Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy John Cummins. The debate on the Bill will conclude at 9 p.m., if not previously concluded.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Government amendments Nos. 1 and 2 amend section 1 to provide that Part 2 comes into operation on the day immediately following the date of the passing of the Bill.

Part 2 amends the Act of 2024 and the amendments will not have effect until the relevant sections of the Act of 2024 that they are amending are commenced. By commencing the amendments now, it means that when an order is made to commence a section of the Act of 2024 that is amended by this Bill, the section, as amended, will be commenced.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Normally, I would not comment on a section of this kind but I want to draw the attention of the House to what we are doing. We are proposing to amend the Planning and Development Act 2024. I have a copy of it here. The Act will be twice as long when it is translated into Irish. We are waiting for that process to take place. I want to put on the record of the House that the Bill was guillotined with the great majority of amendments not even reached or considered. The Bill came from the Dáil to this House in such an altered state that a special version of it had to be prepared to enable Senators to understand what had actually emerged from the Dáil and to show how it was different from the Bill that started off in the Dáil. When the Bill came to this House, we were told it was a matter of absolute urgency that it would be enacted before the last general election. The Bill was guillotined in this House with hundreds of amendments, including Government amendments, never being reached or discussed. The Bill then went back to the Dáil and a guillotined motion said that all Government amendments were approved, even those that were never considered or discussed. The Bill got a fairly light consideration in the Dáil of less than a day because, again, it was urgent that it would be passed before the general election was called. This document, which is now the cornerstone of all planning and development law in Ireland was enacted without being properly scrutinised. I will say what I have to say on some provisions of the law that we are changing now. Scarcely a year later, here we are amending this Act, which was so urgent that it had to be guillotined through the House at the time without proper debate.

I want to make a general observation. I believe the passage of this Act and the enshrinement in Irish law of a whole series of things, including the position of An Bord Pleanála, retitled An Coimisiún Pleanála, and processes involving national development objectives set out as criteria by which local authorities are bound, ministerial directives and the infamous Office of the Planning Regulator - which in its time has operated to dezone land zoned for building domestic houses at a time of housing shortage - all of that is now being made a permanent part of our law. Some of the amendments we are making today are sensible but the Act by itself, as amended, is fundamentally an obstruction to development in this country not an enabler.It sets out to put in place a system of planning law in Ireland, which will obstruct planning and development for many years even though it purports to limit the capacity of individuals and unincorporated associations to avail of judicial review. It will in fact enshrine the system of planning law, which at the moment has reached crisis point where we do not have the infrastructure in terms of water or electricity to carry out relevant development to deal with the housing crisis. We are struggling to provide water from the Shannon to Dublin or to establish the national electricity grid in a sufficient way to deal with every kind of demand, whether domestic or data centre, that has been put in place.

We are dealing with what I believe is a complete error. That is the supposition by one Department of State that An Bord Pleanála is competent to deal with every issue, from offshore wind farms to be built in the Atlantic, to motorways, to every form of compulsory purchase anywhere in the country, and even to the trivial such as if you are entitled to an overhead electrical gantry outside your house in Ranelagh to feed your car at night. All of these things are now coming within the purview of An Coimisiún Pleanála, which, with the greatest of respect - and I put this on the record - will turn out as one of the greatest mistakes this country has made. If we are serious about major infrastructural developments, we should do it in a different way. We should use what continental countries are entitled to do. That is state-sponsored legislative infrastructural developments, which are not the subject of the normal planning process, which are not the material sent to An Coimisiún Pleanála and which are not in any way accountable to judicial review of the inordinate kind we have at the moment. I put those views on the record.

This Bill will be twice as large as it is now when the Irish translation comes about, and by the way it is not available as signed by the President until that is done. This is an unofficial copy. This Act and the amendments we are already making to an Act that was guillotined through these Houses is not the solution for Ireland's solutions planning-wise. It is an enshrinement of everything that is wrong in Irish planning law. It is an enshrinement, in my view, in Irish law of something that will ensure that the coming ten and 20 years will be as unproductive as the previous ten or 20 years in respect of those badly-needed projects. Take a look at the Shannon to Dublin water supply. It was planned at least 30 years ago by Dublin Corporation as it then was. The head of Uisce Éireann told a conference recently that if he got the green light today to go ahead with it, 30 years later, even though it is agreed it should be done, it will be another ten years before it would be completed because of the delays associated with Irish planning law. We cannot go on living like this. We are living in cloud-cuckoo-land if we think the Planning and Development Act 2024 or the amendments we are making to it today will substantially improve what is radically wrong with the capacity of the Irish State to deliver to the people what they are entitled to, that is, decent infrastructure, decent development and a decent response to the housing crisis.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will continue on from what Senator McDowell was saying about this particular juncture we are at. I will share some thoughts. I am conscious of time and do not want to waste too much today. I am conscious I have no amendments myself but I intend to contribute to some of the amendments. I have certainly collaborated with a number of people. I do not believe everything I read in the print media but I buy the Business Post on Sunday. It is an excellent paper that focuses particularly on a lot of planning and real estate issues. If you were to believe some of the articles in it, which are attributed to a number of people, you would certainly be scratching your head and asking what is really going on. I will share what was said by Gavin Lawlor, president of the Irish Planning Institute, IPI, of which many of the Minister of State's staff are members, be they officials in the Department or our local authorities. I have spoken to a number of chief executives in local authorities. I have spoken to many of our city and county councillors. One might ask what city and county councillors have to do with it. They are the guardians of their city and county development plans. Of course, we were told that this famous Planning and Development Act 2024 would be the panacea for everything in planning. We do not have a completed version of this, and I hope the Minister of State will touch on that because we need an answer at this point. Remember, the citizens of this State can litigate as Gaeilge. That is their constitutional right. After all of this time, are we to believe or to be told that nobody has the capacity, will, or resources to translate this critical and important legislation into our native language? We want an answer to that. We also want to know when it will happen. That is the first thing.

