Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “The written statement referred to in subsection (2) shall allow for the zoning of land for the particular use of providing affordable housing as defined in Parts 2 and 3 of the Affordable Housing Act 2021.”.

My party colleague Deputy Cian O'Callaghan and I put forward this amendment. It is related to the approach of zoning affordable housing. It is done in Vienna to very good effect and we feel this should be introduced as a possibility for local authorities to perpetually ensure housing is affordable in certain areas.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 1 seeks to provide for the zoning of land for the particular use of affordable housing. The amendment itself appears to amend a wrong section of the Bill, as section 4 of the Bill amends section 45 of the principal Act, which deals with the implementation and monitoring of regional spatial and economic strategies. In any event, I cannot accept this amendment as zoning requirements are already adequately dealt with in the Act of 2024. Section 43 of the Act of 2024 outlines the content requirements of development plans. Section 43(6) of the Act provides that the written statement for the integrated overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area included in a development plan shall include zoning objectives for the zoning of land for a particular use or mixture of uses. Prior to making a development plan a planning authority shall prepare a housing strategy under Part 7 of the Act of 2024 for the purpose of ensuring that the corresponding housing development strategy makes adequate provision for the housing of the existing and future population of the area of the development plan in accordance with proper planning and sustainable development of the area. The housing strategy shall take account of the existing and likely future need for affordable housing, including for the purposes of the provision of social housing, while section 242(10) of the Act of 2024 provides that up to 20% of land used for residential purposes, including land that is not zoned for residential use or for a mixture of residential and other uses but in respect of which permission for the development for houses is granted, must be provided for social, affordable or cost-rental housing. Therefore, I am satisfied that the provisions regarding affordable housing under the Act of 2024 are appropriate and, therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can I briefly comment?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise to the Minister. I meant to say this on section 2. At some point during the Minister's responses to any of the clusters of amendments or the sections, it would be only right if he was able to give us any additional detail he has about the amendments he is intending to submit in the Seanad, that is, both the additional transitional amendments as well as the so-called permitted alterations. The first reason is just to give us some information - we got some from a Minister of State yesterday - but he might also let us know when those amendments are going to be published because we are very keen to see them. Perhaps we in the Oireachtas committee could get a briefing from the Minister's officials on Monday. I raised that with the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, yesterday. Crucially, the Minister might give us a commitment that appropriate time will be made available in the Dáil when the Bill comes back from the Seanad to deal with those amendments because some of them are very substantive.

I am not saying we need hours and hours, but we do need some time to go through those.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Obviously, the amount of time given will be up to the Business Committee, but I have no difficulty with substantial time being given for it.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 2 is in the name of Deputy Sheehan. Amendments Nos. 2 and 9 are related and will be discussed together.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 177 of Principal Act

13. Section 177 of the Principal Act (“Duration of permission granted under Part”) is amended by the substitution of “3 years” for “5 years” in each place where it occurs.”.

This was submitted as one amendment, but it has been split in two because the 2024 Act has been passed but not enacted. What we are attempting here is to amend both the 2000 and 2004 Acts with regard to duration of planning permission. I will come back in again after the Minister's response.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will address amendments Nos. 2 and 9 as tabled. Amendment No. 2 seeks to reduce the standard duration of a permission in the Act of 2024 from five years down to three years, while amendment No. 9 seeks to make the same amendment in respect of the 2000 Act. I cannot accept these amendments. The purpose of having a specified period for a planning permission to act upon is to balance the operational and practical aspects of construction with the need to bring certainty to the development process. The period for permission, which is generally five years, is well-established and in general strikes an appropriate balance between the length of period necessary for construction and the length of period a permission may be acted upon. There is capacity under the existing legislation and the 2024 Act for longer timeframes to be granted in view of matters such as the size and complexity of a particular proposed development. For these reasons, unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I brought forward these amendments because they relate to the whole issue of use it or lose it, namely, the issue of duration of planning permissions. While I accept what the Minister is doing in terms of existing planning permissions that have commenced, I believe we need a tighter regime around duration of planning. We are seeking to reduce the normal duration of a planning permission from five to three years. Five years is too long, and three years seems a reasonable period. The purpose is to incentivise the commencement of active planning permissions to reduce the likelihood of speculation or abuse on sites that have active planning. The point is that throughout the country there is a huge issue with uncommenced planning permissions. There are between 80,000 and 100,000 nationally. It is extraordinary to see this level of uncommenced planning. While there are multiple reasons, including viability as to the delay, we believe land speculation remains a key issue. We continue to perpetuate. We have a system in this country where we have a lengthy period within which developers can hoard land. We have seen sites with planning being on again and again, and we believe the planning permission should not be used as a means to increase the value of land for sale. We believe that it is essential for our planning and housing systems that speculative planning should be reduced and land should not be left sitting idle.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Reducing the length of time with regard to a planning permission might be okay with the large developments but I would be very concerned about the one-off housing. A lot of people might apply for planning but may not have the money to get started, especially with the price of materials at the moment. I refer to one-off housing in rural Ireland. I have often met people, as we all do in our constituencies, who ask for another five years and, on that basis, thankfully, they get it across the line. They may not have the money to finish, or they might just have the foundation put down or whatever. I careful in that regard. I would accept it maybe for large developers but, certainly, I would be a little bit more cautious about reducing that to three years for one-off planning in a rural community because a lot of people are finding it very difficult. They are finding it difficult with regard to wastewater.

