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

We welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan, to the House.

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

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 10, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following: “(2) Where there is a demand for the payment of levy under section 15 of the Act of 2015, but that levy has not been collected before the date of the coming into operation of the repeal of section 15 of that Act by paragraph (a) of subsection (1), the Act of 2015 shall, on and after that date, continue to apply and have effect in relation to the demand for the payment of levy under section 15 of that Act in respect of a vacant site the subject of the recovery of that levy, as if the repeal had not occurred.”.

This seeks to ensure that any outstanding payment of the vacant site levy will still be paid when the provisions in this Bill move forward and when the existing vacant site levy is repealed by this Bill. I am concerned that the repeal of the provisions as set out could let landowners who are sitting on vacant sites for speculative reasons off the hook.

There are over 100,000 vacant and derelict houses in this State, whereas this Bill is inserting language that suggests there is a shortage of housing. That is being inserted as if it is a permanent fact, when we also know there is a failure to act on the properties that are there and are part of the mix. This is the crucial part of tackling the ever-rising homelessness figures, but it is worrying and hard to see that the Government is serious about tackling this problem.

It has been reluctant to increase penalties for landowners who sit on vacant properties. The vacant price levy started at 3% of the market value of the land. A proposal by me, the then Senator Grace O'Sullivan and others back in 2017, almost nine years ago now, to increase that levy to 7% was rejected only to finally be brought in a couple of years later, in 2019.

The residential zoned land tax, RZLT, which is the new tax that is going to replace that, brings it back down to 3% of the market value of the land. By moving the entire system to the collection of RZLT and the Revenue, the Government is effectively cutting the penalties for underutilised sites that should and could be used for residential housing.

There is also a difference between the purpose of the vacant site levy and that of the RZLT, and I am concerned that something is being lost in that transition. The vacant site levy applies to residential land where there is a need for housing and regeneration other than residential in an area where the majority of the site is vacant or idle and is having a negative effect on existing amenities, or reduces the amenity provided by public infrastructure, or has an adverse impact on the character of an area.The piece on the provision in the vacant site levy was not solely about providing more housing, even though that is very crucial; it was also around recognising the knock-on effects of vacancy on the civil fabric of an area. Coming from Cork, the Minister of State will be very familiar with the footage and the monitoring of dereliction in Cork city centre, for example, and the impact that has had on the city and on the town. All liable sites were required to place themselves on the vacant site register, giving a public view to the owners of sites and vacancies. It was tackling multiple issues. The problem was it was not implemented and was not applied. Rather than tackling the implementation of that, including, for example, some of the proposals, which were to ensure the moneys that would be collected by local authorities could be used in relation to housing provision by local authorities to actually tackle the wider and negative impacts of dereliction on that local basis, rather than measures such as that we are now repealing the entire thing.

I want to be clear that I am not necessarily opposed to the residential zoned land tax, RZLT in itself. That is one thing. What I do not see is why we are potentially letting people off the hook who should have been liable under the vacant site tax. It is really regrettable that for nine years, nothing was done to make that very important measure be effective and deliver. The RZLT, compared to the vacant site levy, is a self-assessed tax to be applied to properties located in particular areas of RZLT maps published by local authorities that are zoned for residential use; again, not necessarily tackling the dereliction on main streets in many towns across Ireland. Exemptions are given to any residential property on the map which is subject to a local property tax. The framing here is all around tax compliance rather than tackling vacancy. There is nothing stopping a landowner avoiding the application of the RZLT if they instead chose to pay local property tax on a vacant property. There are vast swathes of the RZLT maps where it is shown that the RZLT will not apply. The aim of the vacant site levy was to tackle the adverse negative impacts on dereliction in the surrounding areas, and that is potentially being lost by the repeal of that measure. The provisions on the vacant site register also do not apply to the RZLT therefore we are losing that crucial public oversight of landowners so that we can know who is utilising sites solely for the purpose of financial gain or speculation. We will not have that information as we would have had it previously in the vacant properties register, even though the consequences of the speculative behaviour are immense. There are things being lost here in this. It is not a straightforward repeal and replace. It is not clear to me, first of all, how the gaps between the two measures are being tackled, and second, just straightforwardly in terms of when this repeal comes into effect, what the issue will be. I know there are measures in the Bill where there is an appeal under way, but what is not clear to me is if there are situations whereby an outstanding payment is due or a case has been taken, will they still be proceeding? Will the Minister of State clarify on both those issues?

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

I welcome the Minister of State and his team of staff to the House. I will take up on some of the points that Senator Higgins has made. I want to touch on them. I am conscious we are under a lot of time pressure. We are in the last week before the summer recess. There is an eagerness to complete a number of pieces of legislation over the next two days. Mindful of all of that, we are talking about section 3, amendment No. 1 in the name of Senator Higgins, and she has touched on a few issues in relation to the vacant sites levy. Yes, there are concerns about that. It has gone on from being this levy or tax - call it what you will. Clearly, we have to see everything in the context of the demand and the drive to produce more housing, and, indeed, more facilities for enterprise. We must never lose infrastructure and enterprise in the bigger debate on proper planning and sustainable development. It is not only about houses, while houses are very important. I am somewhat surprised in relation to one thing, which may be helpful for the Minister of State to clarify.There were great expectations about the residential zoned land tax. I sit on the agriculture committee. The Minister of State will be aware that the IFA made submissions in relation to this tax. He will also be aware of the Taoiseach's commitment to look at the tax again. We cannot countenance a situation where land that is in active use for agriculture, horticulture and industries and services related to agriculture and sustainable food production can fall under the residential zoned land tax. We talk about the need to enhance and develop our land use strategy and I know there are plans to bring other strategies down the pathway.

It would be helpful to have some clarity in relation to the residential zoned land tax. If this tax is mentioned even once, be it in the Irish Farmers Journal, agriland.ie, the Farming Independentor elsewhere in agriculture news, it becomes a huge issue. It is an issue that farmers are particularly exercised about, and rightly and understandably so. As Senator Higgins said, we need a bit of clarity in regard to the residential zoned land tax in the context of what she is proposing.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators who have spoken and Senator Alice-Mary Higgins for proposing the amendment. I hope I can provide some of the clarity Senators are seeking in my response.

Amendment No. 1 seeks to amend section 3 of the Bill, which provides for the repeal of the vacant site levy provisions in the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015, as they have been superseded by the residential zoned land tax. Section 3 allows the Act of 2015 to continue to apply to ongoing appeals in relation to the market value attached to a site on the register of the levy. The Bill also facilitates the completion of the work of the Valuation Tribunal and the facility for the local authority to issue the levy demand and, where necessary, for An Coimisiún Pleanála to deal with any appeals to the demand that may arise in those existing cases currently with the tribunal.

The amendment proposed by Senator Higgins seeks to insert a new subsection into section 3 to provide for the ongoing collection of the levy. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept this amendment as it is unnecessary. Notwithstanding the repeal provision as set out in section 3, demands for payment of levies which have been issued but have not been collected before the date of coming into operation of the repeal of section 15 will continue to apply and can be collected by the relevant local authority.

