Amendment No. 1 seeks to provide for the zoning of land for the particular use of affordable housing. The amendment itself appears to amend a wrong section of the Bill, as section 4 of the Bill amends section 45 of the principal Act, which deals with the implementation and monitoring of regional spatial and economic strategies. In any event, I cannot accept this amendment as zoning requirements are already adequately dealt with in the Act of 2024. Section 43 of the Act of 2024 outlines the content requirements of development plans. Section 43(6) of the Act provides that the written statement for the integrated overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area included in a development plan shall include zoning objectives for the zoning of land for a particular use or mixture of uses. Prior to making a development plan a planning authority shall prepare a housing strategy under Part 7 of the Act of 2024 for the purpose of ensuring that the corresponding housing development strategy makes adequate provision for the housing of the existing and future population of the area of the development plan in accordance with proper planning and sustainable development of the area. The housing strategy shall take account of the existing and likely future need for affordable housing, including for the purposes of the provision of social housing, while section 242(10) of the Act of 2024 provides that up to 20% of land used for residential purposes, including land that is not zoned for residential use or for a mixture of residential and other uses but in respect of which permission for the development for houses is granted, must be provided for social, affordable or cost-rental housing. Therefore, I am satisfied that the provisions regarding affordable housing under the Act of 2024 are appropriate and, therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.04

Obviously, the amount of time given will be up to the Business Committee, but I have no difficulty with substantial time being given for it.

Sentiment score: -0.57

I will address amendments Nos. 2 and 9 as tabled. Amendment No. 2 seeks to reduce the standard duration of a permission in the Act of 2024 from five years down to three years, while amendment No. 9 seeks to make the same amendment in respect of the 2000 Act. I cannot accept these amendments. The purpose of having a specified period for a planning permission to act upon is to balance the operational and practical aspects of construction with the need to bring certainty to the development process. The period for permission, which is generally five years, is well-established and in general strikes an appropriate balance between the length of period necessary for construction and the length of period a permission may be acted upon. There is capacity under the existing legislation and the 2024 Act for longer timeframes to be granted in view of matters such as the size and complexity of a particular proposed development. For these reasons, unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Sentiment score: -0.02

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I understand where both Deputies are coming from. Having examined it, there are some challenges around shortening the period. I understand the Deputies' intention. However, when we look at the necessity for bigger projects to secure finance, deal with compliance and complete the development, the five-year period is a more balanced approach to this. Then, obviously, with single one-off houses, those families need time to be able to complete those houses. In my view, the five years is appropriate. I can confirm for Deputy Ó Broin that the amendments will be published on Friday morning.

Sentiment score: 0.10

The amendment seeks to amend section 13, which amends section 180 of the Act of 2024. In relation to the suspension of the duration of permission while a judicial review is ongoing, the current provisions provide that where a person is seeking a suspension of duration in respect of a concluded judicial review, they must submit a declaration that the development did not substantially commence before the conclusion of these proceedings. The amendment proposed by the Deputy seeks to provide that, in addition to that obligation, a contractor must publish an annual profit and loss account, an auditor’s report and a balance sheet to qualify to provide dwellings for the purchase of which funds may be made available by the special purpose vehicle. Section 180 deals exclusively with suspending the duration of a permission and puts obligations on a person seeking a suspension. As the section does not contain provisions relating to funding, and there is no other reference to or mention of a special purpose vehicle within the Act of 2024, I cannot accept the amendment. It would not be appropriate to seek account information as part of a request to suspend the duration of a permission. A test for whether a suspension of a duration is appropriate is already set out in legislation, as follows: was the development subject to a judicial review? Is the permission still active, that is, not expired? Were works carried out while the judicial review was ongoing? I am satisfied that these criteria are entirely appropriate and, therefore, for these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.11

