Nessa Cosgrove (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit.

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

Following its successful passage through Dáil Éireann, I am pleased to bring the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2026 before the Seanad. The main purpose of this important Bill is to support and facilitate the smooth commencement and implementation of the remaining provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2024. I anticipate that the remaining provisions of the Act of 2024 will be brought into effect later this year. Additional proposed provisions to this Bill intend to provide clarity and to introduce further policy direction to speed up the timely introduction of ten-year county and city development plans. Another aim of the Bill is to deploy the new procedural rules and parameters for planning judicial reviews sooner by applying them to acts done or decisions made under the Planning and Development Act 2000 and to facilitate the delivery of a number of actions contained in the 2025 accelerating infrastructure action plan to enhance the timely delivery of critical infrastructure projects.

Senators will no doubt recall the scale and vision of the Planning and Development Act 2024, which was signed into law by the President in October of 2024. That important body of legislation is the third largest piece of legislation to be enacted in the history of the State. Given the scale of the 2024 Act, it has been necessary and appropriate to commence and implement that Act on a phased basis to facilitate the gradual transition from the arrangements under the current legislative framework to those under the new Act.

The ongoing commencement and implementation of the 2024 Act remains a key priority for this Government, and a considerable volume of the legislation has already been brought into operation, with the remaining provisions on track to be commenced by the end of this year and subsequent to the enactment of this Bill. In addition to this Bill, my Department is in the process of finalising the revised planning regulations that are to accompany the 2024 Act. My officials continue to work closely with local authorities and a range of other key stakeholders to help ensure the planning sector is ready for full implementation.

As already stated, the primary purpose of the Bill is to support the smooth commencement and implementation of the remaining provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2024, a process that is due to take place later this year. The proposed amendments in the Bill can be broken down into five keys areas.

First, the Bill amends Part 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2024 to accelerate the move to plan making under the 2024 Act and to help ensure that necessary transitional measures already provided for will operate as originally intended in line with the hierarchy of plan-making. It is important to note that Part 3 of the 2024 Act was commenced last year and is already being operated by planning authorities.

I recognise that the ongoing practical implementation of the transition across the 2024 Act from the existing legislative framework does present a challenge for the current system from both a capacity and prioritisation perspective. The proposed amendments in this Bill provide clarity and further policy direction on a number of important matters, including the Government's expectations around the timely introduction of ten-year county and city development plans under the 2024 Act. The approach is being discussed in detail and worked through with all key stakeholders, including the Office of the Planning Regulator and representatives of planning authorities.

In the context of the proposed amendment to Part 3 of the 2024 Act, the Bill will ensure that the review of the three regional spatial and economic strategies are completed in a timely manner by introducing a deadline of 31 December 2027 for the completion of those reviews. This will allow planning authorities to amend the expiry dates of their current development plans for a defined maximum period to between February and December 2030.This new expiry date will act as a trigger for the adoption of new ten-year development plans under the 2024 Act and will mean the planning authorities must begin the process of making their new plans under the 2024 Act beginning in July 2027 until July 2028 at the latest. It will also make it clear that since the commencement of Part 3 at the end of 2025, all development plan reviews must be carried out under the 2024 Act only.

The Bill extends and applies the judicial review provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the 2024 Act to acts done or decisions made under the Planning and Development Act 2000. We are all aware of the number of planning proposals that are delayed due to judicial review proceedings, which is why the changes to the judicial review process were introduced in the first place under the 2024 Act and subsequently brought into operation in August 2025. Given the lead-in time before there could be a formal decision made or an act done under the 2024 Act that could be subject to judicial review, it would likely be several months after the commencement of Part 4 of the 2024 Act before the new planning and judicial review rules would have an impact on proceedings. In order to further expedite judicial review processes, it is now proposed to extend the judicial review provisions in the 2024 Act to decisions made or acts done under the 2000 Act. This change will speed up the transition to the new rules and means that they will have an earlier impact in the second half of this year.

The process being updated includes the removal of the requirement to apply for leave to apply for judicial review proceedings, which reduces the time required for such proceedings, removes unnecessary additional legal costs to all parties and amends various procedural rules relating to such proceedings. These changes will mean that the expected benefits of the new judicial review process will have an earlier positive impact on the planning system. The judicial review procedures in the 2024 Act were subject to extensive engagement with the Office of the Attorney General during the drafting of the Act and were reviewed for compliance with all international obligations.

A range of measures in the Bill are proposed to enhance the delivery of critical infrastructure projects and complete several actions assigned to my Department in the 2025 accelerating infrastructure action plan. This includes the introduction of a definition of material contravention of the development plan, which should assist in the timely development of critical infrastructure and housing projects by providing clarity and certainty for the decision-making process and thereby helping to avoid the potential for a legal challenge. It also includes a number of other amendments to streamline certain application processes for critical infrastructure projects, including those carried out by or on behalf of statutory undertakers. In addition, the Bill also proposes to make amendments allowing for the modification of an existing permission in accordance with appropriate apartment design criteria. This is in direct response to the significant number of apartment developments that have received planning permission but have not yet commenced and will help to support the viability of the development of apartments in the immediate term.

