Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. I am glad to see him here this evening as we debate this important legislation, which, I hope, will be an important piece of the puzzle in terms of addressing the housing crisis.

I broadly welcome the Bill which, in my view, addresses many of the issues that existed in the SHD legislation it will replace. I took serious issue with many of the elements of the SHD process, including that it allowed property developers to circumnavigate the traditional two-step planning process. This limited the power of local authorities to promote the type of residential and commercial development stipulated in their local area plans and limited the influence of local communities in the planning process. I was alarmed to hear recently that of the 210 permissions granted under the SHD legislation, only 72 have been acted on by the applicants. In the case of the other 138 permissions, many applicants have chosen to simply sit on the vacant sites, watching as the land value increases month after month with the SHD permission attached.

The SHD legislation clearly did not have the impact the Government thought it would in terms of the number of SHD units delivered. Sadly, it has not been worth the sacrifices made by local authorities and local communities. My local area has seen a great deal of development and large-scale planning applications in recent years, some of which were facilitated by the SHD legislation. While the development of residential accommodation was to be broadly welcomed, the local community had huge concerns about the extent to which some of the applications contravened local area plans and planning law. In instances where these SHD applications were permitted by An Bord Pleanála, judicial reviews were lodged by local residents. While many have expressed frustration with the construction delays caused by judicial reviews, we must ensure that the ability of an individual or group to request a judicial review is upheld. It is critical that we have the opportunity to challenge perceived contraventions of planning law in court. I trust that this will continue to be facilitated in the context of this legislation.

I welcome the restoration of the two-step planning process, which will ensure that the local authorities resume control of decisions regarding development in their local areas. Doing so restores not only the oversight of local authorities, it allows for local communities to engage with planning applications in the traditional way. While engagement also occurs in the pre-application consultation stages, it is hugely important that the public has the opportunity to engage formally with the planning process throughout the process. A developer can choose to take on board the input of an individual or a community in the pre-application consultation phase or choose to ignore it. Restoring the two-step process ensures that members of the public can make submissions directly to the local authorities. I welcome this provision in the legislation.

I have a number of concerns that I wish to speak to and in respect of which I would welcome responses from the Minister. I am concerned about the resource implications of the Bill for local authorities, especially in urban areas where we see greater volumes of planning applications. I know that the Department has advised that it is open to consulting with local government on this but I would like to hear more regarding the its specific strategy to ensure that local authorities have the resources they require to make well-informed decisions on LRDs in a timely manner. I am also concerned that the Bill seeks to limit the ability of a local authority to request further information on an application, although I accept that this may not be the intention of the Bill. It is really important that the ability of a local authority to seek further information is explicitly protected.

I have spoken already about the number of SHD permissions that have not been acted on. I am concerned that the Bill does not address this in any way and, as a result, we risk the continued facilitation of speculative land hoarding by property developers, which will further distort the property market and maintain the unprecedented pressure on the rental and for-purchase sectors. I would welcome the inclusion of a use-it-or-lose-it clause to remedy this. However, I understand that this is something the Department is not considering at this time. With this in mind, I would like to hear more about the specific strategies of the Department to address this concern as it relates to SHDs and LRDs specifically.I would like clarification from the Department as to whether the outstanding 7% vacant site levies owed to many local authorities will be collected by Revenue as part of the implementation of the new zoned land tax and then ultimately paid back to the relevant local authority. I welcome the provision of a 30% commercial element in LRD applications. I am concerned about the commercial elements remaining vacant post construction. In my local area, there are a significant number of vacant commercial units at the street level of residential developments and there does not appear to be any incentive for developers to let these spaces. As a result, there is often little application at street level, which does not serve the residents of the development or the local community in any way. Does the Department have any specific strategies to address this issue, perhaps such as a provision for using that to serve the local community while the developer searches for a suitable tenant?

In a similar vein, I am curious about whether the Department can or has considered mandating that a certain number of units within LRDs must be offered for sale to individual buyers. Many strategic housing developments have been planned as exclusively build-to-rent schemes. Local communities consistently cite this when opposing residential planning applications. We have legislated for the provision of 10% social housing within larger developments, which is welcome. Can we do something similar to ensure true mixed tenancy in future large residential developments?

I share the concern expressed by some of my colleagues about the transitional phase and the extent to which this will facilitate strategic housing development applications being submitted until the middle of 2022. I know it is the Department's hope to enact this legislation by 17 December. We need to ensure the SHD legislation is wound down and replaced as a matter of urgency. While developers obviously need to be able to plan for the short and medium term, this transitional phase risks applications being rushed under the SHD legislation. This risk ensures developers continue to reap the benefits of the SHD scheme, which I think we can all agree has been unsuccessful in addressing the housing crisis in any meaningful way.

I reiterate my broad support for this Bill. I look forward to working with the Department and my colleagues in both Houses in the coming weeks to ensure this legislation will achieve the things we want and need to do.