Seanad debates
Thursday, 10 July 2025
Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025: Second Stage
2:00 am
Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am pleased to bring the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025 before the House. The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for targeted measures on a temporary basis to address unactivated permissions that are due to expire shortly, to ensure that the updated housing requirements in the revised national planning framework, NPF, can be incorporated into the planning system as quickly as possible, and to give clarity to the sector that this can be done under the Planning and Development Act 2000 while the Planning and Development Act of 2024 is being commenced.
Members will recall the size of the Planning and Development Bill 2024, which was enacted last year. The implementation of this Act is a key priority for the Government because the planning system needs to remain agile and responsive to issues. This is why I am bringing this Bill forward today. Before I get into the details of the Bill, I would like to set out the work that has been done since the 2024 Bill was enacted. Given the scale of the 2024 Act, it is necessary to implement it on a phased basis to facilitate the transition from the arrangements under the current Act to those under the new Act. Two key areas of the Act have been commenced so far. First are the provisions to enable the establishment of An Coimisiún Pleanála, which introduced a comprehensive organisational restructuring that will result in a modernised planning body, fit for the 21st century and with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Separately, provisions to enable the identification of sites for urban development zones, UDZs, provide for an updated and more flexible approach to the planning and delivery of areas with significant potential for large-scale development and the associated necessary infrastructure, replacing the current provisions on strategic development zones, SDZs. Further key areas of the Act will be commenced over the remainder of this year, particularly Part 3 relating to the national planning framework, NPF, national planning statements and development plans.
Behind the scenes, my Department is preparing new regulations to accompany the 2024 Act and working closely with local authorities and other key stakeholders. An implementation plan has been published that includes a commencement schedule for the Act and a range of initiatives to support training and engagement for the planning sector in preparation for the phased transition to the new legislative framework. While reforming our planning legislation is key, resourcing the planning system is being addressed in parallel. A ministerial action plan is being implemented, with five key theme areas to enhance the capacity of the local government system and An Coimisiún Pleanála as well as other key measures. Following approval of the revised NPF, which will facilitate the delivery of in excess of 50,000 additional new homes per annum, it is important to ensure the updated housing requirements are incorporated into the planning system as quickly as possible. Local authorities will be required to update their current development plans over the coming months.
This brings me to the measures I wish to introduce through this Bill. The Government is committed to enabling the delivery of housing and addressing any issues that arise as quickly as possible and in a proactive manner. There is evidence that a significant number of planning permissions for housing are due to expire shortly that have not yet been commenced. While planning permission is an essential step in any project, there are other factors that may impact on the commencement of a project, such as the availability of development finance, other economic factors such as market viability, infrastructure constraints, or phasing. Permissions of all types have also been delayed due to judicial review proceedings which were outside the control of the holder of the permission. In many cases this has resulted in a minimum time left to commence the development once a judicial review has concluded. This Bill will address expiring permissions to encourage their activation through focused and time-bound measures.
I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill, which consists of three Parts. Part 1, namely sections 1 and 2, contains provisions of a general nature including definitions. Part 2, comprising sections 3 to 15, inclusive, amends the principal Act, which is the Planning and Development Act 2024.
Section 3 is a transitional measure that provides for any guidelines issued under the Act of 2000 and continued in force under the Act of 2024 on the commencement of Part 3 to be regarded in decision-making processes under the Act of 2024.
Section 4 provides for a report to the relevant regional assembly setting out progress made with regard to the regional spatial and economic strategy. This ensures that local authority reports continue to be prepared once a year in advance of a regional assembly report.
Section 5 is a transitional measure to provide for a regional spatial and economic strategy made under the Act of 2000 and continued in force under the Act of 2024 on the commencement of Part 3 to be regarded in decision processes under the Act of 2024.
Section 6 disapplies section 56 of the Act of 2024 for development plans made or varied under the Act of 2000 and continued in force under the Act of 2024.
Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, are related. They allow for the assessment of any variation to development plans made under the Act of 2000 and continued in force under section 68 of the Act of 2024, or any development plans made or varied in accordance with section 69 of that Act. This will allow variation of such plans to be assessed with respect to the variation only rather than the criteria in the Act of 2024. Sections 8 and 9 make consequential amendments to sections 64 and 65 of the Act of 2024 to update cross-references.