I will address amendments Nos. 5, 15 and 19 together. These amendments relate to the Bill's compliance with the Aarhus Convention. Amendment No. 5 seeks to provide for third-party observations as part of the suspension of duration of a permission while it is subject to a judicial review by amending section 13. Amendment No. 15 seeks to make similar provisions for third-party observations as part of the extension of duration provisions in section 16. The criteria for the suspension of the duration of a permission while it is subject to judicial review proceedings and the extension of a duration of a permission are clearly set out in legislation and does not involve a decision of the planning authority beyond whether the specified criteria are met. If the criteria set out in legislation are met, the planning authority shall grant a suspension or extension. For example, under section 180 of the Act of 2024, a planning authority is notified in writing of the date of the commencement of judicial review proceedings by the person who is carrying out or proposes to carry out the relevant development. A second notice is subsequently issued when the judicial review proceedings are finally concluded and that notice must include the date that the proceedings concluded. The planning authority's role in the process set out under section 180 is primarily to enter the relevant details in the planning register. At no point in the process does the role of the planning authority involve consideration or the making of a determination other than to ensure the notices provided to the planning authority are in accordance with section 180 and any associated regulations. It is for this reason I am not in a position to accept the proposed amendments. As a decision of a planning authority, beyond whether the criteria are met, does not form part of the process under section 180, public participation is neither necessary nor appropriate. It should be noted that the extensions of duration cannot be granted where the extension proposed would require an environmental impact assessment, EIA, or an appropriate assessment, AA. If an EIA or AA is required, under the Act of 2000 procedures, a new application for permission is required in respect of the development and thus any public notification or participation requirements are fulfilled. Under the Act of 2024, if an EIA or AA is required, there are procedures for a material extension of duration under Chapter 5 of Part 4 which include the public participation and notification procedures. In relation to the publication of notices, section 42(5) of the Act of 2000 already provides that the details of any extension of duration is entered on the planning register. Similarly, section 180(6) of the Act of 2024 provides that the details of the suspension of duration of a permission due to judicial review shall also be entered on the planning register. Amendment No. 19 seeks to provide that within three months of the passing of the enacted Bill, 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. I am satisfied that the Bill is compliant with the Aarhus Convention and the EIA directive and, therefore, I cannot see the need to report on this matter in the manner suggested. As I outlined, I am satisfied that these provisions are in compliance with all international obligations, including the Aarhus Convention, and, therefore, I cannot accept the proposed amendments.

Sentiment score: 0.09

The rules and procedures of the High Court are set out in the rules of the superior courts and these are made by the Superior Courts Rules Committee in concurrence with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. If by good practice guidelines the Deputy is talking about practice directions, it is my understanding that these are issued by the President of the High Court under section 11 of the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020. Regardless of my views on the matter, the regulation and the operation of the High Court is a matter for the Judiciary.

Sentiment score: 0.27

I am very strongly of the view that the operation and procedures of the superior courts is a matter for the Judiciary of the superior courts. It would be inappropriate for the Oireachtas to set down statutory timelines for the courts. The courts need to be able to manage their lists in the manner they see fit. That is my personal opinion and my position as an officeholder.

Sentiment score: 0.30

Amendment No. 8 seeks to introduce a use it or lose it principle into the Act of 2024. The amendment itself does not appear to amend a specific section of the Act of 2024 or to outline any details or criteria concerning the timeframes to be specified for commencement or what penalties may be applied. While it is, of course, important that we encourage holders of permissions to commence development as soon as possible, I do not consider it appropriate to introduce a use it or lose it principle in this manner. The extension of the duration of permissions proposed in this Bill are time limited and restricted in that the development must commence within 18 months of the commencement of the legislation or the extension will cease to have effect. Under the Act of 2024, development must have commenced before an extension of duration can be sought. This is to encourage holders of permission to commence development as soon as possible. In the event that a holder of a development does not commence before the end of the duration of the permission, the permission will expire and a new application for permission will need to be made. This is appropriate as there may be valid reasons that are sometimes entirely outside of the control of the holder of a permission as to why a development does not proceed as intended. The Minister for Finance has already introduced legislation providing for the application of financial penalties for non-activation of zoned residential land. This is a more appropriate legislative code for such matters, rather than planning legislation for dealing with it on a use-it-or-lose-it-type basis. The residential zoned land tax, RZLT, applies to lands zoned for residential development or for mixed-use purposes including residential development, which is either vacant or idle and which, in both cases, also has the necessary services in place to support the development of housing. The tax was introduced in the Finance Act 2021 and came into effect on 1 February 2025. The aim of this tax is to increase the supply of land for building by activating land which has been zoned in a statutory land use plan adopted by a local authority and which is also serviced. The tax will be charged at 3% of the market value of the land every year. I am satisfied that the RZLT is a more appropriate measure than a use it or lose it principle. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.02

Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 to 14, inclusive, seek to amend the timelines in section 16, which amends section 42 of the Act of 2000. Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 seek to provide that applications for extension of duration of uncommenced housing developments may only be made in the last year of permission remaining, rather than the last two years, as set out in the Bill. Existing planning regulations set out that an application for an extension of duration under section 42 of the 2000 Act may only be made in the final year as a development must have substantial works carried out. For uncommenced housing developments, it is appropriate to allow such applications in the final two years of a permission. Where a permission has two years or less remaining, there may be viability issues associated with the development in terms of putting the arrangements in place to commence and carry out substantial works in order to avail of a regular extension of duration. Allowing an application to be made when there is two years left of an uncommenced permission deals with these issues. Allowing applications for extension of duration for uncommenced housing developments in the final two years is appropriate as it will allow development sooner. If it were limited to the final year, the only option for developers at the moment would be to apply for a new permission if they could not meet the criteria for an extension. Amendment No. 13 seeks to reduce the overall extension of duration period from five years to three. I cannot accept the amendment. The five-year period is well established and, in general, strikes an appropriate balance between the length of the necessary construction period and the length a permission may be acted upon. I am satisfied five years continues to be appropriate with regard to extended durations of permission. Amendment No. 14 seeks to provide that development must commence within six months of the coming into operation of the provision on extension of permission, rather than the 18 months set out in the Bill. I cannot accept the amendment as it conflicts with the timeframe set out in the Bill. The Bill provides that applications for extension of duration may be sought within six months of the coming into operation of the provision. It is therefore not possible that developments should be commenced within six months of the coming into operation of the provision. The Bill sets out that the applications for extension of duration may only be made within six months of the coming into operation of the provision. Further works must commence within 18 months of that coming into operation; otherwise, the extension will cease to have effect. These time periods run concurrently; for example, if a person applies for and is granted an extension within the first month of the operation of the provision, they have 17 months to commence development before the extension ceases to have effect. If a person applies for and is granted an extension six months after these provisions come into effect, they will have only the remaining 12 months to commence work before the extension ceases to have effect. I am satisfied these timeframes are appropriate and therefore cannot accept these amendments. Amendment No. 11 seeks to provides that, as part of an application for an extension of duration, the applicant shall submit a viability assessment and a detailed schedule of works. I cannot accept this amendment as there are already regulations associated with section 42 of the 2000 Act which deal with some of these issues. Article 42 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 provides that applications for extensions of duration should be accompanied by, among other things, particulars of the works which are proposed to be carried out pursuant to the permission during the period by which the permission is sought to be extended; the date or projected date of commencement of the development to which the permission relates; the period by which the permission is sought to be extended; and the date upon which the development is expected to be completed. I am satisfied that these requirements are sufficient and it is appropriate that such matters are set out in regulations rather than primary legislation. Prior to commencing this provision, these regulations will be reviewed and will be updated, if needed, to reflect this provision.

Sentiment score: -0.00

The RZLT is resulting in more land transfers. I am very satisfied of that. It has a cumulative effect. As time goes on, we will see an increasing rate of transfers as a result of the 3% year on year. It only commenced its application this year and there is a review to be carried out each year. In relation to the amendments, I am satisfied the timelines strike the necessary balance. On viability assessments, the planning and development regulations set out detailed requirements and I am satisfied they are sufficient.

Sentiment score: 0.17

In regard to ensuring the extensions are not sought for speculative purposes, the extension of duration provisions are time-bound and cease to have effect if the development has not commenced within 18 months of the coming into operation of the provision. The fact the extension ceases to have operation or effect if the development is not commenced should deter speculative applications. In regard to detailing the numbers who avail of such an extension, section 42(5) of the 2000 Act already provides that the details of any extension of duration are entered onto the planning register. In the circumstances, I am not minded to accept the amendments.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Local authorities are very experienced in enforcement.

Sentiment score: 0.00

We will always keep these things under review and monitored. In relation to this, I do not see any risk of speculation. There are strict time-bound limits in there. I think those are sufficient to ensure commencements are carried out.

Sentiment score: 0.15