Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)

I thank the Minister of State for his statement, although, unfortunately, I did not hear it. The Bill is not in the summer legislative programme. We have not had any pre-legislative scrutiny, which is a missed opportunity. We should have had more time to hear from the planning experts in this regard. Given that we are taking Second Stage of the Bill today and Committee and Remaining Stages tomorrow, we believe this is far too little time to consider the ramifications of legislation with this amount of detail. Much damage has been done to the planning system in this country by rushed and flawed legislation rammed through by Governments in order to clear the decks, either before a recess or before an election.

The Minister stated in his press release that this Bill is about getting things moving.

5 o’clock

While there is evidence that there are several permissions that are due to expire shortly, the fact is that in most cases this Bill will not do what the Minister claims it will. The primary barriers to the delivery of housing in this country will not be solved by an extension of planning permissions and this Bill will do little other than allow developers a blanket extension of time with no incentive or otherwise to force them to commence within that period. Certain sites with a short remaining planning duration that are earmarked for housing delivery should have the ability to apply for a planning extension for an extremely limited duration. Section 16 of Part 3 of the Bill amends the 2000 Act to enable an extension of three years for developments that have not commenced, with less than two years remaining on the duration of the permission. However, it does not set out any specific provisions beyond that the development must commence within 18 months of the commencement of the legislation.

While I agree that there may be a need for a short extension of remaining planning to guarantee certainty for financiers, there is nothing within this Bill that will oblige developers to explain or account for why they have not commenced the development or, more importantly, when it will be completed. Developers should have to furnish more detail and agree a timeline with the planning authority as to why, first of all, they did not commence the development and when the development will be finished to avail of an extension. For generations, developers have been happy to accumulate land and sit on it. The residential zoned land tax was the measure that we were told would stop this but it was delayed repeatedly, and not by evidence. If it had been implemented as and when intended instead of being delayed, quite possibly we would not have found ourselves here.

Let us be clear. This Bill is being introduced at the behest and for the benefit of property developers. While this Bill allows holders of permissions to apply for an extension in advance of a commencement of the development claiming that it will address the issues that exist whereby permissions effectively lapse because they do not have sufficient time left to commence and be substantially complete, it does not require developers to submit any reasoning as to why they have not developed the site.

Once sites have been granted permission, developers should be forced to build on them. They have every reason to resist this because they do not want house prices to fall but the Government must force their hand. The former Minister, Deputy O'Brien, mooted introducing a use-it-or-lose-it clause in the previous Dáil during the debate on the Planning and Development Bill 2023 but quietly shelved the proposal in the 2024 Act.

Much of the uncertainty around planning in this country has been caused by successive Governments that have introduced new national plans with new or different objectives that an application to extend or alter the original permission may contravene. We know undeveloped sites with planning permission appreciate as time passes, with many being bought and sold over and again. We also know that there was a 50% drop in planning applications across three Dublin local authorities last year, with commencements for new homes falling to the lowest level in nearly a decade earlier this year. That is despite a skewing of the data arising from a surge in commencements in 2024 due to developers rushing to avail of water and sewage connection waivers.

We also know that the main barriers to housing delivery are primarily those involving viability, financing and infrastructure, which brings me to my next point, relating to the provision in the Act to suspend the duration of permission due to judicial review. The number of homes being objected to due to judicial review is estimated at only 7,000 spread over approximately 250 cases, which is a relatively small amount compared with the 80,000 to 100,000 homes permitted but unbuilt. Flawed legislation, such as the strategic housing development legislation, has clogged up the system and, in turn, made judicial review almost another stage in the planning process.

Judicial review is a fundamental function of the court under the Constitution and there is a dangerous perception in Irish public commentary to exaggerate the scope of judicial decisions and to perceive that court decisions are driven by ideology. In fact, judicial review is more often used by elected officials, in this House and beyond, as a scapegoat to excuse people from the consequences of their ill-advised policies.

While the aim of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill might be to preserve the viability of thousands of dormant housing permissions by introducing additional flexibility for developers, it will not materially affect the delivery of housing in this country. Completions in 2025 are expected to decline by 40% compared with 2023 levels. Even with projected increases in 2026 and 2027, output is likely to remain nearly 50% below estimated need. There is evidence there are a number of permissions for housing that are due to expire shortly that have not yet been commenced and there have been calls for an extension to all current permissions, and this is effectively that.

I am worried about the approach of ramming through the Bill with only two days to consider the amendments, in particular in the context of the Aarhus Convention, which, the Government says, the 2024 Act is compliant with. I note an amendment in relation to this, because there are other outside bodies and interests that say the 2024 Act is not compliant with the Aarhus Convention. I particularly welcome the amendment in relation to that.

People do not go to court for the fun of it. I believe that nobody wants to take judicial review cases. We need to make good decisions that reflect proper, open and transparent public participation where the public can have their say as well as reflecting our obligations under national and international law and if this is done correctly, we will make better decisions and, in general, we will not end up in court.

There is a case for a very short extension of time in limited circumstances but this Bill is far too broad, with minimum consequences for developers for delaying development on land with planning permission.

I regret that this Bill is being, as I said at the outset, rammed through in such a short period with minimal time to consider properly the implications and the ramifications of this and to take pre-legislative scrutiny, which would have made this a stronger piece of legislation.

See this speech in context