Section 10 is a transitional measure to provide for a development plan prepared under the Act of 2000 and continued in force under the Act of 2024 on the commencement of Part 3 to be regarded in decision-making processes under the Act of 2024.
Section 11 provides that where the making of a development plan or a development plan variation has commenced under the Act of 2000 prior to the commencement of Part 3 of the Act of 2024, it may continue under the Act of 2000, notwithstanding its repeal, and it is to be regarded in decision-making processes under the Act of 2024.
Section 12 deals with local area plans and provides that when the making or amending of a local area plan is commenced under the Act of 2000, before the commencement of Part 3 of the Act of 2024, it may continue under the Act of 2000 and that variations to existing local area plans that are continued in force under the Act of 2024 may be made, subject to the provisions of the Act of 2024. It also provides that local area plans shall be regarded in decision-making processes under Act of 2024.
Section 13 relates to judicial reviews. This section extends the pause of the duration of permission during judicial review proceedings to permissions granted under the Act of 2000 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.Applications for suspension of duration may be made provided that the person applying declares that development did not substantially commence, which excludes works for the maintenance, security or protection of the development site, while the judicial review is ongoing.
Section 14 amends section 303 of the 2024 Act to clarify that the application of sections 50, 50A and 50B of the 2000 Act to decisions under the 2024 Act cease to have effect on the commencement of the relevant provisions in Part 9 of the 2024 Act.
Section 15 is consequential to section 16 and updates cross-references.
Part 3 amends the 2000 Act and provides for the extension of duration of permissions.
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 the development is substantially complete. An extension of duration may only be granted where environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment would not be required for the proposed extension.
Section 17 is a technical amendment to ensure references in the 2000 Act include references to similar terms in the 2024 Act on commencement of Part 3.
I will bring forward a number of amendments on Committee Stage, the majority of which deal with transitional arrangements arising from moving from the 2000 Act to the 2024 Act. I will also bring forward amendments relating to the new apartment guidelines that were published this week.
The Government is committed to ensuring that housing is delivered as quickly as possible and that we do everything we can to support developments that already have planning permission. In this regard, certain modifications to existing permissions that are in accordance with the provisions of the new apartment guidelines will be deemed to be permitted modifications. The permitted modifications will be limited, with no change to the scale or mass of a development. Changes to the internal layout will be allowed in line with the new guidelines and certain limited external modifications to align with the internal changes will also be permitted. Developers will need to inform the planning authority of the proposed changes, and provided that they are in line with what is set out in the amendment, the modified permission will be allowed. This will be a timebound provision for two years only, to encourage the activation of existing permissions, rather than developers having to seek a new permission in such cases.
With the support of the Houses, I hope to have this Bill enacted before the summer recess. I will seek to respond to any specific questions and engage further on Committee Stage.
Before I commend the Bill to the House I stress that this is a necessary piece of legislation. The Minister, Deputy Browne, constantly says we need to use every tool at our disposal to ensure an increased supply of housing in a quick and efficient way, and to continue to give regard to the right of the public and individuals to have an input into the planning process.
The Bill is necessary and timely, considering the challenges we face with the provision of housing. I look forward to listening to the contributions from Senators today. They will certainly be taken on board. I also look forward to Committee Stage where certain amendments will be introduced. I commend the Bill to the House.
Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. It is probably not his first time in here but I have been off for some months so it is my first time to see him here. I congratulate him on his role. It is great to see him getting to grips with it so quickly.
If the weather was not so good I would have come out in a cold sweat when I saw the Bill on the schedule for today because, like Senator Boyhan, I spent 122 hours in committee trying to get this Bill to where it is at. I see some of the beleaguered officials are still here and still toying with the Bill. If memory serves me right, it was the second largest Bill in the history of the State, so it is a significant piece of legislation and very much in line with the fact that we must mobilise every lever as we try to tackle the current crisis in housing.
