Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)

I have not met the Minister of State in here before so I will congratulate him on his new role. I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025. Sinn Féin is not opposing this Bill but we do have serious concerns with some parts of the legislation and with the manner in which it is being rushed through these Houses. Planning legislation is inherently complex and technical. Waiving pre-legislative scrutiny for a Bill of this nature is not good practice and should not become the norm. While my Sinn Féin colleagues in the Dáil did not oppose the waiving of pre-legislative scrutiny in this instance, we want it noted on the record that we are not satisfied that this is the right way to proceed with this kind of legislation. This kind of shortcut undermines the quality and scrutiny of our legislative process.

While we acknowledge the technical need for the changes proposed in this Bill, the fact remains that the Government told us that the 2024 planning Act was a once-in-a-generation reform and rewrite of planning legislation. In spite of this, here we are mere months later to amend it. That tells us that the Government did not get it right the first time. This is not a once-in-a-generation reform; it is a once-in-every-few-months patch-up job. We owe it to communities, local authorities, developers and all people affected by the housing crisis to get this right. Sinn Féin tabled a number of amendments in the Dáil aimed at strengthening the Bill. These were not accepted but we will bring some of them forward again on Committee Stage here in the Seanad.

One of the main issues with the Bill is that while we need to ensure the legislation works for those genuine developers who need an extension to planning permissions for genuine reasons, we also need to make sure safeguards are in place to prevent speculators abusing this legislation. Last night, the Minister said that he does not see any risk of speculators doing this but the reality is that, as it stands, local authorities do not have the staff or capacity to enforce commencement notices and prevent misuse of these extensions. There has to be a basic standard of accountability so that extensions are not granted for speculative purposes.

The proposals to reduce apartment sizes are absolutely extraordinary. Despite our concerns, we will not oppose the passage of the Bill but I will again highlight that rushing legislation at the last minute, especially planning legislation, without full committee scrutiny is simply not good governance. It raises the risk of error, opens the door to legal ambiguity and ultimately delays the very developments the legislation is trying to accelerate. I have very grave concerns over the Government's broader housing proposals, particularly its plan to reduce apartment sizes. This is effectively a multi-billion euro gift from this Government to developers. It could triple the number of units per hectare. It introduces the failed co-living concept by the back door and will make land values skyrocket. There is no universe in which this is good public policy. It will increase delays while developers seek new planning permissions. Senator Boyhan highlighted the fact that planning permissions have been granted for 50,000 homes. Can the Minister of State assure us that all of these developers will not seek new planning permissions? The site on Kevin Street is a good example of where a developer might seek a new permission. It has been stalled for nearly 18 months now and has been put up for sale again. I imagine the new developer will look for planning permission for this new smaller size of apartments.

Councillor Claire Byrne of the Green Party did amazing work in securing arts, cultural and community spaces in local developments. If you want proper sustainable developments, you need to ensure there are arts, drama and community facilities in large developments. I realise the glass bottle site is an SDZ. Will this developer apply for a new planning permission for smaller apartments and get rid of the arts, cultural and community spaces?

The smaller sizes allowed under this new law will suit developers, the buy-to-rent market and vulture funds but they will not suit ordinary families who are looking to settle and put down roots in a community. It will be attractive to vulture funds, which will buy these units to rent. It will effectively mean that vast tracts of housing stock will be sterile. These smaller units will suit people looking for medium-term hotel accommodation. We see the amount of development in the inner city. We see new builds going up, contrasting with the flats at Pearse House, Markievicz House and Mercer House, which have been neglected and forgotten about and which now suffer from dampness and mould. These flats contrast with the new buildings going up. The communities there are being forgotten about because the people moving into the new accommodation will mostly not want to be part of the community. They will just be transient. These small apartments may be fine for them for a year or two but they are not suitable for long-term tenants who want to integrate and to send their kids to school locally. They will not use the services. Renters and local communities are once again being given the short end of the stick.