Second, Gavin Lawlor, president of the IPI stated, "While we all share the Minister’s priorities of bringing development costs down and accelerating housing delivery, we are not convinced that the announced changes will achieve what’s intended." He is of course referring to the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025 that we are considering now. Gavin Lawlor issued a formal press release that has been covered extensively in the media. He states:

Professional planners not only recognise the gravity of the housing crisis - we are actively working to be part of the solution. We welcome meaningful, evidence-based reforms that support the accelerated, coordinated, and sustainable delivery of apartments and homes in communities across the country. While we all share the Minister’s priorities of bringing development costs down and accelerating housing delivery, we are not convinced that the announced changes will achieve what’s intended. In particular, the erosion of unit mix requirements represents a market-led approach to housing that is fundamentally at odds with the significant work undertaken by the Department of Housing to date to create a plan-led system.

I go back to that plan-led system. The Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, will remember this because he was sitting in this Chamber then. In our development plan, the whole emphasis was, as we were told by the then Minister and Ministers of State that this was moving from a developer-led system. There were suggestions, assertions and aspersions about developers and what they may or may not have been up to. I do not subscribe to them, so I put that to one side. We were told this would now be planning-led development. What I want to say is that I am deeply concerned. The IPI states "Our members understand the motivation to make unviable housing projects deliverable, however our members are deeply concerned about the potential unintended consequences of the Minister’s actions." I talk to chief executives around the country and many of them are aghast. It is not all of them, some of them I did not get to speak to. I had reason to be at two local authorities in Dublin yesterday. I spoke to people there. They just cannot understand it. The Land Development Agency seems to know more than anyone about what is going on. Of course, it has a lot to gain. I am a supporter of the Land Development Agency. I do not have an issue with the Land Development Agency. I want to share two stories before I close. I am absolutely against the idea of single aspects. If you face north, you will have to use energy. We are talking about sustainable development. You will have to use energy to heat them up. If you face south, for the past two weeks, you would have had to have energy to cool them down. This is not sustainable planning. It is not proper and sustainable development - end of story. I spoke to a man last week who told me he lived in the Fingal County Council area. He ended up buying accommodation.He told me the price and the repayments were a little more than €1,000 per month. I said "Oh, that sounds like great value.". It was local authority or private arrangement partnership funding mechanism. I did not quite know the funding mechanism. The point is his repayments were €1,050 per month. I asked him how many rooms he had and he told me he had no rooms. He was living in a studio. He was married and 37 years of age. His wife was 38. They were not able to have a family at the moment. He said the other day he got a knock on his bathroom door. It was his wife and she asked him if he was okay in there because she had not heard the water. He said no, he was in there reading a book. That paints a picture. It paints a picture that the only room to break away from someone else for a couple who are stuck, because that was all they could afford, is in this room. Quite frankly, that is not the way we should be going. There is a place for studio apartments but not for single aspect.

I will finish on that and look forward to contributing to the debate. There are serious concerns and shortcomings. The Minister of State knows there has been no regulatory impact assessment of this Bill. He knows the committee waived pre-legislative scrutiny; it is the right of any committee to waive, but that does not mean anything. It just means the Government wrote to the committee to ask whether it would waive pre-legislative scrutiny. It did in this case, which is its right, and I respect that right. That was a pity too.

We are talking about this being emergency legislation. The timing of this legislation as it kicks in will be critical because the Government has given notice to developers of this legislation. I do not know the extent of the notice given but there certainly has been now. We have no guarantee. Many sections of the 2024 Act have not commenced. What assurances do we have? I note there is no emergency request for the President to sign this legislation as of yet. If this Bill passes the Houses this week, when will it be signed by the President? What is the Government's intention? When will it be fully, not partly, enacted? Timing is of the essence with this legislation.

