects of the application such as density, design or height. That list should then be barred from an objection because it is in compliance with the development plan and has adhered to the result of the hugely consultative process that is the setting of the plan.

Earlier this year, I put forward a Bill that would force An Bord Pleanála to give decisions within a fixed timeframe. I agreed to it being left aside until this Bill came before us. As the Minister of State will be aware, this is a chronic issue for energy projects, urban renewal schemes and housing. Were these projects delivered on time, our energy future and the housing statistics would be in a much better place. I am interested in finding out what will be done with the 80 or more pending projects for strategic housing, the applications for most of which were submitted in April 2022 and are still with An Bord Pleanála. The Minister of State should make sure the Bill remains under a duty to determine all these applications or appeals. Where an application or appeal has been pending for 12 months or longer - and there are many of those - the board should be forced to decide them within six weeks of the passage of this Bill. The board has enough time and resources if it starts now.

Where an application or appeal has been pending for a long time, the relevant considerations might have changed since the application or appeal was made. The applications, many of which are for necessary housing, should not be prejudiced by this. An Bord Pleanála needs to be held to account to deliver decisions based on the criteria in place when the applications or appeals were made. For the citizens and the economy, the board now needs to be held accountable. It needs to meet statutory timeframes for decisions, which are provided in this Bill, and for the large number of cases that are outstanding. It is not a small number of applications that are impacted by a development plan having changed. It is understood from a widely reported study prepared by Mark McDonald that the quantum of SHD housing units caught in the board's backlog of cases stood at 28,786 at one stage. For context, this equates to approximately 96% of Ireland's housing output for 2022 alone. Many of these applications are located, as has been said, in the Dublin planning authority's area and are at risk of being refused as they were prepared for determination under the plans in operation at the time they were lodged. If they are determined under the new, adapted development plans, they will undoubtedly materially contravene those plans as regards certain policies and objectives.

In a recent High Court judgment issued by Mr. Justice David Holland in a case involving Crofton Buildings Management and another versus An Bord Pleanála, Mr. Justice Holland noted:

Surprisingly, the question has never been explicitly decided which development plan applies in deciding a planning application where the development plan has been replaced (or even varied in a relevant respect) while the planning permission application is pending.

The judgment later notes that legislative assistance would be welcome should the problem arise in the future. Based on the number of applications for SHDs that are still in the system, it obviously will arise. I hope that during the course of this debate, the Minister will give legislative clarity in this regard. The Crofton case has since been appealed to the Supreme Court. A decision on that issue may well cater for an amendment to be made subsequently. I ask the Minister to do so.

I read recently that the failure of An Bord Pleanála to get its finger out means there is still a backlog of at least 22,000 units of 2021 and 2022 housing stock. These could be lost to the State which is still badly in need of them as we enter 2024. You would not think from An Bord Pleanála's attitude that there is a housing challenge at all.

I read that number of 22,000 recently in the context of a press release by a councillor on South Dublin County Council, Barry Saul. I read his comments with some wry amusement as the same councillor has been a ringleader for dezoning land for housing in south Dublin, depriving thousand of students at UCD of accommodation. It is easier for Dubliners to stay at home for college than it is for us country people but people from outside Dublin should not be deprived of a room by opportunistic councillors who give false information to support their contention.

See this speech in context