Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

"Insertion of section 32O into Principal Act

32O.Where an applicant has received LRD planning permission and wishes to sell the site, the applicant shall not do so with the LRD planning permission attached to it. Thus, the LRD planning permission is granted exclusively to the applicant, on the basis that they are seeking permission with intent to develop the site.".

In a way, this is another use-it-or-lose-it clause. It is somewhat different in that it is a use-it-or-lose-it clause for housing and development. Effectively, it would insert a new section into the principal Act. It is an important amendment that makes an important point, namely that the LRD planning permission granted should be granted exclusively to the applicant for the specific site rather than just for the site. It stipulates that if the site is resold, the LRD planning permission is not attached and that the new owner must restart the process if he or she wishes to seek planning permission for an LRD.

It is unfortunate to have to table this amendment. I am aware that there are many valid circumstances where planning permission may be sought and a project may need to be sold, but we need provisions to tackle the issue that arises. If we allow planning permission to be a speculative product that can be sold to portfolios and investors, such that they can trade it, and if we allow it to work as a commodity, it is already regarded as delivering and the project for which it has been sought does not actually have to be developed and built. I recognise that the amendment is quite hard-hitting in that it stipulates that if you get planning permission because you have stated that you are going to build so many brilliant apartments and houses, you must build them.You do not get planning permission and then take that product, which is land with planning permission for 500 units attached, and sell it. The land may then be sold on to another person and sold again to someone else afterwards. That does happen. The Minister needs to do something to send a clear signal that, for him, the output is housing rather than simply property values or property commodity space.

I recognise that the amendment proposes a hard measure. It states that the person who got permission needs to deliver. We need something to be done. I have suggested use-it-or-lose-it clauses in terms of time. That is another way to deal with it. If such clauses in terms of time - such that there is, at least, a ticking clock on beginning development attached to products - are not being inserted, then we need such a clause relating to whether something actually gets built.