Following a comprehensive internal review of the 2024 Act earlier this year, and engagement with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel on the drafting of corresponding provisions, a number of amendments are proposed to clarify screening obligations and processes for appropriate assessment and environmental impact assessment, such as clarification regarding competent authorities. The amendments have been drafted on a no policy change basis and will support the commencement and smooth implementation of the remaining provisions of the 2024 Act by ensuring that the relevant provisions operate as intended.

Finally, the Bill includes a large number of technical amendments that make up over 50% of the heads of the Bill. These are technical in nature and propose to correct cross-references and typographical errors, as well as to clarify the existing text without changing its intent. The Bill also includes amendments to provide for the formal repeal of the vacant sites provision in the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015, as they have now been superseded by the residential zoned land tax. Amendments to the Housing Finance Agency Act 1981 are also proposed to increase the statutory borrowing limit of the Housing Finance Agency from €13.5 billion to €15 billion. The Housing Finance Agency provides low-cost finance to approved housing bodies, local authorities and higher education institutions for social, affordable and student housing. This amendment will enable the Housing Finance Agency to continue to fund social and affordable homes to June of next year and ensure there is no interruption to its housing pipeline.

I will conclude by emphasising that the proposed measures in the Bill intend to address a number of important and time-sensitive matters that are highly relevant to the planning system. As the House is aware, the ongoing commencement and implementation of the 2024 Act remains a key priority for me and the Government and we want to ensure the remainder of the 2024 Act is commenced as soon as possible. With the continued support of both Houses, I hope to be in a position to enact the Bill before the summer recess. It provides legislative clarification and certainty for the planning sector, including for planning authorities and An Coimisiún Pleanála, so that they can finalise its preparations for implementation of Part 4 of the 2024 Act. I welcome further engagement on this important Bill and look forward to discussions on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Eileen Lynch (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to present the Bill. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to Second Stage of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2026. As the Minister of State has outlined, the Bill implements the reforms agreed in 2024 which should accelerate the supply of housing. The housing crisis is the defining challenge facing this country and we all see the impacts in our constituencies. The Planning and Development Act 2024 was the largest reform of our planning legislation in a generation and it is vital that we expedite those changes.

The Bill contains a number of targeted amendments that will improve how our planning system operates. While many of the provisions are technical, they are important because they will help to provide greater certainty in planning, support housing delivery and improve the efficiency of the system. From the perspective of rural Ireland, these are incredibly welcome developments.

One of the provisions I particularly welcome is the move to ten-year county development plans. Local authorities make long-term decisions on housing, infrastructure, transport and economic development. Expanding the lifespan of county development plans provides greater stability for those decisions while reducing the frequency of full plan reviews. It allows local authorities to focus more on implementation, while still retaining mechanisms to review plans where circumstances change.

For rural counties where infrastructure projects and housing developments often take a number of years to progress, a longer planning horizon makes practical sense. It gives communities, businesses and developers a clear understanding of the direction of development over a longer period. I also believe a longer county development plan will give greater certainty to councillors. I would like to note that we need to give greater powers to local councillors. They work with people on the ground every day and know the challenges in their local area. For successive years, we have seen the continual erosion of their powers and have allowed this to happen.

In my time on Cork County Council, I found the county development plan process to be very frustrating and at times it was difficult for councillors to have any meaningful impact. There was also a disregard for the consideration of social infrastructure in the context of increased housing infrastructure and this needs to change.

I would very much like to welcome the increase in the statutory borrowing limit for the Housing Finance Agency outlined in the Bill. The Housing Finance Agency has become an increasingly important source of finance for local authorities and approved housing bodies. As housing output continues to increase, it is important that the agency has the capacity to continue supporting new delivery. This is relevant in every part of the country, including rural Ireland. Housing need is in no way confined to our cities. Smaller towns and villages are experiencing massive shortages of affordable and private housing. If we want people to continue living and working in rural communities, we need a consistent pipeline of housing delivery, and ensuring appropriate financing is available is an important part of that.

I would like to welcome the publication last week of the rural housing guidelines. Coming from the rural village of Aghabullogue in Cork north-west, I know these guidelines can make a real difference to the provision of rural housing, making the system less bureaucratic and decreasing the subjectivity and differing opinions of different planners. These guidelines will allow for uniformity.

