Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. a1:

In page 4, line 8, after “and” to insert “is under active construction but cannot reasonably be completed, and”.

The Bill is concerned with providing a further extension of duration to housing developments of over 20 units where the development was commenced under the original period or an extension to it and substantial works were undertaken during the original or extended period. It inserts a new category for extensions just for housing and this is somewhat akin to category A in the original Act but is less rigorous as, notably, as initiated, the Bill does not even require that these housing developments be completed in a reasonable timeframe, which section 42(1) does. The Bill provides that the planning authority, if it receives an application, shall grant an extension.There is no discretion to refuse it if a valid application for extension is submitted meeting the broad new category.It limits the checks the planning authority is entitled to make to checking only the application for the extension that is in order, just the paperwork therefore. No consideration is allowed on the suitability of the development in the area anymore. This is despite a potentially very significant lapsed period since it was given permission. Conceivably there could now be many new developments with huge traffic issues, sewerage and water supply to be considered and other matters such as flooding considerations, etc.

We are potentially seeing a return of development with poor infrastructural support such as we saw in the worst of the Celtic tiger days.The Minister can prescribe regulations under section 43 to require the submission of evidence to support the consideration of whether the development can be completed. The Minister has entirely failed to allow the councils to consider such matters in the Bill as initiated. The extensions to duration may be applied for by unscrupulous developers, and they do exist, with a view to only changing the paper value of the land, which would increase suddenly if it had a valid permission attached to it. I appreciate the Minister of State saying that this is not the aim, but the question we asked was around what safeguards were in place to ensure this does not happen.

The further extended period is limited to an upper limit of the 31 December 2021. Two issues arise from this. The date can easily be changed by the Government and pushed out again.The Bill does nothing to ensure assured delivery under these provisions in a reasonable timeframe, commensurate with the amount of work outstanding. The developer can sit on the extended permission up to December 2021, which is three and a half years from now, and either do nothing and simply take advantage of low land value implications, or the site could be developed at the eleventh hour when the market has been squeezed to the optimal point for the developer in the area in question. Critically, it also facilitates development with out of date standards and regulations but at tomorrows' prices. This is because the Bill does not just allow for another extension, it allows for another extension to a permission which has not only run out of its first period, but which has been extended and also run out of that period. Unlike the current section 42, there can be a much more significant period between the development being granted permission, and conditions that were attached to that permission that reflected regulations and standards at the time. This can be the case now or in the period into the future when extensions can be sought under the new provisions.

Given the time lag between the original full consideration by the planning authority, many relevant planning considerations may have changed such as the development objectives in the relevant county development plans, regional and spatial strategies. Even if the development was extended under category B previously, and some of them were, time has elapsed again and the council would have no discretion to amend conditions. In the context, for example, of the awful tragedy of Grenfell Tower there has been increased focus of fire regulations and building standards. Additionally, new factors and considerations such as flood risk and flood maps have emerged, along with climate mitigation and adaptation plans, which could have a bearing on whether or not the continued development of the site in question is consistent with proper planning and sustainable development. No consideration is permitted on these factors.

Amendment No. 2 specifies a number of critical planning considerations with which the planning authority must be satisfied in order to grant an extension of duration, such as adding a requirement that the evidence that the development can be completed should be satisfactory evidence. It calls for consistency with normal planning considerations such as development plans and regional and spatial guideline and the Minister's own policies. It adds new appropriate considerations in respect of flood risk and climate change and, additionally, part II of amendment No. 2 recognises that issues could arise consequent on how old and out of date are the underlying permission and associated conditions on it. It recognises the context of the time lag between when a further extension is sought and when it was originally permitted. This is particularly expedient and in the public interest given the absolute failure of the Minister to stipulate any definition for "substantial works" as has been raised by Senators previously.

We have no clear view on what has been done or is outstanding and yet to be developed. There is a clear failure to require explicitly in the alternate that in fact the development had to be substantially completed. It is sensible therefore that we require that what is an unclear and unspecified amount of outstanding development simply has to be completed to the most current and up-to-date standards. To fail to do this would subject the most vulnerable and desperate home seekers in the market to substandard development and less optimum standards than is reasonably feasible.

Amendment No. 3 requires a definition of “substantial works” and that the Minister provides regulation that conforms to what he said in the Dáil, which otherwise would be meaningless. It deals with issues we see in the real world where the demolition of existing structures, some site clearance and the digging a hole on site are deemed to be "substantial works". This is even though tenders or key contracts may not have been written let alone met, and no real development has taken place. Such developments, which have not really been commenced, should be reconsidered fully and be treated differently to something that has been genuinely advanced.

That is the rationale for putting forward the amendments. We appreciate the thrust of the Bill but we feel it needs to be amended in the House.