We have a situation in Union Hall at present. Councillor Daniel Sexton told me there was no water there last weekend, and people are in an awful state. Businesses are losing money left, right and centre. People had to hand back money in respect of their bed and breakfast accommodation businesses. These are areas where people are losing money at present. Certainly, that is a crisis that Irish Water needs to look into. It is not looking into a lot of other issues in west Cork as I have mentioned here before.

I agree with the amendment if it is with regard to larger developments, but I would be more cautious in relation to one-off housing. I am not objecting here for the sake of objecting. I would just add that word of caution that people genuinely look for planning and hope to get something off the ground but then all of a sudden, the money is not there, the banks will not backing them and it takes a period of time for them to build up their finances again to get the house built. It could pass the three-year period. I would just be a bit cautious on that.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I understand where both Deputies are coming from. Having examined it, there are some challenges around shortening the period. I understand the Deputies' intention. However, when we look at the necessity for bigger projects to secure finance, deal with compliance and complete the development, the five-year period is a more balanced approach to this. Then, obviously, with single one-off houses, those families need time to be able to complete those houses. In my view, the five years is appropriate. I can confirm for Deputy Ó Broin that the amendments will be published on Friday morning.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is Deputy Sheehan pressing the amendment?

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 3 is out of order.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 10, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(d) A contractor must publish an annual profit and loss account, an auditor’s report, and a balance sheet in order to qualify to provide dwellings for the purchase of which funds may be made available by the special purpose vehicle.”.

The amendment seeks transparency in relation to developers and builders who are going to benefit from an extension of planning permission. We need to see open books for developers and contractors because we do not know what is going on in terms of profit-taking. In the development of the property sector, there are major issues regarding the lack of awareness, knowledge and understanding of the level of profit-making that is going on. In particular, in making changes that will enhance the profits of landowners and developers, we at least need to see the accounts of those who are developing land made public.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment seeks to amend section 13, which amends section 180 of the Act of 2024. In relation to the suspension of the duration of permission while a judicial review is ongoing, the current provisions provide that where a person is seeking a suspension of duration in respect of a concluded judicial review, they must submit a declaration that the development did not substantially commence before the conclusion of these proceedings. The amendment proposed by the Deputy seeks to provide that, in addition to that obligation, a contractor must publish an annual profit and loss account, an auditor’s report and a balance sheet to qualify to provide dwellings for the purchase of which funds may be made available by the special purpose vehicle.

Section 180 deals exclusively with suspending the duration of a permission and puts obligations on a person seeking a suspension. As the section does not contain provisions relating to funding, and there is no other reference to or mention of a special purpose vehicle within the Act of 2024, I cannot accept the amendment. It would not be appropriate to seek account information as part of a request to suspend the duration of a permission. A test for whether a suspension of a duration is appropriate is already set out in legislation, as follows: was the development subject to a judicial review? Is the permission still active, that is, not expired? Were works carried out while the judicial review was ongoing? I am satisfied that these criteria are entirely appropriate and, therefore, for these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 5, 15 and 19 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 11, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(e) The Minister may, by way of regulations, provide for third party observations for consideration by the planning authority to ensure compliance with the State’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention and the principles of good planning and development.”.

I want to make a couple of general points on the planned legislation and I will then speak to each of the amendments. There will be many occasions where we are arguing from completely opposing sides, whether on policy or legislation. However, there will also be times when people on this side of the House are not opposed to the principle of what the Minister is trying to do but, through long and difficult experience of dealing with planning legislation, we are going to raise points of concern with what is being proposed or how it is being dealt with. When we do that, we are raising it because we are sincere in the comments we are making and we want the Minister and his colleagues in government to take that into account. This Bill is a case in point.

