Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I probably do not have any answers that will satisfy the requirements of the debate but I will outline our reasons. I do not propose to accept the amendments. We understand the motivation but cannot accept them for a number of reasons. Some of these amendments, if accepted, would effectively prevent a developer who had not commenced building on foot of planning permission for more than 100 houses on one site from proceeding to seek planning permission for a strategic housing development on another site in the area where there is greater demand for housing. We certainly do not want to reward anybody for inactivity but we want to try to generate activity. That is the motivation for this Bill.

In the past couple of weeks, I visited approximately ten councils where I discussed this Bill along with other matters. I explained the motivation behind the changes; it is to activate sites. There is a danger that these amendments would have the opposite effect. I understand the reasons behind them, but we could end up with sites not being activated, be they existing sites or potential sites.

Both the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, and I indicated last week that there might be number of valid reasons and circumstances a developer might not have commenced work on a housing scheme for which planning permission has been previously granted. Such reasons could include poor market conditions, declining demand for housing in the area concerned, a change in demand for particular house types, delays in the provision of infrastructure, etc. There is a list of reasons and there are some positives and negatives. In essence, we would not be in favour of the type of restrictive approach advocated by some of the amendments tabled, particularly in the context of the current housing supply shortage, in which we should be endeavouring to facilitate the construction of housing developments in the areas of greatest demand.Some of the amendments are slightly less restrictive in approach in proposing that before being able to grant permission for a second development of 100 houses or more, An Bord Pleanála would be required to satisfy itself that, where a developer had not commenced work on a previously permitted similar development, there were considerations of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the developer which had prevented the commencement of the first scheme. While the amendments are slightly less restrictive, they would potentially make the overall application procedures for strategic housing developments more cumbersome and unwieldy. First, the board would have to identify any such uncommenced planning permission previously granted to the developer in question and then undertake an assessment of the reasons for the non-commencement of the permitted development. It is likely that this would delay the decision-making process. There might also be some difficulty in identifying such other previous planning permissions granted to a particular developer, given that planning applications might have been lodged under different company names, which is common practice.

It is also often the case that large-scale developers will have a number of projects in the pipeline at various stages of development. Some developments may be at design concept stage, while others may be at planning permission stage, under construction or nearing completion. In addition, a developer may have a number of projects which have secured planning permission but which may be scheduled for development sequentially. The planning system should be sufficiently flexible to take account of different scenarios, while still ensuring necessary large-scale housing developments can be brought forward in the right locations where they are most urgently needed, having regard to market conditions, and at the right time.

It is also important to note the position on a different amendment on a related matter proposed by Senator Grace O'Sullivan on Committee Stage last week which I accepted. It proposed that a developer who received planning permission under the new streamlined procedures for large-scale housing developments be able to obtain an extension of the duration of the planning permission only in circumstances where substantial works on the development had been carried out during the original planning permission period. The amendment will have a positive effect and incentivise developers to act on planning permissions and not to sit on and hoard the sites in question. This approach provides for a better overall balance, contrary to the approach taken in the amendments which, as I have indicated, are aimed at preventing planning applications from being made.

For all of these reasons, I must oppose amendment Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive. While I understand the motivation behind them, they could delay, rather than increase, activity. Our sole aim in the legislation is to activate sites. While it causes concern in certain areas, the objective is to bring forward plans, but the amendments could delay this. While I accept the intentions behind them, I cannot accept them.