The Minister, Deputy Browne, has rightly said that everything humanly possible will be done. This is an important piece of infrastructure around which many of the levers will be activated. It is good to see the move to An Coimisiún Pleanála. That is significant. It has been a bone of contention for many people in this Chamber and among the general public for many years. What the public want to see is the commitment to more staff happening quickly and that the Minister and the Ministers of State in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage will stay in constant contact with it. We need to see radical and sweeping change from An Bord Pleanála and manpower will be needed to do that. We need to see that happen quickly.
From what we have heard from the Minister in recent weeks, he is challenging local authorities to up their game. He is going to introduce a league table. This would be a bone of contention for many rural local authorities in that they were always very much at the coalface when it came to delivering houses. The biggest bone of contention is with the performance of the Dublin local authorities, particularly Dublin City Council, which has been lethargic. Its actions in trying to mobilise housing have been unforgivable. Several apartment blocks within the confines of the Dublin City Council area have been fitted out and are ready to be furnished but the council is holding them up because it insists that they do not conform with building regulations. Despite numerous mediation meetings, we still do not have a resolution. It is very much the case that someone in the planning department is taking an almost tsar-like approach to it. It makes one wonder sometimes if the people in the Custom House and the confines of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and in other satellite offices realise there is a housing crisis. They certainly seem immune to it given the way they are frustrating developers and, more importantly, communities, nationwide.
Rural local authorities could certainly up their game. A case in point is affordable housing in Longford. We finally have a first affordable housing scheme in Longford. It took the lifetime of the previous Government, five years, to get a commitment from the Department to eventually allow Longford County Council to go ahead with the first 25 affordable houses in the county. When the houses are built, they will be the first commercial development of three-bed semi-detached houses in the county in 19 years. That tells its own story: there has been a lethargy in the Department and it has not grasped the seriousness of the situation.
Everybody, across the floor in this House, is all too aware of the housing challenges. Invariably, 90% of the calls we get every day are about housing: people on the verge of homelessness and people who are frustrated at trying to get onto the local authority housing list. We cannot but empathise with them.
When the Minister speaks about challenging local authorities, the biggest challenge for him and for the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, is to challenge the Department itself. Nobody had a bigger role to play in the current crisis than the officials in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I accept that we have made changes and that the local authority process now only involves one phase to activate a capital project. I do not think that is going to happen. It sounds very good but I still have reservations about the commitment of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to deliver what is needed to try to resolve the existing issues.
As much as the Minister is going to challenge local authorities – sometimes I feel they are an easy target – he must also challenge staff in his Department. Everyone here would attest to the fact that one of the biggest impediments to resolving the housing crisis has been the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage itself. It has been cumbersome and slow to get anything through. Local authorities tell us that, on occasion, it is taking them two and a half years to get approval for even a scheme of 12 houses. That is simply not good enough. It is indicative of the frustration that local authorities have felt. It is very easy to do a league table of local authorities but if we drill into it, we invariably find that the source of the hold-ups and what has frustrated them is, in fact, the Department and that must be resolved.
Many in the House would not like to say it, but we need to look at incentivising people to go back into the property market. When we had the crash, we lamented section 23, but if we look across many counties now, we are damn glad we had section 23. If it was not for it, the housing crisis would be significantly worse. When the crash came in 2008, there were 2,500 empty houses in County Longford, most of which were section 23 properties. Every one of those houses is now full. They were the only housing stock we had available to us in the county in the past 20 odd years because there was no building after the crash.We need to bite the bullet on this, and we need to incentivise small-scale investors, much like mom-and pop-people, to go back into the market again and to engage in a different variation of section 23. That is very important.
Infrastructure is a huge challenge for us. Uisce Éireann, much like with the Department of housing, has very much been a laggard in this regard and it has frustrated local authorities. A case in point in rural Ireland is the delivery of upgraded and new sewerage schemes. We spent the five years of the previous Government looking for a breakthrough on a sewerage scheme for Ballymahon. In recent weeks, Uisce Éireann has published notice of CPO that will move that project forward.