In summary, this is unsatisfactory. I cannot see how many Members will support this legislation. We can spend all night pointing out the shortcomings or we can engage in a meaningful way, have our votes, make our points and ultimately, vote on this legislation, which will clearly happen tonight.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not directly related to the Bill but I take issue with a comment by the previous speaker. He said he does not agree with everything he reads in the printed media. It was a disappointing comment, given the veracity of the printed media, particularly in Ireland, is second to none. It operates within the confines of draconian defamation laws and at the same time, we have the Wild West of social media. It is a sector that is under immense pressure through job cuts and job losses. They say we are the last generation of people who will buy newspapers. It is a sector that has served this country incredibly well since the foundation of the State. The Senator phrased it incorrectly or wrongly but it was a disappointing comment.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is okay. The Senator is entitled to his comment.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will stick to amendments Nos. 1 and 2. We have had extensive Second Stage debates, both in the Dáil and the Seanad, to make the general points. As I said in my opening remarks, it is a technical amendment to amend the relevant sections of the Act of 2024. Those sections, as amended, will take effect once this is commenced. I will address one point about the translation of the 2024 Act into Irish, which Senator Boyhan raised. That is a matter for the Oireachtas; that is not a matter for my Department.

PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is very welcome. I thank him for coming to the Seanad this afternoon. Despite what has just been said by the Opposition, I stand here and compliment the Minister of State on the amendments before us. They will do exactly as intended: enable development. I will go to the bones of the amendment: "The holder of permission for residential development may apply to the relevant authority who granted the permission for the certificate certifying that a proposed modification...of the permission is a permitted modification.". We debated this last week. We spoke about the need for apartments of all sizes. As we said last week, irrespective of what ideal sizes and large sizes we may believe are optimum to live in, if they are not financially feasible to be built, they will not be built and they are not being built.

There is a lack of development in this sector. We have to address that. Irrespective of what we may see as being the ideal apartment to live in, be it facing north, south or both, if they are not being built, they are no good to anybody. We have to be honest. Apartments that are simply not financially viable to build will not be built and are not being built. These amendments are for facilitating the financial viability of a sector that is not currently functioning properly. I compliment the Minister of State on what he is attempting to do. These are progressive amendments and I congratulate him on that.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is asking to us support a Bill that erodes basic human dignity and environmental protections and basically gives carte blanche to developers to hide the fact that his Government is a serial failure when it comes to housing. We are asked to support a Bill that will lower housing standards at a time people are struggling to find homes that support basic well-being. He did not like the critique of the Bill last Thursday and suggested we have no solutions. The Social Democrats have a fully costed, comprehensive policy on housing and I invite him to read that. He can use it if he wants because at the end of the day, we need houses built.

It is possible to deliver housing in a way that does not just give carte blanche to developers and it is not just me saying that. The Irish Planning Institute also said that as it issued a statement expressing its deep concern in quite an unprecedented move. I want to put it on the record so that members of the public and stakeholders are made aware that after 3.30 p.m. last Friday, we received 12 pages of Government amendments to this 18 page Bill. We had until 11 a.m. on Monday morning to submit amendments. Essentially, we had less than one working day to try to consolidate the effect of the Government amendments that increase the size of the Bill by two thirds, consider their implications and draft our amendments in response to them. How does the Minister of State think that is okay? How do his Department officials think that is okay? We cannot meaningfully call that type of turnaround scrutiny. Some of the amendments he has included in this Bill are actually corrections to the 2024 Act. We now see the consequences of pushing through a Bill without pre-legislative scrutiny. I am not really sure this Bill will be any different. I feel this will cause huge legal uncertainty and flawed decisions which will, in turn, risk increased numbers of judicial reviews. It is outrageous the Minister of State plans on using Part 9 of the Act to egregiously limit judicial review. In doing it that way, it could be legally and practically very problematic and could cost the Government unestimated, untold millions of euro in complex litigation.

These amendments are quite complex in their effect and many are deeply controversial, problematic and cause widespread concern. It is really important to put that out there. The legislation proposes to reduce ceiling heights, weaken light and ventilation standards and remove communal amenity requirements. It encourages the delivery of smaller, darker, lower quality apartments at a time we know how deeply housing conditions impact mental and physical health. They are only suitable for one person to live in. They will attract only those who may be short-term renting or have no other option because of the housing crisis we have. They will do nothing to address the growing number of families or couples in that situation. It seems the Bill is about the warehousing of workers rather than giving people somewhere decent to live. Even worse, these units will still command the highest rents as they fall under the new rental legislation. When these come on board, we will see rents of more than €2,300 per month for these tiny box rooms. They are being built for developers and not the people who will live in them.

