Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “Insertion of section 32L into Principal Act

32L. Where an application for planning permission to which section 32A(1) applies has been granted but construction has not commenced on that site within a period of 48 months following the decision of the planning authority, such planning permission shall be revoked.”.

Both of these amendments are, effectively, "use it or lose it" clauses. I had sought stronger use it or lose it provisions in respect of SHDs when we had that debate. If we had put in stronger provisions, then we would not have ended up with the situation where such a large number of the SHDs received their fast-track planning permission and then did not commence and did not build. The impact of Covid-19 is not responsible for all of that, because in many cases planning permission was received before the virus struck. I was here when that legislation passed in 2017, and many developments were granted planning permission in 2017, 2018 and 2019. The developers continued to not commence the works associated with those grants of planning permission. In several cases, indeed, the site with planning permission effectively became a commodity that could change hands and, in that way, became an asset.

Use it or lose it is, therefore, a concept that is important in ensuring that we come out of these processes with housing and not simply with commodities, assets and value products that are sites with planning permission or proposed building units that can be moved around within portfolios. If we want to emerge from these processes with developments and residences, then we must be clear that the planning permissions we grant require projects to be commenced and to be built.

Amendment No. 22 refers to, "Where an application for planning permission [...] has been granted but construction has not commenced on that site within a period of 48 months, [which is just over two years], following the decision of the planning authority, such planning permission shall be revoked". Again, if we are creating a streamlined or fast-tracked process, then it must be followed by streamlined action. It is not appropriate that there would be a bypassing of the normal processes of engagement in respect of a local authority planning permission and then an An Bord Pleanála planning permission process, if the applicants do not intend to deliver an additional benefit to the State, that is, speedier delivery of residential development. We must be clear that we are giving something to applicants for planning permission in this legislation. It will be much harder for some individual to go and build three houses than it will be for somebody to build a large-scale residential development.We do that and make this process streamlined as well because we are ensuring that there is a priority, so it has to deliver.

Amendment No. 42 relates to the strategic housing development Act of 2016 and provides that: "Where an application under section 16 in respect of the Act of 2016 is proceeded with and planning permission has been granted, such planning permission shall be revoked 12 months after it has been granted in respect of scenarios where construction of the proposed development has not commenced". This relates to the further clause where there may still be applications - other Members have proposed amendments on this - which have begun and which may continue until June in terms of being fully granted. If they are granted, then the use-it-or-lose it clause of 12 months should apply.

The amendment also provides that where applications have been granted planning permission prior to this enactment under the Act of 2016 and if construction of the proposed developments has not commenced 12 months subsequent to the passing of this Bill, which is effectively 12 months from now, such fast-tracked planning permission given to those SHDs should be revoked. We need a fire to move forward on this. We have heard a great deal about how apparently having one meeting of councillors is somehow going to delay the process, so it is quite reasonable that we should not then give more than 12 months in the case of strategic housing developments or more than 48 months in the case of these new large-scale residential developments for the developers to take action, commence the projects and start delivering.

Just to anticipate, the Minister might mention something such as the Covid emergency. If we face another health emergency, there are provisions for emergency legislation, such as we brought forward in respect of planning and various other matters during the Covid emergency. If the Minister accepts these use-it-or-lose-it amendments, there is nothing to stop a pause being put on that ticking clock of 12 or 18 months. If there is an emergency, that can be provided for in emergency legislation. However, this legislation on housing has to deliver for what we believe to be a trajectory of urgency and a trajectory of good practice and expectation. In that case, I hope the Minister will accept these use-it-or-lose-it clauses. If he cannot accept them, he might indicate what use-it-or-lose-it clauses he intends to bring forward in respect of both the strategic housing development planning permissions that are still with us and the new large-scale residential developments.