This is my tenth year as a Member of the Oireachtas and my tenth year as a spokesperson on housing and planning. The vast majority of the legislation we have dealt with during that period is planning legislation. Paul Hogan and I were much younger looking and had far less grey hair when we started this, with both of us leaving South Dublin County Council at the time.

There have been far too many occasions when complex, technical changes to planning legislation were brought in at the end of a Dáil term without adequate opportunity for Oireachtas Members to hear from planning professionals and the representative bodies to ensure we got the legislation right. I have often been of the view that the Government puts far too much pressure on hard-working officials to work late into the night to produce these Bills and the amendments to them. Because they are working under such pressure and to such tight timelines, and because there is inadequate scrutiny, bad legislation is passed. That is not a criticism of the Minister’s officials, and I want to make that very clear. We have had many occasions - substitute consent was probably one of the most controversial - where, at the end of a Dáil term, really bad, rushed legislation was passed, was wrong, was subsequently found to be problematic and had to be returned to.

I say that because, specifically with respect to the provisions of this Bill that aim to pause planning permission durations during a judicial review and the extension of durations, while I support that in principle, they need to be got right and that has not been achieved here.

The first of these amendments deals with a request for some mechanism for public participation when the application to pause the planning duration during a judicial review is being undertaken. As the Minister will be aware, judicial reviews can take a year, two years, three years or four years. There are many planning considerations that need to be taken into account during that period. I am not at all suggesting that there should be the same level of formal public participation as one would have, for example, in a local authority planning application or with the board, but there needs to be some mechanism. The reason for that is twofold. First, it is in accordance with the principles of good planning and development because there may be third-party information pertinent to the development and the pausing of it that should be brought to the attention of the planning authority. Second, if this is not done, that leaves developers, public or private, who access these provisions potentially open to legal challenge for potential breaches of the Aarhus Convention and its working through EU legislation which, ultimately, of course, would cause a delay in the decisions and a delay in development.

I know the Minister will not accept the amendment. I will not labour the point but, with respect both to this and the other two amendments, we have a poor record of being fully Aarhus-compliant. We have a poor record of ensuring that where we have public participation, it is adequate and meaningful and, therefore, with respect to the judicial review pause, but also with the extension of duration, there needs to be some element of public participation.

It is probably an even stronger argument with respect to the extension of duration. I will explain why that is so. The first time we had legislation for the extension of duration was in 2010. I was not a Member at the time. Obviously, the Celtic tiger crash happened, people were not able to build out developments and as a consequence, for very different reasons, we were in a similar situation as we are in now. Vital planning permissions were at risk of collapsing. However, when the extension of durations was being considered, lots of things had changed. Sometimes ownership had changed, sometimes the reputation and activity of the developer on adjoining sites was materially relevant, and sometimes there were also changes in environmental or ecological factors surrounding the development. If there is no opportunity for any third party to bring additional information to the consideration of the planning authority, the extension of duration becomes a rubber-stamping exercise. That is what happened post-2010 and when the former Minister, Eoghan Murphy, introduced the second extension of durations in 2018, 2019 or 2020 it was the same. I am not at all suggesting there should be some elongated process, but the idea that one could extend a planning permission for three years without giving anybody the opportunity to bring matters of important concern to the planning authority is a mistake. It is a mistake on good planning grounds and in terms of Aarhus compliance as well as de-risking the developers who seek access to this extension from possible litigation.

While I can anticipate the response and I am sure the Minister will read out what he has been given by his officials, this is something we will return to. I urge the Minister to accept these arguments, unlike his predecessors who I believe did not take their Aarhus compliance responsibilities seriously. This is a really big issue. In fact, many of the problems we have had in planning, and particularly the dramatic upsurge in litigation of residential developments from 2018 - thankfully, that has now receded - are often due to a failure to get the process right and, as a result, opportunities are created for people who may or may not have genuine intentions to seek appeal and, ultimately, litigation. Public participation is one of those.

An extension of duration of three years is significant. I believe it is necessary for the planning permissions the Minister is looking to save but I simply do not understand why there is no consideration for public participation in that as well.

The third amendment is a safety amendment in case either of the others was ruled out of order. It is a reporting mechanism, but it is really the first two amendments that are the substantive propositions.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will address amendments Nos. 5, 15 and 19 together. These amendments relate to the Bill's compliance with the Aarhus Convention.

Amendment No. 5 seeks to provide for third-party observations as part of the suspension of duration of a permission while it is subject to a judicial review by amending section 13. Amendment No. 15 seeks to make similar provisions for third-party observations as part of the extension of duration provisions in section 16.

