Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 12, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“Construction within a specified timeframe

16. In line with a use it or lose it principle, development must begin construction within a specified timeframe after receiving planning permission. Penalties for non-compliance will include the withdrawal of permission for the development.”

This relates to the proposal in the Bill to extend planning permission for an additional three years. This is problematic because it could lead to a situation where someone who has had regular planning permission for five years and an additional five-year extension can now get a three-year extension on top of that. That is my understanding. Is that correct? My reading of it is that this is what the Bill could potentially enable. There are several problems with this. First, it potentially rewards speculative development, whereby developers, land speculators and real estate investors simply sit on land for ten years without any real intention to build and without any penalty for not building. In many situations, we have land with planning permission on it which is essentially an asset that has a value. It can sit on real estate investors' or developers' books and be used as an asset. It can be used as leverage and then they sell it at a certain point, making a profit from the uplift on the value on it over time. If that is the case, then this is a giveaway to developers and speculators who have sat on land for a decade who now will get three more years. What happens in two years' time? Will there be another three-year extension? Is that possible? Are we going to just facilitate this ongoing speculative approach to land development in the real estate sector? We are absolutely naive if we think this is not going on.

The Government should introduce a serious use it or lose it clause that would have penalties and that would be set within a timeframe that is less than what is set out at the moment. This is a common-sense approach to avoid further delays. It would place an onus on developers to either get on with building or to sell the land to someone who would actually develop it rather than just sit on it.

Will we see a situation where someone who has planning permission for ten years, obtained under the old Part V provisions when there was only a 10% social housing requirement, will now get an extension of three years but will not fall under the current 20% social and affordable housing requirement? Is this essentially facilitating developers to get out of obligations that have been changed?

See this speech in context