Dáil debates

Wednesday, 9 July 2025

Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025: Committee and Remaining Stages

 

12:10 pm

Photo of Eoin Ó BroinEoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)

I will speak to my two amendments in this grouping. I said at the outset that we are not opposed in principle to a time-limited extension of duration. The challenge, however, is that there is no point giving somebody an extension of duration if they cannot demonstrate that something has changed and that what was previously unviable is now viable. I therefore think there needs to be some mechanism by which, when a public or private sector developer applies for the extension of duration, there is a requirement on them to present what I colloquially call a viability statement where they set out why they were not able to commence in the previous three years and what has changed. That could be something in their own circumstances, financing, some decision the Government has made, etc. The value of doing that allows the Minister or the planning authority to weed out those applications where it is likely they are going to commence and should therefore get the extension and those that simply are not. I think a rubber stamping exercise where everybody who applies for it gets it is not an efficient use of the procedure.

I also strongly support the sentiments of my colleagues here on land speculation. In the past 12 or 18 months the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service published an important report on land activation, so this is not the Opposition making this claim. This is an expert body within the Civil Service. It identified land speculation and land hoarding as one of the problems. It is not the only one. There are issues of access to finance. There are issues of getting access to sites. Therefore, an assessment like this would weed out the viable from the unviable but would also be one of two protections against speculation and speculative use of this procedure. I appreciate that the Minister has put in some caveats that there is a set period of time within which substantial commencement will have to take place for the developer, but 18 months is far too long. If something has changed and you are able to avail of or apply for the extension, you should have to substantially commence within at least six months. That is a reasonable period of time. Keep in mind that in many cases three years will have expired. Therefore, if they are going to commence, given that some of these could be large-scale developments, they could take between two and three years anyway.

First, I urge the Minister to consider some form of viability assessment as set out in the first amendment of mine in this group. Second, 18 months is too long and we should return to it.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.