The criteria for the suspension of the duration of a permission while it is subject to judicial review proceedings and the extension of a duration of a permission are clearly set out in legislation and does not involve a decision of the planning authority beyond whether the specified criteria are met. If the criteria set out in legislation are met, the planning authority shall grant a suspension or extension. For example, under section 180 of the Act of 2024, a planning authority is notified in writing of the date of the commencement of judicial review proceedings by the person who is carrying out or proposes to carry out the relevant development. A second notice is subsequently issued when the judicial review proceedings are finally concluded and that notice must include the date that the proceedings concluded. The planning authority's role in the process set out under section 180 is primarily to enter the relevant details in the planning register. At no point in the process does the role of the planning authority involve consideration or the making of a determination other than to ensure the notices provided to the planning authority are in accordance with section 180 and any associated regulations. It is for this reason I am not in a position to accept the proposed amendments.

As a decision of a planning authority, beyond whether the criteria are met, does not form part of the process under section 180, public participation is neither necessary nor appropriate. It should be noted that the extensions of duration cannot be granted where the extension proposed would require an environmental impact assessment, EIA, or an appropriate assessment, AA. If an EIA or AA is required, under the Act of 2000 procedures, a new application for permission is required in respect of the development and thus any public notification or participation requirements are fulfilled. Under the Act of 2024, if an EIA or AA is required, there are procedures for a material extension of duration under Chapter 5 of Part 4 which include the public participation and notification procedures.

In relation to the publication of notices, section 42(5) of the Act of 2000 already provides that the details of any extension of duration is entered on the planning register. Similarly, section 180(6) of the Act of 2024 provides that the details of the suspension of duration of a permission due to judicial review shall also be entered on the planning register.

Amendment No. 19 seeks to provide that within three months of the passing of the enacted Bill, the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the compliance of all sections of this Act with the State's obligations under the Aarhus Convention and the environmental impact assessment directive. I am satisfied that the Bill is compliant with the Aarhus Convention and the EIA directive and, therefore, I cannot see the need to report on this matter in the manner suggested.

As I outlined, I am satisfied that these provisions are in compliance with all international obligations, including the Aarhus Convention, and, therefore, I cannot accept the proposed amendments.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is precisely the problem. If this change to planning legislation had been included in the Planning and Development Act which we spent two years passing through the House, as a committee we could have asked, for example, planning law experts, professional planners and legal experts who specialise in Aarhus Convention compliance their views on this. One of the points I made on Second Stage was that it is hard to understand why this provision was not proposed in the legislation from last year, given that future planning applications from the relevant sections were enacted.

The difficulty for us here is, of course, that while the Minister's predecessors told us that Bill was Aarhus-compliant, some important sections of that were found by the Aarhus Convention compliance committee not to be in compliance. The people whose job it is to independently assess whether a state's legislation is in compliance with the convention told us we were not. I accept these were specific sections of the legislation. Being expected to take the Government at its word when there has been a history of poor compliance or non-compliance is problematic and I will be pressing the amendment.

I am aware the Minister has a legal background. We will be coming back with more planning legislation. I suspect the that we have seen in previous years will be repeated and this issue will come back repeatedly. If it is found that legislation passes through here and it is not compliant or it undermines the important elements of public participation, all I will say is we warned and highlighted this here.

We do not want to see planning permissions delayed or have them fall foul of viability, but nor do we want to see good-quality planning applications for infrastructure or housing fall foul of legal challenge because of poorly drafted and enacted legislation or non-compliance with our European and international obligations. I state that not necessarily for a response but because these are very serious issues. These are issues the Minister's predecessors did not get right despite the fact that they used some of the same language as the Minister has brought here today.

I urge the Minister not to repeat their mistakes, so that we get the planning legislation right for the people who need it.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 6 and 18 are related and will be discussed together.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 11, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(e) The Minister may, in consultation with the Minister for Justice and with the approval of Cabinet, introduce regulations to place High Court good practice guidelines on a statutory footing in order to have legally binding statutory timelines for the hearing of Judicial Reviews and for the issuing of Court decisions on Judicial Review related to planning matters governed by the Principal Act.”.

Obviously, the principal challenge with the pausing of a permission during judicial review is the length of time it takes for the judicial review to be heard and then for the judgment to be written. While there has been an increase in the number of judges from one to three, the big experience is while getting the case to be heard is one thing, the judges then obviously move directly to another case and there is often a very long delay before they write up the judgment, which is very bad both for the applicant and the third party, irrespective of what one thinks of the case of the individual judicial review.

I spent some time last year talking to legal experts and asked if there was some way for us to ensure that where judicial reviews are taken, they are expedited in a timely manner. I do not want to undermine in any way the quality of the legal judgments, but we want the decisions to be made in a reasonable time period. Three clear things need to be done. First, the number of judges on the Planning and Environment Court, a sub-panel of the High Court, needs to be increased. It has increased to three but I think it probably requires six.