Section 27(1) and (2) of the Interpretation Act 2005 ensures that where an Act is repealed, the repeal does not affect anything duly done under the repealed enactment or affect any liability incurred under the enactment. In the case of vacant site levy demands which have been issued, the local authority may continue to collect those levies and, if they are not paid within two months of the issue, recover the debt as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.

As noted, the amendment set out by the Senator is, therefore, not considered necessary, as outstanding levies can continue to be collected under the aforementioned section of the 2005 Act.

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

That is reassuring to a degree but I still have concerns, which I ask the Minister of State to address. Appeals and the non-application to appeals are specified in section 3, whereas for the other measures the Minister of State is describing, we are relying on the Interpretation Act. He might clarify why it was specified in section 3(2) in relation to an appeal but not similarly specified in relation to the issuance of fines or the liability for fines.

Where a property has been placed on the vacant property register and the owner has moneys that would be due, will that apply or will it only apply if the request for payment has already been made? Does the Minister of State know what I mean? If so, I would like him to clarify that. Where someone currently has a liability, will that person still have a liability following the repeal or is it only where a request for payment has been made by the local authority? If the latter is the case, it would perhaps be useful to give proper notice to the local authorities before commencing the Act to ensure they act on all those moneys. We know dereliction is a disgrace and that vacancy is a profitable practice for many developers and speculators. In fact, it has been profitable at a pace that has outstripped even the 7% that was not being claimed and that certainly may outstrip the 3% to which we are returning. I would like the Minister of State to address that move from 7% to 3% and the fact of the non-continuing availability. What transparency will the public have? Currently, members of the public can check whether properties they view to be derelict or vacant are included on the vacant sites register. What equivalent powers will the public have in terms of both raising concerns and transparency?

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all have the same intention and the same end goal here, which is to tackle dereliction and bring units back into use, especially as housing in which people can live. We all share that key goal.

I will try to give clarity on the Senator's exact questions. Section 3 of the Bill will work in combination with the Interpretation Act 2025, which already provides for what we are talking about here, which is the collection of the levy. It is important to clarify that nothing in the Bill changes the liability for the vacant site levy. I have very little to say other than that. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 10, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following: "Report on impact of amendments related to Judicial Reviews

4. The Minister shall lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas within 12 months of the commencement of this Act detailing the impact of the amendments to Part 4 of the Principal Act related to Judicial Reviews and detailing whether the procedural changes have resulted in a speeding up of planning related Judicial Reviews or increased the volume of planning litigation resulting in increased delays for residential and infrastructural development.".

I thank the Minister of State for being here. I will be brief because there is no point in dragging out the discussion on all these amendments.

We put forward this amendment because we are concerned that the proposed changes to judicial review for planning cases may lead to increased litigation and thereby result in greater delays in the delivery of critical infrastructure, including housing, renewable energy and public transport. The amendment basically requires the Minister to monitor and report on any issues that may arise from those changes. Our purpose is to ensure that what is being proposed works and does not do the opposite of what is intended. We all want housing delivery to happen more quickly. We are asking the Minister to monitor for any kink in the chain that actually reverses the progress we are trying to make and to report any such issue.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for being here. Will the Cathaoirleach read into the record why my amendment No. 4 was ruled out of order?

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

We have not yet reached the Senator's amendment. We are dealing with amendment No. 2, not amendment No. 4. When we reach amendment No. 4, I will say why it has been disallowed.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Collins for tabling amendment No. 2. The effort taken to table it justifies an explanation as to why, unfortunately, I cannot accept it. The amendment seeks to provide, by inserting a new section in the Bill, that the Minister shall lay before the Oireachtas within 12 months a report "detailing the impact of the amendments to Part 4 of the Principal Act related to Judicial Reviews and detailing whether the procedural changes have resulted in a speeding up of planning related Judicial Reviews or increased the volume of planning litigation resulting in increased delays for residential and infrastructural development".

I will outline why I cannot accept the amendment. First, on a technical matter, the judicial review planning procedures are set out in Part 9 of the 2024 Act, while the amendment makes reference to Part 4 of that Act. I presume this is a referencing error in the proposed amendment but the Senator might let me know if I am misunderstanding her intention in any way in that regard. Second, the monitoring, analysis and reporting of data relating to judicial reviews, including associated timelines and durations of proceedings within the courts, is a matter that falls outside the remit of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The management of the courts is the responsibility of the Courts Service, which is independent in the performance of its functions and is under the aegis of the Minister for justice. My understanding is that a ten-year modernisation programme has already been undertaken by the Courts Service and significant progress has been made in improving the availability and use of court data. Accordingly, I do not believe it would be appropriate to provide a reporting requirement in relation to planning judicial reviews in the planning Act, such as that proposed by way of this amendment. The amendment as proposed is not considered to be workable because it would place a statutory requirement on the Minister to report on matters that are subjective in nature. A wide range of factors could give rise to an increase or decrease in the number of planning judicial reviews, and it may not always be possible to determine the exact reason for changes in such levels or for changes in the average duration of proceedings.

Judicial reviews against the State, in which my Department may be included as a party, are co-ordinated by the Chief State Solicitor's office under the guidance of the Attorney General's office. An Coimisiún Pleanála, which can be challenged by judicial review on a range of its functions, including decisions on appeals and planning applications in respect of strategic infrastructure developments, already publishes details in respect of legal cases it is involved in as part of its annual report.

For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.

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

This is not my amendment but it is a very sensible one. The question of the placing of it is really by the by. That is a product of the fact that this legislation is being pushed through Committee and Remaining Stages, as have ten out of 11 planning Bills in the last decade. Every planning Bill except one has been guillotined in the Seanad in the last week of July or the last week of December.

The technicalities of placement are exactly what Committee and Report Stage are meant to be about. Fundamentally, the suggestion of independence and so forth rings a little hollow because we have listened for years to direct attacks on judicial reviews, to the vilification of those who take them, and to comments showing an unwillingness to engage with any of the figures and facts. For example, the Library and Research Service has found that 40% of judicial reviews were taken by developers. You would not think that from the vilification of local communities when they or others, including environmental groups, take judicial reviews. You would not think, for example, that much of the major backlog that existed related to bad, rushed planning decisions in previously rushed planning and development Bills, including the strategic housing development provisions, which fast-tracked planning and led to a whole pile of planning permissions being given in ways that completely abandoned proper process. Even when they were granted, they were not built on because there was no use-it-or-lose-it clause.

Given the level of assault on democracy and access to justice that has been shoved through in planning Bill after planning Bill on the basis of a narrative that judicial reviews are terrible, including the dilution of people's ability to take them, the capping of the moneys and the dilution of locus standi, it is very reasonable for somebody to ask for the facts and their publication, and to ask for a justification for these ongoing erosions of judicial review powers and the public's access to justice.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Higgins. I understand that with a lot of legislation there will be a requirement for monitoring or to report within 12 months, as has been suggested, but that is where the Minister in question has a statutory function. It is very straightforward in this case: the Minister has no statutory function in relation to reporting or monitoring when it comes to judicial reviews. It would very much be a matter for the Courts Service in this area and that is why we cannot accept this amendment.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 10, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following: “Report on impact of amendments related to alteration of existing planning permissions

4. The Minister shall lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas every 6 months from the commencement of this Act detailing the impact of the amendments to Part 4 of the Principal Act related to alterations of existing planning permissions and detailing the location, nature and volume of such alterations by project and local authority area and the resulting commencement of developments that have secured the alterations.”.

