Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:"(2) An application for a strategic housing development under this section, other than for the alteration of an existing planning permission granted under section 34, may not be made by a prospective applicant who holds a planning permission for over 100 housing units in the same local authority area or in an adjoining local authority area for which a commencement notice has not been submitted to the relevant planning authority, unless the Board is satisfied that there were considerations of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the applicant which substantially militated against the commencement of development pursuant to the planning permission.".

Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, are in my name and that of Senator Grace O'Sullivan. We will not be seeking to press all five amendments to a vote. The reason we have tabled five amendments in this area is to respond to the debate we had on Committee Stage. On Committee Stage, there was wide acknowledgement across the House of the reality that there are circumstances in which those who hope to apply for fast-track planning permission under the new measures set out in the Bill already have potentially large numbers of planning permissions. Particularly during the period of the capital gains tax waiver applying to investment property, for example, quite a large number of sites with planning permission changed hands. There are sites that have been held by speculators who have not been building on them and holding back the provision of much-needed housing by refusing to commence on the outstanding planning permission they hold.

We have proposed that those who already have outstanding planning permission for 100 units or more should have to file a commencement order. There is no penalty; it is simply a matter commencing before applying for new fast-track planning permission in respect of another site. Some legitimate concerns were raised in this regard across the House. There was recognition of the value of the recommendation but there was also recognition that there may be exceptional circumstances, for example, where people have a site in a different part of the country or where there may be issues of viability beyond the control of the developer or applicant. In this regard, we have set out five variations of our proposal. We have set out one very clear amendment that suggests that where a prospective applicant has planning permission for more than 100 units in the same local authority area in respect of which a commencement notice has not been submitted, he or she should not be able to proceed. We have another version that refers to "the same local authority area or an adjoining local authority area". A clause in amendment No. 1 states, "unless the Board is satisfied that there were considerations of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the applicant which substantially militated against the commencement of development".

We have addressed the concern over people who may have sites in different parts of the country. We are talking here about people who have sites in the same area. We know that people have had sites in the very centres of Galway, Cork and Dublin cities but have chosen not to develop them until the prices reached a level where the profit would be more attractive. They have drip fed development at times. We are talking about circumstances in which the outstanding and new planning permissions are for the same local authority area. We allow that the condition might not be imposed if the board can be satisfied that there are considerations of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the applicant. People will be very familiar with these criteria if they are seeking an extension of planning permission. An individual seeking an extension of planning permission needs to show why he or she has not developed to date. We are setting the same standards here.

This is our attempt to address the concerns raised and come up with a credible, realistic and approachable version of what we desire. It is essential, however, that we send a signal that fast-track planning permission is not a reward for those who have sat on their existing planning permission and refused to move. It cannot be a reward to them. Those with credible reasons for not having developed have sufficient grounds. I am asking the Minister of State to indicate to us which of these amendments in the group he believes to be amenable to him. I will press only that amendment. If the Minister of State has further suggestions on how to tackle this issue, I would be interested in hearing them. The issue was acknowledged by the Minister of State's fellow Minister as an issue.