There will also need to be better resourcing of the judges, both in terms of their capacity to hear the cases and write up the decisions but also because we have lots of conversations about statutory timelines for planning. While the Planning and Development Act 2024 has timelines for the board, unfortunately, it does not have timelines for preplanning or further information at local authority stage. However, there is a mechanism for applying statutory timelines to judicial reviews. As I am sure the Minister knows better than I do, the Master of the High Court issues good practice guidelines. It would be possible, following consultation with the Judiciary, to put those on a statutory basis, which would give everybody certainty. We all agree on the need for that.

Timelines in and of themselves are no use without the additional judges and resources. I know the Minister will not accept the amendment and I am sure he will find all sorts of technical reasons to argue the way I have drafted the amendment is not appropriate. This is an opportunity for me to urge the Minister, now that he has the responsibility, to look seriously at ensuring there is adequate resourcing through his negotiations and conversations with his colleague, the Minister for justice, and the Cabinet, and also to look at the issue of timelines.

Thankfully, the abandonment of the disastrous strategic housing developments and the unwinding of some of the very bad provisions of design guidelines introduced by the former Minister, Eoghan Murphy, have been removed and we have seen as a result a dramatic drop in the number of judicial reviews on residential developments, which is to be welcomed. However, there is still a significant flow of judicial reviews, particularly for infrastructure projects. I am interested in hearing the Minister's answer but, more important, I would be genuinely interested to see him to take this away and discuss it with officials and colleagues. Ultimately, we all want a planning system where everybody knows the timelines from start to finish. We want a planning system that makes good quality planning decisions.

Where there are disputes over matters of law or fact, those issues can be dealt with in a timely manner because then, of course, we would not be dealing with these kinds of delays. This is an eminently sensible proposition in principle and I urge the Minister to look at something like this as part of wider reforms, along with the Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Callaghan.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The rules and procedures of the High Court are set out in the rules of the superior courts and these are made by the Superior Courts Rules Committee in concurrence with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. If by good practice guidelines the Deputy is talking about practice directions, it is my understanding that these are issued by the President of the High Court under section 11 of the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020. Regardless of my views on the matter, the regulation and the operation of the High Court is a matter for the Judiciary.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept the technical explanation but would just make one point. I ask the Minister to examine the principle behind this amendment and to discuss it with the Minister for justice and also, in the course of his work as Minister for housing, with the relevant members of the Judiciary. We need to fix this bit of the system too. There is little value in having statutory timelines for decisions of the board, for example, if things then get judicially reviewed and are stuck in the courts for two or three years. I know that the Minister agrees with me on that. I accept that it is not primarily his responsibility but ultimately, the planning aspects of this are his and ours as a committee.. Therefore, while I accept that the Minister is not accepting the amendment, it is a proposal worthy of some consideration by the Government. All I ask the Minister to do is look at it. His personal opinions on this issue do matter, not necessarily for this amendment but in terms of the reforms that he decides to pursue as the Minister with responsibility, ultimately, for planning.

There are very considerable parts of the Planning and Development Act 2024 and the debates we had on it that specifically looked at reforms of the judicial review process but without this, many of those reforms will not result in any time savings or improved delivery times for much-needed infrastructure, including renewable energy or residential developments. It is a proposal that I urge the Minister to at least examine, if not in this context then in some other context.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am very strongly of the view that the operation and procedures of the superior courts is a matter for the Judiciary of the superior courts. It would be inappropriate for the Oireachtas to set down statutory timelines for the courts. The courts need to be able to manage their lists in the manner they see fit. That is my personal opinion and my position as an officeholder.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 7 is out of order.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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?

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 8 seeks to introduce a use it or lose it principle into the Act of 2024. The amendment itself does not appear to amend a specific section of the Act of 2024 or to outline any details or criteria concerning the timeframes to be specified for commencement or what penalties may be applied. While it is, of course, important that we encourage holders of permissions to commence development as soon as possible, I do not consider it appropriate to introduce a use it or lose it principle in this manner.

The extension of the duration of permissions proposed in this Bill are time limited and restricted in that the development must commence within 18 months of the commencement of the legislation or the extension will cease to have effect. Under the Act of 2024, development must have commenced before an extension of duration can be sought. This is to encourage holders of permission to commence development as soon as possible. In the event that a holder of a development does not commence before the end of the duration of the permission, the permission will expire and a new application for permission will need to be made. This is appropriate as there may be valid reasons that are sometimes entirely outside of the control of the holder of a permission as to why a development does not proceed as intended.

