PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the Seanad. Having studied this legislation over the past number of days, I believe it to be a real common-sense and very necessary Bill that will facilitate the building of more homes and streamline extensions to planning permission timelines during this current housing crisis we are all experiencing.

Of the 17 sections in the Bill, I will focus on three in particular, namely, sections 13, 16 and 17. Section 13 deals with the time that is lost for the live planning period due to judicial reviews. Bearing in mind that the number of judicial reviews taken against planning decisions has more than trebled over the past six years, this is a very important section of this legislation. Section 13 extends the pause in the duration of permission during judicial review proceedings to permissions granted under the 2000 Act and subject to judicial review under that Act. It provides that where a permission was or is subject to judicial review, the holder of the permission may seek a suspension of time for the period the judicial review was or is ongoing. Retrospective applications for suspension of duration may be made in respect of active permission where a judicial review has concluded, provided that the person applying declares the development did not substantially commence, which excludes work for the maintenance, security or protection of a development site while the judicial review is ongoing. A lot of delays are currently experienced by developers. The prevention of further loss of time by stopping the clock ticking while a judicial review is going on is to be very much commended.

Section 16 amends the 2000 Act to enable an extension of duration of up to three years to permissions for housing developments that have not yet commenced and have less than two years remaining on the duration of permission. To encourage activation of housing development, the application for the extension must be made within six months of the commencement of the legislation and the development must commence within 18 months of the commencement of the legislation. In line with existing provisions, a further application for an extension of up to two years may be made once a development is substantially complete. An extension of duration may only be granted where an environmental impact assessment, EIA, or appropriate assessment, AA, would not be required with regard to the proposed extension. Again, given the delays in the acquisition of finance for large developments, the labour and skills shortages we very often face within the construction sector and the large number of other delays and unforeseen setbacks developers face in staffing large development projects, this is very common-sense legislation. For people who have concerns about the changes in environmental legislation from when the planning permission may have been granted to the date that an extension may be requested, that is very much covered within this section. That is a very good and much-needed measure in this legislation. I will move on to section 17 and the amendments to apartment guidelines. I am very supportive of these amendments to those guidelines in respect of minimum sizes. We can all aspire to having very large minimum sizes under the guidelines for apartments but, if these large minimum sizes are simply not financially viable for developers, units simply will not be developed. That is what we are seeing in the market at the moment. Aspiring to have very large minimum apartment sizes is no good to anybody if apartments are simply not being built. The proposal that existing planning applications could be altered to make them more financially viable without the loss of any time and without the need to go back to the planning system is very wise and well thought through and must be commended. I believe this to be very common-sense legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.