I urge the Minister of State to ensure that the guidelines are implemented as soon as possible. I note they may not be adopted until early next year. I also note the comments of the Minister, Deputy Browne, that he hopes local authorities will bear the new guidelines in mind going forward, even before they are formally adopted. I was incredibly disappointed to be advised by a councillor from Cork that a planner had told them that they would not implement the guidelines until they were adopted and did not believe they would make any difference.We need local authorities - that is, the chief executive and personnel - to support these fully. I have yet to speak to a councillor across the country who disagrees with them, so we need to ensure that executives are on board with this.

I welcome the reforms relating to judicial review. Judicial review, as we all know, performs an important function within our planning system and our Judiciary. It ensures that decisions are made lawfully and fairly, and that principle has to remain protected. However, it also important that the process operates as efficiently as possible and that judicial review does not lead to delays. Delays can have significant consequences for housing delivery and essential infrastructure projects. The changes proposed in the Bill seek to make the judicial review process more efficient while maintaining these appropriate legal safeguards, and that balance is important. We need a planning system that protects people's rights but also provides timely decisions and greater certainty for those delivering housing and public infrastructure.

More broadly, this Bill reflects the need to continually improve our planning system as demand for it evolves. The system has to be capable of supporting housing growth, balanced regional development and investment in infrastructure, while continuing to uphold proper planning principles and environmental standards. The Bill will not address every issue within the planning system, nor is it intended to. However, the measures before us represent sensible improvements that should make the system more effective and provide greater certainty for local authorities and those seeking to deliver housing.

For those reasons, I am happy to support the Bill and I look forward to its continued progress through the House.

Nessa Cosgrove (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir. Before I call an Seanadóir Boyhan, I want to give a warm welcome to the Kingswood-Kilnamanagh Active Age Men's Group, guests of Deputy John Lahart.

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

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. I thank his officials for arranging a briefing earlier in the week. I found it exceptionally helpful, particularly the clarity. I thank them for the memo I received this morning in relation to the material contravention of the development plan and the importance of the clarity around what factors determined when a material contravention process was invoked in assessing and determining a planning application. That was questioned by An Coimisiún Pleanála. It was an issue that was raised with the Office of the Planning Regulator. It was raised by a number of directors of planning across our 31 local authorities. That sort of clarity is to be welcomed and I reiterate my thanks to the officials for their engagement with the process.

It occurs to me was that here we are tidying up or organising the elements of the Planning and Development Act 2024. I looked this morning at the record of the House and the debates on that Act as the Planning and Development Bill 2023. The Bill was guillotined in this House but we had a very long engagement on it. The Bill was approved in the Dáil, of course, despite all the setbacks and the debate about timing and processing, but that is not the substantive issue I am going to talk about here. The Bill was voted on by Seanad Éireann; there was a division on Wednesday, 25 September 2024. I think that is an important point.

I want to give my apologies in advance. I have a meeting with the Bar Council at 12 noon. It is now after 12 noon but I want to say that, out of no discourtesy to the Minister of State, I will unfortunately have to leave after I make my contribution. However, I am committed to engaging with this process for as long as it goes on.

We know that the main purpose of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2026 is to support the transition of the remaining provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2024 and the introduction of ten-year county development plans. We had some debate about that. I had concerns at the time but I am not using the ten minutes I have to revisit those issues. That is in the legislation. At the very kernel of all of this is that we have the timely delivery of critical infrastructure. We know that progress has been made and subgroups have been dealing with it. Indeed, the Minister, Deputy Jack Chambers, has driven this whole area of infrastructure and all of that.

I wish to raise a few issues, not necessarily in the order of how they come in the Bill, but they are issues that have come to my attention because I have engaged with our city and county councillors in relation to this process today. I have tried to ascertain from them some of their concerns because I see myself very much as a conduit for them on the floor of the Seanad. Regarding the Office of the Planning Regulator, a review was carried out. It has been completed, and it is important that we publish it as soon as possible. There were learnings. It was always anticipated that there would be learnings in the process of establishing a new Office of the Planning Regulator. I want to put on record my thanks to the Planning Regulator. One of the things that keeps coming back to me from city and county councillors and the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, is the very positive engagement with the Planning Regulator in regard to the modular training and stuff it organises for councillors in conjunction with the AILG. It is very helpful for members.

City and county councillors are not planners, architects or engineers but they are fiercely committed on the ground in regard to the delivery of proper planning and sustainable development for their communities. The Minister of State will understand that very well as someone who was a councillor for many years, and he will understand this process. I wanted to make that point to acknowledge the significance of the Office of the Planning Regulator and support it. I note the references in the legislation to the office. I fully support the accelerating infrastructure report and action plan. The definition of the material contravention was really important.

I want to spend a little bit of time on public participation in environmental scrutiny and planning processes, which is not an enemy of progress. I think that is an important point to get across here. There needs to be a greater focus in government, as the Minister of State and everyone knows, on converting existing planning permissions and commencements into completed homes. Now, that is a loaded sentence. There needs to be a greater emphasis on the many thousands - it is estimated to be over 100,000 - empty or derelict properties across this country. It was covered extensively in the Sunday Independent last Sunday. Efforts are being made but a lot more has to be done.

