Victor Boyhan (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials, who are well known to us at this stage following the previous planning Bill.

It is worth putting in context for those tuning in that we are dealing with the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025. We are now amending a 2024 Bill that still has not been translated into Irish. There have been queries to the legal services because if there were to be a legal challenge to the Act, which the Minister has not yet given full effect to, the courts have determined that people have the right to litigate in their native language, that is, as Gaeilge. That is an important point I would like the Minister of State to bring back. What is the delay? I have raised this issue three times in the Seanad and we are told we cannot get the Act translated into our native language. I know it is a long Act. I took the time to look at the Áras an Uachtaráin website to see the date on which the President signed the Act. We were told it was emergency legislation and certain sections would be immediately enacted. This legislation was guillotined in the Dáil and Seanad, supported by the parties in the current Administration. It is hard to believe that they, in some shape or form, have been in Government or supported Government in some ways. That is interesting.

A previous Senator spoke about infrastructure. I too raise the need for infrastructure. I read in the national press this week of elected Members from the Government parties who oppose major pieces of critical infrastructure. That is on the record. It can be seen on boards.ie and elsewhere. It is reported in this week's papers that members of Government parties are frustrated in relation to infrastructure. They have a valid right to raise issues of concern, but the Government needs to be consistent in their message.

This Bill comprises 17 sections in four Parts. I note there is no general scheme. There was no regulatory assessment done before the Bill was published. The Bill did not undergo pre-legislative scrutiny, albeit on the basis of a request made to the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage and it is its prerogative to agree to that. However, that practice should not continue. Regulatory impact assessments should be done on all legislation.

I advise the Minister of State and his officials to get a copy of the Bill digest. I acknowledge Dr. Deirdre Halloran, a senior parliamentary researcher in law, who provided the Bill digest. I want to share some of the comments it makes on this legislation, as otherwise we will be wasting a resource at our disposal. Dr. Halloran makes some critically important points in a more concise way than I could possibly make them. To provide some background, the purpose of the Act was to introduce a mandatory decision-making process. Dr. Halloran refers to the reorganisation of An Bord Pleanála. This all relates to the Act of last year. We are still no further on regarding those reforms of An Bord Pleanála. We talked ad nauseam here last year about those reforms. I read the Official Report of the Dáil and Seanad and noted many Members' amendments and contributions. We got all sorts of promises. The devil and all was happening. We were getting more resources. We were going to investigate serious accusations of corruption in An Bord Pleanála. None of it has come to anything. What is the public beginning to say about it all?

The digest refers to greater alignment with the various planning decisions and the judicial review process. I want to put to bed, for once and for all, this suggestion that judicial reviews are causing problems. It is an interesting point. This digest confirms there are more than 50,000 apartments in Dublin alone that have planning permission but have not commenced construction. What is that telling us? There are 50,000 units with planning permission that has not expired, which are not under construction. We are told the developers cannot make enough money and it is all price sensitive. They are making too much money in some cases. We have to start copping on to ourselves. We have to stand up to vested interests and get these units built.

The viability gap is another argument that is constantly spewed out in relation to these matters. Only 7,500 of the 50,000 unstarted units are held up in judicial review. Let us put the correct facts and figures on this and this research paper has told us what they are. Construction costs are not addressed in this Bill, The digest from the Library and Research Service tells us there is no mention of it in the Bill and it is not addressed in it.Funding availability and funding issues, which are also argued by Government party spokespersons, are not addressed in this Bill. That is confirmed in this research paper. Market demand is not addressed either. It is all people spewing out stories about the problems but not really getting us anywhere. We have to deal in facts.

I am a realist and a pragmatist. I have been around politics a long time. I absolutely support the need to build houses. On a positive note, this Bill is an agile initiative that will, or should, ensure additional time is given to active planning permissions. I accept that. Nobody wants to see vital housing projects that are compliant with best practice and fully aligned with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development blocked. We need to extend planning permissions for a limited and reasonable period. To enlighten the Minister of State a little more, I spoke to Dr. Deirdre Halloran before I came to the Chamber. She confirmed she was not in a position to analyse the additional measures he announced this week in respect of new guidelines around apartment sizes, which I said I would point out here. She was not in a position, in preparation for the Bill and this briefing prepared for us, to add those guidelines into the mix. That was a particular pity.

I will draw the Minister of State's attention to a few issues I will touch the edges of. His party has a number of councillors on Dublin City Council. I was very interested in their contributions, and those of other Government councillors, last Monday, when that council passed an emergency motion on the new guidelines for apartments. It cited overreaching by the Government on plans to scrap mandatory community facilities in new apartment schemes, which it saw as undermining local planning rules, reducing housing quality and prioritising development interests over the greater good. Councillors who contributed to the debate spoke passionately about maintaining and utilising existing housing stock. It is a disgrace, when walking around our city, to see the amount of housing stock, both public and private, that is in a derelict state. The council also advocated and supported the demand and need for new housing. I absolutely support new housing but I support it on the basis of proper planning and sustainable development, with good design principles. Would the Minister of State like to live, because I certainly would not, in a very small box facing north? I am opposed to single-aspect units. As many planning design experts will tell you, they do not advocate we should put people living permanently in single-aspect units. If a unit faces north, energy will be used to heat it. If it has a single south-facing aspect, energy will be needed to cool it down. It simply does not make sense.

An issue and concern also raised by these Dublin City Council councillors last Monday was that communal and community or cultural facilities within apartment schemes will not be required. I saw in today's press that Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council planners sought money, more than €400,000, in lieu of open space requirements and internal spaces. There is an issue here. We cannot incentivise local authorities to take money - albeit, let us be clear, legitimately - in lieu of what are quality spaces, be they public or private.

My takeaway from last Monday's meeting of Dublin City Council is that it wants to engage. It includes members of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, as well as Independent councillors. They want to meet with the Minister for housing. Will the Minister of State take back that message? It is important that we have dialogue. We have got to work together to resolve the issues around housing and the housing crisis. My appeal is, on behalf of those councillors, that the Department and the Minister reach out to engage with the elected members of our city council.

It is important that we maximise the full potential of existing planning permissions to realise new homes. I support that. It is important that we provide reasonable and fair extensions to planning permissions for housing developments that are nearing the end of their duration, or that can be completed within a reasonable period. I support that. On the judicial review period being discounted as part of the life of a planning permission, I support that - surprise, surprise. I do not have a problem with the substantive issues around the Bill, but we need to get back to the table. Let us stop deflecting people. The case is clear. There are 50,000 units in the city of Dublin that currently have planning permission. We need to do something about that.

If we are committed, we need communication on every aspect of this. I say that to departmental officials as I say it to the Minister of State. We need to communicate the messages. We need to engage with the local authorities. Let us not scapegoat them and tell them they are failing. The Minister of State was a member of a council, as I was. We know the difficulties. I genuinely wish him well on this. I want to be practical and supportive because anything that brings about new homes has to be good.