The Minister for Finance has already introduced legislation providing for the application of financial penalties for non-activation of zoned residential land. This is a more appropriate legislative code for such matters, rather than planning legislation for dealing with it on a use-it-or-lose-it-type basis. The residential zoned land tax, RZLT, applies to lands zoned for residential development or for mixed-use purposes including residential development, which is either vacant or idle and which, in both cases, also has the necessary services in place to support the development of housing. The tax was introduced in the Finance Act 2021 and came into effect on 1 February 2025. The aim of this tax is to increase the supply of land for building by activating land which has been zoned in a statutory land use plan adopted by a local authority and which is also serviced. The tax will be charged at 3% of the market value of the land every year. I am satisfied that the RZLT is a more appropriate measure than a use it or lose it principle. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 12, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 40 of Act of 2000

16. Section 40 of the Act of 2000 is amended, in subsection (3)(b), by the substitution of “the period of three years beginning on the date of the grant of permission” for “the period of five years beginning on the date of the grant of permission”.”.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 10 to 14, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 12, line 18, to delete “2 years” and substitute “1 year”.

These amendments relate to the Minister's proposals to enable an extension of three years for developments that have not yet commenced and have less than two years in the permission. I proposed these amendments because, while I believe a short extension may be necessary in extremely limited circumstances, it must be short and caveated to prevent land hoarding and speculation. We have huge problems with land hoarding and speculators sitting on planning permissions in this country while land increases in value. We believe a much tighter approach needs to be taken in terms of use or lose it. That is why we have moved these amendments to tighten the limit. I noticed before the vote that the Minister was talking about the residential zoned land tax. From our point of view, I welcome that is finally being collected, despite having been delayed until this year. The Minister said in his reply to Deputy Hearne that he believes the residential zoned land tax will deal with these issues and there is no need for a use it or lose it clause, but if the tax does not deal with this and we do not see the results of that over the coming period, will the Minister give us an idea if this is something he will look at revisiting?

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support my colleague. We are talking about increasing timelines and giving extensions. I will provide an example. The Good Shepherd Convent in Cork was originally bought by UCC to be developed for, I think, about €4.5 million. It changed hands a couple of times. At the height of the Celtic tiger it was sold for €20 million. Afterwards, it was bought by a Drogheda-based company, Moneda. That company went for planning permission in December 2017, got planning permission and then flipped it. The site has still not had a blade of grass turned - nothing. It was complete speculation. This site in the heart of Cork city has for the last 20 years seen speculation after speculation, then the property crash and then back to speculation again. Now planning permission has finally been applied for and granted but there have been a number of fires on the site. Fire brigades have had to be called out and first responders put at risk because speculators only cared about maximising profits. The community around it in Blarney Street and Sunday's Well have had to put up with constant fires. If the Minister googles it, he will see. Every year, fire after fire. What was a protected building is now a shell; it had to be semi-demolished because it was a danger, all because speculators were allowed to get away with this.

This is not an isolated incident. We have seen this in other sites in Cork. The LDA has gone into the St. Kevin's site and is turning it into housing. For 20 years, that was left idle and left to be destroyed. We have a site off Shandon Street, Gurranabraher, just behind where I live, the old Connie Donovan's pub site. It was bought, planning went in for it and it was flipped. They put up the metal beams and the foundation and it has been like that for 15 years. Speculators cannot be allowed to get away with profiteering and damn the community. We need timelines to make sure this does not happen. Eighteen months, as Deputy Ó Broin said, is too long.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 to 14, inclusive, seek to amend the timelines in section 16, which amends section 42 of the Act of 2000. Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 seek to provide that applications for extension of duration of uncommenced housing developments may only be made in the last year of permission remaining, rather than the last two years, as set out in the Bill.

Existing planning regulations set out that an application for an extension of duration under section 42 of the 2000 Act may only be made in the final year as a development must have substantial works carried out. For uncommenced housing developments, it is appropriate to allow such applications in the final two years of a permission. Where a permission has two years or less remaining, there may be viability issues associated with the development in terms of putting the arrangements in place to commence and carry out substantial works in order to avail of a regular extension of duration. Allowing an application to be made when there is two years left of an uncommenced permission deals with these issues. Allowing applications for extension of duration for uncommenced housing developments in the final two years is appropriate as it will allow development sooner. If it were limited to the final year, the only option for developers at the moment would be to apply for a new permission if they could not meet the criteria for an extension.