Public infrastructure is, of course, critical to the importance of delivering houses and I fully accept that. In relation to the rural housing guidelines, I am delighted that they have come about but the passage of time seems to be a bit long. There will be a requirement for an environmental impact assessment, EIA, and an environmental impact statement, EIS. All of that is important. I ask again, as I have always asked and argued, that there be a statutory public consultation because we need to get it right. I could paper the walls of this House with all the letters telling me that these guidelines will be published six weeks later. Failure to facilitate meaningful public participation is a great concern to me. We are conscious, as the Minister of State is, of the Aarhus Convention, the protocols and the strategic environmental assessment requirements. I ask that this be the centre of all of our planning going forward, with open engagement. When I talk about open engagement, I am talking about engagement that permits and is capable of allowing our citizens to influence policy and choice before decisions are effectively made and taken out of their hands. Predetermining outcomes in relation to proper planning and sustainable development is not and should not be the way we proceed.

Local authority planning functions are important. The Minister of State knows, as I do, the importance of our elected members. I know the difference between a reserve function and an executive function, and where our members have reserve functions, they must be supported in doing them. As I have said time and again, councillors are not planners and engineers but they are clearly interested and focused on protecting the sustainable, progressive future of their communities.

We also need to give our councillors and our planning and housing authorities locally, of which there are 31, the ability to take into account planning that is agile enough to have regard to the housing assessment. That is important. Subsidiarity is at the very core of the principle of planning, or it should be. It is certainly one espoused by the European Union and our Houses, so it is important that we give discretion to our planning authorities and local democracy. Local administration, at best, is what it is at the moment but that will, I hope, change over time. As elected representatives in their communities, they need to be able to determine the outcome and a local response to a local need in respect of planning and housing, which is all central to this.

I referred to the Office of the Planning Regulator. I have talked about An Coimisiún Pleanála.That body is up and running and it has had issues. We need fully to embrace technology and innovation. People all over the country should be able to engage in the planning process online, if they are able to do so. Certainly, there should be one-stop shops or hubs in public libraries and public buildings to assist people to avail of that technology if they wish to pursue it.

There are still shortcomings in An Comisiún Pleanála. A developer who is building houses told me recently that there is a fear on the part of an comisiún to engage with him. This is a person who has extant permission to build homes and has built numerous very successful complexes. The ability of An Comisiún Pleanála to disengage with developers and home builders is a bit of a problem. The Minister of State and his officials, outside the context of this legislation, might look at what is going on in terms of that type of break in engagement.

I have some concerns about the judicial review process. I will not elaborate on them today because we will have an opportunity to discuss this on Committee Stage. It is really important that participation be at the very core of our approach.

I signal now to the Minister of State that I will oppose the proposals in the Bill in relation to apartments. I do not support one-size single-aspect apartments. The temperature in my south-facing office in Leinster House, which has no air conditioning, has been above 30°C for the past two weeks. It occurred to me that the same could be the case with a studio apartment. I am against the modification of apartment standards. I understand there can be smart moves taken in this regard but I am opposed to plans for single-aspect apartments.

The Land Development Agency was the subject of some negative commentary in the Irish Independentthis morning. I hold great hope and ambition for the agency. We need a Housing Agency that drives State housing programmes in partnership with the private sector. That very much must be part of a slicker, more efficient planning process.

I wish the Minister of State well. I acknowledge what he is seeking to do. There are some modifications at best but, given the timeframe on this legislation, I do not anticipate that he will be taking on board any amendments. We are all realists in this House. It is important that he listens, takes note of Members' concerns and, where possible, incorporates them into meaningful dialogue with the various authorities around planning.

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

The Minister of State is very welcome to the House. He, Senator Boyhan and I have lived a long time with this Bill. We spent the bulk of the term of the previous Government working on it down in the committee rooms. I have empathy with his officials, some of whom were with us on that journey and are back with us again.

This is very important legislation. At its core is a genuine and heartfelt effort to resolve some of the barriers affecting delivery of housing in this country. The main purpose of the Bill is to support the smooth commencement later this year of the remaining provisions of the 2024 Act. It will speed up the implementation of the new procedural rules for planning judicial review that were introduced in the 2024 legislation. The Bill will apply the measures to any remaining Acts or decisions made under that legislation. The changes in the Bill will fast-track the reforms necessary to speed up the planning process and will help us to deliver more homes in a timely manner.

The Bill seeks to provide clarity and further policy direction on a number of matters relating to plan-making, including the timely introduction of a ten-year development plan for all local authorities. The Bill also seeks to address actions assigned to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage under the accelerating infrastructure task force report and action plan 2025 to enhance the timely delivery of critical infrastructural plans. Both the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Browne, have been clear that the changes in the Bill will fast-track the necessary reforms in our planning system to speed up the process and help to deliver more housing more quickly.