The difficulty with Uisce Éireann's position on the delivery of infrastructure and the frustration for local authorities is that we have a stand-off. If a developer wants to build 20 houses in a rural town or village, they will apply to the local authority. The local authority will refuse to give permission on the basis that there is not sufficient capacity because there is no sewerage system. That is fine and technically the correct position. What we need is a circular from the Department of housing to all local authorities giving an undertaking that they can give permission for developments provided the developer provides an interim, developer-led sewage system and also provides a bond that will cover the costs of any remedial works on that. That is one of the quickest ways to leverage a start in house-building because, with the best will in the world, Uisce Éireann is never going to catch up. It will be a laggard at the end of this Government and it will be a laggard in the next Government. Unless there is a fundamental and ideological change within Uisce Éireann, it is not going to catch up. That is another easy, quick win the Department can achieve. The technology for sewerage systems has evolved. Many Irish companies now produce them, including Butler Manufacturing Services in Longford, which sends them around the world. It is exporting to over 50 countries and is a market leader in this area. The technology is there to do this. As the Minister said, we need to look at modern production methods. This is an easy fix for us.
Labour issues are huge for builders at the moment. The houses built during the Celtic tiger period would not be built now because standards are so high, and rightly so. We had the apartment defects and mica, which came at a huge cost to the Irish people and the Government. We need to ensure the houses we build now are state of the art, and certainly to a B energy rating if not to an A standard. In many cases, it is not regular plumbers but engineers and very skilled people who are needed to develop those projects. These people are simply not out there. Likewise, bricklayers and others with skills are not available.
When Lough Ree power station in Lanesborough, which has since closed as we escalated decarbonisation, was built, a firm was brought in from Turkey to complete the project. At the time, 600 workers were brought in, although we had plenty of workers in Ireland at that stage. I do not know why they were brought in then. We have to be creative. The Government needs to go out and identify companies abroad, be it in Turkey or on the margins of eastern Europe, and if they have the skill set we need, we should bring those workers in and allow our building contractors to access them.
It is very easy to roll out target figures and say what we are going to achieve and for the Minister to say all the levers will be activated but creativity is required. The Minister needs to challenge his Department and move beyond the bounds of what was done before. If officials in Departments did not do something last year, they will not do it this year because they do not like to do things differently. There needs to be a realisation within the Department of housing that we are in a housing crisis. I genuinely feel it is the only Department that does not realise we have a housing crisis.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
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.
PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
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.
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
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.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am really concerned about the latest amendments to the Planning and Development Act, which further entrench a developer and investor-first approach to our already incredibly shambolic and failed planning system. The 2024 Act has still not been fundamentally implemented and yet here we are pushing through amendments to that Act without any pre-legislative scrutiny. I find that really troubling. The same thing happened with the 2024 Act. That Act's errors are obvious here and I am quite sure there will be many more to come.
The amendments fail to address the root causes of delays in housing and infrastructure delivery. These amendments include new rules on pre-commencement extensions, judicial reviews, time suspensions and the safeguarding of expiring permissions, reflecting a narrow and misleading analysis of Ireland's planning challenges. For the first time, developers will now be able to seek extensions to their planning permissions before any development has even commenced. This fundamentally changes the nature of time-limited planning, which exists to ensure planning permissions reflect current policy, community needs and environmental conditions. Rather than incentivising delivery or discouraging land hoarding, these measures risk enabling speculative behaviour and stagnation. There is no requirement to demonstrate progress, public engagement or a reassessment of circumstances. This planning in reverse serves private timelines over the public interest.
The new provision to pause the clock on planning permissions during judicial reviews is being sold as some sort of practical situation to the delays we are seeing but it rests on the dangerous and very much false premise that legal challenges are the problem. Judicial reviews exist because the planning process has failed, often due to procedural errors, poor consultation or breaches of environmental law. Pausing permissions during this period does nothing to prevent bad decisions from being made in the first place. Worse still, it further scapegoats communities and campaigners who are simply exercising their legal rights under the Constitution and the Aarhus Convention.Instead of fixing a flawed planning system the Government is trying to insulate itself from the consequences of that flawed system. These changes are being framed as essential to increasing housing supply, yet there is no evidence that dormant permissions are expiring due to overregulation or litigation. Most planning permissions never go to judicial review. The real bottlenecks lie in inadequate water and wastewater infrastructure, staff shortages in the planning authorities, the governance crisis that we have seen in An Coimisiún Pleanála, and speculative land practices that delay activation, even when permission is granted.