I will be quick. I can pre-empt the answer already because this has the word "report" in it. It is along the same lines. We are concerned that this section will either lead to further delays or, on the other side, the delivery of substandard homes with poorer design standards and reduction in appropriate size, all while we will continue to see rent rises. Again, the amendment is looking for monitoring and reports. I know the Minister of State is not going to accept it, but I would like to think that the Government would be monitoring it. If it is not going to report back, at least it should monitor it and take the responsible moves when it sees the numbers coming in. I will leave it there. There is no point in arguing.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I cannot accept the amendment, that would be the approach that would be taken in this regard. Amendment No. 3 seeks to provide that the "Minister shall lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas every 6 months from the commencement of this Act detailing the impact of the amendments to Part 4 of the Principal Act related to alterations of existing planning permissions and detailing the location, nature and volume of such alterations by project and local authority area and the resulting commencement of developments that have secured the alterations". As I said, I am not in a position to accept this amendment. I consider a statutory requirement to produce such a report every six months to be excessive and I fail to see the real merit in such an obligation, especially considering that the provision in question, namely, the proposed section 138A, is explicitly time bound and will cease to have effect after a period of two years. I see no reason section 138A cannot be reviewed by my Department on an administrative basis and, if required, the effectiveness can be accessed once its operation has concluded. That speaks to the Senator's point. There will be a monitoring. The proposed amendment is not appropriate.

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

Amendment No. 4 is out of order.

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

Amendment No. 4 is in the name of Senator McCarthy. The Senator has requested that the reason behind the ruling out of order of amendment No. 4 be read into the record. The amendment by the Senator would oblige the Minister to conduct a report within two years of enactment, detailing how each planning authority shall prepare a report detailing the arrangements for the preparation of a 30-year strategic master plan by planning authorities. While most report-style amendments seeking reviews of the operation of policy containing within a Bill to be enacted, this amendment is not related to reviewing existing policy within the Bill. Instead, the amendment seeks to make provision in law for a wholly new policy matter, that is, the creation of a strategic master plan by each local authority in the State setting out planning matters for their functional areas for a 30-year basis. The amendment specifies matters to be assessed in those plans and specifies that the plan shall be reviewed every ten years. This is a significant policy development which would give rise to a significant work within the Department of housing, but also within the 31 local authority areas. The scope of the matter proposed to be examined in this report could not feasibly be seen as within the existing resources of the Department and could not be covered by the concept of the flexible service. Therefore, unfortunately, I have to rule that out of order. The Senator can speak to the section if he wishes.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of my amendments was certainly well meaning. I only found out this morning that they were ruled out of order. We put a good bit of work into them. My point was that, even in my own hometown of Naas, without long-term planning, the town would be radically different than it is now. There is an area called Millennium Park. I recall when it was put on a piece of paper about how this would come about. That is 30 years ago and now it is coming to fruition. If we look at areas like Singapore, they operate on a long-term plan looking around 50 years ahead. It prepares a master plan looking ahead ten to 15 years, but there is an overall helicopter view that delivers the next phase of that longer vision. The shorter plan does not replace the long-term, but implements it. If the Minister of State remembers back to the IFSC the docklands and the regeneration of Dublin, it did not happen because of a series of disconnected planning decisions.It happened because there was a long-term vision that allowed transport, utilities, commercial development and public investment all to be co-ordinated over a long-term plan. The Canary Wharf principle was discussed in this House before, whereby the likes of Ballymore homes were given a long-term framework. It allowed it to work over phases, but over decades. Anybody who looks at a motorway being built without the housing to justify it, or housing built without a school or a sewer to serve it, knows exactly how much long-term alignment matters. I know that with what we are legislating for now in 2026, this country will look radically different in 2056. That was the point of my amendments.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Chathaoirligh, is it okay for me to speak to the amendments although they have been ruled out of order?

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

Yes, you can if you wish.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 4 seeks to insert a new section into the Act of 2024 to provide for the preparation of long-term strategic master plans. It seeks to provide that each planning authority shall prepare a strategic master plan setting out a long-term vision for the physical, social, economic and environmental development of its functional area over a period of 30 years. The Senator has suggested that such plans would identify strategic development priorities, including settlement hierarchy, infrastructure corridors, climate adaptation measures and areas for regeneration; set out indicative phasing for major infrastructure and public investment; include spatial mapping of long-term development objectives; align with the national planning framework, regional, spatial and economic strategies and national planning statements; and incorporate long-term environmental transport, housing and economic projections. The proposed amendment also provides that such plans would serve as a non-statutory strategic framework guiding the preparation and review of county and city development plans, urban area plans and priority area plans, and that they should be reviewed every ten years.

If it had been ruled in order, I would not have been in a position to accept the amendment. One of the key aims of the Act of 2024 was a greater alignment of all tiers of planning, following a comprehensive review of plans and plan-making in the State. The national planning framework is the Government's high-level strategic plan for shaping the future growth and development of our country. The national planning framework deals with the strategic development of the State in conjunction with the national development plan. This is further supplemented by regional, spatial and economic strategies, and ultimately by county and city development plans, which will be ten-year plans going forward. Under the Act of 2024, the national planning framework continues to spearhead and explicate the planning agenda and sits at the pinnacle of the plan-led system and structure, whereby all tiers of planning from regional to local align with strategic objectives set out in the national planning framework. Put simply, lower order plans are required to align with higher order plans.

County and city development plans, including corresponding area-based plans, are aligned to the regional strategies which, in turn, are aligned to the national planning framework. National planning statements allow the planning system to remain responsive to changes, providing agility where required and allowing Government policy to inform project and programme delivery throughout the life cycle of the national planning framework. To provide consistency and to ensure revisions are made where they are required, there is a new process in the Act of 2024 to expedite reviews of county and city development plans after changes are made to the national planning framework or when new national planning statements are issued. This expedited review process will ensure that development plans remain updated and continue to be in alignment with national policy. The aim of the hierarchy of the plan-making, as set out in the Act of 2024, is to improve scope for the various tiers of the planning system to more closely relate to one another, therefore providing greater clarity and consistency for all involved, from individual citizens and residents' groups to landowners and developers and ultimately, where necessary, the courts, which have become the final arbiter of many planning decisions on large-scale development proposals in recent years.

Under the Act of 2024, development plans will have a ten-year lifespan rather than the current six-year lifespan and will be more strategic in nature than under the Act of 2000. An interim review of the development plan will occur at year five in order to make account of wider changes since the plan was prepared and to allow for update if required. This will provide more up-to-date and strategic planning, providing greater certainty that there is sufficient zoned land available at all times to align with the needs of housing and economic development, providing greater certainly over a longer period for all stakeholders. The ten-year cycle with five-year reviews will mean that every elected member will be involved, at a minimum, in either the making of the county and city development plan or its review and possible amendment via the interim review. Local area plans have been replaced by specific types of area-based plans to better enable local authority objectives to be priorities, rather than simply being mandatory in nature and drawing resources where not always needed.As the system of plan-making in the State has just been revised and is being implemented for the first time, the introduction of another layer of plan-making could undermine the new hierarchy that was carefully arranged and agreed following extensive engagement with a range of stakeholders, including the Office of the Attorney General, and passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas in 2024. The regional assemblies and planning authorities are actively working on the move to plan-making under the Act of 2024. I do not think there is a need for another layer of plan-making at this time, nor is it an appropriate use of planning resources given the matters sought to be addressed should be dealt with appropriately through the NPF, the RSES, and the development plan process legislated for in the Act of 2024.

