Can I briefly comment?
Sentiment score: 0.00
I apologise to the Minister. I meant to say this on section 2. At some point during the Minister's responses to any of the clusters of amendments or the sections, it would be only right if he was able to give us any additional detail he has about the amendments he is intending to submit in the Seanad, that is, both the additional transitional amendments as well as the so-called permitted alterations. The first reason is just to give us some information - we got some from a Minister of State yesterday - but he might also let us know when those amendments are going to be published because we are very keen to see them. Perhaps we in the Oireachtas committee could get a briefing from the Minister's officials on Monday. I raised that with the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, yesterday. Crucially, the Minister might give us a commitment that appropriate time will be made available in the Dáil when the Bill comes back from the Seanad to deal with those amendments because some of them are very substantive. I am not saying we need hours and hours, but we do need some time to go through those.
Sentiment score: 0.20
I move amendment No. 5: In page 11, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(e) The Minister may, by way of regulations, provide for third party observations for consideration by the planning authority to ensure compliance with the State’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention and the principles of good planning and development.”. I want to make a couple of general points on the planned legislation and I will then speak to each of the amendments. There will be many occasions where we are arguing from completely opposing sides, whether on policy or legislation. However, there will also be times when people on this side of the House are not opposed to the principle of what the Minister is trying to do but, through long and difficult experience of dealing with planning legislation, we are going to raise points of concern with what is being proposed or how it is being dealt with. When we do that, we are raising it because we are sincere in the comments we are making and we want the Minister and his colleagues in government to take that into account. This Bill is a case in point. This is my tenth year as a Member of the Oireachtas and my tenth year as a spokesperson on housing and planning. The vast majority of the legislation we have dealt with during that period is planning legislation. Paul Hogan and I were much younger looking and had far less grey hair when we started this, with both of us leaving South Dublin County Council at the time. There have been far too many occasions when complex, technical changes to planning legislation were brought in at the end of a Dáil term without adequate opportunity for Oireachtas Members to hear from planning professionals and the representative bodies to ensure we got the legislation right. I have often been of the view that the Government puts far too much pressure on hard-working officials to work late into the night to produce these Bills and the amendments to them. Because they are working under such pressure and to such tight timelines, and because there is inadequate scrutiny, bad legislation is passed. That is not a criticism of the Minister’s officials, and I want to make that very clear. We have had many occasions - substitute consent was probably one of the most controversial - where, at the end of a Dáil term, really bad, rushed legislation was passed, was wrong, was subsequently found to be problematic and had to be returned to. I say that because, specifically with respect to the provisions of this Bill that aim to pause planning permission durations during a judicial review and the extension of durations, while I support that in principle, they need to be got right and that has not been achieved here. The first of these amendments deals with a request for some mechanism for public participation when the application to pause the planning duration during a judicial review is being undertaken. As the Minister will be aware, judicial reviews can take a year, two years, three years or four years. There are many planning considerations that need to be taken into account during that period. I am not at all suggesting that there should be the same level of formal public participation as one would have, for example, in a local authority planning application or with the board, but there needs to be some mechanism. The reason for that is twofold. First, it is in accordance with the principles of good planning and development because there may be third-party information pertinent to the development and the pausing of it that should be brought to the attention of the planning authority. Second, if this is not done, that leaves developers, public or private, who access these provisions potentially open to legal challenge for potential breaches of the Aarhus Convention and its working through EU legislation which, ultimately, of course, would cause a delay in the decisions and a delay in development. I know the Minister will not accept the amendment. I will not labour the point but, with respect both to this and the other two amendments, we have a poor record of being fully Aarhus-compliant. We have a poor record of ensuring that where we have public participation, it is adequate and meaningful and, therefore, with respect to the judicial review pause, but also with the extension of duration, there needs to be some element of public participation. It is probably an even stronger argument with respect to the extension of duration. I will explain why that is so. The first time we had legislation for the extension of duration was in 2010. I was not a Member at the time. Obviously, the Celtic tiger crash happened, people were not able to build out developments and as a consequence, for very different reasons, we were in a similar situation as we are in now. Vital planning permissions were at risk of collapsing. However, when the extension of durations was being considered, lots of things had changed. Sometimes ownership had changed, sometimes the reputation and activity of the developer on adjoining sites was materially relevant, and sometimes there were also changes in environmental or ecological factors