Extending permissions and pausing judicial review clocks may tidy up the legal optics but they do not actually lay a single brick in developing new housing. They risk entrenching a system where developers are protected from delay but communities, the environment and the environmental activists are not protected from poor planning decisions. The Social Democrats believe in a planning system that is fair, transparent and focused on the common good. Reforms should be aimed at increasing housing delivery but not undermining accountability, due process, or democratic rights and constitutional rights. True reform means investing in planning capacity, fixing Uisce Éireann and restoring trust in An Coimisiún Pleanála.
These amendments do not fix the planning system. They simply shield it from the consequences of its own failings. We need legislation that prioritises integrity over expedience. We need a planning system that delivers housing and infrastructure without eroding public rights or environmental protections. I am deeply disappointed that a whole range of amendments are being brought through. It is a massive number of amendments at this stage. I hope Senators will be sufficiently briefed on those amendments before next week. It is deeply cynical and not remotely in good faith that it is being done in this way. It is bad process and we are not even going to have a Report Stage on this Bill. I want to put it on the record that I hope this is not a sign of things to come with the legislative process during this term.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have a number of key concerns on the Bill and the context in which they sit. I feel there is also an element of us having been here before in the shocking announcement that was just made of the intention to add last-minute major and substantial amendments, changes in our planning laws put in at the very last minute just before a recess, and to ram it through without proper democratic oversight. This is a pattern that was exhibited by the previous Government, particularly in the area of planning.
I will go through and highlight some of the specific issues in this Bill. Section 16 amends section 42 of the 2000 Act. This is entirely in violation of our obligations under the Aarhus Convention. This section allows for the extension of permission for uncommenced developments of one or more houses. The key point here is what it leans on, what it is extending, which is section 42 of the 2000 Act, was found to be non-compliant with the Aarhus Convention. Again, this is not about the question of extensions but of how it is being done and the fact that it is being done without giving any rights to public participation or input or any reflection on how situations may have changed. Even environmental factors may have changed over what can, in some cases, be a very long period of time.
Section 42 the 2000 Act was reviewed by the compliance committee of the Aarhus Convention. To be clear, the Aarhus Convention is not an aspirational document or something that we have signed up to in a general sense as a goal for the State. The Aarhus Convention is legislation. It is law and it is legally binding. Ireland is committed to it and has signed up to it. The compliance committee of the Aarhus Convention has previously clearly found that section 42 of the 2000 Act was not compliant with the Aarhus Convention in failing to consider the obligation of public participation requirements when updating or revisiting a consent. This is required under Article 6.10 of that convention.
The amendments to section 16 will compound those issues because they are going to extend again the context in which this flawed section will be relied on. Again, this was highlighted when the 2024 planning Bill was coming through. I heard it multiple times in the Chamber. It is a pity to now again read the text that came from that. Clearly the Aarhus Convention has said that section 42 of the 2000 Act was found to be non-compliant. The Government claimed that the changes it would make in Chapter 5, Part 4 of the 2024 Bill would address those concerns in relation to compliance. Then the compliance committee of the Aarhus Convention, the people whose job it is to determine this, literally published a report in which they said, "In the light of the above considerations, the Committee does not consider that, if enacted in their current form, proposed sections 133 and 135(2)(b) and (d) of the Planning and Development Bill 2023 would fulfil the requirements of paragraph 4 (a)(i) of decision VII/8i." Basically it was found to be non-compliant and found to be in breach of the Aarhus Convention. Then a couple of measures were produced in the planning Bill last year which the Government claimed would address it. During that time and prior to that Bill going through these Houses, the compliance committee had already looked at these draft proposals and said this would not fix it and that we would will still be non-compliant if we brought forward the legislation in this form. I raised this at the time and made it very clear. I read those concerns during the course of that 2024 debate. I was told that the Attorney General was working hard on it and would come up something to address the concerns of the compliance committee. Instead of addressing the concerns of the compliance committee the Government is now looking to lean even more on that original flawed element of the original Bill, which, as we have been told, was not fixed by the 2024 Bill, and have even more things happen under it. We have even more decisions that are happening in a way that is not going to be compliant with the Aarhus Convention.
