I move amendment No. 2: In page 9, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 177 of Principal Act 13. Section 177 of the Principal Act (“Duration of permission granted under Part”) is amended by the substitution of “3 years” for “5 years” in each place where it occurs.”. This was submitted as one amendment, but it has been split in two because the 2024 Act has been passed but not enacted. What we are attempting here is to amend both the 2000 and 2004 Acts with regard to duration of planning permission. I will come back in again after the Minister's response.
Sentiment score: -0.01
I brought forward these amendments because they relate to the whole issue of use it or lose it, namely, the issue of duration of planning permissions. While I accept what the Minister is doing in terms of existing planning permissions that have commenced, I believe we need a tighter regime around duration of planning. We are seeking to reduce the normal duration of a planning permission from five to three years. Five years is too long, and three years seems a reasonable period. The purpose is to incentivise the commencement of active planning permissions to reduce the likelihood of speculation or abuse on sites that have active planning. The point is that throughout the country there is a huge issue with uncommenced planning permissions. There are between 80,000 and 100,000 nationally. It is extraordinary to see this level of uncommenced planning. While there are multiple reasons, including viability as to the delay, we believe land speculation remains a key issue. We continue to perpetuate. We have a system in this country where we have a lengthy period within which developers can hoard land. We have seen sites with planning being on again and again, and we believe the planning permission should not be used as a means to increase the value of land for sale. We believe that it is essential for our planning and housing systems that speculative planning should be reduced and land should not be left sitting idle.
Sentiment score: 0.05
Yes.
Sentiment score: 0.40
I move amendment No. 9: In page 12, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 40 of Act of 2000 16. Section 40 of the Act of 2000 is amended, in subsection (3)(b), by the substitution of “the period of three years beginning on the date of the grant of permission” for “the period of five years beginning on the date of the grant of permission”.”.
Sentiment score: 0.11
I move amendment No. 10: In page 12, line 18, to delete “2 years” and substitute “1 year”. These amendments relate to the Minister's proposals to enable an extension of three years for developments that have not yet commenced and have less than two years in the permission. I proposed these amendments because, while I believe a short extension may be necessary in extremely limited circumstances, it must be short and caveated to prevent land hoarding and speculation. We have huge problems with land hoarding and speculators sitting on planning permissions in this country while land increases in value. We believe a much tighter approach needs to be taken in terms of use or lose it. That is why we have moved these amendments to tighten the limit. I noticed before the vote that the Minister was talking about the residential zoned land tax. From our point of view, I welcome that is finally being collected, despite having been delayed until this year. The Minister said in his reply to Deputy Hearne that he believes the residential zoned land tax will deal with these issues and there is no need for a use it or lose it clause, but if the tax does not deal with this and we do not see the results of that over the coming period, will the Minister give us an idea if this is something he will look at revisiting?
Sentiment score: -0.05
I thank the Minister for his response. I go back to what I asked about residential zoned land tax. When will we be able to quantify whether that tax is working to prevent land speculation and hoarding? Will the Minister come back and seriously look at this again? As I understand it, EY was tasked by the Department of housing to look at the issue of uncommenced planning and that report was pulled in 2023. I will also speak to the amendment in the names of Deputies Ó Broin and Gould on the call for a viability assessment. I believe it is a prudent amendment. It makes sense that if a developer has not commenced a development within a set period, it should have to come back and tell the planning authority, if it is granted an extension, what has materially changed that would allow it to commence that development. This is done in other jurisdictions and it should be publicly available. The public should be able to see the schedule and construction costs so there is full transparency and accountability. This would mean someone could go for a planning extension because, for example, they need certainty in terms of financing but not because they know the longer they sit on the land, the more value it will accrue.
Sentiment score: 0.12
I move amendment No. 12: In page 13, line 3, to delete “2 years” and substitute “1 year”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 13: In page 13, line 11, to delete “5 years” and substitute “3 years”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I support this amendment. It is extremely important because we know that, with the development levy waivers that lapsed last year, a lot of the commencement data we have at the moment is very unreliable. That is why this amendment is important.
Sentiment score: 0.29