Despite the fact the amendment was ruled out of order, that is probably the longest answer I have given yet. The Senator will understand the reasons we could not have accepted it if it had been ruled in order.

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

This is the first reference to the Planning Regulator so it is an opportune time to mention a few issues of concern in this area. I acknowledged during the last session when we were dealing with this Bill the important and significant work of the Planning Regulator. I acknowledge the Office of the Planning Regulator, rather than the individual, and its support for sitting county councillors. It runs many workshops of engagement, which is critical.

I have said time and again that councillors are not engineers, planners or architects - most of them anyway, although there might be the odd one. They are usually committed to the proper planning and sustainable development of their functional areas and beyond. Therefore, they need a lot of assistance. When we signed off on the 2024 Act, we were told it was the be-all and end-all, but now we are doing another patch-up of that legislation through this legislation to give effect to a number of areas that were approved. I see the reasoning behind some of that.

The Minister of State will not have prepared a response to this because he did not know I would bring it up. My ask is that he take it back to his officials. The Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, was established in April 2019. Last year we were told there was to be a periodic critical review of the office. That is not unusual. It happens in many agencies. The OPR's main statutory functions, in summary, are evaluation of statutory plans and responsibility for the independent assessment of all local authority forward planning and regional assembly forward planning, which we will be talking about in this Bill; the hierarchy of the planning system, including development plans, local area plans and regional spatial and economic strategies, all of which is covered in this legislation; and planning reviews and examinations, which involve reviewing the organisation, systems and procedures used by the planning authorities, including An Coimisiún Pleanála, in the performance of their planning functions under this Act and subsequent legislation. There is also the role of the OPR in education and research. I acknowledge the proactive, significant and positive work it does in this area. It is responsible for conducting national education and training programmes for members and staff of planning authorities and regional assemblies. We can have the best legislation in place but we need to have the planners, architects and all the background people. We need to have them trained and upskilled.

We know we have problems in An Coimisiún Pleanála and I will talk about them later. We had a shortage of staff, training and resources and a whole range of issues. It looks as if An Coimisiún Pleanála, in fairness, is back up on four cylinders and is delivering on its timeframes.We were promised that the periodic critical review would be completed. My understanding from contacts in political circles and the Customs House is that this work is done and is sitting on someone's desk. It could be argued that the Minister has other things going on, and work planning and delivery have to be prioritised, but parliamentary business in the Chambers of the Houses is winding down this week. Since the establishment of the OPR a number of key policy objectives have been progressed by the Government and I acknowledge that. They all have significant impact on and interaction with our statutory planning processes. Therefore, it is important that we deal with the issues. We must remember that planning is critically important for the delivery of housing, our climate action objectives and plans, Government policies such as the national housing plan, Delivering Homes, Building Communities 2025-2030, and accelerating essential infrastructure.

I will finish on this point. It is important that there is role for the Office of the Planning Regulator. I support that role but it is important in the programme for Government and the Government's housing plan, as the Minister of State has said, that the review of the role and functions of the Office of the Planning Regulator takes place. Action 16 seeks to review the role of the functions of the Office of the Planning Regulator and drive performance in the planning system, including consistency with decision-making. We have heard this consistency right through this legislation. The Office of the Planning Regulator ensures that local authorities and An Coimisiún Pleanála are consistent with their implementation of central government policy through the planning system. Therefore, the Government has committed to review the role and the functions of the Office of the Planning Regulator. This is very much an important view. It is recognised that it was essential. As I say, there was nothing wrong with it. This was to be published. I know it has been completed and the question really is that there is a critical role for the Office of the Planning Regulator. It is embedded in the 2024 legislation. It is mentioned in this legislation in this relevant section 18 that we are now talking about. If we are going to join up all the dots, planning is a very fragmented science. I presume that all of these consolidated Bills and legislation is to bring all the dots together, to have everything working in unison and delivering what it sets out to do; proper planning and sustainable development in terms of new homes, new industry, new enterprise, new commerce and a better environmental country and world for us all to live in.

I would appreciate if the Minister of State takes this back to the Minister. I did not indicate that I was going to speak about this. I ask that it be prioritised or we be briefed about it. Once the report is considered I ask that the appropriate people would publish it. It is in the interests of the Office of the Planning Regulator and of all the parties aligned, interacting and crossing the varied space of proper planning and sustainable development.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. I note section 15 is just a technical amendment. I take it there is no issue with the amendment itself?

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

No.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is using this opportunity to make a few points about the Office of the Planning Regulator. The new housing plan and the accelerating infrastructure plan both include actions to review the functions of the OPR, so from that point of view, the Deputy's comments are timely. This is ongoing at the moment and will be finalised very shortly. The Senator's comments will be taken on board.

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

I will not come back in because it would not be appropriate. I will just say that I understood that it was already completed. In light of all these very intelligent Senators here making further contributions I am not suggesting it is to be tweaked further. I do not think so. I think we just need to get the Minister to publish it.

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

I wish to speak on the section. I am using this as an opportunity, as I did with the earlier section. This the first mention of An Coimisiún Pleanála and I want to use this as an opportunity to highlight a number of issues relating to An Coimisiún Pleanála. It has come along a pretty rocky road. The Minister of State and I know, as do a number of Senators who served, particularly Senator Flaherty, on the housing committee, about the long and protracted discussions we had about An Coimisiún Pleanála. There were a lot of shortcomings but, in fairness, the commission has responded well. It appears to be up and running. There are issues around timelines. Again, I am not expecting the Minister to respond tonight. I am just using this as an opportunity on the floor of the House to echo some of my concerns. Perhaps the Minister of State could bring it back to the Department.

I welcome any timeframe where we put down statutory timelines for delivery because at the last outing on this Bill, I cited how developers were very successful in building new homes. These are very desirable, proper and sustainable homes that people were buying in advance of them even going on the market and expressing an indication of their desire to buy them. The problem is that I am meeting entrepreneurs and people who want to put the money where their mouth is and develop really classy, good and sustainable homes. For some reason, however, through the planning process, they seem to be locked out of further engagement and many of them are waiting months to get a response from An Coimisiún Pleanála - just a status update about where they are with their application to build 135 homes in south County Dublin.

This is the problem. An Coimisiún Pleanála has to be fit, slick, efficient and fit for purpose. If the Government is serious about tackling sustainability, houses, proper planning and sustainable development, the commission has to be responsive and capable of responding to valid applications that have come through a process and are sitting in it. We cannot have a situation where the commission cannot do its work so if it is short of resources or staff, it needs to be equipped with them. That is the story coming in.