This is wrong. It is wrong in the context of the law and our legal obligations but it is also really wrong given the simple things that were asked for, which were appropriate mechanisms for public participation and some engagement with the public, in recognition that if five or ten years have passed, sometimes an environmental context has changed - sadly environmental contexts are changing quite rapidly at the moment - and that the public may have concerns and should have the right to be concerned about something that is going ahead. Maybe a new local development plan has happened during that period of time. Maybe it needs to be considered as well by the councillors and what they have put in and signed off on needs to be included. A lot can have happened and the idea of public participation was meant to ensure that it would be reflected. This is the issue with section 16 of the Bill.
At the moment the threshold being granted is provided as "the development will be completed within a reasonable time". This is the language for the proposed provision. It is incredibly vague and is likely to cause issues. There is no requirement to justify the delay. Even the original section 42 of the 2000 Act had what were called the NAMA clauses with the requirement to say why development was not done and what happened. Now we have "completed within a reasonable time" and there is no requirement to justify why it is reasonable or what has to happen and so forth. Developers are being rewarded for sitting on development permissions, for no good reason in many cases, allowing them to squeeze supply and drive up prices.
Section 13 also has concerns that are similar in relation to this. It suspends consents that are subject to judicial review. This allows for a de facto extension of duration of permission. Again the problem is that such a time period can be very long. The issues there are not related to individuals taking judicial reviews but to the huge delays we have in the courts system.We also still have a narrative, which it is important to puncture, that it is terrible what all these judicial reviews and objectors have stopped. We heard from Senator Boyhan that they account for a tiny portion of the 50,000 planning permissions that exist. There are very few cases where delays are caused by planning. In most cases it is developers sitting on planning permission and not using it. Crucially, on those judicial reviews, 40% of them are taken by developers, so 40% of those terrible judicial reviews are being taken by developers who literally are saying "we have put in something, the Planning Authority has found it violates the planning laws and not given us permission, but we are going to push on." I think of all the ire that was directed at every local residents association in terms of judicial review, yet it is often the developers who are delaying things because they are greedy and want more in some instances.
There is a lacuna. The lacuna has been addressed around which section will commence at which point in terms of costs. I highlighted that gap when the 2024 legislation was coming through. It should have been fixed then rather than now. What is really unacceptable, and it tags onto that, are these proposals for a €35,000 limit, a ceiling in terms of what environmental objectors and others will be able to do. This is not in the Bill but it is what is proposed and it is cap so that developers, with their bottomless pockets, can take any judicial review they want and those who are bringing concerns as a citizen will effectively be capped in what they can get.
The idea of bringing in lower standards for apartments at the last minute is an insult to the public, not just in terms of democracy but in terms of basic decency with respect to how we expect people to live. These are situations where there is already planning permission. It is not addressing any actual problem. It is addressing a situation where investors say they would like more. It is rewarding those who have sought to profiteer more and have delayed using the planning permissions they have. It tells them if they hang around long enough, the Government will get desperate enough to give them whatever they want, as they have done on strategic housing development, as they did when they lowered standards previously, when they tied the hands of those who would object to developers' proposals, as they have done again and again.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Speculation is rewarded by this Government and that is not what delivers houses. This is the same mistakes again and again from the same false principle. It is a disservice to the public.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have gone on but I will say we are being denied time to properly address this, with this poor democratic practice of bringing in this bad proposal at the last minute. By the way, it will require fire safety and health certificates and will delay planning permission that is ready to go. All of those processes around fire and health certificates will have to be done. We are actually delaying and rewarding those who seek to delay for profit.