The Irish Planning Institute, in a rare and serious intervention, warned that "the erosion of unit mix requirements represents a market-led approach that is fundamentally at odds...with a plan-led system [focused] on long-term, sustainable outcomes". It adds: "Our members are deeply concerned about the potential unintended consequences of the Minister's actions." If we are not careful, one of the concerns is that we will design the slums of the future. Homes will undermine well-being and dignity. What the Government is doing is having more apartments and fewer people and completely ignoring families and people with disabilities.I have not seen any detailed breakdown of the data cost on savings. I would love the Minister of State to be able to provide the data cost on savings today; that would be brilliant. We all want more homes built, but quantity must never come at the cost of basic quality, and this Bill really does need serious revision before we entrench lower standards into Irish law.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will come back to the Minister of State. I take on board his point that translation is not a matter for the Department, but that it is a matter for the Oireachtas. However, I have had raised this with numerous Ministers. I have raised this under Commencement matters, which is nothing to do with this debate and which I will send to the Minister of State tomorrow, and I have been told every time that the sponsoring Minister and the Minister of State's Department are endeavouring to get it published. We do not, therefore, operate in a bubble or a vacuum. It is cross-party and interdepartmental, and it is in everyone's interest, including the legislators and the Minister of State, to pursue the agenda. The Minister of State might not personally be responsible but let us park all the sideshows here. It should be translated at this stage. That is my message. I do not think the Minister of State is disagreeing with me, so I would appreciate if he could push it along.

I want to wrap up on two issues. We need to be clear; the public are listening in and watching "Oireachtas Report", and they need to see the context. I thank the library and research team for their Bill digest last week. I will reiterate one key line, which states that today, there are 50,000 apartments in Dublin with active live planning permissions. We heard that great old cliché about use it or lose it. That is the problem. All I am hearing is viability. I run a business; it has to be viable. Many of us are involved in businesses that have to be viable, but we cannot bend over backwards for people every name of the game. We were told about the regulation for the construction industry was happening; it still has not happened. We hear all the commentary about viability and resources. I am sorry; there comes a point. The public are losing hope here. We have today 50,000 units with full planning permission not being built out. Why? Because developers that coming down the track, they will have opportunities under this Bill. That is the nature of it.

The other myth we need to nail here once and for all is that there are only 7,500 units affected by judicial reviews. They are the facts. There should be none of all this old poppycock about judicial reviews and litigants and people frustrating planning processes. That is not factually correct. We know that many of these judicial reviews have actually been initiated by developers themselves. I have taken the time to have a look. Many of the appeals with regard to some developments are by developers. Many appeals, particularly around infrastructure for development, have been objected to by democratically elected TDs and Senators and city and county councillors from all parties and none. That is their democratic right. That is not a criticism, absolutely. I have always been active in planning and monitoring planning in my own area and will continue to do so. We need to get that message out there. There are plans on the drawing boards, fully approved to go, but developers have decided they want to stall them. However, if they were told to use it or lose it, and if that was in this legislation, they would be developing it pretty quick then. They will hold and hold and keep changing and changing.

Of course, one other aspect of this Bill is that they can go back and modify this without any reference to the planning authority. We must remember that citizens who we represent have that right to engage in a planning process. That is a constitutional right. We have to careful when we look. I am all for reform and for more houses, and I do not have difficulty with studio apartments in appropriate places and with a ratio. However, in Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown, where I live, there was a proposal for three-bedroom units and a percentage of them would be there. That is all going to be thrown to one side.

Where is the democracy for local men and women who we elect to run our councils, and who are the guardians of their city and county development plans? It is a bit like the big case that was made that we do not need to have development, and we want ten-year plans because we want consistency. The Minister of State is back here already within the year amending the 2024 legislation, but we were told that not at all, ten years will be loads. We talked about that flexibility, and how a development plan and planning Bill had to be agile and responsive to the ongoing needs. Of course it has to be agile and responsive to ongoing needs, but that was not the argument the Government wanted to hear a year ago. Now, suddenly, it can bring this up.

I am going to sit down and shut up at this point, but this does beg a question. I received a letter from a councillor in south County Dublin today that talked about democracy and the local task force. She asked what it was all about. She said they are city and county councillors, and they are now being asked to be involved in a task force, yet the Government does not want to hear what they have to say. It is talking about all this meaningful engagement, but councillors have a role too in the planning and development process. It begs the question about how things become so centralised. The Office of the Planning Regulator has so much control. The Department has so much control. It just begs the question when it comes to our democratically elected members, who have a mandate to represent communities and have knowledge of planning, somehow, there is no consultation with regard to what they say.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 3 and 13, amendment No. 1 to amendment 13, amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 16, amendment No. 25 and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 25 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will address amendments Nos. 3, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 25. I know Members may want to address the amendments to my amendments first perhaps before I respond.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My amendment relates to the Office of the Planning Regulator.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What amendment is that?

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 4.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not in this grouping, it is-----

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not in this section, is it? I am sorry; I do not have the-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not in the grouping. Has the Senator got the groupings?

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not in this grouping; I apologise.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is grand. I call Senator Stephenson.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 13., I am going to double-check this and let the Minister of State know later, but this might have been slightly reformatted from my original submission. Maybe it was something to do with the renumbering but anyway, I will speak to the essence of the amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to limit the potentially negative effect of the specified overriding powers in the 2024 Act that it refers to, which could otherwise be used to negatively impact an existing public right of way by removing, reducing, limiting, diminishing or compromising the use of or enjoyment of existing public rights of way that were in place before the commencement of Part 3 of the 2024 Act.