People who object, raise concerns or submit observations, not necessary objections, are interested and are engaging. From talking to politicians in Leinster House last year, I have been quite amazed by those who talk about people frustrating the process. People do not set out to frustrate the planning process. Indeed many politicians in this House are on record as having made submissions and objections to developments in their own backyard. They cannot have it both ways. A politician cannot have a view because he or she is meant to be representing people and a different view when coming in here as a Minister - I am not talking about the Minister of State - suggesting all these objections are holding up the process. There are many strands to proper planning and sustainable development of our communities.

What I am really saying is that when the Minister of State gets this legislation through the House, there can be no more excuses about planning. The 2024 Act was to be the panacea for all our problems. We were going to have homes everywhere. They would be falling out all over the place. We were going to have wonderful playgrounds, community facilities, sports clubs, leisure clubs and swimming pools. You name it - we were going to have it. This is now 2026 and in a year's time, I hope I will be saying "Well done, great" but it is about the lead-in to proper development. It is not about building bricks alone; it is about building sustainable communities.

What I am really saying is that we must resource An Coimisiún Pleanála with the expertise, experience and staff. We do not want to hear anything about embargoes and how it is not able to manage its affairs. That goes for planning authorities as well. I again salute the work of planners in our 31 planning authorities, who are under immense stress. The Minister of State knows it in Limerick city and county. I know some of the people down there. There are real difficulties as so much is coming at them. I welcome the idea of tight timelines. They are really important.No more excuses. Allow the democratic process. Allow public engagement, which is so healthy in a democracy, to shape the outcomes, or contribute to shaping them. It is about not having predetermined outcomes for everything but shaping those outcomes for the better of us all.

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

I welcome some guests from Liffey College with Councillor Ammar Ali and Senator Mary Fitzpatrick, and guests of Senator Joe O'Reilly and the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke. You are most welcome to Seanad Éireann and thank you for being here.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I too welcome all the guests. As the Senator is probably well aware, section 19 is about development plans, as distinct from the-----

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

Yes, I have no problem with that. I have no problem with the amendment or the section.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the Senator is very familiar with that and the points he has made are duly noted. I can go through what is being proposed under Part 4 of the Bill in terms of the 2024 Act and the statutory deadlines coming in for planning and An Coimisiún Pleanála. If the House would like me to do that, I will.

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

If the House is satisfied, I am happy to proceed. I understand it and I am conscious of time. I just really wanted the Minister of State to take on board those concerns.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We very much take on board the Senator's learned views.

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

I thank the Minister of State.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To save time I will speak to sections 61 and 62 together because it is the same point. We feel that both sections will allow developers who have planning permission to request an alteration to their permission based on inferior design standards, which we do not agree with. It is not necessarily going to make units of apartments smaller but it will change rules around communal spaces and the amount of natural light that they have to let in. We feel it will make the apartments inferior compared with what the developers were originally granted planning permission for, without any submissions being allowed because it is an alteration. To flip it the other way, imagine if the wind energy guidelines were released tomorrow and they showed that the wind turbines that had been put up over the last two or three years were actually too high compared with what we are now saying they should be. I cannot imagine that any developer would say, "We'll look for an alteration and we'll make the turbines smaller." If a developer has planning permission, we do not believe they should be able to go back in time and get an alteration to use the new plans.

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

This and the issue of judicial reviews are perhaps the two biggest and most difficult concerns in this legislation for me, as they were in 2024 but they have come into focus in this legislation.At the outset, I am conscious that sitting county councillors are the people who ultimately confirm or make a county or city development plan. The Minister of State is aware they put a lot of time into that. The proposal is to move this to a ten-year plan and I understand all of the processes. I am conscious that we are making legislation and for those who did not read the law gazette produced by the Bar Council, there was a very interesting article sent to everyone today, regarding Jim O’Callaghan. He made a really good point - and this could be a general application for anything - about the Legislature. When we legislate and a measure is passed, we empower the Executive, which then decides to proceed with an element of the legislation or not. That then becomes relevant when one talks about judicial review because as a Legislature, we have given a legislative effect. The three strands of the Legislature are, of course, the Dáil, Seanad and Uachtarán na hÉireann. When all that has gone through that process, that then becomes law. When people link into judicial reviews, such as in relation to this particular aspect of the Bill, the courts have to have regard to what the Legislature intended. I am not sure if some people in the Legislature really know what they intended. Things fall out of legislation that we do not always envisage are going to be the case. That is an important point. It is also important to note - I am not going to stray into this area - that there are legal proceedings relating to these matters. The Minister of State will be aware that a number of councillors have put their money where their mouth is, and this legislation is now before the courts in Europe.

There was a consultation process. The difference between the statutory and non-statutory consultation process is another issue and difficulty with a lot of legislation, but particularly around the planning and development sector. I have concerns, as have others. I have spoken to a number of sitting county councillors who, over the past year or two, have really strongly articulated their concerns in relation to this legislation. These are individuals and party members, but ultimately they are within councils. Their concerns relate to apartment design standards. There seems to be no reflection on or tweaking for what is relevant to a particular planning authority. We have 31 planning authorities as the Minister of State knows. Building height is a concern. The layout of apartments and apartment mixes are a concern. What are we about? We are about creating sustainable, liveable, healthy communities. Why do we have difficulty with having three- and four-bedroom apartment units? We had the Canadian ambassador in here earlier on and I was telling him that when I was in Ontario, friends of mine had a four-bedroom place. We are not used to the model that is across Europe and other places. There are people who may choose to downsize to a two- or three-bedroom unit and free up a five-bedroom unit. That is the reality of it.

We have a problem with the layout. I know some councillors and local authorities have been told they have to mass produce and pump out studios or one-bedroom units, but people do not really live in isolation and most people do not want to. They want people to be able to come and stay at some point in their tenure in a particular property so we need flexibility. That is an issue.

The apartment mixes are not providing for the sort of sustainable, attractive mixes that are required. A mixed demographic and age is so important when we are developing community. There are issues and concerns about the apartment floor areas. There are offices in Leinster House that are bigger than some of these proposed one-bedroom units. That is the reality of it, as the Minister of State is aware. Suddenly, we are expecting people to live in these apartments.

I have a south-facing office in the LH 2000 building next door. We now have three ventilators on all the time to try to cool it down. It is 35°C in there this week. A member of the facilities staff had to come over and tell us they cannot cool the place down. We are single aspect and we have to remember what single aspect is; we are facing south and so we are burning up in the place. Staff in Leinster House this week are burning up in offices, and they only have to stay in them for a working day of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. or whatever.That is not acceptable. Are we suggesting that these single-aspect cubes, be they high, across or low, are practical and sustainable? Where does fossil fuels and sustainable energy come in when we think about cooling them down in the summer? Let us take a north-facing single cube – that is what they are at, at best – that is facing low in a building, possibly at basement level or semi-underground. How does one heat it? It is cold and cool. That is not sustainable. In an ideal world, we need dual-aspect units. When there are a number of rooms, people can move around. However, there is this high focus and attention on building cubes on top of cubes and simply saying everything will be grand.