I will focus on three aspects of the Bill. The first is the provision regarding judicial review. It is critical and long overdue that the Bill will speed up the implementation of the new procedural rules for planning judicial reviews introduced under the 2024 Act. The Bill will apply the measures to any remaining Acts or decisions made under that legislation. This includes beneficial measures such as the removal of the requirement to apply for leave to apply for judicial review proceedings. This will enable a case to be remitted back to the point at which a procedural breach may have occurred, as an alternative to the whole case having to be quashed, and will remove the possibility of further legal appeal to the Court of Appeal. All of this reduces the time taken and removes unnecessary additional legal costs for all parties. That must be welcomed. The introduction of these measures at an earlier date is intended to result in a reduction in unnecessary delays and to accelerate the delivery of critical decisions, ultimately speeding up housing delivery. We all must welcome that.

A key plank of the legislation is the provision for the new ten-year development plans. The Bill seeks to provide clarity and further policy direction on a number of matters that have already commenced under Part 3 of the 2024 Act relating to plan-making, including the timely introduction of the long-awaited ten-year development plans. The Bill amends Part 3 to provide a deadline for the making of three regional, spatial and economic strategies, RSESs, under the 2024 Act and to allow planning authorities to amend the duration of their current development plans for a defined maximum period, where necessary. These amendments will speed up the move to plan-making under the 2024 Act and ensure the transitional measures already provided for will operate as originally intended in line with the hierarchy of plan-making.

One of the biggest barriers to the delivery of housing is lack of infrastructure. Addressing that is now a critical action for the Government. We have a task force led by the Minister, Deputy Chambers. It is critical and welcome that this Bill will seek to address a number of actions that were assigned to the Department of housing following Government approval of the accelerating infrastructure task force report and action plan 2025 to enhance the timely delivery of critical infrastructure projects. This is a very important and much-needed development.

I have engaged with this Bill for a number of years. I see the value in it and I see how important it is that we get it over the line. I commend the Minister of State on his work on it to date.

Maria McCormack (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. This Bill comprises a long, technical and complex series of amendments to the Planning and Development Act 2024. It is unfortunate that it is being rushed through the Houses at breakneck speed and without proper scrutiny. It is a really bad way to make planning law and it likely will lead to errors, unintended consequences, legal challenges and delays to much-need infrastructure, housing and public services.

There are aspects of the Bill to which Sinn Féin is not opposed but we have concerns about other aspects. It is genuinely regrettable that the Dáil and Seanad have not been given the appropriate time and space to properly scrutinise the legislation or hear from professional planners and public and private sector utilities and developers. This is the second time we are amending the planning legislation, despite being told that the 2024 Act was a once-in-a-generation measure that would sort all planning issues for the future.

We support the move towards greater plan-making but the Minister should address the need for significant extra staffing for planning authorities. At the moment, the numbers just are not adequate.

We support increasing the lending limit of the Housing Finance Agency but it needs to be accompanied by reform of the funding mechanisms for the approved housing body, AHB, sector. People in that sector are telling us this is the real issue. We must be sure financing does not restrict the ability of AHBs to get on with the provision of housing.

There are real concerns that the changes to the judicial review process will lead to increased legal challenges and development delays. I hope that is not the case. It would have been better to be able to scrutinise the Bill properly in both Houses to try to work through those concerns. It is baffling that the proposal to create a new legal definition of material contravention has not been subject to any scrutiny by groups representing planners, such as the Irish Planning Institute or the local government sector.

Sinn Féin cannot support the proposal to allow developers to amend their apartment planning permissions in line with new inferior apartment design standards. Simply put, the Government is supporting developers to make more profit. The Minister can talk about viability all he wants but, really, all he is doing is making these developments more profitable while reducing living standards.It will not help to increase supply or bring down prices. It is typical of a developer-led, private-market-led approach from Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, which, as we all know, is making this housing crisis worse.

I want to make a final point about planning in general. The same issues arise time and again all over the country with every new development, especially in Laois. Housing estates are built, families move in and then there is a realisation that there is a deficit of services in the area. The population of Laois has increased significantly in recent years. Portlaoise is one of the fastest growing towns in the country. There has been a lot of private housing development, mostly concentrated in Portlaoise, but not enough planning around the delivery of sports and community facilities, especially for teenagers and families. The same applies to school places. We need to ensure that we are not just piling people into new houses and creating estates on the edges of towns with growing populations and not enough services. We have a GP shortage in Portlaoise. You simply cannot get a GP. We need good planning that encourages social and affordable homes. At the moment, the biggest issue is the lack of affordable housing in larger towns such as Portlaoise, but also in smaller rural towns.