Amendment No. 13 seeks to reduce the overall extension of duration period from five years to three. I cannot accept the amendment. The five-year period is well established and, in general, strikes an appropriate balance between the length of the necessary construction period and the length a permission may be acted upon. I am satisfied five years continues to be appropriate with regard to extended durations of permission.

Amendment No. 14 seeks to provide that development must commence within six months of the coming into operation of the provision on extension of permission, rather than the 18 months set out in the Bill. I cannot accept the amendment as it conflicts with the timeframe set out in the Bill. The Bill provides that applications for extension of duration may be sought within six months of the coming into operation of the provision. It is therefore not possible that developments should be commenced within six months of the coming into operation of the provision. The Bill sets out that the applications for extension of duration may only be made within six months of the coming into operation of the provision. Further works must commence within 18 months of that coming into operation; otherwise, the extension will cease to have effect. These time periods run concurrently; for example, if a person applies for and is granted an extension within the first month of the operation of the provision, they have 17 months to commence development before the extension ceases to have effect. If a person applies for and is granted an extension six months after these provisions come into effect, they will have only the remaining 12 months to commence work before the extension ceases to have effect. I am satisfied these timeframes are appropriate and therefore cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 11 seeks to provides that, as part of an application for an extension of duration, the applicant shall submit a viability assessment and a detailed schedule of works. I cannot accept this amendment as there are already regulations associated with section 42 of the 2000 Act which deal with some of these issues. Article 42 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 provides that applications for extensions of duration should be accompanied by, among other things, particulars of the works which are proposed to be carried out pursuant to the permission during the period by which the permission is sought to be extended; the date or projected date of commencement of the development to which the permission relates; the period by which the permission is sought to be extended; and the date upon which the development is expected to be completed. I am satisfied that these requirements are sufficient and it is appropriate that such matters are set out in regulations rather than primary legislation. Prior to commencing this provision, these regulations will be reviewed and will be updated, if needed, to reflect this provision.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his response. I go back to what I asked about residential zoned land tax. When will we be able to quantify whether that tax is working to prevent land speculation and hoarding? Will the Minister come back and seriously look at this again? As I understand it, EY was tasked by the Department of housing to look at the issue of uncommenced planning and that report was pulled in 2023.

I will also speak to the amendment in the names of Deputies Ó Broin and Gould on the call for a viability assessment. I believe it is a prudent amendment. It makes sense that if a developer has not commenced a development within a set period, it should have to come back and tell the planning authority, if it is granted an extension, what has materially changed that would allow it to commence that development. This is done in other jurisdictions and it should be publicly available. The public should be able to see the schedule and construction costs so there is full transparency and accountability. This would mean someone could go for a planning extension because, for example, they need certainty in terms of financing but not because they know the longer they sit on the land, the more value it will accrue.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The RZLT is resulting in more land transfers. I am very satisfied of that. It has a cumulative effect. As time goes on, we will see an increasing rate of transfers as a result of the 3% year on year. It only commenced its application this year and there is a review to be carried out each year.

In relation to the amendments, I am satisfied the timelines strike the necessary balance. On viability assessments, the planning and development regulations set out detailed requirements and I am satisfied they are sufficient.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 12, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “(b) an explanation as to why the development has not yet commenced, a viability assessment setting out what has changed that would allow the development to commence if an extension of duration is granted, and a detailed schedule of works setting out when the various stages of development will occur,”.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 13, line 3, to delete “2 years” and substitute “1 year”.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 13, line 11, to delete “5 years” and substitute “3 years”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 14:

"In page 13, line 25, to delete “18 months” and substitute “6 months”."

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 13, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “(h) The Minister may, by way of regulations, provide for third party observations to the planning authority on any request for an extension of duration under this section. The regulations may include provision for:

(i) the publication of public notices, on site, in newspapers and on digital platforms, of any request for an extension of duration under this section;

(ii) the publication, on the planning authority website, of all documents relating to the request for an extension of duration;

(iii) an appropriate time period for the making of third-party submissions for consideration by the planning authority when considering the request for an extension of duration under this section;

(iv) any other matters which the Minister deems relevant in accordance with the obligations of the State under the Aarhus Convention and the principles of proper planning and development.”.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are related and will be discussed together.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 14, after line 18, to insert the following:

“Report on planning permissions and residential units 18. Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report detailing the number of planning permissions and residential units to which section 14 of this Act may apply and making recommendations on how to ensure that extensions of duration of planning permissions are only granted where the development is likely to commence and not where the extension is being sought for speculative purposes.”.