Niall Blaney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister of State is very welcome. I commend the ongoing efforts at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, with the senior Minister and the Ministers of State. I find it laughable to hear some of the comments from the Opposition, particularly the previous speaker, in relation to developers. Who are we going to depend on to build these houses that we all so badly need? They are constantly put down. No other part of society would accept it. I never heard one solution from any of them. This idea that developers took 40% of those cases against the Department and the State and that it was all down to greed, there is absolutely no basis for it and the remark should be withdrawn. It was a disgraceful remark.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A Chathaoirligh, I was misquoted. I said that was the case in some instances. For clarity.
Niall Blaney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There was reference to a figure of 40% and an all-encompassing remark was made that was on the basis of greed. That is wrong and I would like it withdrawn.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A Chathaoirligh, if something is being asked to be withdrawn, I will have to ask-----
Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Higgins, you are aware of the Standing Order that if you want to interrupt somebody in possession, you can only do so with their permission.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have been directly challenged and asked to withdraw a comment.
Niall Blaney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If she wishes to withdraw, she is welcome to do so.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To be very clear, what I said was that it was 40% and it was in some instances, whereas the Senator has twice now - if he examines the transcript, he will see what is correct-----
Niall Blaney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We will need to check the record. It is on the record of the House.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, and at that point, I would like Senator Blaney to withdraw his remarks.
Niall Blaney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is on the record of the House. Maybe you want to review that and you can come back at a later stage.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I look forward to Senator Blaney withdrawing his comments at that point.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry, I am not going to be misrepresented.
Niall Blaney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Either way, the contribution was reckless. Moreover, this idea that the downsizing of apartments is also in relation to conditions, whether it be in relation to ensuring that developments meet standards or in relation to fire safety in any aspect of a building, is first and foremost a load of nonsense. Second, there is some belief that because the standards are dropped, every apartment in the country has to go to that size. It does not. What we are actually doing here is ensuring that people who cannot afford apartments of today actually get into the market. This is about ensuring those who cannot afford to get into the market, and continuing with that mantra is actually keeping those lesser people in society out of the housing market. This is another incentive, along with many others the Government is developing and evolving to ensure that people get into the market. It is a very smart initiative. It is in line with what other countries are doing. I commend the Bill to the House and thank the Minister of State for his work.
John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank all Senators for their engagement on this Bill. I acknowledge the contributions of Senators Flaherty, Boyhan, Murphy, Andrews, Stephenson, Higgins, Blaney and Rabbitte.
We all recognise that it is important that developers use their permissions, whether for housing or energy projects, and important to encourage developers to act quickly on their consents. The Acts of 2000 and 2024 provide that the duration can only be extended if the project has commenced and reached substantial completion. However, in relation to residential development, there is evidence to suggest that a significant number of planning permissions for housing that are due to expire shortly have not yet been commenced.
We are all aware that the substantial increase in judicial reviews has had an impact on larger developments in particular. For example, the number of legal cases involving An Coimisiún Pleanála has grown from 41 in 2018 to 143 in 2024. Residential data for the Dublin region for the end of 2024 also highlighted these issues when there were 40,112 uncommenced residential units on 265 wholly inactive development sites in Dublin. Of these, the average period that remained to the estimated permission expiry date was 2.9 years. It is estimated that around 15,000 of these units are due to expire within the next two years.
An Coimisiún Pleanála's figures also show that just under 19,000 units on 52 sites were either subject to a judicial review and subsequently permitted, or remain within the judicial review process, over the last five years. Of these, almost 16,000 units across the country have been permitted notwithstanding the judicial review process, and just over 3,000 are still subject to ongoing proceedings. In all of these cases, the duration of the permission has been eroded due to the judicial review proceedings. The new measures contained in this Bill will allow for the holders of permission under the 2000 Act to apply to a planning authority for the suspension of the permission for the period of a judicial review, if the judicial review is upheld.It provides that where a permission was or is subject to a judicial review, the holder of the permission may seek a suspension for the period of the judicial review that was or is ongoing, providing they declare the development did not substantially commence while the judicial review was ongoing. This mirrors the provisions in the 2024 Act and brings them forward.
