Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I accept the Minister's point regarding the wording of amendment No. 20. I share that concern. There is a point that is in between, however, that is not necessarily retrospective. I am referring to the point in between the granting of planning permission and the commencement of a project. That is the point that I want to get at in the context of amendment No. 21. I again appreciate that I could word this more tightly. In that context, however, I do not know if what is being suggested is retrospective. It is a matter of good planning.

In the case of strategic housing developments, unfortunately, when many such projects received planning permission, that was subsequently sat on, traded, sold or likewise treated as a commodity. We do not want to have that type of situation in respect of large-scale developments granted in certain periods of time. If there was no engagement during the time between the granting of planning permission and commencement, and then further requirements or supplementary processes could be put in place, that in itself would be a good imperative to encourage speedy and early action to be taken in that time between the granting of planning permission and the commencement. Some of my other amendments concern the length of time that may exist between the granting of planning permission and commencement, and how acceptable that is.

We are in a housing crisis and we need to provide housing, but we are also in a climate crisis and we have substantial targets for the reduction of emissions that we must meet. That is an existential crisis and a matter of survival. In that context, we have committed to those targets and they are enshrined in law. Some of them relate to construction. It is a key area and that is why it is a core part of European law. I hate to have amendments, but they may be necessary if we cannot guarantee that there will be some mechanism, or that we will look towards some mechanism, in respect of anticipating these standards and making them part of this process. It would not need to be applied retrospectively, but there would be a need for an understanding that the planning permission granted would be conditional on an expectation that if standards change between the granting of planning permission and the commencement, those new standards would then be expected to be met. That may be another way around it.

If we do not do that, then I will have to submit amendments on Report Stage to state that we should not be going ahead with the granting of large-scale residential developments that do not meet the new standards that are on the way. They are not far off and come into effect in three or four months. Perhaps, therefore, we should not be granting any planning permissions while knowing that the standards are about to go up. We should not be slipping anything under a lower bar. I appreciate that we have standards in place now, but they are not fit for purpose in respect of the environmental impact. They are not at the standard and the level that we need, and that is why they are being reviewed at EU level. It is also why this is a key point in respect of materials and embodied emissions and why it is one of the core areas of policy change which has been identified as necessary in this context.

Again, I am not saying this because I want to delay things. That is why I am trying to think of ways in which we can build real world facts into this legislation and into the proposed process. If we cannot do that, then perhaps we cannot start this process. I say that because we do not want to commit to the development of 10,000 residential units that will be built to lower standards than those we need to meet our emissions reduction targets. I am not trying to create difficulties, and that is why this is a little bit awkward. I am trying to find two or three ways of addressing this issue and I would appreciate engagement from the Minister's Department on how he wishes to tackle it. This is not an abstract or separate issue; it is going to be back on our table in just a few months' time. We may as well get ahead of it and try to have this legislation fit for purpose in this regard.