As someone said to me in a housing authority not too far from here, we have single people - mostly men over a certain age - but we do not have bedsits any more. That is because it was Government policy to close them down and get rid of them. Good, clean and well-designed bedsits provided an opportunity and served some people. People chose to live in them. In its place, we have this suggestion that we are going to shoo people into boxes on top of each other facing south to burn up for a few months or facing north where they are so cold in the winter. On both sides, they will need energy, either to heat them up or cool them down. That is not sustainable and it is ridiculous. There is too heavy an emphasis on single-aspect units.

Of course, we hear the story that the homeless will be shooed into them, or that we can throw students into them because they are out all day. There is absolutely a case for studio apartments. I have nothing against them. However, they must be nice and properly designed because we are talking about people’s living space. We are talking about living well and healthily and having meaningful lives in interactive communities. The Government is wrong in this regard.

The floor to ceiling height will be reduced. Why is it that we have issues with height for this cohort of residential units? We talk about sustainability but it is really about profitability. I know business people want to make money but at the end of the day, many of these units will come into our social housing stock. I do not draw a difference between public and private housing. I believe in good, sustainable housing, regardless of who it is for. The anticipated cohort of people who will live in these units should not colour the decision.

There is a lack of internal storage. I went to see some of these units over the weekend. There are places where there is no internal storage. That is unacceptable. Where is the storage for the bicycles, given the Government is talking about its new active travel plans? Where is the storage for the segregation of waste as part of our new environmental arrangements and given the importance placed on segregating our waste? Where are the facilities for that? Where is the private internal amenity space, given that we get rain for a considerable time of the year? Where is the external amenity space in terms of the landscape areas and the forecourts and all of that? Where are all of the play facilities and the safe, open spaces within complexes where these apartments are envisaged? What are the security considerations, such as oversight and the passive surveillance of these new homes? I could go on and on.

Car parking facilities is another example. I am thinking of one such residential unit near to me where residents were told that they have no car parking facilities and that they are social tenants. The block next door, which so happens to be private – this is an LDA development – has car parking. The social tenants, however, are told they cannot drive.

One particular woman explained to me how she has a car and works in a shoe shop in Bray. She queried with the unit’s management whether she had to sell her car. She was told that she might have to and that she could avail of the DART instead. She then asked how she could be expected to repay the credit union the €12,000 she owed for the second-hand car. They told her that it was not their problem and that there were no units available and she accepted the residential unit on that basis. She then explained that she accepted it because she was on the housing list for 16 years. Her folks told her she needed to get out and have a bit of space to grow and develop. The parents also needed a bit of space from her. This unit was the best she could achieve, with no car or facilities. The Government then calls this proper planning and sustainable development. It is simply not good enough.

Of course, there are the issues of play and how and where these units are going to be interfaced with existing residential properties. That dynamic and mix is needed in terms of good planning and sustainable development.Based on all of those issues, I have concerns. I cannot support a Bill that does not address this issue and rams this through, because it cannot be about profitability; it has to be about sustainability. There is an overemphasis on making a profit. I was a member of the housing and planning committee for two terms and I have seen it with developers, although not with all of them, because many of them are very responsible, and yes, they have to pay their bills, but I have seen the goalposts continue to change and to move, it keeps being cranked up and the Government feels it has to do this, that and the other.

I do not want to go off the point but I am seeing apartments that are part of Part V agreements for which local authorities are being asked to pay €500,000, €600,000 and €700,000 for social housing. I do believe in full integration and do not believe we should be able to tell the difference, but somehow it is all part of the housing strategy that we are getting units that we perhaps might not even want and we certainly do not want to be paying that for them. We are not getting them and no-one is giving them to us. The taxpayers are paying mad money for units because, again, we are being held to ransom by certain developers who have an agenda for themselves. That is not all of them and it would be unfair to paint that picture.

Based on that I do not think we have thought this through. There is litigation ongoing and there will be an outcome from that. It is important that, when we vote on this legislation, we are fully aware and cognisant of the fact that a High Court judge has referred this matter - the parameters of this area - to Europe for determination. I do not want to come back and say we were bitten in the face and did not know what we were talking about. We need to be cautious if we are going to embrace this type of policy because, quite frankly, I personally do not think it is the right policy and I cannot support it.

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

I will be brief. I am just speaking to section 61. It relates to section 62 and I will then come to my specific amendments on section 62 when we get to that. I want to highlight that sections 61 and 62 together are amending the definition of "material alteration". Effectively, they are bypassing public participation, which is a crucial point when it comes to decision making. It is yet another thread in the dilution and evasion of proper public democratic participation in planning. There are huge implications to this in terms of our obligations under the Aarhus Convention, specifically Article 6.10, which Ireland is a party to and which is a key part of the EU legal order. The upshot is that, actually rather than speeding anything up, existing lawful positions will now potentially be rendered unlawful and drowned in legal uncertainty because things that have secured planning permission that then go ahead to have these material alterations in them that have legal ambiguity over them will actually be super-counterproductive. I have other problems when we come to section 62 that I will highlight, including the lack of proper use it or lose it clauses, including the actual specific quality and dangers and things like that appalling idea of single aspect apartments and the creation of hotboxes.

Those are specifics but because I am now speaking to section 61 I want to highlight the legal issues which are crystal clear. The Minister of State cannot say he is not aware of them, because Chapter 5, Part 4 of the principal Act, the relevant one here, is the one Chapter of the Planning and Development Act 2024 which has already been put on the desk of the Aarhus Convention compliance committee. Even following the final version of the Chapter following Report and Final Stages in the Seanad - the version that went into law in terms of material alteration - the Aarhus Convention compliance committee rejected it as non-compliant in early November 2025, which is contained in paragraph 44.102 of that decision by the convention committee. It has already been decided that it is not compliant and now the Minister of State will drag more things into it. Instead of fixing the issues in our now annual July rush through planning and development Bills, it could have been a chance to maybe fix some of the known problems. Instead of fixing them, we are actually compounding the issues of non-compliance with Aarhus, Article 6.10 and public participation requirements with further changes. In many cases, existing planning permissions have not been acted upon because there are no use-it-or-lose-it clauses attached to them, many fast-tracking measures apply, there is a dilution of standards and we have all the rest of the things the Government does in its annual giveaway in the rushed planning and development Bills that are brought forward every July. I will discuss this further when we reach my amendments to section 62. Planning permissions, for speculative reasons, are not being used because developers know that if they wait a few months, the Government will give them something else. There comes a point at which those permissions may be compromised by legal uncertainty, become vulnerable to judicial review in a way they previously were not and risk being quashed for known non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention, thereby sending the whole project back to the drawing board. This measure will end up leading to slower and more convoluted delivery of lower-standard apartments. That may not concern a speculator who is just trading in the potential and is not actually planning to build but it is a very worrying situation for members of the public waiting for projects to be built.

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

Senator Higgins has made an important point. I reiterate her concern regarding the Aarhus Convention, its protocols, the strategic environmental assessments and the other appropriate attached assessments. Somehow, when people are unhappy, they choose to ignore them. This really is an important issue. Ireland is a signatory to the convention and its protocols. We are bound by them. At all times, in our planning processes, protocols and code, we must encourage engagement. We must be a democracy open to genuine participative engagement in the planning process. Citizens are entitled to that. If the Minister of State or I had something happening in our backyard, we would be concerned, and rightly so. We at least need a level playing pitch for people to put forward their genuine concerns, based on the principles of proper planning, sustainable development and compliance with the Aarhus Convention. This is an important point when it comes to the development of the predominantly one- and two-bedroom units that have been described as boxes or cubes.