Specifically, it limits the effect of negative changes given new revised national planning frameworks or regional, spatial and economic strategies via SI 5 or section 68 and any negative changes in further alignments forced by sections 61 and 62 - consequences of new or amended national planning statement for development plans and expedited variation of development plan". I very much urge the Minister of State to consider the importance of rights of way and ensure that the 2024 Act is not used to negatively impact any existing rights of way and the enjoyment and use the public gets from them, and to accept this amendment, at least in principle, and further improve it as outlined when the Bill reverts to the Dáil given that we might not have a chance to have Report Stage. Maybe it could be considered in the Dáil, or the Minister of State could accept a similar amendment from colleagues who might put these forward in the Dáil.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is my amendment No. 3 in this section?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It relates the Office of the Planning Regulator.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry; the Senator was correct initially. That is amendment No. 4 in relation-----

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know but is says No. 3. I am sorry; it is amendment No. 3 in the list, is it not?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is amendment No. 4.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is amendment No. 4. Is it amendments Nos. 3 and 4?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, amendment No. 4 is next.It is not in this grouping. It is No. 4-----

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is all right. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If it is better for the Minister of State, maybe I should speak to all the amendments as opposed to-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All within the group.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to withdraw the amendment to amendment No. 16. Amendment No. 14, to delete “varied.”.” and substitute “varied.”, is to deal with a punctuation issue. I am sure the officials will pick up on that on another Stage of the Bill.

The purpose of the amendment to amendment No. 25 is to ensure that extraordinary and worrying new powers under the 2024 Act shall not operate to remove, limit, reduce or otherwise compromise the record of protected structures included in a development plan in existence or whose drafting is under way prior to the commencement of the Act. Similar concerns have been highlighted in respect of the earlier definition of potential negative consequences of the 2024 Act on public rights of way that I have just spoken about that may obtain here as well.

The sections of the 2024 Act referred to that are precluded from compromising protected structures under our amendment include section 68(5), which if left effective would also force the precedence of a new or revised national planning framework over a development plan. In this regard, I refer to the list of all protected structures. Also relevant are section 61, which concerns consequences of new or amended national planning statement for development plans, and section 62, which refers to the expedited variation of development plans. As mentioned regarding amendment 13 in respect of public rights of way, ideally the list would be expanded to include sections 64 to 67, inclusive. I urge the Minister of State to accept my amendment in the public interest and given the importance of our heritage and protected structures, and also to allow for improvement, as suggested in the Dáil. That is everything from me.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let me address the Senators’ proposed amendments. Senators Higgins and Stephenson have tabled a proposed amendment to amendment No. 13, which seeks to provide that the variation of a development plan on foot of a national planning statement or the fact that the provision of the NPF or the RSES takes precedence over a provision of the development plan continued in force from the Act of 2000 “shall not operate to remove, limit, reduce or otherwise compromise the use of enjoyment of a public right of way contained in a development plan in existence or in a draft development plan process underway, prior to the commencement of any section under Part 3". I cannot accept this proposed amendment as it is unnecessary. The Act of 2024 has several provisions relating to public rights of way. Section 51(2) provides that a development management statement may include objectives for a range of matters, including “preserving a specific public right of way, including a public right of way which gives access to any seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank, monument or other place of natural beauty or recreational utility”. Section 51(4) provides that nothing in section 51 shall affect the existence or validity of any public right of way. Section 60(10) of the Act of 2024, which I am amending in amendment No. 13, already provides that any provision relating to the preservation of a public right of way contained in a development plan continued in force until section 68 may be included in a subsequent development plan made under this Act without the necessity to comply with this section. Section 60(11) provides that nothing in section 60 shall affect the existence or validity of any public right of way not included in a development plan. It is important to note that the creation of public rights of way either by agreement or compulsorily is a matter already provided for under sections 268 and 269 of the Act of 2024. Furthermore, section 270 provides for a right of way to be maintained by the planning authority. I am satisfied that there are adequate provisions in the Act of 2024 to provide for the preservation and maintenance of rights of way and therefore cannot accept the amendment to amendment No. 13.

Senators Higgins and Stephenson have also tabled a proposed amendment to amendment No. 16, which seeks to delete subsection (7) of section 81 of the Act of 2024. I cannot accept this proposed amendment to my amendment as the subsection provides that where a local area plan that is continued in force conflicts with a provision of the NPF, RSES, a national planning statement or a development plan, the higher-order plan or strategy takes precedence. This is an important provision that gives clarity to the hierarchy of plans in our country. The overriding policy behind the Act of 2024 is that the national planning framework will continue to spearhead the planning agenda. The Act sets out a plan-led system and structure whereby all tiers of planning, from regional to local, align with the strategic objectives set out in the NPF, which was adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Put simply, lower-order plans are required to align with higher-order plans, with development plans aligned to the regional strategies and in turn to the NPF and national planning statements, and with the area-based plans aligned to development plans. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment to amendment No. 16.