surrounding the development. If there is no opportunity for any third party to bring additional information to the consideration of the planning authority, the extension of duration becomes a rubber-stamping exercise. That is what happened post-2010 and when the former Minister, Eoghan Murphy, introduced the second extension of durations in 2018, 2019 or 2020 it was the same. I am not at all suggesting there should be some elongated process, but the idea that one could extend a planning permission for three years without giving anybody the opportunity to bring matters of important concern to the planning authority is a mistake. It is a mistake on good planning grounds and in terms of Aarhus compliance as well as de-risking the developers who seek access to this extension from possible litigation. While I can anticipate the response and I am sure the Minister will read out what he has been given by his officials, this is something we will return to. I urge the Minister to accept these arguments, unlike his predecessors who I believe did not take their Aarhus compliance responsibilities seriously. This is a really big issue. In fact, many of the problems we have had in planning, and particularly the dramatic upsurge in litigation of residential developments from 2018 - thankfully, that has now receded - are often due to a failure to get the process right and, as a result, opportunities are created for people who may or may not have genuine intentions to seek appeal and, ultimately, litigation. Public participation is one of those. An extension of duration of three years is significant. I believe it is necessary for the planning permissions the Minister is looking to save but I simply do not understand why there is no consideration for public participation in that as well. The third amendment is a safety amendment in case either of the others was ruled out of order. It is a reporting mechanism, but it is really the first two amendments that are the substantive propositions.
Sentiment score: 0.03
That is precisely the problem. If this change to planning legislation had been included in the Planning and Development Act which we spent two years passing through the House, as a committee we could have asked, for example, planning law experts, professional planners and legal experts who specialise in Aarhus Convention compliance their views on this. One of the points I made on Second Stage was that it is hard to understand why this provision was not proposed in the legislation from last year, given that future planning applications from the relevant sections were enacted. The difficulty for us here is, of course, that while the Minister's predecessors told us that Bill was Aarhus-compliant, some important sections of that were found by the Aarhus Convention compliance committee not to be in compliance. The people whose job it is to independently assess whether a state's legislation is in compliance with the convention told us we were not. I accept these were specific sections of the legislation. Being expected to take the Government at its word when there has been a history of poor compliance or non-compliance is problematic and I will be pressing the amendment. I am aware the Minister has a legal background. We will be coming back with more planning legislation. I suspect the that we have seen in previous years will be repeated and this issue will come back repeatedly. If it is found that legislation passes through here and it is not compliant or it undermines the important elements of public participation, all I will say is we warned and highlighted this here. We do not want to see planning permissions delayed or have them fall foul of viability, but nor do we want to see good-quality planning applications for infrastructure or housing fall foul of legal challenge because of poorly drafted and enacted legislation or non-compliance with our European and international obligations. I state that not necessarily for a response but because these are very serious issues. These are issues the Minister's predecessors did not get right despite the fact that they used some of the same language as the Minister has brought here today. I urge the Minister not to repeat their mistakes, so that we get the planning legislation right for the people who need it.
Sentiment score: -0.13
I move amendment No. 6: In page 11, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(e) The Minister may, in consultation with the Minister for Justice and with the approval of Cabinet, introduce regulations to place High Court good practice guidelines on a statutory footing in order to have legally binding statutory timelines for the hearing of Judicial Reviews and for the issuing of Court decisions on Judicial Review related to planning matters governed by the Principal Act.”. Obviously, the principal challenge with the pausing of a permission during judicial review is the length of time it takes for the judicial review to be heard and then for the judgment to be written. While there has been an increase in the number of judges from one to three, the big experience is while getting the case to be heard is one thing, the judges then obviously move directly to another case and there is often a very long delay before they write up the judgment, which is very bad both for the applicant and the third party, irrespective of what one thinks of the case of the individual judicial review. I spent some time last year talking to legal experts and asked if there was some way for us to ensure that where judicial reviews are taken, they are expedited in a timely manner. I do not want to undermine in any way the quality of the legal judgments, but we want the decisions to be made in a reasonable time period. Three clear things need to be done. First, the number of judges on the Planning and Environment Court, a sub-panel of the High Court, needs to be increased. It has increased to three but I think it probably requires six. There will also need to be better resourcing of the judges, both in terms of their capacity to hear the cases and write up the decisions but also because we have lots of conversations about statutory timelines for planning. While the Planning and Development Act 2024 has timelines for the board, unfortunately, it does not have timelines for preplanning or further information