We must remember that the local authorities are charged with the responsibility of carrying out an assessment of housing need. This is where we need agility and flexibility for councillors, in conjunction with their executive, namely, directors of services and chief executives. How can we tweak our future-forward planning to meet the housing needs of citizens within local administrative areas, with local authorities clearly having function and responsibility in that regard? We need flexibility, whether in Limerick City and County Council, which is the Minister of State's local authority, or elsewhere. Local authorities will understand from their housing assessment the projected needs for a period. We need agility and responsiveness in the system to be able to tweak and to build.

I have no difficulty with apartment living. I know many people would wish to live in an apartment because of the likelihood it will have a central location. I see the potential for movement by people from the outskirts of cities and towns to central hubs where they are more likely to have access to apartments. I am not saying they will be affordable - it does not look like that will be the case - but the option of living in an apartment will appeal to some people.

Our planning system must be responsive to the needs of local housing assessments but I do not see any evidence of that happening. There is a rush to throw up more buildings and bring in more money. All of that has been going on for years and it appears we are not learning much from it. Senator Higgins made her point really well regarding the Aarhus Convention. It is very important that we encourage and facilitate our citizens to engage with a meaningful planning engagement process.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sections 61 and 62 are connected and will operate together. It is important that both sections stand as part of the Bill. Section 61 is a technical, clarifying amendment to the definition of "material alteration" in section 138 of the 2024 Act to add a cross-reference to a new section 138A, as inserted by section 62 of the Bill.

Section 62 inserts a new section 138A in Chapter 5 of Part 4 of the 2024 Act in relation to alterations of existing permissions allowed for the purpose of alleviating the shortage of residential accommodation to enable the construction of greater numbers of dwellings in apartment schemes. The section operates such that subject to meeting the specific criteria set out in the Bill, requests may be made to a deciding authority under section 140 of the 2024 Act to make alterations to an existing permission for an apartment scheme. Under section 142 of the 2024 Act, where a requested alteration of a permission is not material, the deciding authority shall alter the permission accordingly.

Section 138A will apply to the development of dwellings in apartment buildings in circumstances where permission is granted before the coming into operation of the section, where the request for an alteration made under section 140(1) of the 2024 Act is made before the expiration of two years from the coming into operation of section 138A and where the development has not yet commenced before the date on which the request is made.

The specific criteria allowing alterations to apartment schemes that are covered by this measure are already established policy. They relate to the apartment mix, apartment floor areas, dual-aspect ratios, lift or stair cores, floor-to-ceiling heights of ground-floor apartments and consequential works necessary for the purpose of the above alterations or for ensuring access to the development, including works to footpaths, boundaries, gardens and balconies.

The Bill also sets out restrictions to the measures, including, in the case of residential development in a strategic development zone, that the alterations cannot cause the number of dwellings situated in that strategic development zone to exceed the permitted number in the applicable planning scheme and that an alteration of a permission cannot result in the proposed residential development being designed to accommodate more occupants than it would be designated to accommodate were the alteration not made. That is an important point.

The purpose of this measure is to help support the viability of the development of apartments in the immediate term by allowing the alteration of permissions already granted in certain circumstances. It is targeted at the significant number of apartment developments that have received planning permission but have not yet commenced. Depending on the circumstances, the option is open to the developer either to apply for new planning permission or apply to make an amendment to the existing permission.

The Government continues to be fully committed to ensuring that housing is delivered as quickly and effectively as possible. It is vitally important that we do all we can to support the building of housing developments that have already been granted planning permission, given the urgent need to encourage activation of housing development as quickly as possible. I commend these sections to the House and will press that they remain part of the Bill.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and shall be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 35, to delete lines 10 to 17.

Senator Stephenson will speak on the amendments.

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

These amendments, in essence, make provision for a use-it-or-lose-it clause. Amendment No. 6 states: "An alteration of a permission referred to in subsection (3) shall be considered a material alteration if substantial works have not commenced 2 years from the point the permission was granted." We need this use-it-or-lose-it clause because we have a situation where people are receiving planning permission but are not actually commencing that permission. Now they will be allowed to extend the permission further on an asset. That is highly problematic. Section 62 inserts provisions that allow for alterations to planning permissions that may consist of increases in the number of apartments and decreases in the sizes of apartments in a development, in the number of windows in those apartments, the heights of the ceilings and the number of lifts and stairwells in these developments. Senator Boyhan spoke eloquently around the impact that these alterations could have on the development of society and positive places to live. The Minister of State stated that these are carrying over the provisions that were inserted into the Planning and Development Act 2000 by the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2025 and the Planning and Development Act 2024, but there are significant changes in these methods by which these alterations can occur.

The 2025 Act created a system whereby the holder of a permission would have to apply to a relevant authority for a certificate certifying a proposed modification. The provisions in the Bill simply declare that the modifications in the newly inserted section 138A are not material alterations and therefore do not constitute a material alteration of a planning permission. The alterations permitted are clearly significant material alterations, so the fundamental approach of this section is flawed. It takes powers away from the local authorities when, in fact, we should be strengthening the powers of local authorities for decision-making under section 140 with regard to what constitutes a material alteration. We are undermining the role of local authorities rather than strengthening them. It is entirely non-compliant with the Aarhus Convention. Instead of fixing issues that have already been raised by the Aarhus Convention compliance committee, this section expands and compounds many of those issues.

The provision inserted by the 2025 Act stated that the purpose of the section inserted by this Act was "to facilitate and encourage expedited construction of greater numbers of dwellings in apartment complexes" in the context of the housing crisis. However, the purpose of the section inserted by this Bill is just to enable the construction of a greater number of dwellings within residential developments within the same context.

The language around the speeding-up of the delivery of these houses is now gone, which is curious, and the purpose of this Bill becomes much clearer. It is simply about creating more potential profit for developers. The core reason for increasing the level of profits in a development is so that developers can make more money. That is the language we are receiving now.

Amendment No. 5 deletes paragraph (c) of the newly inserted section 138A, which provides that the design of apartment complexes can be modified to allow for 75% of apartments to be single aspect without such a modification being considered a material alteration, which is huge when we think about what should constitute a material alteration.

As Senator Boyhan eloquently outlined, the weather in the past few weeks is testament to how dangerous and risky this provision is with regard to the whole area of single-aspect windows and homes. Unfortunately, we are only going to be getting hotter summers with climate change, and by approving the provisions in this Bill, we will be reducing the number of windows required by planning permissions for apartment developments.

Amendment No. 6 will ensure that the provisions of section 138A(3) do not apply to any development that has not commenced two years prior to the permission being granted. This is to ensure that provisions in this section are not used simply as a way for developers who are sitting on uncommenced sites to increase the speculative value of those sites to make more money by waiting for further legislation. We need to move away from legislation that allows speculators to treat housing as an asset to make more money and profit. We have this model in Ireland, and it is not working.