That brings me to my next point. While we see private estates popping up in larger towns such as Portlaoise, we also see how more rural towns and villages in Laois are being forgotten. They are not seeing enough development and they are dying. Shops and pubs are closing every week.

We hear from the GAA, including at our committee, about how the imbalance in planning and development means that GAA clubs, and no doubt other sports clubs, do not have enough players or finances to keep going. A small rural village in Laois, The Swan, has a national school that is on the verge of closing because it just does not have enough pupils. In one part of Laois, the towns are being built up increasingly, while in the small rural villages GAA clubs are having to merge because they do not have enough players to keep going.

The lack of proper planning for counties and towns around infrastructure and public services such as schools, playgrounds, health facilities and transport, and all of the things that make towns sustainable, needs to be given serious consideration. This would really help. We need to ensure that addressing these kinds of things is not an afterthought. What I have described is how things are done. It leads to great frustration in communities. When we talk about planning, we need to focus on balanced development. It is crucial to the survival of rural and country towns.

Nessa Cosgrove (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to give a big welcome to the guests who came on the Culture Bus from Dunlavin. They are here as guests of Deputy Edward Timmins.

I also welcome Jordan and Cian Adams, the FTD Brothers, who are guests of Deputy Carrigy. I do not know whether they have gone but they are very welcome. They are with Helen Jolly, and I am sure their mother, Geraldine, was very proud of them.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can know it is July and nearly the end of term because we are seeing a planning and development Bill rushed through. It happens every single year. Others have spoken about how this is a bad way to produce legislation and how proper scrutiny is needed. Every time, we hear it is time-sensitive and urgent. It is not, because this happens every single year. It is because I had the feeling that I have been here every July looking at a massive planning Bill being pushed through that I went back and checked. Over the past ten years, of 11 planning and development Bills, ten haven been rushed through at the end of July or the end of December. Only one Bill was not pushed through in December or in the final week of July.

I should also note that there have been more planning and development Bills passed by Fine Gael-led Governments since 2011 than in the previous 50 years, and the entire situation has just been getting worse. If there were an epitome of failing to plan and planning to fail, it would be this. Either the Government intentionally plans every single year not to allow enough time to scrutinise planning and development legislation properly, so that it has to be rushed through, or it is failing to plan and inadvertently ending up in the same situation every year. It is literally a case of planning to fail or failing to plan.

As well as this rushed process being bad for democracy and bad for scrutiny, it leads to endless mistakes, amendments, adjustments, backtracking, fixes and attempted fixes, rolling around and moves, because the measures do not work, often do not add up and do not deliver what they promise. An example is the fact that in this legislation, and indeed in a previous Bill, it is stated that one of the proposed new sections, which is undermining apartment standards yet again, has regard to the acute shortage of residential accommodation in the State, the rise in homelessness in the State and the rise in the cost of residential rental accommodation and house and apartment purchase prices in the State. Let us think about that. This is our national planning and development legislation. It is meant to provide for planning and development. Not only is the Government failing to address the increases in homelessness, the cost of rental accommodation and the cost of houses and apartments, it is also putting these acute rises into legislation as matters to which regard must be had as if they were permanent facts like the weather, mountains or rivers. What an admission of failure it is to insert this.

When can we anticipate a planning and development Act that removes the statements of the assumed facts that there are a shortage of residential accommodation and a rise in homelessness? Does the Minister of State believe these assumed facts can be removed in planning legislation in 2027, 2028 and 2029? It is so extraordinary that these statements have been included. They are being inserted alongside more of the approach that has been tried time and again, namely to give developers anything they can dream of. That approach has failed to deliver.

For years, we had special measures such as capital gains tax waivers and strategic housing developments. It was always about how to fast-track and how to tie the hands of the public and concerned citizens further behind their backs so that they could not challenge decisions and so bringing judicial reviews would become impossible for them, though not for developers, who, by the way, take 40% of judicial reviews.

There is a little reveal in the new legislation because it mentions the significant number of apartments that have received planning permission but have not been commenced. The fact is that they are not delayed because of planning issues or because of judicial reviews. The fact is that there is a huge amount of residential development and apartment construction with planning permission that has not commenced. Those developments are under no pressure to proceed because the Government has, again and again, declined to insert use-it-or-lose-it clauses into planning law and to ensure that the many fast-track processes actually result in delivery. That is what we looked for when strategic housing developments were permitted but were not getting built.

In the 2025 Act, passed a year ago and in which apartment sizes were first reduced, the language used was that the relevant section was "to facilitate and encourage expedited construction of greater numbers of dwellings in apartment complexes than permitted under permissions already granted".Now, the language in this Bill is that the purpose is "to enable the construction of greater numbers of dwellings". The word “expedited” is gone. That is because it does not expedite it. The Government’s lowering of the standards has, in fact, encouraged delays in the system. If somebody had planning permission for 40 apartments and the standards were lowered, and then there is a new planning process for maybe 55 one-bedroom apartments with a single aspect, or for studios, the person would be able to squeeze that bit more in.