at local authority stage. However, there is a mechanism for applying statutory timelines to judicial reviews. As I am sure the Minister knows better than I do, the Master of the High Court issues good practice guidelines. It would be possible, following consultation with the Judiciary, to put those on a statutory basis, which would give everybody certainty. We all agree on the need for that. Timelines in and of themselves are no use without the additional judges and resources. I know the Minister will not accept the amendment and I am sure he will find all sorts of technical reasons to argue the way I have drafted the amendment is not appropriate. This is an opportunity for me to urge the Minister, now that he has the responsibility, to look seriously at ensuring there is adequate resourcing through his negotiations and conversations with his colleague, the Minister for justice, and the Cabinet, and also to look at the issue of timelines. Thankfully, the abandonment of the disastrous strategic housing developments and the unwinding of some of the very bad provisions of design guidelines introduced by the former Minister, Eoghan Murphy, have been removed and we have seen as a result a dramatic drop in the number of judicial reviews on residential developments, which is to be welcomed. However, there is still a significant flow of judicial reviews, particularly for infrastructure projects. I am interested in hearing the Minister's answer but, more important, I would be genuinely interested to see him to take this away and discuss it with officials and colleagues. Ultimately, we all want a planning system where everybody knows the timelines from start to finish. We want a planning system that makes good quality planning decisions. Where there are disputes over matters of law or fact, those issues can be dealt with in a timely manner because then, of course, we would not be dealing with these kinds of delays. This is an eminently sensible proposition in principle and I urge the Minister to look at something like this as part of wider reforms, along with the Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Callaghan.
Sentiment score: 0.18
I accept the technical explanation but would just make one point. I ask the Minister to examine the principle behind this amendment and to discuss it with the Minister for justice and also, in the course of his work as Minister for housing, with the relevant members of the Judiciary. We need to fix this bit of the system too. There is little value in having statutory timelines for decisions of the board, for example, if things then get judicially reviewed and are stuck in the courts for two or three years. I know that the Minister agrees with me on that. I accept that it is not primarily his responsibility but ultimately, the planning aspects of this are his and ours as a committee.. Therefore, while I accept that the Minister is not accepting the amendment, it is a proposal worthy of some consideration by the Government. All I ask the Minister to do is look at it. His personal opinions on this issue do matter, not necessarily for this amendment but in terms of the reforms that he decides to pursue as the Minister with responsibility, ultimately, for planning. There are very considerable parts of the Planning and Development Act 2024 and the debates we had on it that specifically looked at reforms of the judicial review process but without this, many of those reforms will not result in any time savings or improved delivery times for much-needed infrastructure, including renewable energy or residential developments. It is a proposal that I urge the Minister to at least examine, if not in this context then in some other context.
Sentiment score: 0.22
I will speak to my two amendments in this grouping. I said at the outset that we are not opposed in principle to a time-limited extension of duration. The challenge, however, is that there is no point giving somebody an extension of duration if they cannot demonstrate that something has changed and that what was previously unviable is now viable. I therefore think there needs to be some mechanism by which, when a public or private sector developer applies for the extension of duration, there is a requirement on them to present what I colloquially call a viability statement where they set out why they were not able to commence in the previous three years and what has changed. That could be something in their own circumstances, financing, some decision the Government has made, etc. The value of doing that allows the Minister or the planning authority to weed out those applications where it is likely they are going to commence and should therefore get the extension and those that simply are not. I think a rubber stamping exercise where everybody who applies for it gets it is not an efficient use of the procedure. I also strongly support the sentiments of my colleagues here on land speculation. In the past 12 or 18 months the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service published an important report on land activation, so this is not the Opposition making this claim. This is an expert body within the Civil Service. It identified land speculation and land hoarding as one of the problems. It is not the only one. There are issues of access to finance. There are issues of getting access to sites. Therefore, an assessment like this would weed out the viable from the unviable but would also be one of two protections against speculation and speculative use of this procedure. I appreciate that the Minister has put in some caveats that there is a set period of time within which substantial commencement will have to take place for the developer, but 18 months is far too long. If something has changed and you are able to avail of or apply for the extension, you should have to substantially commence within at least six months. That is a reasonable period of time. Keep in mind that in many cases three years will have expired. Therefore, if they are going to commence, given that some of these could be large-scale developments, they could take between two and three years anyway. First, I urge the Minister to consider some form of viability assessment as set out in the first amendment of mine in this group. Second, 18 months is too long and we should return to it.