Planning permission is an essential step in any project, and there are other factors, of course, that can impact on the commencement of a project, including viability. Holders of planning permission will be allowed to apply for an extension. This is to address the issue of development that does not have enough time remaining in the planning permission to be commenced and substantially completed before applying for an extension, as is the requirement at present. This measure will be timebound and will expire in October 2027. The application for the extension must be made within six months of commencement of the legislation, and the development must commence within 18 months of the commencement of the legislation. It is also important to note the extension of duration may only be granted where an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment would not be required for the proposed extension of time.
As the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, mentioned in his opening address, implementation of the Planning and Development Act 2024 is a key priority for the Government. However, it is important that the planning system remains agile and responsive to issues. It is for this reason the Bill clarifies the transitional arrangements whereby development plan variations commenced under the 2000 Act can continue when the relevant provisions of the 2024 Act are commenced, with a similar provision for local area plans commenced under the 2000 Act. This will ensure that, following approval of the revised national planning framework, which will facilitate the delivery of in excess of 50,000 additional homes per annum, the updated housing requirements can be incorporated into the planning system as quickly as possible. Local authorities will be required to update their current development plans over the coming months, and we will be writing to local authorities very shortly on their housing growth requirements.
I will follow up on a few of the matters that have been raised by Senators. A number of Senators referenced the fact that the Bill is being rushed and that no pre-legislative scrutiny occurred. With regard to Members on the Oireachtas joint committee, it is important to state pre-legislative scrutiny was waived by the committee. Department officials met the committee in advance of the pre-legislative scrutiny waiver, and they will meet the joint committee on Monday to brief it on the apartment guidelines that will be amended. It is unfair to present it as if there has not been a briefing from officials on this matter. There has been full engagement with the Oireachtas joint committee. I suggest that Senators speak to the members of their groupings or parties who sit on the Oireachtas joint committee to feed in any questions or get clarification ahead of the Committee Stage debate, which will take place in the House next week.
On the points raised regarding communication with planning authorities, it is important to state that implementation and oversight working groups are in existence. Bespoke circulars have been issued to local authorities with descriptions of new legislation and information on corresponding regulations and such matters. A comprehensive implementation plan is in place with regard to communicating all of these changes. We appreciate the challenge of translating what is significant legislation, and the workload involved, in the local authority system.
Reference was made to the Aarhus Convention. It is important to state that what the compliance committee had looked at when the comments were issued was not the final version of the Bill. Section 42 of the Act of 2000 has been the subject of complaints, as has been referenced. These are mainly to do with public participation. A letter was issued in October 2024 to set out the provisions of the 2024 Act on the extension of duration, including public participation. It explained the Act includes a number of transitional measures to allow for the reforms to be introduced on a phased basis, including the retention of section 42 on a transitional basis until three years after the passing of the Act, which is October 2027, and that section 42 will be limited to a finite number of legacy permissions granted under the 2000 Act. On this basis, we are satisfied it is appropriate to amend section 42, as proposed in the Bill, to allow for an extension to be granted for uncommenced permissions. As I have said, this is as long as an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment is not required. The Attorney General was part of the drafting process for the 2024 Act and has ensured it is compliant with our EU and international obligations, including the Aarhus Convention.
I must say some of the general commentary on the Bill, and on developers in general, is unfortunate and negative. I do not single out anyone in particular when I say that. We need developers, councils, the Land Development Agency, approved housing bodies and everyone firing on all cylinders if we are to deliver the quantum of housing required in this country. Vilifying a certain section will not achieve the outcome we all want.
I must also say that some of the descriptions of apartment sizes, which we will discuss more on Committee Stage next week, are also unfortunate. There are descriptions of shoeboxes. The reality is that, while many people in this Chamber and the other Chamber rightly point to Vienna and all of the positive measures it has in terms of housing, the average size of a studio apartment in Vienna is 25 m². We will have a size of 32 m² in the revised apartment guidelines. Context is very important when we have any debate on housing.
We will table Committee Stage amendments on the apartment guidelines and I am sure they will get a good airing next week. The Government is committed to ensuring we deliver housing as quickly as possible. Extending the duration of planning permission, while also giving back any time lost in a judicial review process, is a common-sense practical measure. It has been brought forward by the Government because we cannot build houses unless we have active planning permissions in place. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?