Often, people just keep selling it on because it is now a planning permission that is worth more. With some of these planning permissions, the Government is creating things that can be sold as speculative products without ever being built. Why would developers build when they know that if they wait just one year until the following July, the Government will come along again and give them something else? Wait another year and it will lower the standards more. Wait another year and it will remove another piece of that process. Wait another year and it will chip away at something else and give developers another little percentage of profit. That is what happens every July.

I would like to get the figures from the Minister of State on the number of planning permissions for apartments and other large residential developments that have not been commenced. We should be putting that on the record. I also note that in those statements, the rise in homelessness, the rise in the cost to the State and the acute shortage of residential accommodation in the State are seen as core assumptions, and they are treated as fact in this Bill. There is actually a question mark about some of that. We know there are hundreds of thousands of unused spaces. Reports show that up to 75% of short-term lets are lying empty most of the time. There are 17,000 people in emergency accommodation, and there were 4.2 million bed spaces available last January, with fewer than 200,000 of them being used. Therefore, we have unused spaces.

I also have questions about some of the removals with regard to the vacant sites Act. We need to ensure that any existing liabilities of those who should have paid but did not pay, or who should have been fined but were not fined, would still stand. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State elaborated on that.

We have a massive problem with vacancy. Back in 2017, with Civil Engagement Group colleagues, including Grace O'Sullivan from the Green Party, we tried to get the Government to clamp down on vacant sites. That was almost nine years ago. It has been slow, slow, slow crawling towards doing anything meaningful in terms of a hard measure against vacancy. Similarly, we asked the Government to put “use it or lose it” on planning permissions for these large and mega projects, but it did not. That is why we have all of these planning permissions that have not commenced.

We have all listened to the extensive demonising of anybody who takes a judicial review, including communities and residents. From the other side, I want to acknowledge something that everybody is concerned about, which is the erosion of the powers of city councils and county councils. Councillors’ powers have been chipped away. We are told that they are the problem or that others are the problem. There is the occasional dog whistle that tries to use demographics as the problem. At some point, we need to think that maybe Fine Gael's approach to housing is the problem, and that it needs to try to listen to some of the better ideas that are coming through, not just bring us back every single July, with the same story writ again.

Niall Blaney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I will address a few of the issues raised by other speakers, although perhaps not the last one, because I did not hear any ideas in that speech.

I very much welcome the national planning strategy and what is contained in this Bill. As someone from rural Ireland and a coastal region, I believe the ideas behind this Bill are very welcome and will help to sustain rural Ireland.

I listened to the Sinn Féin representative talk about the GAA and rural housing. I have never heard Sinn Féin welcome the national planning strategy. I was in the Chamber a number of months ago when Senator McCormack asked the Minister, Deputy Calleary, not to work with Tata Consultancy Services in relation to the auto-enrolment scheme, which I thought was disgraceful. It has created and supports 1,000 jobs in Donegal. Many of those workers are from rural Ireland. Many of those workers are in the GAA. If we really want to support rural Ireland, we need to get real about what we need to support and want to support.

There are two issues that I want to address with the Minister of State in the short time that I have. I have been harping on about these two issues for some time, but I feel they can and should be addressed, and that it is in our interest to address them. The first concerns national secondary roads. For planning purposes, I accept it cannot be addressed under this Bill, but it is work that the Department and the Minister, Deputy Browne, need to look at.

National secondary routes are treated the same as national primary routes from the point of view of planning and the restrictions that are applied. Many of our national secondary routes have a lower annual average of daily traffic than some of our regional routes. I ask that we examine the top five or ten routes. The local authorities have the daily traffic data for all of these other regional routes. If we take the top five or ten regional routes, get the annual average for daily traffic and set it as a bar, we can compare that with the national secondary routes that drop below that bar. The N56 runs from Letterkenny to Creeslough and on to Donegal town. The N59 starts in Sligo and runs through Mayo before coming into Galway. There are many parts of those routes that have low average traffic. We should allow planning to take place on those routes. That is the avenue to do it. It is a safe way of doing it, and it needs to be done.

The second issue concerns wastewater systems. When we go to an architect or engineer and ask them to design a new house to build, we trust the architect or engineer to design the house. More recently, we have given them powers to ensure that vision lines are sufficient. Moreover, the architect has to sign off on the development, sign off on the vision lines and ensure the building is done according to what was in their plans. Otherwise, their reputation comes into question.

We need to deal with that issue regarding wastewater systems. Local authorities are spending too much time dealing with them. We need to start giving authority to the professionals - the engineers and the architects. When they design a system, rather than having this decided by people in planning offices who are not qualified to say "Yes" or "No", we should put the onus back on the engineers. They are designing the system to the standards set down. We are putting our trust in them. When they sign off on a house, they are signing off on the system and the vision lines. The responsibility lies with them. That is what their insurance covers them for. That is the way to approach this because it will safeguard us in relation to wastewater systems into the future, whether they are Puraflo or septic tank systems. I believe that would be the smart way forward.