Sentiment score: 0.06
I move amendment No. 11: In page 12, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “(b) an explanation as to why the development has not yet commenced, a viability assessment setting out what has changed that would allow the development to commence if an extension of duration is granted, and a detailed schedule of works setting out when the various stages of development will occur,”.
Sentiment score: 0.07
I move amendment No. 14: "In page 13, line 25, to delete “18 months” and substitute “6 months”."
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 15: In page 13, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “(h) The Minister may, by way of regulations, provide for third party observations to the planning authority on any request for an extension of duration under this section. The regulations may include provision for: (i) the publication of public notices, on site, in newspapers and on digital platforms, of any request for an extension of duration under this section; (ii) the publication, on the planning authority website, of all documents relating to the request for an extension of duration; (iii) an appropriate time period for the making of third-party submissions for consideration by the planning authority when considering the request for an extension of duration under this section; (iv) any other matters which the Minister deems relevant in accordance with the obligations of the State under the Aarhus Convention and the principles of proper planning and development.”.
Sentiment score: 0.11
I move amendment No. 16: In page 14, after line 18, to insert the following: “Report on planning permissions and residential units 18. Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report detailing the number of planning permissions and residential units to which section 14 of this Act may apply and making recommendations on how to ensure that extensions of duration of planning permissions are only granted where the development is likely to commence and not where the extension is being sought for speculative purposes.”. For the sake of time, I want to deal specifically with the request for the report on the extensions. The Minister has heard a lot from this side of the House this evening about the concern that, while some people will avail of the extension of duration for very valid reasons and build out their developments or infrastructure, others may not. There needs to be some reporting mechanism. As we know from the artificial spikes in commencement certificates in April and September last year to avail of the development levy and water connection waiver, commencement notices are not in and of themselves sufficient and, therefore, amendment No. 17 seeks to place a reporting requirement on the Minister and his officials to produce a report every six months to list the number of developments that have sought and secured the extension but also to track a substantial commencement and completion. While I appreciate the Minister will not accept the amendment, we need a reporting mechanism. We need some mechanism for the Minister to ensure this facility, which is a very significant one, is utilised for the intended purpose. For the purposes of transparency, not only for the Oireachtas but for the wider public and the planning system, some reporting mechanism will be required. While I do not expect the Minister to support the amendment, I ask him to talk to his officials to see whether there is some mechanism by which he could report and publish on the website something that allows us to track this so that the very genuine concerns we have around misuse of this provision can be addressed. If there is no abuse, then everybody is happy and the system is working well. However, if there clearly is some evidence of abuse, then action can be taken to address it.
Sentiment score: 0.09
There is no enforcement of commencements. I understand the Minister's officials in the Department are liaising with local authorities with respect to determining whether developments that are availing of the development levy waiver and the water utility connection waiver are having a look at this. Local authorities do planning enforcement, but many do not even have the staff to do building control enforcement. There is no system for enforcing this. While I understand the Minister is not accepting the amendments, there is a requirement for them. Granting somebody a three-year extension of planning is quite a big issue. Therefore, it is reasonable for members of this side to ask the Minister, if he is not willing to accept the amendments we have tabled, to find some way to ensure that the extension of duration he is granting is not abused. I am not suggesting the abuses we are concerned about will be widespread or occur in the majority of developments, but instead of just saying that local authorities are very experienced at enforcement, we need to ward against anybody who intends to avail of this for a reason other than commencing. There is no enforcement of commencements; it does not exist. Therefore, that is something that is certainly worthy of being looked at, particularly in the context of this issue.
Sentiment score: 0.12
I move amendment No. 17: In page 14, after line 18, to insert the following: “Report on extensions 18. Every six months after the passing of this Act, the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the operation of the extension of duration detailing the number of developments that have availed of the extensions, the number of units granted extension that have commenced and the number of units that have been completed.”.
Sentiment score: 0.05
I move amendment No. 18: In page 14, after line 18, to insert the following: "Report on impact of Judicial Reviews 18. Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the impact of Judicial Reviews on development including, critical infrastructure, renewable energy, public transport and residential development and setting out options for increasing the resources of the courts to deal with Judicial Reviews in a timely manner, and options for the introduction of statutory good practice timelines for Judicial Reviews in a manner that is consistent with the principles of good planning and development.".
Sentiment score: 0.10
I move amendment No. 19: In page 14, after line 18, to insert the following: "Report on compliance 18. Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the compliance of all sections of this Act with the State’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.".
Sentiment score: -0.07