Seanad debates

Tuesday, 16 November 2021

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

 

2:30 pm

Photo of Alice-Mary HigginsAlice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to comment on amendment No. 22, which relates to these proposals in terms of where an application has been granted but construction has not commenced in a period of 48 months. That is these large-scale residential developments. We sought a use-it-or-lose-it clause for strategic housing developments but we did not get an effective clause. That is one of the reasons we have a lot of these. They did use it, but it was used as a commodity. That is the difference; it is between housing as something one delivers or sites with permission as something one can sell and move about.

The Minister spoke about amendment No. 42, which is an attempt to address the point we raised at the time the 2016 Act on strategic housing development was being brought through. We highlighted that if we did not put it in, it could lead to lots of projects and valid planning permissions of high quality that are granted not being commenced. There is no reason for them not commencing except that they are not commencing. They already have the planning permission and everything that goes with that. That was an attempt to address a problem that was signalled then. Even if amendment No. 42 is looking backwards and even if the Minister cannot address it in terms of then, we can certainly learn from it and we should learn from it.

With respect, I will not go into the debate on the zoned land tax. It is effectively a cut. Yes, local authorities were not delivering in imposing the vacant site tax, but it is down from 7% to 3%. To be clear, the value of assets in the housing area is increasing at a great deal more than 3% per year. Housing and property as an area of speculative investment are delivering dividends of far more than 3% per year, so it is a small amount to carry. The really meaningful piece that matters is vacant property tax, and the opportunity was constrained in the recent property tax review. The Minister inserted a clause to state that it would be gathered on a statistical basis. Vacant property tax is what will really matter if we are talking about that aspect of the issue, and I say that as somebody who lives in the city centre and sees vacant apartments for wild prices being kept empty because it keeps the asset price.

However, leaving aside all those measures, we are just talking about large-scale residential developments here. If we give planning permission for 500 or 600 houses or 800 apartments and if that planning permission is not used within 48 months, is it not reasonable to have a use-it-or-lose-it clause? This is something we can do. This is the planning process.This is not about zoned land or anything else. If someone is given permission for 800 houses, it is about ensuring they use it to build them and not simply have a useful asset of a site with planning permission to trade with portfolio managers. That is the difference. Let us learn from the mistakes of the strategic housing development plan and insert a use-it-or-lose-it clause. The Minister does not need to accept my wording, but I believe amendments should be tabled on Report Stage. It may have been a mistake for the previous Minister not to have inserted it when we signalled it. It would be an unforgivable mistake for the Minister, having seen what happened then, to consciously choose not to insert a use-it-or-lose-it clause into this legislation.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.