Senators Higgins and Stephenson have also tabled a proposed amendment to amendment No. 25, which seeks to provide that the variation of a development plan on foot of a national planning statement or the fact that the provision of the NPF or RSES takes precedence over a provision of the development plan continued in force from the Act of 2000 “shall not operate to remove, limit, reduce or otherwise compromise the record of protected structures included in a development plan in existence or in a draft development plan process underway, prior to the commencement of any section under Part 3”. I cannot accept this proposed amendment as it is unnecessary. The Act of 2024 has several provisions relating to the record of protected structures and specifically section 307(2) of the Act of 2024 provides that the “making of an addition to, deletion from or amendment to a record of protected structures under subsection (1) shall be a reserved function”.

Government amendments Nos. 3, 13, 16 and 25 all provide that a reference in various plans throughout the Act of 2024 to a development plan continued in force under section 68 of the Act of 2024 should also include a reference to a development plan prepared or varied in accordance with section 69. Section 68 of the 2024 Act provides that the development plan in place under the Act of 2000 continues in force when the Act of 2024 is commenced. Section 69 allows the making of a development plan or a development plan variation commenced under the Act 2000 prior to the commencement of Part 3 of the Act of 2024 to continue under the Act of 2000 notwithstanding its repeal. As sections 68 and 69 both carry over development plans from the Act of 2000 to the Act of 2024, it is necessary to update any references to section 68 and also include a reference to section 69, where appropriate.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 apply to procedures in subsections 68(3), 68(4) and 68(5) of the Act of 2024 in respect of a development plan prepared or varied in accordance with section 69. This is reasonable as both sections 68 and 69 carry over development plans from the Act of 2000 to the Act of 2024.

Amendment No. 14 just edits the punctuation of the Bill to allow the text of amendment No. 15 to be correctly inserted.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 1 of Principal Act

3. Section 1 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2):

“(2A) Without prejudice to subsection (2) the provisions of this Act relating to the repeal of the termination of the Office of the Planning Regulator shall come into effect on the passing of this Act.”.”.

This relates to the Office of the Planning Regulator, which has been the biggest stumbling block when it comes to building housing in this country. The Government talked earlier this year about appointing a housing tsar.I think we already have one. This particular regulator has caused serious issues for city and county councillors. It sets objectives for a county's development plan, determines planning strategies and sets objectives for each of the local authorities. It has dezoned land. The amount of land that was dezoned in this country by the Planning Regulator is criminal. The Bill last year reinforced the role of the Office of the Planning Regulator which, from time to time has sought to undermine planning decisions.

Ireland has one of the weakest systems of local government in Europe. We should be looking to change this. Considering that most councillors are familiar with their area, they should be the ones entrusted to make decisions on planning, zoning and other issues. At this moment in time local authority members are waiting for the numbers to come out from the Department on what they will be allowed to build. The Department is looking for lands that are zoned or may have services on them. Almost half these lands were dezoned by the Planning Regulator in 2018. I remember being a member of the council at the time and we had to dezone land. Here we are shouting for housing today. For me, this office has been the biggest stumbling block to housing in this country and it should be terminated.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 4 seeks to repeal the Office of the Planning Regulator. As everyone knows, the OPR was established in April 2019 on foot of recommendations made by the Mahon tribunal. It made 64 recommendations aimed at significantly enhancing the transparency of planning in Ireland, against a backdrop of significant historical deficiencies in decision-making on local authority development plans or other planning functions. The OPR carries out a range of important and significant functions which assist with the effective operation of the planning system as a whole. Therefore, I oppose the amendment as I believe that if it were to be accepted, it would have a negative impact on the planning system in its entirety.

I will address the point on the zoning of land. The Minister, Deputy Browne, and I will write to local authorities very shortly on their housing growth requirements. We have already informed local authorities to commence the variation process in terms of the zoning of land. It is a matter for each local authority as to where it zones particular lands. Certainly from our perspective, the Department will write with the housing growth requirements very shortly and we expect local authorities to implement them as quickly as possible to ensure we have an adequate amount of zoned and serviced land throughout the country, to ensure we have the homes we require for our people throughout the country.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister clarify when this will be? Will it be prior to the summer recess, in the coming weeks or when?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Shortly.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What does "shortly" mean?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Shortly.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will it be in weeks or months?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Very shortly.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Very shortly is fantastic. I thank the Minister.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I share Senator Keogan's reservations about the Office of the Planning Regulator. I understand what the Minister has said on it emerging from one of the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal but, with the greatest of respect, the fact the tribunal had to deal with allegations of corruption in respect of zoning and rezoning by local authority members never required something as draconian as the Office of the Planning Regulator to be established. It certainly did not require the Department giving to the Office of the Planning Regulator a power effectively to undo decisions of local authorities by fiat, subject only to an ultimate veto by a Minister, which has to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It gave massive power to the Planning Regulator to undo decisions that local authority members made in good faith.

I do not accept the proposition that local authority members are ignorant or foolish when it comes to the zoning requirements in their area. I heard that Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council was told by the Planning Regulator to dezone land in its area. It is a city area, virtually. For the Planning Regulator to say it had zoned land for housing to an excessive degree was an extraordinary proposition. The requirement it should dezone that land was made by the Planning Regulator which, we are told, is independent in the execution of its functions and is subject only to the right of a Minister to supervene again and lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a direction to ignore the Planning Regulator. Otherwise, such a direction from the Planning Regulator takes effect. This is the direct opposite of local democracy.