It is highly interesting that the language around expedited delivery is gone from the provisions being inserted into the 2024 Act. I understood that language, which acknowledged that we need to expedite housing delivery, but that is now gone, and I do not understand that. When I read the legislation, what is serves to do now is make the section not about speeding delivery but about increasing the bottom line for developers, given that the word "expedite" has been removed.

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

I want to pick up on that point. The removal of the word "expedite" is key because it exposes the logic. As I said, the logic has been the same. Every July, we get a new planning and development Bill that includes a new set of concessions to developers and creates more problems. We have tied the hands of the public in relation to their rights to judicial reviews and access to justice. The Government has blamed councillors and sought to erode their powers systematically. It has blamed the public and environmental groups for ever taking judicial reviews. The blame has been widely spread every year, but what happens every year is that the Government gives more concessions to developers and it does not deliver because the goals of developers, who are looking to maximise profit, and the goals that our public representatives, who are serving the public, and our Government should have are not directly aligned. The job of the Government is to hold developers and standards to account. It is to drive forward the provision of housing.

This language removal tells us a lot because it has gone from saying that we need to cut yet another corner to expedite the construction of greater numbers of dwellings and apartment complexes to saying we have to do it to make it happen because otherwise they will not build it. They want another thing. It is another pound of flesh from the public. This time the developers want to be sure that they can row ahead and put people into hot boxes with single-aspect windows. The Minister said it. They are not even going to increase the occupancy number. What they will be doing is changing the unit structures, cutting corners on public spaces and standards, and ensuring that what we do not have the mix that we should have in terms of family size and residences within these residential developments, as well as ensuring that the most profitable unit can be produced in the highest numbers with the highest profit margin. That is explicitly what it is doing. It is solely about enabling the construction of greater numbers of dwellings within residential developments.

It is just a lowering of the bar again. The bar cannot get much lower, but it is happening again, and this time the Government is bringing a legal complexity with it, and our amendment is a use-it-or-lose-it clause. This is basic.

If these developers have been sitting on planning permissions for two years, and if the Government, having lowered the bar for them last year, then gives them another sweetener this year, lowers the bar yet again in terms of what is deemed a material alteration and allows them to do that and they continue not to build, because that is the issue, then at a certain point there needs to be a stick and not just carrots. This is not anybody held up by judicial reviews, These are people with ready-to-go planning permissions who are not using them. There needs to be something that says that if developers have planning permissions and they are being granted concession after concession, even to the point of risking illegality, then they need to use them. If they do not use them, then the Government should start taking the sweeteners away and start saying that we cannot have a lowering of standards and continued non-delivery.

I will oppose section 62 as a whole because it is wrong, but if the Government is serious when it says that this is about delivering anything, the minimum it should do is introduce a use-it-or-lose-it clause - the kind of clause we looked for on strategic housing developments, where almost half of those developments with planning permission were never built. A use-it-or-lose-it clause needs to be part of the mix at this point in every new annual planning and development Bill.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their contributions. I propose to go through my detailed note because that will be helpful to everyone. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 seek to amend section 62 of the Bill, which, in turn, proposes to insert a new section 138A into Chapter 5 of Part 4 of the 2024 Act in relation to alterations of existing uncommenced permissions for apartment schemes. Section 138A operates so that subject to the meetings specifically set out in the Bill, requests may be made to alter an existing permission of an apartment scheme. Where there that requested alteration is not material, the permission will be altered accordingly.This important provision seeks to replace section 44B of the Act of 2000 as that Act is due to repeal before the end of this year. Non-material alteration of apartment schemes set out in subsection (3) already established policy relating to the apartment mix, apartment floor areas, dual-aspect ratios, lift and stair cores, the floor to ceiling heights of ground-floor apartments, as well as consequential works including to footpaths, boundaries, gardens and balconies.

Amendment No. 5 seeks to delete the provision allowing for certain non-material alterations relating to dual-aspect ratios of apartments. Viability presents an ongoing challenge to housing delivery and is particularly acute in relation to delivery of apartments. The non-material alterations to apartment schemes as set out above are already established and tend to strike a balance between ensuring that apartment developments meet the needs of society in terms of standards and quality while promoting an increased level of output overall.

In duplex types or smaller apartment blocks that form part of mixed compact housing schemes, dual aspect is generally achievable. For larger apartment schemes, however, where there may be a terraced or perimeter block pattern wholly or partially fronting a street this may not be the case. I consider this provision regarding minimum dual-aspect ratios successfully strikes an appropriate balance in this context. It should be noted that the levels of daylight within the individual apartments is not solely determined by dual-aspect ratios. Dual-aspect ratios are one of a range of factors that will determine levels of daylight available within an individual unit. Other influencing characteristics include the orientation of the apartment, its elevation, separation distances, the size and positioning of windows, and the internal layout such as the numbers of internal walls and the width and depth of rooms. It is also important to note that every apartment developed is required by law to comply with the requirements of the building regulations regarding matters such as ventilation or insulation. Accordingly, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 6 seeks to provide an additional criterion that a requested apartment alteration will be considered material alteration if substantial works have not commenced two years from the point when the permission was granted. This amendment will limit section 138A to apartment schemes that have already commenced with substantial works carried out in the first two years of that permission. Section 138A is already subject to a number of criteria including that permission was granted for the apartment schemes before the coming into operation of section 138A and that the apartment scheme has not yet commenced before the date in which the request is made. The amendment is unworkable as it directly contradicts section 138A(2)(c), which limits availability of this type of non-material alteration to apartment schemes that have not yet been commenced, excluding any works carried out to maintain, secure or protect the site. Furthermore, the amendment is in conflict with the intended policy intention of section 138A, which targets a significant number of apartment schemes that have received planning permission but not have not yet commenced. These measures are intended to unlock sites that have permission but are stalled. They are an activation measure. Accordingly, I cannot accept this amendment.

In summary, section 138A is intended to support the viability of the development of apartments in the immediate term. It is targeted at a significant number of apartment developments that have received planning permission but have not yet commenced. The Government continues to be fully committed to ensuring that housing is delivered as quickly and effectively as possible. It is vitally important that we do all we can to support the building of developments that have already been granted planning permission. The level of daylight within individual apartments is not solely determined by dual-aspect ratios. There is a wide range of other influencing characteristics such as the orientation of the apartment, its elevation, separation distances, the size and position of windows, and internal layout. Every apartment development is required by law to comply with the requirements of the building regulations regarding matters such as ventilation and insulation. As I have already stated, the measure is targeted at apartment developments that have planning permissions but are not yet commenced or are uncommenced. This proposed amendment seeks to change the target to commenced apartment schemes with substantial work carried out in the first two years of their permission. I am uncertain as to what the policy intention is behind the proposed amendment in this context. I thank the Senators for their proposals but I cannot accept amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

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

In light of the fact that the Minister can actually tell local authorities what is meant by material alteration, I am going to press the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 35, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

“(4) An alteration of a permission referred to in subsection (3) shall be considered a material alteration if substantial works have not commenced 2 years from the point the permission was granted.”.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to welcome Mr. Phil Thompson, chief executive officer of Tiglin. He is very welcome. I know he is a regular visitor here and I thank him for all he does.

As it is now past 5.30 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Seanad of the day: "In respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee; the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee; the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment; Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby received for final consideration; and the Bill is hereby passed."