For the sake of time, I want to deal specifically with the request for the report on the extensions. The Minister has heard a lot from this side of the House this evening about the concern that, while some people will avail of the extension of duration for very valid reasons and build out their developments or infrastructure, others may not. There needs to be some reporting mechanism. As we know from the artificial spikes in commencement certificates in April and September last year to avail of the development levy and water connection waiver, commencement notices are not in and of themselves sufficient and, therefore, amendment No. 17 seeks to place a reporting requirement on the Minister and his officials to produce a report every six months to list the number of developments that have sought and secured the extension but also to track a substantial commencement and completion.

While I appreciate the Minister will not accept the amendment, we need a reporting mechanism. We need some mechanism for the Minister to ensure this facility, which is a very significant one, is utilised for the intended purpose. For the purposes of transparency, not only for the Oireachtas but for the wider public and the planning system, some reporting mechanism will be required. While I do not expect the Minister to support the amendment, I ask him to talk to his officials to see whether there is some mechanism by which he could report and publish on the website something that allows us to track this so that the very genuine concerns we have around misuse of this provision can be addressed. If there is no abuse, then everybody is happy and the system is working well. However, if there clearly is some evidence of abuse, then action can be taken to address it.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am very conscious of time. I want to support this amendment and reiterate the deep concern we have been highlighting around the speculative development that is happening. It is very clear to anyone who studies the real estate and property market that there are actors in it who are not just about building homes. A part of real estate development is accumulating sites and planning permission in order to sell that on. That is a part of the real estate market internationally and it is very problematic because it does not give an indication, as was set out by Deputy Ó Broin, of whether planning permissions actually lead to the delivery and building of homes. In particular, the concern is that it will not tell us whether there will be homes built as a result of planning permission where this extension applies. I back up what Deputy Ó Broin has said and ask the Minister to take this on board and give us detail in this regard in the coming years so we can understand what is going on in our housing system.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support this amendment. It is extremely important because we know that, with the development levy waivers that lapsed last year, a lot of the commencement data we have at the moment is very unreliable. That is why this amendment is important.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Reporting mechanisms, collection of data, transparency and knowing what is happening are at the heart of this motion. We have to ensure that genuine actors who want to develop and deliver units - houses and apartments - can do that with support, but we also have to prevent people coming in to speculate. By collecting this data, we will all know what is happening, as will the public. That is why it is an important amendment. The Minister might not take it on but he certainly could look at it.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In regard to ensuring the extensions are not sought for speculative purposes, the extension of duration provisions are time-bound and cease to have effect if the development has not commenced within 18 months of the coming into operation of the provision. The fact the extension ceases to have operation or effect if the development is not commenced should deter speculative applications.

In regard to detailing the numbers who avail of such an extension, section 42(5) of the 2000 Act already provides that the details of any extension of duration are entered onto the planning register. In the circumstances, I am not minded to accept the amendments.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In terms of the 18-month period, how will local authorities enforce that?

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Local authorities are very experienced in enforcement.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no enforcement of commencements. I understand the Minister's officials in the Department are liaising with local authorities with respect to determining whether developments that are availing of the development levy waiver and the water utility connection waiver are having a look at this. Local authorities do planning enforcement, but many do not even have the staff to do building control enforcement. There is no system for enforcing this.

While I understand the Minister is not accepting the amendments, there is a requirement for them. Granting somebody a three-year extension of planning is quite a big issue. Therefore, it is reasonable for members of this side to ask the Minister, if he is not willing to accept the amendments we have tabled, to find some way to ensure that the extension of duration he is granting is not abused. I am not suggesting the abuses we are concerned about will be widespread or occur in the majority of developments, but instead of just saying that local authorities are very experienced at enforcement, we need to ward against anybody who intends to avail of this for a reason other than commencing. There is no enforcement of commencements; it does not exist. Therefore, that is something that is certainly worthy of being looked at, particularly in the context of this issue.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will always keep these things under review and monitored. In relation to this, I do not see any risk of speculation. There are strict time-bound limits in there. I think those are sufficient to ensure commencements are carried out.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 14, after line 18, to insert the following:

“Report on extensions 18. Every six months after the passing of this Act, the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the operation of the extension of duration detailing the number of developments that have availed of the extensions, the number of units granted extension that have commenced and the number of units that have been completed.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 14, after line 18, to insert the following: "Report on impact of Judicial Reviews

18. Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the impact of Judicial Reviews on development including, critical infrastructure, renewable energy, public transport and residential development and setting out options for increasing the resources of the courts to deal with Judicial Reviews in a timely manner, and options for the introduction of statutory good practice timelines for Judicial Reviews in a manner that is consistent with the principles of good planning and development.".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 14, after line 18, to insert the following: "Report on compliance

18. Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the compliance of all sections of this Act with the State’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.".

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will now send the Bill to the Seanad.