The members of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council were entitled to decide, and were in a far better position to decide, on what likely demand for housing there was in their area and to make their zoning decisions accordingly. It was never suggested that the rezonings directed to be rescinded by the Office of the Planning Regulator more recently were in any way tainted by corruption or suspicion as to the bona fides of the councillors who made their decisions. It was never suggested this was the case. In fairness, this has to be said. They are people who make decisions in good faith based on their calculation of what demand for housing in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown will be.

I have seen, from work I have done elsewhere, the Office of the Planning Regulator intervenes in the sequence of rezoning land outside the centres of towns of medium size. This has happened on a number of occasions. The Planning Regulator has said that in theory, the land could be rezoned but there is land closer to the centre of the town in question that should be developed first. This is all very well, except the persons who own the land nearer the town centre have no intention, for one reason or another, of carrying out any development on it. They cannot be forced to do so unless the local authority decides to CPO the land. In these circumstances we go through the entire rigmarole of having An Coimisiún Pleanála confirming a CPO regime if, as a housing authority, the local authority decides to intervene and purchase land compulsorily. This requires, in the way things actually operate, that the Department backs it up financially when it comes to a CPO for this purpose.

I agree with Senator Keogan. The OPR was a heavy-handed overreaction. It is an aggregation of power to the centre of the Department, operating through a so-called independent agency to examine in minute detail, by reference to national planning directives, frameworks and the like, and micromanage what local authority members did and do in respect of the development of their areas.I have seen other cases where, for instance, the Office of the Planning Regulator decides there have to be duplex-type developments in developments outside towns. The local authority, having consulted the developers in their area, says there is no demand in rural Ireland and in rural Irish towns for those duplex arrangements. The local authority, though, is overruled and told it must have duplex-type housing densities on the land it is now proposing to zone or grant planning permission in respect of. In my view, all of that is grossly excessive.

Regarding Senator Keogan's proposals in her amendments, I support them. I think it is time we said goodbye to the Office of the Planning Regulator. There are different ways to handle suspected corruption. It should be done by a Minister and the consent of these Houses. It should not be done by a so-called independent and largely autonomous officer who imposes his or her will on the democratic choices made by local authority members against the possibility that they would behave improperly or in bad faith or corruptly in relation to their decisions on zoning and in the content of their own development plan.

I will add one thing, and that is this list of amendments to this Bill contains 21 amendments that are Government amendments. This is for a Bill that has just been guillotined through the Dáil and flung in here for our consideration under similar time pressure. In the main, these are amendments that could have been envisaged as necessary at the time when the Planning and Development Act 2024 was guillotined through this House and rushed through Dáil Éireann prior to the last general election. This is not a way to conduct parliamentary business. We do not have the explanatory memorandums for this House for these 21 amendments. The Minister is in a position to tell us what each amendment is about but we do not have a detailed account ahead of the debate as to precisely what is planned.

Regarding housing standards, and we will probably come to it later concerning section 44B, which it is proposed to insert in Part III of the Planning and Development Act 2000, a Bill which is proposed to be repealed in its entirety by the 2024 Act. These are controversial proposals and should be the subject of detailed consideration in both Houses and they are not going to get it, like so much of the 2024 Act. For everybody's benefit, I had a researcher just look at the 2024 Act and how many individual amendments were made and never considered by either House. My researcher says that in total it came to more than 1,500 amendments. It is some achievement that a code could be enacted with that volume of unconsidered amendments made by both Houses but deemed by virtue of guillotine resolutions to have been considered and approved by both Houses. It is the exact opposite of democracy. I have to just put this on the record.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator. Does the Minister of State wish to respond?

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. As I said, I am opposing the amendment because I believe it will have a negative impact on the planning system. As I said in my initial comments as well, the housing growth requirements will be notified to local authorities very shortly. It is important to put in context the previous housing growth requirements at 30,000 units per annum. The national planning framework adopted by both Houses of this Oireachtas has it at 50,000 units plus. This requires a significant increase in zoned land to be able to facilitate it.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support it.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know this is being welcomed by the Senator, but it is also important to say that the OPR is independent of the Department. It is also important to say there have been changes in the 2024 Act, which was debated in this Chamber. I was sitting on that side of the House last year in respect of the changes to the OPR in terms of the advisory board, which will be in place by the end of this year.

To address a few other points, this explanatory note to all the amendments was circulated by my office last Friday. It was circulated to all Senators and it is important to put that on record. Certainly, I hope we will get to many of the substantive amendments the Senator just referred to, but we did spend 45 minutes talking about two technical amendments at the very start of this process.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is Senator Keogan pressing the amendment?

