Seanad debates

Tuesday, 16 November 2021

Planning and Development (Amendment) (Large-scale Residential Development) Bill 2021: Committee Stage

 

2:30 pm

Photo of Darragh O'BrienDarragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators Higgins and Black for tabling amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive. I will deal with the first three together. These proposed changes are positive and they arise out of the considerations of the SHD consultative forum. In particular, the Bill proposed to increase the “other use” allowance from 15%, which was far too restrictive, to 30%, and it would encompass all of the various things the Senator has mentioned. That is up to the planners. I do not want to be prescriptive as to exactly what is in that 30%, but it is effectively to allow up to that to be for commercial and other uses, bar residential. This was a big issue within the SHD developments, particularly for inner-city brownfield sites, which tend to require this. They are the ones we really need to develop to ensure we have intensified developments on vacant brownfield sites in our cities in particular. That has been a nut we have not managed to crack. From the consultative forum and looking at what changes we think will actually work, we would allow up to 30% to take into account the differing needs of inner-city areas, as well as to make the overall development more economically viable while still ensuring the provision of rental accommodation.

This would be best practice. While I say this respectfully, it is considered that these proposed amendments would be overly prescriptive, they would limit the ability to respond to future external factors as indicated, and they may very well affect the viability of sites which we already have issues with. The viability of brownfield in our cities is a real issue. I know that no Senator would want to bring in any change that is going to make that even more acute because we need to develop on brownfield in our cities and we need good quality, high-density development in our cities.

The proposed increase in the commercial “other use” threshold would also allow the relevant local authority to consider what is appropriate in the relevant area on a case-by-case basis. That is the whole purpose of this legislation; it is to bring planning back to the local area with the people who know best. Therefore, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive.

Amendment No. 4 proposes to amend the definition of student accommodation by replacing the reference to "academic term times" with "the academic year". I have issued a recent circular on this and have told local authorities that we do not want any large-scale changes in this area. I cannot accept this amendment. There is arguably a need, on some occasions, for student accommodation providers to be allowed some degree of flexibility, if desired, regarding the short-term letting of accommodation during holiday periods, when it is not being used as student accommodation. This possibility helps to make the accommodation complexes more viable.

The primary concern I would have with regard to student accommodation complexes is that they should not be used as permanent residential accommodation or permanent short-term letting accommodation, which we are not going to permit, or, indeed, as a hotel, hostel or other type of accommodation which is explicitly precluded by the existing definition. They are dedicated student accommodation complexes and that is what they should be used for, having regard to the general shortage of student accommodation at this time and the need to provide as much accommodation as possible. We are seeking to improve the supply of such accommodation and we will do that. I cannot accept any of the amendments.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.