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

I thank Senators for their engagement with the Bill. As I said in the Dáil Chamber, it is not lost on me that people have made the criticism that there is not sufficient time, yet the only people I am speaking to in this Chamber are members of the Government, and there is no Opposition present. It is a fair observation to say that at the outset.The provisions referred to in my opening contribution are there to help accelerate the implementation of the 2024 Act, which is of the utmost importance.

Regarding the comments about not getting this Bill passed before the summer recess, the implication of that is that I will not be able to get the full implementation of the 2024 Act completed before the end of this year. It is in the interests of everyone who interacts with the planning system for the 2024 Act to be commenced and in operation by the end of the year. Most of this Bill is made up of transitionary provisions to ensure that takes place. It includes the provisions around the regional economic and spatial strategies and putting a hard deadline of 31 December 2027 in place in respect of those. It also makes provision for the ten-year county and city development plans, which, as most Senators have acknowledged, is a positive development. It will ensure their timely review comes into place between July of next year and July 2030 in order to ensure that they conclude their processes by between February and December 2030.

We had many debates on the provisions around judicial review that were introduced in the 2024 Act. The Bill merely takes what has already been implemented in the 2024 Act and applies it to decisions made under the 2000 Act. This is to try to expedite judicial reviews. Regardless of who takes a judicial review, we can all agree that streamlining and expediting the process is sure to be a positive thing for the entire system.

The Bill also includes measures around critical infrastructure in the context of the accelerating infrastructure action plan. As stated, about 50% of the Bill comprises technical amendments and corrections of typographical errors.

I will now address some of the specific points made by Senators. A number of Senators welcomed the provision in respect of increasing the upper threshold for the Housing Finance Agency from €13.5 billion to €15 billion. I agree that this is a positive measure. It will ensure certainty through the middle of next year regarding the continued funding of social, affordable and student rental accommodation.

The ten-year development plans are all about ensuring that we have stability and that what is proposed will be implemented on a longer horizon, as Senator Lynch rightly pointed out. This is a positive for the entire system, and I concur with the sentiments of Senators in relation to local democracy and powers for local councillors. This is why I appointed the local democracy task force, which reported in November. I will be bringing an implementation plan in terms of the review that has been carried out to Cabinet very shortly. I believe in local democracy, as I know all Senators do.

Regarding engagement, I assure Senators that there has been extensive dialogue with local authorities, An Coimisiún Pleanála and all stakeholders in the system in order to ensure that we have a timely and practical implementation of the Act. There have been extensive working groups that my officials have been working with. I note the timing of things. There is a huge body of work on which many of my officials, the same people, have been working. We have regulations on exempted developments that are before the Oireachtas, others that were been before it in December and more that will be dealt with next week and in the autumn. There is a huge body of work involved, and everybody is working exceptionally hard. There has been major dialogue with the Office of the Attorney General and the drafters about the Bill. That takes a considerable time. It was not possible to bring the Bill before the Houses prior to the past couple of weeks. I would appreciate the co-operation of everyone to ensure its timely passage through the House.

I will address a couple of other points that were raised. We will talk about the question of viability of apartments more on Committee Stage. Viability is intrinsically linked to deliverability. Therefore, it is intrinsically linked to homelessness and the provision of accommodation. The Government and I are in the business of ensuring that we have, in this Bill, a time-bound measure of two years to ensure that we can alter existing planning permissions for residential developments and alter the internal envelope in that regard to ensure that it will be more viable for the sector to deliver them. The alternative is that we tie up local authority staff - the very staff that people have just said need more resources - in dealing with more planning applications that date right back to the start of the planning process. What I am trying to introduce here is a time-bound, common-sense measure that will allow for improved viability. If that has an impact of bringing any developments on stream, then it will be a positive measure. Senator McCormack stated that this will not increase supply. If supply is delivered, I hope the record of the House will be corrected.

Regarding Senator Blaney's reference to rural planning, as he will appreciate, it is not connected to this Bill. We did publish the national planning statement. That has to go through strategic environmental assessment. There are references to national secondary roads as part of it. Everything the Minister and I are trying to do is about streamlining the planning process to ensure exactly what Senator Lynch said, namely that we have consistency and clarity across the board, whether that is for large-scale residential development or one-off rural housing. The measures in the Bill will have a positive impact regarding the implementation of the third-largest piece of legislation in the history of the State. I commend the Bill to the House.

Nessa Cosgrove (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Deputy Brian Brennan and his guests to the Gallery.

Nessa Cosgrove (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Eileen Lynch (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday.

Nessa Cosgrove (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.