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“Repeal of section 21 of Principal Act

3. Section 21 of the Principal Act is repealed.”.

Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, propose to repeal sections 21 to 24, inclusive, of the principal Act. These sections, as they stand, embed the national planning framework deeper into our planning system. I have serious concerns about this direction. Let me be clear: the national planning framework is not law. It was never voted on by the people. It is a policy document that has become a straitjacket for local democracy. It is being used to override the will of elected councillors to dictate from Dublin what should be decided in Drogheda, Donegal and Dingle. Planning should be bottom up, not top down, but what we see in these sections is the opposite. We see a centralised vision being imposed on communities regardless of their needs, their geography or their aspirations. Section 21, for example, reinforces the idea that local development plans must conform to national policy, but who defines that policy? It is not the people, the councillors or the communities. It is defined by civil servants and consultants and your fella in the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, often with little or no connection with the areas affected. In the most recent vote here, the OPR dezoned 28,000 ha that would have delivered 100,000 homes for the people in this country and we are in a housing crisis. We bring in emergency legislation for stupid things but we cannot bring in emergency legislation to build houses for our people.

Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, continue in the same vein. They embed a system where local authorities are implementers, not decision-makers, where councillors are sidelined and where the lived experience of communities is ignored in favour of abstract targets and glossy strategies. I have said it before and I will say it again. Ireland has one of the weakest systems of local government in Europe and instead of strengthening it, this legislation continues to hollow it out. We need to trust our local representatives. That is what this legislation is about when it comes to planning. It is about trusting our local representatives and trusting the people who are on the ground to make the right decisions, to build the houses in the right places and to know where the water services are. Councillors are not stupid. They do not put planning into areas that have not got services. They know their areas, they know what works and they are accountable to their people, not to a framework, not to a regulator and not to a Department. This is why I call for a repeal of these sections. Let us restore balance, restore democracy and give local government the respect and responsibilities it needs.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, as tabled by Senator Keogan, seek to delete sections 21 to 24, inclusive, of the Act of 2024, which relate to the national planning framework, NPF. I cannot accept these amendments as the NPF is provided for in the existing and new planning legislation and sits at the apex of the hierarchy of our statutory spatial development plans, the purpose of which is to ensure the sustainable development of our urban and rural areas to 2040 with the core objectives of securing balanced regional development and the sustainable compact growth approach to the form and pattern of future development. Provision for the NPF is appropriately and necessarily dealt with in the Act of 2024. The NPF is a long-term strategy for the spatial development of Ireland to promote a better quality of life for all, with sustainable economic growth in an environment of the highest quality as its key underlying principles.

The subsequent review of the regional spatial and economic strategies and the review of individual city and county development plans to align with the NPF and the regional spatial and economic strategy, RSES, establishes a robust integrated hierarchy of spatial plans within Ireland. In turn, this will inform the making of decisions on planning applications in a robust and efficient manner, assisted by the statutory decision-making timelines contained within the 2024 Act. The Act requires that the NPF include policies and proposals for the furtherance of a number of objectives and securing national and regional development strategies including maximising the potential of our regions, supporting proper planning and sustainable development in urban and rural areas, supporting the circular economy, securing the co-ordination and regional spatial and economic strategies and development plans, providing for land and sea interactions and securing co-ordination with the national marine planning framework, and the integration of the pursuit and achievement of the national climate objective and the national biodiversity action plan into plan-led development within the State. This plan-led approach to development, reaffirmed and further enhanced under the Act of 2024, will continue to align strategic planning policy from the national level through to regional and local plans, giving effect to real and sustainable outcomes for our regions, our cities and our communities both urban and rural.

Both Houses of this Oireachtas approved the revised NPF in April of 2025. This is important given the comments the Senator has just made that there was no vote on this. The revised NPF provides the basis for the review and updating of regional spatial and economic strategies and the local authority development plans to reflect matters such as the updating of housing figures, which the Senator spoke to in her previous set of amendments, when I also informed the House we would be writing to local authorities very shortly about updating their development plans in that context. I am satisfied the existing provisions regarding the national planning framework are appropriate and, therefore, I cannot accept these amendments.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “Repeal of section 22 of Principal Act

3. Section 22 of the Principal Act is repealed.”.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“Repeal of section 23 of Principal Act

3. Section 23 of the Principal Act is repealed.”.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“Repeal of section 24 of Principal Act

3. Section 24 of the Principal Act is repealed.”.

John Cummins (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 9 amends section 30 of the Act of 2024 to clarify the trigger for the first review of an existing regional spatial and economic strategy under the Act of 2024 and is necessary for the commencement of Part 3 of the Act of 2024. Section 31 currently provides that a regional assembly shall commence a review of the RSES not later than six months after the publication of a revised or new NPF under Chapter 2 of the Act of 2024. As a revised NPF was recently published under the Act of 2000 and will continue in force under the Act of 2024. This amendment provides that a regional assembly shall commence a review of the RSES not later than six months after the commencement of section 21(6) of the Act of 2024, which provides for the existing NPF to continue in force. This ensures that once Part 3 is commenced, the RSES will be reviewed in line with the requirements of the Act of 2024 and updated accordingly.